|
Monthly archives: October 2005
Who'll Retire First, Roger Clemens or Ozzie Guillen?
2005-10-26 22:06
The White Sox swept the Astros tonight and are now World Champions for the first time since 1917. I don't have much say about the game itself except that the feeling that the Sox would eventually score one run to win it started to take over around the fifth inning. I just have some random notes. First, as I mentioned earlier, this was the closest sweep ever. The Sox won by two runs once and one run three times. Here are the only other series that had that many close games were:
This was one of a handful of one-run clinching games in World Series history and just one of six 1-0 finales ever:
For the second straight year, the team that was number two in terms of World Series drought garnered a championship. The Indians now more into number two. Of course, number one—the Cubs—have to be particularly galled by the Sox win. Here are the droughts for all franchises longest to shortest:
One final note: Scott Podsenik recorded his third triple of the postseason tonight. He becomes just the eleventh player to do so. Here are the rest:
A Play in Four Acts (And Timmy and Buck Were Annoying in All Four)
2005-10-26 15:12
Maybe I Shoulda Said DiMaggio?!?For a game that started with a roof controversy, there were plenty more interesting moments. Actually, there were four mini-games in one. First, the Astros dominated with about a run per inning until the forth. Then, the Sox had the monster-sized inning getting a 5-4 lead. Somehow they still left the bases loaded in the fifth. Next was Houston's attempt to tie up the game. And finally, we had the six innings in which it seemed that no one was ever going to score again. I had to turn the game off at a quarter to two and half expected it still to be going on when I woke up this morning. I probably expected that more than a Geoff Blum home run to win it, but more on Blum later. The Sox started rusty and the Astros seemed happy to be home. It seemed like this would be one of those sop wins for Houston, one in which a team en route to a victory, usually four games to one, lets up a bit and the other coasts to victory. Act I in which Guillen Gets His OatsThe Astros started strong, scoring in the first. But they could have gotten more. After Craig B-G-O doubled to the gap on a 3-1 pitch, the great Phil Garner had Willy Taveras bunting. Yes, in the first inning with the runner already in scoring position. Taveras popped out on Garland's first offering. I know that the Fox crew loves Taveras and his had some big hits in the playoffs. But if his own manager doesn't trust him to swing the bat with none out and a runner in scoring position to start the game, what the frig is he doing in there. As I said to my friend Mike, he's a dime a dozen Omar Moreno derivative, which is fine if he's batting eighth, but then he'd have to dislodge that lineup drag Brad Ausmus. Anyway, after the pop out, Berkman, who's doing his best Carlos Beltran impersonation, singled Biggio home. The Sox were lucky to double up Ensberg, who's been horrific at the plate for long stretches of the postseason, to end the inning. After a stalled Sox rally in the next half inning, the Astros seemed to cruise. In the top of the second Konerko again came through with a leadoff double and the renaissance of A.J. Pierzynski continued with a five-pitch walk. However, the Astros got a lucky break with a hard line out by Roward right to Adam Everett, who then doubled off the helpless Konerko. Jon Garland looked shaky throughout the early going. But things had settled down a bit until the bottom of the third. That's when Garland's shakiness got some help from a Juan Uribe meltdown. First, he lollygagged a ball from Adam Everett into a single. The scene chewing ex-shortstop Ozzie Guillen then emoted disdain for the cameras, obviously the best way to help a young player. It was a bad play—I can't understand where Uribe and/or his mind was on the play—but c'mon Ozzie! Calling your closer with the international signal for "big and tall" is one thing, but don't show up your players. Uribe compounded the situation by hitting Everett in the midsection after they had him picked off of first. Guillen pile-drove Joey Cora in disgust. I don't know if I have ever seen a worse pick off throw in a rundown, at least one that wasn't completely thrown away. Usually those are when a player just loses control of the ball and havoc ensues. This was as if Uribe had intended to "soak" Everett, that is, hit him with the ball to tag him out the way players did in ye olde White Stockings days of yore. It seemed like it was his intention. Maybe he forgot the rules, it happens—mostly to umps in the postseason though. Uribe's paroxysms proved costly, the Astros collected three more singles and two more runs, one of which after there were two outs (meaning the White Sox could have been out of the inning with just one run if Uribe hadn't spassed out twice in trying to get Everett). Whatever, the Astros led 3-0. After an "excuse me" top of the fourth for the White Sox offense, Jason Lane homered to left on an 0-1 ball. Or did he? Replays showed that the ball hit to the left of a vertical line that defined the home run boundary. Yes, this was the umpteenth time that the umps screwed up on a bad call (actually, umpteen plus one). And yes, they have extra umps specifically for outfield calls in the playoffs. But I have to admit that I could not tell with the naked eye at normal speed whether it was a homer or not. Actually, it wasn't until about the fifth replay at super slomo that anything definitive could be determined. I blame the designers of the stupid ex-Enron for putting vertical lines on the walls for making home run calls more than the umps. If an ump needs a protractor to make a call, I can't blame him for booting the call. (I do, however, blame Jerry Layne for using a coin toss to determine how to call borderline low and outside pitches the entire game. There was a K-looking to Brad Ausmus late in the game in which two of the called strikes clearly looked like balls. Morgan Ensberg was also called for going around a clear-cut check swing, a call that would have made Jim Edmonds recuse himself from the game. Ensberg was his ever unphased self. They guy just stares off into space. I think he's the animatronic love child of Jeannie Zelasko.) Whatever, as the Fox pundits pointed out, a bad call finally went against the White Sox. Lane should have gotten a double, and with the next three batters grounding out, one could opine that he would have been stranded there. However, the Astros wer up 4-0 and cruising, and the sop theory I proposed earlier seemed to hold sway. Phil Garner Is a Stupid, Stupid ManThen came the fifth. It started with a quiet home run from Joe Crede (or Creed as Chris Berman dubbed, or dumbed, him). What they hey, the Astros were still up 4-1. Next, Uribe singled, but c'mon, the pitcher was up, a pitcher from DH league remember. Garland failed to get a bunt down on 1-0. Then swung at the next pitch, again missing. Garland eventually stuck out but it took Oswalt seven pitches to do it. If I were Phil Garner at this point, a little light bulb would have gone off in my head, and I would have gotten my bullpen stirred. This is where Oswalt started to lose it. Remember that the Astros needed the game since no one (besides the Red Sox in the ALCS last year) ever comes back from 3-0. Add to that the uncertainty of Clemens health for game five, and the fact that the bullpen had a day off for travel prior to game three, and maybe a light bulb will go off in your head, too. As for the light bulb in Garner's head, unless he's going to be a Jack O'Lantern for Halloween, he hasn't got one. Scott Podsednik and Tadahito Iguchi both singled, closing the score to 4-2. Then came the Dye at-bat. Jermaine Dye started 1-2, worked two the count full, and then fouled off two more before singling in Podsednik, closing the gap to one run. Still there was no one up in the bullpen. This was probably the AB of Dye's life and stood out sharply with the rest of his game. For example, in the top of the ninth with the run scored, he worked a full count and then grounded out at a ball that was around his eyes. That coupled with the Garland at-bat should have signaled something to Garner or at least to his moustache. Oswalt was able to get Konerko to fly out on an 0-1 pitch. But then the new Piazza, A.J. Pierzynski, was able to double out to the little playground in center, scoring two and taking the lead for the White Sox, 5-4. And if memory serves (I'll check the video later), the bullpen still was silent. It wasn't until Aaron Rowand walked on six pitches that finally a Houston reliever started to throw. Oswalt faced Crede for the