MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Gregory Sager]

Indirectly Selig has taken the pressure off Joyce by making himself the villen.


This was a headline from Mlive today, "Bud Selig says Armando Galarraga's bid for perfect game 'should have ended differently'"

Someone should tell Bud he's the one who can make that happen.

I don't see how Selig was a villain. Frankly, I can't believe they even contemplated changing the call. It would have been an absurdity to do so. This is life. Breaks go against you sometime.

Exactly.

I disagree hopeconvert  (respectfully)...   The commish has the power....  a wrong could have made right....  sometimes, just sometimes, it makes sense....

No, it doesn't. That's baseball. It has always been understood that umpires are a human element within the game, just as are the players themselves. The vast majority of the time, they get the calls right. Occasionally, they blow one. It's all part of the game.

This situation was almost certainly 100% unique.  What are the odds of an erroneous call on the 27th out of a perfect game, that EVERYONE agrees was a blown call, and where the pitcher then immediately gets out #28 (guaranteeing that NOTHING changes, except that his 28th victim would now have a BA .001 higher ).

Irrelevant. You're fixating upon the 27th out as though it is of special significance in terms of the construction of the game. It isn't. It's merely the last in a series of identical outcomes. The only distinction it bears from its two predecessors in the ninth inning is that the batting team has no more chances after it (the third out) is achieved, but that's a distinction it shares with the last out of every inning. In the eyes of baseball, in terms of how an inning functions the third out of the ninth inning is no more and no less important than the third out of the eighth inning, or the third out of the seventh inning, or the third out of the first inning. Each one bears the same value and has the same effect. Looked at objectively, blowing a call for what would've been the third out of the ninth inning is no different than blowing a call for what would've been any of the other eight would-be-third outs (or for any extra-inning would-be-third outs) -- and I'm quite sure that umps have erroneously called batters safe before in a situation in which there were two outs and no prior batters for the batting team had yet reached base in the game.

The issue here is the fact that baseball aficionados, team and league officials, and the press all attach a lot of hoopla to statistical anomalies and out-of-the-ordinary feats. A perfect game certainly qualifies as both. But it's still baseball. The game's the game, as they say. A perfect game counts as one win in the standings for the team that pitched it, and as one loss in the standings for the team that never reached first base, same as any other game. Baseball is what it is, and if you go changing the rules ex post facto out of whim or sentiment -- and that's the only reason why anyone is advocating an overturn of Joyce's call, sheer sentimentality -- then you've made the game into something else entirely.

Worries about 'precedent' are, IMO, totally overblown.  Bud Light could have done the right thing, and made the ruling so tightly that precedent is a non-issue.

And IMO you're completely missing the point of how the game operates, Chuck. The umpire is the final arbiter; he has been the final arbiter throughout all 135 years of major-league baseball, and he will continue to be the final arbiter until hell freezes over, or until the rules are changed to allow for some form of in-game video review more sweeping than merely having the crew chief take a second look at home-run calls.

If MLB truly wants to take the game out of the hands of the umpire, it might adopt the NHL method of league-office review control. Questionable or close calls (e.g., whether the puck fully crossed the goal line, as we saw in Game Three of this year's Stanley Cup Finals) are reviewed in-game by the NHL's "War Room" in Toronto via closed-circuit feed. Baseball could impose the additional stipulation that MLB's War Room could initiate overturns itself rather than wait for the game officials to call upon it to institute an in-game review -- but I don't expect that to happen.

As for Selig, his correct decision in this case proves the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On the other hand, Armando Galarraga will be remembered far longer than Dallas Braden!

Maybe, maybe not. They both show all the signs of being journeymen, so it's not likely that either Galarraga or Braden will achieve any renown aside from their singular achievements of the past couple of weeks. If Galarraga goes down in history as the Ernie Shore or Harvey Haddix or Pedro Martinez of his generation, then, yeah, he might gain a measure of immortality as the answer to a trivia question, a measure that might evade Braden; after all, nobody remembers perfecto hurlers Len Barker or Charlie Robertson, not even as the answers to trivia questions, and there's thus no guarantee that Braden will be anything but the Len Barker of his day. However, if there ends up being a beanball war between the A's and the Yankees due to Braden's dispute with Alex Rodriguez, or if the contretemps over the baseball-etiquette violation of a runner crossing over the pitcher's mound on his way to the dugout after being called out ever results in a serious conflict of any kind, then Braden's name will come up again.

