Master Index of Archived Threads


Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 03 2010 07:21 AM

...

Valadius Jun 02 2010 06:26 PM Re: OOTS

Armando Galarraga pitching what could be yet ANOTHER perfecto through the 7th against Cleveland.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:31 PM Re: OOTS

4 outs to go - Branyan up.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:33 PM Re: OOTS

3 to go. His "longest" inning so far is 11 pitches.

Valadius Jun 02 2010 06:33 PM Re: OOTS

Galarraga's still on track through 8, only 75 pitches thrown.

HahnSolo Jun 02 2010 06:36 PM Re: OOTS

MLB Network covering it.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:39 PM Re: OOTS

btw, like the Hallady game, this is a 1-0 cliff-hanger at the moment (Tigers batting bottom 8) so it's not like the win is even in the bag. There's a theory that more no-hitters/PGs occur during low-scoring games based on the idea that the pitcher has to bear down more rather than just chuck it up there and let 'em swing. Not sure if that bears up under numerical scrutiny but I'm going with it.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 02 2010 06:45 PM Re: OOTS

I just counted 52 runs in 18 perfect games since 1900, for an average runs per game of 2.89. So the theory seems to hold over the small sample size.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 06:47 PM Re: OOTS

Running over-the-shoulder catch (Austin Jackson) for the first out. I think fewer perfectos have to happen in close games, because they have to stay away from the homer, and so get more walks.

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 06:47 PM Re: OOTS

I need to see this catch that was just made against Grudzielanek to preserve the perfect game (1st out in the 9th)

Kong76 Jun 02 2010 06:50 PM Re: OOTS

He was out.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2010 06:50 PM Re: OOTS

travesty!

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 06:50 PM Re: OOTS

the game is on ESPN. the umpires just stole a perfectgame with a bad call at 1st base with 2 outs.

A Boy Named Seo Jun 02 2010 06:51 PM Re: OOTS

Tigers radio guys are going ape shit.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:51 PM Re: OOTS

OH. MY. GOD.

A Boy Named Seo Jun 02 2010 06:51 PM Re: OOTS

They're saying he was out by a full step.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 06:52 PM Re: OOTS

Jim Joyce? Isn't he mostly decent?

metsmarathon Jun 02 2010 06:52 PM Re: OOTS

holy fuck, man.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2010 06:53 PM Re: OOTS

Oh my god, what a sad scene

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:53 PM Re: OOTS

A Boy Named Seo wrote: They're saying he was out by a full step. Half-stride anyway. Ump Jim Joyce just had the first paragraph of his Wikipedia and his obituary cemented for life.

seawolf17 Jun 02 2010 06:55 PM Re: OOTS

Frayed Knot wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: They're saying he was out by a full step. Half-stride anyway. Ump Jim Joyce just had the first paragraph of his Wikipedia and his obituary cemented for life. He might not make it out of Detroit, quite honestly. Holy moley is that a ballsy call by Joyce.

A Boy Named Seo Jun 02 2010 06:55 PM Re: OOTS

Frayed Knot wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: They're saying he was out by a full step. Half-stride anyway. Ump Jim Joyce just had the first paragraph of his Wikipedia and his obituary cemented for life. That obvious? Wow. Only nervous guy that choked in the end was Joyce. Bummer for Gallarraga.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 06:55 PM Re: OOTS

Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce

HahnSolo Jun 02 2010 06:56 PM Re: OOTS

Horrible call. Howeva, Galarraga did snowcone the ball and it could--could--have appeared to Joyce to be loose in his glove. But he has to see that. Great catch by Austin Jackson to lead off the 9th BTW. Joe Magrane on MLB Network begging Detroit PD to give Joyce security escort back to his hotel.

HahnSolo Jun 02 2010 06:57 PM Re: OOTS

seawolf17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: They're saying he was out by a full step. Half-stride anyway. Ump Jim Joyce just had the first paragraph of his Wikipedia and his obituary cemented for life. He might not make it out of Detroit, quite honestly. Holy moley is that a ballsy call by Joyce. Ballsy if he were really safe. Bad when the guy is clearly out.

seawolf17 Jun 02 2010 06:58 PM Re: OOTS

Edgy DC wrote: Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce Damn, that article is getting blasted hard right now. Fascinating.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2010 06:58 PM Re: OOTS

I wish for Joyce's sake Galarraga had gotten to the bag sooner, it would have helped him make the call. I wonder also if he didn't think Galarraga bobbled the ball in his glove. Either way what a black eye for baseball justice. Even Donald was shocked he was safe.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 06:59 PM Re: OOTS

Hotel, hell. Airport. Dude better move back to Ireland. How sad.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 06:59 PM Re: OOTS

The only thing you can say in Joyce's defense was that the play was "funky" looking. 1B Cabrera ranged REAL wide towards 2nd and had both a long throw and had to wait a beat or two to get the timing right. Galaraga covering caught it but was doing little dance steps to hit the base rather than those long running strides which are much easier to see. Maybe Joyce thought he missed the base or maybe he mis-saw which one of the steps hit it.

HahnSolo Jun 02 2010 06:59 PM Re: OOTS

Lost in the play is how far in the hole Migfatty Cabrera went to get to the ball.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 02 2010 07:00 PM Re: OOTS

HahnSolo wrote: Ballsy if he were really safe. Bad when the guy is clearly out. Well, ballsy either way. He called a close call as he saw it, knowing the stakes.

