Game 51: Tigers 3, Indians 0
by Ryan on Jun 2, 2010 9:22 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
Email
PrintArmando Galarraga spent seven seasons in the minors before getting a shot with Texas, then made Detroit's rotation in 2008. Before tonight, he had never pitched a complete game, never mind a shutout. In his three appearances this season before tonight, he gave up 12 hits and 4 walks in 12 innings. In his two 2010 starts, he went 5.2 innings and 4.2 innings, respectively.
But tonight, he was, essentially, perfect. He finished tonight's game with only 88 pitches thrown, 67 of them for strikes. He did get lucky when Russell Branyan's sharply-hit grounder to the mound bounced off his foot and right to Brandon Inge, and was bailed out in the ninth when Austin Jackson made a great running catch on Mark Grudzielanek's line drive deep in the left field gap. It's as impressive a pitching performance as I've seen, and it should have ended with a celebration in the middle of the diamond.
With two outs in the ninth, Jason Donald hit a weak grounder to the right of first baseman Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera fielded the ball and tossed it to Galarraga, who was already at first base. Armando made the catch, then Jason Donald's foot hit the bag. Donald was called safe by first base umpire Jim Joyce. The call was not a bang-bang play; the throw beat Donald by a full step. When Joyce flung his arms outward, the emotions on the field shifted from the heights of exhilaration to the depths of shock in an instant. A couple seconds later, when everyone had been able to process what had happened, shock turned to anger. A clearly blown call had ruined what should have been baseball's twenty-first perfect game. It was the umpire equivalent of Bill Buckner letting the ball go through his legs in the 1986 World Series.
Even though the blown call saved the Indians from having a perfect game thrown against them, it still doesn't feel good. If Jason Donald's ball had hit a pebble and bounced over Cabrera's head, that would have been a lucky bounce. This doesn't feel lucky, it feels guilty. This game will go down in history, but unfortunately not in the type of history that shows baseball in a good light. This call will reawaken the cries for NFL-style instant replay, but, in my mind, if any good should come of this game, it will provide an impetus for a new evaluation process for umpires. Just like anyone else employed in the game of baseball, umpires need to held accountable for what happens on the field. There has to be consequences for continuing mistakes, for antagonism, and for general incompetence. That final blown call was not Joyce's first of the night; in fact, the inning before, he called Johnny Damon safe at first, and the Tigers would score two runs on the next play. Who knows how different the ninth inning would have played out had the Indians been down just a run? Based on manager Manny Acta's comments after the game, he would have pinch-hit Shelley Duncan in the ninth, and perhaps the Indians have a chance of actually winning the game. In a sane world, some deserving AAA umpire would be called up, and Joyce would be calling balls and strikes in Scranton tomorrow night.
Lost in the controversy was an excellent outing by Fausto Carmona. He finished the game having allowed two earned runs on nine hits and no walks. He fell behind 1-0 early when Miguel Cabrera hit a line-drive home run, and kept the Tigers off the board until the bottom of the eighth, and if not for the blown call in that inning, would have given up two fewer hits, and one less earned run.
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Fausto Carmona | .132 | Travis Hafner | -.113 |
| Trevor Crowe | -.110 | ||
| Mark Grudzielanek | -.085 |
168 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Although the Indians saved themselves from further humiliation, I almost feel as if I have been cheated out of baseball history.
Perfect games are run of the mill nowadays.
by Roger Dorn on Jun 2, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also, looks like Acta’s decision to sit Hafner against all the lefties to not mess up his swing for the righties actually messed up his swing for the righties.
Also, looks like Acta’s decision to sitHafneragainst all the lefties to not mess up hisswing for the righties actuallymessed uphis swing for the righties.
"Spring Training wins are good for the soul."
I had planned on going to the game, but my people backed out on me because it seemed earlier like it would rain.
Too bad for Armando, but his Tigers get another shot at the feat tomorrow.
As the last inning began, I thought about the old saw: if you watch closely enough, you’ll see something in every baseball game you’ve never seen before. But this one was way beyond any boundary. The Tigers’ TV announcer said he’d never been so sad to see a Detroit win. I sympathize.
by just a bit outside on Jun 2, 2010 10:15 PM EDT reply actions
Just saw the replay. While clearly out, I will say this…it becomes a bit trickier when you have the choppy steps of the pitcher covering 1B. I could not tell if he was safe or out until the slow motion replay.
I agree with this; it looked closer live than it was on the replay. But that’s why he’s a big league ump and we’re not. To make that call correctly.