Exactly. The difference between this call and all the other examples that some say would also need to be overturned is that this play would have been the end of the game, and the next play was the end of the game. In all other cases, there were subsequent events that either also changed the course of the game or might have changed the course of the game.

That's not a relevant standard. Again, it presumes that there is a qualitative difference between the final out and all of the other third outs -- indeed, all of the other plays, whether out or safe -- that precede it. Baseball's rulebook recognizes no such distinction. And comparisons to other sports (aside from cricket or softball) are not germane, because in those other sports a clock is involved; the imposition of a time limit upon a game necessitates the extension of play if an official is forced to make certain types of rulings at the end of a game. Hence, football games can't end on a play in which a defensive penalty is called, and basketball players can be allowed to shoot free throws even after the clock has expired. No clock exists in baseball, of course, so there is no fundamental reason why the game's final out should be the subject of a special set of rules.

Setting a precedent by overturning an umpire's call via executive fiat a day or more after a game has been played and gone into the books would put baseball on a very slippery slope -- especially if that reversal was done for nothing more substantive than mere sentimentality. Boston GM Theo Epstein put it best when he commented upon a possible Selig reversal of the Galarraga/Joyce incident. "I don't see how baseball can let that happen,'' he said. "Then every time a team loses a game on a blown call, there's going to be no good reason why that can't be overturned as well.

"It's a slippery slope. It would fundamentally change the nature of the game. I don't think you can do that, unfortunately.''

He's right. If this incident causes that much distress, then change the rules regarding video review. But you can't change a rule retroactively.

[sac]

Indirectly Selig has taken the pressure off Joyce by making himself the villen.


This was a headline from Mlive today, "Bud Selig says Armando Galarraga's bid for perfect game 'should have ended differently'"

Someone should tell Bud he's the one who can make that happen.

I don't see how Selig was a villain. Frankly, I can't believe they even contemplated changing the call. It would have been an absurdity to do so. This is life. Breaks go against you sometime.

Exactly.

I disagree hopeconvert  (respectfully)...   The commish has the power....  a wrong could have made right....  sometimes, just sometimes, it makes sense....

No, it doesn't. That's baseball. It has always been understood that umpires are a human element within the game, just as are the players themselves. The vast majority of the time, they get the calls right. Occasionally, they blow one. It's all part of the game.

This situation was almost certainly 100% unique.  What are the odds of an erroneous call on the 27th out of a perfect game, that EVERYONE agrees was a blown call, and where the pitcher then immediately gets out #28 (guaranteeing that NOTHING changes, except that his 28th victim would now have a BA .001 higher ).

Irrelevant. You're fixating upon the 27th out as though it is of special significance in terms of the construction of the game. It isn't. It's merely the last in a series of identical outcomes. The only distinction it bears from its two predecessors in the ninth inning is that the batting team has no more chances after it (the third out) is achieved, but that's a distinction it shares with the last out of every inning. In the eyes of baseball, in terms of how an inning functions the third out of the ninth inning is no more and no less important than the third out of the eighth inning, or the third out of the seventh inning, or the third out of the first inning. Each one bears the same value and has the same effect. Looked at objectively, blowing a call for what would've been the third out of the ninth inning is no different than blowing a call for what would've been any of the other eight would-be-third outs (or for any extra-inning would-be-third outs) -- and I'm quite sure that umps have erroneously called batters safe before in a situation in which there were two outs and no prior batters for the batting team had yet reached base in the game.

The issue here is the fact that baseball aficionados, team and league officials, and the press all attach a lot of hoopla to statistical anomalies and out-of-the-ordinary feats. A perfect game certainly qualifies as both. But it's still baseball. The game's the game, as they say. A perfect game counts as one win in the standings for the team that pitched it, and as one loss in the standings for the team that never reached first base, same as any other game. Baseball is what it is, and if you go changing the rules ex post facto out of whim or sentiment -- and that's the only reason why anyone is advocating an overturn of Joyce's call, sheer sentimentality -- then you've made the game into something else entirely.

