This was a Pozterisk in my upcoming pitchers post. But the thing got too darned long. So you get it as a separate post …
There is really only one thing that drives me insane about color commentators on television. It isn’t when the announcers say silly things because we all say silly things, especially when forced to talk non-stop for about three hours. It isn’t when they get stuff wrong because we all make mistakes. It isn’t when they constantly tell us about their own careers because, frankly, that’s what they know best (If Leo Mazzone ISN’T talking about Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine, then why is he talking?). It isn’t when they say obvious stuff because, hey, despite what Tony La Russa might tell you the biggest part of sports is the obvious stuff.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, ripping announcers is half the fun of sports (ripping the sportswriters the next day is the other half). But let’s be honest: Announcing a game these days is a hard job. Fans are so much better informed than ever before. Fans know so much more about the inside stuff than ever before. In 1978, if an announcer told people, “When a linebacker rushes the passer like that, it’s called a ‘blitz’” … that was revolutionary stuff. These days, if an announcer says, “The problem here is that the Jets were in Cover 2, and as you can see the corner really doesn’t flatten out the receivers route which is his most important responsibility in Cover 2, and by allowing the receiver to go vertically that will stretch the safeties with the deep zone responsibility, which will open up passing lanes HERE and HERE and with the weakside linebacker not getting enough depth, you can see that Brady simply threw the pass there …” half of America goes, “Uh, no duh there Rufus. Why don’t you tell us something we DON’T know.”
So, all in all, I think announcers often get a bad rap. I think we should probably give them a break most of the time. There’s really only the one thing that sets me off. And that is when an announcer sticks with an idea that is exactly counter to what we actually see on the television in front of us.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time, especially in the NFL. The referee will call pass interference and the announcer will shout, “Oh, that was an awful call. That’s good defense. Terrible call.” OK, that part’s fine. We all have instant reactions.
But then they will show the replay, and it will clearly show that the defensive back grabbed the receiver and twirled him around. At this point, you would hope the announcer might back off. But, as often as not, the announcer will STILL insist “That’s good defense.”
Then they will show another replay that plainly shows that the defensive back pulled out a knife and stabbed the receiver in four places while the ball was clearly in the air, and the announcer will STILL say, “Well, I don’t know what the referee was looking at. I mean, that’s a good football play. I mean you have to let the guys play.” Then they will show another replay that shows the defensive back go into the crowd, get four of his buddies from the stands, all of them with baseball bats and chains, and they work over the receiver like Gene Hackman in the barbershop in Mississippi Burning, and they announcer will STILL be talking about how, “You have to let the players on the field determine the outcome of the game …”
I finally found a clip that shows my point. It’s not the ideal clip because it features Chicago White Sox announcers who are famously hometown blind. Still, I think it explains what I’m talking about better than the words. This is the A.J. Pierzynski rundown play from the other night in the game between the White Sox and the Rays. You have no doubt seen this already — A.J., who has to now be considered the King of the Baserunning Con, got caught in a rundown, somehow managed to stay in it for three throws, and then reached out to hit Willy Aybar, took a ridiculous-looking fake dive, and sort of crumpled to the ground. Umpire Doug Eddings, who was apparently looking the other way when the other wrestler rushed into the ring and hit Aybar in the head with a chair, ruled interference and gave Pierzynski third base.
The announcing for the replays is an all-time clinic for the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” style of announcing. Obviously, the White Sox announcers were thrilled with the call, and they wanted desperately to see interference on the replay, I get that. I even appreciate that. So when the first replay is shown, the announcers go “He’s going to run into a defender somewhere. … Right there. … That’s all it takes.” On the first replay, it kind of, sort of, looks like may Aybar brushed A.J. Maybe. If you’re squinting.
OK. Then, though, they show the replay from another angle. And in this angle it is become clearer that, in fact, Abyar did not in fact run into Pierzynski. And while the announcer was saying “As a defensive player, it is your job once you get rid of that baseball, you cannot make contact with the baserunner” — the replay was showing that Aybar very clearly went out of his way so not to make contact with the baserunner. Now the announcing was getting a bit suspect.
Then, though, they showed another replay (“Take another look,”) and this one was the clearest one of all. NOBODY could look at that replay and see interference. It was from third base, and it conclusively showed that Aybar veered to avoid Pierzynski, who was looking RIGHT AT AYBAR and then STUCK OUT HIS LEFT ARM and then TRIED TO TOUCH AYBAR and MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TOUCHED HIM and then FELL DOWN like he had been shoved to the ground by a tenth grade bully.
“Right … here.” the announcers said just as the video showed Pierzynski flailing to touch Aybar and mostly missing. “That’s all it takes. Contact. That’s the third baseman’s fault for not veering to the left and getting out out of thew way.”
Sure, I realize the point of Chicago White Sox announcing — I even get a kick out of it sometimes. Still, that’s the stuff that drives me nuts. It makes you wonder how these guys would announce the film below. I suspect they would say, “I’m sure everybody inside’s Okeydokey. Don’t forget about the big bobblehead doll promotion we have coming up Saturday night …”
Loading ...
100 Comments, Comment or Ping
Kevin
Obviously this was a missed call, but I thought it was obstruction on the live showing of the play. Why Tampa Bay didn’t appeal to the third base umpire is beyond me. He was the one with the actually angle for the call, and I can see why the 2b umpire thought obstruction actually happened, but the beauty of baseball is that we can actually get the call right if the umpires huddle together and talk.
Oh yea, how hard would it be to say, “oh, no, he did not touch the runner”? I am sure they would be all over it if the call went against Chicago.
Aug 26th, 2008
Brian
This is why MLB needs replay. Or challenges, similar to the NFL. I don’t care how long it delays or extends the game. To me, getting the call correct trumps everything.
AJ (aka ‘The Rule-Bender’) basically just fell to the ground while Aybar ran past him and then got the benefit of the idiocy of the umpire. The fact that AJ was okay with taking the bad call shows the classlessness of the player. I hate him and his racist coach.
Aug 26th, 2008
Kuiper Belt
You could have added that no one on the air complains more about the umpires than Ken “Hawk” Harrelson.
Aug 26th, 2008
Wayne Tollison
This probably should go under the same heading as the famous A-Rod “Ha” play against the Jays last year. He got murdered in the press for doing something “bush-league”. Is AJ getting the same treatment? Or is he applauded for being an intelligent, hard-nosed player, taking advantage of the rules.
Aug 26th, 2008
Nathan
Maybe AJ should have been a soccer player with that dive. Speaking of which, did you see Fulham pulled the upset this weekend with the 1-0 defeat of Arsenal?!?!?!
Oh, and living in Chicago, I get all I can handle of the baseball announcers here. It’s amazing that a market this size could put up with such poor commentators. Hawk and DJ are the WORST, but the Cubs radio booth with Santo is not far behind. The Cubs TV guys are the only ones that are worth a darn.
Aug 26th, 2008
Aaron M.
AJ tried to reach out and touch him, he should have been out. Then again, if the fielder is close enough that AJ can fake it, the fielder is too close. It’s times like these I’m reminded of “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying hard enough.” Baseball is the ultimate game of cheating from stealing signs and hidden ball plays to greenies and steroids. I hate Pierzynski, but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.
Aug 26th, 2008
Ed
Brian-
The fact that AJ would take the advantage the umpires are willing to give him doesn’t show classlessness, it shows that he’s a normal player. Would you say the same thing if a hitter accepted ball four on a pitch he knew to be right down the middle? Or if a right field dove for a ball, knew he trapped it, but let the umpire’s “out” call stand?
Don’t let your obvious dislike of AJ (and the White Sox, apparently) cloud your judgment.
Nathan-
Ed Farmer and Steve Stone are the Sox’ radio guys, and they’re excellent. I never liked Farmer up until this year, and Stone, being the Joe Posnanski of the analyst field, has made him tremendously better.