I’m sure no one feels worse than Jim Joyce about the whole thing, and even though instant replay clearly would have gotten this right, the moment was taken unfairly from Galarraga. Just a bummer all around.
Il faut d'abord durer.
Jim Joyce admitted that he blew the call:
“I just cost that kid a perfect game,” Joyce said. “I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay.”
“It was the biggest call of my career,” said Joyce, who became a full-time major league umpire in 1989.
The article also says that Joyce apologized to Leyland and Galarraga after the game in the locker room.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 2, 2010 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
In his three appearances this season before tonight, he gave up 12 hits and 4 walks in 12 innings. In his two 2010 starts, he went 5.2 innings and 4.2 innings, respectively. The.
Think you chopped off a sentence here, Ryan (?).
--
History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark.
look on wikipedia “perfect game” there is a list of players who pitched a perfect game. galarraga is in there. haha.
Can my dull sight excuse the quick offense
Of this dunderhead call that makes me bleed:
For should I be an ump in the past tense?
I feel just like a bear who hounds have treed.
O, what excuse will allow me to sleep
When I supremely botch’d this bang-bang play?
Should I bury this chest protector deep
In spongy soil beneath a screeching Jay?
The call-in shows curse me, voices grown hoarse
As all my failings they try to tally,
With bald depictions of the types of force
They would use, if we met in dark alley.
I cannot gainsay what the replays flout;
I admit it here: that Damon was out.
by YoDaddyWags on Jun 2, 2010 11:20 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
The police need to take him to the hotel. There will be people waiting for him.
by matt7 on Jun 2, 2010 11:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
So you guys want amusement? Go to any random SBN gamethread and scroll to 8:55 PM.
"I call myself common sense" —Manny Acta
Ooh, fun. Exactly one minute before the Jim Joyce call, Rays fans were calling for the head of Angel Hernandez and wondering if MLB would reverse his bad call. Did the umpire’s union forget to offer up their blood sacrifice to the Dark Lord this month?
Anyone who watched the Stanley Cup tonight, I gotta say (although so different in nature) it’s great to see the Flyers goal confirmed later at the stoppage of play and the clock wound back. It was about a minute’s worth of gameplay retroactive, but it worked out fine.
That’s why I think many people, including Yahoo’s Jeff Passan, think that MLB should institute instant replay for close calls at bases (Passan thinks it should have already been done at the same time as it was agreed upon for HR balls actually being HRs or not).
Passan makes good points in regards to the time factor and the history factor – isn’t it worth taking a few more minutes to make sure a call is right instead of citing the need for speed or the history of the game and that it’s always been the umpires and the human eye? Personally, I think everyone would have felt better about tonight’s game if instant replay would have confirmed that Donald was out – granted, I, for one, did NOT want to see a perfect game thrown against the Indians, groaning a bit when Grudzielanek’s line drive was caught, but I do feel bad for Galarraga and the Tigers when Galarraga actually delivered a perfect game, then not get credit for it, even though it saved the Indians from an “official” perfect game.
Besides that, the Indians would have survived having a perfect game thrown against them (would have been the first perfect game thrown against them, and the first that the Tigers had ever thrown) – heck, look at the Rays, who had a perfect game thrown against them earlier this year by the A’s Dallas Braden, yet I believe they still hold the best record in the Majors and are still tops in the East. The Indians would have bounced back just fine from having a perfect game thrown against them, which I think adds to the “guilt” feeling of Galarraga not receiving credit for having pitched a perfect game, even by us Indians fans.
Look at it from the other side of the coin – if an Indians pitcher had been in that situation, made that play and the umpire would have called him safe when it was pretty obvious he wasn’t, I know that I would have been fuming and ticked, so I can certainly understand and sympathize with Tiger fans over Galarraga getting robbed because he certainly did, and I don’t think ANYONE feels good about it, us Indians fans included, despite avoiding the “official” perfect game.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
My concern about instant replay is it will not be applied equitably. The 27th out didn’t affect the result of the game. It was still a 3-0 Tigers victory, whether the call was right or not. However, I doubt there would have been replay on Damon’s “single” even though that affected the outcome of the game. I think replays would not be applied evenly or fairly, and would be used to enhance individual stats rather than the outcomes of games. In other words, individual performances—be they perfect games or home runs—will have greater importance than they should. The Indians should be glad they were spared the humiliation tonight thanks to the confusion of an umpire. The Damon call was the back-breaker, though.