A Boy Named Seo Jun 02 2010 07:01 PM Re: OOTS

Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce And don't forget the leadoff sentence, too... James A. Joyce III (October 3 1955 - June 2, 2010) is the very worst umpire in Major League Baseball who has worked in the American League (AL) from 1987 to 1999 and throughout both major leagues since 2000. He attended Bowling Green State University. He wears uniform number 66 (he wore uniform number 6 while in the American League). His strike call is extremely loud and enthusiastic, similar to that of now-retired umpire Bruce Froemming. Joyce has umpired in the All-Star Game (1994 and 2001), the Division Series (1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2003), the League Championship Series (1997, 2004, 2006), and the World Series (1999 and 2001). After graduating from Bowling Green State University in 1977, he umpired in the Midwest League (1978-1979), the Florida Instructional League (1978), the Texas League (1980), the Pacific Coast League (1981-1986, 1988), the International League (1987), and the Dominican League (1983). Joyce was the second base umpire when Nolan Ryan recorded his 5,000th career strikeout and was the first base umpire when Robin Yount reached his 3,000th hit. On June 2, 2010, Joyce blew a call at first base which would have given Armando Galeragga of the Detroit Tigers a perfect game*[1]. His crew for the 2008 season included crew chief Tim Tschida, Jeff Nelson, and Mark Carlson. His crew for the 2009 season includes crew chief Derryl Cousins, Bill Miller, and Brian Runge. His crew for the 2010 season includes crew chief Derryl Cousins, Marvin Hudson and Jim Wolf.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 07:02 PM Re: OOTS

Jim Joyce, Don Denkinger. Don Denkinger, Jim Joyce.

themetfairy Jun 02 2010 07:02 PM Re: OOTS

I thought Galarraga's foot was in the air and may not have touched the base before the runner got there.

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 07:03 PM Re: OOTS

seawolf17 wrote: Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce Damn, that article is getting blasted hard right now. Fascinating. wikipedia wrote: James A. Joyce III (October 3 1955 - June 2, 2010) is the very worst umpire in Major League Baseball who has ... wikipedia is like a big ugly message board where everyone wants to be hte first to post about something regardess of accuracy. if i were wikipedia i'd ban for life whoever added a "death date" for Joyce.

Kong76 Jun 02 2010 07:03 PM Re: OOTS

Can't you just hear the replay gods bangin' their drums in the distance? If you can't, you will in the coming weeks and months ahead.

Zvon Jun 02 2010 07:04 PM Re: OOTS

I'd put this on TV but then my AM radio goes kabhlooey. My priorities are my priorities. Ill watch BB2nite

metsguyinmichigan Jun 02 2010 07:04 PM Re: OOTS

In-freaking-credible!

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 07:05 PM Re: OOTS

seawolf17 wrote: Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce Damn, that article is getting blasted hard right now. Fascinating. Something like fifty updates in the last ten minutes.

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 07:05 PM Re: OOTS

could someone protest the game to MLB? In any situation EXCEPT this one you can say "well we dont know what would have happened" the rest of the way, but here if they change that call there is no more game to be played

A Boy Named Seo Jun 02 2010 07:06 PM Re: OOTS

Nymr83 wrote: Already updated in paragraph four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Joyce Damn, that article is getting blasted hard right now. Fascinating. wikipedia wrote: James A. Joyce III (October 3 1955 - June 2, 2010) is the very worst umpire in Major League Baseball who has ... wikipedia is like a big ugly message board where everyone wants to be hte first to post about something regardess of accuracy. if i were wikipedia i'd ban for life whoever added a "death date" for Joyce. I totally missed the death date. That's sorta funny as long as he doesn't actually get murdered tonight.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 07:06 PM Re: OOTS

Kong76 wrote: Can't you just hear the replay gods bangin' their drums in the distance? If you can't, you will in the coming weeks and months ahead. Weeks and months? This is going to start so soon that you may even get a baseball discussion going on ESPN tomorrow during breathing breaks in their constant LeBron/Kobe/Celtics/Phil Jackson gab-fest.

bmfc1 Jun 02 2010 07:06 PM Re: OOTS

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 07:07 PM Re: OOTS

Nymr83 wrote: could someone protest the game to MLB? Hell no.

themetfairy Jun 02 2010 07:07 PM Re: OOTS

bmfc1 wrote: Is the foot actually down on the bag at that moment?

Chad Ochoseis Jun 02 2010 07:10 PM Re: OOTS

It doesn't look clear that he's caught the ball yet, either. I'd really like to see a slow-motion replay.

seawolf17 Jun 02 2010 07:11 PM Re: OOTS

themetfairy wrote: Is the foot actually down on the bag at that moment? What are you, Jim Joyce's sister? Dude was out. Yes, it was a bang-bang play, but... still.

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 07:12 PM Re: OOTS

Chad Ochoseis wrote: It doesn't look clear that he's caught the ball yet, either. I'd really like to see a slow-motion replay. they showed one on ESPN (they cut to the game from STL/CIN in the 9th), he was OUTTT

themetfairy Jun 02 2010 07:15 PM Re: OOTS

seawolf17 wrote: themetfairy wrote: Is the foot actually down on the bag at that moment? What are you, Jim Joyce's sister? Dude was out. Yes, it was a bang-bang play, but... still. LOL no. But Galarraga covered the base really awkwardly, and I'm just not convinced that his foot was actually down on the bag in time. I'd love to see a slow mo replay from the other angle.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 07:20 PM Re: OOTS

I'm sure you will, more times than you'll know. Meanwhile at wikipedia.org: This page is currently protected from editing due to vandalism.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 02 2010 07:22 PM Re: OOTS

I suspect Joyce has just worked his last Tigers game, possibly ever.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 07:28 PM Re: OOTS

An afterthought, but if the ruling (however incorrect) is that he beat the runner but didn't have possession, can't MLB rule that an error and at least award him the consolation prize of a no-hitter?

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 07:48 PM Re: OOTS Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 02 2010 07:56 PM

Edgy DC wrote: An afterthought, but if the ruling (however incorrect) is that he beat the runner but didn't have possession, can't MLB rule that an error and at least award him the consolation prize of a no-hitter? I'm not sure if MLB has ever over-ruled a scorer to do something like that.

bmfc1 Jun 02 2010 07:49 PM Re: OOTS Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 02 2010 07:56 PM

"Jim Joyce was distraught. "Most important call of my career and I kicked the s$&t out of it. I cost that kid a perfect game."" Peter King SI_PeterKing What a great moment in Comerica:Jim Joyce apologizes to Galarraga, Galarraga accepts, they hug. Class by Joyce, incredible class by the kid.

