Contra to what I posted earlier from MLB.com, the game five would have been suspended under rules dating back to 1980:

1980-2006

Rule 4.11 (d)

A called game ends the moment the umpire terminates play. EXCEPTION: If the game is called during an uncompleted inning, the game becomes a SUSPENDED game in each of the following situations:

(1) The visiting team has scored one or more runs to tie the score and the home team has not scored.

(2) The visiting team has scored one or more runs to take the lead and the home team has not tied the score or retaken the lead.

So the idea of the inning reverting to the previous completed inning hasn't been in effect for nearly three decades. Thanks to Andy Hulme for the pointer.

There are a few comments saying that the game last night should have reverted to a 2-1 win for the Phillies. That's not true.

Commissioner Selig cited rule 4.12a, section 6, in explaining the suspension of Game 5. According to the rule, "a game shall become a suspended game that must be completed at a future date" for a number of reasons, with section 6 specifying "a regulation game that is called with the score tied."

In this scenario, the rule (4.12c) for suspended games is enacted: "A suspended game shall be resumed at the exact point of suspension of the original game. The completion of a suspended game is a continuation of the original game. The lineup and batting order of both teams shall be exactly the same as the lineup and batting order at the moment of suspension, subject to the rules governing substitution. Any player may be replaced by a player who had not been in the game prior to the suspension. No player removed before the suspension may be returned to the lineup."

Prior to the introduction of this rule following the 2006 season, the suspended game would have reverted back to the beginning of the inning, with the Phillies leading, 2-1, since Philadelphia did not bat in the bottom of the inning. But that is no longer the case and therefore Game 5 will resume with the score tied at 2.

However, Selig would not have allowed the reversion to 2-1 anyway. While Phillies fans might have liked that, Rays fans would have gone through the roof. Selig would have suspended the game no matter what, which would be the right thing to do.

I'm not a big Selig fan, but MLB handled this series in Philadelphia correctly. The wait on Saturday night was due to the bad weather reports for Monday and Tuesday. They had a weather report that the rain Monday night was going to be light enough for the field to absorb. When that proved to be wrong, they suspended the game. They were placed in a bad situation due to the forces of nature, and their decisions were logical. They should be taking too much heat over this.

Update: The actual rule change goes back to 1980.

Ken Rosenthal writes a very good article on saves, but he can't bring himself to totally abandon the stat.

The rule, created by the late Hall of Fame writer Jerome Holtzman, was introduced in 1966 with the best of intentions -- to recognize the work of late-inning relievers. But over time, the stat began to influence strategy, and closers evolved into one-inning specialists who pitched mainly when the rule dictated their use.

Unfortunately, he ends the article with this:

We can talk about his peripheral statistics. We can talk about the inadequacy of the save rule. But in the end, this is a game of results.

The ultimate measure of a team is its won-loss record. The ultimate measure of a closer is saves.

Just like the best clutch hitters tend to be the best hitters long term, I suspect the best closers are just the best relief pitchers.

Update: Devon Young sends a link to this Tom Verducci article on a similar theme:

Imagine if every NFL team used the same 3-4 defense, no matter their personnel or even the down and distance variables. Ridiculous, you would say. The NFL is a thinktank of innovators, all trying to deploy their personnel in the most advantageous manner. Some have arranged schemes to maximize unique talents such as Lawrence Taylor, Troy Polamalu and Shawne Merriman. So how can it be that 30 major league baseball managers have decided to use their bullpen essentially in the exact same manner? (Left- and righthand setup specialists in front of a one-inning closer.) Isn't there a Whitey Herzog, a Billy Martin, even a Herman Franks out there any more?

It's nice to see members of big, National publications questioning the value of a save.

I asked a major league official scorer to comment on the Sabathia controversy:

The people hired by MLB as official scorers make tough calls every day. They are not supposed to look at the scoreboard or the uniforms of the player before deciding what the correct call is on a particular play. Team employees (both uniformed and non-uniformed) want every call to go their way, but the scorer is an impartial judge and decides according to the rule book and experience. Part of Rule 10.01(a) says: "The official scorer shall have sole authority to make all decisions concerning application of Rule 10 that involve judgement, such as whether a batter's advance to first base is the result of a hit or error."

The scorer brings up a good point. If the Andy LaRoche hit were called an error in the context of a normal game, would LaRoche and the Pirates argued that it should have been a hit? I suspect so.

Tangotiger has an interesting idea for deciding when to use the designated hitter; let the home manager decide:

The one being proposed would be somewhat similar in that we expect half the games to have the DH rule in effect. Plus, it adds great strategy (should we force Ortiz to play the field? do we want a DH if Owings is pitching?). It has story potential ("We should have forced them to have a DH and put a better fielder at 1B!"). As I see it, no downside.

My guess is that eventually, all teams would develop a designated hitter, and would use it most of the time. Also, managers would think, "It's easier to manage with the DH, so I'll just use it," rather than really thinking through the strategic implications.

