Rulebook Guru

Instant Replay Series: Yankees Robbed!

2012-12-01T12:28:00.003-07:00

For many years, the Yankees have been the beneficiaries of many poor and controversial calls. I'm sure it started back before the Babe was calling his shots, but we didn’t have high-def instant replay or twitter, so not as many of us were up in arms about it. But just in the expanded post-season era there have been several examples of calls that were made that almost seemed like there was a memo from the top to ensure the Yankees got whatever breaks they needed to win the World Series. This started in the 1996 ALCS when in the 8th inning of Game 1, Yankee fan Jeffrey Maier reached over the right field fence at Yankee Stadium to prevent Tony Tarasco from making a routine catch on a deep fly ball. Instead of being ruled spectator interference, the Umpiring crew ruled it a game tying home run. Yankees went on to win that game, the ALCS and their first World Series since 1978.

In 1999 in the ALCS against the Red Sox, the Yankees were again helped when a phantom tag helped Chuck Knoblauch turn a double play in the 8th inning of a 1 run Game 4. Instead of the Series being tied at 2 games New York took a commanding 3-1 lead, and again went on to win the World Series - their third of four in a five year span.

In 2009, they got help in both the ALDS and ALCS to ensure they made it to the World Series. In Game 2 of the ALDS, in the 11th inning Joe Mauer hit a ball down the left field line that looked to be clearly fair. Amazingly the Umpire who made the call had a perfect view and was only a few steps away as can be seen here. Instead of the Twins tying up the Series at 1 game apiece, the Yankees went on to win and sweep the Series. Then in the ALCS against the Angels, in Game 4 Mike Napoli clearly tags both Robinson Cano and Jorge Posada as they were both off 3rd base, but only one runner was called out. And of course, you know how this turns out, with them finally able to win their only championship of this century.

After all these breaks going their way, this year's ALCS saw some calls going against them which may have robbed them of a chance to return to the World Series.

In the 2nd inning of Game 1 they had the bases loaded with 2 outs when Robinson Cano hit a line drive that ricocheted off pitcher Doug Fister, to shortstop Jhonny Peralta who threw to 1st base almost in time to get Cano, as the first run of the game crossed the plate. But, unfortunately for Yankee fans, Cano was called out at 1st, and the game remained scoreless.
Here's the video. They ended up losing the game, and Derek Jeter was lost for the postseason with an injury he suffered in extra innings.

How would my proposal for instant replay have changed this? According to the framework I layed out, this call would be reviewable and judging from the available video, would have likely been reversed. The Yankees would have taken the lead, and could have won the game in 9 innings, and not suffered the loss of their Captain.

The very next day, the Yankees were again on the short end of a blown call. The Tigers were clinging to a one run lead with 2 outs in the 8th inning with Omar Infante on 1st base, when Austin Jackson singled to right field. Infante rounded 2nd a bit too eagerly, and got tagged out trying to scramble back to the base for the last out of the inning. But the Umpire ruled him safe, and the Tigers kept batting.Your browser does not support iframes.
See for yourself above as they added 2 more runs in the frame and Joe Girardi gets ejected. The Tigers went on to win 3-0 and took a commanding 2-0 ALCS lead on the road.
Again, my proposal for instant replay could have helped here. This play would be reviewable, no need for Girardi to even come out to argue. Infante would have been ruled out, inning over, and the Yankees may have come back to win.
Who knows, different ruling on these two plays may have been enough to turn the tide and have the Yankees defeat the Tigers and get back to the World Series.

Maybe after all these years of getting some breaks, this was Karma, but I'd rather the correct call get made, either initially or at least after review.

Instant Replay Series: Check Swing

2012-11-09T12:52:00.000-07:00

My next installment on how my proposal for implementing instant replay could have impacted the postseason focuses on the deciding Game 5 of the NLDS series between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Washington Nationals.

The Nats had jumped to an early six run lead, but the Cardinals kept chipping away at it. By the 9th inning, they had cut the deficit to 7-5. But after a leadoff double, they had two quick outs and it did not look they would have another miracle comeback like in Game 6 of the 2011 World Series. But a walk put the tying run on base and the Redbirds faithful still had some hope. With a 1-2 count on David Freese, Drew Storen threw a slider just off the plate. Freese started to offer at it and then held up. Or did he?
Nats catcher Kurt Suzuki quickly asked for an appeal on the check swing, and Umpire Ed Hickox gave the "safe - no, he did not go around" sign. Freese stayed alive to work a walk to load the bases, the next batter Daniel Descalso singled to tie up the game, and the Cardinals went on to win the game and the series.

How could my proposal for instant replay have affected this outcome. Well, it couldn't! If you re-read my principles of implementing replay, you will see that I don't think strike/ball calls should be reviewable - that includes check swings. So, even if this form of replay was in place this year, it would not have helped the Nationals win their first ever post-season series. Keep this in mind for if/when replay is instituted - however it is implemented, it will not be perfect, and I guarantee people will still complain that their team got robbed because of the calls.

What is interesting about this play, is how little media fanfare it had. I did not hear anyone complain about the call or say the Umpiring cost the Nationals the series. If you've been reading this blog, you know I am a strong believer that officials never cost a team a win, no matter how bad of a call they make. And I think this applies in this game too. Sure, even if Freese had swung and the bad call kept the rally alive the Nationals still had plenty of opportunities to get the last out before losing the lead. Not to mention the fact that they could have also scored more runs of their own earlier and not put themselves in a situation where all of a sudden they were facing the go ahead run at the plate.

Instant Replay Series: Infield Fly call in wildcard game

2012-11-02T11:12:00.001-06:00

The first controversial play of this postseason, was in the very first wildcard game between the Cardinals and the Braves. Let me refresh your memory: In the bottom of the 8th inning, the Braves were down 6-3 but rallying. They had runners on 1st and 2nd with only 1 out and Andrelton Simmons at bat, with Brian McCann on deck. Simmons hit a bloop/pop fly into shallow left field. Cardinal shortstop Pete Kozma sprinted back for it and looked like he was under it, and at the last second he peeled off, presumably to let Matt Holliday take it. But Holliday never took charge and it fell untouched, as the Braves runners scrambled to advance safely to their next base. But in the midst of all this, an infield fly was called, and Simmons was declared out. The short version of what ensued was lots of arguing, Braves fans showing their displeasure by littering the field with anything they could throw, a long delay, Atlanta playing the game under protest, the ruling being upheld and the Cardinals advanced to the LDS, and went on to win the World Series (ok, so maybe the last part may not have happened this year). Here is the video:

Your browser does not support iframes.

The Braves thought that the infield fly should not have been called, and the bases should have been loaded with only one out. And it left a bad taste in people's mouths on the way future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones' career ended. How could my instant replay proposal have been applied here?

First of all, as soon as Atlanta's manager came storming out of the dugout, instead of a long heated argument, the Umpire could have just said "hold on, Freddie... we're going to take a look at it", and calmed everybody down. Because changing the call would not have changed where any of the other runners would end up, it could have been reviewed and changed. (Remember, on an infield fly the ball is live, and runners can advance at their own risk - which they did in this case). And then they could have waited a couple of minutes to get the ruling from the "instant replay Umpire".
Would the ruling have changed? I don't think so (*). By definition, it WAS an infield fly. Note this comment on the IF rule:

On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder

All the conditions were met, and off the bat it may not have been "ordinarily handled by an infielder", but by the time Kozma camped under it and had his shoulders square to the infield it was. So, the ruling would not have changed, but the fans would not have had a reason to throw debris towards the Umpires on the field. They didn't make the final call, someone else not on the field made it. The delay to the game would have been shorter. Instant replay would not have made the Braves any happier in this situation, but at least they wouldn't have felt as cheated.

(*) I actually believe that if no infield fly had been called, the shortstop would have made the catch, and the situation actually helped the Braves as their runners advanced one base. From the replay it appears that Kozma is under the ball and all of a sudden he gets out of the way. Why did he do that? My speculation is that he heard something, and assumed it was Holliday calling him off. Likely, he heard the left field umpire, call "infield fly, batter is out", and since players are not accustomed to playing with umpires in the outfield, he did not realize that was an umpire talking.

Here are couple of links that corroborate my thoughts:
Right call by rule
Call helped the Braves

On a separate point, the intent of the IF rule is to prevent the defense from turning a cheap double play by intentionally not catching a ball, while the runners aren't advancing to their next bases. However, the wording of the rule does not specifically talk to this intent. Maybe the rule could be changed? Adding a clause to not only say that it "can be caught with ordinary effort", but also that "and if it is uncaught can give the defense an easy way to turn a double play", would turn situations such as this one from an infield fly situation to not an infield fly situation.

For reference, here is my "Get the Edge" page on what players should do on an infield fly.

As always I welcome your thoughts.

Instant Replay in the MLB

2012-10-25T12:14:00.000-06:00

If you've been watching the MLB playoffs, you've seen a lot of questionable calls - some at critical stages of the games. And you've heard the renewed clamouring for instant replay. In this post I am going to outline my proposal for how some sort of instant replay should be implemented. In my next few articles I am going to review some of the more controversial calls that we have recently witnessed and break down if and how my replay solution would impact them.

Basics of my proposal:

NOT initiated by manager. It can only be initiated by a member of the umpiring crew.
Would NOT apply to plays where there was continuous action, unless the call undid the action that resulted (for example: it could change a fair ball to foul, but could not change a called foul ball to fair).
Does NOT need to be conclusive. Just a "preponderance of evidence"
NOT applicable to ball/strike calls.
Does not matter if it's a scoring play or not.

Let me address each of these points in order:

1 Not initiated by manager

Why not? Many of the proposals seen around the interweb talk about an NFL style challenge system. Each team only gets a certain number per game. Or it's unlimited but there's penalties if the call isn't overruled. I have seen everything from automatic ejections, to costing the team an out(!). I see several things wrong with any of these approaches.

First of all it's too gimmicky. Games are won or lost based on the "strategy" around when to ask for a review, rather than what happens on the field.