Worries about 'precedent' are, IMO, totally overblown.  Bud Light could have done the right thing, and made the ruling so tightly that precedent is a non-issue.

And IMO you're completely missing the point of how the game operates, Chuck. The umpire is the final arbiter; he has been the final arbiter throughout all 135 years of major-league baseball, and he will continue to be the final arbiter until hell freezes over, or until the rules are changed to allow for some form of in-game video review more sweeping than merely having the crew chief take a second look at home-run calls.

If MLB truly wants to take the game out of the hands of the umpire, it might adopt the NHL method of league-office review control. Questionable or close calls (e.g., whether the puck fully crossed the goal line, as we saw in Game Three of this year's Stanley Cup Finals) are reviewed in-game by the NHL's "War Room" in Toronto via closed-circuit feed. Baseball could impose the additional stipulation that MLB's War Room could initiate overturns itself rather than wait for the game officials to call upon it to institute an in-game review -- but I don't expect that to happen.

As for Selig, his correct decision in this case proves the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On the other hand, Armando Galarraga will be remembered far longer than Dallas Braden!

Maybe, maybe not. They both show all the signs of being journeymen, so it's not likely that either Galarraga or Braden will achieve any renown aside from their singular achievements of the past couple of weeks. If Galarraga goes down in history as the Ernie Shore or Harvey Haddix or Pedro Martinez of his generation, then, yeah, he might gain a measure of immortality as the answer to a trivia question, a measure that might evade Braden; after all, nobody remembers perfecto hurlers Len Barker or Charlie Robertson, not even as the answers to trivia questions, and there's thus no guarantee that Braden will be anything but the Len Barker of his day. However, if there ends up being a beanball war between the A's and the Yankees due to Braden's dispute with Alex Rodriguez, or if the contretemps over the baseball-etiquette violation of a runner crossing over the pitcher's mound on his way to the dugout after being called out ever results in a serious conflict of any kind, then Braden's name will come up again.

Exactly. The difference between this call and all the other examples that some say would also need to be overturned is that this play would have been the end of the game, and the next play was the end of the game. In all other cases, there were subsequent events that either also changed the course of the game or might have changed the course of the game.

That's not a relevant standard. Again, it presumes that there is a qualitative difference between the final out and all of the other third outs -- indeed, all of the other plays, whether out or safe -- that precede it. Baseball's rulebook recognizes no such distinction. And comparisons to other sports (aside from cricket or softball) are not germane, because in those other sports a clock is involved; the imposition of a time limit upon a game necessitates the extension of play if an official is forced to make certain types of rulings at the end of a game. Hence, football games can't end on a play in which a defensive penalty is called, and basketball players can be allowed to shoot free throws even after the clock has expired. No clock exists in baseball, of course, so there is no fundamental reason why the game's final out should be the subject of a special set of rules.

Setting a precedent by overturning an umpire's call via executive fiat a day or more after a game has been played and gone into the books would put baseball on a very slippery slope -- especially if that reversal was done for nothing more substantive than mere sentimentality. Boston GM Theo Epstein put it best when he commented upon a possible Selig reversal of the Galarraga/Joyce incident. "I don't see how baseball can let that happen,'' he said. "Then every time a team loses a game on a blown call, there's going to be no good reason why that can't be overturned as well.

"It's a slippery slope. It would fundamentally change the nature of the game. I don't think you can do that, unfortunately.''

He's right. If this incident causes that much distress, then change the rules regarding video review. But you can't change a rule retroactively.

yeah but........it the Tigers dude.

[ziggy]

He's right. If this incident causes that much distress, then change the rules regarding video review. But you can't change a rule retroactively.

I agree with you here, which is why Bud is still the villain in my mind. Given a perfect soap box for his vision for/against the expanded use of instant replay he once again folded into a wishy-washy empty suit. I could accept any decision so long as I got a feeling the game of baseball would be better for it; that hasn't happened. Forget making a decision, the man is apparently incapable of forming an opinion.

[hoopdreams]

Sorry ChicagoHopeNut but I believe "gut feelings" fall under the category of speculation, which currently is not allowed on this message board.  Of course, I'm purely speculating on this point.  There are only a few members worthy of releasing information pertaining to Hope Basketball.  