second time in the inning and hit him with a 1-2 pitch. Both benches went a bit nutty over the matter (personally, I blame the roof), and Crede was a bit miffed. Of course, Ozzie Guillen emoted appropriately. But Phil Garner should have been the one man that knew that Oswalt wasn't throwing at Crede. He wasn't capable of hitting the broadside of a barn let alone the broad side of Crede. Oswalt stayed in the game, however. Keep in mind that the bases were just loaded and Oswalt had walked and then hit the last two batters. Luckily, Oswalt got Uribe to end the inning. But it wasn't until the White Sox scored five and took the lead. Oswalt threw 46 pitches in the inning. Ozzie Guillen, One Game Closer to his Announced Retirement, Has His Relievers Spooneybarging In and OutAfter that big inning both offenses took a siesta—must have been the vapors from the sultry Houston night with the roof open. With two out in the bottom of the eighth and reliever Cliff Politte cruising, Ozzie Guillen decided he need to gesticulate more for the TV cameras. So after a six-pitch walk to Ensberg, he pulled Politte in favor of Neal Cotts. After Cotts fell instantly behind Mike Lamb, 3-0, and then walked him on five pitches, Guillen, feeling unfulfilled by the lefty signal he used to introduce Cotts, he gestured for the small, thin guy, Dustin Hermanson. I know Hermanson had a good year (2.04 ERA) and even closed for a bit, but based on a decade of Hermansonian sucking, I'm no handing him the ball with any game above little league on the line. But then again, he had a new gesture show off on TV, so… After getting ahead of Jason Lane, he of the welfare homer earlier in the game, Hermanson served up a double, tying the score and putting runners at second and third. Then came the gift Ausmus strikeout looking that I referred to before, thereby ending the inning. Not to be outdone by Guillen, Garner had to demonstrate to the world that he could really, really complete a double-switch while Sponneybarging through three relievers in the top of the ninth. Lest you think I will let the eminent Garner off the hook in the sections not calling him stupid, stupid in the title, what the frig is he thinking with some of his late moves? First, he wasted a body in Eric Bruntlett, one that could be used later in the marathon, by putting him in as the trailing runner in the eighth, pinch-hitting for Mike Lamb. He kept Bruntlett, a shortstop by trade, in the game as his left fielder and he shifted Berkman to first to replace Lamb in the field. He pulled Bruntlett two plays later so that he could double-switch Chris Burke into left and Brad Lidge onto the mound. The good news was that Lidge did not given a game-losing home run for once. Joe Buck blamed it on his wearing a USC sweatshirt for Morgan Ensberg—really, you just can't get coverage like that anywhere else. Not to be remise, I must mention that I have no idea what Garner feels a bunt is for. He bunted with the second batter in the game. Trailing 5-4 and Garland walking leadoff hitter Brad Ausmus on five pitches, Garner decided to let Adam Everett bunt with the pitcher's spot due up. They pinch-hit with Jeff Bagwell, but he popped, and Biggio struck out to end the inning. OK, I'm not crazy about bunting especially when it's helping out a pitcher who might be tiring, but I can understand doing it for the one run late in a ballgame. However, I do not understand why didn't then use it in the bottom of the ninth with the game tied and the winning run at third. Guillen had brought in El Duque Hernandez, who looked like he wasn't healthy enough to be in the postseason roster. He was crazy wild. After walking Burke on four pitches, none of which looked close, he threw the ball away on a pickoff throw sending Burke to second, and then ignored him into stealing third. Amid all that, he also walked Biggio on four pitches. The Astros had runners at the corners with one out. The speedy Taveras was up. Garner bunted with him in the first (unsuccessfully), and Timmy Mac seemed to think the small ball play was to bunt the run home. I'm not a big bunt guy in any situation, but if you think that Taveras is such a good bunter, that seemed the place to do it. Garner demurred. Taveras struck out. The game went into extra innings (with the help of the Ensberg check swing called for a strike that I referred to earlier). In BlumThe two teams then settled in for a siege that made Vicksburg seem thrilling. Other than Guillen for some reason keeping El Duque in the game to walk the leadoff batter on four pitches in the tenth, not much transpired. Both teams got men as far as second but then seemed content with that honor and went feebly to end the inning. The same seemed to hold true in the fourteenth. After a Dye single, Konerko grounded into a double play. Blum who came in as the second baseman a half-inning earlier was up with two out. He then homered on a 2-0 pitch. It seemed that Blum was brought in just so that Guillen could close the gap in double-switches (3-2), but Garner got the last laugh pulled off one more before the Astros went down in flames. The White Sox scored another run on a bases-full walk to Chris Widger of all people and left the bases full as Scott Podsednik struck out in his eighth at-bat of the game. Blum could become just the seventh man to have as many home runs as at-bats in a postseason series. Here are the rest:
Of course he does have two ABs for the playoffs, so he would crack the top spots for home runs per at-bats in a postseason:
And then there's the ever popular career home runs per at-bats in the postseason:
I'm left wondering which is more annoying, that Astro Killer Bee buzz sound affect or the Angels' rally monkey. I guess neither tops the sideshow the Red Sox "idiots" had going last season. Next year's champ is going to need a human sacrifice in the seventh-inning stretch to remain edgy. The Curse of Tom Petty, Part III
2005-10-25 22:08
Game three of the World Series is still tied 5-5 going into the bottom of the eleventh. There have been 13 World Series games that have gone 12 innings, but just one that went longer, a 2-1 win by the Red Sox over the Dodgers on 10/9/1916. Here are the longest:
Splinter Group
2005-10-25 21:50
Ozzie Guillen likes his regulars. Not only did he use his starting pitchers for all but two-thirds of an inning in the ALCS, he used just one bench position player the entire series, Pablo Ozuna (solely as a pinch-hitter in two games). That's 15 players in total in the entire series. Tony LaRussa would be appalled. That's the least in any postseason series since the 1913 A's used 15 in the World Series. That's the least in any postseason series since the A's used 15 in the 1913 World Series. Also, there has been only one instance postseason history in which a team used than the ten offensive players that the Sox used in the ALCS. That was in a nineteenth-century World Championship. Here are the teams that used the least offensive players in a playoff series:
So even though the Sox got a lot of press because of the four consecutive complete games by their pitchers, Guillen was even more frugal with his offensive players on the bench. There have been 25 instances in which a team used fewer pitchers in a playoff series:
Here are the teams that used fifteen or fewer players in a postseason series:
By the way, don't worry about the Sox duplicating the feat in the World Series. They came into tonight's game with only 15 players used, but with the game currently in the eleventh, they have made up for it tonight. Slouching Towards the International League
2005-10-25 21:29
The Astros and White Sox are currently going into extra innings in a wild 5-5 game. I just realized that the White Sox are attempting to do something that's never been done. If Chicago sweeps the Series, it will the first time that two separate teams from the same league will have completed a sweep in two consecutive World Series. The Red Sox swept the Cardinals in last year's Series, and the White Sox are trying to do the same to the Astros this year. There are three instances in baseball history in which the same team has swept two straight World Series. As one would expect, they are all Yankee clubs:
As an NL fan, that's not very encouraging. And I must say that neither does Phil Garner's managerial prowess nor the sartorial spender of the Astro fans (bee hive hairdos?). Since when have face painters, monkey dolls, and "thunder stix" become de rigueur? Oh yeah, when Angel "fans" started doing it when they discovered that they had a team during their playoff run a few years back. I have to think that most fans in Houston are used to dressing more for football (or maybe truck pulls).All I can say is, "B-G-O". Playoff Momentum—Mo' Money or Moe Howard? Slowly I turn….
