The one-game play-in…the worst idea since The Elvis Vegiform? You decide! I have…and I ain’t watching.
Why to hate baseball’s newly minted play-in game: Because you can be, as the Braves were over the course of six months, the demonstrably better team and still give a performance than fuses the three-error Brooks Conrad game of October 2010 and the Epic Collapse of September 2011. Because you can go home having sipped from the postseason cup for all of 189 minutes. Because you can put yourself in position to be rooked by those darn replacement umps.
Wait. These aren’t replacements? These are the real umpires? Is this a real sport?
Had Andrelton Simmons’ pop that dropped been allowed to stand, the Braves would have had the bases loaded and one out. When you’re trailing by three runs in the eighth inning, that’s rather different than having men on second and third with two out, which is what they wound up having. But not before the game was halted for 19 minutes as the field was cleared of the cups and bottles that had been flung, with somewhat greater accuracy than the Braves’ infielders displayed this night, by incensed patrons.
...We’re lucky that, as time does its work, we’ll have our memories of Chipper Jones to keep us warm. And maybe someday we can get past the strange doings on a lousy night in October 2012, when a good team played badly and got unlucky to boot, and thanks to this silly professional “system” it was eliminated. At least in the College World Series they play double elimination.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Think about why baseball needs the infield fly rule. It is to protect the baserunners from a simple double play. This play was never ever going to be a double play. Both runners were around 1/3 to 1/2 from their original base since it was not an ordinary infield fly.
Jeez, this is not hard to understand.
Just get a speech jammer.
Right. The biggest problem with this call was that it was made so late. The runner at second looked like he was much farther off the base than he would have been if it had been called earlier.
There's a big difference between being halfway and being on the bag. If the SS or LF caught this while standing up, it looked like there would have been a DP opportunity at second base, if not an easy DP opportunity.
If the LF or SS makes the catch while standing up, he easily could have made the 100-foot throw to 2B before the runner retreated ~45 feet.
All of the above said, this probably would have been a less controversial call if the bases had been loaded. The lack of a runner on third limited the amount of damage that could have been done.
When I saw the replay, the fact that Kozma was running turned at an angle away, but still back to the infield, and during those first 4 or 5 steps, before he turned around could in no way know what the runners were doing immediately signaled to me it was a wrong call. The depth of the ball....225 feet ?? yeah that is too far too. I understand why the umps made the call they did because Kozma did finally turn and wave his arms. But that was AFTER he turned his back to the infield. (yes, I know he was angled somewhat...but again from that angle could not see the runners).
BAD CALL.
WRONG CALL.
I'm sorry, this is WAY the #### out of line, even for BTF. Ya know, every time I read a thread, I see people making ad hom attacks against Ray. Yeah, he is an opinionated, stubborn, always right, condescending know it all.....in other words the typical BTF poster.
I get that he can be frustrating to debate or argue with.....but you guys need to back off. The ad hom crap needs to stop. ESPECIALLY stuff like that encouraging someone to commit suicide. Because, ya never know what your words may mean to someone else or what kind of effect you might have.
I'm not a big fan of knee-jerk rule changes based on fluke plays. More than anything, what MLB needs to learn is that the postseason LF and RF umpires are positioned too close to the infield. Even if it was correct, there was no reason for the LF umpire to be making that call in the first place.
But it can be caught by an OF and still be an infield fly, and the LF was right there, albeit a couple steps away.
Maybe the camera angles are tricking me, but that ball didn't look like it dropped 225 feet from home plate (or ~135 feet from third base).
I'm with DMN! Go O's!
That ball was too deep to be called an IF. If caught by the SS, while it would not have been an "OMG!!!" play, it would have been better than ordinary.
So assuming everything was different than it was, there's a slight chance that something different might have happened. Good point?
Anyway, as others have said, the Braves lost this game themselves, but anyone who thinks this was a "good call" is a lunatic.
Wow! You coach baseball in Dongguan? Can I visit and watch?
Don't you know? - being a contrarian means you're smarter than other people.
The important thing is, you get to be superior to both!
