Pinkerton Joe: Marlins 5, Phillies 4 (14)
by FuquaManuel on Sep 4, 2011 8:43 PM EDT
Email
PrintIn the spirit of Labor Day -- which became a national holiday in 1894 on the heels of the Pullman Strike -- Charlie Manuel and the Phillies decided to play today's game under protest.
Not surprisingly, it was Joe West (the first member of his family in over 125 years not to be employed by the Pinkertons) who was at the center of another controversy on the baseball field. With the score tied at 2 in the top of the sixth and Ryan Howard on first with no outs, Hunter Pence hit a ball to deep right field. Brian Peterson went back on the ball and attempted to make a leaping catch at the wall, but a fan appeared to reach over the wall and make contact with the ball. Pence ended up stopping at second for a double.
What happened next is confusing: Joe West called his team together to review whether the ball cleared the wall, which he said after the game was requested by Charlie Manuel. But Charlie Manuel said after the game that he requested nothing. As it turns out, according to Matt Gelb, an umpire IS allowed to review a play without a request from a manager. So, naturally, after reviewing a play just because he felt like it, Joe West ruled that the fan had interfered. Pence was called out. Howard went back to first. Charlie argued and was ejected. And the rest of the game was played under protest.
The play will be referred to MLB's Executive VP for Baseball Operations, Joe Torre, but Bud Selig will inevitably find a way to botch the decision. If the protest is upheld, then the game will be replayed from the point the call was made. It's extremely unlikely that the protest will be upheld, though, and frankly it doesn't matter. The Phillies have a 7.5 game lead in the division and a 6.5 game lead for home field advantage. Chances are that this game will be completely meaningless, and flying all the way back to Florida to play out three innings with the Phillies' September schedule already offering zero flexibility would be far more trouble than it is worth.
Still, if what Joe West did was within the rules, why did he feel the need to lie after the game and say that Charlie requested the replay? Could it be that he doesn't know the rules and was attempting to cover his ass? Joe might have disappointed daddy when he decided not to join the Pinkertons, but the authoritarian, unaccountable, and duplicitous organization he ended up working for ain't too shabby in its own right.
Anyways, the Phillies managed to load the bases with one out that inning but by rule Wilson Valdez had to bat.
Roy Halladay was only so-so today. He appeared to be struggling with the strikezone and the Marlins took an aggressive approach. It seemed as if everything they made contact with went for a hit. His line: 6 IP, 9 H, 3 R, 2 ER, 1 BB, 4 K.
Halladay was nevertheless in line for the win after the top of the seventh as the Bear Jew was called on to hold down a 1 run lead. He wasn't able to do it. A leadoff walk to Omar Infante, a double to Greg Dobbs, and an RBI groundout by Gaby Sanchez tied the score at 4.
And it stayed tied at 4 for the next seven innings. Brad Lidge and Michael Stutes combined for three innings of scoreless relief and David Herndon Houdini'd his way through three innings from the 11th to the 13th. Each of those innings he put runners in scoring position with less than two outs and each time he was able to escape without allowing a run. However, with only Ryan Madson available in the pen and The Book dictating that on the road you wait to use your closer until you have a lead, a clearly gassed Herndon was asked to go out for one more inning. He loaded the bases with two outs for Mike Cameron, who drew the always anti-climactic walk off walk to end it. Herndon walked 7 batters -- 5 intentionally -- in his 3.2 innings of work. DIPS go boom.
169 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is one ridiculous looking Fangraph.
by lonettomb on Sep 4, 2011 8:48 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It may win the award for FanGraph that looks mist like an EKG this season.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 8:51 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m a little bothered by the way the replay was handled, but not too much. They used the technology at their disposal to get the call right. If that’s not within the wording of the rules then the rules should be changed (and no doubt will be in the offseason).
I basically agree. Joe West is still a motherfucker though.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, fun!
by FuquaManuel on Sep 4, 2011 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
There are two things that bother me bout the replay.
Firstly, the way that the rules are currently written, the only thing umpires are allowed to review is whether or not there is a home run. This makes the interference question not subject to review unless you have a Bartman/ Ryan Madson situation where the argument is that fan interference led to the home run.
Secondly, it is very difficult to make the argument that the interference prevented Peterson from making the play. Review showed that Peterson’s glove was closed by the time the ball got there and that the ball was 6 inches to a foot away when it hit the wall. The fan’s interference did not prevent Peterson from making the play, so why is this any different from when a fan reaches over the fence and snags a ball that was not quite a homerun and a fan interference ground rule double is awarded?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 9:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
what if the ball bounces off the top of the wall and then the ball stays in play and there is a play at 3rd/home can they review it and while they are reviewing it review the play at the bag? What if the review shows that the runner missed a base and they notice that while reviewing it?