2005-10-24 22:13
With the White Sox up two games to none in the World Series, the series moves to Houston tomorrow with the Atsros' backs almost against the proverbial walls. They are approaching the wall like Chris Burke circuitously tracking a fly ball at the fence in left. A loss in game three would be pretty big given that other then the Red Sox in the ALCS last season, no team has ever come back from 3-0. One way to look at is that the Astros winning one in Chicago would have put the Sox at a severe disadvantage heading to Houston. So by narrowly winning each game, Chicago has just held their homefield advantage. One could say that the goal for Houston is to win at home and just take one of four in Chicago. They lost in two of those four attempts already but still have two remaining. So is being down 2-0 a big disadvantage? Unluckily, that is not readily apparent from the data at hand. Luckily, we had a day off and I was able to load the data. I took a look at every playoff series from the 1903 World Series through the 2005 League Championship Series. There have been 64 best-of-seven series that started out with one team owning a two games to none lead. Of those 51 were won by the team that led by two games. That's a .797 winning percentage. Of those 51 series wins, 21 were sweeps, 15 were went five games, 8 went six games, and 7 went a full seven games. Of the 13 series loses, four went six games (meaning that the trailing team swept the four last games), and 8 went seven. But how does homefield factor into those numbers? Of all 2-0 series, 43 of the leading teams were playing those games at home and 21 were on the road. Of the 43 home teams, 33 went on to win the series (77%). Of the 21 road teams, 18 went on to win the series (86%). So three-quarters of the teams in the White Sox's position went on to win the series. OK, maybe there's nothing earth-shattering there, but then again it was just an excuse to take a look at the postseason game data and, more specifically, at the idea of momentum, which is bandied about whenever a trailing team wins a playoff game. So I will now pose the question, is there any such thing as momentum in the postseason. Discuss… If a team wins a given playoff game, what are the odds that they will win the next? The answer is that those teams win 52.4% of the time (477-433). That's a bit better than a 50-50 coin toss. Maybe momentum does come into play, eh? Well, you might see a hole in this logic. What is one team totally dominates the other? If there's a sweep, then momentum has very little to do with what's going on since the momentum never shifts. So I filtered out all sweeps and re-examined the data. In non-sweeps, the team that won the previous game will win the next only 45.2% of the time (357-433). So much for momentum. But maybe that's a bit unfair. Teams may trade a game or two at the beginning of the series, but when the series is on the line perhaps that is when good ol' momentum kicks in. I took a look at all "brink" games, i.e., games that brought the victor to within one game of winning the series. Perhaps when a team wins after one of these "brink" games, like the Cardinals did on the Pujols home run after falling to a 3-1 deficit, perhaps that is when momentum rides in like the cavalry. First, teams that win a brink game win the series 54.3% of the time (119-100). But we are concerned with the next game, when the trailing team has their collective backs against the collective wall collectively. Those teams won 49 out of 100 times (49%). That seems about as close to a coin toss as one can get. And teams that lost after the brink game still went on to win the series 59% of the time (59-41). OK, but there are different situations that we are lumping all together here. A team that falls behind 3-2 can much more easily turn around and win in seven games than a team that trails 3-0. So what happens when a team is trailing by one game in a series and is one game away from being losing the series? That is, they need to win the final two games of the series. If the trailing team wins the game after the brink game, thereby tying the series, how likely are they to then pray at the altar of momentum, that is, win the final game and the series? Guess what? It's exactly even (24-24). Again, where's the momentum? Using the Pujols scenarios from before, how likely was it that the Cardinals would be able to win the series. It seemed almost expected that they would, but of course, as we all knew they collapsed a World Series closer. Teams that are trailing a given series by two games and have lost the brink game only to win the following game still lose the series 64.4% of the time (29-16). Momentum is fading faster than a Brad Lidge save opportunity. Lastly, when a team is down by three games and then won the next game, they have won the series just once out of seven tries (the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS).So what does it all mean? It means that the next time that Tim McCarver prattles on about the momentum shifting from game to game, we will all know that it just aint so. Teams in close series trade wins, but so do heads and tails in coin tosses. There's no evidence that momentum exists except when Lidge is on the mound. What The...?
