The Catch - Worthy Play or Silly Risk?

by Alex Falzone on May 12, 2006 1:35 PM EDT

Was it worth it?

Piggybacking off of The Game Saver article, let's examine whether or not the catch was worth it.

Following is a bit of email correspondence among The Good Phight participants.

"Great catch, but how people are responding to it is ridiculous. And all it will do is fuel the wrong type of attitude."

"If Rowand were to miss two months because of that catch, how many phans would say that it was worth it?"

Here was my first take:
"I'm still torn though. I understand the larger picture of not needlessly exposing one's self to bodily injury, and I agree with that, but if there was ever a situation that warranted doing this, last night was it, IMO.

Quite honestly, most phans aren't going to be able to separate out the context of the play from the risk involved, so I think trying to convince them otherwise is going to prove to be an unproductive endeavor.
If he's out for two months, I don't know how many people would agree with the play then. But if it is just a week or less, with Victorino and Dellucci, I think the risk was well worth it. Of course, how can you ever tell beforehand whether it will be a week or two months? Should the risk of it possibly being a two-month injury be the sole determinant?"

The response:
"Ever a situation where it was warranted? In the first inning of a game that could have easily been rained out in the beginning of May when they were already playing well? This could have much more long term consequences with him out. If this were in the playoffs or a game that could get us into the playoffs, then fine. It wasn't a high leverage game at all."

My second take:
"Although the team has been playing well, they got their hats handed to them the previous night, and if that hit falls in (knowing the rain was coming to make this a shortened game anyway), they lose the series. With a road trip coming up (squeezing in the BoSox series in between), I think it was important for the team to win this series. Granted, you're right in that it's early May, and it was nowhere near as important as a game during the playoff chase, but as we found out last year, every game counts. I'm not as concerned with this part of it, because I'll most likely concede to you that it wasn't that important.
But what I'm saying is, how is one to know beforehand whether the play is worth the risk or not? You can't. So from this viewpoint, should players never attempt to make these kinds of plays? Look, I don't want Burrell and Abreu crashing into fences willy-nilly, all in the name of hustle and grit, but going all-out is Rowand's style of play. He's aggressive, and you can't make him play a different way.
Also, outfield is the team's deepest position, and Rowand's absence isn't going to submarine the team's record. This is what I mean about not removing context, both game/seasonwise and teamwise. Positionally, I'm okay with the CF taking risks, since there's someone to back him up. If this were Utley or Howard, or even Rollins, where there is no good backup/alternative on hand or waiting in the minors, my stance would be different. But the dropoff from Rowand to Victorino is small, IMO, whereas the dropoff from Utley or Howard to the Nunez/Gonzalez platoon would be higher.
I still don't have a problem with the play. If you want to take it into a pure theoretical situation, devoid of any and all context, then you're right in that the play wasn't worth the potential risk. But that's not reality. Context is always a part of the situation. And to me, the context makes all the difference."

I'm curious as to what the rest of the phandom thinks. Feel free to chime in below.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

How World Series are Won

First of all, let me preface the post by saying that I'm a White Sox fan first. But I was also born in Hawaii, and that makes every athlete from my home state automatically awesome because there just aren't that many of them in the Majors. (With that out of the way, I've been a phan since November 23, 2005--the day the White Sox GM broke my heart for shipping away a player who exemplifies a win-every-game-no-matter-what attitude for some old injured guy.)

As for whether or not the Flying Hawaiian makes that play without being injured--I'm not entirely convinced. Sure, he's fast: watching him sprint across the bases like they're hot coals has been amazing. And although speed is an important quality in an outfielder, just because a guy is fast doesn't mean he'll make every play. He could overrun the ball, miss the catch, boot the ball--any number of wacky mishaps. But I haven't seen enough of him defensively to really put my 2¢ in: I defer to long-time phans as to whether or not Victorino is talented enough to make a play at the wall.

If Rowand doesn't make that play...