If there is a limited number of challenges:

penalizes teams that have many bad calls against them in a game. Teams might not challenge for example a ruled dropped foul fly ball, with an 0-2 count on the batter and 2 outs in an early inning, thinking more crucial situations may come up later. But that batter could then hit a home run and the final score is 1-0. Or they could challenge a couple of such plays, but then in the 9th inning of a tie game, an Umpire may obviously kick a call and there's nothing the victimized team can do
late in a game, a manager may challenge a call that was obviously correct to buy some time for a reliever to warm up. Or to kill the opposing team's momentum. Or if it's raining, to delay the game so that it's either called if they have a lead, or if losing before 5 to ensure the 5th isn't finished. Or just to be a jackass. Or MLB may even encourage this in quick games, so that TV networks get their full 3 hours of advertising revenue. (Sorry, I'm getting cranky again).

If there is a penalty for unsuccessful challenges:

some calls aren't conclusive. This has been apparent numerous times in the NFL where broadcasters will say "it looks like maybe the ball hit the ground, but it's not conclusive so they won't overturn it". In the ALDS Nate McClouth of the Orioles hit a ball just to the right of the foul pole. The Umpires checked the replay and upheld the original foul call. I believe the video shows a very slight deflection of the ball as it goes by the pole, implying that it did in fact touch it. However, it is not conclusive, and I agree that the Umpires would have a very hard time in overruling the original call. But it would add insult to injury to penalize Buck Showalter for asking for this replay and not having the call reversed.

So, who should initiate the calls? This is an easy one - the 5th Umpire. Have them in some room with a monitor. It doesn't even have to be at the stadium. They can all hang out in Bud's basement and do it while watching a series of TV monitors, while eating cracker jacks and having some cold ones (ok, maybe not). I can envision a system where older Umpires instead of retiring get "promoted" to "replay Umpire". It's a good way to stay involved in the game when you can no longer be physically active. If they see anything that looks close, they send some kind of signal (through an earpiece?) to the crew chief or plate Umpire and he calls time while waiting for confirmation. As well, it could be initiated by any other Umpire. Remember the Jim Joyce / Galarraga perfect game? Joyce was sure he saw it right, so didn't ask for any help (which, by the way, is the correct way to handle this. Otherwise you will second guess every single call you make). But even without the "replay Umpire", any other Umpire could have said "hey, wait a minute, Jim - let's take another look at this".

This would NOT delay the game in any way that I can foresee - in fact it should speed it up. Instead of a manager running onto the field and spending 5 minutes yelling at an Umpire and making a mockery of the game, he would jump out of the dugout and immediately the Umpire would say "hold it coach - we're gonna double check this". ...wait 20 seconds, and give the ruling that they hear from the "replay Umpire". Even if the manager wasn't happy, he likely wouldn't argue it much as he knows the Umpire looked at the replay.

2 Does not apply to plays with continuous action

Ok, what do I mean by this? What I mean is that any play where if the call is reversed would lead the Umpires to have to guess where baserunners would end up, is not reviewable. For example, runner on first, batter hits a ball in the outfield which hits close to the line. If it is called "Foul!", it cannot be changed to "Fair" on replay. Because if it was, then what do you do with the runners? Is it a single or a double? Based on the game situation, was the 3rd base coach likely to waive the runner home or not? Please don't put those kind of judgements in the Umpire's hands. Of course, if it's the type of hit that goes out of play, then you could reverse the call. Example - it bounces close to the line and then goes in the stands. If it was fair, it would be ~~a ground-rule~~ an automatic double. If it is called foul, it is easy enough to reverse it and award bases like you would on an automatic double.

More complicated cases: R1, R2 1 out. Grounder to shortstop, with runners running on pitch. Throw to second, while R2 rounds 3rd and heads home. R1 called safe, so 2nd baseman throws ball home to cut down R3 instead of going for double play at first. R3 safe at home. If you reviewed play at 2nd and determined that runner was actually out, where are you placing the runners now? Because it's likely that the second baseman would have thrown the ball to first to complete the inning ending double play. Or maybe not. Worms. Can. Opening. However, same situation with 2 outs. R1 called safe, 2nd baseman throws to 1st not in time to retire speedy runner, while R2 comes around and scores. You COULD review the call at 2nd and if the runner was out, the inning is over.
Or on a possible trapped catch - with no one on base, best course of action is to call it no catch, and wait for the replay. But with runners on base, you can't reverse it, because if you do decide the ball was caught, what about the runners? Do you keep them where they were? If they were running on the play do you assume they'd be doubled off? Do you assume they would have tagged up and advanced?

What this does mean is that umpires need to be really careful in the calls they make. If they think a ball might be foul but it's really close, better to call it fair, and then undo the play if you have to. If you call it foul and it's wrong it's too late to change anything. Same with a ball that a batter chops down and rolls in the infield that may or may not have hit him in the batter's box. If the umpire thinks it hit him and calls it a dead ball, there is no undo. But he can let the situation play out, and after the play review it and see if it is a fair ball or just a dead foul ball. But in some situations, they will have to call it as they see it, because they know it can't be reversible.

3 Does not need to be conclusive

Listen people - we are not sending people to the electric chair if we get the call wrong. (Actually, I'm in Canada - I mean life in jail with no parole for 25 years). Nothing infuriates me more than watching an NFL replay where everyone is 80% sure the call was wrong, but since it's not 100% conclusive, it is not overturned. WHAT IS THE POINT OF REPLAY IF YOU STILL GET IT WRONG! If you think the call should be overturned, then overturn it.

4 Does not apply to ball and strike calls

We already know that no Umpire in the majors calls a textbook strike zone. Not to mention the wide variation between an 0-2 and a 3-0 pitch. Or the extra large zone you get if your name is Mariano Rivera. Trust me, nobody on the field wants to see a textbook sized zone all the time. I've had players and coaches even at fairly high levels (semi-pro, collegiate) ask me to adjust the zone even if it's against them (big lead, late inning, opposing pitcher can't throw strikes. I'm begged to call everything a strike just so everyone can go home already). Pitchers, catchers and even batters know that the strike zone will adjust based on the situation. You can argue that maybe it shouldn't, but it does. If we used instant replay to call strikes and balls, then you could just do away with umpires entirely (I can see a lot of you like this idea!).

5 Not only on scoring plays

Just addressing this point as I've seen it on some message boards. But baseball isn't like other games. Non-scoring plays affect scoring. If someone makes a bad call on a runner trying to steal, and the next batter hits a home run, that call directly cost one of the teams a run.

There have been several controversial calls recently. I will show how this implementation of instant replay would have impacted each of them in the next few posts. Stay tuned....

Post 1: Infield Fly call against the Braves
Post 2: Check Swing
Post 3: Yankees Robbed

End of year awards

2012-10-07T15:07:00.000-06:00

This blog is a member of the Baseball Blogger's Alliance. Every year, we vote to determine award winners based on the ballots from the member's sites. Here are my picks for the 2012 awards:

Connie Mack Award (Manager of the Year)
AL: Bob Melvin
NL: Davey Johnson

Willie Mays Award (Rookie of the Year)
AL: Mike Trout
NL: Wade Miley

Goose Gossage Award (Top Reliever)
AL: Fernando Rodney
NL: Aroldis Chapman

Walter Johnson Award (Top Pitcher)
AL: Justin Verlander
NL: Johnny Cueto

Stan Musial Award (MVP)
AL: Mike Trout
NL: Joey Votto

Suspended vs called games - Proposed rule change

2012-08-03T14:20:00.001-06:00

On Tuesday night, the Boston Red Sox were barely hanging on to a 4-1 lead over Detroit when the Tigers were batting in the top of the 6th inning. With the bases loaded, the Umpires stopped play due to the heavy rain. The rain never let up and a couple of hours later the game was called and went in the books as a Red Sox victory. Many Tigers fans were (rightfully) upset. Many fans (wrongly) thought the Tigers should protest the game. Unfortunately the way the rules are currently written, the Umpires had no choice. The game was over. As unfair as it may have seemed, there was no option to suspend the game and finish it at a later date. But in my mind, there should be.

A suspended game is a game that is "paused" and will be continued from the current situation the following (or a later) day. A called game is a game that is complete.

Below are the rules for determining when a game can be suspended. These are taken from The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated:

----------------------
4.12 SUSPENDED GAMES.

(a) A game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date if the game is terminated for any of the following reasons:

(1) A curfew imposed by law;

(2) A time limit permissible under league rules;

(3) Light failure or malfunction of a mechanical field device under control of the home club. (Mechanical field device shall include automatic tarpaulin or water removal equipment);

(4) Darkness, when a law prevents the lights from being turned on;

(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead; or

(6) It is a regulation game that is called with the score tied.

No game called because of a curfew (Rule 4.12(a)(1)), weather (Rule 4.12(a)(5)), a time limit (Rule 4.12(a)(2)) or with a tied score (Rule 4.12(a)(6)) shall be a suspended game unless it has progressed far enough to have been a regulation game pursuant to Rule 4.10(c). A game called pursuant to Rules 4.12(a)(3) or 4.12(a)(4) shall be a suspended game at any time after it starts.

NOTE: Weather and similar conditions—Rules 4.12(a)(1) through 4.12(a)(5)—shall take precedence in determining whether a called game shall be a suspended game. If a game is halted by weather, and subsequent light failure or an intervening curfew or time limit prevents its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game. If a game is halted by light failure, and weather or field conditions prevent its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game. A game can only be considered a suspended game if stopped for any of the six reasons specified in Rule 4.12(a).

----------------------

The first 4 subpoints of the rule rarely apply in the MLB. It's really point (5) that is the key to the rule, causes the most confusion, and in my opinion should be changed.

Let's break this down, one piece at a time.
(a) A game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date if the game is terminated for any of the following reasons:
Ok, this is the preamble to the rule and goes on to list the conditions which apply for a suspended game.
Skipping the first 4 conditions we come to...
(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead
First point here is "weather". It does not restrict it just to rain. It can (and does) also apply to snow, hail and lightning. It could also apply to if it is too cold or too hot or too windy to play, although I've never seen those interpretations used. (Of course, if too windy means a hurricane is coming I suppose that would apply). But the other night, the only thing that prevented play was rain, so that point is covered.

(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead
Next point is regulation game. Rule 4.10 (c) essentially says that if a game is called, it is a regulation game if 5 innings have been played (or 4 1/2 with home team winning). The game was in the 6th inning, so yes, it was a regulation game.