My understanding is that review is strictly limited to home run or not, so no review of the play at the bag or missed base.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 9:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The other thing is that MLB has made a big deal about confining replay to a very small number of plays. If you review X, everything would be reviewable! It would slow down the game! We like the human element! Home runs are the exception because runs score and that has a big impact on the outcome of the game. There’s a reason—even if it’s a flawed one—why replay is so limited.
Re: Second Point
I don’t know what replay you’re looking at. There are two fans who get their hands involved, one a bare hand, the other holding the cap. The bare hand stops the open glove from moving to the right where the cap touches the ball. Just think for a minute if that was called against the Phillies and they said, well, we don’t know if it would have been caught, so it’s not fan interference. The umpires are allowed to use their best judgment on what was a dead ball, and they determined that Petersen would have caught it. I think it is worth noting that the fans in question were Phillies fans. Perhaps if this interference had been done by Marlins fans the umps would have viewed the action differently and not “rewarded” the Marlins for those fans’ actions. Since they were fans of the Phillies there was no incentive to penalize the home team by saying it was not going to be caught any way.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
There needs to be “clear and convincing” evidence the call on the field was wrong. He may have caught it, but it would have been a pretty nice play. I’m not at all sure it was clear he would have caught it .
That is the crux of my argument- I am not arguing that there was no interference. I am arguing that it amounted to incidental contact and that Peterson was highly unlikely to make the play. Thus why should he be gifted an out?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Because Joe West holds a grudge? Because it was a group of Phillies fans trying to interfere with a Marlin’s attempt to make a play? I don’t know for sure which rule will be cited but there is apparently a rule listed under game preliminaries that mentions that upon determining fan interference the ball is dead and the umpire will award any bases or charge any outs that, in his judgment, would have occurred without the interference. It’s not like the ball was yards away and there was no chance to make the catch. I don’t see any problem with saying it could have been caught. As I said earlier, if a Phillies outfielder had the same thing happen we would probably have the opinion that the ball was catchable and the batter should be out.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
That is the crux of my argument- I am not arguing that there was no interference. I am arguing that it amounted to incidental contact and that Peterson was highly unlikely to make the play. Thus why should he be gifted an out?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:42 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
it was the 6th inning though. The five Marlins fans originally in attendance had left by the 4th
"My grandmom's favorite grandson, ask my grandmom" --Rone
by layout ultimate on Sep 4, 2011 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Your first point- I thought the same thing. I think Joe West just opened up a can of worms. Replay is only for “home run or no home run.” You can’t really use replay to call a player out.
I’m going to find those fans and hunt them down, btw. If they didn’t interfere, Pence might have been on second and both Howard and Pence score on Ibanez’ double and then we win the game by two runs and don’t go into extra innings and burn our bullpen and wear out our guys when we’ve already got a brutal schedule. And now everyone is going to be hurt/tired, Braves and Brewers will sweep us, and we’ll collapse like the 2007 Mets and it’s ALL THOSE GUYS’ FAULT.
But for reals tho, this game was just stupid.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 4, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
You are right
Having never sat in the first row at a professional game, I don’t know for certain that I’d prepare for this very occurrence but I think I would know enough that if a ball is coming right at me in fair territory for a potential hit and it’s for my team, then whatever I do, I don’t interfere because you run this risk. I’ve seen sure run-scoring triples turned into ground-rule doubles by overzealous fans at CBP. And now we’ve seen a possible game-turning inning end with a thud because a couple of frat boys couldn’t resist the urge to put their hands (and hat) across the line into play.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
wrong on both accounts
The rule as written is sufficiently ambiguous to allow MLB to deny the protest. Thorughout basebal history rules are “refined” after controversial rulings like this one. There never was anything like “coincidental contract in front of plate” until it had to created to cover the umps’ butt after Armbrister interfered with Fisk in the 75 WS. And if the letter of the law had been upheld Brett would have been out over the pine tar, but was reversed by “spirit of the rules” rationalization.
And Peterson’s glove was closed by a fan as he converged on the ball. The fan’s interference absolutely prevented Peterson from making the play. It’s incredibly obvious. He probably makes that play >90% of the time, not that that even matters, as the fan simply needs to prevent him from making the plan.