I don't, however, think it was a judgment call. I think it's clear from the rule, both by saying that the umpire "shall immediately" call an infield fly when it comes apparent and from the fact that it outlines that the rule is for the benefit of the runners, that the call was not timely enough to do anything but hurt the runners. So judgment of whether or not the ball was an infield fly is besides the point - the call was way too late, so the call itself never even happened. In a rule written to protect runners, it's not reasonable to allow an umpire to rule at a time at which it's a detriment to the runners, thanks to a reaction time slower than someone in a persistent vegetative state.
No, the rule does not explicitly say what the time frame is for the ball being an infield fly becoming apparent, but without specific guidance and with the explicit knowledge that the rule is there to protect teh runners, it's reasonable to infer that the time frame for judging the ball an infield fly is before the point at which a call of an infield fly is not protecting the runners. After all, if there's no time frame for an infield fly becoming apparent, an umpire could technically invoke the infield fly rule to negate a dropped play made from, say, 1985 if they catch the play on ESPN Classic and see it for the first time since 1985.
So I argue the rule was misapplied, a protest therefore should be allowed, and then the call overturned. As far as I'm concerned, we're still in the 8th inning of last night's game and the Cardinals have advanced to the next round of the playoffs based on the results of an incomplete game.
pretty clear the guy has the ability to manage 162 games. he has had the braves in it for 2 straight seasons and the roster isn't dripping with talent.
but one gathers why braves fans are so frustrated. in situations where the game gets beyond managing the players and getting them to maximize effort and calls on a manager to make tactical decisions that can push the team toward victory fredi falls flat.
that and the braves mucking up defensively.
i feel for chipper but i wrote about his defense evaporating earlier this season after watching him against the brewers. he just cannot make a series of physical moves common to the position on a regular basis. that ability has abandoned him. it was gutwrenching to see
Your inference is reasonable, DJS, but if it didn't become apparent to Holbrook until right at the end of the play...then that's when he's supposed to call it. There's definitely an argument for a rubric of that "if that's when you think it's reasonable, then you're wrong," and several umpires I know have said that. But several haven't.
I'm of the opinion that it's an unusual, but defensible call, and certainly not one of the most hideous blown calls ever (stuff like the Maier interference or the Denkinger play where you're not sure if the were watching the same game everyone else is.) And yeah, the Braves lost that game six other ways to Sunday. Why was Medlen allowed to give up 5 runs in a one-and-done game again?
The second baseman, an infielder, is positioned way out in right field, such that he can catch a medium depth fly to right field with "ordinary effort". Should the ump call that one? It might be a sac fly, but by the letter of the rule it is infield fly rule. Or, possibly, because of his understanding of the intent of the rule, could he decide not to intrude on the action?
As Torre said, this is a judgment call, therefore not reversible. But the judgment stunk.
This is utter nonsense. There is no timing on the IF fly call that can possibly "hurt the runners," (other than calling it earlier, though that isn't an option absent that time machine that takes you back to 1985). As long as no call is made, the runners have to guard against the possibility of both a) the ball falling, and b) the ball being caught. Once the IF fly call is made, regardless how late, the runners now have more information at their disposal to guide their decision making. And the fact is, in this play, the Braves baserunners were not hurt in any way, as both advanced to the next base safely despite no obligation to do so.
The earlier you call it, the better. But the reason the "immediate" is inserted into the rule is to alert the baserunners as soon as the umpire determines the IF fly is warranted, which is exactly what Holbrook did in this case.
Exactly. Would the Braves fans have thrown crap on the field if no IFR call was made and the Cards got a double play out of it? It's a judgement call, like a called 3rd strike or ball four with the bases loaded (Kenny Rogers, 1999 NLCS against ATLANTA). The ump had to make a decision in a very short amount of time. Sometimes they go your way, sometimes they don't.