(5)Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead
The Tigers were batting in the 6th innings. Yes, an inning was in progress, and the the inning was not completed. So far, so good.

(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead
The Tigers were certainly threatening, but they had not yet scored any runs or taken the lead. In fact, even if the batter who was up knocked in a couple of runs to make it 4-3 and the Tigers were still rallying, since they had not yet taken the lead this point does not apply. Therefore the condition for a suspended game was not met!
(Note: After the game Justin Verlander said " I would've liked to seen them give it one more at-bat. Who knows what happens? Infante hits a grand slam and we'd be walking out of here winners right now." This is incorrect. At best that would have set the condition for a suspended game, and they would have continued the game with the Tigers having the lead, at a later day)

For the sake of completeness, let me explain the last part of rule 4.12 (a) (5):
(5) Weather, if a regulation game is called while an inning is in progress and before the inning is completed, and the visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead, and the home team has not retaken the lead.
Let's say the Tigers had hit a grand slam to take a 5-4 lead, and Boston had come to bat and maybe made 2 quick outs before play was stopped. Now, all the conditions are met. The visiting team took the lead, but the home team had not retaken it, so it would have qualified as a suspended game.
(Also note that if Boston had made the 3rd out before the play was stopped, then the "inning in progress" clause no longer applies and the game would be called, not suspended. Also, if the Tigers had started batting in the top of the 7th, when the game was stopped, it would also be called. The inning would be in progress, but the visiting team had not taken the lead during the inning).

To summarize the rule: A game can only be suspended (due to rain anyways, I'm ignoring the mechanical malfunctions / time limits / curfew clauses) if when it has stopped the game is tied, or the visitors have taken the lead and the home team has not finished their at bat in the same inning. If the home team is winning, the game is called and if the visitors were already winning before the current inning started the game is also called.

Now, before I suggest the modification I would make to the rule I want to emphasize a few points:
- The way the rule is written makes an umpire's job very difficult. If the score is 10-0 in the 8th inning and there is a torrential downpour with no end in sight, then it's pretty easy to call the game(*). But if it's a meaningful game and reasonably close, we will do everything we can to play the full 9 to make it fair. But we need to balance that with the safety of the players. If the ground is wet and the mound is washing away, it doesn't make sense to keep playing. We can pause the game if we think the rain will lighten up, but then if it continues to rain harder, it's too late to do anything.

(*) I recall in the 1982 World Series during a game there was a large rain storm when one team had a huge lead late in the game. Everyone on both teams knew that even if they kept playing, there was little doubt of the outcome. But commissioner Bowie Kuhn was in attendance and I recall him saying something along the lines of "no World Series game has ever been shortened due to rain, and I don't want the first one to be on my watch". So after waiting for a couple of hours, they finally played the last few outs. I had to go online to find the details. It was Game 6, and the score was 13-0 for St. Louis in the 7th inning at the time of the delay. It ended 13-1. I'm sure even the Brewers would have been content to go home after 7.

- I want to reinforce that the the Umpires made the right call. The conditions were unplayable. If anything, they could have stopped the game earlier, but they should not have allowed it to continue.

- This rule is unfair as it is written. If home team is winning 1-0 in the top of the 9th, and the visitors have bases loaded and nobody out when it's stopped... it is a called game. But if the visitors score say 6 runs in the top of the 9th, and are winning 6-1 with 2 outs and nobody on in the bottom of the 9th... then it becomes a suspended game. The home team always has the opportunity to finish their at bat if they gave up the lead recently (i.e. in the top of the inning). The visiting team is afforded no such luxury.

My recommendation for changing this rule to take the onus off of the Umpires, and make the game more fair to the teams, players and fans, is to add another clause to the rule governing suspended games. That clause would add a condition that a game can be suspended if the tying run is at bat or on base. So in a 1 run game, whenever it's stopped, it would be grounds for a suspended game (unless it's the home team that's winning and they are batting). With the bases loaded, anything up to a 4 run lead would lead to a suspended game. The Tigers would have met that condition on Tuesday night. Justin Verlander might have kept his streak of pitching 6 innings in each start alive (doubtful if they played the next day), Jim Leyland would have been happy, Tiger fans wouldn't have been complaining, and Red Sox fans wouldn't feel like they were awarded a cheap victory. More importantly, none of the Umpires could have been criticized for stopping the game when they did :)

What are your thoughts? Would this extra clause make the suspended game rule better? Do you have other ideas?

How bad was the call Brett Lawrie struck out on?

2012-05-17T13:02:00.001-06:00

By now, I'm sure you've seen the video. Brett Lawrie takes a 3-1 pitch and starts running towards first base as the Umpire calls a strike. He's not very happy, goes back to the batter's box, and takes the next pitch which the Umpire rings him up on. He loses his temper, thinking he should have been walked not once but twice during that at bat. He removes his helmet and tosses it in the general direction of the Umpire, and it bounces and hits the Umpire in the leg. A suspension is coming....

Here's the full video if you haven't seen it yet.

I've been reading many baseball message boards, blogs and the twitterverse's reaction this incident. In general, people's reactions have been something like this:

1 - It was an awful call, but Lawrie's reaction was inexcusable
2 - Lawrie didn't mean to hit the Umpire with the helmet - but still deserves a suspension due to #1
3 - the Umpire in question should also be reprimanded for making such bad calls

A few Blue Jay fans have gone as far as saying the Umpire deserved it, and there should be no suspension because his bad calls are what incited the incident.

I want to break this issue down into 2 issues which should be TOTALLY unrelated.
a) Lawrie's reaction and what his punishment should be
b) The Umpire's call

Let's talk about Brett Lawrie's reaction first. In the interest of full disclosure, let me point out that he is a fellow Canadian, and as an active member of Canada's baseball industry, it is in my best interest to root for the Blue Jays. However, I will try to give an unbiased view of the incident.

On the 3-1 pitch was it ok for him to start running to first base before waiting for the Umpire to make a ball four call? Looking at the replay, I can't fault him too much for this. When a batter is sure it is ball four, there is no need to wait for a call, and this is part of Mr. Lawrie's aggressive personality. Sure, we Umpires do not like to be shown up and prefer for the batter to wait until we make our call, so that he's not effectively telling everybody in the stands and the TV audience - "Hey - I obviously thought it was a ball - the Umpire missed that call!". But I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. (There are also situations where a player will try to sell a call on a real borderline pitch. I've seen batters take off to first to try and influence the ball call. I've also seen catchers catch a borderline pitch with 2 strikes on the batter, and fire the ball to 3rd base, in effect announcing to everyone that it was strike 3 and they're throwing it around the horn. More than once I've called those pitches balls. Sorry, it it's an obvious strike that's fine, but on a borderline pitch, you should wait for the call). But I do believe in this instance, Lawrie assumed it was ball four and started running to 1st base. What he should not have done, however, is prolong it by stopping so dramatically and then walking back slowly while staring at the Umpire. THAT is showing up the Umpire, and there is no need for it.

What about his reaction on being struck out on another call he felt was bad? His reaction was COMPLETELY INEXCUSABLE. Whether the pitch was right down the middle, or if it bounced twice on the way to the plate, Bill Miller is doing his best at calling balls and strikes. Baseball players make errors all the time, and nobody (Billy Martin excluded) gets physical with them because of it. Was he trying to hit the umpire with the helmet? I don't know. But he definitely lost his temper, and threw the helmet in his general direction. Regardless of the circumstances this should never be tolerated. I hope MLB sets an example and sends a clear message that it will protect its Umpires by giving him a lengthy suspension for this.

Now, this does not necessarily mean that the Umpire is without fault. Maybe he made a bad call. Maybe he should be reprimanded for that from his employer. Maybe he should be made to take some remedial Umpire training, and prove he can do his job competently in the minor leagues before being allowed to officiate in the MLB again. Maybe. I have more to say on this in the next part of this post. But somebody not doing their job 100% correctly NEVER is reason to physically assault them. Back to my initial point that correctness of the call, and Lawrie's reaction should be unrelated.

Ok, so what about the call? Was it that bad? Was the Umpire trying to teach Mr. Lawrie a lesson? Should he have some repercussions too? Let's take a look at the data:

Here's a Pitch/Fx view of Brett Lawrie's at bat:

The 3-1 pitch (#5) was a few inches outside, and that's the one Lawrie started walking to 1st on. (Do look at the video and at about the :20 second mark check out the job Jose Molina does of framing it. There's a whole article on Baseball Prospectus on what a job he did framing the pitches). However, pitch #6 where he lost his cool was at the very least a borderline strike. In fact, the 2-1 pitch (#4) that was called a ball, could have also been called a strike. I think it's fair to say that there was absolutely no reason to argue about the last pitch he got rung up on. Any baseball player knows to protect the zone with 2 strikes, and Lawrie had to know that after showing up the umpire on the previous pitch the strike zone would be slightly expanded. Regardless... even if that was the first pitch thrown in the at bat, I don't think there should have been much of a complain over calling it a strike.

Did Bill Miller expand the strike zone because he was angry at Lawrie showing him up? Again, we can't read people's minds, so let's look at some data.

Here are the called balls and strikes for the whole game:

It looks like Miller was fairly consistent about calling strikes a couple of inches outside the plate. In fact, I count at least 15 pitches outside the strike zone that were called strikes (plus 4 within it called balls). This evidence supports the fact that Miller was not out to get Lawrie.

Ok, so you're thinking, maybe that just shows that Bill Miller is an awful umpire and he is consistently bad. So I pulled up another random game from the same day.

This umpire seems to have a smaller strike zone. He called 14 pitches that were in the strike zone as balls. But he still called 10 pitches outside the zone as strikes.

The reality is that most umpire's strike zones are oval rather than rectangular. That is a pitch that is right down the middle but a little high or low will be called a strike, and a pitch that is mid height and a bit inside or outside will also be a strike, while pitches on the corners tend to be balls. This happens at every level. From Little League to MLB. Here's a heat map that shows this at the MLB level from an article in the Hardball Times :

So, Bill Miller is no different or worse than any other Umpire, and it does not look like he changed the size of his zone in the bottom of the 9th to screw the Blue Jays or Brett Lawrie. No repercussions are necessary, he was just doing the same job that he and his colleagues always do.