Nymr83 Jun 02 2010 07:56 PM Re: Gallaraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I'm not sure if MLB has ever over-ruled a scorer to do something like that. they've change hit/error calls in the past and added RBIs, etc.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 07:57 PM Re: Gallaraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Nymr83 wrote: I'm not sure if MLB has ever over-ruled a scorer to do something like that. they've change hit/error calls in the past and added RBIs, etc. Official scorers have changed their own prior decisions after the fact, but has MLB ever gone over the heads of one and over-ruled an official scorer?

seawolf17 Jun 02 2010 08:01 PM Re: Gallaraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

It's the Tigers' scorer, right? Could he/she go back and do that him/herself now? Would that be crass?

metirish Jun 02 2010 08:05 PM Re: OOTS

bmfc1 wrote: "Jim Joyce was distraught. "Most important call of my career and I kicked the s$&t out of it. I cost that kid a perfect game."" Peter King SI_PeterKing What a great moment in Comerica:Jim Joyce apologizes to Galarraga, Galarraga accepts, they hug. Class by Joyce, incredible class by the kid. Is this true?, if so then great. It doesn't help when every freaking baseball reporter is tweeting how this will define Joyce. Gallaraga is class for saying what he said.

themetfairy Jun 02 2010 08:06 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

If so, that's a real shame for the kid.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 02 2010 08:08 PM Re: Gallaraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Frayed Knot wrote: Nymr83 wrote: I'm not sure if MLB has ever over-ruled a scorer to do something like that. they've change hit/error calls in the past and added RBIs, etc. Official scorers have changed their own prior decisions after the fact, but has MLB ever gone over the heads of one and over-ruled an official scorer? This isn't an official scorer's call. A scorer may decide, among other things, whether a batter that has reached base safely, did so as a result of a hit or error. But the scorer does not get to decide whether the batter, as a preliminary matter, has a right to reach base safely. The scorer doesn't decide whether the play is a hit or out. Anyway, I feel bad for all involved. No doubt that if Joyce had the magic wand, he'd reverse his call.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 08:15 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

But regardless of whether he SHOULD have been out or not, the fact is he was called safe and in order for that 27th Indian batter's AB to be ruled an error and not a hit so as to give Galarraga a no-hitter even if not the perfect game IS a matter for the scorer. I don't see where MLB has any say in that.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 08:15 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

What I'm saying is that the scoring of the ball as a hit be possibly be re-ruled or over-ruled. I realize the perfect game cannot be restored. What I'm suggesting is that ruling the play an error can possibly restore the no-hitter, for what it's worth. I don't see where MLB has any say in that. But maybe the scorer can be persuaded to change his changeable ruling.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 02 2010 08:18 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Frayed Knot wrote: But regardless of whether he SHOULD have been out or not, the fact is he was called safe and in order for that 27th Indian batter's AB to be ruled an error and not a hit so as to give Galarraga a no-hitter even if not the perfect game IS a matter for the scorer. I don't see where MLB has any say in that. I see what you're saying. Hasn't that happened before? Haven't there been instances where a hit/error call was changed after the game was over? I'm sure there were.

Frayed Knot Jun 02 2010 08:20 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But regardless of whether he SHOULD have been out or not, the fact is he was called safe and in order for that 27th Indian batter's AB to be ruled an error and not a hit so as to give Galarraga a no-hitter even if not the perfect game IS a matter for the scorer. I don't see where MLB has any say in that. I see what you're saying. Hasn't that happened before? Haven't there been instances where a hit/error call was changed after the game was over? I'm sure there were. Yes, but (as far as I know) they were changed upon further review by the same guy who originally made them, not by some suit in MLB's Park Ave offices going over his head.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 02 2010 09:01 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I didn't see anything that looked like an error on the play. Changing the scoring would create a statistical fiction for no purpose other than to give Galarraga credit for the no-hitter. I don't see the point. Joyce blew the call, but blown calls are part of the game. Changing the scoring wouldn't change the game Galarraga pitched. If you really believe there was an error on the play, that's a different story.

Edgy DC Jun 02 2010 09:07 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Well, I believe the "fiction" was the safe call by Joyce. If the call was due to a belief that Gallaraga never had possession (I don't know if that's what he was thinking), then it would seemingly be the correct call to say the batter reached on an error. If he meant that the runner beat the pitcher, then what's done is done. What he called could only be ruled a hit.

Zvon Jun 02 2010 09:15 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Just saw the play. Its ashame, because everyone (ill include Leyland here cuz he did what a manager should do in this situation), aside from the tragically blown call, acted with pure class. From Gallaraga to Joyce. Esp Gallaraga. At least from what all Ive seen and heard so far. I don't think we need replay for things like this. Just better umps. (Leyland said he was a great ump tho,...I wouldn't know)

Benjamin Grimm Jun 03 2010 04:30 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Gallaraga may be able to take some consolation in the thought that he'll end up with more immortality because of this than he would have if he had actually gotten credit for the perfect game.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jun 03 2010 05:07 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Gallaraga may be able to take some consolation in the thought that he'll end up with more immortality because of this than he would have if he had actually gotten credit for the perfect game. This. I don't see the need to change the official scoring. The popular narrative of this game will be something like "the time an ump ruined the perfect game with two outs in the ninth," which is a pretty memorable story. More so, I'd argue, than "the time Armando Galarraga pitched a perfect game."

Chad Ochoseis Jun 03 2010 06:13 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Philosophical question: What's worse - this call, which cost a perfect game but didn't affect the outcome, or the same call in the same situation, but with a runner on third, the score tied, and no no-hitter on the line - i.e. the call costs the Tigers the game?

metirish Jun 03 2010 06:42 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Gallaraga may be able to take some consolation in the thought that he'll end up with more immortality because of this than he would have if he had actually gotten credit for the perfect game. Exactly , and he's already getting this kind of talk in the media, the way he responded during and after the game, the things he said , it's hard not to respect the person he is with the way he has handled it all. Gallaraga even said he feels worse for Joyce than he does for himself.

seawolf17 Jun 03 2010 06:55 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Philosophical question: What's worse - this call, which cost a perfect game but didn't affect the outcome, or the same call in the same situation, but with a runner on third, the score tied, and no no-hitter on the line - i.e. the call costs the Tigers the game? The second one, and that's obvious. Leyland would have gone completely apeshit in that instance; as upset as they were, they still realized they had a 3-0 lead to protect. If Galarraga comes unglued there and walks the next hitter, all of a sudden the tying run is at the plate.

