We have always been at war with Eastasia.
We get it. You don’t like baseball. It’s not necessary for you to threadshit in every baseball thread to keep reminding us of how you don’t like baseball. We’ve got the message.
How is criticizing baseball in a thread devoted to criticizing baseball threadshitting?
Also, get a grip. You don’t see me in this thread or this one or this one or this one, all of which are at the top of the front page and all of which sound like they’re about fans enjoying the sport. I only criticize baseball in baseball threads that are critical themselves.
Your “every baseball thread” characterization sounds more like a reflection of you having think skin and less about me threadshitting about baseball.
The obvious answer is that a Scorer can consult replay without delaying the game, whereas an umpire can’t.
But I think some use of replay could make sense. The suggestion of “one challenge per team per game” looks as if it could avoid some of the worst problems without generating much disruption.
This thread isn’t about criticizing baseball. It’s about criticizing Bud Selig.
It wasn’t missing the steroid era that bothered me. It was his absolute refusal to any responsibility for it.
I’m comfortable with putting a perfect game on one table of the balance scale and a couple of points off of a batting average on the other and seeing which way the scale tilts?
Yeah…guilty as charged.
He should evaluate all factors of the situation carefully and then render a decision…just as he should in this instance.
This issue should not be adjudicated based on wild-ass hypotheticals – it should be judged on what happened in this game.
I don’t think you understand English.
My online dictionary says:
infinitesimal |ˌinfiniˈtes(ə)məl|
adjective
extremely small
I’ll happily admit, since I’m sure it will enable you to puff out your chest a bit more, that I have not studied statistics and am not schooled in probability.
However, I will state with confidence that 20 is an extremely small percentage of 391,990.
Excuse me all to hell for talking like a layperson instead of a mathematician.
Hmmm…sounds to me as if “…should a situation comparable to this one ever present itself again, reasonable men and women will be helpless, and utterly incapable of rendering a fair and reasonable judgment unless they have rigid, unbending rules in place to help them deal with it” is EXACTLY what you’re saying, despite your denial.
“Utterly incapable” = “almost impossible,” no?
We’re talking here about a rare circumstance (a bad call on the final play of a game) taking place within an extremely rare setting (I’m taking it on faith that you do believe that 20 out of 391,990 qualifies as “rare”).
Seems to me that a “slippery slope” requires at least a reasonable likelihood that anyone will ever approach the start of it and thus begin the slide down it.
The likelihood here is very small, and even if the unthinkable happens again, I believe that thoughtful people could deal with the merits of the individual case in a just manner.
And justice is the key here. I understand the point that Galarraga is now the new Harvey Haddix, and his fame may well be greater than if he had simply pitched a non-controversial perfect game.
The difference is, Haddix is in the record books, and Galarraga will not be, despite the fact that his individual accomplishment is, from a “what really happened” standpoint, exactly equal to the other 20 perfect game pitchers (except for Haddix).
And we have this clearly defined situation arising in an extraordinary circumstance. (Again, I hope this isn’t too strong a word for you.)
The law says you can’t pick up a gun and shoot someone point blank. And yet, you can do this in the extraordinary circumstance that someone is about to kill you. Looks to me like an “exception” to the “rules” that cover most situations.
You may say, “Ah, but this is written into the rules, too.” OK, but it’s not an automatic. You must prove that your life was truly in danger. An orderly examination of the circumstances is performed, and (it is hoped) reasonable people render a judgment based on how well you’ve made your case.
And in fact, there is also a mechanism in the rules of baseball that would allow the commissioner to take the action that many have called for: the “for the good of the game” clause.
It was consistent with the rules, but you have to really squint your eyes to see it as “fair.”
Are your eyelids starting to ache from all that squinting? “Some slight” :rolleyes:
I would never advocate anyone holding up the president. (Hey, if you can mock me for not knowing statistics or probability, I can mock you for not knowing how to spell!)