Floyd gets knocked out in the 1st or 2nd inning. He was a bit wild in the 1st, and it's hard to have patience for a wild pitcher who went in to the game with only 3 of 5 quality starts who seems to be afraid to throw strikes. But when your defense shows a commitment to make plays like that, you stop caring about being perfect and you let the opposition put the ball in play.
In future games, the defense isn't really challeneged to take it to that next level. And that's a crying shame when your first baseman's name is Ryan Howard. I can't help but think the entire defense of the Phillies got upgraded some when Rowand smashes the wall. I say that extra bit of motivation gets Bell to that Trachsel grounder and preserves Floyd's shutout--he misses that ball if the Phillies are down 3-1.
The Mets take the series. And in a year that's quickly shaping up to be a battle of the Phillies and the Mets in the NL East, the LAST thing you want to be is down on the head-to-head record.

And for a team that missed a tiebreaker game for the playoffs by a single game, how on earth could any phan argue that every game isn't important? Sure, you lost Rowand for a few weeks. But phans have gained an attitude and an expectation of what "quality defensivemen" can do; I don't think you lose the quality of defense that Rowand can bring to the table because that effort is contagious. Victorino might be as good as Rowand because of Rowand's example.

Going into Cincy is going to brutal without a tough defense to stop them from taking those 5.46 runs they average each game. Here's hoping that the Flying Hawaiian gobbles up those baseballs at the track and the wall.

-- DKT

by davint on May 12, 2006 3:25 PM EDT reply actions

On the flipside

Imagine if Rowand had done this two weeks ago instead of yesterday. How many games would the Phils be behind the Mets today? At least 5 (the two he won with his bat), maybe 6 (last night).

by David S. Cohen on May 12, 2006 3:39 PM EDT reply actions

But is the best time "never"?

Two weeks ago? I'd almost have wished it was a week into the season! As much as I've loved watching Rowand out there in center field last year, his defense at the start of this year wasn't up to the lofty standards he set for himself. I still can't believe how fast he got to two errors after only committing three last year.

But if he (or anyone on the Phillies) made a play like at the beginning of the season, that could have gone a long way towards changing the attitude of the club earlier. If it happened earlier in the year, Rowand would already be back with a legitimized toughness, and the Phillies might even be ahead of the Mets in the standings now, instead of that abysmal start that lacked those big defensive outs.

You have to have a play like this every once in a while to invigorate the team and the phans. Rowand has probably forgotten more rallies that he broke up than most outfielders could ever hope to make. And when he comes back and that padding is out there, the phans will really be in for a show....

-- DKT

by davint on May 12, 2006 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

when to do this

I still haven't seen this answered anywhere: when is it okay for a player to crash into a wall?

What's the tipping point? Since you can't ever tell whether or not an injury will occur (only that it's possible), and even further, whether an injury will put the player out for a short time or a long time, when is it a good play?

I'll attempt some kind of an answer. Take a player like Pujols. His offense is otherworldly; as such, he should never attempt a play like Jeter did a couple years ago and jump into the stands after a foul ball because his absence at the plate would kill the team. For a player like Rowand, whose offense is decent but eminently replaceable, and whose defense is very good and at least somewhat replaceable, how much is the cost of losing him, really? It's certainly not on the level of Pujols.

by Alex Falzone on May 13, 2006 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions

just Aaron being Aaron

From what I've heard and seen, that's just the way he plays the game. Fine with me; I'd rather not watch guys stopping to think about what the score is or how far into the season they are every time a ball's hit their way. Just go get the ball. Athletes in Philly tend not to endear themselves to the locals by backing off the throttle; I'm having creepy flashbacks to Ricky Watters and the words "For who? For what?".

by another Mike on May 12, 2006 4:08 PM EDT reply actions

"The team"

That's for who and for what that someone would pull up rather than smash against an immovable object and be out for a significant period of time. If he's out only 15 days, he'll be lucky. He could have injured himself to the point of being out for several months. Think Ken Griffey Jr.