Aug 26th, 2008
Bellweather Johnson
My theory on why the situation that happened above happens is that these color guys are ex-atheletes who have huge egos and have a need to prove that there is a reason why you should be listening to them. There is something mentaly that blocks them from being able to admit that they are worng. Otherwise: why would they be on TV talking about the game in the first place?
I think that’s why the best guys are usually the guys who don’t really have that much to bring to the table that you already don’t know, but whos voices are asthetically pleasing. Really, as much as we may talk about how much more we know about their sport than they do, I generally enjoy watching games that John Madden and Joe Morgan call.
Aug 26th, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
Oh the humanity! Harrelson sounds different on that embedded video clip.
Aug 26th, 2008
michael
If the replay is brought in for HRs, how long before calls like this? Soon this 3 hour human element game will became an 8 hour event with red flags, timeouts and 30 yard lines.
Aug 26th, 2008
Daniel
The fielder was not too close. Aybar did everything short of donning a jetpack and flying straight in the air to avoid Pierzynski. Aybar can’t run straight out to left field, because he may be required to backup the second basemen if the rundown continues. But he veered far enough to the left that AJ could BARELY GRAZE HIM with his elbow, even though he was trying to draw the intereference.
Was it a good try by Pierzynski? Sure, I’ll grant him that - he did what he could to stay on base. But it was an awful call that the third base umpire should have reversed, whether the Rays appealed to him or not.
And the announcing was terrible. Good announcers will see a play, make a declaration, and then if the replay shows differently, they act surprised, but admit that no, in fact, Aybar did not touch AJ and it was actually a bad call. And of course the announcer will put a spin on it, “Well that’s a heads up play by AJ, trying to draw that interference call. Even though it didn’t appear to be the right call, he was able to stay on base.” That’s fine - at least you admit what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Just don’t deny the obvious video evidence.
Aug 26th, 2008
BAM
I know that calling the umpires idiots suffices for what Brian would call incisive commentary, but the fact is that even with 4 umpires, calls will be missed. Does this mean, as Brian opines, that we need instant replay for ALL close plays (or those with which the likes of Brian disagree)? I’d hate to see it come to that, but it sure seems like that’s going to be on the table in the next few years.
Getting back ON topic, as someone who knows several radio and TV personalities, it comes as no surprise that once they’ve said something, not even their own lyin’ eyes will dissuade them from backing off their original position. Only doctors and lawyers are worse when it comes to acknowledging that they’ve screwed up.
BTW - welcome back Joe.
Aug 26th, 2008
Chris C.
The “Right…..THERE!” moment is always a weird one, when an announcer is furtively looking for anything that will justify their initial reaction to the call. I find that whenever you hear them saying that line, “See…right….it’s coming….just aboooooooooout….THERE!” you hardly ever see whatever it is the announcer is talking about. Because it didn’t happen? Maybe?
Aug 26th, 2008
Linus
I do want to point out a counter to the above with what Bob Brenley did last night. (or was it the night before?) After Kosuke had gotten a homerun, Bob was explaining that Lou was working with Kosuke to shorten his stride. They then showed video of Kosuke’s AB, and an AB that was supposed to show Kosuke’s longer stride from when he was struggling. But, when they showed the video, Bob noted that the stride in fact looked the same, and it wasn’t notably shortened. Essentially, he admitted that Lou’s suggestion hadn’t made the different. He then went ahead and said that these were probably changes that you won’t see right away. I thought it nice that he didn’t try to stick to his hypothesis “Kosuke’s HR was because of Lou’s work with him to shorten his stride.”
Aug 26th, 2008
Denkinger
I wonder if Brian (#2) is a Royals fan. I don’t remember any Royals fans offering to give back a bad call on a Saturday night in 1985 …
Aug 26th, 2008
Kyle K
I’m against replay in baseball for most plays, but I wish people would quit it with the ridiculous “it’ll make the game too long” argument. How long was Joe Maddon out on the field arguing that call? 3 minutes? 5? In less time than that an ump can *easily* take a look at a monitor and see that AJ faked it. If replays are limited to only certain plays or limited by challenges, which it would undoubtably be, the “it slows the game” arguement is specious at best.
Aug 26th, 2008
Windier E. Megatons
Two things in sports that should never be surprising: A.J. Pierzynski cheating, and Hawk Harrelson being an idiot.
Aug 26th, 2008
Creston
Mr Joe Morgan… Mr Joe Morgan? I have Joe Posnanski on line 2, he’d like to tell you a few things about your announcing. Mr Joe Morgan, please pick up the angry red courtesy phone.
Aug 26th, 2008
joseflanders
Even though I disagree with Brenly on his “hit and run happiness”, I think he and Len do a terrific job. The Kosuke incident yesterday was so refreshing; DJ would have still tried saying that he shortened his stride by a half-inch and that it “clearly made all the difference.”
Aug 26th, 2008
Mikey
If you pause the video clip at 1:24, AJ and Aybar appear to be in contact, and AJ is within the baseline.
My reading of the rule is that obstruction is not a judgment call. There’s either contact within the baseline or there isn’t. Pierzynski’s intent is irrelevant because he has the right of way within the baseline. The onus is entirely on the fielder to avoid contact.
Then again, I’m not an umpire. Maybe someone here is and has a different view. I thought it was the right call.
Aug 26th, 2008
michael
Kyle K: Replay won’t be a review by the umpire, it’ll be a video review by another official in NYC. A manager argues for 5 minutes and is booted. As far as I can tell, there will be no limit on the requests for replay, so you’re potentially looking at multiple times from both teams looking at replays. Somehow I think that’ll be longer than it takes to run a manager from a game. Then imagine the manager still doesn’t like the call made by a guy down the street or 3000 miles away; that’s even more delay!
Aug 26th, 2008
Brian
@Ed - I’m willing to give the ump the benefit of the doubt because I am against using replay for called balls and strikes (although the accuracy of a machine with an adjustable zone based on the batter would be infinitely better)
@BAM and others - I am 100% for the use of replay challenges (similar to NFL style: limited amounts, say 2, per game… although I don’t know what a good consequence of using a challenge would be). I don’t think replay needs to be used for every minor decision (although MLB is doing that themselves with the homerun cameras), but coaches should be given the benefit of the doubt, like in the NFL.
And yes, the fact that most umpires cant get calls right alone is a terrible thing.
Aug 26th, 2008
Jacob
Rules are rules. The fielder should have got out of the way. The umpires stuck to the Rule Book. I hate to say it, but they made the proper call.
I watched that game. Despite the controversy, it was nice to see such a rare play.
Aug 26th, 2008
Tyler
“OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.”
Jacob, the rule says nothing about contact, it says that a fielder cannot impede the runner progress. Aybar clearly did not impede AJ’s progress. Pierzynski went out of his way to make contact with him.
“As a runner, you’re allowed to (make contact). What Doug ruled at second base was, even though A.J. did kind of stick his arm out to make contact, Aybar was still in his way, so A.J., if he would have turned, he wouldn’t have been able to continue on to third. So after making the throw, Aybar is no longer in the act of fielding and he can’t obstruct the runner, which is what Doug ruled happened. And in a rundown, even though A.J. was going back to second, the rule of obstruction during a rundown is he gets his next advanced base and that’s why he was rewarded third base.”
That’s what the crew chief said about the play, and either had not seen the replay, way lying or should not be an umpire.
Aug 26th, 2008
Bellylard
Replay stinks, as many blown calls as we’ve seen, umpires still get it right enough that it’s going to be more trouble than the precedent it sets. Are the camera operators not human, or are we dealing with a static placement? There will never be enough equipment to see everything and decide “intent” unless ALL the rules are changed to eliminate every possible source of conflict.
May as well put fans 50 feet behind the wall and use an infrared beam. All fans must wear black to achieve the proper chromatic background. No possible projectile objects can be allowed in the ballpark, that would interfere with the camera’s vision. No fans at ALL, they might move their arms and bodies and create a shadow.