I don’t know if that accurately describes the pine tar incident. As I understood it, there was never any doubt that Brett’s bat violated both the letter and the spirit of the rules. The mistake that the umpires made was that the punishment they assessed was not permitted by the rules.
It's been a while
so I’d need to research this specific point, but as I remember the punishment was as the book deemed, and the phrase “did not violate the spirit of the rule” was the reason for the reversal. If I remember correctly using a bat with pine tar above X inches would have been similar to using an illegal bat, and the batter would be out on appeal. Maybe someone can cite an authoritative source.
FWIW from Wiki
At the time, MLB Rule 1.10© stated: “The bat handle, for not more than 18 inches from the end, may be covered or treated with any material or substance to improve the grip. Any such material or substance, which extends past the 18-inch limitation, shall cause the bat to be removed from the game.” At the time, such a hit was defined in the rules as an illegally batted ball, and the penalty for hitting “an illegally batted ball” was that the batter was to be declared out, under the explicit terms of the then-existing provisions of Rule 6.06.
However, in explaining his decision, MacPhail noted that the “spirit of the restriction” on pine tar on bats was based not on the fear of unfair advantage, but simple economics; any contact with pine tar would render a ball unsuitable for play, and require that it be discarded and replaced, thus increasing the home team’s cost of supplying balls for a given game. MacPhail ruled that since Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately “altered [the bat] to improve the distance factor.”
If Peterson makes the play less than 100% of the time, how do you know that the fan prevented him from making the play? Doesn’t that only mean there’s an X% chance that the fan prevented him from making the play?
I understand your point here. The fact is his chances of catching it ranged from 1-99%. There is no certainty in his catching it or missing it. In just about everyone of these debates, the fielder is nowhere near the ball, so it’s easy to just give the dude a double and play on. Here we have the added confusion of a fielder trying to make a play.
That said, aren’t the rule written such that when a fielder is attempting to play a ball that is potentially an out, the batter is out? The usual play is a lazy pop foul by first base and a fan reaches over into the field of play. They simply call the guy out. Here you have a much more difficult decision. So the question becomes, who should benefit? If there’s even a 1% chance he catches it, aren’t you in essence circumventing the rules about allowing the fielder to catch the ball by awarding Pence a double there? The rules seem to militate toward the conclusion that in this specific debate, the better answer is out. Disagree?
a) it isn’t reviewable, the only point of this debate is to refute the criticism that we are just whining when they ultimately got the call ‘right’. I don’t think we’d be debating this if the initial call was out on fielder’s interference.
b) I can’t recall any time when this rule was applied. The closest analog that comes to mind is the Bartman play where of course the batter wasn’t deemed out.
a) The specific call as West made it isn’t reviewable on its own, but when taken with steps 1-4 (umpire says he saw interference, umpires claim they want to review home run, umpires see no home run, and umpires confirm fan interference), then you’re asking the umpires to turn a blind eye to what they actually saw in the review. I understand it would be easier if they took a microphone and announced to the stadium “hey, we want to call fan interference, but we have to do the following first…” would make it easier, but they had an internal discussion on the field and came out with this result. I think it’s as fair as it could have been.
b) That is not at all a good analog. The Bartman ball was in the stands-ish, but catchable. The fan has a right to that ball. The closest analog is as I described it. A routine pop-up in foul territory where a fan reaches into a player and knocks it away. I know in the past year or two this has specifically happened with them calling the Phillies out on it. And upon replay everybody simply said “oh thats definitely interference.” The Bartman ball was more in the stands, which is nothing like yesterday’s play.
I would not say that. “Prevented him from making the play” to me means removing any chance. It doesn’t matter to me if Peterson had a 95% or a 5% chance, the fan interference took that to 0.
First of all, I think that’s just an incorrect statement of fact. The fan interference didn’t take the chance down to 0%. In the instantaneous moment between the fan’s impact with Peterson and the ball’s impact with the wall, there was still a chance that Peterson could have made the catch. Obviously, the result did go down to 0%, but results are binary. They’re always 0% or 100% by definition. What you’re really saying here is that if the fan’s actions are such that they could have affected the result and if the result is the fielder fails to make the catch, then that’s enough to prove interference. That isn’t what “prevented” means though. Proof of prevention necessarily requires proof of causation. You can’t prevent something that wouldn’t have happened anyway. If the rule makers wanted to say “tends to prevent” or something like that, then they should have written the rule that way.
I meant what I said, and I stand by it. The fielder had a non-zero chance of making the catch, absent interference; he had NO chance because of the interference. He was prevented from making the play.