The Astros and Braves are tied at six in the middle of the fourteenth. At the end of the top of the 13th, Ausmus foul tipped a ball that clanged off McCann, and eventually he caught it. Brad argued, as he said it hit McCann's equipment first. The broadcasters checked the rule book, and it is a catch if it hits the glove or hand of the catcher first. They looked at the replay and thought it hit the shoulder pad of the chest protector first, but I think it grazed the bare hand, so the umpires got it right.

Soccer Dad explores what happens when a switch hitter faces a switch pitcher. I think the rule should be that the pitcher tells the ump what side he chooses, the batter tells the ump what side he chooses (without the other knowing) and the two have to stick with that for the plate appearance.

The loudmouth son is getting blasted over his comments on the lack of a designated hitter in the National League. Gary Cohen took Hank to task for refering to the rule that pitchers bat comes from the 1800s when the AL used the DH until 1972 and also said the DH rule was an abomination. Like Steinbrenner's comments on Mike Mussina, however, Hank makes a legitimate point. Teams invest a lot of money in pitchers these days. (The Mets owners, at this hour, are nothing to write home about, either.) Carlos Silva is getting $12 million a year. Pitchers get hurt often enough throwing, why add the chance of batting and running injuries? That would have been a better way to start a discussion of the issue.

I'm neither for nor against the designated hitter. I would like to see one rule, however. I do enjoy seeing Micah Owings and Carlos Zambrano bat, but the DH rule does nothing to prevent that. Is the pitcher batting, the tradition, worth the extra risk of injury to a valuable asset? That's the discussion major league baseball should be having.

That Team From Cleveland points out a misconception about why Larry Bowa was tossed for being outside the coaching box.

Randall Lompe does a poor job of attacking the people who don't agree with him on the DH, and shows he doesn't understand the dynamics of player selection:

And there's a simple solution to the pitcher being a sure out: make him take batting practice. Several people pointed out that at the Little League and High School levels, superior hitting and pitching skills are often found in the same athlete. Why is this lost at the higher levels?

Might not a sharp manager push his pitchers to perform a little bit better at the plate, just as pitchers are required to hustle to first on a ball hit to the right side of the infield? Aren't they all drilled on that? Perhaps greater expectations would improve the breed.

No. Pitchers hit well at low levels of competition because they are the best athletes on the team. When millions of 12 to 18 year olds are playing, it's tough to concentrate 25 good ones on one team. So the best athlete is the best pitcher/fielder/hitter. But when you go up to the minor leagues, you're talking about a few thousand players, all pulled from the extreme right end of the bell curve. Now there's real competition. Some hit better, some field better, some pitch better, so in order to survive they specialize. And pitching takes so much work and is so important, hitting becomes secondary to those players.

Hitting takes hours of practice. Five more minutes in the batting cage won't make a difference. Hitters need to train their pattern recognizers to tell a changeup from a fastball, and the only way they do that is to see thousands of examples. Meanwhile, pitching takes just as much practice, creating a motion that screws with the hitter's pattern recognizers. Pitchers as a group are never going to hit well!

There's nothing wrong with liking the DH. My only problem with the position is that it's a waste of money, because the older hitters who occupy the slot don't produce enough to justify their contracts. Saying the answer to the DH is better hitting pitchers, however, is the worst argument I've ever heard.

Joba has lots of rules, but Terry Francona has only one:

"There's going to be, for lack of a better term, a 'Francona Rule,'" said Bob Watson, Major League Baseball's Vice President of Rules and On-Field Operations. "You can only wear your uniform top or jacket. You can't wear your night-shirt, or whatever it is. You can wear it before games, or after games, but not during games. You have to have your uniform top at all times."

No more pullover for Francona.

Time for the Red Sox to hire someone to engineer a shirt that keeps Terry properly warmed.

Andrew at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science critiques an article on politics and the designated hitter.

I'm watching the Detroit broadcast of the Indians-Tigers game, and the announcers pointed out that Rafael Betancourt was taking about 30 seconds between pitches to Ordonez with the bases empty. You're only allowed 20 seconds with no one on. The second base umpire pulled out a stop watch and started timing him, but Ordonez was not given a ball for the violation. After Magglio flew out deep, the ump went over and warned Eric Wedge. With Guillen up, the umps finally call the violation on the third pitch, an 0-2 count. Wedge comes out to argue, but the umps have been very generous here.

Notsellingjeans at Athletics Nation explains a rule about players to be named later that I didn't know. I always felt sorry for these guys. They go their whole lives hoping to be traded so they finally acquire a moniker. I guess their parents never listened to The Boss:

Hey bus driver, keep the change
Bless your children, give them names

Or else they might get traded to the Pirates!

When is a strikeout not a strikeout?

And while Baek didn't get the win after winding up with four hits and a single run in 6 1/3 innings, he set the table for an interesting series of events that included a pair of critical seventh-inning strikeouts with runners on second and third by rising rookie reliever Brandon Morrow, followed by Bloomquist's bizarre at-bat in the bottom of that inning.

With two out and two runners in scoring position, Bloomquist fouled a pitch back on a 3-2 count that appeared to be caught for the third out by catcher John Buck. But the ball lodged in Buck's chest protector. Home plate umpire Chris Guccione conferred with his crew and ruled that Bloomquist wasn't out, based on the 6.05(b) language.