Who will be the first to know and release info- Hope faithful, or Buena Vista faithful? Hypothetically speculating...

[Gregory Sager]

yeah but........it the Tigers dude.

That's why I stuck to the facts at hand rather than charging anyone with arguing from a biased viewpoint. I wasn't going to bring up the obvious situation that this involved a Tigers pitcher and most of you MIAA types are Tigers fans. No need to go looking for karma hits.

He's right. If this incident causes that much distress, then change the rules regarding video review. But you can't change a rule retroactively.

I agree with you here, which is why Bud is still the villain in my mind. Given a perfect soap box for his vision for/against the expanded use of instant replay he once again folded into a wishy-washy empty suit. I could accept any decision so long as I got a feeling the game of baseball would be better for it; that hasn't happened. Forget making a decision, the man is apparently incapable of forming an opinion.

Very true. And, again, with the Stanley Cup Finals currently underway and two very close calls in Game Three being (correctly) ultimately decided by video review, MLB is in a situation at the moment in which instant replay is very much in the forefront of the sports scene. It makes Selig's rather limp comments upon the possibility of baseball re-examining the issue of instant replay seem, as you said, to be the musings of a man who has neither a visionary attitude nor a spine.

Bad enough that football has once again trumped baseball via the NFL's successful and widely-accepted adoption of instant replay, particularly since the NFL's worked out the kinks by instituting limited red-flag challenges and loss-of-timeout penalties for upheld decisions. But when the NHL -- the league that represents the pro sport that runs a distant fourth in popularity in this country, and the league that has continually shot itself in the foot throughout its long history -- gets something right while MLB's head honcho is still dithering about it, it makes MLB look even worse.

It's one thing to be one-upped by the king. It's quite another to be one-upped by the court jester.

[CCIWFAN6]

Indirectly Selig has taken the pressure off Joyce by making himself the villen.


This was a headline from Mlive today, "Bud Selig says Armando Galarraga's bid for perfect game 'should have ended differently'"

Someone should tell Bud he's the one who can make that happen.

I don't see how Selig was a villain. Frankly, I can't believe they even contemplated changing the call. It would have been an absurdity to do so. This is life. Breaks go against you sometime.

Exactly.

I disagree hopeconvert  (respectfully)...   The commish has the power....  a wrong could have made right....  sometimes, just sometimes, it makes sense....

No, it doesn't. That's baseball. It has always been understood that umpires are a human element within the game, just as are the players themselves. The vast majority of the time, they get the calls right. Occasionally, they blow one. It's all part of the game.

This situation was almost certainly 100% unique.  What are the odds of an erroneous call on the 27th out of a perfect game, that EVERYONE agrees was a blown call, and where the pitcher then immediately gets out #28 (guaranteeing that NOTHING changes, except that his 28th victim would now have a BA .001 higher ).

Irrelevant. You're fixating upon the 27th out as though it is of special significance in terms of the construction of the game. It isn't. It's merely the last in a series of identical outcomes. The only distinction it bears from its two predecessors in the ninth inning is that the batting team has no more chances after it (the third out) is achieved, but that's a distinction it shares with the last out of every inning. In the eyes of baseball, in terms of how an inning functions the third out of the ninth inning is no more and no less important than the third out of the eighth inning, or the third out of the seventh inning, or the third out of the first inning. Each one bears the same value and has the same effect. Looked at objectively, blowing a call for what would've been the third out of the ninth inning is no different than blowing a call for what would've been any of the other eight would-be-third outs (or for any extra-inning would-be-third outs) -- and I'm quite sure that umps have erroneously called batters safe before in a situation in which there were two outs and no prior batters for the batting team had yet reached base in the game.

The issue here is the fact that baseball aficionados, team and league officials, and the press all attach a lot of hoopla to statistical anomalies and out-of-the-ordinary feats. A perfect game certainly qualifies as both. But it's still baseball. The game's the game, as they say. A perfect game counts as one win in the standings for the team that pitched it, and as one loss in the standings for the team that never reached first base, same as any other game. Baseball is what it is, and if you go changing the rules ex post facto out of whim or sentiment -- and that's the only reason why anyone is advocating an overturn of Joyce's call, sheer sentimentality -- then you've made the game into something else entirely.

