This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

There Used to Be a Ballpark Right Here

Screen shot 2010-05-14 at 2.00.13 PM.png

[Editor’s Note: Today we have a guest entry from John Kimmerlein, who has some stories that aren’t exactly uni-related but are still in keeping with the spirit of Uni Watch, as I think you’ll agree. Enjoy. — PL]

By John Kimmerlein (with photo at right and linked photo below by Jerry Reuss)

I recently signed up for a Uni Watch membership. Because I was a kid in Baltimore back in the glory days of the franchise, I was going to ask for a Orioles name/number style for the back of the card. But then I thought of something a bit different that tied more directly to growing up in the neighborhood around Memorial Stadium: the funky font used on the front of the stadium. In explaining my special request to Paul, I related some of my experiences in and around the stadium that, quite frankly, I’d always taken for granted. He liked my stories enough that he’s asked me to incorporate them into this guest-written entry for the site, which I’m happy to provide.

I basically grew up in Memorial Stadium. We lived just a block away, and it kind of dominated the neighborhood, in a good way. We bought our Christmas trees from a tree lot under one of the light towers, learned to skate in a rink set up every winter outside the third base/left field side of the stadium, and the huge parking lots were where we watched the 4th of July fireworks, flew our kites, and watched the Baltimore police practice high-speed maneuvers. We heard the roar of the crowd from our front yard.

We saw more than our share of baseball games and a few soccer games there. As “Junior Orioles,” we saw a bunch of games a year. We also watched many games when our grandmom would walk some of us up the street to the stadium during a game — the ushers would always let in a white-haired older lady and a couple of kids after about the fifth inning. I still remember the thrill of coming out of the shady tunnels into the bright stadium and seeing the jewel-like field.

But my most unique memories of the ballpark have nothing to do with Orioles games. Because of where our school was located, my older brother and I had to cross the parking lot and go right in front of the stadium every day as we went to and from school, so the ballpark was a big playground for us. We frequently played in the stadium on our way home from school. Not in the parking lot, mind you — in the stadium. It seems there was always a gate open for one reason or another, and no one noticed a couple of little kids going in, so we’d explore the ramps, concourses, seats, press boxes, owner’s box, birthday box, etc. We went just about everywhere except the field and dugouts, which we held as sacred. Actually, we did go onto the field once, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

So what did we do in the stadium? Nothing too exciting by today’s standards. We walked (or ran) through every possible section and concourse, looked around at our neighborhood from the very top row, checked out the old, wooden box-like structures way at the top of the stands, tried our hand at play-by-play from the press box, ran flat-footed down the ramps to hear the echoes — kid stuff, basically. The craziest thing I remember us doing was dropping a foil ball from the highest point of the stadium just to watch it fall. We never thought of taking anything, or leaving our mark in any way. It was our clubhouse, and the Orioles’ stadium — why would we mess it up?

I don’t remember once getting chased out of there, or even a “Hey you kids” being yelled at us. My older brother and a neighborhood friend were in the stadium one day after school while a photographer was taking posed pictures of the Orioles, so they walked down and watched from the seats right next to the dugout. When the photographer was done taking pictures, he invited them to sit in the dugout and showed them her camera and the different filters she was using. My brother must have been in first or second grade at the time.

Frequently the gate we came in would be closed and locked when we were done, but we always had a way out through a ramp that was in one of the sections behind home plate. This ramp ended at a door in a hallway near the front offices, and we would blast out that door, past the offices and right out the front doors, running as fast as we could go. (Almost 20 years later I went to the stadium with my father to see a game with a good friend of his who’d been in the Orioles’ front office for decades. At one point he was describing to us how to get between the offices and our seats and I realized that I knew exactly where he was talking about — it was our old escape route!)

I played in the stadium on the way home from school from first grade through third grade (we moved away after that). Not every day, but a lot. I’m pretty sure our folks didn’t know. My youngest son is in third grade now, and I can’t imagine him running around an empty stadium on the way home from school.

Our one time on the field was very memorable. We were flying a kite in the parking lot, the string broke, and the kite fluttered into the stadium from the outfield side. We wanted our kite back, so we kept chasing it and went into the stadium at the grounds crew storage area near the left field corner. This was a cool cave-like place under the stands where they kept big piles of dirt and sand, equipment, and where the ambulance parked during games. There was a big gate onto the field itself from there.