When the game has pitchers who throw strikes on the black every time at 100 mph with sink, batters who only hit line drives, managers who always have the best strategic and leadership skills, and general managers who never pay too much for a player’s performance, and only draft players who will make the major leagues. Oh, and owners who don’t expect to make as much money in baseball as in oil.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mike
The best “right there” moment from an announcer was Billy Packer ruling “Clearly not a foul” on Gerald Henderson.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mikey
Isn’t the word impedes understood to include but not be limited to contact?
The word impede would seem to make it unnecessary to then specify contact.
That Pierzynski went out of his way to make contact with him is not relevant to the call. He’s allowed to go out of his way to make contact.
Aug 26th, 2008
Eric J
If I’m not mistaken, the umpire on this play is the same guy who ruled AJ out on strikes against the Angels in the ALCS, then changed his mind when AJ ran to first.
Aug 26th, 2008
DGL
To Mikey or anyone else (like the White Sox announcers) who thinks that “you can not make contact with a baserunner”:
From the MLB rules: “OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.”
“Contact” is not by definition “obstruction”. Contact between a runner and a fielder can be one of three things: Offensive interference (”an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play”), Obstruction (definition above), or a collision (no penalty against either side). And it’s the umpire’s job to decide which.
Canonical example: Right-handed batter bunts a ball in front of the plate. As the batter breaks for first, the catcher leaps out from behind the plate to pick up the ball, and runs into the batter. Is it obstruction? No, the catcher was in the act of fielding the ball. Is it offensive interference? No, the catcher ran into the batter (so it was not “an act by the team at bat”). It’s a collision.
Obstruction requires (1) an act of the fielder and (2) the progress of the runner being impeded. In my viewing of the AJ play, the contact between AJ and Aybar was neither an act of the fielder nor did it impede AJ’s progress towards third base. (Aybar was already on the second base side of AJ when AJ fell down.) Horrible call.
Aug 26th, 2008
Josh in DC
According to Brian, “This is why MLB needs replay. Or challenges, similar to the NFL. I don’t care how long it delays or extends the game. To me, getting the call correct trumps everything.”
I disagree. This is not life or death, this is a game, and this is entertainment. Therefore, what matters the most to me is whether I am entertained. The lengthy delays in pro football, the hideous frame-by-frame checking if a blade of grass moved, the dead certainty from the announcers for something that is clearly debatable — this is not entertaining to me. This is boring to me.
I do care how long it takes. I have a wife, I have a daughter. I have books to read and a lawn to mow. I have a job, I have volunteer activities. Typically, I have a few hours each weekend and an hour each night to watch TV. I’d rather watch them play than watch super slo-motion replays of watching them play.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mikey
Contact is by definition an impediment. It may be a trivial impediment, but it is an impediment.
The example you cite is not relevant because the catcher is fielding the ball and Aybar was not.
Can anybody cite an example of a defensive player making contact with a runner while not fielding the ball and not being called for obstruction?
Aug 26th, 2008
Josh in DC
American Heritage Dictionary
im·ped·i·ment (n.)
1. Something that impedes; a hindrance or obstruction.
According to Mikey, when I accidentally step on a bug, I was impeded by the bug.
“Contact is, by definition, an impediment.”
Care to rephrase, Mikey?
Aug 26th, 2008
Mike Bagnall
Games are competitions to perform some task within an arbitrary set of rules. The performer who performs it better “wins”. How anyone can get satisfaction from “winning” any game by going counter to the rules is mystifying to me. I can see the benefits to cheats in professional sports, but why do amateurs do it? Even in professional games, why do officials allow it? I’m talking about the obvious stuff like catchers blocking the plate without the ball and the “phantom play” at second base. The most flagrant violations are generally perfomed by first basemen leaving contact with the bag before they catch the ball. I used to play first base (very badly) and I didn’t want to get stepped on, either, but you’re supposed to tag the bag when you have posession of the ball. Announcers tell us the first base umpire can’t see the ball AND the runner’s foot AND the first baseman’s foot. Nonsense. I can see it from the stands. The umpire is standing too close.
Aug 26th, 2008
Perry
Mikey, as a former umpire, I can tell you that should never, in my opinion, have been ruled obstruction. I’m not criticizing Eddings, because in the heat of the moment and at full speed, you’re going to make mistakes, but that wasn’t obstruction. He didn’t impede. I don’t care if there was contact, there was no impediment. You can have contact without impediment, and you can also have impediment without contact. An ineffectual brush that doesn’t slow the runner’s progress is not impediment. But a fielder blocking the runner’s path, forcing the runner to go around him, is impediment, even if there’s no contact. In this case, there was contact but no impediment, IMO. There was also no “act of a fielder,” since AJP went out of his way to initiate the contact.
Aug 26th, 2008
JeffSol
Did I read a comparison of Joe Morgan and John Madden as announcers? Admittedly, Madden has grown into a caricature of himself, and after 20+ years, he really doesn’t have anything new to say. But Madden, when he started as an announcer, was fresh, did a lot of research, and was a real good listen and helped America understand line play in a way it hadn’t before. He is tiring and overbearing now but was not always that way. Much as I admired him as a player, I cannot ever recall Morgan as an announcer being anything but condescending, annoying and clueless as to how games are actually won and lost.
Aug 26th, 2008
Brian
@Josh in DC - There is inherent drama in replay challenges, or do you not watch NFL football? That’s entertaining to me. Your argument is moot. And if you want to watch them play, get a Tivo/DVR… then you can fast forward through the parts that are too slow or lack entertainment, in your opinion.
I can’t believe people are siding with the umpires in this call. The video shows AJ falling backwards, even though he was attempting to run back to 2nd base. Did Aybar impede AJ’s backwards stumble? Bogus call. End of story.
Aug 26th, 2008
Creston
“I’d rather watch them play than watch super slo-motion replays of watching them play.”
A slow mo replay will take, say, 3 minutes. That’s three minutes of you watching the replay whether the homer was foul or not, or whether it skipped the fence or not. While you are watching that, the umps are watching it too. So that when everyone can clearly see the ball is foul/fair, the umpires can now also see it and make the right call. Play resumes in 3.5 minutes. This is how it will go in the future once the kinks are worked out.
Right now, it is three minutes of you watching the replay, while manager A stands there and yells at the umpires, with spittle flying everywhere, then the umpires get together and debate on whether any of them actually even bothered to look and where to go for pizza that night, then they either let the call stand or reverse it. If they let it stand, manager A comes out again and yells at them that they are blind, at which point he gets tossed, and he yanks bases out of the field and throws them around before he is finally dragged off the field. He turns back around in the dugout to yaw some more crap, to which the umpire responds, more delays, etc.
If they overturn the call, Manager B comes sprinting out of the dugout with a look of righteous indignation and proceeds to argue his case. At this point the umpires have to patiently explain to manager B that they are not trying to “screw him” for what he said on Sportscenter last night, and that they really DON’T have any financial interest in the other team, and that this is what they think really happened.
Manager B will whine on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how bad the call is, before finally giving up, disgusted, after another 6 minutes or so.
If a homerun was called foul, then the batter will come and have his say, because after all, that 1 RBI will cost him 10 million in arbitration next year, and he does have 17 illegitimate daughters to take care of. The umpires try to placate the batter, and manager B comes back to put in another piece.
Finally, manager and hitter go back to their respective spots, the batter lines out on the next pitch, and proceeds to yaw at the ump for costing him a homerun and turning him into an out. The ump gets tired of this, tosses the batter, and out comes manager B again, to yell at the ump for being a racist/biased/blind/ignorant idiot. Then he gets tossed too, and he proceeds to yank out some bases, kick some dirt around and other such shenanigans.
Play finally continues after what feels like 9.73 million hours.
