Can’t set that precedent-If Bud was going to overturn the call from Wednesday night he would open a Pandora’s Box of never ending appeals, all of which would be more important than whether one play is scored as a Hit or an Out. As Commissioner, he can’t put any individual accomplishment, no matter how rare, over that of a team. Therefore, every time a team lost a game on a blown call, they would have a stronger case to make than Galaragga did. A blown call like that could impact whether or not a team makes the playoffs or wins their division. Sorry, but that’s way more important than some flukey personal accomplishment. Joel Sherman put this perfectly in his recent article on the subject:
But Selig is not the Commissioner of Wednesday night June 2, Indians vs. Tigers. He is the Commissioner of Baseball. And righting this one egregious wrong — while feeling great in the moment — was going to open a hellish door for Selig.
A bit of history was lost Wednesday. But not a game or a season. If Selig reversed this outcome, then why shouldn’t the Twins be immediately on the phone to demand a return to the 11th inning of ALDS Game 2 last year, when Phil Cuzzi horrendously called an obvious Joe Mauer double foul; or why shouldn’t the Padres ask about the one-game playoff in 2007 in which Matt Holliday still has not reached home plate with the supposed winning run that put Colorado in the playoffs?
What happens when the bad umpiring call to impact a perfect game is in the third inning rather than with two outs in the ninth?
Didn’t affect outcome-One thing that seems to get glossed over in all the outcry over the lost ‘Perfect’ game is that despite the fact that the umpire blew a call, it didn’t affect who won or lost the game. As much as we would all like to have everything perfect all the time, there’s a weak case for overturning this call, unless you value individual accomplishments over a teams Won-Loss record. Players, Managers and Baseball executives would all disagree strongly with that set of priorities.
There is no easy answer-Try this exercise. You’re the Baseball Commish for a day, now come up with a rule that will prevent this from ever occurring again. Review all close plays? That will take all night, as there numerous plays on a nightly basis that fall under that category, 99.9% of which don’t cause such outcry. A recent review of a fair/foul HR call took 8 1/2 minutes to sort out, at which point half of your audience is watching Seinfeld reruns. Also, do we want to be challenging all close plays? Even in 12-0 games in the middle of May? OK, then how about a Challenge flag system? That’s fine, but what if Leyland already used his earlier in the game? Doesn’t solve the problem or prevent this from happening again. Further, Managers will start using those flags on flimsy disputes to slow down the momentum during an opposing team’s rally, give his bullpen pitcher extra time to warm up, etc. I don;t trust managers with anything that stops the game in it’s tracks. When you sit down and try to make a rule, you quickly realize that Baseball is far too situational, far too interconnected to have a one size fits all rule.
There is accountability-Umpires are graded on their Strike Zone and which calls they get right/wrong on a nightly basis. Jim Joyce happens to be among the top umpires in the game, so it’s not as if he’s a repeat offender for whom this was the last straw.
Fans think it means more than it does-Fans make way too much of this accomplishment, as if it cements a pitchers place in Baseball immortality. The fact of the matter is Perfect games are more of an oddity than a statement of ability, like turning a Triple Play or hitting for the cycle. It doesn’t make someone a great pitcher, looking at the list of Perfect Games most of the pitchers who’ve done this were average career performers who had one big day. Nolan Ryan has often said he had better stuff in some of his 1 hitters than he did the no-hitters. One ball just happened to find a hole one night and didn’t find one the other. The general consensus around Baseball is that no-hitters/perfect games are flukey, a confluence of good luck, good stuff, the right umpire and catching the right lineup at the right time. Fans make way too big a deal out of something which, to be honest, really doesn’t mean all that much.
Perfect Games aren’t perfect anyway -The human element runs throughout Baseball all of the time. Now, I know what you’re thinking. This is just an attempt by me to leave everything as is and not change the game I love. But that’s not what I’m arguing and that’s a superficial way to cherry pick one’s view the game. The reality is that there is human error throughout all games, even a so-called ‘Perfect Games’. Do we only overturn the calls that go AGAINST the Pitcher? What about the Ball 4 that Gallaraga throws in the 3rd inning that gets called a strike, resulting in an unwarranted Strikeout? What about the pitch out of the zone that gets called a strike, putting the pitcher in a commanding 1-2 count instead of a defensive 2-1? Anyone who’s ever seen a Pitch FX graph of any Baseball game knows some balls get called strikes and vice-versa. Part of a Perfect Game is getting lucky with the calls, and on this one final call Armando Galaragga’s luck ran out. Players and managers make mistakes all the time as well, but for some reason fans think Umpires are supposed to be perfect. A mature look at Baseball accepts it with all of it’s good and bad luck, and accepts the fact that mistakes made by Managers, players and yes, even Umpires.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
27 Responses to Why Bed Selig was right
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I guess the pine tar game never happened. I think that the ‘slippery slope’ type of arguments don’t hold any water at all. MLB has already gone much farther (including changing the result of a game-and one in which the letter of the rule was correctly followed) than this. Precedent is important in the courts, not in MLB.
Who gets hurt? The guy who ended up making the last out?