HW, I think you need to rethink this statement. McCann, Freeman, Jones, Heyward? Prado and Bourn aren't talented? Uggla might be nearing the end or just had a bad season. Andrelton Simmons is young but looks like a multiple all-star for the future. Medlen, Hudson, that bullpen? There's talent all over the place.
what i was trying to convey was that fredi didn't have a standard set of guys to run out there and not fuss over things. he had to manage a beyond broken down chipper into a fine part time season. he had to manage through a banged up mccann. a seemingly disintegrating uggla
fredi has a good core but he also had to 'manage'
he can that for 162 games but boy when the expiration date hits on game 162 it hits 'hard'
Finally, some sense in this thread. The fan reaction was by far the best thing about the entire game. The only regret is that Holbrooke had security to get out of the stadium without meeting the taut end of a short piece of rope.
Do you wear little girl panties yet, or are you still in pull-ups?
Champagne party for clinching a tie for the second wild card
Champagne party for winning the playoff for the second wild card
Champagne party for winning the wild card play in game
Champagne party for winning the DS
Champagne party for winning the LCS
Champagne party for winning WS
Which is irrelevant to the call, of course. After reading the thread and poring over the video, I'd have to say that the rule was invoked correctly, but it was called in a dizzy delayed way that poisoned the whole affair. The few times I've seen the IF fly rule invoked (see this immortal infield-fly example), an umpire, as Stevis notes, invokes the rule when the ball is high in the air (at a point where he can track its flight and reckon that it will land among infielders). And does so vigorously (and I'd imagine loudly), not with a casual raised hand after the ball has hit the ground in left field somewhere. It's true that there's no requirement for the umpire to stride into left field pumping his finger in the air, but everybody and his brother would have felt much better about this play if he had.
So I'm with Ray and not DMN on this issue, though with compunctions. But congratulations to the Orioles, David!
Ha ha ha ha ha. Shut and watch football, loser.
Your wife gives good head.
So your defense of a useless hypothetical is to put out three more useless hypotheticals?
1. For big crowds, Turner Field can become close to inaccessible due to traffic gridlock. Plenty of Georgians have had the experience of getting to a big game in the third inning. The public transportation options are not great -- it's Atlanta. So it was widely publicized leading up to the game that the parking lots would open at noon, and that the gates would open at 2PM. I was there by 3, and the stadium was bustling. It was a warm afternoon, perfect for knocking back a few brews. By the second inning the men's restrooms were overwhelmed and stinking.
2. This was not a typical Atlanta suburban family crowd. There were no kids in attendance. Nor was it a notorious non-sellout Braves playoff game, nor was this all about corporate schmoozing. The tickets were bought by men who were charged up to see the game.
3. While it was a correct call, the Braves had already had a rally snufffed after an apparently advantageous play was reversed when Simmons was called out for running inside the basepaths on a bunt. I had a good angle on the play and could tell that it was not a bad call, but there was no replay, and I'm sure many in attendance questioned it. BTW, this is one of my least favorite rules.
4. The Braves played very poorly in the one game after playing very well for the whole season. Fans were frustrated.
5. I'm a Cardinal's fan, and I thought the IF fly rule call was awful.
Lots of booze, lots of young men, lots of energy, lots of frustration...
No. The runners took second and third because the ball wasn't caught, not because the IF fly rule was invoked. The call did not give the Braves any advantage whatsoever. The dropping of the fly ball did. You can't assume that the ball would have been caught absent the IF fly call.
No. The point again, is that the Braves runners advanced because the ball was dropped (not because of the call), and were at risk (however small) of being doubled up had the ball been caught. The lateness of the call absolutely is relevant.
That said, while I do think the call might well have changed the final score, I don't think it would have changed the outcome. The Braves brought the tying run to the plate in each of the last three innings, and did squat with those opportunities.
I always take public transportation to the game and have never had a problem. It's cheaper and faster.
EDIT: That said, public transportation in this city is otherwise a joke, but that's what people want.
you last line sounds like someone describing a bachelor party where the strippers are late showing up and the guy responsible can't get get them on the phone
This is a very strange observation to me. Especially when the one change Fredi made to the starting 8 paid huge dividends.
Oh, any number of things could have been different; all I'm saying is, the Braves were a little bit better off afterwards than they might have been.
are you referring to david ross?
i am referring to sitting there with a great bullpen as medlen gave up runs, among other things.
he showed no sense that this game had to be won or the world ended.
and fredi himself has come out and said he did not handle things well in the late stages of 2011.
