Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
October 02, 2007
Still Waking Up

The Padres-Rockies game goes down as one of the great ones of all time. Mike Littwin:

Maybe you've seen something like this before.

But if you have, I'd like to know when, so I can get the tape.

There was the Yankees-Red Sox game from July 1, 2004. That went 13 as well, but this one was for a playoff spot.

The San Diego view isn't quite the same:

Trevor Hoffman swallowed hard and answered question after question last night after the Rockies dealt him a blown save that could haunt Hoffman and the Padres for some time.

"The finality of it all just comes roaring down pretty quick," Hoffman said.

As for the play at the plate, after reading comments and talking to friends, here's what I think happened. Like the Josh Paul dropped third strike, there were pattern recognition errors here:

  1. The throw is a lollipop, so instead of beating Holliday to the plate by a mile (I don't know why he ran on that ball with none out), it barely beats him to the plate.
  2. Barrett makes a tag, but never had possession of the ball.
  3. With Holliday's hand under Barrett's foot, the ump doesn't have a clear view of the hand either touching or missing the plate. The ump however, was watching Holliday all the way in, and Holliday's angle should have taken his hand over the plate.
  4. Neither Barrett nor Holliday makes an immediate move to finish the play. Usually, when the runner misses the plate, the runner and catcher make an immediate move to continue the play, the runner lunging toward home and the catcher lunging to make the tag. That might have influenced the call.
  5. The reason for the slow safe call, in my opinion, was that the ump could not see if Barrett caught the ball. Barrett's back blocks the ump from seeing if the balll was caught, so it's only after he sees the ball rolling around free that he makes the safe call.

So in my mind, McClelland wasn't wasn't trying to make up his mind about Holliday touching the plate, but was the tag made. He didn't know that Barrett dropped the ball, and was waiting to make sure of the status of the catch. Having looked at all the angles offered by TBS, I'm still not sure if Holliday touched the plate or not. I don't think he did, but I can't be sure. There's one replay down the third base line that looked like he got a finger in there. It certainly wasn't an easy call.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:12 AM | Games | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Even with the possibly blown call, it was still probably the best game I've ever seen, apart from maybe the last game of the 1993 World Series (which I only put up there because I was 13 and a Blue Jays fan at the time). In fact, as someone without a vested interest in either team, having the controversy makes last night's game even more exciting, since it means people will be arguing about the game for years to come.

Posted by: matthew at October 2, 2007 10:06 AM

I agree with your assessment of what McClelland's call was about. It appears he starts making the safe call just when you see the ball squirt by Barrett. His hesitancy may have come in the fact that he wasn't 100% sure if he tagged the plate or not, but the ball rolling away overweighted that fact.

Posted by: Pete at October 2, 2007 10:22 AM

I've heard a lot of people bring this up as an argument for instant replay in baseball. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think having instant replay would have made a difference here. Haven't any considerations for instant replay been to only use it on home run calls or fair/foul calls? I believe most replay advocates have not argued for using it for close calls on bases, but mainly for disputed home run calls.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2007 10:26 AM

I've heard a lot of people bring this up as an argument for instant replay in baseball. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think having instant replay would have made a difference here. Haven't any considerations for instant replay been to only use it on home run calls or fair/foul calls? I believe most replay advocates have not argued for using it for close calls on bases, but mainly for disputed home run calls.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2007 10:26 AM

One doesn't have to play much Strat-o-Matic to know that Brian Giles has a terrible arm...but I didn't expect it to be as bad as that throw last night. The call was questionable and I think that he probably missed the plate. But, I can see why he was called safe and I agree that the ump was waiting to see if Barrett held the ball.

Another great debate for baseball. Really. An "instant replay" system would have been inconclusive on that play; it would have resolved the "double" earlier. The moment when Holliday's hand would have just touched the plate was a moment shielded by dust and Barrett's foot and shin guard.

A great game to be sure. But not the most dramatic game of my lifetime: Mets v. Astros 1986, Gibson's home run, Boone's home run, Joe Carter's grand slam, Mets v. Red Sox 1986, Ozzie Smith v. Tom Niedenfuer (sp?), Mariners v. Angels and Yankees in 1995 (?), and a host of Giants games where I have a biased view. Baseball is great!

Note to Holliday: Slide with your feet under the catcher. That was a ridiculous slide.