But I can really see how two guys walking off the field to study an image on a tv is going to ADD tons of times to games over what we have currently, so that all us married working people will no longer be able to watch the games…
Aug 26th, 2008
Mike Williams
Why is everybody posting arguing about the call?
Joe’s post was about bad announcers - please stay on topic.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mikey
“According to Mikey, when I accidentally step on a bug, I was impeded by the bug.”
As crazy as it sounds I think that’s literally accurate.
“Impeded” and “slowed” aren’t necessarily synonymous. You can be impeded without being slowed in any meaningful way.
Perry, thanks for the insight. My original comment was that I didn’t read the rule as being open to judgment but according to you it is. I was reading it as black-and-white.
I have an honest question for you. The catcher’s interference rule seems to be worded similarly to the obstruction rule. It doesn’t specify “contact” and is defined as “an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.”
Now, I always believed that in that case any contact = catcher’s interference. Is that not correct? Is catcher’s interference also open to an umpire’s judgment? If not, what in the wording of the rules makes them different?
Aug 26th, 2008
Kuiper Belt
“Play finally continues after what feels like 9.73 million hours.”
And then the pitcher’s arm tightens up, so we’ll have a pitching change and the new pitcher will have all the time he needs to warm up ….
Aug 26th, 2008
Laurence Davison
Personally my pet hate with colour commentators is when they simply describe the action over a replay. You know, as in:
1) Goal is scored, with commentator describing action.
2) Commentator and colour man (British English: “pundit”) discuss goal.
3) Replay. At this point the commentary model says I should have the colour man saying something vaguely insightful, along the lines of, say, “the full-back has been caught upfield leaving space for the winger to get into crossing position”. Which of itself isn’t exactly rocket science. What I actually get, 99 times out of 100, is “he’s got clear on the left, that’s a lovely ball into the box and a great finish.” I KNOW - I CAN SEE THAT.
This is doubly pointless, because (a) I can see what happened and (b) the commentator (paid to: be articulate in describing action) has already told me. Why shell out money to some ex-jock to do a less impressive version of what the nerd sat next to him has already done?
Aug 26th, 2008
Perry
If the bat hits the catcher’s glove, it’s interference every time. There’s no margin of error for hitting; there’s no way you could justify saying that ANY contact didn’t impede the batter. It’s different with a runner, even though the wording of the rule is similar. There is such a thing, as I said, as contact that doesn’t impede. You have to use common sense.
Here’s another thing — in a rundown, if there’s obstruction the ball is dead immediately and you make the award. If a runner who’s NOT being played on is obstructed, you wait to see if it affects the play before you make the call. So the same contact could be obstruction or not, depending on what happens. If a runner brushes a fielder and is thrown out by 20 feet, no call. If he’s thrown out by an inch, you award the base. The rule says you award such bases, IF ANY, that nullify the act of obstruction.
Aug 26th, 2008
cm
oh the humanity. . .did AJ’s baserunning just spark a huge stupid controversy. . .i just can’t talk anymore. . .the poor people that have friends caught up in it.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mikey
“The video shows AJ falling backwards, even though he was attempting to run back to 2nd base.”
Wrong. He had stopped attempting to run back to second base and had reversed direction.
This discussion about announcers making comments not supported by the video is cluttered with comments not supported by the video.
Aug 26th, 2008
Perry
Correction — it says you impose penalties, IF ANY, that nullify the obstruction.
Aug 26th, 2008
Wade
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a single mention of Ryan Lefebvre yet and his love of TPJ. He’s still trying to justify putting TPJ on the field! Give it up Ryan, trust your eyes and trust that the viewers aren’t idiots.
As for replay, get over it. Think about all of the MLB games that happen throughout the year and now think about how often you see a blown call. Once a week? So, each team plays 5 games a week (estimated) and there are 30 teams. 150 games a week. 54 outs in a game. 8,100 outs per week and you might see one blown call each week. I think the blown calls are less than that even. Is replay really necessary?
Aug 26th, 2008
Monkeyhawk
I can’t listen to Ken Harrelson without thinking of the Kansas City A’s broadcaster back when “Hawk” played for Charlie O. Finley.
Does anyone remember Monty Moore?
I think he did the broadcasts alone, but Finley wrote the script. The A’s were so bad, and Moore kept coming up with reasons they were so good. The Kelly Green and Gold uniforms with white albino kangaroo hide shoe. The “How Catfish Hunter Got His Nickname” myth.
You listened to Monty Moore for the same reason you slow down on the freeway to ogle an accident scene. You know you shouldn’t, you’re ashamed you do, but you can’t help yourself.
I wish I could hear Moore’s broadcasts from the Summer of the
Half-Pennant Porch.My Dad and I used to laugh about it when Finley required all announcers — P.A. and broadcast — remind fans that a fly-ball deep to right (298 feet) “…would have been… a home run… in Yankee Stadium.”
Some long obscure game, the A’s young pitchers gave up three home-runs in a row. Finally, the first out was a long fly at the base of Finley’s Half-Pennant Porch. And Moore dutifully reminded us, “That ball would’ve been a home-run in Yankee Stadium.”
I can still remember the words to the Clark Super 100 Gasoline jingle. Thousands say it’s best.
Aug 26th, 2008
drewfuss
i can’t believe there are so many people saying Pierzynski was in the right…. what?! even a convoluted reading of the rule does not imply that a failed attempt at shoving the defender should be awarded 3rd base. plus he looked kinda like tyler hansbrough flopping like fish to draw a charge in the lane. laughable.
also, like the ChiSox clowns, i hope to one day make a great paycheck, yet be really lousy at my job. not there yet, but one day, maybe!
Aug 26th, 2008
Monkeyhawk
In homage to Herm Edwards –
It’s why you play the game.
Any time a runner is caught in a rundown, it’s because the runner screwed up. If a runner knows an obscure rule might get him out of that rundown, you play the odds; you play the game.
Was Pete Rose a dick when he collided with Ray Fosse in an exhibition game? Yeah. But it’s how he played the game.
I like sports rules with players’ names. Like the “Hal McCrae Rule” about sliding into double-play pivot men. Or the “Lew Alcindor Rule” that banned dunk shots when he was in college. Maybe this’ll result in the “A.J. Pierzynski Rule.” (Something like: “The base runner must sell the ‘interference’ with an effort at least worthy of a professional wrestler.”)
I remember a story about “Home Run” Baker who was player/manager for Boston a gillion years ago. He was sitting on the bench when someone popped a foul to the dugout. Baker stood up, yelled “Baker substituting for ‘Jones,” caught the ball and went into the game after the out. The “Home Run Baker” rule is the reason reading the rule book’s minutia about substitutions will make your eyes bleed.
Without getting too political, the only reason there’s the “letter of the law” is because someone broke the spirit of the law.
One of the reasons George Brett’s Pine-Tar Game is memorable is how, somehow, the spirit of the law overruled the letter.
Billy Martin was one helluva player.
And sometimes you win.
Aug 26th, 2008
Eric J
Hawk,
I’ve always heard that as the King Kelly rule, from about 30 years earlier. Same basic story, though.
Aug 26th, 2008
Justyo
I thought I was seeing things at first… At the end of that Hindenberg video you can see a couple people coming out from the flames and running, crawling away. I had to look at it again. How could someone survive that? Then a quick check of the net told me 35 people died but 62 passengers and crew survived.
Wow… What a trip that must have been.
Aug 26th, 2008
Monkeyhawk
“Eric J” –
I’m not sure, but now that you mention it, I think I stand corrected.
Certainly that rule would’ve been codified before Baker’s era.
But, hell.
When I wanna lie, lemme lie.
;^)
Aug 26th, 2008
Eric J
Wikipedia confirms the “Kelly now catching for Boston!” story (at least as much as wikipedia can confirm stuff). That’s one of my favorite baseball stories, incidentally.
Aug 26th, 2008
Fran
The Cubs are 32 games over 500.