The answer to "for who" and "for what" is much larger than any single play. The answer is not to win on May 11, 2006; it's to win the last week of October. Having a great defensive outfielder and a, so far, impressive hitter available for almost all of the 162 games is much more important than being on a historically great highlight reel.

by David S. Cohen on May 12, 2006 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

let Rowand be Rowand

I see both sides here, but I think one almost has to conclude not only that the catch was "worth it," but that this player couldn't have done otherwise.

A lot of us who generally subscribe to sabermetic tenets are uncomfortable with factors we can't quantify, myself most definitely included. But that doesn't mean those factors don't exist. It seems to be an emerging storyline in the national baseball press that the 2006 Phillies have a certain edge that the clubs of the last few years lacked--a "mental toughness" or resilience that might lift them into the postseason. Rowand is generally credited as the embodiment of that new team character.

I can very quickly come up with some problems in this argument: the 2005 Phillies, first of all, seemed like a pretty tough bunch, repeatedly bouncing back from crushing losses to stay in the race until the last day of the season. And if Larry Bowa didn't emphasize and stress all those non-quantifiable factors, I don't know who ever has. For that matter, you probably could argue that the big difference between the 2005 Phils to this point and the team we see now is how much better Rheal Cormier and Gavin Floyd have pitched this April/May than last. (Faint praise, but still.)

Starting tonight--or whenever the weather allows--I guess we'll see whether Rowand's heroics lit a fire under a team that was already playing pretty well. As daveint points out, we're lucky to have another pretty good defensive OF and decent hitter in the Flyin' Hawaiian, backing up Philly's newest hero.

by dajafi on May 12, 2006 4:57 PM EDT reply actions

The more I discuss this...

The more I am solidified in the concept that this was a bad move on Rowand's part. This is not knocking the catch or the attitude of Rowand. Both are admirable, and many people think that if something turns out well, you are a fool to disagree with it. Well, as we are seeing here, this isn't turning out as well as we first thought.

Why this was a bad play on Rowand's behalf:

-He may not have even caught the ball. He did catch it, and it was spetacular, but there was probably just as good of a chance that he misses and still hits the wall. So, now he breaks his face and 3 (or 4 depending on what Abreu does) runs score.

-He is risking a serious season or even career ending injury. Jumping into a wall at full speed is not something the human body is supposed to do. He was risking the rest of his career for a catch in the top of the first in a game that may still not have counted. We look at it from fans, but Rowand HAS to be smarter with his body than that.

-We are weaker in the long run with him out because now Victorino has to play (which is good), but we lose Victorino off the bench, which is bad.

-We have no idea how the rest of that game would have played out. Phils still could have won. 1 game to the Mets isn't going to change anything, and even with the catch, they could have still lost. Hindsight is 20-20.

What is frustraing is that people think that this is how everyone should play. I have yet to see teams respond to plays like this in a manner to deem it as a "lesson" to the rest of the team. I think this will make more player shy away from contact as Rowand got pretty effed up from this.

by jonk on May 13, 2006 1:59 AM EDT reply actions

Crash-Test Dummy? Not quite...

Rowand is the type of player who usually rebounds from a crash like that. I don't think he seriously thinks his style of play will ultimately sideline him--the type of abuse he puts himself through in the outfield just doesn't hurt him like it might hurt you and me. (The fact that reports coming out are saying he'll be gone for 15-20 days are proof of this. Normal people don't kiss metal like he did and walk off the field on their own power.)

This is the first time Rowand had an injury like this. He's been playing this way for a long time, and he knows how to play at a level which seems reckless to us mere mortals, but for him, is well within his reach. In other words, don't try this at home--Rowand would have also made a great professional stuntman.

For 95% of the players in the majors, yeah, that's a career-ending play. But not for Rowand, because he knows how to smash into a wall and not get hurt as much as someone else would.

The lesson to take from this is not necessarily to have everyone crash into walls; I'm not going to argue that every 10-year-old in Little League should be doing what he did. It's that everyone should play to the fullest extent of their abilities--and plays similar to this one are usually within Rowand's abilities. They're within his abilities as much as the play that Hideki Matsui injured himself with are within Matsui's abilities. Or the play in the outfield that Moises Alou hurt himself with. Sometimes, the play doesn't go off as calculated. It's not like these players have a lot of time to think about it.