I just don’t think that’s factually accurate. He didn’t make the play, but that doesn’t mean that ex ante he had no possibility of making that play.
In any event, that doesn’t change my main argument, which is that to prove prevention, you have to prove there was a 100% chance of success beforehand. If you go from 100% chance —> “no” result (regardless of the chances post-fan action but pre-result), that’s prevention. Going from a 99% chance —> 0% chance or 99% chance —> “no” result doesn’t adequately prove prevention.
One can prevent someone from doing something regardless of someone’s chance of succeeding. The only scenario where it might be argued otherwise is if there is zero chance of success, in which case something else has prevented success.
This game was nothing but bad for both teams. The Fish are already out of competition and the Phils have 30 games to go. Now both teams have practically no bullpen.
Well, actually, Madson and Bastardo are now fully rested.
by philsandthrills on Sep 4, 2011 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
How much warming up did Madson do to not pitch today?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 9:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think you are going a little far on a limb with that theory:
The Marlins blew through their ’pen, but nobody was ran to death, so they should have pitchers who can go tomorrow.
The Phillies did not use Madson or Bastardo, and Lidge and Schwimer each worked only one inning. Both should be available tomorrow. Stutes worked two innings, but Only threw 32 pitches (oddly the same number as Schwimer threw in his one), and so should be available tomorrow or the next day. Herndon pitched back to back days and racked up 69 pitches in three innings, so he is probably out until Wednesday or so. It will be fine
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 9:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If there is justice, Joe West will be fired, the protest will be upheld, the game will be rescheduled for the end of the season, when the game inevitably doesn’t matter it will be declared a tie. I’m not convinced the ruling is right. It seems the home team ought to be responsible for the fans, and it just seems wrong to declare an out for a ball the fielder was at best 60% to catch.
Pete Orr has just put the Ironpigs up 6-4. If they win today they clinch at least a tie with Gwinnett.
LHV wins it 7-4.
If they win tomorrow or the Gwinnett Braves lose, they’ll clinch a playoff spot.
by philsandthrills on Sep 4, 2011 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I hate that Herndon was on the hook for this loss. I hate that Herndon was sent out for yet another inning.
And I really can’t stand those idiot Phillies fans standing on their cell phones and talking after they caused all that trouble. I hope the people on their phones told them what tools they are.
As much as I hate Herbdon being essentially hung out to dry there, it was possibly the best of the bad options- if they send Madson in, they have to leave him out there, as there is nobody left to take the baton from him, which means that he is pitching a minimum of two innings provided he does not give up a run in his first inning of work. Today was Oswalt’s throw day- do you really want him in this game?
The other option is going to a position player, and the options are not the best- Martinez has pitched in the past, but there is nobody to play short stop if you use him. You aren’t going to risk injury to a regular, so you are down to Francisco or Schneider.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If only we could have more than 25 players on this team … oh, wait, we can.
The mind boggles at Schneider pitching to Ruiz.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately, none of those players you speak of could be magically activated in the fourteenth inning today. Had to play with what they had.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
True, true. I just dislike losing back-to-back games, especially to inferior teams. I dislike losing series, especially to inferior teams. And I very strongly dislike losing games started by Roy Halladay. Throw them all together and you can probably guess how I feel. But the good news is that tomorrow is Cliff Lee’s day and the game is on MLB Network, so I can watch.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Trust me, I am equally cranky… (and hormonal, which is a combo that should make Joe West very glad that I live nowhere near Miami). I dislike the losing, but more than that, the feeling that the Phillies were just plain wronged in this one, in some ways more than once (as I am convinced that Herndon threw more than one strike in that final at bat and that Halladay had strike three to the first batter he faced).
I hate losing Doc starts, just as I hate losing Cole starts and Cliff starts.
Tomorrow is another day, maybe Cliff will finally beat the Braves.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:47 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That we were “out of pitchers” on Sept 4 is probably the non-Joe West element here that bothers me most.
by dajafi on Sep 4, 2011 9:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Yes
Pitchers on 40-man roster not currently on major league team:
Justin DeFratus
Scott Mathieson
Drew Naylor
Juan Perez
JC Ramirez
Mike Zagurski
With Kendrick unavailable isn’t it possible one of these pitchers could have been added to the active roster?
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
well schwimmer was added because kendrick wasn’t available. I don’t think he was eligible to be called up otherwise[10 days or end of the AAA season as I understand it unless injury or other injury like list]. Personally, I’m of the opinion that people are still paying good money to watch LV so you shouldn’t just call people up so 99% of the time the ride the bench or take mop up duty.
well schwimmer was added because kendrick wasn’t available. I don’t think he was eligible to be called up otherwise[10 days or end of the AAA season as I understand it unless injury or other injury like list]. Personally, I’m of the opinion that people are still paying good money to watch LV so you shouldn’t just call people up so 99% of the time the ride the bench or take mop up duty.