The Cubs have won 9 series in a row. That hasn’t happened for over 100 years. Pat & Ron said to us listeners that it probably hadn’t happened in our lifetime.
I wish I could be hopeful, instead of expecting them to lose in the first round of the playoffs. If they win the division they’ll probably play the Mets. Ron & I are both full of fear of the Mets. It would be nice if Z remembered how to pitch.
I’m afraid though that if the impossible happened, I’d be like those folks in Boston in 2004, wishing that my father could have seen it.
Why don’t they play Go Cubs Go in PNC Park? (when I was younger & Ron was on 3rd base, there were no such frivolities.) (well, I guess there was We Are Family, but the Cubs were a serious team.)
Aug 26th, 2008
Johnny
1. Rays SS Bartlett should have run three steps and tagged A.J. upon fielding the ball.
2. Aybar should have just run A.J. down and tagged him.
The Rays are one of the best fielding teams in MLB, but they screwed the pooch there. In fact, the game should have ended in the bottom of the ninth, but the Rays catcher, Shawn Riggans muffed a throw to the plate that big league catchers make 98 times out of hundred.
“You let a big league team stay around, they’re going to find a way to beat ya’.”
Aug 26th, 2008
Dr.Funkenstein
Kent Brockman does a great version of “Oh, the Humanity!”….
Aug 27th, 2008
YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD...
…YES!
Love The Hawk. Frankly, if non White Sox fans didn’t hate his guts, he wouldn’t be doing his job.
Aug 27th, 2008
roger
The Indians announcers have been all over you lately about wanting Grady to bat third (well, they’ve never mentioned you by name, but I can only assume it’s directed towards you specifically). I think he just tied/surpassed his career high in about every statistical category. They’ll mention that and then say (with great disdain), “And yet SOME people think he should be batting 3rd. [a good laugh ensues]” Seemingly unaware that batting 1st has little to do with his production and that in a different line-up spot he could potentially have, like, even more RBI!
Aug 27th, 2008
gogiggs
Is that the radio announcers? I haven’t heard the TV guys do that.
I actually came here to mention that in a similar situation last night the Indians announcers did pretty much the opposite of what the Sox announcers did.
Inge on first, Granderson at bat, ground ball to Cabrera at second. Inge sort of hesitates, seems to be making sure the ball doesn’t hit him, not in front of Cabrera, then continues on to second. Cabrera fields the ball, throws to first, too late to get Granderson. The umpire calls Inge out and awards Granderson first. The call clearly benefited the Indians but Indians announcers Manning and Underwood openly questioned it. Even when they returned from the commercial break for the next inning, Rick Manning was still saying that he didn’t see what it was that caused Inge to be called out.
I never did find out what the call was, real life intruded. This column was still pretty fresh in my mind, though, so the contrast really stuck out.
Aug 27th, 2008
Andrew
Jose Guillen for President!
Aug 27th, 2008
Brian
@Mikey - His body was facing 2nd base still. Maybe his momentum had stopped going towards 2nd, but he was falling backwards at the time of “contact”.
@Wade - I could use your argument to say the same thing only supporting instant replay: it would be good to have because the few times calls are messed up, we would be able to fix them using replay faster. It wouldn’t be a crutch, just a tool.
@Johnny - Good call on those plays. The Rays totally blew it defensively, leaving the door open for the rats to sneak through.
Aug 27th, 2008
JAY B
Sorry, but “touching” is NOT necessarily “impeding”– if you picked someone up on a 4-wheeler and drove them around the bases, you would have “touched” them, but not “impeded” them.
Aug 27th, 2008
Wally
Mikey, honestly you must be joking.
“According to Mikey, when I accidentally step on a bug, I was impeded by the bug.”
“As crazy as it sounds I think that’s literally accurate. ”
Any definition you can find of “impede” is something like: “To retard or obstruct the progress of.” or “to block or make progress or action difficult,” or “to interfere with or slow the progress of.” Never a mention of “contact” (or any synonyms) in any definition you can find.
Seriously, are you just trying to mock the announcers that make similar claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Have you ever heard the concept of being “necessary and sufficient?” See contact is “necessary” for something to be impeded (unless we’re talking about Aybar getting out a large fan to blow AJ over, but even then air is making contact), but contact is not “sufficient” for something to be impeded. The bug example works to show that, or say I’m riding my bike and someone gives me a push in direction I want to go. That is contact, but it does not hinder my progress in anyway, in fact it helps me.
Aug 27th, 2008
ghb5
I like how MLB makes you sit through not one but TWO commercials before you can view the clip. I’m surprised they didn’t tack another one onto the end that locked up your browser until it was done.
Typical move from a used-car dealer.
Aug 27th, 2008
David in NYC
To reply to the article’s comments about announcing (the actual topic at hand), the whole “letting them play” comment is just stupid beyond belief. Unfortunately, this seems to be a standard reaction from at least one member of every broadcast crew when the officials decide to swallow their whistles.
– The QB throws downfield to a receiver. The DB (or even DBs) flagrantly foul the intended receiver without a pass interference call. Announcer(s): “They’re letting the players decide the game.”
– Hockey team on a power play. The big scorer sets up in front of the net, where both defensemen proceed to pummel him with sticks, gloves, and whatever else is available. Announcer(s): “Well, you don’t want a penalty to decide this game.”
– Basketball team posts up their big guy. He is double- (or even triple- ) teamed by the defense, which involves holding him, grabbing his shorts and/or jersey, etc. Announcers: “You really want the game decided on the floor.”
Aaarrrrggggghhhhhh!!!! They’re not letting them play, they are allowing them to FOUL. They’re not letting the players decide the game, they are letting SOME players get away with murder. Actually “playing the game” includes FOLLOWING THE RULES (otherwise, what’s the point of having rules). That’s what the referees/umpires are there for. When they don’t call fouls/penalties/infractions, they are actively distorting the game and its outcome.
Who first came up with that stupid, moronic, and completely counter-intuitive observation? And why does every announcing team have at least one member who will repeat this idiocy at every opportunity?
And Hawk Harrelson is a complete idiot, as best as I can determine, even going back to his playing and GM days.
Aug 27th, 2008
JIM
Great article!!!! Go Sox! We need more acting in baseball.
Aug 27th, 2008
Jason Lukehart
there’s a BIG difference between a player knowing he was out, but called safe and not saying anything about it and what pierzynski did the other day. only in the latter case has a player gone out of his way in an attempt to fool the ump into the incorrect call. mistakes will be made and are a part of the game, but this goes far beyond that. this was a cheap flop, and i’d rank cheap floppers very near the worst of the worst.
Aug 27th, 2008
Jay in St. Pete
It was a blown call plain and simple and it is ridiculous to try and rationalize it. Regardless, the Rays had plenty of other chances to win the game. The only amazing thing to me is that a guy with A.J.’s reputation would get the benefit of the doubt from any umpire. I do not fault him for trying as it was the umpires job to catch it. As for handling it, I am fairly certain A.J. will catch a fastball to the middle of his back the next time the teams play in a non-playoff setting. Hopefully, it will be thrown by Grant Balfour.
Aug 27th, 2008
Mikey
This is getting fun.
Here’s the merriam-webster definition of impede: “to interfere with or slow the progress of”; interfere is separately defined in part as “come into collision with”
Note the use of the word or. Earlier I posted that impeding is not necessarily synonymous with slowing. The definition allows for the possibility that progress can be interfered with without being slowed.
Your use of necessary and sufficient is wrong on both counts. Contact is not necessary for something to be impeded, but if there is contact no standard of sufficiency needs to be met to satisfy the literal definition.
Can anyone cite an occurrence in which a baserunner made contact with a fielder not in the act of fielding the ball and the contact was not ruled as interference? If the umpire is allowed to make a judgment as to whether the contact is or isn’t an impediment, then this must have happened once in 100+ years of major league baseball. Right?
Aug 27th, 2008
Mikey
“It was a blown call plain and simple and it is ridiculous to try and rationalize it.”