Now let's hope Lawrie gets traded south of the border, and becomes an American citizen so I no longer have to root for him.

ADDENDUM: Wow, I just heard that his suspension was only 4 games. I am very disappointed in this.

Hint for coaches on tag ups

2012-03-14T14:52:00.000-06:00

I started the Rulebook Edge website as a way to help coaches gain a competitive edge by knowing some of the intricacies on some rules. This blog has mainly talked about rules but I've gotten a bit away from the helping coaches bit. Today's post is meant for coaches. It deals with tagging up on a fly ball, and gives tips to the offense, and a legal trick play that can be used by a devious defense.

Every coach and player from Little League on up knows that runners need to tag up on a fly ball that is caught. If a runner leaves before the ball is caught, he needs to go back and retouch the base or be in danger of getting doubled off. What many players and coaches don't know, however, is that there is a difference between the time a catch is deemed to be a catch, and the time when a runner can legally leave his base...
A catch is defined in Rule 2.00 "Definition of Terms" as

"..the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it.... It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional."
Ok, fairly straightforward, although I have had coaches tell me that the "ground can't cause a drop" (this ain't football), or that "he took 3 steps, therefore it's a catch, blue!", when I've given the safe sign on dropped catches. Basically, it's a catch if the ball is caught, AND he does not involuntarily drop the ball. Catching a ball on the run, running 10 feet hitting the wall and dropping the ball is NOT a catch. So, an umpire cannot declare a caught ball an "Out", until the fielder has voluntarily released the ball.

Now let's read the comment in the rulebook subsequent to the definition:

Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball.

Ah-ha! There's the catch! (pun intended). A runner may leave their base the instant the first fielder touches the ball. So, if a fielder dives for a ball and is rolling around on the ground, the umpire cannot rule a catch until he sees that the fielder has possession of the ball. But the second he touches the ball, the runners can tag up. This is a very important and basic piece of baserunning that you should make sure you instruct your players. Ok, so there's my easy tip for the offense. Now, how can you use this to your advantage on defense? Imagine this situation: Tie game, Bottom 9th, R3 with 1 out. Batter hits a deep fly ball. How can you prevent the runner on 3rd from tagging up and scoring? Well, assuming he hasn't read this post, what you could do is instead of making a clean catch, you can juggle it while running in towards the infield. If the runner stays on the base and waits for the out call to be made, by the time it is, you should be close enough to the infield that he either will not attempt to tag up, or will be thrown out easily. A couple of caveats here:
1) This will NOT work at any advanced level. Maybe Little League majors, and recreational/community ball for those slightly older. Try doing this at a varsity high school game and all this will accomplish is lots of laughter.
2) If this does work once, do not ever try it again against the same team. Players, coaches and even Umpires all learn from their mistakes. Somebody in the stands will know that the runner could have run and I guarantee he will either tell the coach or the player after the game, and they will look it up and know for next time.
3) If you are going to try this I would suggest that you practice it a few times and ONLY use it when absolutely necessary. You don't want to try this early in the game, because there's a good chance the outfielder ends up dropping the ball, and you don't even get the batter out.

Spring is here! Hope to be back on the field in a few weeks. PLAY!

Quick rules question: Placing runner after base award

2012-02-21T21:21:00.001-07:00

Someone posted this to my f/b account:

R1. Flyball to outfield. BR runs to first and is on way to 2nd. R1 hung up between 1st and 2nd waiting to see if ball is caught. Ball falls in, outfielder throws the ball out of play. What do you do with the runners?

Where, if you read my article on the Full Windup on base awards, or my follow up post, you know that the correct ruling is that you give the runners 2 bases from the last base they legally touched at the time of the throw. So... where do you put the runners? Hint: You don't award 3rd base to both. I'll leave this open for comments for a few days and will post the correct ruling soon.

Smile, spring training has started! Although there's still snow outside my window :(

On award of bases, the lead runner should always be awarded his bases first, and then each additional runner, in reverse order. If 2 or more runners' positions would be the same, the preceding runner should be awarded his porper award, and any following runner may only be awarded the bases behind the lead runner's awarded bases.
So the anonymous commenter had it right. R1 gets 3rd base, and the batter only gets to go to second.

I'm back...

2011-12-30T12:37:00.000-07:00

Sorry, loyal readers. I had good intentions when I started this blog, but then life got in the way. Had a tough summer, not going into it here, but had very little time for updates. I will try to start posting more regularly. If I don't have time for long, thoughtful, insightful, posts, I will at least add small nuggets of info as I come across them.

Today's nugget is something I came across while reading my good friend's (who is a fellow umpire) blog, Red Sox Nation Alberta. It was a throw away line in the middle of the post that referred to what is commonly miscalled a ground rule double.

So... When is a ground-rule double, not a ground-rule double?

When the baseball rule book covers situations where a batter gets a set number of bases, then there is no ground-rule. For example, Rule 6.09(e) says that " A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands...advance two bases". There is no ground-rule here. It is just a regular rule.
A ground-rule double refers specifically to special rules NOT covered in the official baseball rules. For example, Wrigley Field has one of baseball's most commonly known ground rules. It states simply: "Fair batted ball lodges in vines on bleacher wall: Two Bases". The ivy that Wrigley is famous for is not a normal part of a baseball field, therefore the regular rule book does not cover that special case, and a ground-rule is needed for it. For your interest, several other MLB ground rule peculiarities are listed here.

But if you are an Umpire, or a Coach, more important is learning the ground rules of any of the parks that you are playing or officiating in. I assume none of you are on MLB fields. Ask you league's Umpire-In-Chief for a set of ground rules. I have found that often they don't exist, other than in the minds of individuals which always makes for fun pre-game meetings:
Me: Hey, home team coach, is a ball that bounces/lands/thrown over there in play or not?
Him: Nope.
Other coach: Last time we played here the umpire said it was.
Continue for about 10 minutes, until we come to an agreement on a hypothetical situation that will probably never occur.
To avoid this situation, please ask your leagues to put all ground rules in writing. And preferably give copies to all Coaches and Umpires. Among other things it will make my life easier.

What happened here?

2011-06-17T12:57:00.001-06:00

There was a weird play/situation in a Mets/Pirates game the other night. Runners on 1st and 3rd, Jose Reyes hits a trouble sinking flyball into left field. LF Jose Tabata, makes a great catch (or he may have trapped it - tough to tell - but ump calls it a catch). R1 doesn't realize it's caught and he's rounding 2nd base. He gets doubled off 1st routinely. Now here's where it gets interesting: Ruben Tejada, the runner on 3rd base, may or may not have tagged up. The video evidence is inconclusive. But the Pirates appeal and.... NO CALL IS MADE. U3 doesn't give the "safe - he tagged up" sign, nor the "out - he left early" call. The question is why? There is a lot of speculation on this baseball-reference blog, pertaining to this play, and a lot of armchair umpires think you can't appeal without giving the pitcher the ball and having him step off the rubber. Well, I know that's wrong. That only applies when there has been a dead ball. So why did the umpire make no call??? Is it possible someone made a mistake?

Here's the video of it: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15850955.
Your thoughts? Anyone? Bueller?

Coaches still don't know the rules

2011-05-20T22:19:00.000-06:00

yeah, I know. And in other shocking news, the sun is still hot!

I’ve been umpiring for about a month now, and I finally have some spare time to post another update. I’m going to use some of my recent experiences to highlight some rules situations that I witnessed first hand.

Junior Little League game: I’m doing the bases to help guide a new umpire who is doing the plate for the first time. Had a couple of tricky plays:
R1,R3, nobody out. R1 is stealing on a pitch. A pop up behind the shortstop. He catches it, and R1 realizes it’s caught and starts going back to first base. The shortstop fires a bullet towards first… and throws it over the first baseman and out of play. I call “TIME!” (note: this all happened before R1 returns to 1st base). PU awards R3 home, and R1 second base. I try to catch PU’s attention and point to 3rd, and he gives me a quizzical look, I nod my head, and he says “runner – 3rd base”. Well that brings out the defensive coach to question the rookie ump.
Usually, I’ll stand back when a coach approaches another member of the crew, but since he was unsure of the base award initially, I get in close to listen and step in if necessary. “He was going back to 1st – how does he end up on 3rd base? You were right when you said second base” I hear the coach tell the ump. “Um, well, I, uh…” Ok, I heard enough and politely stepped in.
“Coach – he gets two bases from where he was at the time of the pitch. He had been on 1st, therefore he gets 3rd.”
“No, no, no”, he says” it’s 1 and 1 – he was going back to 1st base, so he gets that, plus he gets to go to 2nd”.
“Sorry coach, rule is 2 bases. Period!” And I’m emphatic enough to imply that the discussion is over. But he wants to continue.
“There is an interpretation manual which covers this specific example – he only gets 2nd!”.
There is no such interpretation manual. Actually, there is – the Jaksa Roder manual - but I guarantee it does not say this about this situation. So, I tell him,
“Ok, coach, this discussion is over. You can decide to agree with me and sit down, or you can decide to disagree and play this game under protest. Either way we’re continuing as is”.
Unfortunately (I’d love for him to file a protest and have it turned down), he decides to go back to the bench.
Lost in all this was the fact that the runner had never touched 1st base (i.e., tagged up after a fly ball), and all he had to do was have his pitcher throw the ball to 1st base and I would have called him out. Didn’t really matter what base he was on.
Here's my article on The Full Windup explaining base awards, which covers this exact play.

Another one in this same game:
R1,R3 1 out: R1 is stealing on the pitch. Deep fly ball to RF. R3 tags up and scores, R1 is on his way to 3rd, and by the time the ball is caught he doesn’t make much of an attempt to get back to first. He’s easily doubled off there. My partner advises the scorekeeper that the run counts, and lets the coach know that as well. The coach comes running to ME (I guess he figures I’m the senior guy and I’ll overrule the other one?) “It can’t count! No run can score when the 3rd out is a force play, blue!” Wow – sounds like this coach read the rulebook. Well, some of it anyways, because a failure to tag up is not a force play, but rather an appeal play. So, I patiently explain this to him. He seems sceptical, (i.e. he thinks I’m full of shit) but lets it go with a “well, if that’s what you’re going to go with, that’s fine”.
I'm going to add a page on the Rulebook Edge Site to cover runs scoring on the 3rd out. Eventually.