I wasn’t aware there was a rule against callups from the AAA team before their season ends. Or are you just saying that applied to Schwimer because of his situation of being sent down recently? I see that Kendrick was put on a special paternity listing so it is correct that they had 26 players counting Kendrick. But still, that’s not a lot.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Kendrick does not count toward the 25 while on paternity leave.
Schwimer had to stay down 10 days unless someone went on the disabled or paternity leave list because he was recently optioned.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Thanks for clearing that up. Thanks also to pretzalz.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Schwimer was added to replace Kendrick.
I believe I saw somewhere that Naylor is injured.
However, they could have added one or more of the remaining names, as rosters have expanded.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah. Sorry, IronPigs, but I’m kinda hoping you miss the playoffs. We need the help at the big league level.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 4, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The fan clearly interfered with the ball, so ultimately it was the correct call. ESPN’s Steve Berthiaume spoke with former Major League umpire Jim McKean, who told him that once the umpires decided to review whether it was a home run, the umpires could then use their judgement to rule on fan interference (Twitter).
http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/31737566
It all sound kinda fishy if you can use the home run review and then rule on something else
But it wasn’t ultimately the correct call. Would that go down as the first catch ever made with the glove closed before he made the catch?
That’s not the rule. Interference results in an out and a dead ball, it doesn’t say that the fielder would have made the play.
Sort of off-topic, but wouldn’t it make sense for interference to be ruled a foul ball? Why arbitrarily punish the offense with an out?
Human beings in a mob. What's a mob to a king? What's a king to a God? What's a God to a non-believer who don't believe in anything? Will he make it out alive, alright, alright, no church in the wild
by Eaglesadvocate on Sep 4, 2011 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I think I would favor a rule that made interference with a ball struck by the visiting team a foul, vs. an out for a ball struck by the home team, since the home team is responsible for policing the fans.
Not a bad idea, but sometimes fan interference can just be instinct ie. bartman
Human beings in a mob. What's a mob to a king? What's a king to a God? What's a God to a non-believer who don't believe in anything? Will he make it out alive, alright, alright, no church in the wild
by Eaglesadvocate on Sep 4, 2011 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
So I wouldnt want fan interference to be an out even if it was a home fan
Human beings in a mob. What's a mob to a king? What's a king to a God? What's a God to a non-believer who don't believe in anything? Will he make it out alive, alright, alright, no church in the wild
by Eaglesadvocate on Sep 4, 2011 11:38 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Me either- because no matter how many warnings you give, people will be idiots.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 2:37 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Then why, on June 9th, was Tyler Colvin’s “home run” that was caused by a fan reaching over called a ground rule double, and not an out?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 10:29 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I thought it should have been clear that this only applies to balls that weren’t over the fence.
well if it was called a ground rule double than it wasn’t over the fence. If the nearest defender is ten feet away it obviously isn’t an out as there is a 0% chance of a catch. So what percent chance of a catch do you need to rule an out? 1%? 10%? 51%? 90%? 99.9%? 100% is impractical as it is impossible to know. Something else? For reference this is the wording I got from mlb.com:
3.16
When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
Is there any precedent for a Manager asking for a replay to see if the opposing team’s double was actually a HR? cause that is my whole beef with the situation. I don’t understand how the umpire can look at replay for a missed interference call.
18 and counting...
If Charlie asked for replay to see if it was a HR or if there was some uncertainty amongst the umpires about it potentially being a HR, then it all makes sense…however, it didn’t go down like that. Jack McKeon requested a replay of a missed call and got it overturned.
18 and counting...
If one of the umpires thought it was a home run, they can review it without a request from either manager. However, their review is still limited by rule to whether or not it was a home run.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Fine, ball is dead when it is interfereed with, but it is still a reach to say that the spectator CLEARLY prevented Peterson from making the play. Correct ruling, ground rule double, which is essentially what the play turned out as anyway.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I would also point out the fact that it was initially a ground rule double implies that they knew all along there was fan interference, but didn’t think it warranted calling the batter out until they saw the replays.