Refer to my earlier post in which I noted that a reversal in this case would have zero effect on the outcome of the game, the standings, or the fate of either team for the rest of this season.
It’s an individual record, fer cryin’ out loud. I’m just not buying that the world of baseball as we know it is doomed if we make a change that preserves and recognizes the truth of what happened in last night’s game.
Interesting that you seem to feel that the world of baseball is populated by complete dunces who will never have a prayer of crafting a thoughtful set of rules governing instant replay that would minimize the chances for abuse and for slowing down the game – a big concern right now.
Dunces all – except for Bud Selig, of course.
People don’t want willy-nilly exceptions whenever they feel like it – they want an exception under a truly extraordinary circumstance. Such an exception was granted, as someone else noted, in the World Series a couple of years back, and in the All-Star Game a few years before that. So there is already precedent.
20 out of 391,900 is rare, so this exact circumstance won’t happen again. I agree with that.
I see what you are saying about “utterly incapable” and “almost impossible”, and I guess I am characterizing it a bit like that. And I also stand by it. If the rule needs to be changed, okay, change the rule. But in my mind “fair” means “playing by the rules”. To you it seems to mean something else. Reasonable goes the same way. To have a commish arbitrarily deciding what is fair and unfair just doesn’t sit right with me.
But people have approached the start of it by bringing up this case.
Except the other 20 perfect games didn’t have an umpire call a runner safe.
I think you also need to define “just”. Umps/Refs/whatever have been blowing calls since sports began. This is nothing new and it will happen again. It really is a part of the game.
Wait. You are using an example of where rules are followed as an example of why baseball shouldn’t be following the rules? Really? Sure, if baseball had a rule where umpire judgment calls are grounds for appeal or protest, then sure, you’d have a case. If you shoot someone and can’t proof it was in self-defense, you don’t then get to make up a new rule which allows you to say it is okay as long as you shot them on Tuesday.
And clearly there are different opinions on what is good for the game.
I’d have to really squint my eyes to see how ruling as you are advocating would be fair to all those pitchers that threw 1 hitters and didn’t get a commish review. Or to see how this is fair to Donald. Or to see how this is fair to the other 20 perfect games who DIDN’T allow a runner to reach first.
D’oh! Fair enough. I’m a terrible speller and relied too much on spell check. My grammar, sucks, too, so have at that at will.
Quite true. But it is a precedent (did I get it right that time?) that I’d rather not have, regardless of how harmless it is this time.
I wouldn’t have really cared if Selig reversed the call. I wouldn’t have agreed with it, but in the end it matters little. Baseball and life go on.
I don’t like nor dislike Seliq, so please don’t characterize my position as such. I think he got this right (and the all star game, truth be told), but overall I think he has been just another commish. As for replay, I look at what it has done to football and I can’t help but think similar problems will occur in baseball, if not worse. I doubt I’m alone on that, but maybe I am.
Do you see what you did right there? You took a decision that was made about an extraordinary situation and used it try and bolster your case for the commish to do it again. Slipper slope. We have not two situations where it is being done…
He instituted a much more stringent testing system which appears to have worked, if you look at the numbers historically. What exactly would you like him to have done?
He could have instituted the same program years earlier instead of ignoring the problem. He did nothing until the public kicked his ass- and even his first proposal was pretty pathetic. Initially he proposed that the punishment for a positive PED test would be … are you ready for this? … a treatment program. The names of players who tested positive would not be disclosed. A second positive test would have been punished by a two-week suspension and public disclosure. Only after five positive tests could you be suspended for a year. This was rightly treated as a joke, so eventually the penalties were ramped up.
Selig has also frequently claimed the sweet trusting owners had no idea players were juicing, which is a rather obvious lie. I think the Mitchell Report disproves that. For instances it shows the Dodgers knew Paul Lo Duca was in decline because he wasn’t using steroids anymore.
You’ve ignored the most important part of the quote above: “what really happened.”