The field gate was open so we trucked right onto the field–and into an Orioles practice. There were players all over, and one of them out in right-center was holding our kite, looking somewhat incredulous. We just kept going, ran clear across the outfield and got it from him. I honestly don’t know who it was. One of my brothers and I think it was Paul Blair, but another swears it was Frank Robinson. But we all got the general vibe that the players thought that it was a total hoot that a kite landed on the field and that three little kids came hauling onto the field to get it. We were certainly in awe, and pretty much just said thanks and got back off the field the way we came.

Only recently, as I have told these stories to my sons and to other friends, have I realized just how extraordinary these stadium jaunts were. Since then I’ve seen games in many major and minor league parks. I’ve been to Camden Yards a number of times, and I see a handful of games at Safeco Field every year. These and other stadiums may be at least as good as Memorial Stadium ever was in terms of watching a ballgame. But for me, Memorial Stadium will always be the first image that comes to mind when I think of a ballpark. Not just because of the games I saw there, but because it was our own huge clubhouse, which we happened to share with the Orioles.

========

Awesome stuff, John. And I’m happy to report that we were able to accommodate his membership card request. Scott really outdid himself on that one, no?

And hey, speaking of Scott: As many of you know, he recently moved from Brooklyn to Seattle, where his music act, RebelMart, will be soon be making its Pac-10 debut. For all you Seattle-area readers, the date is July 1st, 9pm, at the Skylark Café. You know what to do.

Screen shot 2010-06-03 at 5.49.00 AM.png

Imperfection: Regarding last night’s unfortunate events in Detroit (which I was watching as they unfolded), a few thoughts:

• Say this much for Jim Joyce: He faced the music, and then some.

• Everyone’s been making Don Denkinger comparisons. But here’s the thing: It’s now been 25 years since Denkinger’s blown call. If MLB umps have one truly epic gaffe per 25 years — or, to put that in perspective, four per century — that doesn’t strike me as such a bad track record. It’s just part of the game’s human element, same as Fred Merkle and Mickey Owen.

• One thing that really struck me is that if you follow baseball reasonably closely, you’re already familiar with Jim Joyce’s name, and with almost all the umpires’ names. Similarly, NHL fans tend to know the names of the refs and linesmen. (I don’t watch enough NBA games to know if the fans are familiar with their officials — are they?) But in the NFL — the league with so many missed calls that they have a mechanism to reverse them — all the officials except the referees are largely anonymous. Can even the most passionate NFL fan name a single side judge, back judge, head linesman, or umpire? They blow calls all the time, yet they’re utter ciphers. Why is that? Is it simply because there are fewer football games, or is it because of the way the networks barely mention the NFL officiating crews while it’s routine for the TV crews to say who’s working the game in the other sports?

None of that exhonerates Jim Joyce, of course. I just think it’s interesting how baseball umps are essentially public figures, while NFL officials enjoy the cloak of namelessness.

Giveaway Reminder: I’m currently raffling off three PC-to-TV converters. For details, look here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: “Louis Vuitton has finally unveiled the box for carrying the FIFA World Cup trophy,” reports Jeremy Brahm. “Hopefully Naomi Campbell won’t throw it at the photographers.” … Also from Jeremy: Municipal office workers in Higashi-Osaka are being encouraged to wear rugby shirts to work, apparently in an effort to be one of the host cities for the 2019 Rugby World Cup. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: At least some umpires are wearing a “JK” memorial patch, apparently for former ump John Kibler. … New plaid alternate jersey for Nice in the French Ligue 1 (with thanks to Jeremy Brahm). … New uniforms for the New Zealand Maori rugby team. “The uniform is called Te Ao Hōu (pronounced ‘tea ow hoe-ew’) and commemorates 100 years of Maori rugby,” writes Hadyn Green. “The design is based on a wharenui (literally ‘big house,’ but meaning a meeting house or gathering place). The figure on the front is Tanerōre, the god of haka (the traditional Maori war dance performed before each game).” … What’s even better than this gorgeous shot of Eddie Cicotte and Pants Rowland from Game Three of the 1917 World Series? This colorized version that Phil whipped up.

 

197 comments to There Used to Be a Ballpark Right Here

  • DJ | June 3, 2010 at 7:53 am |

    (I don’t watch enough NBA games to know if the fans are familiar with their officials — are they?

    Oh yes. A sophisticated NBA fan will know exactly what kind of game is going to play out when he or she hears who is officiating. Some are known for letting ’em play, others for being utterly incompetent, etc.