The Pine Tar game was completely different. A HR was taken off the board, the game was played to its conclusion. It was a contest between two teams with playoff implications. In order to rectify things, the commish had to make them resume the game from that moment. Sorry, bad example.
I don’t really care what Bud did one way or the other. Frankly I think the circumstances make it a much more notable moment than a perfect game would have otherwise, so I don’t think it much matters what the official record book says. Either way, it’s going to be remembered as the perfect game that was blown by the umpire, and for the reactions of Galaraga and Joyce. That said, this argument about precedents is getting a little tired. The fact is, it was the last out of the game. That makes it unique, and easily over-turnable. Obviously it would be more difficult to overturn something in the middle of the game, because it would nullify everything that came after and you’d have to re-start the game from that point. But on the last out, it’s the 27th out and that’s it. There is no more. Any future appeal to precedent could be shot down on the basis that it was a unique situation coming on the final out of the game.
What we really shouldn’t care about is the “Perfect Game” which isn’t worth turning Baseball on it’s head over, for the reasons I detailed.
How do you feel about the record books indicating Gallaraga in the Perfect game columns but with an asterisk?
I agree with you about Selig’s decision. But I’m having trouble grasping one of your points.
A perfect game is a big deal. It’s a day that pitcher remembers for the rest of his life. It’s probably more memorable than reaching any other accomplishment in the game. You are right it’s a combination of luck, the umps and the lineup, but still, the pitcher has to get all 27 in a row. Let me add by saying the more strikeouts in a perfect game the less luck it involves. Bottom line, a perfect game is a big deal because of how rare they are.
If you feel that way, fine. Hitting the ball hard right at a Outfielder instead of finding a gap is a pretty random thing, and inducing weak contact that doesn’t bloop over an infielders head doesn’t strike me as anything other than luck. I view it as more of an oddity, and one that fans make way too big a deal out of.
Not to be a dick, but going by that logic DiMaggio’s 56-game hit streak is just “an oddity and one that fans make way too big a deal out of.”
How is it a bad example? How does ‘a HR was taken off the board’ or ‘it affected a pennant race’ make the pine tar game less of a precedent? A rule was correctly enforced, but the game was resumed after an umpire’s correct call was reversed. The outcome of the game was changed after it had already been completed.
You say in one part that changing the outcomes of important games would be a disastrous result of this ‘precedent’, and then say the pine tar game is a bad example because it changed the outcome of a game? That the reversal of the games outcome affected a pennant race would make that game that much more of a precedent than this game would have been.
But it didn’t. MLB doesn’t take ‘precedence’ into account.
It’s entirely different. Baseball has an “under protest” designation, but it is always used for rule interpretation, not error on a judgment call. In the Brett game, the rule was misconstrued, which is why the decision was overturned. Here, the ump just got a judgment call wrong.
The rule wasn’t misconstrued. It was called correctly. The rule clearly stated how high the pine tar could go. They decided it was a bad rule after the fact.
Just to clarify, I thought Vincent was way off base making them replay that game, and his “spirit of the rule” argument was a bunch of horseshit. But it’s still not a good parallel to this situation.
If you support Vincents decision then the same remedy should apply as well. If you’re arguing they should replay that final out, then that will be the first time I’ve heard anyone say that.
I don’t care what happens. I just think the ‘slippery slope’ argument doesn’t really hold water. MLB and especially the commissioners office have never used precedence as anything but an excuse for not doing what they don’t want to do. Landis used it to continue MLB’s racist policies right up until his death. But when they want to do something, the fact that precedence says otherwise isn’t a part of the conversation.
I have to disagree. As I’ve stated previosuly in these comments, I am not looking for Bud to overturn the call. I am looking for him from an historcial prespective to recognize this as a perfect game. MLB reviewed all no-hitter and perfect games in 1991. The purpose was not to change outcomes but to change how history viewed those games. It is the same thing here. I am not asking (nor do I want) Bud to be changing results of games that are decided on the feild. Yes this is a relatively unimportant issue as the outcome of the game was not affected by the call, but that is the point. I do not want the results of the game changed. I just want MLB to recongize this was a perfect game. Why is that so bad? How does that affect slipperly slopes? If someone wants to appeal that he hit for the cycle and a triple shouldnt have been ruled a double and an error, I have no problem with Bud changing how things are socred. That is exactly this situation. Until someone gives me a good reason I will continue to beleive that MLB should change the classification of the game from a one-hitter to a perfect game (while not taking away the actual hit that was awarded). This is simply baseball records, not the baseball game that affects wins/losses and standings.
Look…this whole slippery slope argument is bullshit. Just because you overturn this call, DOES NOT MEAN that you have to overturn calls that can’t be undone. Yeah, I mean suppose an innocent man were sentenced to death in Texas, now just because Texas executed innocent men in the past and can’t undo their conviction does that mean that this unfortunate asshole has to die too? (Not comparing the severity of the situation AT ALL, just the logic used in each situation) I mean, the calls that were blown from the start of the majors to 2009…they happened, we can’t do shit to change them. Championships have been awarded…and that’s not getting undone. Look…Ty Cobb lost a couple of hits because a manager pulled the infield back on the final game and didn’t go after his bunts…why can’t Jason Donald lose a hit because the ump clearly blew a call?