Was their contact?
Was Aybar fielding the ball?
Have you ever seen a fielder not in the act of fielding make contact with a runner and not be called for interference?
I’ll save you the trouble of posting a response: There was. He wasn’t. You haven’t.
Aug 27th, 2008
pete
Off topic: Read your SI piece on the Cubs. Nice investigative work! You discoverd that White Sox and Cardinals fans hate the Cubs.
What’s next, and expose on Mets fans who hate the Yankees? Perhaps something about Pakers fans who hate the Bears?
Nice work, Scoop!
Aug 27th, 2008
Pete
You need to know where I’m coming from: I CAN NOT STAND Hawk and Dj! They are an embarrassment to the Whitesox organization (but the radio guys are the best). However….I believe the rule is contact. If the fielder was close enough to be brushed by AJs elbow or shoulder, then he was too close according to the rule. The umpire even admitted seeing AJs effort to make contact - I’m assuming he knows the rules better than I do. So, while I agree with your general statement about announcers, and I agree that Hawk and Dj are miserable to listen to and generally make my ears bleed, I can not agree with this particular example. Contact was made, the umpire saw the whole thing (including the elbow), the umpire discussed it with the other umpires, and a call was made. Do you know the rules better than those four umpires??
Aug 27th, 2008
Scott
This is the first article that I have from you and you can not be more right on. The problem with Hawk and DJ is that if a call goes AGAINST the White Sox, they will talk about it all game long. They are famous for talking about a borderline called third strike, 6 innings later. They do the same thing with great defensive plays…if a White Sox defensive player makes a decent play, they act like it is Willie Mays all over again. When an opponent makes a fabulous play, they act as if it was just a “can of corn”.
They are horrible.
Aug 27th, 2008
robert
Ripping announcers. Mischaracterization is certainly a failing that can arise when any of us aligns with the subject of our observation. People take unreasonable stances and see what they want to see when they assume the role of advocate.
On a WGN broadcast about two weeks ago, a White Sox batter was hit in the upper arm with a pitch. There was no discussion from the broadcast booth about whether this was intentional, and no on-the-field fuss was made. The incident appeared innocuous. The next batter hit a ball back up the middle. It almost hit the pitcher. The comment from the booth was, from the first announcer: “What should have happened was that the ball should have hit the pitcher.” Second announcer: “He should have been hit on the kneecap.”
This is worse than an observational failure or a conflation of the roles of objective announcer with zealous fan. This is a level of ugliness that has no place in “sport.” This is a level of ugliness that has no place in the “business” of baseball. This is a level of ugliness that transcends even a bullying schoolyard experience, and approaches a professional criminal attitude.
The Pierzynski incident is deflating insofar as it shows an all too human willingness to rationalize or to be willfully blind. The batting incident is a much more frightening example of casual and unthinking cruelty.
Aug 27th, 2008
JAY B
Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t use “touch” or “make contact with” in the rulebook? Probably because that wasn’t the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule was to define what happens when a fielder IMPEDES the runner, i.e. slows or prevents them from advancing to the next base.
I don’t blame AJ “Manu Ginobli” Pierzynski for trying to exploit the rule, I blame the umpire for being as assclown.
A player who reaches his hand out to get hit by a pitch should be called out, a guy who flops looking for contact and gets tagged while laying on his can should be called out. What is this, soccer? Yellow card!
Aug 27th, 2008
Justin
For the record, I think that if you can award Pierzynki third in that instance based on the rules, then the rules need to be amended. If a dude leans out of his way to make very minor, incidental contact with a fielder and then falls over (not as a result of the contact - if that minor AJ-initiated brush is enough to make him topple over, he needs to see a doctor for his severe inner-ear imbalance), the dude should still be out.
What interests me more is whether this might set some sort of precedent in rundown situations. Second baseman’s got the ball? Reach out to elbow the shortstop and then fall over! The fair-play part of me, of course, would like to see that strategy used most of all against the White Sox, since it’s their infamous cheap-tactic artist of a catcher who first benefited from it.
I do think it’s in the same ballpark as A-Rod yelling “mine!” last year, though I’d call A-Rod’s play even more bush league.
Aug 27th, 2008
Mikey
“Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t use “touch” or “make contact with” in the rulebook?”
Or it could be that the word impedes makes the word touch superfluous
Aug 27th, 2008
MP
Why do people seem to believe that instant replay will get managers to stop arguing? We now get several minutes of managers screaming at umpires. With instant replay we will probably have several minutes of video review PLUS several minutes of managers screaming at umpires.
Aug 27th, 2008
Timmy
Joe, lets get this out of the way and tell you I’m a Sox fan but not a huge fan of Hawk (he whines too much.) But you have to give him a break, he called the play and replay as he saw it, according to his knowledge of the rules (which at this point, should be pretty vast because he’s been around the game for close to 50 years.)
He points to the contact which everyone readily admits that AJ initiated. He didn’t flop, it’s hard to reverse direction with your fat ass going one direction already… he fell. When he fell, as a last ditch effort to save a bone head play, he threw his elbow out to draw contact in hopes that the ump would see it as interference. Why is this any different than a receiver trying to draw contact from a corner, when he realizes he’s not going to catch the ball. He tries to draw contact and hope the ref sees it. If the receiver doesn’t do that, he gets criticized.
Bad call? Probably. I am not sure I would have called it that way. Heads up play? Definitely. You have to give credit to fast thinking. How many players have that much knowledge of the rules and more importantly, how most umpires are going to interpret the rules?
And as for the “cheating” accusation; all he did was overrun a base, fall on his butt and graze a fielder who probably shouldn’t have been so close to him. Don’t use the same word that describes what Roger Clemens and countless others have done.
While Hawk may be quite the old homer, he just pointed out what the umps ruled: there was contact between the runner and someone not actively involved in the play at the time. He didn’t claim that Aybar ran into AJ or knocked him over. At the end of the clip, they’re both laughing at how the play ended up.
As someone else stated, your apparent pre-existing dislike for the White Sox / AJP clouds your writing.
Aug 27th, 2008
Scott
I understand the Hawk and DJ are homers….that is fine. But their job is to ANNOUCE the game. They should call the game fairly…..not like two drunk fans sitting on the couch watching it.
I don’t have a problem with what AJ did….he was going to be out so he tried everything he could to not be out. I have a problem with the umpires calling it. That is why they have a rule against flopping in other sports. They are talking about adding it to basketball. The umpires need to be better. A better question is: does Eddings hang out at AJ’s house during the offseason?
Aug 27th, 2008
Wally
Mikey, this is getting silly. You now have to go to a possible definition of a word in the definition of impede to support your case?
Other definitions of interfere: “to be or create a hindrance or obstacle,” “to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes,” “come into collision or be in opposition.”
Only one part out of four specifies a collision. I think its a little much to assume even interfere means it has to involve a collision (which is still different from CONTACT), not mention that one step above that, that impede means any collision (which again isn’t the same thing as CONTACT).
Anyway Mikey, this is just gotten silly. You’ve gone from impede to interfere to collision. And really, was what happened even a collision? Collision is a FORM of contact, but not all contact is a collision. In case you where wondering the definition of “collide” is: “to come together with solid or direct impact”
At best what happened was a glancing brush, in no way was this “solid or direct impact,” but the way this is going I will probably have to define “solid” or “impact.” And before long we’ll be discussing what the meaning of “is” is.
Aug 27th, 2008
JAY B
“Or it could be that the word impedes makes the word touch superfluous”
Yes, I can just picture a group of people sitting around, thinking “We mean to say touch, but let’s instead use a word which makes touch superfluous”
My apologies Mikey, that’s exactly how it happened.
I ain’t mad atcha though, I’ve commented without thinking before also. But the whole point of this post was how some people can’t admit when they’re wrong. Your turn to step up.