What evidence is there of that? We don’t have any reason to suspect calls wouldn’t be reviewed equitably. You do it like in football… give managers three challenges per game or something. I don’t see what all the GD hullabaloo is about replay in baseball. So many people are caught up in some fantasy notion that it will ruin our precious, untainted pasttime. In reality, baseball is the only sport living in the dark ages. If we have technology that would enhance the fairness of the game, why in God’s name shouldn’t we be using it as much as possible?
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
I agree. I don’t see any reason to think that it would only be used to enhance individual stats. Yesterday’s game is an extreme example; it is obviously historically rare that a perfect game comes down to a blown call. If instant reply is adapted, I don’t see any reason to think that it would be used equally throughout the game whether the close call is in the first inning or the ninth.
As Rob Neyer suggested, all you have to do is add a fifth umpire to the crew stationed in an booth with access to the TV feed, and he can buzz the crew chief any time there’s a close call — on the bases, fair or foul, home run or not — and they can look at it on reply to see if they got the correct call. It shouldn’t be that hard, and I don’t see any reason to think that it wouldn’t be applied equally or that it would somehow give greater importance to individual perfomances.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 3, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Okay then. What happens if a manager exhausts his three reviews (fairly) by the third inning? What if the three reviews are used to slow up the game, disrupt the pitcher, piss off an umpire or enable a reliever to loosen up in the bullpen? Will the reviewing team—as they presently do—reside in New York, a cabal of jackasses in their Derek Jeter game-day unis? The imperative that says we must use technology simply because we have it (reminiscent of the dog that can lick its balls) gets us into enough trouble without staining the national pastime as well. Do we need to hold up the game for five minutes in an 11-2 game to see if Alex Rodriguez is given proper credit for a homerun?
Also! Anything that makes baseball more like football is inherently, implicitly, a bad idea.
by odradek on Jun 3, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
In cricket – another traditional sport that was hugely resistant to technology, by the way – you don’t lose a review if it is successful. One of the other suggestions from cricket was that the teams themselves don’t ask for reviews but it falls to the umpires. Not ideal, but would take the potential brinksmanship out of it.
If it affects game speed they could always limit the number of mound visits, or number of times a batter can call “time”.
My one fear with umpires having the authority to do this: Joe West (and the like) would use this tool to grand stand. I can just see him calling for a review for a close call at second, while he is standing behind the plate. All the while…staring into the dugout at some manager that was complaining about balls and strikes three innings earlier.
Everything you suggest is silly. If you go with the review system, and the manager exhausts his reviews by the third inning, then he’s terrible at challenging and doesn’t deserve another crack at it. And as for slowing up the game, managers already find dozens of ways to do that. Wasting a challenge is probably the least effective one they could come up with, because it would take all of 15 seconds to review an obvious call in the booth. If they want to slow up the game, they’ll just pitch a fit or fake an injury like they always do.
Oh, and nobody’s saying we must use technology because we have it. That’s dumb. We’re saying we should use technology because it would get calls right. And missed calls suck.
Also! I know you were just joking, but the integration of baseball made it more like football. That was a good idea. Sometimes baseball is just behind the times.
“Terrible at challenging”? So this is another skill we can critique managers on? Kind of like NFL coaches standing in the rain looking aggravated and stupid?
Just because managers have plenty of reasons for brinksmanship and delay, we should add another arrow to their quiver? Brilliant idea.
No one will cop to saying we must use technology, but there it is! We can get these calls right (except when we don’t). We can eliminate error (except when we can’t). Obviously, there are times when a simple review of a play results in a reasonable degree of certainty. But there are also many plays where there is ambiguity, or false certainty. Then what?
Also! I happen to know that baseball was integrated before professional football ever even existed.
So instant replay won’t be perfect. It’ll be better than the current system. That’s enough to make it a good idea.
It’s funny that you criticize the plan for allowing brinkmanship, but you also criticize the mechanic that eliminates brinkmanship (the limited challenges). Anyways, the little details are insignificant. More calls will be right, and the time sacrifice for two challenges per game is minimal. I think you just like being contrary.
Also! Can you explain the last statement?
(1) This is what I meant about an imperative. How do we know replay will be better than the current system? (Answer: we don’t, though we have ideas about what it would look like.)
(2) Limited challenges are inherently unfair. Leave it to umpires (as LondonTribe suggests above)? What’s another ten minutes milling around while the clowns in the booth agonize over a play? What’s worse than all this mock-Zapruder film nonsense from the NFL review staff?
(3) Fleetwood Walker.
I feel terrible, obviously, for Galarraga, but worse for Jim Joyce. By far.
