The 5/2 baseball game betwen the Chicago Cubs and the Pittsburgh Pirates had the Pirates up 5-2 after six innings. In the top of the 7th, the Cubs scored 4 runs (all with 2 outs; it was pretty exciting to watch) and took a 6-5 lead. In the bottom of the 7th, the rain which had been dogging play for the last 20 minutes or so finally caused the umpires to suspend play with the first batter in the Pirates’ 7th. Eventually, the umpires determined that the rains weren’t going to let up, so they ended play for the evening; this contest then became a suspended game.
Under rules adopted last winter, a suspended game is continued from the point the game was suspended at the earliest available opportunity, so the game was picked up the next day from the point of that Pitates batter standing at the plate with a 1-2 count. The game was completed with the Cubs winning 8-6.
My understanding is that in previous seasons, if a game is suspended it is replayed from the beginning. A player’s accomplishments in the game stand for purposes of batting average, seasonal HR totals, etc., but the outcome of the game itself is null; the newly-played game would replace it. Thus, if the same scenario had happened last year, the Cubs-Pirates would likely have replayed the entire game today as part of a double-header.
But [url=http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap;_ylt=AqVHfNzt9K0gjBOTyYRaVOYRvLYF?gid=270502123&prov=ap]this article[/url recapping the game claims something different. To wit:
I don’t believe this is right; the game would have been suspended either way, by virture of the Cubs taking the lead in the top half of the inning in which play was suspended. IOW, I don’t believe the Cubs would have automatically lost this game, and so didn’t “benefit” from a change in the rules (other than they got to keep their lead, rather than take their chances in a newly-played game).
Can anyone here confirm my interpretation of the old rules? It seems to me MLB monkeyed with the rules on games of this type once before, so perhaps I’m remembering an even-earlier incarnation of the rules. I know it’s a very minor point, but it’s bugging me…
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I seem to remember games suspended at Wrigley pre-lights (8/8/88) because of darkness were continued the next day at the same point they were left off. Can anyone confirm or deny?
In previous years, a game suspended after 5 complete innings was considered completed, and the score that would stand would be the score after the last completed inning. So last year, same scenario, the score at the end of the 6th inning would have been the final. In cases of ties, then the game would continue where it left off. I don’t know if there was a Cubs-exception for games called due to night, though.
A game that did not complete 5 innings was considered a “rain out” (not 100% sure about this one, though).
I can’t provide any cite, but the rules on suspended games change frequently. Cardinal broadcaster and former third baseman Mike Shannon tells a story almost every year about him going 0-5 in the season opener one year, only to have the game cancelled because of rain and his 0-5 standing, using the rule that CJJ* remembers. In other seasons, the game would be replayed from the beginning, but player stats were tossed out. However, pulykamell’s memory is also intact, though the rules for a game called because of rain were sometimes different than games called on account of darkness — you might cancel a game because of rain, but you would suspend one because of darkness. Go figure.
All in all, it seems the me the Lords of Baseball finally got something right. Now if we can only get rid of the DH.
I believe you’re thinking of a game that has been called prior to five innings being completed.
I’m not aware of a suspended game that had to be replayed from the beginning, and it would seem to go against the meaning of “suspended” to my understanding.
The Baseball Encyclopedia notes the folowing pertinent rules change for 1978, which were effective at the start of the 1979 season:
THis indicates to me that the circumstance of last night’s Cubs-Pirates game would (at least since 1979) have been labeled a suspended game regardless of the change made this off-season.
I believe, therefore, that the off-season change last winter was either (1) that suspended games were now to be played from the point of the suspension rather than to be restarted in their entirety, or (2) the 2006-7 rule change applies only to tie games, not games suspended under the rule above, in which case suspended games have always been played from the point the game was suspended (i.e. only tie games used to be replayed in their entirety).
I’m inclined to believe, per Asimovian, that #2 is more likely, given the basic meaning of the term “suspended”. In either case, the article was wrong; the Cubs did not benefit from the 2006-7 rule change.
This may be the most nit-picky thing in baseball, but still…