The initial ruling though was not a ground rule double- I thought sure Samuel held Ryan at third because Peterson got to the ball pretty quickly.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The initial ruling though was not a ground rule double- I thought sure Samuel held Ryan at third because Peterson got to the ball pretty quickly.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Utley 0 for 7
And failed to advance Martinez to third with no outs in extra innings..I doubt this game or road trip will go in Utley’s time capsule
"I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." Groucho Marx
I like to thank Pete Mackanin for being worse at X’s and O’s than Charlie. He lost the game twice today. 1) I understand using Schwimmer in the 7th when you are losing 3-2, but once you take the lead you are set up for Lidge, Stutes, and Madson 2) Utley should have bunted the runner over to 3rd….I give him credit for all the IBBs…can’t say Charlie has shown the propensity or wherewithal for that…see Gaby Sanchez 3 run HR AB last night
18 and counting...
Utley should have bunted the runner over to 3rd
This seems like a post hoc conclusion.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, fun!
If these walls could talk … we could verify that. :)
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m never a big fan of bunting with a runner on 2nd, especially with utley at the plate, but given his recent struggles, I was saying the same thing during the game. hindsight is 50-50 of course, but if he bunter Martinez over, he probably scores on the next AB to Howard…
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
I detest the sacrifice bunt. I think even pitchers sac bunt too often so I’m never going to fault one of the best hitters on the team not bunting.
There are few times when sac. bunting is the way to go. In this game state, 9th inning (every extra inning is in a sense the 9th) with no outs and a man on 2nd, it increases your RE and 1 run is all that is needed to win esp. with Madson closing. The issue here is your playing for a run, not to maximize runs; however, and it’s not about taking the bat out of one the best hitters on the team in this scenario, but whether or not Utley can actually bunt. So it’s murky. The larger point that I’m trying to make though, is that sac. bunting is a more nuanced debate and has not been completely disproven to warrant it’s systematic dismissal. Game context, the player and the opposition are crucial as to whether or not it’s the proper strategy. In late game stituations like today, considerations must be made for the other team’s firemen. If you know that you will be facing or are facing a top tier reliever, playing for a run, game state and personnel permitting, is probably the most optimal strategy. Also there’s using a bunt attempt as a feint to force defensive realignments.
You missed perhaps the most glaring error...
Pinch hitting for Valdez with perhaps the only hitter on the team worse than him- Ross Gload…
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
conceding that you are going to use 2 pinch hitters there, what was the point of having Gload go first thereby having the pitcher’s spot recomeup sooner.
None. Considering the pinch hitting options, though, I do not understand why using two there was smart. Polanco’s day off gets essentially nullified by playing 7 innings, and the chances of Gload getting a hit there, lefty-righty matchup or no, is low.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 4, 2011 11:59 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
i feel a good analogy to this whole joe-gate debacle would be illegally obtained evidence in a trial. if evidence is obtained thru illegal means it becomes inadmissible, regardless if it can beyond a doubt incriminate someone. West used evidence obtained by means not permitted by the rules governing baseball(at least thats how i understand the rules are written), ultimately leading to a (arguably) correct call, but a call he should not have been able to make within the rules.
by BobbyDucati on Sep 4, 2011 10:51 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Joe West, on assignment from the Star Chamber.
by phillyinportland on Sep 4, 2011 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
IANAL, but I’ve seen enough Law & Order (the Original, because it’s the best version) to know that evidence obtained unlawfully doesn’t count. Fruit from the poisonous tree, as they say.
This last couple of weekends with the Marlins have sure been “fishy”. What strange games.
by PhilsForever on Sep 5, 2011 12:50 AM EDT via iPhone app reply actions
I “watched” most of this game on Gameday so I didn’t even know any of this had happened until just now. I knew Charlie got ejected, of course, but not the detail.
It really pisses me off that the fans in the outfield were Phillies fans. Those folks are no better than the jackass who ran out on the field to ruin Cole Hamels’ complete game last year.
FM, I tried to look up just now whether IBBs are counted in DIPS, and tentatively, I think they actually don’t. Herndon still didn’t exactly cover himself in glory in this game, but his only unintentional walks came in the last inning and one can hardly blame him for that.
Pete Mackanin can go piss up a rope. I don’t know that I agree with everything DirtyWaters said, but I’m not at all surprised that Mackanin’s decisions were at least questionable. Some of you may recall that Mackanin was also forced to manage the team last year in Joe Blanton’s first game after returning very quickly from his injured oblique. Joe was fine through 6 innings and about 75-80 pitches, and then Mackanin inexplicably sent him back out for the 7th where he promptly gave up three runs. He then stayed in a funk for the next month. Mackanin = idiot who makes Charlie look like a master strategist. I have no idea what value he adds to this team.
he tells the best jokes and sets up hitting contests for the pitchers….invaluable.