If we assume, as I think is fair, that Joyce came by the call honestly – well, missed calls can happen at any point in a game. Thought it’s impossible to know with any certainty, I’m sure that in the history of baseball, thousands of would-be perfect games/no hitters/shutouts/wins have been undermined by bad calls made in the third inning, when the stakes seemed low (even though every inning counts the same). Joyce had the crap luck to see the ball wrong at the exact moment when people were most keyed up, and I personally wouldn’t ask him to take it back. I want umpires to trust their eyes, even if their eyes won’t always be perfect.
This situation is actually an interesting analog to Kendry Morales’ injury, in that it’s a freak situation now being used as a justification for a change in the way the game is played. Of course the use of instant replay would alter the game more meaningfully than quieter post-walk-off celebrations, but in both cases you’ve got people calling for changes on the basis of one incident, which isn’t usually a good basis for decision-making.
It might sound Ludditish, but I really don’t want instant replay to be expanded. In football, it slows the pace and makes the game too technical. I don’t really even like instant replay reviews of shots at the end of the quarter in basketball. To me, it’s better to permit a certain amount of imperfection in exchange for a more exciting game. This is sports, not health care. As fans, we should be allowed to privilege the quality of our viewing experience over the rationality of the game. Others may disagree – they may want to privilege rationality – and that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s merely old-fashioned to disagree with them. And I hope this incident doesn’t result in a knee-jerk decision that doesn’t weigh the issues.
If this had been Fausto’s perfect game (hah!), I think I would feel exactly the same. It takes maturity to understand that life isn’t fair. Not even with instant replay, probably.
From, Ben
by bentausig on Jun 3, 2010 6:23 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Frankly, having a 30-second booth review wouldn’t be any slower than having Lou Piniella kick his hat for three minutes. I think baseball would end up a lot like tennis, where they’re finding that reviews actually speed up the matches because nobody’s arguing.
At least, they would if reviews were done right, instead of by the umpires peering under a hood.
That would be pretty tough to do.
Let’s not lose sight of the context here. Calls are argued precisely because the umps are the only people in the world who can’t watch the replay. Once everyone can see the replay, in very nearly every case, the most anyone can argue is that it’s a tough call that could go either way.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
At least, they would if reviews were done right, instead of by the umpires peering under a hood.
Does done right mean some guy in Rockefeller Center?
Does this guy travel with the crew? Is he part of the crew rotation? Does he always sit in the booth eating nachos? Does he show up his colleagues?
Yes, to all of those things.
Hell, you could probably win some nice concessions from the umpires union on other issues if you increased the total number of jobs by 20% and put every guy in air conditioning one day a week.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Am I the only one who thinks this whole incident is hilarious? This could only happen in baseball. This entire incident can be looked at as an artifact of a time gone by.
Also, why are pitchers throwing so many near-perfect and perfect games this year? Lack of amphetamines?
Good question – I’ve noticed that as well – 2 “official” perfect games, 1 “unofficial” perfect game, and 1 no-hitter in less than 2 months of baseball – at this rate, we’ll have around 6-7 “official” perfect games, 3 “unofficial” perfect games (and with no real accountability system for the umpires and baseball’s refusal to institute instant replay for close calls at bases, 3 may not be as much of a “stretch” as it would initially appear) and 3 no-hitters.
Seriously, the four pitchers involved in those contests are:
RHP Roy Halladay (official perfect game)
LHP Dallas Braden (official perfect game)
RHP Armando Galarraga (“unofficial” perfect game)
RHP Ubaldo Jimenez (official no-hitter)
There aren’t any notable trends with these four pitchers – 3 are RHP, but one is LHP. I am least familiar with Braden, but I don’t think he’s overpowering. Galarraga isn’t considered overpowering either, but he does have good sink on his fastball and has good, solid command (I wouldn’t call him as having Greg Maddux-like command in all of his starts, but he does show flashes of pinpoint control from time to time), Halladay has that pinpoint command most times and can be overpowering at times, though I don’t think he throws as hard as he once did, while Jimenez can be erratic with command, but has some very good stuff and velocity (regularly mid- to upper-90s with his FB).
So, all have potential to show that type of no-hit and even “perfect” stuff, but as for finding a specific trend amongst all four, that’s a little tougher. I guess it was just circumstances, the right night against the right team and the defense making the plays on balls that were hit (like Inge and Jackson helping out Galaragga tonight, for instance).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
It was the umpire equivalent of Bill Buckner letting the ball go through his legs in the 1986 World Series.
Lastoria posted something similar on Facebook. I cannot disagree more.
