Galarraga gets robbed of a perfect game

[Indoor66]

The problem with the MLB is that they are entirely far too entrenched in tradition. They are scared that this will open the gates for instant-replay. They are scared to set a precedent.

Selig, this makes me sad. You can do right. You are so far detached from baseball reality. You are incredibly severed from the pulse of the game... the fans.

I already knew the answer right after this happened. The MLB will do nothing.

I disagree. The tradition of baseball is it's strength. The game has it's foibles - runs, hits AND errors. They are each part of the game. It is the charm of baseball.

Instant replay would only extend games and remove a great deal of that charm. I like the human element to remain in sports. In the law we say that "hard cases make bad law." The same applies to many other things.

[cspan37421]

I disagree. The tradition of baseball is it's strength. The game has it's foibles - runs, hits AND errors. They are each part of the game. It is the charm of baseball.

Instant replay would only extend games and remove a great deal of that charm. I like the human element to remain in sports.

I do too, but I'm satisfied if the human element (error) is limited to that exhibited by the players (or managers/coaches) - e.g., the pitcher who hangs a curve, and the slugger who jumps on it, or the baserunner who foolishly challenges the throwing arm of a catcher or an outfielder.

It would not bother me to reduce errors of judgment in adjudicating the game. Such errors add no charm to the game for me, only a sense of either bitterness or unfairly-won gains.

[Indoor66]

I do too, but I'm satisfied if the human element (error) is limited to that exhibited by the players (or managers/coaches) - e.g., the pitcher who hangs a curve, and the slugger who jumps on it, or the baserunner who foolishly challenges the throwing arm of a catcher or an outfielder.

It would not bother me to reduce errors of judgment in adjudicating the game. Such errors add no charm to the game for me, only a sense of either bitterness or unfairly-won gains.

I don't see it as unfair, I see it as I do in golf - a rub of the green.

[blazindw]

I disagree. The tradition of baseball is it's strength. The game has it's foibles - runs, hits AND errors. They are each part of the game. It is the charm of baseball.

Instant replay would only extend games and remove a great deal of that charm. I like the human element to remain in sports. In the law we say that "hard cases make bad law." The same applies to many other things.

Personally (and I thought this before the 28-out perfect game), I think that baseball needs to get off its high horse and expand video replay. Baseball keeps tracks of runs, hits and errors. That doesn't include umpire errors. If I recall correctly, the Galarraga play would be one of few plays in history (if any) that if overturned would not change the course of the game, but only history. The one thing that pains me is that Galarraga's performance will not be honored with baseball's great pitching performances. He won't have a mitt or hat in the HOF (undoubtedly, the Tigers will honor him, but not baseball)...why? Because baseball doesn't honor almost-perfect games. I don't believe even Harvey Haddix has anything in the HOF, but if he did, he would probably be the only one.

There's one fundamental question that I've never seen a straight answer from the rank-and-file that believe in preserving the "human element" and not giving Galarraga the perfecto he earned and deserved: What's so bad about making something obviously wrong right again? To protect the human element? If I had an obvious grading mistake on the bar exam that was the difference between passing and failing, best believe they would correct that mistake instead of saying "yea, that's definitely wrong and our mistake, but that's the human element...sorry, you failed."

[Channing]

There's one fundamental question that I've never seen a straight answer from the rank-and-file that believe in preserving the "human element" and not giving Galarraga the perfecto he earned and deserved: What's so bad about making something obviously wrong right again? To protect the human element? If I had an obvious grading mistake on the bar exam that was the difference between passing and failing, best believe they would correct that mistake instead of saying "yea, that's definitely wrong and our mistake, but that's the human element...sorry, you failed."

The primary difference is that the bar exam has policies stating that if there is a misgrade, they will regrade and correct the error. Changing the Gallaraga call is the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves a perfect game, but hopefully this spurs MLB to action to review their replay rule. To change the call after the fact is, imo, a spur reaction.