  • Greg | June 3, 2010 at 8:06 am |

    The Pacers’ Bobby “Slick” Leonard, after his coaching days, as the Pacers’ radio color guy, would tell his radio audience that if you added up the referees’ uniform numbers and the total was over 100, the refereeing was going to be lousy (referee uniform numbers were assigned by seniority, with the most experienced referees having the lower numbers). This probably doesn’t hold any more, though.

  • Peter Wunsch | June 3, 2010 at 8:13 am |

    The official scorer, who has sole discretion re: hits and errors could have given Cabrera or Gallaraga on error on the play and the gut would have at least gotten credit for a no-hitter.

  • Jet | June 3, 2010 at 8:14 am |

    Nice story about Memorial Stadium, John K!!

    And that pic from the 1917 World Series is too beautiful for words…

    -Jet

  • Jet | June 3, 2010 at 8:17 am |

    In that 1917 White Sox pic, Eddie Cicotte has his jersey sleeves cut short, I’m assuming because he was a pitcher. Look at Pants Rowland, how baggy those long sleeves are (and with contrasting stripe at the wrist – nice)

    -Jet

  • Ryan B | June 3, 2010 at 8:18 am |

    The reason we know the refs’ names in the NFL is simple: they’re the ones announcing all the penalties. Thus, they’re on TV much more than the other officials.

  • Paul Lukas | June 3, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    [quote comment=”392751″]The reason we know the refs’ names in the NFL is simple: they’re the ones announcing all the penalties. Thus, they’re on TV much more than the other officials.[/quote]

    Duh, yes, I know. I’m not asking why we do know the refs’ names; I’m asking why we don’t know the other NFL officials’ names, since their calls are constantly being questioned, reviewed, and overturned. If they review a play when a receiver is ruled out of bounds, do they mention the name of the side judge who made the call? If a safety is flagged for a questionable pass interference call, do they tell you the name of the back judge who made the call?

    By comparison, if there’s a close call on steal of second, they always say something like, “Hunter Wenderstadt [or whomever] called him out, but he appeared to have his hand in there.”

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 8:41 am |

    ATTENTION HIGH SOCK LOVERS! The Pirates have all worn their pants high for two games. They look like a BASEBALL team! Let’s do what we can to make sure they don’t go back to pajamas. Please call the Bucs and tell them you think they look great. Ask them to make it permanent. The phone number is: 412- 323- 5000. Thanks.

  • Mad Adam | June 3, 2010 at 8:46 am |

    Divers at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium have been wearing Blackhawk jerseys.

    http://www.dailyhera...

  • Ryan B | June 3, 2010 at 8:48 am |

    [quote comment=”392752″][quote comment=”392751″]The reason we know the refs’ names in the NFL is simple: they’re the ones announcing all the penalties. Thus, they’re on TV much more than the other officials.[/quote]

    Duh, yes, I know. I’m not asking why we do know the refs’ names; I’m asking why we don’t know the other NFL officials’ names, since their calls are constantly being questioned, reviewed, and overturned. If they review a play when a receiver is ruled out of bounds, do they mention the name of the side judge who made the call? If a safety is flagged for a questionable pass interference call, do they tell you the name of the back judge who made the call?

    By comparison, if there’s a close call on steal of second, they always say something like, “Hunter Wenderstadt [or whomever] called him out, but he appeared to have his hand in there.”[/quote]
    Ugh. Reading comprehension apparently isn’t my strong suit this morning. Sorry about that.

  • JasonAxel | June 3, 2010 at 8:55 am |

    [quote comment=”392748″]The official scorer, who has sole discretion re: hits and errors could have given Cabrera or Gallaraga on error on the play and the gut would have at least gotten credit for a no-hitter.[/quote]

    Nevermind me being a die-hard Tigers fan, but the scorer should not ever have to make a call like that. Not to mention there was nothing about that play that said it should have been an error. I wanted that perfect game for Armando very badly, I was able to see his ML debut and I’ve met him. He is a classy guy, very nice and sincere, but Joyce made the call and it’s what stands. Armando didn’t say a word to Joyce. He went about his business and finished the game.

    I feel bad for Joyce who is dealing with backlash from idiot fans who don’t know what really goes on. Not to mention Jim is supposed to be behind the plate for the afternoon game today. Should be interesting.