This was not the World Series. It will not affect the outcome of a pennant race or postseason series. Hell, it didn’t even affect the outcome of a game. Hell, it didn’t even change the score!
You ask any umpire which type of call they’d least like to blow — 27th out of a perfect game or any play affecting a pennant race — and I’m sure they’ll tell you it’s the latter. And any fan who would disagree should have his head examined.
From this perspective, we see worse calls than this almost every year.
This is part of what I find so funny about the thing. Only in stat-obsessed baseball would people be in an uproar because a missed call led to a one-hit shutout rather than a perfect game. There’s something so dorky about it…. I mean, it was still a magnificent performance. So who cares?
The fact that so few people have accomplished a perfect game is more of a statistical oddity and less of an overwhelming achievement.
Especially when you consider how much luck is required to have a pitcher get 27 outs without giving up a hit or walk. A lot of pitchers have dominant stuff but get screwed by broken bats or half-assed fielding plays. Were their efforts any less impressive?
It’s the same side of the coin that has one team being a statistical oddity all the way into the playoffs (Twins, Angels) and leaves another team that underperformed its Pythagorean record to feel and actually achieve something that is and feels less than overwhelming. there’s no solace in that. That, my friend, is a result worth wanting, regardless of its characterization as a statistical oddity.
Now don’t get me wrong, getting your team to the playoffs is so much more valuable for a franchise than having a guy hurl a perfect game. No comparison. But sometimes, I’d say, the result is so damn special, you want it. And that, I understand.
I think part of the problem is that we think it’s a statistical oddity when some team has a high BABIP or outperforms their third-order wins or whatever.
For any given one team, these things are unlikely, meaning that they have less than a 50 percent likelihood or perhaps less than 30 percent. That does not make them oddities, meaning more like one to three percent likelihood. What we’re talking about here is closer to 30% than to 3%.
An “aggressive” style of play, emphasizing contact hitting and plays on the bases, increases the variance of all of these events. The more teams there are that approach the game this way, the more often we’re going to see one of those teams win all the money when they pull the lever on the slot machine.
The “smarter,” more disciplined strategy involves slightly less risk and also slightly less reward — this should be very intuitive if you take a moment to think about it. The year that your team has some unnaturally high BABIP for the season, your team will benefit less if there are fewer balls in play. A patient strategy means more walks and home runs, which usually means more strikeouts as well. By definition, then, it also means fewer balls in play. Less opportunity to get lucky, or, if you prefer, less of a reward when you do get lucky. (Note how from 2004 to 2008, the Indians only fluctuated between 78 and 96 wins, a swing of just 11% of all contests, which at least hints at a generally efficient, low-risk, low-reward approach.)
The Twins and Angels are not flukes. For one thing, the Twins did not really have any good teams until Nathan, Mauer and Morneau were in full swing — before that, they had just-okay records in a very uncompetitive division. So there isn’t necessarily any big magic happening there — add those three to any decent club and at least decent results should follow.
The larger point, however, is that these teams are employing a strategy that (we believe) is less efficient overall, but that also is characterized by a greater reliance on BABIP and close defensive plays. They let luck play a somewhat larger role in their destiny, and sometimes, they reap great rewards from that.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
There is something else going on with the Twins that I can’t even place. We sign Wood who performs terribly. You can’t tell me if Jon Rauch were the Indians closer, he would be lock down like he is right now for the Twins.
But that might be because we wouldn’t sign Rauch, and they wouldn’t sign Wood.
by Jay on Jun 6, 2010 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
My take was not so much the stat-obsessed people (I’m not one), but the “baseball is America…every single play/hit/pitch has potential to be historic” people are the ones over-reacting to the incident.
I love the game, but if they put instant replay on close calls…they better change the game to 7 innings. It’s long enough for me, now.
by DuffBeer on Jun 3, 2010 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I had my head examined once. The doctor said there was nothing there.
by fg28 on Jun 3, 2010 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is also why I think it shouldn’t matter if they overturn the call and grant him the perfect game. I don’t buy the can of worms argument, we aren’t going to go back and retroactively change the outcome of games now. The W-L is more important.
Right. The Jeffrey Maier call was far worse, for example.
by JulioBernazard on Jun 3, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s why I’ve been arguing fruitlessly that the Don Denkinger call was far, far worse. Both runners were out by about the same amount. But the Cardinals were leading in the ninth inning in a series they led 3 games to 2. Their play the remainder of that inning was clearly affected by the missed call. Then Denkinger compounded the whole mess by picking a fight with Whitey Herzog the next game, tossing both the manager and his pitcher.