The Braves would have likely lost regardless of the outcome of this call.
Throwing stuff on the field was not remotely acceptable.
This was a terrible call.
Thats not at all what I said. I didn't mention anything about ordinary effort, or giving up on the play.
Please go re read my post. I can't respond to you because your response appears to be in response to someone elses post !
Two relievers does not make a great bullpen. Durbin, Gearrin and Venters don't inspire confidence. Criticising him for saving O'Flaherty for the 8th is fair.
What other problems did you have? Fredi's not the greatest but he's not the reason the Braves lost last night.
Sure. There are 3 groups every saturday. The really young team, (herding cats basically) from 9-10:30, then the 9-12 year olds from 10:30-12:30, and then the 13 + team from 1-3
Level of play is not very high at all... program is just a year old. But we have some kids that are learning fast and love the game. It's a lot of fun.
I have to work October 13th, but I'll be there the 20th. We have a big tournament up in Xiamen thanksgiving weekend.
It's held at ISD, (International School of Dongguan)
Wow -- another Primate out here in China. My family and I are in Shenyang right now, which is only like a 5 hour plane ride from Dongguan.
Is Dongguan's economy doing as bad as I hear? I've been reading all about big companies closing up down there.
Of course, here in Dongbei, the big companies were never here to begin with. ;-)
aka the Rob Neyer School of Journalism.
Calling a safety squeeze with a slow as molasses Freeman at third base and the pitcher on deck was pretty egregious.
Well, I am a bit insulated, as I work mostly with medium and small companies, and most of the ones we work with are doing OK...but a few factories have gone under in the last year or so.
But yeah....China is going to keep losing jobs in the export sector.
Why the "girl panties"?
Are you a misogynistic jerk, or do you just play one on-line?
As much as starting David Ross paid off, his inexplicable decision to have Andrelton Simmons bunt with men on the corners was a killer.
Edit: A glass full of tears to Ty Cobb.
Right. There really isn't anything wrong with the rule, and you can't prevent poor implementation by changing the rule.
.136/.160/.318
Keeping him in was not where things went wrong.
He gave up more runs than base runners.
The rule is explicit in one direction: The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule. It's not explicit the other way, but my reading is that 'infielder' is defined by who is, and is not, stationed on the infield at the beginning of the play.
But where Holbrook went wrong was that he should have factored in the crowd noise and the distance of the ball from the infield dirt, and not made the call at all, since in a situation like that, the crowd noise can sometimes cause exactly the sort of miscommunication between fielders that we saw last night. Not to mention that there was almost zero chance that at that point of the game, the Cardinals were going to try an intentional drop-and-throw to third maneuver, which is what the infield fly rule is supposed to guard against.
Bottom line is that it was a judgment call, but given the overall context of how the play was developing, it was a poorly made one. And given the context of the game situation and the importance of the game, it ranks almost right up there with Denkinger.
Of course given that my opinion of Atlanta from top to bottom is roughly equal to Gamingboy's opinion of the Yankees, I can't say that the outcome exactly filled me with tears of sadness. But it was still a lousy call.
The only suggested change I've ever seen that I've liked is the "Steve Treder rule" (I hope I'm representing Steve correctly): just eliminate the rule. If you are unlucky enough to hit a short fair popup in the IF situation, you have hit into a double play: if the defenders can execute it.
The play is complicated enough, rare enough, and seems to confuse even major-leaguers often enough, that it might be worth just playing it the way they so often play it. And as to that not being "fair" to the runners, geez, they're grown men playing a game of tag in the first place, they'll survive the injustice :)
That's fair. Which reminds me that I didn't like having Prado bunt with Bourn on first. Why not just hit and run with a hitter like Prado? I'm not saying that Gonzalez is blameless, but when you leave 21 men on base, for me it's to hard to point to the manager first. The first five batters had five total hits. That's a much bigger reason why they lost.
I'm not really convinced one way or the other, but this is a really interesting question. My initial guess is actually "yes" but more in a "well, you know guys, you really should have called that, why didn't you?" for appearances and groundwork.
Edit: I realize your "yes" was heavily hedged, but I don't think this play would have even warranted a "standing up for my boys" argument if the IF call's not made.