Worries about 'precedent' are, IMO, totally overblown.  Bud Light could have done the right thing, and made the ruling so tightly that precedent is a non-issue.

And IMO you're completely missing the point of how the game operates, Chuck. The umpire is the final arbiter; he has been the final arbiter throughout all 135 years of major-league baseball, and he will continue to be the final arbiter until hell freezes over, or until the rules are changed to allow for some form of in-game video review more sweeping than merely having the crew chief take a second look at home-run calls.

If MLB truly wants to take the game out of the hands of the umpire, it might adopt the NHL method of league-office review control. Questionable or close calls (e.g., whether the puck fully crossed the goal line, as we saw in Game Three of this year's Stanley Cup Finals) are reviewed in-game by the NHL's "War Room" in Toronto via closed-circuit feed. Baseball could impose the additional stipulation that MLB's War Room could initiate overturns itself rather than wait for the game officials to call upon it to institute an in-game review -- but I don't expect that to happen.

As for Selig, his correct decision in this case proves the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On the other hand, Armando Galarraga will be remembered far longer than Dallas Braden!

Maybe, maybe not. They both show all the signs of being journeymen, so it's not likely that either Galarraga or Braden will achieve any renown aside from their singular achievements of the past couple of weeks. If Galarraga goes down in history as the Ernie Shore or Harvey Haddix or Pedro Martinez of his generation, then, yeah, he might gain a measure of immortality as the answer to a trivia question, a measure that might evade Braden; after all, nobody remembers perfecto hurlers Len Barker or Charlie Robertson, not even as the answers to trivia questions, and there's thus no guarantee that Braden will be anything but the Len Barker of his day. However, if there ends up being a beanball war between the A's and the Yankees due to Braden's dispute with Alex Rodriguez, or if the contretemps over the baseball-etiquette violation of a runner crossing over the pitcher's mound on his way to the dugout after being called out ever results in a serious conflict of any kind, then Braden's name will come up again.

Exactly. The difference between this call and all the other examples that some say would also need to be overturned is that this play would have been the end of the game, and the next play was the end of the game. In all other cases, there were subsequent events that either also changed the course of the game or might have changed the course of the game.

That's not a relevant standard. Again, it presumes that there is a qualitative difference between the final out and all of the other third outs -- indeed, all of the other plays, whether out or safe -- that precede it. Baseball's rulebook recognizes no such distinction. And comparisons to other sports (aside from cricket or softball) are not germane, because in those other sports a clock is involved; the imposition of a time limit upon a game necessitates the extension of play if an official is forced to make certain types of rulings at the end of a game. Hence, football games can't end on a play in which a defensive penalty is called, and basketball players can be allowed to shoot free throws even after the clock has expired. No clock exists in baseball, of course, so there is no fundamental reason why the game's final out should be the subject of a special set of rules.

Setting a precedent by overturning an umpire's call via executive fiat a day or more after a game has been played and gone into the books would put baseball on a very slippery slope -- especially if that reversal was done for nothing more substantive than mere sentimentality. Boston GM Theo Epstein put it best when he commented upon a possible Selig reversal of the Galarraga/Joyce incident. "I don't see how baseball can let that happen,'' he said. "Then every time a team loses a game on a blown call, there's going to be no good reason why that can't be overturned as well.

"It's a slippery slope. It would fundamentally change the nature of the game. I don't think you can do that, unfortunately.''

He's right. If this incident causes that much distress, then change the rules regarding video review. But you can't change a rule retroactively.

To say that the final out of the ninth inning is the same as the final out in every other inning is simply not true.  The game ends after the 27th out, not just the inning unlike the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st or 24th out.

[KnightSlappy]

the third out of the ninth inning is no more and no less important than the third out of the eighth inning, or the third out of the seventh inning, or the third out of the first inning. Each one bears the same value and has the same effect. Looked at objectively, blowing a call for what would've been the third out of the ninth inning is no different than blowing a call for what would've been any of the other eight would-be-third outs (or for any extra-inning would-be-third outs) -- and I'm quite sure that umps have erroneously called batters safe before in a situation in which there were two outs and no prior batters for the batting team had yet reached base in the game.

Not true. Outs do have very different values.