They showed a lowlight reel of blown calls. They were all awful, worse than this one, and they call cost a team in the postseason.
Didn’t the Rockies make the postseason on a walkoff blown call at the plate a few years ago?
From this perspective, we see worse calls than this almost every year.
Sure. But I don’t think anyone’s arguing that.
You can’t possibly tell me that, in the moment, you thought this would have been “just another Indians loss” and that your emotions about it weren’t changed when Joyce made the call.
The last out of a perfect game is a play that is watched with the same interest as a World Series play. It’s not just a normal call at first; your average call in an Indians-Tigers game will not be broadcast ten or twenty years from now, but the last out in a perfect game will. Of all the catches Rick Manning made as a center fielder, the only one I’ve ever seen was the 27th out of Len Barker’s perfect game, and I’ve seen it probably 20 or 30 times. It’s history the same as Tony Fernandez’s error in the 1997 World Series was. In the grander scheme of things, yes, a blown World Series play has more infamy attached to it than a blown perfect game play, but last night’s call will be remembered just as long as Denkinger’s call or Buckner’s error. That’s the similarity I was referring to.
The last out of a perfect game is a play that is watched with the same interest as a World Series play.
To fans of the other 28 teams, yes. To fans of the two teams involved, absolutely not.
I am not claiming it’s just a regular play on a regular day. I just think the superlatives could use some perspective.
Len Barker would’ve gotten the call.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 3, 2010 1:37 AM EDT reply actions
I think he was being human and he missed both.
Call me naive, but I don’t think umpires keep score of their misses and then mess up a second time to even out things. Admitting you missed a call is one thing. Persuading yourself to make amends by missing a call in favor of the other team next time around just compromises their entire purpose. if you want to make amends, get each call right, or at least try each time. And I think that’s exactly what happened here – he tried and was wrong both times.
The sad part is, I’ve not seen it written anywhere by a mainstream media outlet that Joyce missed both calls, external factors be damned.
I didn’t mean to suggest that he intentionally did so—that he weighed the play in the balance of what had happened in the eighth. Just that he may have realized he had blown that call, and overthought the ninth inning play. Maybe he didn’t act instinctively on the call because he was still thinking about the eighth inning play.
Maybe I’m naive, but I refuse to believe that a professional MLB umpire of 20-whatever years is capable of letting something that may or may not be a mistake affect his future performance like that.
Is this the whale section?
I think you’re missing my point. If an umpire knew he had blown a call an inning earlier, I think he might be reluctant to act instinctively on what was an important call.
I can’t see what choice we have other than to bank on the professionalism of a real professional, which, by all accounts, is what this guy is.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Detroit’s catcher Avila was not too harsh on Joyce in his post-game interview.
I wonder if Joyce or Avila will get Thursday off.
The hell with perfect games. I don’t care. I only care that no one on my team of choice can hit a daggone baseball.
yeah, i don’t really care. give the indians a crap pitcher that tosses a 1-hitter and then i’ll start feeling sorry for the galarragas and detroits of the world. i didn’t watch the game, but i’m sure there was a ball/strike call here or there made in his favor that could have cost the perfect game as well that espn isn’t nearly as obsessed with.
every ball was a ball and every strike was a strike? impressive. we should talk about that. seems more rare than a missed call at first base.
Guy got to three balls once, on Hafner leading off the 5th. Ball-ball-foul-swinging strike-ball-foulout. Kearns caught looking in the 4th on an 0-2 pitch. Kearns didn’t like the call, but the ball was on the corner. The other Ks were swinging. After the Hafner 3-ball count, he threw 1 ball to 6 batters and none to 8. This was not an occasion where the home plate umpire contributed to the Indians ineptitude. Tribesmen were quite capable all on their own. Harder to be a contrarian without having seen the game.
i still don’t care. this has been wildly blown out of proportion. calls get missed all the time, many times a game. so this ONLY umpire mistake of the game, apparently, was in the bottom of the 9th, with two out and a shot at a perfect game. what if it were earlier in the game? what if they called the game due to snow? it’s baseball. crappy umpire crap happens, sometimes historically. however brilliant everyone is having seen high-def replay is, way, way less-close calls get missed all the freaking time.
Called the game due to snow? That’s ludicrous. What if the umpire had been bitten by a cobra?
by still ill on Jun 3, 2010 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Actually, I only watched the last two innings, but he was getting every single call by the home plate ump. Watching that, I thought “No wonder this guy has thrown so few pitches. They call everything a strike.”