Another situation, different game, I’m PU:
R1,R3 2 outs. R1 is stealing on the pitch. Throw has him beat by a mile. He gets himself in a rundown, while R3 crosses home plate. He gets tagged out and the defensive coach, says “way to get out of the inning without giving up any runs”. I don’t say anything to him, but point to home plate to let everyone know that the run counts, and I went to the official scorekeeper and made sure she knew and had counted it. But I don't think the coach saw any of this. Should I have said something to the him? I'm really not sure what the correct protocol is here. I felt bad that he might have thought the score was something different than it really was and might have strategized differently because of it, but I don't think it's my job to let the coach know every time a legal run crosses the plate.

I have a few more scribbles on my notepad that I'm going to turn into posts. As soon as I have some free time. If the weather holds up that might not be for a while. Until then - "PLAY!"

MLB Power Rankings - May edition

2011-05-05T22:01:00.001-06:00

(Editor's Note: This is the May installment of the power ranking series, provided by Ruben from the Red Sox Nation in Alberta blog, who is letting me cross-post here. Feel free to add your comments. -- Reg)

Now that the season is 1 month old, time to update the power rankings and give my readers a chance to comment on some laughably bad predictions that I had made earlier. Not unexpectedly there is a new team atop the rankings. And it has as much to do with Philadelphia's league best 18-8 start as it has for previously #1 ranked Boston's underwhelming April. With that unsurprising spoiler out of the way, here are the full rankings.

Note that numbers in brackets are movement from last month, and their high/low rank for the season. Look at previous rankings (here, here and here) for explanations of how the team got to where they are.

#1 - Philadelphia (+1, 1/2) Have easily overcome the absence of their injured players, with others stepping up just as Placido Polanco who is nearly hitting .400.

#2 -Colorado (+2, 2/6) They were my initial preseason pick for WS Champions, and are starting to play like it.
#3 - Texas (+5, 3/10) Even without Josh Hamilton, these guys can really hit the ball.
#4 - Yankees (+5, 4/10) A potent offence and a good bullpen is overcoming shaky starting pitching.
#5 - Florida (+13, 5/19) My first big surprise. If the Phillies flounder, they and not the Braves may provide the competition in that division.
#6 - St. Louis (+9, 6/15) The perils of ranking perennial favorites low is that you look like an idiot when they play as well as they always have. They are doing with offense, leading the majors in batting and OBP, which is a rarity for an NL team.
#7 - Tampa (--, 7/8) Took some heat for not ranking them lower initially. Their offence has struggled, but should improve now that Longoria has returned, and their pitching is still among the AL's best.
#8 - Boston (-7, 1/8) After a horrendous start, they showed signs of being the team that many had as preseason favorites when their pitching carried them through an unbelievable string of strong starts. Jed Lowrie has shown he deserves to be a full time starter, Crawford WILL start hitting sooner or later, the only real question mark that remains is behind the plate. Will Saltalamacchia or Varitek play satisfactorily enough that they don't bring down the rest of the team?
#9 - Detroit (+1, 9/11) With the Twins and White Sox faltering, this may become the team to beat in that division.
#10 - Oakland (-4, 4/10) Pitching is leading the majors (a rarity for an AL team), which I predicted would carry them far. In fact, the only loss in Boston's 8-1 stretch was when Brett Anderson shut us out. But their struggling offense is barely keeping the team above .500.
#11 - Angels (+11, 11/22) I thought this was the year that everything would fall apart in DisneyLand. I didn't foresee Weaver and Haren being confused with Spahn and Sain, but the only way they will keep up with the division leaders is by praying for and getting lots of rain after those 2 pitch.
#12 - San Francisco (-7, 3/12) I knew their offence wouldn't scare anyone, but thought that outstanding pitching would cover up that weakness. However slightly above average pitching is not enough, and so far that's all they've gotten.
#13 - Cleveland (+17, 14/30) The biggest surprise so far. I said this was going to be the worst team in the majors, and all they've done to prove me wrong is hit well, pitch well, and have the best record in the league. I'm still not convinced, although I have (for now) placed them in the top half of the rankings. If they're still above .500 at the end of the season I'll apologize to all the fans in Lake Erie. If either one of them read this.
#14 - Toronto (+3, 13/20) Adam Lind looks like his oldself, Bautista looks like Bautista, and Kyle Drabek looks like he's here to stay. Still not enough to compete in the AL East. At least this year.
#15 - Cincinnati (-1, 14/16) The definition of mediocre. Have not been ranked below 16 or above 14 all season, and fall right in at #15 this month. But that may be all it takes to win the NL Central once the Cardinals cool down.
#16 - Atlanta (-5, 11/16) When I ranked them at #13 in January, I said "I have a bad feeling about this group .. a hunch it will be a long season at Turner Field." Looks like I should have gone with my instincts and ranked them lower

I've ran out of time for more commentary, as I don't want to delay publishing this any longer. Below are the rest of the rankings:

#17 - Baltimore (+4, 17/23)
#18 - Milwaukee (-5, 7/18)
#19 - Cubs (-7, 12/19)
#20 - Minnesota (-17, 3/20) - Ok, one more comment. Are these real ballplayers, or did they all get their less-athletic twins to take the field for them??
#21 - Dodgers (-1, 20/21)
#22 - Kansas City (+4, 22/26)
#23 - White Sox (-7, 15/23)
#24 - Washington (--, 24/25)
#25 - Seattle (+2, 25/27)
#26 - Pittsburgh (+2, 26/29)
#27 - Arizona (-2, 25/27)
#28 - Mets (-5, 22/28)
#29 - San Diego (-10, 17/29)
#30 - Houston (-1, 28/30)

One week in..

2011-04-10T13:03:00.002-06:00

Well, the MLB season is barely a week old and already I'm tired of hearing the same old things. Whether it's fans complaining that the "umps cost us the game", or announcers being completely clueless on rules, and confusing their audience with their bad attempts at explaining them, I can't stay quiet much longer. So here's a couple of titbits that I've touched on previously that I'm going to repeat until maybe someday someone reads this and thinks before they talk!

Point #1: If you are an MLB broadcaster and you don't understand the rules, here are some suggestions:
1 - Read the rulebook! Or at least have it handy, so when a confusing situation comes up, you can read the appropriate rule and explain it correctly.
2 - If that's too hard for you, then admit you don't know WTF you are talking about. A simple - "the ump made that call, but I'm unclear why - but I'm sure he knows the rules and applied it correctly", is much better than confusing the audience by explaining a rule incorrectly, and having all the listeners perplexed as to how a professional Umpire could screw it up that badly.

3 - If you don't want to admit your ignorance on air, then simply ignore the situation. Just say "the ump called that runner out for obvious reasons" and leave it at that. Your audience will think you are really smart by thinking that a call was obvious, when they have no clue as to what just happened.
4 - Quit. Please! Seriously - you are doing your viewers a disservice by perpetuating myths which you believe to be true. This has a cascading down effect all the way to little league, where some dad in the stands starts yelling at me because I don't know the rules that so-and-so explained so clearly on last night's telecast.

I already touched on this topic earlier, but the latest item that got me on this rant was last night's extra inning affair between the Angels and the Blue Jays. Top of 13th inning, runners on 2nd and 3rd and 2 outs. Ground ball between SS and 3B, the third baseman takes a long route to the ball to avoid R2 and throws to 1st base late. Batter called safe, go ahead run scores, but U3 calls R2 out for interference. Run doesn't count, game still tied. Well, I was listening to the Blue Jays broadcast, and their announcers were not too pleased. (Not only did it prevent their team from taking the lead, but it was approaching 2AM in their home Eastern time zone, so they were more than ready to call it a night).

I can't find video of their broadcast, but basically Buck Martinez, who as an ex-player should know better, was arguing that the runner is "entitled" to the baseline, and he never left the baseline, nor touched the ball, so there is no basis for interference. no, No, NO! The batter is NOT entitled to the baseline, if the fielder is trying to make a play, and yes, you can call interference without the runner touching the ball or the fielder. If a runner does jumping jacks in front of a fielder to obstruct his view of the play (similar to a hockey player "screening" the goalie), this is definitely offensive interference. Here's an article I wrote previously which explains interference (and how it differs from obstruction).

Some positives from this item - the broadcasters did call it interference and not obstruction, and they never said that the call cost them the game.

Which brings me to item #2 - Umpires never cost a team a win. Let me say that slower in case you missed it. um-pi-res-ne-ver-cost-a-team-a-win. Maybe if I yell it will get through better: UMPIRES NEVER COST A TEAM A WIN! I discussed this in a controversial post earlier as well. I've heard this a few times already this season. Let me use the above game as an example. The Angels did go on to win a couple of innings later, and for the sake of argument let's pretend the Umpire erroneously made that interference call which cost the Jays a run. Without that call, the Jays would have won, right? No argument from me there. But continue that sentence with "therefore the call cost the Jays the game", and I'll argue until my face matches my shirt. (Actually I rarely wear blue shirts anymore - but arguing until I'm black in the face, just doesn't sound right).
First of all, Toronto did not score after the 4th inning of the game. If they score once between the 5th and 13th, the disputed interference call never happens. Whose fault is it that they did not score? Well, here's a list of candidates who ALL need to take a share of the blame:
Rajai Davis
Aaron Hill
Jose Bautista
Adam Lind
Juan Rivera
Mike McCoy
Yunel Escobar
JP Arencibia
Travis Snider
Juan Encarnacion
Jayson Nix
John McDonald
Every single one of these players had at least one at bat, where they had a chance to give the Jays the lead, and failed to do so. As well, the starting pitcher, Brett Cecil, gave up 5 runs in 5 innings. If he only gives up 4, I'm not writing this post today. We can also blame the manager and/or the pitching coach for not making a
pitching change earlier. That's 15 victims we can blame the loss on, before turning to the umpire.

I'm done ranting. Well, for today anyways.

As a reward for reading this far, you can save some money by clicking on the link below.