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 9:17 am |

    [quote comment=”392756″][quote comment=”392748″]The official scorer, who has sole discretion re: hits and errors could have given Cabrera or Gallaraga on error on the play and the gut would have at least gotten credit for a no-hitter.[/quote]

    Nevermind me being a die-hard Tigers fan, but the scorer should not ever have to make a call like that. Not to mention there was nothing about that play that said it should have been an error. I wanted that perfect game for Armando very badly, I was able to see his ML debut and I’ve met him. He is a classy guy, very nice and sincere, but Joyce made the call and it’s what stands. Armando didn’t say a word to Joyce. He went about his business and finished the game.

    I feel bad for Joyce who is dealing with backlash from idiot fans who don’t know what really goes on. Not to mention Jim is supposed to be behind the plate for the afternoon game today. Should be interesting.[/quote]

    Instant Armando Gallaraga fan here. Not because of the (shoulda been) perfect game, but for his composure, for his respect, for his handling the situation with class. If it eventually comes out that he went back the clubhouse and ordered a crate of baby seals with “Jim Joyce” tattoos to club, it won’t change my opinion. I want my boys to watch that game, to see how he handled himself through the first 26 outs, through the (should been) 27th out, and ESPECIALLY how he handled himself through the end of the game and beyond. Life isn’t always fair. It doesn’t mean you have to throw a fit about everything you don’t like.

    Compare this to 2003 with my Cubs. The guy in the stands didn’t cause the Cubs to lose. The Cubs – who overreacted and lost composure because they felt cheated – lost the game on their own. I think if Armando Gallaraga was on the mound for them at the time, we wouldn’t be talking about 102 years now.

    Totally different note: LOVE the lead story. I expected to be bored. I apologize. I was very wrong. When I saw that Uniwatch gallery image, I thought, “Hey! First guy in the park for the first night game at Wrigley! I should use the marguee for MY card!”. Nope. Wrong again. You deserve that honor for yourself, John. Very cool.

  • RS Rogers | June 3, 2010 at 9:19 am |

    There have been 20 previous perfect games. But only, what, one previous instance of a pitcher getting 26 outs before allowing a runner with 2 outs in the 9th. So in a way, Gallaraga’s game yesterday was more historic than if he’d been credited with the out. I guarantee that in twenty years, Gallaraga and Joyce will be better remembered for this game than will Roy Halladay for his perfect game last week.

  • Joe Hilseberg | June 3, 2010 at 9:22 am |

    Great stories about Memorial Stadium.

    I too spent a lot of time there. From 1987-1991 I was there by 1:00 for 7:00 games at least 3 times a week during the summers. I would hang out in front of the front of the stadium and wait for the players to get there for autographs and to meet my heroes. The O’s parked in a lot off to the side, and the visitors came mostly in cabs….I have probably over 1000 autographs from that time, and a ton of memories.

    To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 9:24 am |

    I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko

  • yeek | June 3, 2010 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”392751″]The reason we know the refs’ names in the NFL is simple: they’re the ones announcing all the penalties. Thus, they’re on TV much more than the other officials.[/quote]

    And NFL Films has a mancrush on Ed Hochuli.

    Plus, you have folks like Ben “Givin Him The Business” Dreith, Jerry “Illegal Use of the Body” Markbreit, and Gordon “Mark The Smot of the Mumble” McCarter, where you don’t know what they’re going to say next.

  • Robert Eden | June 3, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    Loved today’s post. Great stuff.

  • yeek | June 3, 2010 at 9:26 am |

    [quote comment=”392756″]

    I feel bad for Joyce who is dealing with backlash from idiot fans who don’t know what really goes on. Not to mention Jim is supposed to be behind the plate for the afternoon game today. Should be interesting.[/quote]

    At least he manned up and admitted it to Galarraga. I have a lot more respect for him than some of the classless strikers of years past.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 9:32 am |

    [quote comment=”392758″]There have been 20 previous perfect games. But only, what, one previous instance of a pitcher getting 26 outs before allowing a runner with 2 outs in the 9th. So in a way, Gallaraga’s game yesterday was more historic than if he’d been credited with the out. I guarantee that in twenty years, Gallaraga and Joyce will be better remembered for this game than will Roy Halladay for his perfect game last week.[/quote]

    Excellent point.
    Kinda like Tin Cup’s 12.

    —Ricko

  • JB Early | June 3, 2010 at 9:37 am |

    Sometimes somebody has to step up & do the right thing. The past is a reference point – not the answer for everything which comes after. I’m talking to you Bud. You know what to do.