2005-10-23 22:32
In what seems ready-labeled for instant classic, the White Sox took game two, 7-6, over the Astros on a one-out walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth by Scott Podsednik. Oddities, twists, and controversial plays abounded. There were two lead changes in the ninth alone, both coming off the respective teams' closers. We should have known by the way the games started. As the game was set to start, the grounds crew brought out the tarp (for the second time) but didn't cover the field with it. They rolled it back up, and a game that seemed to be played in weather that ranged from a steady mist to a downpour was underway. The in-game oddity started in the bottom of the second, when, with one out and trailing Houston 1-0, Chicago's Aaron Rowand hit a ball to third that took a bad hop and ended up with a single. Next up was A.J. Pierzynski, who hit a ball of the middle of the wall in left that was misplayed by both the baserunner Rowand and the left fielder Chris Burke. Burke, playing out of his natural position, went back to the wall about ten to fifteen feet to the right of where the ball landed. Then he changed course perpendicularly and missed the ball by a good yard. He even timed his jump wrong and the ball was not only to the left of but below his glove. Meanwhile, Rowand saw the fly ball and automatically ran to first though he was careful not to be passed by the batter. As Tim McCarver rightfully pointed out, with Burke at the fence early, there's no way Rowand should be on first. It's very unlikely he will tag up on the play. Rowand ended up at second instead of third, though with the ensuing wackiness, it mattered little. Though it was cute that Fox picked up Rowand asking manager Ozzie Guillen if he did the right thing on the play, and Guillen agreed with his running. Joe Crede followed with a bloop single down the right field line, scoring Rowand and moving Pierzynski to third. The score was 1-1. Next, Juan Uribe hit a fly to shallow right field that bounced off the tips of the fingers on second baseman Craig Biggio's glove. Pierzynski, sharply contrasting the running of Rowand, went half way down the line realizing that he could score if the ball dropped—which he did—or return to third if it was caught since there was no real chance to tag up and score. Crede, the runner at first, through no fault of his own, was forced at second. The score was now 2-1, Chicago leading. Keep in mind that this is not covered by the infield fly rule by its definition in the rulebook: "An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out." There were runners at first and third. Also, the ump may not consider the play "ordinary effort" for an infielder. Oddly, the play was not an error since the got the runner at second. The next odd play came in the bottom of the fifth. With the Astros leading 4-2, Juan Uribe lead off with a double. Oddly, down two runs in the fifth with none out, the Sox had Podsednik show bunt on the next pitch. After a Podsednik flyout, on a full count Tadahito Iguchi hit a soft one-hop ground ball back to the pitcher. Uribe broke for third and was tagged out at second after just one throw and very little effort on his part. Andy Pettitte played it perfectly runner directly at Uribe. Uribe thought for a second about third, but headed back to second. He then dove into the Adam Everett tag. Meanwhile, Iguchi was stuck at first. If he goes to third or at least sustains the rundown maybe he can get the trailing runner to second. Iguchi was picked off on the next throw from Andy Pettitte, whose pickoff move was always called a balk on Steve Carlton. Next, in the bottom of the seventh with Astros still leading by two and Dan Wheeler pitching for Houston, the Sox had men at first and second and two out. On a full count to Jermain Dye, the next pitch looked like an inside pitch that hit off Dye's bat, but the homeplate umpire Jeff Nelson said some part of Dye was hit by the ball and awarded him first, loading the bases. Here again the umps got a play wrong that was apparent as the play transpired to the naked eye at regular speed. Every replay backed up the miscall. Even Dye looked surprised by the call. Of course, the next batter, Paul Konerko, hit a grand slam (right after a commercial break with the ever-annoying Grand Slam Quiz from State Farm) on the first pitch after a pitching change to put the Sox up, 6-4. Chad Qualls really grooved one in but Konerko did clobber the ball. It was the eighteenth grand slam in World Series history (according to Fox—I'll check who they were on the off day). Of course, Phil Garner, pedestrian manager he, would never consider bringing in closer Brad Lidge to get him out of trouble with two and a third left in the game. Then again Lidge would have his own problems later. The game settled down after that but the best was still yet to come. Rookie closer Bobby Jenks came in to pitch in the top of the ninth with a two-run lead. Jeff Bagwell led off with a line-drive single. After getting Jason Lane to strikeout, Jenks was pinched by Nelson on at least two ball calls and Chris Burke walked on four pitches. Again, Garner had some highly questionable calls. Brad Ausmus grounded out moving the runners to second and third. I would have considered pinch-hitting for the weak-hitting catcher, but he has had a hot bat of late. Next, Garner went to a pinch-hitter for his shortstop. He had the hot-hitting Mike Lamb and Orlando Palmeiro on the bench, but chose weak-hitting middle infielder Jose Vizcaino, a dubious choice at best. Vizcaino hit a bloop single to left. The lead runner scored easily, but Burke was just rounding third as the ball got to the left fielder Podsednik. A good throw would have had him at the plate, but Podsenik's was too far up the line toward first. Pierzynski dove back to get the runner, but Burke slid around his tag and touched home before an eventual high tag. The score was tied, 6-6. Vizcaino ended up at second, Jenks was lifted, and the Sox were lucky to end the inning in a tie. Houston, the goat of game five of the NLCS, was brought in to keep the game tied in the bottom of the ninth. With one out Podsednik hit a 2-1 straight-as-an-arrow fastball over the wall in right-center. The new Comiskey erupted as the Sox won. Podsednik now has two home runs in the postseason, both game winners, though he hit none in the regular season. As I already documented he is just one of 23 players to homer in the playoffs after failing to do so in the regular season. He is the first to hit two in the postseason, however. The Sox are on a high, but if you consider that a split would have taken away their home field advantage and that either game could very easily have gone either way, the Sox can't get cocky. Of course, game three is big, but aren't they all in the World Series? Does the Regular Season Matter?
2005-10-22 18:31
The game one of the Astros and White Sox World Series is just under way. One aspect of this series that I forgot to mention is that there are ten regular season wins that separate these teams. The Sox had the best record in the American League at 99-63 while the Astros slipped into the postseason on the last day of the season with an 89-73 record. It's the thirtieth time in World Series history that the two opponents are separated by ten or more wins. One would expect that this matchup is something of a David and Goliath mismatch (as opposed to the claymation "Davey and Goliath" pairing which is even more of mismatch). But is it really? And if it is an advantage to win many more games than one's opponent, how much of an advantage is it? I ran the numbers for the previous 29 such matchups. The "Goliath" team, the one that won at least ten more regular-season games, won the World Series 17 times. The last Goliath team to win it was the 114-win Yankees in 1998. On average those teams won four games to slightly under one and a half. Seems like a big advantage, eh? Well, the "Davey" team won 12 of 29 matchups. The last Davey team was the 91-win 2003 Marlins. The won by an advantage of 4.67 to slightly over two games. So maybe it is an advantage but if so, it's a slight one. That made me wonder if having more wins than your opponent in the World Series is an advantage at all. As it turns out, all time the time with more wins in the regular season more the Series a total of 51 times. The teams with fewer wins won the Series 52 times. There were also four seasons in which teams with the same number of wins faced off. So would does it all mean? It means watch the Series. Nothing is certain. Just watch it and enjoy. The Guys Who'll Blow the Calls in the Next Round
2005-10-21 23:01