And if you want to see a team where inspirational play like this is contagious, take a look at Rowand's former team, the '05 White Sox: there is no question that pitchers pitch differently when they think it's on themselves to make the out instead of being able to rely on a defense.

Maybe the other Phillies don't take wall-running practice, but they improve their game where they know they can--they put in that extra hustle to get to pop-outs in foul territory, or work on flipping relays faster. If you're a major-league-quality player, that puts you diving in the stands at the corners, turning double plays up the middle, smothering potential wild pitches behind the plate, or fielding sharp liners (properly) on the mound. You can learn so much more from a play like this than "running into the walls gets big outs, so be suicidal in the outfield". It's more "Play the game as hard as you can--in what your game is."

-- DKT

by davint on May 13, 2006 3:59 AM EDT up reply actions

avoiding damage

For 95% of the players in the majors, yeah, that's a career-ending play. But not for Rowand, because he knows how to smash into a wall and not get hurt as much as someone else would.

davint, I can see your points with your post (even if I diverge from the general tenor slightly) but I just don't get this part. I don't think there's anything intrinsic to Rowand that allows him to survive crashing into walls most of the time; I think it's the fact that this time, he crashed into a wall with a steel bar at precisely nose level that smashed up his face, whereas the other walls he's crashed into have been "safer," whether by good fortune or by design.

Torii Hunter got his spikes stuck in the wall and tore up his leg. It's bad luck, but it's a fate he's tempted for years by continually smashing into walls to make catches. And he's made some wonderful grabs. But the almost inevitable side effect of that is that you risk taking yourself out of your team's lineup for weeks or months due to injury. Is it really worth it? For Thursday's catch I'm very tempted to say yes.

by WholeCamels on May 13, 2006 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions

reply

"-He may not have even caught the ball. He did catch it, and it was spetacular, but there was probably just as good of a chance that he misses and still hits the wall. So, now he breaks his face and 3 (or 4 depending on what Abreu does) runs score."

I'll concede this point.

"-He is risking a serious season or even career ending injury. Jumping into a wall at full speed is not something the human body is supposed to do. He was risking the rest of his career for a catch in the top of the first in a game that may still not have counted. We look at it from fans, but Rowand HAS to be smarter with his body than that."

I think this is a bit of hyperbole. It was not a career-ending play. It was a dangerous play, no doubt, but again, this play is representative of Rowand's style of play. Abreu does not have a good feel for the outfield wall on defense, and so it would be silly for him to crash into the wall, since his value is his offense. But Rowand is heralded everywhere for his defense in CF, and his aggressive nature is continually held up as a motivating aspect of his play. I think we here in Philly are so resistant to hearing platitudes like "he's a gamer" and "he's great in the clubhouse" and "he's changed the culture of the team" because they've been thrust upon us for too long by the team and media to represent the crappy players they brought in, and these platitudes were part of the PR spin cycle. But just because this has happened in the past does not mean that saying these things about Rowand aren't, in fact, true to some degree. Look, David Bell flat out sucks, and him being "a gamer" really is code for "Yes, we know he sucks, but we have to justify this 4-year deal somehow." But with Rowand, I'm starting to think that this time, all these things aren't just spin.
And now that I've gone off on a long tangent, let me come back to the aggressiveness aspect: you can't really make a player change his style of play. You can't make Rollins into a slap hitter, as has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. Running into walls is Rowand's game; you have to realize that he's not going to change, and he'll always carry some risk of injury because of his reckless play.

"-We are weaker in the long run with him out because now Victorino has to play (which is good), but we lose Victorino off the bench, which is bad."

I don't see this. Shane-O wasn't great as a pinch-hitter, and with Rowand/Burrell/Abreu manning the OF, he wasn't seeing a lot of time anyway. As I said upthread, I don't think the dropoff from Rowand to Victorino is much, and I think Dellucci can easily fill Victorino's spot as the 4th OF, while Roberson can't do any worse than the numbers Dellucci sported as the 5th OF.