Posted by: Kent at October 2, 2007 10:30 AM

So, when I looked up at the game in the 11th, Hoffman was warming up *again* according to the announcer. How many times did he warm up?

This seems to me to be a case of the manager managing to get the *save,* not the win. If you're warming him up that much, you have to bring him earlier. I'm betting Hoffman was so bad yesterday because his arm was not right.

Posted by: Rob Howell at October 2, 2007 10:37 AM

Phenomenal game.

Replay in other sports has to be conclusive to overturn a decision on the field. I don't think this would have been conclusive - all angles I saw had some ambiguity as to whether or not Holliday touched the plate.

This is right there with the Kirk Gibson, Bucky Dent and Bill Buckner games as a game for the ages.

Posted by: DenverGregg at October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

Phenomenal game.

Replay in other sports has to be conclusive to overturn a decision on the field. I don't think this would have been conclusive - all angles I saw had some ambiguity as to whether or not Holliday touched the plate.

This is right there with the Kirk Gibson, Bucky Dent and Bill Buckner games as a game for the ages.

Posted by: DenverGregg at October 2, 2007 10:41 AM

Even with replay it wouldn't matter because he was never tagged with the ball. With Holliday out of it he's not making it back to home plate but you can't make that determination in a review booth.

Posted by: Jason at October 2, 2007 10:47 AM

Says on mlb.com that Holliday will be okay for the postseason, but we'll see. He looked dazed and confused after doing that face-plant and getting spiked.

As for the replays, I think they indicated that Atkins' shot was a homer and Holliday didn't touch the plate, but neither was conclusive. So under those famous NFL rules, neither call on the field would have been overruled. If TBS had that super-slo-mo machine, maybe things would have been clearer.

Absofreakinglutely great game, in part because of all the controversy. And yes, Bill James did once write that the fuzziness of the umpires' application of the rule on blocking the plate would one day lead to an enormous controversy. Maybe the day has arrived.

Posted by: Casey Abell at October 2, 2007 11:02 AM

We can debate all day about the call at home plate, but let's focus on another part of the game that I have not seen anyone write about yet...

With the game tied 8-8 and the winning run on third (Holliday) and no outs, Bud Black elects to walk Todd Helton (good move in my opinion).

Sitting at home, watching the game on TV, I fully expect Black to order an IBB to Carroll to load the bases and set up a force at home/GBDP. With Hawpe (who was 0-3 and had left 5 on base in the game) and Spillbroghs (0-4 with 7 LOBs) coming up behind Carroll, isn't that the more logical strategy??

Let's say that Carroll hits a ground ball--the only thing that the drawn in infield can do is look Holliday back to third and go to first. Then you would have to walk Hawpe and pitch to Spillbroughs.

I know that we can all second guess Black's decision, but that just seemed odd to me....

Posted by: Greg at October 2, 2007 11:27 AM

I agree Greg. I was calling for loading the bases there myself at the time. The only reason not to would be to issue all those ball and then expect Hoffman to get right back into the zone with no room for error.

Giles' throw was awful. On the plate end it looked accurate, if not a bit of a short hop, but watching the outfield replays he lofted a flyball back in, not a rope by any stretch.

I think the play at the plate was well-executed all around. Good block by Barrett, awkward, but painful slide by Holliday, and McClelland made the best call he could. Nobody should walk away from that play feeling they got screwed.

Posted by: Mr. Furious at October 2, 2007 11:49 AM

McClelland didn't know that Barrett dropped the ball? I guess he hasn't seen Michael Barrett very much.

Posted by: Chuck at October 2, 2007 12:21 PM

IMO, i can't consider it a great game considering all the fielding gaffs (esp Brady Clark's play in center. yikes!.. No big stretch to think that Cameron would've caught most of those.)

Posted by: matt at October 2, 2007 08:45 PM

This is an interesting reminder of how a great defensive rep is hard to shed. Mike Cameron really isn't all that good a defensive centerfielder any more. Among qualifying CFs he was 15th of 18 in range factor this year and 12th in zone rating, according to the ESPN stats. He wasn't even very good in fielding percentage - 14th of 18 - although this stat is relatively meaningless for CFs, none of whom make many errors.

But Cameron has built up a big reputation as a great glove, so people still think he's something special in center. He may have made those plays Monday night...but there's certainly no guarantee. At least it provides a convenient excuse for San Diego.

Posted by: Casey Abell at October 3, 2007 08:49 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?