The umps for the World Series have been announced, led by Joe West, who had a breather for one round after abysmal play calling in the first round. I expect Joe to top the phantom tagging of Yadier Molina no later than game 2. As for the Series itself, I'll predict White Sox in six and try to figure out how I picked the Braves and Yankees at the start of the playoffs. Actually, it'll be one time that I'll be hoping for a series ending before going the full complement of games—I have a wedding on the thirtieth. Honest Dave
2005-10-21 22:52
This morning I received a little missive in my inbox from the president of the Phillies. Oh, it's not as if I think my little scribblings drew Dave Montgomery's attention away from his very important job of running the Phils, a team stuck in neutral for the better part of this millennium. Though we share the same alma mater, I don't even run into the guy at homecoming or even Ivy Day. Dave wouldn't know me from Terry Adams. Everyone on the Phils website mailing list got the same letter. It's basically a request from the team not to throw in the towel on the 2006 season yet. The Phils brass took the inevitable and coincidentally crowd-pleasing step of letting go of their GM of eight years, Ed Wade, at the end of the season. The Phils inner circle must be kvelling that the Eagles are mere mortals this season, and they must be hoping no one jumps back on the hockey bandwagon by attending Flyer even though no one knows who's left on the team. It's interesting that Montgomery's email comes a day after the Astros, the team that edged the Phils out of the playoffs on the last day of the season, made it to the World Series. While the Astros are girding their loins for the White Sox—and we all know how painful that is—, the Phils are looking for a new GM and are busy throwing whatever is not stapled down Billy Wagner's way. It's encouraging that the prez supports the youth movement in Philly (i.e., Utley and Howard). However, the Phils' actions since their new-ballpark-inspired mini-renaissance started about three years ago belie these statements. The Phils like vets. The wooing of Wagner will bear this out. On top of all the other hefty contracts that the team has taken on in the last few years (Thome, Bell, Lieberthal, Burrell, Abreu), they are likely to add a three (or so) year contract for something like $30 M to retain the services of a closer, very good closer, but still just a closer. The Phils go into 2006 without a starting centerfielder, no set rotation behind Brett Myers, barely passable starters at third and behind the plate who are still getting hefty checks, and a huge issue at first. Really, especially what has been going on throughout the game the last few years, does it really matter if they don't have a top-line closer? The crux of the Phils problem and the issue that will define the new GM's term at least at the onset, is who will play first base and what will be the ramifications of that decision. They would probably like to get rid of Jim Thome, his injury history, his contract, and his age in favor of Howard, who should probably be the NL's Rookie of the Year, but who can or would take a chance on Thome. Maybe the Yankees, but they just had their own high-paid and oft-injured first baseman work through his issues this year. So Thome will probably have to be appointed the starting first baseman, at least if he's healthy. But Howard is apparently not a good enough defensive player to move to another position. They tried him in the outfield in the Arizona Fall League last year and had to abandon the experiment. Bill Jabba Conlin is promulgating moving Howard to left, Burrell to right, and Abreu to center. That would be a slighter larger gamble than moving Thome back to his original position, third base. So maybe the Phils should trade Howard, right? Well, aside from what's left of the fanbase being up in arms, if Thome goes down again or demonstrates that he is no longer the same player he was, they won't have a viable alternative. So they're stuck unless they can get the NL to adopt the DH rule. Maybe they'll just let both come to camp and hope that Thome gets injured. At least they can recoup some insurance money that way. This team is a Ghordian knot with the first base situation being the tightest tied bow. I pity the next GM. The only thing he will have going for him is a built-in lame duck manager and ready-built scapegoat. Charlie Manuel was Wade's boy and is generally despised by the remaining fanbase. Manuel will be used as a body shield for the new GM, and more importantly, at least for them, the Phils' upper management. But he can be used just once. The Phils are at a crossroads. They can embrace and expand upon the 2005 youth movement or they can continue throwing money at veterans. The first alternative is harder to predict—who knows how youngsters will perform. The second alternative, in my opinion, consigns the franchise to a downward spiral to the basement until they ride out the big contracts. The two things to watch are the Wagner re-signing and the Thome/Howard wrestling match at first. Anyway, here's Montgomery's letter. Enjoy: ================================ Dear Mike: As I am sure you are aware, a search for a new General Manager is underway. Our intent is to conduct a thorough and intensive search in order to select a General Manager who will get us to the postseason and bring a championship to Philadelphia. We know that we have work to do this offseason. Getting the right person as the General Manager is step No. 1. From there, we need to make the necessary improvements to get our win total over 90 games, capture the division title, and play in the postseason. Looking back on the 2005 season, although we didn't achieve our goals, we believe that there were very positive signs for the future. The players played hard to the very last day in Washington. They never gave up and battled to the end for a postseason spot. Some individual performances were outstanding. Jimmy Rollins' 36-game hitting streak during the pressure of a pennant race was a remarkable feat. Chase Utley and Ryan Howard -- two young players who excelled in clutch situations and fed off the energy of our passionate fans -- provided great excitement. Many other achievements and strengths could be mentioned, but we recognize there is more to do and we intend to do it. Thank you for your support throughout the 2005 season and past seasons. Our entire organization is very appreciative of the dedication exhibited by Phillies fans. We will not take that for granted and we will work hard each and every day to earn and keep your support. We look forward to providing you with further updates as we proceed during the offseason. Sincerely, Joe Crazy
2005-10-20 19:54
The baseball world likes Joe Girardi. They really like Joe Girardi. Girardi, who was always referred to as a future manager when he was a player, finally made those predictions come true. He was hired yesterday as the manager of the Florida Marlins after being wooed by every team in baseball, or at least those in Florida. Joe becomes the first man in 18 years to go from a major-league player to major-league manager within three years. In 1987 both Larry Bowa and John Wathan became managers just two years after retiring as players. The only other men in the last twenty years to switch roles so quickly are Jeff Newman and Lou Piniella (both in 1986). Poor Willie Randolph. A former Yankee coach himself, he got a cursory glance by just about every team looking for a new skipper for years until he landed with the Mets this past year. It took him thirteen seasons to go from player—he retired in 1992—to manager. Fellow Yankee ex-pat Lee Mazzilli took 15 years to become O's manager—though less than two seasons to lose the job. All that made me wonder if the trend in hiring managers was changing. I remember Don Kessinger and Pete Rose being player-managers, something that used to be common in the game. Rose was the last player-manager in 1986, and I doubt we'll see another for quite some time, if ever. Here are the managers who debuted in the last fifty years and were still active players in their debut year as major-league managers (though not necessarily, technically player-managers):
Fregosi, I remember, was released by the Pirates and then later that season became the Angels' manager, so he never really was a player-manager. And El Tappe was part of the Cubs' managerial rotation in the early Sixties. OK, so now let's look at the trends. Here are the totals for our so-called player-managers:
Now for the Girardi group. Here are all managers who debuted within three years of retiring as a player:
Both of those groups have dwindled in the last few decades. The next group we'll look into are managers who debuted at least four years after retiring as a player but no more than ten years. They have been doing well of late:
Finally, here is the group to which Mazzilli and Randolph belong, managers who debuted at least a decade after retiring as players:
For the first seventies years of major-league ball, they were a rarity, but now they look like the strongest trend. So while Girardi might cause a splash, he now represents the rare exception rather than the rule. The Curse of Tom Petty, Part II
2005-10-19 22:23
Well, that was sort of a waste of time, huh? After one of the most exciting moments of this, or any other postseason for that matter, we are left with anticlimax. Houston led the whole way. Mark Mulder crumbled in that way that only he can do. The only news was that Fox found out that Houston is in Texas. Wow! How hard are they going to be shoveling this "T for Texas" horse hockey down our throats? And speaking of shovelingd, what was that little speech-cum-surrealistic montage that Thom Brennamen launched into at the end of the game about Roger Clemens' dying mother accurately predicting the score of his next game and then saying "Shoeless Joe", of course, meaning that the Astros would face off against the White Sox in the World Series. What is he smoking? I want to part with you cowboy—you and me together? Forget it. Somehow this Texas Nostradamus even knew that her son, leading 10-1 at the time, would somehow give up an unearned run due to an error to match he prediction. It reminded of the episode of the Odd Couple where Oscar cringes as Felix corrupts his radio show into some maudlin melodrama loosely based on the Ruth homer for a sick kid story. Except no one at Fox has any shame—the audience had to cringe a la Oscar. Anyway, the Astros now head into the World Series with two men who have accumulated at least two thousand career games prior to playing in a championship round. I wondered how rare that was. So I looked it up. Here are the players who appeared in the most regular-season games prior to reaching the World Series. Biggio edges out Barry Bonds, the previous "leader", by at least 100 games. Bagwell has had the fourth worst wait:
It's nice to round out the list with Ozzie Gullen and Larry Walker. OK, that's by games, but how about years? There are actually four players, three of whom were pitchers, who waited longer than Biggio though they played fewer games:
So now we that we have a two-day layoff, I hope Fox cracks open their atlas and looks up what state Chicago is in. I'm just thankful that this will (hopefully) be the last we hear from Brennamen and Lyons until next October. Central Series
2005-10-18 22:04
While we have an off day to contemplate just what Albert Pujols did yesterday and what it might mean in this postseason, I was thinking about something much more trivial. I just realized that this will be the first all-Central Division World Series of all time. I know that the Central Divisions in each league were carved out of the existing East, West, and Clarence C. Campbell Conferences of yesteryear. (How's Conn Smyth doing lately?) To be precise, it was 1994. So we are not talking about a lot of history. Besides, some of these teams did face off in their pre-Central personas. The last time was 1987:
Keep in mind that the nineteenth-century St. Louis Browns are the sires of today's Cardinals and that the nineteenth-century Chicago White Stockings have nothing to do with the White Sox, except in an inspirational sense. They are the antecedents to the Cubbies. Oh, and that the pre-expansion Senators are now the Twins. If the Cardinals come back to win the NLCS, it will be just the 86th time that two of the original 16 teams have faced off in a World Series, the last time being last year (Red Sox-Cards for those who do not have their history books handy). However, it will be the first time since 1991 that two of original 16 that have never faced off before in a Fall Classic meet in the championship round (Twins-Braves). That made me curious as to how many of the original 16 have faced off. So I made a handy dandy spreadsheet. Guess who's the only team to play every other team in the other league in the Series?…Wait for it:
The Yankees have, of course, faced all of the original eight NL franchises in the World Series. The Dodgers and Red Sox—surprise!—are just one team short and the Cardinals could tie them for second if the win the NLCS. The Indians and the Phils are the lowest—no surprise—at only three. OK, I know…trivia, but at least I didn't regurgitate the Pujols homer again. Must Be a Slow Newsweek
2005-10-18 20:02
Baseball Toaster and yours truly got a little mention in a little magazine they call Newsweek. Maybe you've heard of it? And I quote: CATCH the World Series and read game analysis and That's Time and Newsweek in one year. I'm still holding out for Rolling Stone though. I guess poking fun at umpires is good for something. The Curse of Tom Petty
2005-10-17 22:06
Oh my! What is it with this team? If the Astros had any real fans—41 (i..e., the new Kissing Bandit) and Nolan Ryan don't count—they would be losing it. One strike away with the greatest relief pitcher that Thom Brennamen has ever seen (Brad Lidge) on the mound, and…we get a game six. Maybe it's me, but I thought of Mariano Rivera. Fox's "B" team (Lyons, Brennamen, and Brenly) had been touting Brad Lidge as the greatest thing since sliced Eckersley. Rivera, who I consider a future Hall of Famer, has really sealed his case with his great postseason record. Lidge is to quote Elvis Costello, "This year's girl." Lidge completely lost it after getting within one strike of the World Series. His inability to find the plate on five pitches to Edmonds was pathetic. And then there's what he allowed Albert Pujols to do by telegraphing and then hanging a slider. Though I don't mean to take anything away from Pujols, who hit one of the most emphatic shots I have ever seen to put the Cards up 5-4. It's great when the best players a) have the opportunity to do great things and b) actually do them. Maybe Brennamen will now stop calling him "Albert Pools". The fickle Brennamen did at least transfer his affections from Lidge, decent reliever though he may be, to one of the best players in the game (saying 95% of GMs would build a team around Pools, though that doesn't resolve with 30 teams). So what happened? With two outs in the ninth, a 4-2 lead, and a 1-2 count, David Eckstein hit a seeing-eye single just to the third-base side of short on a slider (remember the slider). Lidge then tried to nibble the plate with Jim Edmonds and missed badly. On the first pitch, Lidge paid to little attention to Eckstein who took second. I know he's a meaningless runner, but when that leaves a base open at first and pitcher gets erratic, I have to think that it creates some doubt in the pitcher's mind or at least he loses focus on the batter at hand. "I'm not going to let this guy beat me with a base open." And Lidge, to his credit, didn't. Lidge seemed to collect himself getting a slider past Pujols. Then the remarkably prescient Bob Brenly said, and I quote, "I would expect to see all sliders in this at-bat from Brad Lidge. I wouldn't risk throwing a fast ball up there to one of the best fast ball hitters in the game." The guy should be a negative barometer. Think Bill Macy in "The Cooler". The next pitch as Brenly predicted was a slider. Pujols must have been listening to Brenly, since he was apparently thinking slider. And unfortunately for Lidge it was a hanger, which Pujols deposited somewhere near Austin. If the Stros now fade, it will be historic. Lidge will be the new Donnie Moore and Phil Garner the new Mauch. But they should look on the bright side: we don't have to wait until Saturday for a game. Houston is currently competing with the interleague "natural" rival, Texas Rangers, for the longest wait (thereby justifying the gratuitous Tom Petty reference in the headline) for a team's first World Series appearance. My Phils scuttled them in 1980 and then the Mets did the same in 1986, both epic postseason series. Here are the franchises ranked by longest wait for a first World Series appearance. The "Original 16" are on the clock starting with the first Series in 1903:
(Note that the Yankees had the third-longest wait among the original teams. Of course, that was before Babe Ruth put the evil eye on the Red Sox.) And before we get too enthused for the Astros being some sort of giant beaten by the upstart Cardinal's David, remember that this team trailed St. Louis by 11 games this year. That is the more games than any other wild card has trailed by and still made it to the Series since the science experiment started in 1995 (well, '94 but they never had any playoffs that year). Here are the number of games back for every wild card team who made it to the Series:
Also, we have to remember that the 'Stros meandered their way into the wild card, winning just 89 games. I know the 15-30 start is often cited, but minus a couple of home runs off of Billy Wagner at the start of September, the Astros are home watching the Phils groove sliders to Albert Pujols. By the way, here are the teams with the least wins that got into the World Series Note that there have been only four teams who were worse over a 162-game schedule:
Cardinal Sins
2005-10-17 20:41
Before game five of the NLCS (and perhaps the series) is history, I just wanted to revisit a few of the more salient points in game four, a 2-1 win for Houston. The Cards were in striking distance but due to a few key mental errors by two of their best players, their opportunities dwindled. First, I have to point out that with number-four Astro starter Brandon Backe getting the starter, he of the 4.76 regular-season ERA and 4.86 career ERA, the Cardinals blew a shot right off the bat by not pouncing on Houston's weakest starting pitcher. Then again, who thought that a Backe-Jeff Suppan matchup would be the best of the series? That aside, the first of mental error by St. Louis came in the eighth. With the Cards trailing 2-1, a runner at first, and two outs, Jim Edmonds was up. The first pitch to him was closer to hitting him than it was to being a strike. It was high and tight and Edmonds ducked out slightly turning his body. And yet homeplate umpire Phil Cuzzi called it a strike, and not a swinging strike—even though the bat never left his shoulder as his body turned it was closer to a swinging strike than a called one. Edmonds was naturally shocked, but instead of muttering his disgust with his head down and keeping his head in the game, he lost it. He walked behind the catcher and confronted the ump. Edmonds did not seem out of control, but in a matter of seconds was thrown out of the game. Yes, the Cuzzi really had no cause to remove a player, especially a big name one, with the score so tight in such an important game. However, Edmonds should never have given him the opportunity to make another crappy call. There have been too many by umps in the playoffs so far. The second mental error came in the ninth by the Cards' best player. Albert Pujols was on third after a leadoff single followed by a Larry Walker single. Pujols, representing the tying run, was not in a force situation. However, when Reggie Sanders hit a grounder to third, he went home, instead of retreating to the bag. He was, of course, out at home and the Cards lost on the John Mabry double play that followed. When two of your best players are performing like this under pressure and you are down to your third- or fourth-string third baseman, being down three games to one is understandable. Rock 'Em, Sox 'Em
2005-10-16 22:29
The White Sox clinched their first pennant since 1959 tonight with a 6-3 win of the Angels. I knew that the White Sox had it won after the third controversial (read, miscalled) play of the series, and the first that was not in their favor, was overturned. With the score tied in the top of the eighth, the Sox first two batters struck out, and then Aaron Rowand walked. The next batter was A.J. Pierzynski, the center of every controversial play in the series, hit a line drive off of pitcher Kelvim Ecscobar. Escobar retrieved the ball and attempted to tag Pierzynski. However, he held the ball in his pitching hand and tagged the runner with his gloved hand. Again the ump got the call wrong. First base umpire Randy Marsh, apparently obscured on the play, called the runner out. The Angels left the field, and the inning was apparently over. But Ozzie Guillen and Pierzynski immediately protested, and the Marsh acquiesced to a conference. Very quickly, the call was rightly overturned. The Sox went on to score as the next batter, Joe Crede, hit an infield single deep to second, scoring the lead runner, Rowand, scored. Two more runs scored in the ninth as the Angels went down in order the last four innings (before which they lead 3-2). There was one other controversial play in the bottom of the fifth with the Angels trailing, 2-1. With Adam Kennedy at first, Chone Figgins had his first decent hit of the series with a drive deep down the line in right field. The ball bounced once and a fan leaned over and grabbed it. Kennedy had initially been held up at third for the automatic double. But when Mike Scioscia protested, the umpires decided to award him home, rightly. The thing that surprised me was that they kept Figgins at second when the ball appeared not to be bounding into the stands but would have rattled around the wall in right. Giving him third was not out of the question. As it turned out, it made no difference, since Figgins scored on a fielder's choice, moving him to third, and a sacrifice fly, giving the Angels the 3-2 lead. The ump is within his rights to assign the runners to whichever base they feel is necessary to nullify the interference according to the rules: INTERFERENCE (d) Spectator interference occurs when a spectator reaches out of the stands, or goes on the playing field, and touches a live ball. On any interference the ball is dead. Annyway, since the Sox last the pennant, eleven other teams have represented the AL in the Fall Classic, all but the D-Rays, Rangers, and Mariners. The Brewers, who no longer play in the American League, have even gone:
Finally, the Sox got four complete games out of their last four starters. They came within two outs of five. No team since 1968 has recorded four complete games in one playoff series. That, of course, predates divisional play and the attendant extra rounds of playoffs. Here are the only teams in the last fifty years to amass four or more complete games in any playoff series:
Of course, the 1919 Black Sox has five complete games in ceding the Series to the Reds, so that might not be a good omen. (By the way, the Detroit Wolverines and St. Louis Browns, now Cardinals, registered 15 complete games each in the 1887 NL-AA World Series.) I wonder who feels worse right now, Cubbie fans or Indian fans. Remember that this team was left for dead a month or so ago when the Miracle Indians were hot on thie tail. The Indians come that close, but didn't even make the playoffs after losing six of their last seven. Kulpa-Bull—Can't Anybody Umpire Anymore?
2005-10-15 22:50
In an act of solidarity or perhaps a show of support for Doug Eddings, the two umpiring crews overseeing the League Championship Series have decided to go on strike. The form of that strike is to make at least one miscall a day. Now, I'm joking of course. Bad calls are part of the game, but these guys are going above and beyond. In game two of the NLCS, Mark Grudzielanek was called out after he hit a ball off his foot. In game three a pickoff attempt at first was miscalled. Both of these calls were readily apparent at normal speed without the help of instant replay. Then there was the Vald Guerrero strikeout on a play almost identical to the Eddings one in game two, umpire "mechanic" and all. The call, however, went against the batter this time. However, Ron Kulpa, home plate umpire in the Angel-White Sox game tonight, had the piece d'resistance. In the bottom of the second the Angels were at bat trailing 3-1. The Angels had just scored on a Bengie Molina bloop single. Molina was at first and Casey Kotchman at third, and there was one out. Steve Finley was at bat with an 0-1 count. Finley hit a grounder to the first-base side of second baseman Tadahito Iguchi and sort of slowed and pointed at catcher A.J. Pierzynski. Finley was beat by a step at first as the White Sox completed an inning-ending double play. The next instant, Finley turned and continued to point to Pierzynski. It turns out that Pierzynski's mitt was hit by Finley's bat as he started to swing at the ball. By the definition of interference in the rule book, the catcher was guilty of defensive interference: INTERFERENCE… (b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch. As the commentators stated the end result should have been bases loaded and one out. However, if Finley had run to first without making his case for interference and interference were called, he would have created option for manager Mike Scioscia. The runner at third would have scored, and Scioscia would have been given the option of letting the play stand with the interference, thereby closing the gap to 3-2. If he opted to accept the interference call, the run would have been taken off the scoreboard and the Angels would have the bases loaded. Even though it would have cost them an out (at second), I doubt they would give up a run. Here's the rule: 6.08 If that wasn't bad enough first-base ump Ed Rapuano missed call when Scott Shields picked Scott Podsednik off first in the fifth (as McCarver and company were discussing how relief pitchers have inferior moves to first). Podsednik stole second and later scored on a two-out Carl Everett single to increase the White Sox lead to 6-2. The score ended up 8-2, so even without the Podesednik run in the fifth and with an additional Angel run or two in the second, maybe the result would have been the same. But it would have been nice if the umps called it right in the first place so that we wouldn't have to guess the actual result. Can’t Anybody Hit Anymore?