18 and counting...
_______________] we admitted we were powerless over baseball-that our lives had become blissfully unmanageable [_______________
.
+ 
+ 
.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
.
.
=
. unicorn .
What were the rest of the 12 steps?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 2:38 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm surprised that fan didn't get hurt.
If that was a Giants fan at a Dodgers game….. oh wait.
Never call a Phillies, Eagles, Flyers or Sixers fans, a band-wagoner. It is disrespectful. We have suffered agony through the years. Philadelphians should be jovial for their teams' success.
Lost in all the Joe West Debacleness of this game is the fact that Schwimmer has come in to replace Halladay in 3 of his 4 appearances, and blown Roys lead twice. Yeah, it’s September, and all, but I’d really love to know if Roy gives him a look in the dugout….
I imagine Schwim doesnt sit next to Roy on the bus, huh?
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
I really hate
The we’re on the road in extra innings so we have to save our closer nonsense. Whats the point of not using your best reliever in that game yesterday? To me it would be like not pitching your ace in game 1 of a playoff series because you might fall behind and need a stopper. Give your best players as much playing time in important situations as possible so I don’t have to watch Herndon’s slop for 4 innings
in general fair enough, but how long are you prepared to go with Madson in the likely events the offense never scores?
Exactly. What if Madson started the 14th and the game goes 19? There were no other pitchers besides Madson. Not even Valdez, since he was used earlier in the game and removed. As much as I hated seeing Herndon get hung out to dry, I’d rather it be him than Madson.
Let's go eat...a triceratops. /velociraptor'd
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 5, 2011 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
I dont see how he had any choice but to go with herndon in the 14th. Bastardo was unavailable, and is still going to be tired today. If he Brings Madson in, to a tie game, even if he holds, and we score in the next inning, he has to go two innings. If we don’t score, who pitches the third inning?
Madson Pitched 4 times in the previous 5 games.
He hasn’t thrown multiple innings all season, and only did it twice in 2010. Last time he went out for a secoond inning was August 1st 2010, and he basically came in to a bases loaded situation, threw four pitches, and then finished the next inning. It wasnt two full innings. He hasnt done that since 2009.
You do that, you effectively take Madson out of play for the first two games against Atlanta.
I’d rather have lost the way we did, and have a fresh MAdson and Bastardo for Atlanta, than have No madson tonight and tomorrow.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
He did two full innings last year against San Fran in game 6 of the NLCS. He got five outs before giving up the game winning home run.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 1:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Thats postseason Danni, the season was on the line, and the next week didnt matter. completely different scenario. (one which didnt really turn out the way we would have liked, either)
Even so, its still over a YEAR since he’s gone two innings, and theirs no guarantee its only two.
You have seven games against Atlanta and Milwaukee this week. Sorry, I’ll take a loss yesterday and a fresh Madson today over wasting his arm on an extra inning debacle all day.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
Especially when that debacle may (although very unlikely) end up being replayed.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I believe in the next post I stated that I agreed with yesterday’s decision (and I have defended the non-use of Madson throughout). I was merely giving the true date of Madson’s last multi-inning appearance (less than 11 months ago).
I would not have done yesterday different regardless of yesterday’s opponent or the upcoming ones.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 1:56 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
By the way, I totally agree with you- I hated that they lost the game, but would rather lose it that way than see Madson unavailable for days or worse because there was nobody else to take over for him.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 1:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
No.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
You’re welcome.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
I’m honored.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
Are you a lonely, miserable person? Because your internet behavior certainly gives that impression.
The Good Phight, NotGraphs, fun!
Well thanks for asking...
but, no, I’m actually very content in my life. How about you? Are you a cynical, bitter, condescending, arrogant person in real life, or do you just play one on the internet?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
If only you had a good baseball team to root for.
by phillyinportland on Sep 6, 2011 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
insightful barves fan is insightful
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
How insightful.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." A. Bartlett Giamatti
Good article- thanks for posting it!
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 2:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I have not seen every outlet, but watching ESPN last night, this was talked about in great detail.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
What did they have to say?
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 1:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Nothing earth-shattering, if that’s what you are going for. Aaron Boone said if Bryan Petersen makes that catch it is a web gem before calling Joe West “one of the best balls and strikes umpires” in baseball. Bobby Valentine rambled incoherently. Steve Berthiaume interviewed Jim McKean, who said the same thing he already reported McKean as saying on his Twitter feed.