If I say “the sky is blue” and a rogue police officer who’s drunk insists that the sky is green and I damn well better agree with him, the sky is not green…it’s still blue. Next day, he’ll sober up and agree that the sky is blue after all, so there is no question.
My point stands: in the real world, Galarraga did exactly what 20 of his predecessors did…he retired 27 straight batters, with none of them reaching base. There is not a soul on the planet that doesn’t agree that this is what he did.
Yes, blown calls are a part of baseball, and in the overwhelming percentage of games, they don’t make the difference that Jim Joyce’s made in Wednesday night’s. There is almost never that much at stake.
My point is that, yes, rules should be followed, but there may be a rare instance – as there is in many other walks of life – where absolute slavish adhering to them is worse then letting them slide just a wee bit.
No, I’m using an example that shows that in a logical and just world, exceptions to the rules are permitted. I see the self-defense exception as analogous to the “best interests of baseball” exception…that is, rules that normally apply can be overridden in extraordinary circumstances.
Your analogy fails, because in this instance, we CAN “prove” that Donald was out. There is 100 percent agreement on this point. Furthermore, a rule exists that permits contravening the rule in place, so it’s not necessary to make up a new rule.
It’s the same rule that permitted Selig to contravene the rule that a baseball game can’t end in a tie (All Star game), and that a game can be called, with the score complete, after a certain number of innings has passed (World Series).
The fact that only these two examples come to mind confirms that this is done only under extraordinary circumstances.
Once again…Galarraga did NOT allow a runner to reach first. Joyce’s errant ruling does not change the absolute reality of this statement.
I’m pretty confident in saying Donald would be OK with having one hit erased from the record books for the sake of the greater good.
And I’d like to know how many one-hitters in major league history have actually been tainted with a bad call as egregious as Joyce’s, and how many actually ruined what would otherwise have been perfect games (as opposed to no-hitters).
cmosdes, you’re ignoring that there is already a rule which would allow this call to be overturned – the “best interests” clause. No one is asking for a new rule. We’re asking for a long-existing rule which allows discretion to be implemented in a particular way. Frankly, the slippery slope argument just doesn’t hold water. This is nothing like we’ve ever seen before. But maybe there are other situations that should be revised – and if there are, let’s talk about them when they come up.
EllisDee, are you really so blind that you can’t see you’re being a douchenozzle? Here’s the thread so far:
Baseball fan 1: I’m sick about this. It has to be fixed.
Baseball fan 2: I’m sick sbout this. But what if trying to fix it leads to deleterious unintended consequences?
EllisDee: Anybody who cares about this is a loser.
–Cliffy
But that is where we disagree. You seem to think some huge disservice is being done to Galarraga because of a blown call. While I don’t disagree with that, I do think a greater disservice would be done to the game as a whole if you start making these kinds of exceptions. This week it is a perfect game, which, as you pointed out, is meaningless in the greater scheme of standings and records. But what if something MORE important is on the line, like a World Series? Wouldn’t that be an even more pressing reason for an intervention? If they didn’t do it in 1985, they sure as hell shouldn’t be doing it now.
Again, Galarraga did not do exactly the same thing those other 20 pitchers did. If he had we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I understand your point about reality, but unfortunately for Galarraga, the other reality which you seem to be ignoring is that the umpires decision is final. Period. End of discussion. Slavish obedience to the rules? You bet. But to people like me, that is what keeps the game fair. If you don’t like blown calls then make the case for instant replay.
Would you be as adamant that the Galarraga lose his perfect game if things were reversed? What if Donald was actually safe and Joyce called him out? Should Selig override that call?
But that isn’t an exception to the rule. It is the rule. Nothing is being overridden. If you don’t break the rules, you aren’t guilty. The rule is that you are allowed to shoot in self-defense. No override necessary.