    @John Kimmerlein – that’s what a ballpark is supposed to be. Glad you got to enjoy it. But I think you’d know Blair from F Robby – Paul would be wearing a smile. . ..

  • Adam | June 3, 2010 at 9:39 am |

    New Notre Dame Unis…. http://www.subwaydom...

  • pk | June 3, 2010 at 9:42 am |

    I believe it was here I read an article on ticket stubs (either that or I have seen so many on here over the years that it has all become a blur).

    Just read this in the Daily News:

    “Paperless tickets require buyers to make purchases with credit cards and then swipe the card at the venue for entry. Opponents say such tickets are difficult to pass on to a friend or family member.”

    Not sure how I feel about this, I like having my ticket stubs (granted, most of them are on paper from being printed out over the last few years), but I like getting my tickets mailed to me, and teams like Baltimore and Toronto (hell, even the Twins a few years ago sent me really nice tickets) have always been nicely printed and I have never had a problem with cost with these teams…however, the Yankees are another story…

    (Paul, have you ever done an article on ticket stubs?)

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”392765″]Sometimes somebody has to step up & do the right thing. The past is a reference point – not the answer for everything which comes after. I’m talking to you Bud. You know what to do.

    @John Kimmerlein – that’s what a ballpark is supposed to be. Glad you got to enjoy it. But I think you’d know Blair from F Robby – Paul would be wearing a smile. . ..[/quote]

    The right thing is to let Joyce’s call stand.
    As presently constituted, “safe” or “out” is determined by the umpire. So are balls and strikes.

    Things can be changed for the future. But what’s done is done, and it was within the rules.

    Credit to Joyce for later admitting he flat-out blew it. If you haven’t heard that interview, look for it. He manned up in a way a lot of guys wouldn’t…and haven’t.

    —Ricko

  • Paul Lukas | June 3, 2010 at 9:46 am |

    [quote comment=”392767″]Paul, have you ever done an article on ticket stubs?[/quote]

    http://sports.espn.g...

    Meanwhile: One of the best things I’ve read so far about the Joyce/Galarraga situation is this superb piece by Tyler Kepner:
    http://www.nytimes.c...

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 9:49 am |

    [quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Players should look like BALLPLAYERS. Just because a rule wasn’t needed in the past dosen’t mean it isn’t need now. Look how good the Pirates have looked in the past two games, like a TEAM!
    They can express their individulity by their facial hair or hair cuts, but when they’re on the field they’re a team.

  • interlockingtc | June 3, 2010 at 9:59 am |

    Wonderful piece, Mr. Kimmerlein. What a lucky–and opportunistic–kid you were. I was picturing you and your brother running around the concourses as I read. Joyful.

    I remember the thrill of sneaking into a game or two at old Met Stadium during my teen years, but that’s nothing like having total access to a stadium every day after school. Nice.

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You’re correct, styles do change, along with the culture. And there are certainly pros and cons to that. It’s impossible to prove, but I have the feeling more people today tend to conform to style, regardless of how uncomfortable or silly it looks. This doesn’t relate to baseball, but the trend of wearing hats backward is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I’ve seen pro tennis matches in which players are squinting and playing poorly, and they really need to wear their hats the right way to improve their vision. It worked well for hall of famer Jim Courier, but younger players just don’t think it’s “cool”

    I definitely think a reasonable middle ground could be reached to avoid the nearly ground dragging pants in MLB. A general rule about length could provide the flexibility for individuality, while eliminating the ridiculous pajamas look.

  • Chance Michaels | June 3, 2010 at 10:08 am |

    [quote comment=”392761″]
    And NFL Films has a mancrush on Ed Hochuli.
    [/quote]

    Wondered how long it would be before somebody mentioned Ol’ Guns. He’s still the only one I can name off the top of my head, and I watch tons of games every season.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | June 3, 2010 at 10:11 am |

    [quote comment=”392752″][quote comment=”392751″]The reason we know the refs’ names in the NFL is simple: they’re the ones announcing all the penalties. Thus, they’re on TV much more than the other officials.[/quote]

    Duh, yes, I know. I’m not asking why we do know the refs’ names; I’m asking why we don’t know the other NFL officials’ names, since their calls are constantly being questioned, reviewed, and overturned. If they review a play when a receiver is ruled out of bounds, do they mention the name of the side judge who made the call? If a safety is flagged for a questionable pass interference call, do they tell you the name of the back judge who made the call?