It has nothing to do with the past. It has to do with the future. If you change this call, then you open up that avenue, and then you have to consider overturning other mistakes in the future.
Precedent is mostly irrelevant, it’s how narrowly or broadly the precedent is construed that matters.
“If you change this call, then you open up that avenue, and then you have to consider overturning other mistakes in the future”
Why? I know you hate this argument, but I still think it’s perfectly valid and applicable: this is baseball, not a court room. Why, exactly, does MLB create a precedent problem by making a one-time exception? Are the Rangers’ or Yankees’ or Cubs’ lawyers going to argue in MLB court, the next time they feel a call was blown and they were robbed, that the Honorable MLB Commissioner Allan H. “Bud” Selig is bound to follow the precedent he set in the famous case of Galarraga/Joyce v. Awful Call That Robbed A Perfect Game? All that has to happen is MLB needs to make it clear that this is a one-time exception and that no other calls will be reviewed by MLB in this manner. Case: Closed. Do you really think, if Selig were to reverse this call and give Galarraga his perfect game, that the rest of baseball would act like children and cry about it when they didn’t like a call made in another game? I find that to be an unrealistic expectation. Everyone in baseball would know, if this call was overturned, what the deal is: that this call would be overturned solely because it was an injustice the overturning of which would be a very special circumstance and would have NO effect on the outcome of the game or have any other affect other than to give the proper result to the game/player/umpire involved. I think that if Selig handled the review/change of call properly everyone in baseball would understand that it was a one-time exception and that no precedent was set. And, frankly, if someone out there doesn’t get that message, what’s he going to do about it? Nothing except maybe complain to the media. Precedents are only important, and precedents are only created, when an individual or body would be forced to follow that precedent in future actions. That would not happen in this case, because nobody could (or would) force MLB to adhere to this precedent.
I mean I go back to what Churchill said about Americans: “They’ll do the right thing only after they’ve exhausted every other option” I feel the same way about Bud Selig…all parties considered agree the call was wrong, fixing the call would be a great usage of the best interest of baseball clause and it’s the only way that justice can be done, so naturally Bud Selig will avoid this option.
BTW it wasn’t Vincent that made the pine tar decision, it was Bowie Kuhn. He despised Steinbrenner and was pretty open about it. (He wasn’t too crazy about Finley, either.)
At that time in baseball history, lots of bats were disallowed because the pine tar was too high. Martin waited to complain about Brett’s bat until it proved useful. The first call was right. It was the rule and it was a rule that had been enforced fairly stringently up to that moment. What Kuhn did was completely out of line, and it wouldn’t have happened if The Boss wasn’t involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident
Were both wrong, it was Lee MacPhail
I personally think there have been some great arguments made both ways. I think that because he actually threw the first 28 out perfect game, he will ALWAYS be remembered. The argument of “who does it hurt to award him the perfect game” doesn’t really hold water, because he knows he threw it, the other teams know it, the fans know it, and historians know it. Ten years from now, when Sporacle.com has “Name the Perfect Game pitchers” or SportsCenter says “There have been twenty perfect games,” there will be an asterisk that says *Gallaraga threw an unofficial P.G. in 2010. Braden will be forgotten long before Gallaraga is.
This kid will be signing pictures and baseballs with Joyce for the next thirty years, and making a he’ll of a lot of money off it. If it’s changed, it becomes just one of the other twenty. I applaud anyone who can name 10 or 15 of the 20 P.G. pitchers. I’ll never forget this kid.
Here’s a great reason why Selig made the right decision.
(via commenter on http://theropolitans.com/2010/06/why-you-cant-overturn-jim-joyces-call.html)
“If you overturn the hit, and Donald hits consecutively in 55 additional games (as of writing this he has a 2 game hitting streak), by waiving the hit in the “Perfect Game That Should’ve Been”, you wipe out Donald’s MLB consecutive hitting streak record of 57 games.”
Jason Donald has been hitless the last 3 days. Also, just a guess, but I highly doubt he’d object to losing that hit.
Do you think he’d give it up so easily if he went on a 57-game hitting streak?
But he can’t go on a 57-game hitting streak, because, like I said above, he’s been hitless the last 3 nights. The point is moot.
Somebody called Michael Kay and made that same point, which dovetails with one I made above. Why should the Pitcher be the only one who’s immune from bad calls? What if the hitter had some record he was chasing (you could also argue Hits per season/3,000 Career Hits) and fell short because Bud Selig took this one away?
Again, there is a human element present all the time throughout the game, from Balls and Strikes to stuff like this. I understand that the timing was horrendous, but if the exact same thing happened in the 4th inning, it would be a footnote in the game story. What made this story have such legs was the timing of the play. From a Commissioner’s standpoint, Bud Selig can’t treat the 27th out any differently the the 9th or 18th. If you do, it opens up Pandora’s Box, where people are challenging games on a daily basis, and then the other team points to all the other flaws that could have benefited them. Now you’ve created a situation where two teams are both tearing down the credibility of the sport, which is something a Commish wants to avoid.