Met Hunter Jun 03 2010 07:12 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Galaragga showed tremendous class. I have alot more respect for his handling of the situation than I do of his ability to throw a perfect game.

Fman99 Jun 03 2010 07:14 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

If Jim Joyce gets fired by MLB he can always get a job as governor of New York.

HahnSolo Jun 03 2010 07:15 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I just remembered...was anybody else watching the bottom of the 8th of this game? Joyce made a bad call at the bag, allowing Damon to reach base when he was pretty clearly out, leading to two insurance runs. [u:2wh0ahaq]Two [/u:2wh0ahaq]bad calls by the same umpire in the same game

metsguyinmichigan Jun 03 2010 08:15 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/columns/story?id=5245642 Ian O'Connor, proving he really is out there, calls on Bud Selig to use his "best interest" powers to overturn the Joyce call.

Edgy DC Jun 03 2010 08:23 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Yeah, that wouldn't be a dangerous precedent. No sir. Not at all.

TransMonk Jun 03 2010 08:24 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Yeah, I'm sorry but if Selig were to use any "power" to overturn this call, I'd have to stop paying attention to ML baseball for a while. It sucks that he blew the call, but Selig should be using his "power" to dicipline and refine the umpires so that this doesn't happen in the future. But it happened.

HahnSolo Jun 03 2010 09:04 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Was the pine tar game the last time a commish "overturned" an outcome? That decision--despite the fact that it turned an MFY win into a loss--was far more ridiculous I think, than were Selig to change this. Though I really can't see where changing the call would in any way be in the "best interest" of the game.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 03 2010 09:17 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

That's an interesting comparison. The difference, of course, is that one is a 'should this rule have been enforced in this way' thing verses a 'he looked safe to me' thing.

Met Hunter Jun 03 2010 09:33 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Maybe after Selig overturns the bad call, he can review the home plate umpires wide strike zone toward the end of the game. That ump clearly knew what his place in history would be.

Frayed Knot Jun 03 2010 10:35 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

HahnSolo wrote: Was the pine tar game the last time a commish "overturned" an outcome? That decision--despite the fact that it turned an MFY win into a loss--was far more ridiculous I think, than were Selig to change this. Though I really can't see where changing the call would in any way be in the "best interest" of the game. The 'Pine Tar' game was the league (AL office actually, not MLB as powers were distributed differently then) upholding a protest which was filed at the time by the aggrieved team over an umpire's interpretation of a rule not the reversal of a judgement call. Throw in the fact that if this were to be overturned it would be for the sole purpose of making the game a more tidy and happy story rather than correcting a wrong done to one team which potentially affected the outcome of a game and I think this case would be much more interventionist.

Frayed Knot Jun 03 2010 11:04 AM Re: OOTS

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I suspect Joyce has just worked his last Tigers game, possibly ever. Unless you count the fact that he'll be working the plate in today's game.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 03 2010 11:28 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I know that, if Jim Joyce's name is going to remind me of anyone, it should be James Joyce, the author of Ulysses and other works. But my recent experience with Joyce Kilmer gets in the way, and I find myself wondering if this umpire is a man or a woman.

metirish Jun 03 2010 12:08 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

tweet from heyman via Keith Olbermann "selig involved , will have statement today, commissioners office meeting to discuss "imperfect game"

Frayed Knot Jun 03 2010 12:13 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS) Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 03 2010 12:15 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know that, if Jim Joyce's name is going to remind me of anyone, it should be James Joyce, the author of Ulysses and other works. But my recent experience with Joyce Kilmer gets in the way, and I find myself wondering if this umpire is a man or a woman. [overly macho]Well, Joyce is reported to have cried both last night after he realized his error and again today when Galarraga brought out the lineup cards ... so, yeah, he is a girl.[/joke] tweet from heyman via Keith Olbermann "selig involved , will have statement today, commissioners office meeting to discuss "imperfect game" Olbermann is among those who want Selig to "fix" this (ie. overturn the call) so it's no surprise that he's passing along this info, probably in rapt anticipation.

metirish Jun 03 2010 12:14 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Photo credit: AP Photo | Home plate umpire Jim Joyce wipes tears during the exchange of lineup cards between Cleveland Indians bench coach Tim Tolman, left, and Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga, right before a baseball game in Detroit Thursday, June 3, 2010. Galarraga lost his bid for a perfect game with two outs in the ninth inning on a disputed call at first base by Joyce on Tuesday night.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 03 2010 12:20 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

smg58 Jun 03 2010 01:04 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I feel worse for Joyce than I do for Gallaraga. Although, like players after a bad day, sometimes the best thing to do is go right back out there. I've never really understood the resistance to replays. I don't see why it would have been so hard before this happened to figure out that this is the kind of thing you never want to happen and it's really easy to prevent.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 03 2010 01:18 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Understanding the resistance should be easy: a) The game is long enough already without breaks to review film several times a game. b) Replays in very many cases aren't conclusive. c) Calls good and bad have been a part of the game forever; sublimating umpires' authority to make them won't make their calls get any better. d) The umps get the vast majority right to begin with

metsguyinmichigan Jun 03 2010 01:31 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I suspect the way in which Joyce and Armando handled the situation last night was the factor in him remaining in this series. Had it been ugly instead of classy, I believe they would have yanked him out of there.

Zvon Jun 03 2010 01:32 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

This situation can't be reversed imo. I will also have a problem with MLB if it is. Not that I'm over my last problem that robbed us all of a World Series. Hey guys, I know that this guy has been ripped off of his place on the list of perfect game pitchers. But we ALL know he pitched one. He lost it to human error, like sometimes it goes in baseball. And it wasn't a player and it was on the last out and..... Doesn't this kinda make him more famous than anyone else on that list? What happened to him had NEVER happened before in the history of the game. Maybe he opens up a whole new category in baseball stats in this day and age. Blown calls. I doubt this one will ever be topped. Seriously though, he certainly has now become a HUGE part of baseball lore and if I were him, I might just be happy and content with that. The game is what it is and these things happen.