2005-10-14 18:28
I know that we have just played two games in each League Championship Series and each will go at lest five, but yet far this is the lowest-scoring LCS round of all time by a long shot. All this talk of small ball has creating small scoring. Tonight the White Sox bunted after Scott Podsednik led off the game with a single (?!?). The fact that they scored three runs in the inning will surely lead to more of the stultifying so small that it's nearly imperceptible ball. Here are the ten lowest scoring LCS rounds since baseball went to divisional play in 1969 (the overall average is 8.09 runs per game):
That's in sharp contrast to last year's LCS round, which was the highest scoring of all time. Remember that 19-8 Yankee-Red Sox game? Both LCSs opened with a 10-7 game last year:
Well, you say, maybe these teams just aren't hitting. Why do I blame it on small ball? Let's take a look at the number of bunts per plate appearance in each LCS:
I know it's only four games, put that's a lot of bunts. So what's the net affect on the batters? We know the runs are down, but bunts are way down. It's the lowest walk to plate appearance ratio by a mile, the highest strikeout to walk ratio, and the second lowest on-base percentage:
So I beg of you, end the madness. Stop all the small ball. I though the Red Sox winning would be the apotheosis of Bill James yet somehow, a year later, look where we are. Confederacy of Eddingses
2005-10-13 19:36
It's almost a full twenty four hours since what was perhaps the worst call by an umpire in a big game ever, and we're still talking about it. By the way, some would say the Don Derkinger miscall that helped the Royals win the 1985 World Series was worse. I'll agree that this was a closer play, but I think the ramifications are much more far-reaching. I think it's finally settling in that there were two issues with the call. First was the call itself, of course. The second was Eddings calls his "mechanic" to communicate his judgment in the call. I was pretty sure when I saw the play with the naked eye that it was a catch, and nothing has convinced me otherwise. But it was close, and if that were the extent of the damage, there are worse calls. However, the mechanic that Eddings was inexcusable. I, along with everyone watching or participating in the game, am convinced that a punchout mechanic means, "You're out." The only person who was unsure on this point, unfortunately, was the man making the call. He made two gestures. The first was a flat hand straight out to indicate that the batter had swung. The second was the punchout. After the game, Eddings explained that his rheumaticism was acting up, or words to that effect:
Q: Doug, the replay seemed to clearly show you called swing [arm straight out] and then out [punchout]. What was your interpretation? Actually, this is not true. On an earlier strikeout on a ball in the dirt, Eddings immediately indicated the "swung" signal. However, he did not do the punchout until the catcher tagged the batter out. Besides, let's say that Eddings' story were true, what would the punchout indicate? The third strike was already called by the "swung" call. Why would he need the punchout for a third strike as he alleges? (Unless he thinks the players can't count.) Of course, the next thing to call is the out. That tells everyone that the third swing was caught cleanly and the play is over. I believe that this is what Eddings was indicating when he saw Paul rush off the field. Given his angle, the best he could do was guess as to whether or not it was caught. When Paul was convinced the batter was out, so was Eddings. So he showed the punchout. But when Pierzynski turned around and ran to first, he sold Eddings on the idea that the ball bounced. Basically, the worst part of the call was not making a call at all ore at least not one he would stand by. Eddings alludes to this in his Michael Brown-esque press conference: Doug Eddings: I did not say "no catch." If you watch the replay, you do watch me -- as I'm making the mechanic, I'm watching Josh Paul, so I'm seeing what he's going to do. I'm looking directly at him while I'm watching Josh Paul. That's when Pierzynski ran to first base. He admits that he made no call and just watched the play develop. It's unfortunate for Josh Paul that Pierzynski, oddly enough, was more imaginative than he was. Yes, Paul should have tagged Pierzynski, and then the play would have been over. If for no other reason there was a waffling moron standing behind him making the call. Had Paul been given any indication that the play was not dead, I'm sure he would have tagged out Pierzynski who was in no hurry to get to first—he even crossed the plate. Some have tried to make Paul the scapegoat for the odd play. The umps floated a story that the ball had bounced to undercut him even further: Q: Do you still stand by your call? That is like floating a story that the governor of Louisiana never called a federal emergency, when you know it's not true, though that would never happen. They continued but were kind enough not to call him a buffoon: Q: I'm not sure who this was directed to but I guess Doug: Isn't it customary if it's borderline that the catcher just routinely tags the guy and gets it over with? Thanks, Rick. Make sure that you float the story that Eddings never said the word "Out" even if he punched the batter out. If a punchout does not mean the play is over, how is the defense to know whether or not to tag the batter out? In a particularly loud play even the catcher may not be able to hear the ump if, as the seem to claim, that is their "Mechanic" for calling an out. If it's a high fastball, that catcher had better still tag the batter out. Tag him out on every play because you never know if it'll be overturned by some idiotic ump. "Yes, it was in the glove five feet above the ground, but we saw a change in direction at the last second so it's a trap." It's a disgrace. Up is down, dogs and cats sleeping together. There is no reality. But let's be clear about this: It does not mean that baseball should turn to instant replay. The call itself was not the problem. Frankly, I don't care which way he calls that play. My problem is that the ump took no control of the play. He didn't make a timely call. He let one player (Paul) and then another (Pierzynski) sway his judgment. Let's say that there was instant replay on the play and it indicated Paul had trapped the ball. Would they just let it stand after the players thought Eddings called the third out. The call itself wasn't the problem; the communication was, and instant replay can't do anything about that. I tried to research the play via Rich Marazzi's always illuminating book, The Rules and Lore of Baseball. I found some similar plays but nothing that matched this call. However, I'll present a view of the more interesting ones here with the hope that they can shed some light on the play. And what the hey, I love this stuff: Here's one that's very similar in that the defense started to leave the field, the catcher flipped the ball to the mound, and the runner instigated the odd play: Tiger pitcher Earl Wilson almost circled the bases when he struck out in a game against the Twins at Minnesota on April 25, 1970. Here's one again where a coach urged a player to go for first though this one occurred in a in a World Series game: In the 1931 World Series played between the St. Louis Cardinals and Philadelphia Athletics this boner took place in the second game. Here's one that deals with a miscall by the ump. However, it's the opposite of yesterday's play: The West Haven Yankees and Three Rivers Eagles met on July 25, 1973 at West Haven. It was the top of the fourth inning and Eagle right fielder Toro DeFreitas was at bat. Yank pitcher Ron Klimbowski bounced a good curve in the dirt a foot outside at home plate. DeFreitas, a free-swinging power hitter, lunged at the ball and missed. Finally, this one is not all that relevant to last night's game, but it's just too interesting to pass up: Another play involving a catcher holding a third strike happened to Nick Bremigan when umpiring a Florida State league game in 1969. The bases were loaded, with two outs and a 3-2 count on the batter. The next pitch was swung at and missed, but muffed by the catcher and wound up laying [sic] on the ground beside home plate. In this situation, the batter is allowed to try for first base, since there are two outs. The catcher retrieved the ball and as he was making his throw to first, he inadvertently stepped on home plate with his front foot while he still had possession of the ball. Although the ball wound up in right field, I had to nullify all "runs," since the catcher legally recorded the third out by stepping on home plate and forcing the runner from third, even though he had no idea what he was doing. But there is no rule that says he has to know what he's doing to execute a force play—and he didn't! The offensive team didn't buy it right away, but the ruling stood. You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole damn courtroom is out of order!
2005-10-12 22:33
"Merkle's Boner" "Snodgrass's Muff" "Owen's Dropped Ball" "The Mookie Ball Goes Through Buckner's Legs" And now I give you, "Eddings' Execrable Call" Move over Joe West. There's a new boneheaded umpire in town, and his name is Reggie Hammond, er, Doug |