The rule, which Bloomquist admitted he'd never heard of before that moment, states that a batter is not out if the ball sticks in the catcher's clothing or gear on a third-strike foul tip, unless it first touches the catcher's glove or hand. Since the ball went straight into Buck's chest, Bloomquist was given another chance.

He then delivered a bloop double to short center that eluded a diving David DeJesus and scored Jose Guillen and Yuniesky Betancourt with what stood up as the winning runs.

Another reason the home plate umpire needs to keep his eye on the ball.

A number of changes to the rules go into effect this year. MLB will try to eliminate tie games. In the past, if a game was tied after the fifth inning and conditions made it impossible to finish, it was ruled a tie. The stats counted, but the game was made up so that a team had 162 decisions. This was actually pretty common before lights were installed in ballparks. Often, you see players in 155 games during a season in which 154 games were scheduled. Now:

Before this year, when an official game was called due to weather and the score was tied, the statistics counted and a new game was replayed from the start. Under the change, when a game is tied in the bottom of the fifth inning or later and is called because of weather, it will be suspended and resumed before the next scheduled game between the teams at the same ballpark.

If no more games remain between the teams at the same ballpark, it will be resumed when the teams meet at the visitor's ballpark. If it is the final scheduled meeting between the teams, it will be replayed from the start if it is needed to determine a postseason berth.

I liked the tie rule, as it was a quirky vestiage of yester-year. But this change does make a lot of sense. I know Jayson Stark would like to see all rain shortened games suspended and resumed. This is a step in that direction.

Another rule change involves fielders scuffing balls:

A major league position player who scuffs or defaces a baseball would be ejected and receive an automatic 10-game suspension under changes approved Friday by the sport's playing rules committee.

Previously, the penalty was to call the pitch a ball and warn the player. For pitchers, umpires have the discretion to issue only a warning if they determine the pitcher's actions weren't intended to alter the characteristics of a pitch.

And on dropped third strikes, a batter can't wander off, then head for first base. If his first move isn't toward the bag, he's out. Here's one to speed up the game:

With no runners on, a pitcher will be required to pitch within 12 seconds, the timing starting when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the batter's box, alert to the pitcher.

I believe it was 20 before this, although that rule was never strictly enforced. I'll be curious to see if this one is.

The official press release from MLB is here. The scoring change summary is here. Those who write software that allows fans to score games should pay attention to the change to the save rule and how catcher's interference effects earned runs.

Metsblog.com notes a change in the rule for setting rosters before the LCS begins. It's a rule that would have helped the Mets in 2006.

There's a great story at Mike's Baseball Rants about how a dead man can score a run.

Ben Kabak explores the origin of the dropped third strike rule. He challenges the belief that the dropped third strike was added to the game. He believes the automatic out on a caught third strike was added instead.

John Romano thinks competitive balance in baseball is a sham:

It doesn't matter how the commissioner's office spins it, or if the Players Association continues to ignore it; the idea that major-league baseball's 30 teams begin each season on an even playing field is a joke.

Limited revenue sharing hasn't solved it. Neither has a payroll tax. And momentum for significant realignment is nonexistent.

So where is the hope in Tampa Bay?

Where is the hope in Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit and other communities with lower revenue streams?

Perhaps in an expanded playoff system.

John proposes six teams from each league make the playoffs. The problem, of course, is that a team like Tampa Bay is not going to be helped by an expanded playoff system, unless you have one like the NHL did in the late 70's, where 16 of 24 teams reached the post season. Even with six teams making the playoffs, a team is going to need to win more games than it loses.

Romano leaves off the real leveler in major league baseball, the draft. A smart team will use it's years of cellar dwelling to stock pile prize players by means of the draft. Yes, you may to pay large bonuses, but you control the player through the minors and six years into his major league career. That's more than enough time to build the core of a winner.

Tampa Bay has botched this opportunity. They should be at least at the level of the 1984 Mets. Where is their Strawberry of Gooden? Where is their Canseco-McGwire-Weiss? Why aren't they the Twins of 2002?

There's new management in Tampa Bay this season. I don't expect them to turn things around over night, but running a competent draft of two or three years will put them on the right track.

Lynn Henning explains the rules about check swings. There's nothing hard and fast in the rule book. It's just an umpire's judgement call.

Tobias Robinson has an interesting idea concerning the DH rule. He wants to allow the DH to hit for a fielder, and not allow the DH to hit for the pitcher. That way, you get all the strategy associated with a pitcher batting, but slick fielders who can't hit get to play as well.

I'm not sure I endorse this; baseball fielders should really be able to play both ways. The real problem with the DH is that teams use washed up players or guys recovering from injuries there, when they should really find all-hit no field sluggers.

The Giants want to be able to use a designated hitter in home games this spring training once Bonds is ready to play. The Reds already have such an exemption for some games for Griffey.

Why not take it all the way and use the DH throughout spring training? Why risk injuring pitchers with at bats? Why not give injured hitters an easy way to get back in the swing? Maybe MLB should just let National League teams have the option in spring training of using the DH or not.

Of course, the danger is that they'll like the arrangement and want to use it all year. :-)

Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive during March. Click here for details.