Great. Show me the rule that says the commish will review final out calls of perfect games to be sure the umpire made the correct call. You can’t. It doesn’t exist. In other words, you are trying to make up a new rule, one that you claim says you are allowed to shoot people on Tuesday. If you want to claim reversing the call is in the best interest of baseball, you need to prove it is in the best interest of baseball. Going back to your analogy, in order to invoke the exception clause, you need to prove your case under that clause. Unless you can prove this is in the best interest of baseball, there is no other clause which allows the commish to step in.
Earlier in the thread said you were comfortable with making an exception when a perfect game was on the line and that this won’t lead to a slippery slope. Now we have two examples of where it could (should?) happen.
We can just go back and look at all the game records to see. Oh wait, that’s right. After a game is completed if an ump called a player safe he was… wait for it… safe. In other words, the ump’s ruling is reality as far as baseball scoring is concerned. Kerry Wood once struck out 20 batters in a game thanks to an extremely generous strike zone. Should the commish review that game and take it off the books because the ump was making bad calls behind the plate? Of course not.
This really does come down to what you’ve been saying all along… slavish adherence to the rules or is this such an extreme situation that the commish needs to get involved. I really do understand your argument, I just don’t happen to agree with it. It is as simple as that.
Cliffy - My argument on claiming “the best interest of baseball” clause is as I stated above. You’d need to show this is in the best interest of baseball. I don’t think there is agreement this meets that criteria. My own personal experiences have always been that life is much, much easier if expectations are set up front. It is why we have contracts and lawyers and all these rules in the first place. As DChord568 rightly points out, there are times when the rules need to be set aside, but I don’t see a definitive reason why it should be in this case. We really don’t know if this is something we’ve seen before. Certainly the 1985 World Series game is a pretty close comparison, wouldn’t you say? Why make an exception now but not then?
And Fred Brocklander.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_272962
The easiest distinction is as noted above – this is all about a personal record; it won’t change the standings at all. Moreover, it’s a fucking perfect game!!! It is ane extraordinary event. Next time there’s another extraordinary event, we can ask the question then if it rises to the same level.
But I refuse to say that the '85 call, had it happened today, shouldn’t be overturned. We have replay for home runs now, and it seems to be working pretty well. Maybe we should also have replays for bases-empty plays at first. Especially the 3-1 play, because it’s often a flip, so the ump doesn’t get the smack of the ball in the glove that is determinitive in the typical bang-bang play at first. But that’s not the same as saying we need to review every time that call was made since the game began.
–Cliffy
Well at the rate perfect games are happening these days this might not seem like such a big deal in a couple of years. 
I don’t know or care anything about sports. However, I saw this on the news and couldn’t understand why it “can’t” be corrected. My husband tried a long time to explain it to me, but the only thing he said which made a little bit of sense was, “Bad calls, like bad weather, are just a part of the game.”
I just thought I’d toss that in, apologies if it’s been said.
I wish I had time for a fuller response to your post, Cmosdes, but at some point I’m actually gonna have to actually do some work here at work!
A more detailed response will follow eventually. For now, I’ll just say this…
OK.
It is in the best interests of baseball that a player be officially recognized for something he accomplished that has only been done 20 times previously in the 135-year history of the game. And let’s be clear about this…he DID accomplish it.
It is in the best interests of baseball that a player not have this recognition taken away from him due to an occurrence that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that he did, or did not do – an occurrence that, by unanimous agreement, was a mistake.
It is in the best interests of baseball, and its millions of fans and potential fans, that the sport show a shred of fucking humanity and decency in this unique set of circumstances – as opposed to falling back on the universal excuse of the world’s responsibility shirkers: “But…we’ve always done it this way!”
It can be, but the discussion is about whether it should be. ISTM all the relevant arguments are present in this thread.
Selig is a joke. After the lockout he embraced Bonds, Sosa and McGwire during the home run races , even though almost everyone knew they were roided to the max. He has been well aware of the player drug problems and chose to ignore it until it blew up on him. He is a baseball business man who only cares about the bottom line. He does not lead the game at all. He is just a highly paid spectator.