"-We have no idea how the rest of that game would have played out. Phils still could have won. 1 game to the Mets isn't going to change anything, and even with the catch, they could have still lost. Hindsight is 20-20."

1 game to the Mets could change everything. Just think of last year, and Wagner's blown save to the Astros. Everyone remembers that game because of when it happened, but a blown save earlier in the year was just as important. The season is like a game: early May is like the 2nd/3rd inning. If you end up losing a game by one run because you squandered chances in the early innings, they're to blame as much as leaving the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth.

"What is frustraing is that people think that this is how everyone should play. I have yet to see teams respond to plays like this in a manner to deem it as a "lesson" to the rest of the team."

I agree with you there wholeheartedly.

by Alex Falzone on May 13, 2006 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Running into wall practice?

You are suggesting MORE of this? Rowand got hurt. It was a bad outcome. If you consider him a professional wallbanger, he STILL got hurt. I want to see less of this and win the game the old fashioned way...with your bats.

by jonk on May 13, 2006 9:33 AM EDT reply actions

Pitching and defense...

...win games. A 1-0 win is still a win, and a 10-9 loss is still a loss. Power pitchers in the game are consistent, but power hitters are streaky. I argue that Rowand is essentially a power defender.

While I'm thrilled to see his offensive numbers return to his '04 form (they took a little dip last year), he's still a defender first, and a bat second.

-- DKT

by davint on May 13, 2006 1:52 PM EDT reply actions

However...

"I'll concede this point."

Words I love to hear.

"I think this is a bit of hyperbole. It was not a career-ending play."

"Running into walls is Rowand's game; you have to realize that he's not going to change, and he'll always carry some risk of injury because of his reckless play."

When I said career ending, I SHOULD have said, career altering. Look at Griffy Jr. Ok, Rowand isn't him, but if Rowand isn't Rowand anymore, then he is Doug Glanville. Rowand's value isn't in his running into walls ability. If you are implying that he needs to be ok with running into walls in order for him to make his other plays, I can see how you think that, but I don't agree. You can be good defensively and still be injury adverse. But the guy has been playing better this year than last. More power, though his walks are suckage. His value is much greater in the lineup than out. Victorino may be better, but that doesn't mean this team is better with one out. And Rowand certainly shouldn't be thinking that it is ok to break his face because there is a competent player behind him. I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Rowand's top priority is his health as that is how he helps the team the most.

"I don't see this. Shane-O wasn't great as a pinch-hitter, and with Rowand/Burrell/Abreu manning the OF, he wasn't seeing a lot of time anyway. As I said upthread, I don't think the dropoff from Rowand to Victorino is much, and I think Dellucci can easily fill Victorino's spot as the 4th OF, while Roberson can't do any worse than the numbers Dellucci sported as the 5th OF."

This should not be even a thought in Rowand's head. It's like saying that Brogna should take a pitch off his wrist because the team is better with Burrell playing first. If Brogna is thinking that when hitting, then he really has the wrong frame of mind (the goal for all players is to play better and not to get injured for others to play).

"1 game to the Mets could change everything. Just think of last year, and Wagner's blown save to the Astros. Everyone remembers that game because of when it happened, but a blown save earlier in the year was just as important. The season is like a game: early May is like the 2nd/3rd inning. If you end up losing a game by one run because you squandered chances in the early innings, they're to blame as much as leaving the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth."

There are a LOT of 1 games. What about the next day? What if Victorino flies out with 2 on and Rowand may have gotten a hit there. This is a very narrow minded view. Don't let yourself get swept into subjective analysis here. Yeah, Rowand MAY have won that game (I think it was a combination of a lot of things). But his absense could cost us two, and as we all remember from last year, that one game could keep us out of the playoffs.

"I agree with you there wholeheartedly. "

And I agree with you wholeheartedly.

by jonk on May 13, 2006 11:15 PM EDT reply actions