Not out on strike 3

2011-03-25T17:54:00.001-06:00

As most of you who have played or coached above Little League know, a batter is not always automatically out on strike 3. Rare as it may be at higher levels, batters can run to 1st base safely after striking out in certain situations.

I wrote an article on The Full Windup that is geared towards those players or coaches just moving up to a division where this rule first applies. When I initially wrote it I was thinking this article would be most useful to these young players. At older levels everyone knows the rule and what to do, right? Right?

Well, I've seen some situations with senior high school aged players, where catchers forget there is a runner on 1st, and throw the ball there after a pitch in the dirt when the batter starts running. That's somewhat excusable. They did the right thing, except forgot to be aware of the base/out situation prior to the play. (which, by the way, EVERY player on the field, both on offense and defense should always know. It amazes me how many times a game a fielder will ask me how many out there are. Shouldn't they already know so they can decide whether to try to get the lead runner or the batter out, or play at double play depth or whatever? But I'm off ranting on a tangent again). But then I remembered that even in the majors, pros sometimes forget the fundamentals that I'm trying to instill through my Get the Edge series of articles.

Here is an example, that could have cost the White Sox the opportunity to win the World Series in 2005. They were trailing 1 game to none in the ALCS, when with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th, AJ Pierzynski struck out to apparently send the game into extra innings. But the pitch may or may not have hit the ground before the Angels catcher caught it, and without hesitating, AJ took off for 1st, while the catcher, confident he caught the ball, rolled it to the mound. Sure enough, the umpiring crew deemed that the ball was not caught, let the batter stay on first, and moments later he came around to score the winning run. If the White Sox had lost that game, they'd be trailing 2-0, with the next 3 games on the West Coast, and might not have been able to win the pennant that led to their first World Series title in 88 years.

The batter did what I recommend all batters should do in the article, and that is running without knowing for sure whether the ball was caught or not. He had nothing to lose, and as it turned out, it won them the game.

MLB Power Rankings - March edition

2011-03-15T17:15:00.004-06:00

This is the last preseason installment of the power rankings series, provided by Ruben from the Red Sox Nation in Alberta blog, who is letting me cross-post here. Feel free to add your comments.

This is my last preseason power rankings. I will update these near the beginning of each month throughout the season. I will also update my preseason predictions before the season starts.

Numbers in brackets are movement from last month, and their high/low rank for the season. Look at previous rankings(here for the initial January ones, and here for February) for explanations of how the team got to where they were - any explanation here just reflects recent changes.

#1 - Boston ( --, 1/1) They haven't done anything to drop from the top of the rankings.

#2 - Philadelphia (--, 2/2) Some injuries may make them less formidable, but along with Boston they are still the only other team likely to win 95 games.
#3 - Minnesota (--, 3/5) Beating up on weak division opponents will help their win total.
#4 - Colorado (+1, 4/6)
#5 - Giants (+1, 3/6) Should be a good battle with the Rockies all season
#6 - Oakland (-2, 4/6) Good young pitching and have added some bats. I might have ranked them too high initially, but still think they'll hold off Texas in the West.
#7 - Texas (+2, 7/10) Will Adrian Beltre continue to blossom in this hitter's park, and help their pitcher's ERA with his glove, or will he take it easy knowing he doesn't have to play for a contract anytime soon?
#8 - Tampa Bay (-1, 7/8) Don't count them out yet.
#9 - New York Yankees (+1, 9/10) Still a scary offense. CC is a great #1 pitcher. They'll need to score lots of runs when he's not on the mound.
#10 - Detroit (+1, 10/11) If Twins get some injuries, Detroit could win this division. With less than 90 wins.
#11 - Atlanta (+4, 11/15) Philly injuries are closing the gap, but more likely to contend for the wildcard.
#12 - Cubs (+2, 12/16) Divisional opponents keep getting weaker. Will 85 wins be enough to make the playoffs?
#13 - Milwaukee (-5, 7/13) Was much higher on them previously. Greinke injury and a closer look at their infield has convinced be that they are more likely to be pretenders than contenders.
#14 - Cincinatti (+2, 14/16) Cardinal and Brewer injuries may make the Reds a contender for the division again.
#15 - Cardinals (-3, 12/15) News just keeps getting worse for them. Could be one of 4 teams who end up between 80 and 88 wins in this division.
#16 - White Sox (+1, 15/17) Can hover near .500 by beating up KC and Cleveland.
#17 - Toronto (-4, 13/20) Keep making some good moves and their future keeps getting brighter. But it's not quite here yet.

Not much movement in the rankings for the rest of the teams, so I'll keep the commentary to a minimum.
#18 - Florida (+1, 18/19)
#19 - San Diego (-1, 17/19)
#20 - LA Dodgers (+, 20/21)
#21 - Baltimore (-1, 20/23)
#22 - LA Angels (--, 18/22) I said it in my previous preview, but I'll repeat it again - What were they thinking?? Mike Scioscia may be looking for a new job sooner rather than later.
#23 - Mets (--, 22/23)
#24 - Washington (+1, 24/25)
#25 - Arizona (+2, 25/27)
#26 - Kansas City (-2, 24/26)
#27 - Seattle (-1, 26/27)
#28 - Pittsburgh (--, 28,29)
#29 - Houston (--, 28, 29)
#30 - Cleveland (--, 30, 30)

UMPS CARE charity online auction

2011-03-09T18:58:00.000-07:00

Hey baseball fans!! Do you want to feel good by helping to provide experiences for children with cancer or scholarships for deserving young adults, while being able to reap the rewards by getting unique baseball memorabilia, or the experience of a lifetime? Well, then head on over to the UMPS CARE 3rd Annual Online Auction and start bidding!

This is an awesome program. Read more in an interview with MLB umpire Mike Di Muro at Through The Fence Baseball.

Broadcasters need spring training too!

2011-02-26T14:03:00.005-07:00

Just watching the Mets/Braves game. 1 out 9th inning, runners on 1st and 2nd. Line drive over the 3rd baseman who jumps for it but misses it, and ends up in R2's way. Umpire points at fielder, the runner keeps

going towards home, missing 3rd base, and apparently scores. Announcers notice he missed 3rd base, but speculate it doesn't matter, because apparently obstruction was called. Then they notice there are 2 outs, and the run isn't on the scoreboard. And try to figure out what happened. After much debating they speculate that an appeal was made on 3rd base and the runner was in fact called out. Maybe it wasn't obstruction because the fielder was trying to make a play on the ball, they muse?
Oy, vey! Where to start.

Yes, obstruction was called on the runner going between 2nd and 3rd. No, that does not excuse him from having to touch 3rd base as he scampered home. Yes, an appeal was made, and he was called out for that.
Is is asking too much for professional broadcasters to know the rules? I understand a little league first time dad coach getting confused, but these guys are being paid for their commentary on the game. Am I the only one who doesn't think this is that complicated? Here's a quick recap on obstruction. Remember that a runner can still be called out even though obstruction was called.

Why corking a bat isn't cheating

2011-02-24T20:20:00.002-07:00

I've written a guest article for Through the Fence Baseball, and it has now been posted. Please take a look and leave your comments. Yes, I'm actually saying that I don't think corking a bat is cheating. You'll have to read the article to find out why.

Hey readers - take advantage of these limited time specials:

MLB Power Rankings - February edition

2011-02-11T11:18:00.005-07:00

I will be providing monthly updates of the power rankings. Expect them on or near the 1st of each month going forward. Spring Training hasn't even started yet, so there isn't much movement from my original rankings, but there have been a few moves made, so it was time for an update, along with some commentary where a team moved significantly. (numbers in bracket are last month's ranking)

#1. Yankees (9) - Brian Cashman must have seen that I ranked them embarrassingly low, so he went out and starting signing all stars,a nd it helped get his team back atop the rankings. First the pitching - he inked 2 top
starters who combined to go 35-16 and another one who is a young budding star who went 18-6 just 2 years ago! On offense he got a centerfielder who slugged 51 home runs last season, and an all-star caliber 3rd basemen who knocked in over 100. And he wasn't done, he also signed..... Oh, wait. What's that you say? It's not 2005 anymore?? Well, then, that makes the signings of Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia, Mark Prior, Andruw Jones, Eric Chavez and Ronnie Belliard a lot less impressive then I thought. If anything, the moves other teams have made will move the Yankees even further down. The real #1 spot this month still belongs to the Red Sox (1)
#2 - Phillies (2)
#3 - Twins (5) - they won 94 last year. They have Joe Nathan back and a healthy Justin Morneau. They can only go up!
#4 - Oakland (4) - Yep, despite some criticism for picking them this high initially, I haven't moved them down
#5 - Rockies (6)
#6 - Giants (3) - Lack of offense and the fact that I can't see them winning their division knocked them down a few spots
#7 - Rays (8) - Original ranking was higher than most (take a look at MLB Blog Buzz for summary of several bloggers' picks), but I think they've only improved themselves by adding Manny and Damon.
#8 - Brewers (7)
#9 - Rangers (10)
#10 - Yankees (9) - With other teams in their division improving, they will have an even harder time making the playoffs.
#11 - Tigers (11)
#12 - Cardinals (12)
#13 - Blue Jays (20) - Improved themselves immediately by trading Vernon Wells for... well it didn't really matter for whom. They now have 86 million more ways to improve themselves. Maybe not right away, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them be a real force in 2012.
#14 - Cubs (16) - Did I mention that after Piniella left they played at a 105 win pace? It was only 37 games, and I don't expect them to duplicate that over a full season, but should break .500 and be in the hunt for a wildcard spot.
#15 - Braves (13)
#16 - Reds (14)
#17 - White Sox (15)
#18 - Padres (17)
#19 - Marlins (19)
#20 - Orioles (23) - Welcome Vlad, these birds are looking better by the day. It almost seems like one of these days the top 5 teams in the majors are all going to be in the AL East.
#21 - Dodgers (21)
#22 - Angels (18) - Traded for Vernon Wells (who the Jays would have happily given away for free, a la Alex Rios), and gave up Juan Rivera and a much-sought-after Mike Napoli. Really? What were you thinking?
#23 - Mets (22) - Even if they won less games then the 1962 version of themselves, Fred Wilpon still has bigger things to worry about.
#24 - Royals (24)
#25 - Nationals (25)
#26 - Mariners (26)
#27 - Diamondbacks (27)
#28 - Pirates (29)
#29 - Astros (28)
#30 - Indians (30)

Hey readers - take advantage of these limited time specials:

Preseason Predictions

2011-02-01T12:24:00.005-07:00

{Editor's note: Following post is from Ruben}
-------------------------------------------------
I'm excited to become a regular contributor to this blog. While Reg will continue to focus on umpiring and rules, my emphasis will be on MLB happenings. Among other things, I plan on at least doing monthly MLB power ranking along with commentary on any teams that have moved significantly. I did the initial one a couple of weeks ago, and will do a February one shortly.