Gwreck Jun 03 2010 01:34 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I generally dislike Jayson Stark but the idea he was positing yesterday was for each manager to get one replay challenge per game. I don't see that as a problem.

Willets Point Jun 03 2010 01:39 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

And so the 28-out Perfect Game goes down in history with the Grand Slam Single.

metirish Jun 03 2010 01:42 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

What does Jeter think?

metsguyinmichigan Jun 03 2010 01:48 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

metirish wrote: What does Jeter think? BINGO! that's the problem when you start overturning stuff. Can you imagine what would happen every time a call went against this weasel?

Centerfield Jun 03 2010 01:52 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

There are plenty of logistical problems to replay as well. For instance, what if a ball to the outfield is ruled a catch, but in fact, it's a single. Where do you send the runners? Does the baserunner on second get awarded the plate? What if it's ruled a hit, but in fact, the outfielder caught it? That seems easier, everyone goes back to their base, but what if the runner would have been clearly doubled off?

holychicken Jun 03 2010 02:46 PM Re: OOTS

Nymr83 wrote: wikipedia is like a big ugly message board where everyone wants to be hte first to post about something regardess of accuracy. if i were wikipedia i'd ban for life whoever added a "death date" for Joyce. It is virtually as accurate as any other encyclopedia. the major difference is that when a discrepancy is brought up, it is fixed much more rapidly than any other. Also, it is, by far, the largest and most complete one out there. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But I think it gets an unnecessarily bad rap when the reality of the situation is that it is probably the best encyclopedia there is. Sorry for the OT. But I am with Willets. I will remember this as the only 28 out perfect game in history. What's the good of getting into the record books other than recognition, fame and going down in the history books? I can't name every other pitcher to throw a perfect game, but I have a feeling I will remember THIS perfect game by Galarraga for the rest of my life.

HahnSolo Jun 03 2010 02:50 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Zvon wrote: Hey guys, I know that this guy has been ripped off of his place on the list of perfect game pitchers. But we ALL know he pitched one. He lost it to human error, like sometimes it goes in baseball. And it wasn't a player and it was on the last out and..... Doesn't this kinda make him more famous than anyone else on that list? What happened to him had NEVER happened before in the history of the game. We all know he pitched one right now. But memories and history can be a little funny. Maybe history will treat him like Harvey Haddix, remembered for extended greatness before eventually falling short. But perhaps his name will become an asterisk to the story, if more people remember the name Jim Joyce. I am sure there were plenty of heroes for the Royals in game 6 of 1985, but I don't remember any of them. I do remember Don Denkinger, though. I think one of the Iorg brothers was involved in the final play, but I'd have to look it up.

Edgy DC Jun 03 2010 03:01 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I think an important part of the Haddix legend was that he stuck around for a while, with a 17-ish-year career and many many years as a big league pitching coach. For decades, the camera would pass him by sitting on a big-league bench and the broadcaster would recount the story for the umpteenth time.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 03 2010 03:06 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Babe Ruth is another pitcher who pitched a perfect game that didn't count. (Because his was as a relief pitcher. The starter's name, I think, was Ernie Shaw.) Of course, there's no way to be sure the feat would be as legendary if the pitcher was a much lesser-known player. But I think it would be remembered anyway. Most fans know of Johnny Van Der Meer, and his overall career wasn't all that.

metirish Jun 03 2010 03:14 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Selig says no.

Frayed Knot Jun 03 2010 03:16 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Babe Ruth is another pitcher who pitched a perfect game that didn't count. (Because his was as a relief pitcher. The starter's name, I think, was Ernie Shaw.) Actually I believe it was the other way around. Ruth started, walked the first batter, and then got his ass ejected for disputing one of the calls. Shaw came in the relieve, the runner was caught stealing (or picked off) and Shaw went on the get the next 26 batters. There were a whole bunch of quasi no-hitters which were erased by a committee some 20 years back. The Ruth/Shaw game was one of them. The most notable was the Harvey Haddix gem which he lost in the (13th?) inning on an error, an IW, and a HR-turned-2B. Because Haddix didn't finish the game with no hits allowed it was ruled neither a no-hitter nor a perfect game even though he was perfect thru 12.

Zvon Jun 03 2010 03:17 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

HahnSolo wrote: Zvon wrote: Hey guys, I know that this guy has been ripped off of his place on the list of perfect game pitchers. But we ALL know he pitched one. He lost it to human error, like sometimes it goes in baseball. And it wasn't a player and it was on the last out and..... Doesn't this kinda make him more famous than anyone else on that list? What happened to him had NEVER happened before in the history of the game. We all know he pitched one right now. But memories and history can be a little funny. Maybe history will treat him like Harvey Haddix, remembered for extended greatness before eventually falling short. But perhaps his name will become an asterisk to the story, if more people remember the name Jim Joyce. I am sure there were plenty of heroes for the Royals in game 6 of 1985, but I don't remember any of them. I do remember Don Denkinger, though. I think one of the Iorg brothers was involved in the final play, but I'd have to look it up. Point well taken.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 03 2010 03:56 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

That's right. Ruth was the starter, and Shaw, or Shore, was the 9-perfect-inning reliever.

Ashie62 Jun 03 2010 08:54 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

metirish wrote: Selig says no. Sometimes one has to do what is right, even if it sets a precedent. Bud, F U