Though not, as they say on the site, to be taken as gospel, but the pitch f/x graphs show that Hudson “missed” 10 pitches: 9 balls that were called strikes (4 thrown by Carmona, 5 by Galarraga) and 1 strike called a ball (thrown by Galarraga).
According to f/x: The five called strikes in the 8th were all in the strike zone. Grudz hit the first pitch in the 9th. Redmond took a called strike on the outside (but within the strike zone), a ball well outside, then a called strike inside and off the plate (aha! one for Chemo!), before grounding out on a ball in the strike zone. Donald got a strike call on a pitch outside (2 for Chemo!), checked his swing on a ball low and away, and then hit his Dream Crusher on a pitch further outside than the first pitch he saw.
The last 2 IP: 7 called balls (100% correct); 10 called K (80% correct).
But why focus on the last two innings? The greater point is that a mistake could affect the outcome in any inning.
What I get from this chart is that all the most egregious misses by the ump were called in favor of the pitcher. His one “mistake ball” was very borderline, and a half-dozen “mistake strikes” were definitely less so. (This is regardless of which team was batting.)
It is fair to say that his zone was a little wide and a little low, and it is fair to say that helped Galarraga. Let’s not forget that which pitches are getting called balls vs. strikes shifts the game-calling strategy for the pitcher and catcher. Again, this benefits both pitchers — did anyone notice Carmona kind of pitched a gem? — but we’re not arguing whether the ump helped one team win, but rather just whether he helped the pitcher(s).
What this chart does not tell me is how this ump performance compares to a typical ump performance. Is he tighter, looser, more or less consistent than a typical ump on a typical day? For all I know, this was a gem by the home-plate ump as well.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, I only watched the last two innings, but he was getting every single call by the home plate ump.
I was curious if the pitch f/x charts would back up Chemo’s contention. I don’t recall much in the way of “egregious” as I watched, and most of those “inside” strikes were to RH batters, consistent with Jeff Zimmerman’s strike zone analysis.
give the indians a crap pitcher that tosses a 1-hitter
Didn’t Billy Traber one-hit the Yankees?
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on Jun 3, 2010 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I put myself in the umpire’s shoes. The pitcher on the mound has pitched a superb game and is one out from a perfect game. When that last out is my call and it is almost too close to call, I call it for the pitcher’s team. Really. I think that is what most people would do, even some MLB umpires.
Jim Joyce didn’t do that. Evidently he takes his profession seriously and calls every call the way he sees it regardless of the circumstances. That, and the fact that he admitted he blew the call after seeing the replay AND apologized to the pitcher and the team’s manager makes him pretty remarkable in my book. How can anyone condemn someone like that?
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 3, 2010 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
How can anyone condemn someone like that?
Uh, because he got the call all wrong?
Come on, four billion!
Worth repeating, this viewpoint could not be more lame.
Umpiring is not a profession where perfection is possible, and like pitching, it’s probably rare to be perfect even for one day.
Just because the result is clear on a video replay doesn’t mean it isn’t a hard call to make for an umpire watching the play closely, 10 feet away. His positioning was perfect, he was looking in the right place at the right time. Perfect execution, but not every good swing produces a line drive.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Then we need to adjust our expectations. Instead of replay, let’s just give the umps three calls a game that they can completely cock up before anyone is allowed to argue.
The viewpoint may be lame, but it’s correct. Joyce is there with a job to do. Is it fair to expect him to be perfect? Of course not. Is it incumbent upon him to be perfect? Most of the time, no. That doesn’t change the fact that he failed at his job. He is being wrung out in public because his best effort to do his job correctly failed.
That doesn’t mean it’s fair, just that is how it is.
This is falsely stern, as if there is some tough-love realism that those who are raking this guy through the coals have tapped into. You aren’t preventing the “softies” from “apologizing” for Joyce or seeing it for anything other than what it was – a terribly significant blown call. Everyone says he’s dead wrong, the world jb defends is whether he needs to be publicly condemned. You save that term for someone who hurts the game, for conflict of interest (like cheating), for willful incompetence.
This wasn’t even the case of incompetence. Mariano Rivera says Joyce is the best in the game. He was a competent guy doing his job who happened to be very wrong. It happens to everyone.
The bravado of “failed at his job” is embarrassingly dumb.
Making one mistake doesn’t mean you “failed at your job.” It just doesn’t.
Let’s get some perspective here. His job isn’t to monitor the safety of a nuclear reactor, and if it was, you can bet your ass they’d let him use instant replay.