Aug 27th, 2008
nightfly
@mikey - you keep using that word “impede.” I do not think it means what you think it means. =)
Maybe I have a different interpretation of “impede” from my time reffing hockey games, but if AJ pulled that on a rink, he’d be sitting in the box for two minutes - unsportsmanlike conduct (diving). That was absurd. He CAUSED the contact; the rules cover things like this. He has the right to the baseline, but not to anything else.
Of course, it’s not hockey; I obviously know this. My point is, both sports have pretty clear-cut guidelines defining contact and who is to blame for it in various situations. Aybar would not have made any contact whatsoever with Pierszynski if Pierszynski hadn’t initiated. AJ did not need to do anything to avoid touching Aybar at all. That makes this not interference.
To answer your question, can anyone cite an example of “contact, no interference”? It’s unlikely - first because we are not walking encyclopedias, second because boxscores do not normally include a record of “interference not called,” and third because nobody has time to go through a million hours of tape and game accounts. But as you say, surely it must have happened since the umps have discretion - and they clearly have discretion. The rules cover runner/fielder contact where the runner causes it, where the fielder causes it, where there is simply a collision, where fielders have a play or no play, in and out of the baseline. It is always up to the ump to decide which of those situations properly apply to what they see.
It has nothing to do with knowing the rules better than four umps, either. That call stood because a crew works best when all the crew work together and trust each other. It’s not likely that Eddings will be overruled because of that. It’s something clearly in his view, clearly out of view of the first and home umps, and that leaves the third-base ump in the lurch - he has to be just as sure as Eddings is, and convince everyone he got the call right including Eddings. Again, from my experience (albeit in a different sport), that’s a tough sale. The third base ump is more likely, after discussion, to defer to Eddings, reasoning that something happened that he was not in position to see himself. It’s only later that everyone can look at the replays, and Eddings can say, “Darn, that looked a lot worse from where I was, I blew that totally.”
Yeah, he didn’t say that. There’s also such a thing as covering one’s fundament after a tough call, especially when one is the same guy who botched a third-strike call involving the same exact player a few years back.
Aug 27th, 2008
Wally
“Hmmm… I wonder why they didn’t use “touch” or “make contact with” in the rulebook?”
“Or it could be that the word impedes makes the word touch superfluous”
When making rules, most people try to word them as clearly as they can so to avoid confusion. So, if the rule makers wanted “impede” to mean “impede or touch in anyway” they probably would of said just that. Because, as at least most of us know, all contact is not an impediment. Heck some contact can cause the OPPOSITE of an impediment……any way I think that’s enough on this increasingly inane conversation.
Aug 27th, 2008
Joey
Posnanski mised the real story here: Doug Eddings gave the base to Pierzynski [best flop since Vlade Divac retired] when he didn’t see the play. But that wasn’t the first time. Eddings gave Pierzynski first base in the 2005 ALCS, claiming that the Angels’ catcher dropped a 3rd strike even though Eddings couldn’t see that play either. You would have thought Eddings learned the first time Pierzynski duped him into a stupid call. A pattern? Hmmmmm……
Aug 27th, 2008
Bob
Lifetime White Sox fan. Big fan of Harrelson (except as GM). Will be crushed if the Sox don’t make the postseason. They Sox needed the win on Sunday. It was also my birthday. So I’m terribly prejudiced. At first, second and third glance, if was a HORRIBLE call, but it went my team’s way, and I won’t complain. But here’s the thing: The umpires were asked specifcially about the play, and the crew chief cited chapter and verse from the rule book as to why Aybar was wrong to be anywhere near A.J. It has been deemed a smart play by Pierzynski. So if it’s the right call and a smart play, isn’t that what the announcers said?
Aug 27th, 2008
Zo
The poor announcing was almost as bad as the poor writing of this column/blog.
Almost.
Aug 27th, 2008
Richard Aronson
First of all, the announcers were idiots. Upon seeing Pierzynski throw out his arm in the hope of making contact, they should have admitted that there was no interference. Too many people these days are unwilling to admit they made a mistake, and they are some more of them.
Secondly, Doug Eddings (the umpire) should be fired. Twice, in very significant games (a game matching two first place teams both in August pennant races is significant, and then earlier in the ALCS) Pierzynski *lied* to Eddings about what had happened, and Eddings believed him and then changed his call. I don’t want to deprive an honest man of his livelihood, but I can no longer believe Eddings is honest. Pierzynski clearly has some blackmail device over Eddings and for the sanctity of the game Eddings needs to be fired.
Okay, they’re not going to fire Eddings. However, the rules of baseball allow, nay, require umpires to kick a player out of the game for any unsportsmanlike act. What Pierzynski did was unsportsmanlike. I think a five game suspension is appropriate. Actually, I think a ten game suspension is appropriate, but the player’s association would complain. Pierzynski is making a career out of dirty play and cheating and if baseball wants honesty from their players, they should suspend him. And they should suspend Eddings, who *clearly* called the runner out *until* Pierzynski appealed. Eddings let himself be persuaded into another Pierzynski influenced blunder. So they should never allow Eddings to umpire another Pierzynski game.
Look, I know umpires make mistakes all the time. But how many significant rules violations issues can you recall in recent years that the umps clearly got wrong? I recall two: these two (involving Pierzynski and Eddings); the fake obstruction call, and the ball in the catcher’s glove with the out sign given, followed by the defenders running off the field, followed by the appeal, the agreement that it was in the dirt, and Pierzynski running to first. And in both of these cases Eddings put out his right hand in a signal you, I, and John McGraw would recognize as being an out, and then Pierzynski talked to him, and then without asking anybody else’s advice, Eddings gave Pierzynski what he wanted and (afterwards) denied that he changed his call because of what Pierzynski said. I mean, there have been others, like (IIRC) Paul LoDuca stopping a slowly rolling ball in the dirt with his mask, which let the runners advance. But that was a call correctly made, and not in an important game. And there was the non-call on Reggie Jackson’s hipcheck of the double play throw. But that was a non-call. The rule of thumb is that umpires don’t make rules calls when perhaps they should. Heck, remember the home run recently when the umpire denied the homer even though the ball had foul pole paint on it? Umps don’t like to change their calls. Except when it’s Eddings, and Pierzynski. Which is why Eddings must be suspended if not fired, and separated from his Svengali.
Aug 27th, 2008
harold
It is plain to see that there are alot of blind people. A. J. Pierzynski
cheated!!! MLB will constantly have troubles with this sort of stuff
because they won’t do anything about it. Like fining and suspending umpires suspending players that cheat or dive, you get two minutes in hockey for what Pierzynski did. Some one brought up Arods ha incident, players called it bush league I ask you why is it ok to slide at a player or crash into the catcher?
Dan Dierdorf has got to be the worse announcer out there. he explains plays like everybody is stupid. Sometimes I wonder what game, announcers are watching, it doesn’t seem to be the one i am watching.
One more thing the umpire and the ref should not be viewing the replays it should be done by some other official in the press box.
Aug 27th, 2008
Mark
I’m a life-long Sox fan, and suffer through Hawk and DJ. What bothers me is less that they’re ‘homers’ than that they repeat themselves so much (and DJ never says anything very insgihtful). But, to be fair to them, they do sometimes acknowledge that they were wrong when the replay shows them to be.
As for those ranting about AJ cheating and being classlesss for trying to fool an umpire, I wonder what they think about all those catchers who have had praise heaped on them for their skill at ‘framing’ a pitch (that is, moving their glove to trick the umpire into thinking the ball was a strike)? How about the numerous hitters who duck out of the way to avoid being hit by pitches in the strike zone? Outfielders who lit their gloves up to show they caught a ball that they trapped?
Aug 27th, 2008
Perry
Mikey, yeah, I can name an instance. Seventh game of the 1987 Series, 6th inning, Tommy Herr in a rundown between 1st and 2nd, clearly (to my mind) obstructed by Hrbek, AND he beat the tag by Viola at 1st base anyway. Still called out by Lee Weyer. Bitter? Me? No, why do you ask?