metirish Jun 03 2010 08:55 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

CNBC numb-nut http://deadspin.com/5554891/unrelated-b ... ny-at-cnbc

metsmarathon Jun 04 2010 07:43 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. the reason we accept human error in baseball officiating is because we are forced to, as for 150 years or so, humans were the best thing we could come up with to judge the events on the field against the criteria set forth in the rule book. humans, being inherently imperfect, are expected to make mistakes at times. yet we still ask, nay, demand of them to strive towards perfection. do we not demand of our umpires to get the maximum number of calls correct? and isn't what distinguishes baseball officiating from officiating in most other major sports that there are virtually no judgment calls - that everything is either black or it is white - with the possible exception of the declaring the applicability of the infield fly rule, or whether a player left the basepaths to disrupt the defense? balls and strikes - either the ball is within the imaginary box, or it is not. safe or out - either the batter beat the ball to the bag, or he did not. fair or foul - either the ball is on this side of the line, or it is not. catch or trap - either the ball hit the glove first, or the ground. there's no "gee, did he touch the other player too hard, or not? did he grab his jersey but not yank too hard, or let go quickly enough? was that kick to the groin or slapshot to the face really just incidental?" if baseball could eliminate the potential for the officials to make mistakes, would not that be the most pure form of the sport - you go out there and play, and your actions alone determine the outcome? if baseball could eliminate the umpires, and the calls could be made instantly, accurately, and automatically, would that really be an abomination, or would it be more perfectly capturing the intended function of the umpires? more to the point, there is already precedent established whereby instant replay can be used. i'm not talking about the boundary calls on home runs. the umpires are already allowed to request assistance in making a call from their peers, and in fact may consider arguments made by the players on the field and other uniformed personnel such as the manager and base coaches. and if a sufficient case is made, the umpire is permitted to reverse his call, and even make a determination on where the baserunners should be positioned as a result of teh modified outcome of the play. there is also precedent for adding additional umpires to the field of play, as in teh playoffs we add a pair of umpires down teh lines for the express purpose of calling home runs (fair foul, too? i forget..) so how is that appreciably different than installing a fifth umpire who is able to reinforce or overturn calls made on teh field when sufficient evidence is presented? i've gotta say that 99% of the questionable calls can be resolved by the television broadcasters before teh next pitch is made. why cannot a fifth umpire, with his ever-watching eye, also have a hi-def terminal with multiple simultaneous camera angles available to him to make a rapid assessment of the accuracy of a call in question? if he can't resolve the matter in 30 seconds, the call on teh field stands. and i don't know why that should serve to undermine the authority of teh umpires. in the case of the imperfect game, joyce himself has stated that he made an error, and wishes he could reverse the call. and how often does a call look blown in real time, but then on instant replay, teh tv crew is amazed that the umpire was actually able to get it right? when the home plate umpire asks for a ruling from the first base umpire on a check swing, does that undermine his authority to call that same play unassisted? how is that any different, except that all of a sudden there'd be technology involved?

Ashie62 Jun 04 2010 07:58 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Gallaraga's game was pure. He misses the opportunity to have the ball go to the HOF and likely misses some memorabilia earning power post-career.

themetfairy Jun 04 2010 08:08 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Ashie62 wrote: Gallaraga's game was pure. He misses the opportunity to have the ball go to the HOF and likely misses some memorabilia earning power post-career. Actually, I think his earning power has just gone up tremendously. Everybody loves how he handled the situation with such class. I think this is going to translate into endorsements and will serve him well in future contract negotiations. I told my husband last night that his agent must be in heaven right now, because this kid is totally marketable.

MFS62 Jun 04 2010 09:17 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

themetfairy wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Gallaraga's game was pure. He misses the opportunity to have the ball go to the HOF and likely misses some memorabilia earning power post-career. Actually, I think his earning power has just gone up tremendously. Everybody loves how he handled the situation with such class. I think this is going to translate into endorsements and will serve him well in future contract negotiations. I told my husband last night that his agent must be in heaven right now, because this kid is totally marketable. Plus, baseball fans have long memories of weird stuff like this. I'd bet Harvey Haddix is still remembered for his 13 inning "non-perfect game" over 50 years ago more than some of the pitchers who pitched a perfecto since then. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 04 2010 09:26 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Also... there's not a chance the HOF doesn't get his ball in its hall. This is the Merkle-y, Bartman-y stuff from which baseball lore is made.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 04 2010 09:47 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

metsmarathon wrote: i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. Yesterday afternoon I was in my car driving and I put on the "FAN", thinking that perhaps, the station might be carrying the Buffalo game because Strasburg was pitching. Instead, the station was broadcasting its normal programming, which at that moment was Mike Francesca. Mike was browbeating some caller-in who thought that MLB should institute some form of replay. Francesca's argument (harangue, really) against replay was based entirely on the premise that Mike was comfortable with the current state of things. "I'm fine with the way things are" said Mike. And that was that. It was the Mikey Likes It defense.