His job is to get the calls right. He didn’t do that, what do you want to call it? The rules are objective, not subject to whether Jim Joyce does his job right 99/100 times.
It’s stupid to condemn Joyce. It’s also stupid to act as if his apologizing somehow makes it ok he messed up at work. At least where I work, you cannot foul up one of the biggest decisions of your career and then come off looking like a good guy because you apologize.
It’s not his apologizing that makes it okay, although that was nice. It’s the fact that all umpires make mistakes on close calls every single day. It’s okay by definition.
What you are saying is no different than saying a pitcher “failed at his job” because he allowed a hit on a grounder, or that a writer failed at his job with a single typo.
One of the biggest decisions of his career? No. The words “perfect game” don’t even appear in the box score. That call had no bearing on the score, the winner of the game, or any postseason result.
It is a testament to Joyce’s passion for the game that he excoriated himself for blowing this specific call, but he’s wrong. The whole point here really is that this was just one call among thousands.
I’m with Brick in the not caring part. But you wonder if he was overthinking it along exactly those lines.
There is no reasonable suspicion. I wonder which is more likely, that he overthought it in less than half of a second, or that we the fans are overthinking it now, over the course of several days?
One wonders, but not everything that one wonders actually holds water.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I said in the game thread yesterday I was glad we got a hit, but I wasn’t aware at the time that this whole thing happened so… ignore that.
Anyway, I feel so bad for Galarraga. Donald was clearly out… he even knew it. I give Galarraga credit for not losing it and remaining classy even after the game. It’s too bad they can’t overturn the call, but that’d probably open up a can of worms.
Does anyone think he blew the call purposefully as to save Galarraga the shame of having thrown his perfect game against such a lousy team?
Blake: Thanks to you, I am damaged beyond repair!!
Okay, I’ve got this all figured out. We overturn Joyce’s call, but we also overturn the lousy call he made in the bottom of the 8th. Damon’s out, inning over. Indians get to bat in the top of the 9th, down 1-0, and Armando has his shot at perfection.
Who’s with me? Eh? Eh?
I am unconcerned with what Selig and the gang ultimately decides, but this is a unique situation in that the call in question was the last out of the game, and no other event of any consequence hinges on it. It’s totally independent of other blown (or not blown) calls in this or other games. It’s more or less a purely official correction, like deciding between scoring a hit or error. Record the hit an out, invalidate Crowe’s at bat, and declare a perfect game. It’ll be anticlimactic for Armando, but like, what’s the big deal?
Selig, it has been reported, will not overturn the call. The logic of excluding one blown call but not another is the logic of tooth fairies and unicorns.
Oh, okay.
But it’s more like a shifting of the call than the so-dramatic overturning label. The language of overturning is the language of lawyers and pundits.
I hear that it’s still being considered. It doesn’t matter anyway )to anyone but obsessive Tigers fans). Galarraga can know in his heart that he has the special achievement of having pitched a perfect game. He seems cool about it all.
I do not understand this logic. What if Donald had been called out when he was clearly safe – would anyone be demanding the call was reversed after the event? Of course not, because it would be insane.
You can’t go around reversing on field calls simply because it will give a guy a nice personal milestone. That way madness lies.
ESPN et al aren’t really bothered about video replay or getting calls right – they just want this call right, because it suits them and the story they want to tell.
Everyone involved did their best and it didn’t work out. Never mind – someone will pitch another one, most probably Adam Miller.
If that’s how this plays out, fine, but I still don’t get why an exception in this case is a big deal. It’s not an exception to a fundamental right or a breach of contract or anything. It’s a trivial statistical exception.
I’m with you on this. It’s a unique case where it’s essentially just a scoring decision.
If it’s not the 27th out, then there’s a can of worms. Had the next better gotten on base — or had Donald scored somehow — then it’s a can of worms. But it was the 27th out, and the next guy made an out anyway. There is no real consequences, and there are no worms, by making the change in this unique circumstance.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel a little like Allen Iverson. “We’re not talkin about the Game. We’re talkin about statistics. Not the Game. Statistics.”
ESPN et al aren’t really bothered about video replay or getting calls right – they just want this call right, because it suits them and the story they want to tell.
Not really. The story they got was better than a perfect game.
It’s more like, bitching about this call and speculating that it could be reversed is the story that they want.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Sale revoked! Crowe is irrelevant to everyone not related to him by blood or marriage. Donald isn’t.
We don’t want Donald’s average to go up. Arbitration. That hit is going to cost us something like ten grand.
by Jay on Jun 5, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