Should the play in 91 have been revisited after the game when Hrbek clearly, and I mean CLEARLY, manhandled Ron Gant? There are too many missed calls to allow some to be changed after teh fact and not all of them. With a new policy, the play can be reviewed when it occurs, regardless of the situation.

I also like the idea, I think recomended on this board, if a manager comes out to argue its an automatic ejection.

[cspan37421]

There are too many missed calls to allow some to be changed after teh fact and not all of them.

But how many missed calls would have, if called correctly, ended a game? Correcting those, it seems to me, would cause minimal disruption, both stat wise and strategy wise. It's as clean of a break as you can have, seems to me. And as I hinted, I don't think there are very many of those.

[Channing]

But how many missed calls would have, if called correctly, ended a game? Correcting those, it seems to me, would cause minimal disruption, both stat wise and strategy wise. It's as clean of a break as you can have, seems to me. And as I hinted, I don't think there are very many of those.

I agree with you 100%. However, I think there should be a rule instituted saying as much rather than allowing for revisionist history.

And for the record, I think Armando Gallaraga is going to have much much more name recognition in the long run than if he had thrown a perfect game.

[rasputin]

I'm currently reading an excellent book about the 1921 season -- "1921" by Lyle Spatz and Steve Steinberg -- and it seems like there's something on every other page that relates to what we're talking about.

During that season, literally dozens of games were protested -- usually on the basis of disputes over umpire's judgement calls. As far as I can tell, none of those protests were upheld that season but the very fact that so many protests were made seems to indicate that there was some expectation that an umpire's judgment could be overturned -- especially I think in the National League.

I do know that respect for the umpire's authority was one of the very pubicly announced cornerstones of Ban Johnson's American League when it became a major league in 1901. I know that National League teams and managers treated umps with contempt at that time and that rulings were continually overturned.

I'm not sure when it stopped, but the evidence of what I'm reading indicates that by 1921, both leagues were willing to back their umps. I'm just guessing on this last part, but I suspect it was a fairly recent development in the National League.

Part of the problem in that league was John McGraw, who was a law unto himself. The Baltimore team that he played on before the turn of the century was renowned for its lawlessness and its contempt for the umpires and its willingness to break any rule it could get away with. McGraw was first hired as manager of the new Baltimore team in the AL (which soon jumped to New York), but his frequent clashes with the umps and with Ban Johnson quickly led to his jump to the NL New York Giants -- where he continued to bully umpires with only occassional resistance from the league office.

I bring up McGraw because in many ways, he was like Billy Martin at the time of the George Brett case -- although Martin was far more sharply controlled by the league. Still, like McGraw, he was famous -- or was that infamous -- for working the angles.

I had fogotten the missed base ploy that he tried in the ordered replay of the Brett game -- typical Martin ... so typical that McPhail anticipated it and had the affidavid from the original umps prepared.

I do take issue with Mal's characterization that Martin was "weasly" for sitting on his challenge to Brett's bat.

I'm not saying that Martin wasn't weasly -- he was -- but I don't see this as an example of it. It's classic baseball gamesmanship -- whenever you have information like this (usually it's when you notice the other team batting out of order), you sit on it until you can use it to help your team. Pointing out that Brett's bat had too much pine tar before the game wouldn't have hurt Brett or helped the Yankees -- you wait until he got a key hit THEN you protest.

PS If you like baseball history and want an interesting, well-researched read, I would recommend "1921" -- fascinating look at the season after the Black Sox scandal broke ... also baseball trying to adjust to the "lively ball" ... also great pennant races leading to the first all-New York World Series (the first pennant ever for the Yankees and the first world championship since 1905 for McGraw's Giants). Also, Babe Ruth turned in what many historians believe was the greatest single batting season in baseball history that year.

Olympic Fan is, as he usually is in matters baseball, correct about the similarity between Martin and McGraw. Of course, Martin is part of McGraw's family tree: McGraw begat Casey Stengel, and Stengel begat Martin.