The best analysis I have seen on the matter thus far is yolacrary’s Inside The Book link above the comment of mine you replied to.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Thanks! I was more wondering what the non-Berthiune voices were saying- I honestly did not expect earth shattering.
Although I would still like to know since when a would-be Webgem qualifies as a play that was likely to be made.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 2:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Salisbury:
I am hearing that the Phillies plan to go forward with their protest. They have 24 hours from end of Sun game to file appeal with MLB.
I do not think this will go anywhere, if only because I believe Joe West can tell Selig any lie West wants and Selig will believe every word he says.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I think it’s good news. Worst case scenario is that they actually make us finish the game in Miami. Best case is it forces the lawyers to sit down and actually write a rule that doesn’t use vague legalese that means nothing to baseball reviews. The likely outcome is the appeal is denied and not a damn thing gets resolved.
Also, I think Joe West has said enough random crap and the rules are just vague enough that he doesn’t have to lie. In theory, every step of the way can be covered with non-lies. It seems that any last issue is that West should have turned a blind eye to an actual ruling on fan interference, but he was sitting there watching a tv screen over and over again. It’s hard to say he has to ignore that, when it’s like the first few steps were all quasi-legitimate. Anyway, point is I don’t think West even has to lie at this point to get a favorable ruling.
Not so- while the rules will allow him to say that a member of the umpiring crew thought it was a home run, allowing them to review it, the rules are also specific in what can be reviewed (whether the play in question is a home run). The rules are silent beyond that on whether once you get in there and rule that it is not a home run, whether other rulings (such as Pence being out on fan interference) could be made based on what the video showed.
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 2:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Best case Scenario, IMO is that we don’t end up having to replay the game, but Joe West gets fired/disciplined/demoted for not just being a douchebag, but for being a powerhungry “it’s my crew,I’ll interpret the rules as I see fit” douchebag.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
by Joecatz on Sep 5, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I hope someone told catering before this afternoon so they could get enough twinkies.
Seriously though, I hope hes up to snuff. A healthy Blanton in the Pen could be a huge help.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
From Rollins' FB
Last official day on the DL. Heading in now to start rehab conditioning! Looking forward to playing again soon
Unless he needs rehab games, no harn in activating him and taking it SLOW. Relegated to PH duties would be prudent.
25.8/106 "Winter is coming" -Eddard Stark
No place for rehab games now unless he is going to rehab during the Iron Pigs/ R-Phils post season runs (if that is even allowed).
"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."
by dannijd on Sep 5, 2011 10:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I thought this said postponed (as in the Braves game) and was bummed for a second
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Sep 5, 2011 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
David Herndon - MLB Reliever and the literary Zelig.
From the works of Kafka.
As David Herndon awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed on the pitching mound into a gigantic insect. He was lying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike white belly divided by red pinstripes into stiff arched segments on top of which the pitching rubber could hardly stay in place and was about to slide off completely.
-The Metamorphosis -
…Once more the odious courtesies began, the first handed the IBB across H. to the second, who handed it across H. back again to the first. H. now perceived clearly that he was supposed to seize the IBB himself, as it traveled from hand to hand above him, and plunge it into his own breast.
- The Trial -
The Condemned Reliever, incidentally, had an expression of such dog-like resignation that it looked as if one could set him free to roam around the slopes and would only have to whistle at the start of the execution for him to return.
- In the Penal Colony -
“Our sentence does not sound severe. The law which a condemned man has violated is inscribed on his body with the Harrow. This Condemned Reliever, for example," and the Fan pointed to the man, "will have inscribed on his body, ‘Honour the Book’.”
- In the Penal Colony -
“You were, as you say, taken on as a GB specialist but we don’t need a GB specialist. . . The boundaries of our band box have been marked out, everything has been duly registered, the late inning defenders themselves rarely change according to the game state, and whatever bullpen problems arise, we settle with the Clipboard and the Gut.”
- The Castle -
by j reed on Sep 5, 2011 4:59 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Replay needs to change
I think that MLB needs to set up instant replay like Little League does at the World Series. The team gets one or two chances, I can’t remember which, and if they get it right they keep their chance. If they are wrong they lose their chance. The only thing non reviewable is balls and strikes.
If they had that system, then Florida Challenges that there was fan interference. The ump looks at the video and sees the fan hit the player’s glove. Out is called and all is well.
The system does not allow them to challenge that call, since it was ruled a double, and the umpires now go outside the system to call interference. The system in place does not allow for that challenge so it should not have been allowed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Saturday, May 26, 2012, 7:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 95.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