Willets Point Jun 04 2010 10:08 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I like metsmarathon's take on this, especially this part: so how is that appreciably different than installing a fifth umpire who is able to reinforce or overturn calls made on teh field when sufficient evidence is presented? i've gotta say that 99% of the questionable calls can be resolved by the television broadcasters before teh next pitch is made. why cannot a fifth umpire, with his ever-watching eye, also have a hi-def terminal with multiple simultaneous camera angles available to him to make a rapid assessment of the accuracy of a call in question? if he can't resolve the matter in 30 seconds, the call on teh field stands. That resolves a lot of the "delay-of-game/momentum" objections. In fact I've long thought the NFL should have a specified video replay referee instead of having a guy on the field go off and look in that little monitor window. A video replay umpire in a soundproof booth communicating with the on-field umpires by a cellphone and making quick decisions on contested calls sounds like an acceptable idea to me. I'm down with tradition but I don't think that we should also accept errors just because of tradition.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 04 2010 10:25 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. Yesterday afternoon I was in my car driving and I put on the "FAN", thinking that perhaps, the station might be carrying the Buffalo game because Strasburg was pitching. Instead, the station was broadcasting its normal programming, which at that moment was Mike Francesca. Mike was browbeating some caller-in who thought that MLB should institute some form of replay. Francesca's argument (harangue, really) against replay was based entirely on the premise that Mike was comfortable with the current state of things. "I'm fine with the way things are" said Mike. And that was that. It was the Mikey Likes It defense. I just remembered Francesca mocking that caller by repeating like three or four times in a row: "Whaddya want? Robots? You want Robots? Robots? Is that what you want?"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 04 2010 10:33 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I just remembered Francesca mocking that caller by repeating like three or four times in a row: "Whaddya want? Robots? You want Robots? Robots? Is that what you want?" Holy crap. Yes. Yes, I want robots. Baseball is a sport whose appeal has been inextricably wrapped up with nostalgia for the better part of fifty years, right? (I mean, hell... what do WE sit around doing on off days here?) The Francesas and "human-apologists" are just a few of the flies buzzing around the hardcore traditionalist poop pile. Sentimentalists may like the human factor*, but public sentiment increasingly leans toward the rise of the machines. Nice assaying, marathon. *And criminy-- we're not talking about "smoothing" visible brushstrokes in the Mona Lisa or making the Pieta more anatomically/physically correct. We're talking about not going by "feel" on when the game clock buzzer went off in relation to the game-winning basketball shot, or-- maybe more to the point-- not adjuticating the race between fastest-humans-alive by eyeballin' it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 04 2010 10:37 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I'm with Mike, you know, not about Robots or whatever, but that I like having games called by people, who are as a part of the game as anyone. Certainly better than an equally obnoxious Michael Kay who yesterday was all sweaty over DOING THE RIGHT THING. I think this guy has good take on it: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-wilker/defending-mistakes_b_600559.html Josh Wilker Author of Cardboard Gods: An All-American Tale Told Through Baseball Cards Posted: June 4, 2010 10:03 AM Defending Mistakes I dread the inevitable. I was going to say "I dread the inevitable expansion of instant replay in major league baseball" (inevitable because of the watershed moment earlier this week of Jim Joyce's blown call of what should have been the last out in Armando Galarraga's attempt to pitch a perfect game), but I decided to stop and insert a period after the first four words because they seemed to have accidentally, perhaps you could say mistakenly, hit on a greater personal truth beyond the more pointed thesis I intended to hammer home with terse, manly, bracing clarity today. I'll get to the expanded version of my intended opening sentence in a moment, I hope, but first let me digress (for digressing is the closest I'll ever get to finding a refuge from doom) and say that I dread the inevitable. I dread the end. I dread the unstoppable march toward the end. I wish I could press a button and stop time. But you can't stop time and you can't even really digress much these days, because who wants to sit around reading long, looping, allusive sentences that suddenly veer off target to reach for things that are lost for good, like one of the mushy baseballs my brother and I used to buy at the general store down the road and then knock into the tall baseball-eating grass where our sheep grazed (Virginia was her name, and she was in some ways the symbolic center of my family's 1970s back-to-the-land dream, which eventually failed [symbolically ending the day Virginia came home in little white packages that everyone was too sad to ever eat] and in failing became eligible to be deemed, in retrospect, a mistake, perhaps even something to have been avoided, had there been some technological, time-stopping means of doing so), the loss of one of the mushy balls always seeming like the product of some mistake that disabled our flimsy two-boy game and opened us back up to the fading of the light from the sky, the end of the day, the march of time, the inevitable -- I mean who wants to get involved in that kind of melancholy textual aimlessness these days what with all the other quick-hitting entertainment opportunities available? So enough! I came here not to waste precious time but to argue! Specifically! About something! And that something is the inevitable expansion of the use of instant replay in major league baseball! Only a moron and/or a societal outcast could argue against the inevitable expansion of the use of instant replay in major league baseball at this point, given the evidence in favor of such an expansion provided by the historically freighted judgment call that the human in the position of authority, Jim Joyce, got wrong. But I guess I am that moron and/or societal outcast. Something about the profoundly boring and predictable nature of the uproar over the event, and the uproar-fueling media-led mob-march toward legislating in rules to make everything smooth as an android's skin, has me wanting to argue in defense of mistakes. Maybe mistakes are our only divergence from the inevitable. I mean, in the vastness of barren space, this tiny blue globe of vibrant life stands out as a brief, inexplicable mistake. And everywhere on this earth, mistakes key strange, unexpected growth. Jazz singer Jon Hendricks once said, "It wouldn't be jazz without the mistakes." Christopher Columbus found this continent by mistake. Judging from my mother and father's separation from one another in the 1970s, a separation that suggested the original coupling was a bad call, my very existence was the product of a mistake. My parents' attempt during that mistake-filled decade to establish a utopian life in the country, in which we would grow all our own food, also proved to be untenable, another mistake, though I trace the deepest loves and joys and hopes of my life to the love and joy and hope embedded in that mistake. In the years of that continuous mistake, my childhood, I poured myself into baseball, absorbing a vast colorful world not through telecasts of games stripped clean of mistakes but through homely, error-pocked baseball cards and through books and through static-ridden radio broadcasts of games and through numbers and through my own weedy, distorting imagination. Thusly, baseball got into my bones, mistakes and all, and grew to the point where I can't tell where my own self ends and baseball begins. But if, or when, baseball games begin to resemble the drudgery of professional football -- brief moments of action giving way constantly to officials gathered around a video monitor -- I will finally know where I end and where a slicker, more sterile version of my favorite game begins. And I don't want to know where I end.

metirish Jun 04 2010 10:49 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: i find it maddening that baseball "purists" are falling all over themselves trying to defend and protect and reinforce the "human element" of baseball officiating. i'd like to rebrand them "errorists" or "inaccurists" in this regard. Yesterday afternoon I was in my car driving and I put on the "FAN", thinking that perhaps, the station might be carrying the Buffalo game because Strasburg was pitching. Instead, the station was broadcasting its normal programming, which at that moment was Mike Francesca. Mike was browbeating some caller-in who thought that MLB should institute some form of replay. Francesca's argument (harangue, really) against replay was based entirely on the premise that Mike was comfortable with the current state of things. "I'm fine with the way things are" said Mike. And that was that. It was the Mikey Likes It defense. I just remembered Francesca mocking that caller by repeating like three or four times in a row: "Whaddya want? Robots? You want Robots? Robots? Is that what you want?" I heard him , maybe it was the same caller.......Francesa was all belligerent with this one caller who's opening gambit was fuel to Frances'a fire...." I think you're totally wrong on this Mike and I'll tell you why"......" WAS HE SAFE OR OUT....HUH....HUH...YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT....THERE'S NO MECHANISM IN BASEBALL TO CHANGE THE CALL......I'M ASKING YOU, WAS HE SAFE AT FIRST OR OUT?....."ah , Mike , you really think he was safe?"......" WELL WAS HE CALLED SAFE...HUH ....HUH..." It was hilarious...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 04 2010 10:58 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 04 2010 12:43 PM