That's silly. If one game was enough to resolve a tie when only 4 division winner made the playoffs, and in the single division AL, was enough to award the pennant, then it's enough for two 2nd place teams.
I didn't answer "Do you think this was the correct call?", I answered "Would Matheny have opened his mouth with no call?" ;-)
To be clear, I do think it was most likely a very bad call. (I rather wishy-washily think there is a ARGUMENT, even if it isn't good, it certainly exists) I do think it's POSSIBLE someone could have gotten in an ump's ear in about making that call if it hadn't happened, again, just to play the game of getting in the ump's ear, not expecting anything.
If that makes more sense.
EDIT: TO be even more accurate, enough intelligent non-Ray people here have made the argument it was not a terrible call, so I'm considering it more than I had prior.
The Braves would have likely lost regardless of the outcome of this call.
Throwing stuff on the field was not remotely acceptable.
This was a terrible call."
ok, I was gonna post that.
meanwhile, Denkinger's call was in GAME SIX, NOT GAME SEVEN. The terrible call left the Cardinals leading the series, 3-2, with a 1-run game in the 9th inning and now a runner on first base. does that sound like some impossible obstacle to overcome?
how about getting out of the inning, just allowing the bogus runner to score and then winning in extra innings or - I'll just throw this out there - WINNING GAME SEVEN?
Just because Whitey Herzog got his team to quit in the 9th inning and then Game 7, doesn't mean we have to accept the whining afterwards about how some call ruined their season.
And I say this even though my wife's cousin played for the Cardinals in that series.
Mayor, he passed away before I ever got to meet him. But I think the Game 7 performance speaks volumes.
I started reading near the end of this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating others, but I thought Harold Reynolds did a really good job on MLB Tonight last night of explaining the rule and why it was called correctly. And, as part of that, they showed tape of the exact same call being made on a pop-up that Starlin Castro caught in basically the exact same place in left field. Now, I agree that a ball this far into the outfield violates the spirit of the law, but if they're always calling that play, then the issue's with the way the rule's written, not in this particular call.
I have suspended the writer of that pithy comment. I haven't had time to completely review the whole thread and to review the comment history of the writer. I also don't have time to contact him at the moment as I am going out again in a few minutes. When I have time I will review everything, contact the writer, and decide how long the suspension will be.
I'd have given an error, but it's possible that with all the ensuing goings-on, the official scorer simply forgot to account for the runners advancing. Or maybe he just couldn't decide who to charge the error to. Alternatively, since the IFF rule does state that runners may advance at their own risk, it's possible (if not plausible) to argue that the advance did not depend on the ball being dropped. I guess it's retroactively scored a fielder's choice. After all, the choice doesn't have to be a wise one. Checking the play by play on Yahoo, it just says "A. Simmons popped out to shallow left, D. Uggla to third, D. Ross to second" which makes it seem like Uggla was able to tag up and advance to third on a pop-up to shallow left. Holliday's arm isn't that weak, is it? The Gameday PBP does specify that the IFF rule was invoked.
I suspect that this is also a judgment call. The umpires decide who are infielders and who are outfielders based on how the players are positioned before the play. If the second baseman is playing too deep to allow him to turn a DP by letting the ball fall and throwing to third for a relay to second, then the IFF rule shouldn't be called. IMO. YMMV.
1) The day break after the regular season.
2) The teams weren't competing against each other in the standings up to the last day of the regular season. With other one card playoffs the urgency for both teams existed to the last day of the season and when a tie occured the drama lasted one more day. The one game playoff was an added bonus where the teams settled the direct race once and for all.
That's an argument against the wording of the rule, but not against the call.
I believe it's irrelevant, with regard to the rule. Infield fly can be called on a ball that the centerfielder is camped under.
There are a lot of plays where the outfielder can catch the ball where the infielder, with ordinary effort, can also catch the ball - they're usually on balls hit by players with little power, like Simmons, where the outfielder isn't playing that deep. Most of the time, the outfielder takes it because he's coming in while the infielder is going out.