Aug 27th, 2008
jeffrey preston
He long gone? What? I didn’t realize that professional journalists spoke ebonics. Nice. Way to keep dumbing it down, clown.
Aug 27th, 2008
Johnny
>>”
pete
Off topic: Read your SI piece on the Cubs. Nice investigative work! You discoverd that White Sox and Cardinals fans hate the Cubs.
What’s next, and expose on Mets fans who hate the Yankees? Perhaps something about Pakers fans who hate the Bears?
Nice work, Scoop!<<”
We’re even less fond of you, Peter.
Aug 27th, 2008
Madscout
For all of you who say, “Oh Hawk and DJ are homers. They suck at their job. They should have called it as it is as there was no obstruction…” Who are Hawk and DJ employed by? MLB? WGN? FOX? No, they are employed by the Chicago White Sox. They saw the play, saw contact, saw the ump’s ruling, and made a decision on it. They are no more homers than Brenley saying ,”THE CUBS WIN. THEY WIN IT. OH BABY!!!” I don’t hear that when the Cubs lose. No different than the Yankees guy saying “SEE YA” on Yankee homeruns and not opponents.
These guys do their job, and some times we Sox fans have to sit through Hawks “boy I tell ya” and stories about Yaz, but don’t sit here a pretend that there isn’t another announcer that doesn’t call stuff for the home team. Hawk and DJ just happen to announce for a team that you don’t like and they like players that you don’t like because you don’t understand baseball. Perhaps you have not heard them when we play the Twins, and they can’t stop praising them every time they have a BS broken bat single, or seeing eyes grounder.
Aug 28th, 2008
Glenn B.
“when an announcer sticks with an idea that is exactly counter to what we actually see on the television in front of us.”
I believe the technical term for this is “McCarvering.”
Aug 28th, 2008
Tyler
“Mike Port, MLB’s vice president of umpiring, told the St. Petersburg Times on Thursday that it was “a missed call” and that in making the split-second decision, Eddings thought he saw runner A.J. Pierzynski “impeded more than he was” by Aybar, the Rays’ third baseman.”
And MLB says it’s wrong.
Aug 29th, 2008
Ethan
I know I’m late to this party, but I was scanning the comments, and I’ve got to make the physicist’s rebuttal to Mikey’s “all contact is by definition impediment” assertion.
Easy counter-examples: Some contact impels an otherwise stationary object into motion. Some contact impels a moving object to a higher velocity without changing its direction.
I believe another commenter attempted a counter-example wherein a bug is squished by an “impeded” pedestrian. Unfortunately, as Mikey pointed-out, the pedestrian *is* technically impeded by the bug. The proper counter-example in this case is that the intially stationary bug was impelled, rather than impeded, by its contact with the foot.
Clearer yet: the pedestrian finally ponies up the money for a car, only to learn that he is required to be “impeded” by it in order for it to propel him forward.
It is also important to remember that at the Newtonian level contact does not strictly imply force. (Actually, in all honesty, there is no practical reason to remember that at all.)
None of which has any bearing on the correctness of the call, of course–the contact (if there was any) likely resulted in net forces roughly perpendicular to the base baths (judging by the video), and anyway they don’t often listen to us crotchety physicists.
Sep 4th, 2008
Ethan
Also:
@ Madscout
I can only assume that you are correct that Hawk and DJ are employed solely by the Sox.
Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference between an announcer rooting for his team to win–the kind of announcer who tends to see things from his team’s viewpoint and who assumes the best of said team–and the kind that DJ and Hawk are.
DJ and Hawk, as evidenced by this play, have been known to describe things in wholly inaccurate ways. The fact that this seems to occur primarily when it benefits the Sox makes it especially annoying to outsiders, sure, but the ROOT of the problem is that they do not always, as the saying goes, call them like they see them.
In this case, their initial reaction to the play was actually correct. They saw AJ fall and get tagged out and they believed him to be such. Then the Umps ruled interference. And then, after reviewing evidence that clearly showed that there was NOT any interference, they:
1) Quoted a part of a rule, that is not, in fact, part of the rule (”That’s all it takes… contact.”)
2) Failed to describe relevant acts: e.g. how incidental the presumed contact was, that Eddings for some reason initially awarded Pierzynski *second* base instead of third, or that Pierzynski chose to back-up into the third baseman rather than turn and run to third base as is traditional for a runner attempting to reach a base
3) Only became more and more adamant that it was the correct call, when the only sane reaction to the replays was somewhere between, “Man, everybody is going to see *that* one differently,” and, “Boy, the Sox catch a break on a heads-up deke by Pierzynski.” Note that the second reaction doesn’t necessarily even imply that the call was wrong, only that Pierzynski was *certainly* attempting to bend the rules a bit.
The third one is completely inexcusable, and is what got JP’s goat in the first place–when the unwashed masses are relying on you to give them an informed explanation of the action, it behooves you to point out when an umpire’s decision should at least be questioned. Wanting your team to get the questionable calls is standard operating procedure, but failing to acknowledge that a call will be questioned is inaccurate and irresponsible. It violates the trust of the viewer. Imagine if this had been a radio broadcast!
We aren’t so naive as to demand neutrality from play-by-play guys, but we certainly have to demand accuracy.
P.S. We Royals fans have always been aware that the wrong call was made in ‘85. The difference is, our talking heads immediately SHUT UP about it and let the replays speak for themselves. DJ and Hawk would have watched the replays and “Man, that’s too close to call”–which it clearly wasn’t.
See: “Matthews, Denny.”
Also see: “Splittorff, Paul.”
Sep 4th, 2008
Ethan
P.P.S — (I truly wish to God I could let these things go…)
We are also aware that only one out was ever made in the bottom of the ninth on that Saturday night in ‘85. And that out was on a sacrifice bunt. So even granting you, retroactively, Orta’s out, and assuming that Sundberg still lays the sac down, that still gets us to Iorg with two outs, Concepcion on third and Wathan on second. Or, possibly, Sundberg on second and Wathan on first. Either way, Iorg ties it, and Wathan’s in scoring position with Willie Wilson and the top of the lineup coming up. Granted, Quiz wouldn’t have been available in the 10th, but 1 out of 4 times Willie drives Wathan home anyway and the rest is history.
Not to mention the fact that you guys also blew a pop foul in that inning, not to mention the fact that you also had a passed ball that inning, and not to mention the fact that you also failed to win game 7. The Cards lost those games. They were outscored by 14 runs in 7 games. They were outhit 40 to 68.
Bottom line: STOP BLAMING DENKINGER, and for crying out loud, MOVE ON! Your team is currently far superior to ours, and has been for years. You have also won a world series since 1985. You’ll note that we haven’t even made the PLAYOFFS since 1985.
Sep 4th, 2008
Jonathan
So, I hate to join the party after so many others have already commented… I feel like you’ll never get this! Maybe an e-mail would be better.
Regardless, I saw another CLASSIC example of play-by-play announcers blowing a call and then refusing to acknowledge their error during NBC’s Sunday night game between the Bears and Colts. None other than the esteemed Al Michaels stuck to his guns with his far-fetched claim that the reason the zebras didn’t overturn their no fumble call on a kick runback by Indy was because they couldn’t determine from tape who recovered the ball in the scrum that followed. What he failed to discuss even once during the many replays was that a Bears defender put his hand on the Indy returner’s back as he was falling to the ground, thereby making him down by contact. It was very clear on the tape, and that’s the real reason why the officials did not overturn their ruling on the field. You could argue that the ball was perhaps coming out before the carrier hit the ground, and that might be a valid argument. But to claim that the only reason the officials didn’t overturn their call was because they stopped watching the play during the dogpile for the ball was doing a disservice to the officials. Shameful, Al Michaels, shameful!
Sep 9th, 2008
Reply to “He Long Gone”