Value of 8th and 9th inning outs in terms of Cleveland win expectancy for Armando's Perfect Game:

Inning	8th	9th
Score Differential	-1	-3
First Out	-.058	-.013
Second Out	-.036	-.005
Third Out	-.026	-.002

FWIW, the blown call resulted in a +.007 win expectancy for the Indians. The actual third out resulted in a -.009 win expectancy.

[almcguirejr]

Sorry ChicagoHopeNut but I believe "gut feelings" fall under the category of speculation, which currently is not allowed on this message board.  Of course, I'm purely speculating on this point.  There are only a few members worthy of releasing information pertaining to Hope Basketball.  

Who will be the first to know and release info- Hope faithful, or Buena Vista faithful? Hypothetically speculating...

I have been watching the BVU site to see if the Head Coach info disappears or any job postings appear ahead of an announcement from Hope.

[hoopdreams]

SAC, if you want to call me a jerk, please post it for all to see because I'm a big boy and can handle it.  Am I overusing the word "speculating"?  I apologize if I've offended you in any way, and will stop with the "Hope hire" talk. Hope will win the MIAA regardless of who they hire, unless Olivet has something to say....

[Civic Minded]

SAC, if you want to call me a jerk, please post it for all to see because I'm a big boy and can handle it.  Am I overusing the word "speculating"?  I apologize if I've offended you in any way, and will stop with the "Hope hire" talk. Hope will win the MIAA regardless of who they hire, unless Olivet has something to say....

He doesn't have to...you made his point for him, as you have repeatedly for days now.

[hoopdreams]

ouch!  My apologies to you as well CM, no intent to irritate.  I'll just sit back, enjoy the weather and pretend that the past 5 weeks has been normal hiring protocol.  If you know anything contrary to what I've passed along, please share it with us.  This IS a message board

[sac]

SAC, if you want to call me a jerk, please post it for all to see because I'm a big boy and can handle it.  Am I overusing the word "speculating"?  I apologize if I've offended you in any way, and will stop with the "Hope hire" talk. Hope will win the MIAA regardless of who they hire, unless Olivet has something to say....

ok

Sorry ChicagoHopeNut but I believe "gut feelings" fall under the category of speculation, which currently is not allowed on this message board.  Of course, I'm purely speculating on this point.  There are only a few members worthy of releasing information pertaining to Hope Basketball.  

Who will be the first to know and release info- Hope faithful, or Buena Vista faithful? Hypothetically speculating...

There's really no reason to continue being a jerk about all of this. 

[sac]

Its getting late in the day, I'm losing faith in the world famous Holland grapevine. 

[Gregory Sager]

To say that the final out of the ninth inning is the same as the final out in every other inning is simply not true.  The game ends after the 27th out, not just the inning unlike the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st or 24th out.

You missed the point I made to Chuck. The rulebook says that the third out of the ninth inning is the same as the third out of the other innings in terms of how the inning functions (i.e., there are no additional batters in the inning).

the third out of the ninth inning is no more and no less important than the third out of the eighth inning, or the third out of the seventh inning, or the third out of the first inning. Each one bears the same value and has the same effect. Looked at objectively, blowing a call for what would've been the third out of the ninth inning is no different than blowing a call for what would've been any of the other eight would-be-third outs (or for any extra-inning would-be-third outs) -- and I'm quite sure that umps have erroneously called batters safe before in a situation in which there were two outs and no prior batters for the batting team had yet reached base in the game.

Not true. Outs do have very different values.

Value of 8th and 9th inning outs in terms of Cleveland win expectancy for Armando's Perfect Game:

Inning	8th	9th
Score Differential	-1	-3
First Out	-.058	-.013
Second Out	-.036	-.005
Third Out	-.026	-.002

FWIW, the blown call resulted in a +.007 win expectancy for the Indians. The actual third out resulted in a -.009 win expectancy.

You're arguing an entirely different point here. You're talking about probabilities in terms of how they affect the game's outcome, and I'm talking about the rulebook. The value of an out in the rulebook is ... well, one out, never more and never less.

[sac]

I don't remember seeing this, but here's a nice video of Calvin recruit Mitch Vallie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_LcrV14_Zs&feature=player_embedded