Today I am going to share a few preseason predictions.
AMERICAN LEAGUE

East - Boston
Central - Minnesota
West - Oakland (!)
Wildcard - Texas (beating out New York, Tampa and Detroit)
ALCS: Oakland over Boston

Awards
MVP - Adrian Gonzalez - Honorable mentions to Justin Morneau and Miguel Cabrera
Cy Young - Trevor Cahill - Honorable mentions to Jon Lester and David Price
Rookie of the Year - Dustin Ackley - Honorable mentions to Kyle Drabek, Desmond Jennings

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East - Philadelphia

Central - Milwaukee

West - Colorado

Wildcard - St. Louis (beating out Atlanta, San Francisco and Cincinnati)

NLCS: Colorado over Philadelphia

Awards

MVP - Prince Fielder - Honorable mentions to Carlos Gonzalez, Dan Uggla

Cy Young - Josh Johnson - Honorable mentions to Ubaldo Jimenez and Roy Oswalt

Rookie of the Year - Domonic Brown - Honorable mentions to Aroldis Chapman and Freddie Freemnan,

WORLD SERIES

Oakland over Colorado.... in 6

I know... everybody is expecting a Philly/Red Sox Fall Classic. But nobody had Giants/Rangers last year, so I may as well go out on a limb.

But I would much rather see the Red Sox and Phillies.

Hey... baseball players and parents: Ball season is right around the corner. Take advantage of these sales and get your gear now!

Order your baseball training equipment online and receive 10% off your order. Enter coupon code AID10 at checkout. Offer expires 12/31/11 and may not be combined with other coupons, sales, and discounts.

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT

2011-01-29T14:15:00.001-07:00

Well, maybe not. But it will allow me to have this blog updated on a regular basis even when I don't get a chance to get on the computer. Ruben Lipszyc, who guest posted earlier on this blog with his 2011 power rankings, has agreed to become a regular contributor to this site. He will be musing mainly about MLB related activities, and has already committed to providing some early preseason award predictions, and will be updating his power rankings at the beginning of each month.

He has promised to have a post ready for Feburary 1st. Looking forward to his insight into MLB events, and hope you are too. Welcome aboard, Ruben!

Obstruction or Interference?

2011-01-25T19:33:00.003-07:00

Created an article on obstruction and interference on The Full Windup. Great resource, by the way, for baseball players of any age looking for tips on improving their hitting and pitching mechanics, strength and conditioning program and their mental game. Please take some time to check it out.

Anyhow, as I re-read what was posted a few miscellaneous thoughts came to mind:
I start the article by discussing the basic difference between obstruction and interference and observe that a lot of times when coaches yell out "INTERFERENCE", they should really be yelling out "OBSTRUCTION". Well, I don't know how to put this, but what I posted there is just flat out wrong!
What coaches really should be yelling out, is, well... nothing! Can you imagine what would happen if in the middle of a play umpires yelled at coaches or players "Hey, you should tell your batter to bunt!", or "round 3rd base, the outfielder has weak arm!!", or "don't worry about the lead runner, hit your cutoff man to make sure the batter doesn't get into scoring position!". At the very least we'd get some strange looks. More likely we'd never be asked to officiate for that team/school/league again. Yet, it's an accepted and even expected part of the game for Coaches to tell Umpires what they should be calling (sometimes I wonder why I stopped Coaching to become an Umpire) But I digress. There is already enough confusion regarding interference and obstruction calls and live balls vs dead balls, so the last thing you want to do is yell something out which may confuse your own player. He may hear you yell "OBSTRUCTION!" (or more likely "INTERFERENCE!") and stop running and end up being called out, even if the umpire also calls it.

Also, in the article I ask that Coaches at the very least remember the difference between obstruction and interference. Well, in retrospect that may be too much to ask. As can be seen in this video, even MLB announcers gets this wrong. He keeps referring to the interference on the shortstop. To his credit, eventually he corrects himself and says "actually, obstructed". But the title of this video clip (which is a great example on a type "B" obstruction call where a runner is out on a close play, and the umpire calls time and awards him the base), is titled.... that's right "Desmond's interference call" (!) (thanks to Stephen for sending me this link).

Here is another video which shows a great example of offensive interference (thanks again, Stephen), and the 1st announcer keeps repeating over and over that the runner is out because of obstruction. At least, MLB.com gets it right this time, and refers to it as interference. The announcer keeps messing up the explanation, speculating that the argument on the field is about whether or not the lead runner crossed the plate prior to the interference. This is irrelevant. If the interference occurs before the batter reaches 1st base, all runners need to return to the base they were on at the time of pitch. (I neglected to include this point, which is covered in the definition of the term, in the article). And it appears that San Diego played the game under protest. Not sure what they could protest since this is a judgement call anyways, unless they did not know the rule existed at all and were protesting the application of the rule. The 2nd half of the video shows the play from the prespective of San Diego's broadcast "Aw, c'mon that's not interference". I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and file that under home team bias, because it was pretty much a textbook example of interference. The runner did try to avoid the fielder, and nothing he did was intentional, but he still impeded the fielder's ability to make a play. What about the argument that the batter would have been safe at first base, even if no interference had occurred? IRRELEVANT. The rule just says that a runner is out if he "hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball". It doesn't go on to say, "unless, of course, the fielder had absolutely no chance at all on making any play on any runner". You can argue that the rule should say that, but it doesn't, and an Umpire's job is to uphold the rules, not judge on the fairness of their applicability.

I'm done my rant for today. How much longer until pitchers and catchers report? Can't wait!

2011 MLB Power Rankings

2011-01-13T21:34:00.002-07:00

As a member of the Baseball Blogger’s Alliance, I’ve been asked to participate in a MLB Power Rankings feature that will be put up on MLBBlogBuzz.com. I’d love to give my 2 cents, but I’m not sure if the Expos are still in the league, and I think I recall something about the Brooklyn Dodgers moving west, so rather than embarrass myself (I do enough of that crouching in a mask behind the catcher), I’ve asked a friend of mine who is a much bigger fan (and apparently knows what ERA+ and Phytagorean record mean) to post his thoughts on my blog. Below are the thoughts of my friend, Ruben, a fellow Canadian from Calgary, posted below verbatim:

Support this site: Buy this and other Red Sox merchandise at Fan's Edge through the above link

Hi! I’m a friend of Reg (yes, Umpires are not hated by everyone – they do have friends too) and he has given me the privilege of guest posting on his blog, my MLB power rankings. Before I start, let me say that any hate mail for me ranking your favorite team lower than you think they deserve should be directed to me – I’m sure Reg already gets his share of venom directed at him. Also, let me say that I hate committing predictions to writing, because I know how poor they always look in retrospect. One year ago, nobody predicted the Giants defeating the Rangers in the World Series. Luck and unforeseen circumstances have a very large and underestimated part of a team’s final record, and the best forecaster in the world can’t predict those factors. The only thing I’m certain of, is that I’ll have made some awful predictions. I’ve done this in the past, and without fail one of my top teams always ends up being a woeful disappointment that end up below .500, and one of the bottom teams will end up at least fighting for a playoff spot. Well, enough ado about nothing, on to the rankings…

The Contenders – Teams who I expect to contend all season

#1 Boston Red Sox– Last year they “only” won 89 games, and injuries were blamed for their disappointing season. They lost perennial MVP candidates Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia for most of the 2^nd half of the season, 2 of their opening day outfielders missed most of the season with injuries, they lost both of their catchers to the DL at the same time that their top 2 minor league catchers were also hurt, Mike Lowell could barely limp around the bases when he was on the roster, their shortstop of the future didn’t play a game until late July and I lost count, but I believe in total they logged approximately 72,000,000 man days on the DL (or so it seemed). In spite of this, they still managed to be the #2 offense in the majors. Imagine what they would have done without all the injuries. And, oh yeah, I almost forgot they added Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford to this already potent lineup. They also got subpar years from some members of their rotation. But their real Achilles heel last year was their bullpen. Well, they’ve addressed that with the addition of Bobby Jenks and Dan Wheeler to augment Papelbon and Bard. So, fewer injuries and the additions of bats should mean more offense, a return to form would mean better starting pitching, and they have also addressed their bullpen. But the most important reason they get the #1 ranking is actually quite simple... I’m a diehard Red Sox fan.

#2 Philadelphia Phillies – It’s all about pitching, pitching, pitching. Or Halladay, Hamels and Oswalt. And some Cliff guy they signed in the offseason. Yes, they lost Jayson Werth, but with their starting rotation it feels like 1 run will be enough to win most days!

#3 San Francisco Giants - See #2. Except that their offence might be hard pressed to score that single run they’ll need on many nights.

#4 Oakland A’s - To most people, this might be the first real surprise. The top 3 teams are expected to be near the top, but this is an unexpected entry in a top 10, much less at #4. But I have a few reasons to think so highly of them this year. First some numbers: 128,139,118,148. What’s that? The ERA+ of their top 4 starters (for reference Tim Lincecum’s was 119). Their offence should also be helped with the acquisitions of Matsui and Willingham. And they were an 86 Pythagorean win team last year. Won’t take much more than that to win their division.

#5 Minnesota Twins - In spite of everyone only remembering their annual early playoff sweep at the hands of the Yankees, they managed to win 94 games last year - good for 4^th best in the majors. Having Canadian Justin Morneau for the whole season and getting Joe Nathan back can only help.

#6 Colorado Rockies - Can rack up lots of easy wins within the division. Have committed to the long term with the signings of Tulo and Gonzalez, and almost had another 2007esque miracle finish to their season last year. If the regular season had been a week longer, the Giants might have missed the playoffs entirely.

