The Human Element

It's been almost two weeks since the game that has created much opprobrium in the baseball world--the perfect game that wasn't. I haven't had a chance to comment until now, and in that time I'm mulled over the two key issues at the heart of the controversy: should commissioner Bud Selig have overruled the umpire's incorrect call of safe on the runner, which cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game; and should baseball institute further instant replay challenges?

This game dealt with my favorite team, and I must start by saying I didn't see this happen live, and I'm glad I didn't. If I had seen a pitcher for my team jobbed out of a no-hitter and a perfect game by a bad call by an umpire I would have been sick. As it was I heard about it the next morning, so it was already a done deal. Of course, when I saw the replay, it became apparent to me, as to everyone else, that the umpire, Jim Joyce, blew the call.

And, to some astonishment, Joyce knew it, too. As the story reached a national level, being commented on by straight news outlets, it grew a pleasant veneer, as the two men involved, Galarraga and Joyce, exhibited sterling sportsmanship. Galarraga, raising his glove after receiving the toss from Miguel Cabrera, certain he had accomplished a feat that had only happened twenty other times in baseball history (more men have walked on the moon that have thrown perfect games) registered the umpire's call of safe, and then smiled. I understood that smile immediately--it was a kind of facial shrug of the shoulders, as if to say, "well, I guess the gods weren't with me on that one. So be it." Other Tiger players and coaches weren't so kind, and Joyce received an insistent chewing out. But when he saw the replay he owned up to his mistake in a way that removed all anger from anyone who had a beef. Galarraga, in a post-game interview, summed it up: "We're all human."

So, should the call have been overturned by Selig? He has the power to, in the best interests of baseball, whatever that means. Initially I was against him doing it, and even after he took a lot of heat for not doing it, I'm still of the same mind. I'm against the commissioner changing a play on the field that does not involve a rules interpretation (there is a procedure for protesting games based on rules interpretation, but a call at first base like this one lies outside that).

This generated a lot of chest-thumping on both sides. I watched a lot of very smart people and devoted baseball fans say, "Of course he should change it," and an equal number of those who say, "Of course he shouldn't." I don't know of a recent issue in baseball that's been so polarizing. Arguments for a change point out that we all saw that the guy was out, why should we stubbornly resist the advances of technology and cling to the pastoral purist hokum that baseball engenders? It would also take the heat off the umpire, who will have to go through life known as the guy who blew the perfect game call. On the other side is that pastoral purist hokum, which is unique to baseball and a great part of its charm. Let other, new-fangled sports use dozens of cameras to solve tough decisions. In baseball, it all rests on the human element. Beyond that, we would all like to go back and change things that have happened in our lives, things that we've done that we lie awake in bed at night and rue that we were too stupid or immature to have avoided doing. But we've done them, we can't go back, and we have to live with the consequences. Why should that be different in sports?

The second question involves replay. I'm a little more likely to give on that one. We already have replay for questioning whether a ball clears a fence for a home run. Should we extend it to other plays, most notably out or safe at bases, or foul balls? Probably, but how?

Calls at first base would be a natural, as it wouldn't interrupt the flow of the game. This is not true of certain calls, such as whether a ball is fair or foul. For example, an ump blew a call on a ball hit by Twins catcher Joe Mauer in last year's playoffs. The ball clearly landed inside the leftfield-line, but the ump called it foul. But it couldn't be replayed--Mauer had stopped running, and the fielder had stopped chasing it, once it was called foul. You can't overturn something like that. Plays at the other bases could also be replayed, provided that overturning them doesn't alter things that are irrevocable.

Balls and strikes should also not be subject to review, although ironically this aspect of the game is most ripe for technological overthrow. It would be easy to remove the umpire from this task entirely, simply having a computer determine the strike zone through use of a camera, adjustable for each batter, and then if the ball hits inside the zone it's a strike, if not it's a ball. This would eliminate the way strike zones change with different umps (and would also return the high strike, which hasn't been called in decades). It will never happen, though.

If we get expanded replay, how should it be handled? Should manager's get challenges, like coaches do in football? Not a bad idea, but imperfect. What if Tiger manager Jim Leyland had already used a challenge in Galarraga's game? Being out of challenges would take us back to the central problem. I think there should be a fifth umpire in the booth, who could signal the crew chief. That fifth umpire would be the eyes for the play (no need for the silly spectacle of the umpires leaving the field to look at a replay) and would be the sole arbiter of whether to overturn or not. It would take a matter of seconds.

In the long run, this may be a blessing for Armando Galarraga. First of all, he was an unknown pitcher who now has a special place in baseball lore, right there with Ernie Shore and Harvey Haddix, who had perfect games of a sort but officially do not. In 1917 Babe Ruth started a game for the Red Sox. He walked the first batter, but in arguing the call with the ump was ejected from the game. Shore came in in relief, Ruth's runner was thrown out attempting to steal, and Shore retired the next 26 batters. A perfect game of sorts, but not really. In 1959 Haddix was perfect for 12 innings, but his team, the Pirates, couldn't score against the Braves. He lost the game in the 13th. To these footnote players in baseball history we can now add Armando Galarraga.