Maybe mistakes are our only divergence from the inevitable. I mean, in the vastness of barren space, this tiny blue globe of vibrant life stands out as a brief, inexplicable mistake. And everywhere on this earth, mistakes key strange, unexpected growth. Jazz singer Jon Hendricks once said, "It wouldn't be jazz without the mistakes." Christopher Columbus found this continent by mistake. Judging from my mother and father's separation from one another in the 1970s, a separation that suggested the original coupling was a bad call, my very existence was the product of a mistake. My parents' attempt during that mistake-filled decade to establish a utopian life in the country, in which we would grow all our own food, also proved to be untenable, another mistake, though I trace the deepest loves and joys and hopes of my life to the love and joy and hope embedded in that mistake. I like Josh Wilker, and I can fall into one of his paragraphs for a day or so. But this is a gigantic load of horseplop. We're not talking about eliminating sidearm pitchers, or forcing all batters to stand the exact same way in the box. We're not talking-- in other words-- about eliminating jazz or the miracle of life; we're talking about eliminating something tantamount to dumb, unfair loopholes in the tax code that have somehow managed to survive several decades. We're talking about tightening up rules and regulations so as to ensure their even execution. Those who wax poetic over the joyous mistake would be best served to remember that the overwhelming majority of mistakes made in this world end up serving those involved rather poorly. The "happy accident" is notable because it's so rare.

G-Fafif Jun 04 2010 12:03 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I want m.e.t.b.o.t. to be the final arbiter of all close calls.

metsmarathon Jun 04 2010 04:17 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

mistakes are great - ask the gulf coast!

Edgy DC Jun 04 2010 05:02 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Well, that was a mistake mistake. Wait, what?

Edgy DC Jun 04 2010 05:05 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Edgy DC wrote: Well, that was a mistake mistake. Wait, what? Seriously, the "well, that's a part of the game" argument can only take you so far. So were a lot of things until they weren't. Some things that are "time-honored" are eventually dishonered by justice to a far greater degree.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 04 2010 06:13 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

I wonder how many home run calls have been overturned because of instant replay? I don't have a problem with instant replay on a short leash. I don't want them using it on every close play. And absolutely not on balls and strikes. But I can see some situations. On the down side, some of the drama would be gone, as well as the instant reactions. We wouldn't have the iconic scene of Willie Mays on his knees yelling to Augie Donatelli in Game 2 that Harrelson was safe, we'd have Yogi ambling over to Donatelli and telling him to go look at the tape.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 04 2010 06:32 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

metsmarathon wrote: mistakes are great - ask the gulf coast! This says a lot about why I have mixed feelings about instant replay. Part of the fun of sports is that it's not serious - a monumental mistake means only that some pitcher gets jerked out of the honor that comes with achieving what's basically a statistical anomaly. Nobody dies, and major bodies of water aren't ravaged. Adding replay to the mix is a way of saying that an ump's call is so important that we need to employ the latest advanced technologies to be sure that it's absolutely perfect, because a baseball game is just too important to screw up. That being said, I can see the merit in getting a call right if it can be done without too much hassle. The 30-second rule sounds reasonable. Maybe add to it that at least one of the on-field umps has to agree to review the call, just to keep the creatively intelligent weenies of the game (Tony LaRussa, I'm looking at you) from using reviews as a device to slow the game down for other purposes.

Edgy DC Jun 04 2010 06:47 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Nobody dies, but even the slightest (even symbolic) injustice can foment the sort of resentments that can lead to violence. So justice is always an ideal worth pursuing, even in the smallest matter. Certainly a handful of futbol refs have been victimized. Just keep your sense of perspective, and any changes you choose to make should be deliberate and probably gradual. Don't, you know, sprint toward it and bungle it beyond recognition. Howie is making the argument that using electronics to improve umping in the future is somehow pointless in the future because you can't undo the umping of the past. "What are you gonna do? Call up the 1985 Cards and 1985 tell them to restart the World Series from the point of Don Denkinger's blown call?" Very disappointing logic.

metsmarathon Jun 04 2010 08:38 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

i don't think you should use instant replay to call balls and strikes. granted, i don't think you need to use a human for that, at all. some ball/strike calls might even come quicker. with instant replay, we also wouldn't have that wonderful moment where a young jeffrey maier set into motion perhaps the greatest crock of baloney we've been privvy to for the past fifteen years. with instant replay, derek jeter wouldn't have an edge. he'd just have a long fly ball.

Edgy DC Jun 04 2010 10:10 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Davey Johnson maybe wins his second World Championship and goes on to the Hall of Fame.

G-Fafif Jun 05 2010 06:00 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Edgy DC wrote: ...any changes you choose to make should be deliberate and probably gradual. Incrementalism is indeed the key. I wish that every time the subject of instant replay comes up, the pundit class didn't immediately skip to Worst Case Scenario Step 18 -- Robots Eat Our Young or do a retromock a la "why don't ya dig up Fred Merkle?" Slopes are only as slippery as we choose to make them. Hone it, fine-tune it, test it, think it through. But do something, not just because you can, but because there is the distinct possibility that the quality of the game experience will be improved on a net basis. I can stand a delay of a couple of minutes for a correct ruling if it means my team (or accurate accounting) isn't jobbed.

Zvon Jun 05 2010 10:05 AM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Zvon wrote: I don't think we need replay for things like this. Just better umps. (Leyland said he was a great ump tho,...I wouldn't know) I must stand corrected because I have read many things about Joyce the ump since this happened. I learned what kind of man he is the rather quickly. Over this week I have learned he is one of the best umps in the game. After reading what former umps Springstead and Denkinger thought in the Post and the Daily News, I am starting to bend on this replay business a little bit.

Edgy DC Jun 05 2010 12:56 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Yeah, somewhat overlooked is that a bad call can have two direct victims --- the player who got jobbed, and the ump who everybody knows was wrong but has his mistake locked in for eternity, no matter how desperately he subsequenlty wants and needs to be over-ruled.

Zvon Jun 05 2010 03:25 PM Re: Galarraga and Joyce (split from OOTS)

Found this in my files. So I change my mind again. He sucks.