#7 Milwaukee Brewers - Everyone noticed the Zack Greinke trade, but do not underestimate the Shaun Marcum acquisition. Together with Wolf and Gallardo it’s starting to look like a real good rotation, in a not so real good division. What will Fielder do in a walk year?

# 8 Tampa Bay Rays – What? Don’t I realize they lost Crawford, Pena, Bartlett, Garza, Soriano and more? Yes, but, they still have Price, Shields, Longoria and more members of last season’s 96 win team. They may not win 90, but they’ll be close and I can’t think of another team lower in the rankings that will be a better bet to either.

#9 New York Yankees – Yes, I know. I didn’t place the Yankees in their righteous place on top of the world’s power rankings. And I have them below Milwaukee and Oakland among others. Did I mention I was a Red Sox fan?? But seriously, who will be their #2 pitcher after CC? Phil Hughes who had a 4.90 ERA in the 2^nd half last year? Will Andy Pettitte really unretire and have enough time to get in shape for the season? AJ Burnett? Maybe they can experiment with putting Joba in the starting rotation. Maybe they can sign Cliff Lee? Oh, wait. I know! They can trade for Zach Greinke! Oh, wait, that won’t work either. Look, they’re not going to be an irrelevant 75 win team – they’ll still be fighting for a playoff spot all season. But during the season instead of their fans discussing what the optimum playoff rotation will be, they’ll be discussing what improvements they’ll need to make to ensure a playoff spot.

#10 Texas Rangers – That’s a big drop for a pennant winner. Except that last year they won 90 games - one of 9 teams to win that many – so I’m not really expecting too much of a drop. They did lose Cliff Lee and Vlad Guerrero, although signing Adrian Beltre may drop half a run in ERA from their groundball pitchers (Brandon Webb says “Hi”!). I expect them to fight Oakland for the division, and be in the hunt for the wildcard as well, but ultimately just fall short.

Middle of the pack –

These are the teams where I go out on a limb and predict that even though they are mediocre, they may surprise and contend, or disappoint and fall off the radar early! Check back at the end of the season and I feel confident that you’ll see I was right that at least some of these teams were in fact mediocre, or contended or underperformed.

#11 Detroit Tigers – If they get a couple of breaks, they could challenge the Twins for the division title.

#12 St. Louis Cardinals – See #11. Substitute Brewers for Twins.

#13 Atlanta Braves – If everything falls into place, this could be the other team that’s a good bet to win 90 games that I referenced in #8. But I just have a bad feeling about this group - nothing analytical, no fancy stats, just a hunch it will be a long season at Turner Field.

#14 Cincinnati Reds – May be a surprisingly low rating, but I don’t see them duplicating last year’s success.

#15 Chicago White Sox – Could also challenge the Twins for the division. Adam Dunn was the big offseason acquisition, and they also got Jesse Crain to help replace some of their lost bullpen arms.

#16 Chicago Cubs – Added Carlos Pena. But their biggest improvement may be addition by subtraction with Lou Piniella not being around all season. Mike Quade led them to a 24-13 record, and although he won’t keep that up, he can certainly improve on Lou’s .408 winning percentage (66 win pace) from last year

#17 San Diego Padres – Why isn’t this team ranked near the bottom of the league? They have nobody!

All they had was A-Gon and he was shipped out of town. All true, but they did win 90 games last year and led the division most of the way. They’ve replaced Tejada with Bartlett, and added Harang. A simple regreession to the mean and the loss of Gonzalez will mean a few less wins, but they should still be within sight of a .500 record.

#18 LA Angels - They lost Matsui, were rumored to be targeting Beltre and Crawford, but ended up empty handed. Their biggest offseason improvement may end up being getting a healthy Kendry Morales back. This strikes me as a team moving sideways.

#19 Florida Marlins – Another team that’s moving sideways. Were .500 last year, lost a couple of players, added a couple of players – they might end up at .500 again.

Bottom teams – these teams aren’t generally expected to contend, and won’t surprise anyone.

#20 Toronto Blue Jays –Made a good trade for the future in acquiring Brett Lawrie for Marcum. But didn’t make any move to help contend soon. Hey Canadians – I’m tired of hearing your complaining that the Blue Jays can’t finance the payroll to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox of the world, eh? Tampa Bay, the Twins, Oakland, Reds, Rangers, Giants and others have all had recent successes with lower payrolls. You’ve been stuck in this no-man’s land, of spending a bit and making bad trades to improve right now (but not enough to win), instead of biting the bullet for a season or two and build a real contender.

#21 LA Dodgers – Added Jon Garland, and maybe if they had also added the combined pitching staffs of the Phillies and Giants, their non-existent offense might be enough to win a few games. Mediocre pitching and a poor offense is not a winning combination.

#22 New York Mets – Waiting for next year when a lot of deadwood payroll comes off the books to see how JP Ricciardi’s influence can sink this team’s future with bad trades and poor signings.

#23 Baltimore Orioles – As long as Strasburg is off the roster for another season, the Orioles can lay claim to being the best team in the DC area. They might even win 70 games.

#24 Kansas City Royals – Hey, aren’t these guys usually ranked about #32? The rank improvement says more about the teams below them then it does about the Royals. But they’ve been drafting well, and all of a sudden they’re going to have a 2008 Rays-like worst to first season. Maybe in 2012, more likely in 2013/14, but definitely not in 2011.

#25 Washington Natinals – Another team with a good looking future. Just signed Werth for the long term, and eventually will have Strasburg and Harper as teammates. But wouldn’t hold my breath for any significant improvement in 2011.

#26 Seattle Mariners –There are bad offenses and that there is the Mariners’. Last time a team scored so few runs per game, Roberto Clemente was the best right-fielder in the majors. And DH was the abbreviation for a doubleheader – which were frequent and allowed a fan to see 2 games for the price of 1. They still have the reigning Cy Young winner in King Felix, and they signed Jack Cust to help with their anemic offense, but it’s not nearly enough.

#27 Arizona Diamodbacks – Might have had a worse bullpen then Boston’s last year. They’ve added JJ Putz to anchor that bullpen but their offense doesn’t have much past trade bait Justin Upton, and I challenge anyone who doesn’t follow them closely to name 3 members of their starting rotation. Yeah, I didn’t think you could.

#28 Houston Astros – This team is bad. I have no idea how they won 76 games last year. I challenged you to name 3 members of the Diamondacks’ starting rotation, an even tougher challenge might be to name 3 members of Houston’s starting lineup. I’ll even spot you Carlos Lee.

#29 Pittsburgh Pirates – Fans will probably be happy that I didn’t put them in their perennial #30 spot. And there’s a very good reason for that. It’s called the Cleveland Indians! Seriously, the Pirates have improved, some of their recent young draftees are ready to contribute and they added a few pieces including Lyle Overbay. They could improve by 10 games to 67 wins, but that would be their ceiling.

#30 Cleveland Indians – Unfortunately for fans around Lake Erie, this may be the start of a long run of cellar-dwelling. They have some decent players who might be in demand (Sizemore, Choo, Carmona) and they’d be smart to trade them for future prospects. It’s going to be a long season by the Lake, and the best fans can hope for is some smart rebuilding rather than holding on to a few players to try and win 65 games instead of 60.

Some overall predictions:

AL: Boston, Twins and A's win their divisions. Yankees, Rays, Tigers, White Sox, Rangers and maybe Angels compete for division title and/or the wildcard.

NL: Philly, Milwaukee and Colorado win their respective divisions. St.Louis, Reds, Braves and Giants fight for the last playoff spot.

Everybody is predicting a Philly-Sox World Series, so I'll be a contrarian and pick the Rockies to defeat Oakland. But I hope I'm wrong, and the Red Sox beat, well, anybody really.

An Umpire has never cost a team a game

2010-12-29T12:53:00.005-07:00

Now that I have your attention, let me end the year with a controversial post that I hope will generate some comments. This post may be lengthy, but can be summed up in one sentence: I have never seen a game that a team lost due to an Official’s call. I’m not only limiting this to baseball games that I've seen live. I’m including other sports such as football and basketball, and any baseball games at any level. But it’s human nature to blame any failure (whether a group result such as a team loss or an individual failure such as an error or strike out.) on something else -- “we were tired from the long bus trip”, “the ball took a bad hop”,” the sun was in my eyes”, “the umpire blew the call”. You never hear a player say “I have lousy skills”, “I can’t field a ground ball properly”, “I don’t have good command of the strike zone”.

It’s not only players. I hear complaints all the time from friends that I’m watching games with. “The ref just cost them the game with that call”. (Sometimes I think they pile it on a bit thicker because they know I’m an Umpire, but I’ve listened to enough sports talk radio to realize that this attitude is common).

Even my own son has come home from a high school baseball game and when asked how the game was answered “the Umpires were awful – they lost the game for us”. My disappointment in hearing my own flesh and blood complain about the Umpires, turned to amusement when I found out the final score was 16-1. Yeah, I’m sure that the bang-bang play at first base in the second inning that even with instant replay wouldn’t be conclusive, but from the bench you could tell he was safe by a mile, accounted for the 15 run difference.

Umpires are not perfect (although some of us think we are), and we do make mistakes. Sometimes we call a borderline pitch incorrectly without anyone noticing and no consequences, and other times we blow an out call at home plate that directly costs a team a run and are on the front page of the news. In spite of this, I will maintain that a team has never lost a game because of the officiating.

I’m challenging my readers to find an instance of a game that was lost due to an official’s call. There are many famous incidents I can think of off the top of my head where an Umpire or referee or crew have been blamed, but in my mind none of these cases stand up to scrutiny. I’ll even help you get started. How about Game 6 from the 1985 World Series where people blame Mr. Denkinger for the Cardinals not winning the championship? Or the 1972 Russia –US basketball final. Before anyone yells out “Jim Joyce”, he did make one bad call (out of more than 200 calls made in that game), and it did cost Galarraga a no-hitter, but the Tigers still won.

So, go at it. Find me an example where an official blew a game, and I’ll either explain why your perception is incorrect, or I’ll admit I’m wrong.

Happy New Year to all!!