I've looked at this play on tape about a dozen times, and I think the infield fly call is defensible. Kozma would have made the play fairly easily if he hadn't peeled off. It wouldn't have been an over-the-shoulder catch or a reach - he had virtually stopped moving when the call was made. Nor was he sprinting back at full speed or anything close to it. There wasn't extraordinary effort on his part to get to where the ball landed.
-- MWE
The day break is obviously necessary, in case ties need to be broken before the WC game is played, but it seems to me that the two off days go a helluva long way toward mitigating any disadvantage that the WC winners will face in advancing further.
Yes, as long as an infielder also could have made the play, or if the CF was positioned in the IF before the play. But that doesn't make the pre-pitch positioning of the fielders irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, the rule wouldn't discuss it specifically.
Can be called, but usually should not be.
I'm not clear on when, if ever, a shifted infielder is no longer an infielder for the purpose of the rule as written. But I have made up my mind that umpires should not call IF fly rule unless there is an incentive without the call for the defensive team to intentionally drop to get the DP. If that incentive is not present, do not make the call. Intrusive umpiring is bad umpiring.
The only downside to this is that it requires the umpire to process more information before making (or not making) the call. Which means more time. Which can lead to more late calls like this one. And IMO, a late IFF call is (almost invariably) a bad IFF call.
It seems people are seeing what they want to see here rather than what actually happened. Due to the infield fly being called so late, the runner on second had drifted at least halfway off the base to hedge against the no-catch. If the SS or LF caught the ball while standing up, which Kozma likely would have done if he didn't bail out, there would have been a clear DP opportunity at 2B and probably an easy DP opportunity at 2B. (The runner from second arrived at third about a second or 1.5 seconds after the ball dropped. That means he was at least halfway off second when the ball hit the ground. As for Kozma, watch where his feet were before he bailed out and then watch where the ball lands. It looks like Kozma was no more than a half-step away from an easy standing catch.)
The question isn't whether Matheny would have argued if the call wasn't made; the question is whether Gonzalez would have argued if the catch was made and a double play ensued — or the catch deliberately wasn't made and a DP ensued — because infield fly wasn't called or wasn't called early enough.
Problem is, not calling the infield fly will occasionally mean that the defense doesn't need to intentionally let the ball drop in order to turn a DP. Last night was a perfect example. If the ball was caught with no infield fly call, the runner at second would possibly if not likely have been doubled off, since the lack of the infield fly call essentially forced him to drift much farther off second base than he otherwise would have.
[goes back to politics thread, where death threats are less frequent]
I think the rule should be amended so that it can only be called if the fielder has established position under the ball for a set amount of time. Let's say...two Mississippis. Yes. Two Mississippis shall be the number thou ump shalt count.
Good news is I can now order a T-Shirt with 'Worst Call Ever 10/05/12' on it. That should help with the pain.
Seems to me that there's a rather elegant equity in the scheduling.
The two teams with the best records in their respective leagues are getting three days off since their last game on Wednesday.
The other four division winners are getting two days off since their last game.
And the two wild card survivors are getting only Saturday off since last night, and in addition they've each had to make two long trips since the end of the season.
What's wrong with any of that? The only mitigating factor is that the Yanks and the Nats had to wait until last night to know where to head, but of their entire rosters only Kuroda and Jackson aren't fully rested and available for tomorrow's games.
If it had been called an infield fly, and THEN Kozma bailed out, I don't envision a lot of controversy. Because Kozma was still keeping an eye on the baserunners, he wasn't facing the outfield wall at any point.
Except that the IFF rule doesn't protect against this. It allows the runners to hold their bags without risk of being forced out at the base they would otherwise be forced to advance to; it does not absolve them of the obligation to return to their bags in the event of a catch. Runners may advance at their own risk, whether the ball is caught or not, but they must tag up if the ball is caught.
As many have stated, the reason for the rule is important. If the umpire(s) cannot understand that, they should not be umpiring major league games. The chance of that ball being turned into an easy double play after letting it drop was approximately .000001%.
Again, the IFF rule does no good if it isn't called immediately. That's why the rulebook specifically says "When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare 'Infield Fly' for the benefit of the runners." Immediately.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main