    By comparison, if there’s a close call on steal of second, they always say something like, “Hunter Wenderstadt [or whomever] called him out, but he appeared to have his hand in there.”[/quote]

    Umpires are behind the plate every fourth game so they are involved in nearly every pitch which gives the announcers plenty of opportunity to mention their name. How many times a game does an announcer get to talk about the line judge? 1 or 2 maybe?

  • Ricardo Leonor | June 3, 2010 at 10:16 am |

    On the human side of sports, you have to feel bad for everyone involved last night in Detrioit. But humans do make mistakes.

    But you wonder…seriously…I know this will sound strange, but wouldnt human nature kind of sway a mistake to go the other way. I mean knowing the situation, wouldn’t most be predisposed to calling the runner out in close play?

  • Ricardo Leonor | June 3, 2010 at 10:22 am |

    I think the reason that we “know” umpires, is that baseball is a much more “personal” game. We let these people into our living rooms pretty much every day for half the year. We feel we know our players, coaches, annoucers and even umpires. Umps in baseball are usually around for years…

  • Jeff | June 3, 2010 at 10:27 am |

    Good for you, John Kimmerlein. Nice post. My UW membership card has the classic Robert Indiana-designed floor from the old Milwaukee Arena, from the MECCA days.

  • Perry | June 3, 2010 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”392758″]There have been 20 previous perfect games. But only, what, one previous instance of a pitcher getting 26 outs before allowing a runner with 2 outs in the 9th. So in a way, Gallaraga’s game yesterday was more historic than if he’d been credited with the out. [/quote]

    Not so — there was a graphic last night, I think on MLB, that showed all the perfectos lost on the 27th out. I think there were 8 or 9, including, IIRC, Dave Steib and Mike Mussina. Perhaps the most notorious, because he’s never stopped bitching about it, is the one Milt Pappas lost on a 3-2 pitch called ball 4 by Bruce Froemming.

  • Jesse | June 3, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”392774″]Umpires are behind the plate every fourth game so they are involved in nearly every pitch which gives the announcers plenty of opportunity to mention their name. How many times a game does an announcer get to talk about the line judge? 1 or 2 maybe?[/quote]

    Bingo. That is exactly what I wanted to say. The fact that baseball umps rotate base assignments is the reason we know them better.

  • Kev29 | June 3, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    Those Maori jerseys are really excellent. Beautiful illustration. The only shame is that adidas had to stick their customary three stripe shoulders on to it – like everything rugby and soccer related these days. Ugh – talk about overkill.

  • Paul Lukas | June 3, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”392778″][quote comment=”392758″]There have been 20 previous perfect games. But only, what, one previous instance of a pitcher getting 26 outs before allowing a runner with 2 outs in the 9th. So in a way, Gallaraga’s game yesterday was more historic than if he’d been credited with the out. [/quote]

    Not so — there was a graphic last night, I think on MLB, that showed all the perfectos lost on the 27th out. I think there were 8 or 9, including, IIRC, Dave Steib and Mike Mussina. Perhaps the most notorious, because he’s never stopped bitching about it, is the one Milt Pappas lost on a 3-2 pitch called ball 4 by Bruce Froemming.[/quote]

    Which gives me yet another chance to urge everyone to read Tyler Kepner’s piece (which addresses the Froemming/Pappas game, among other things):
    http://www.nytimes.c...

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 10:35 am |

    It sucks to be a Cub fan at times. First the excellent timing of the planned Toyota sign in left field (a sign that some people are trying to put the brakes on, but it just doesn’t seem to be stopping anything).

    Now this.

    The sponsor of the Crosstown Classic interleague series with that other Chicago team is scaling down their public support of the series. It looks like this isn’t a great time to be shoving their name in the public’s faces. The sponsor? Yep. You guessed it. BP.

    http://www.chicagobr...

  • Ry Co 40 | June 3, 2010 at 10:45 am |

    love the story, Kimmerlein! thanks for sharing

    i admit that when i first saw your membership card i thought it was a bit of a stretch. like a “let’s push the envelope and see what we can get away with just for the sake of being different” type of thing. but after that story, i totally support it!!!

  • JCKerr | June 3, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    John, great story! I was only at Memorial Stadium once. Being from Philadelphia, we had only seen baseball on artificial turf. I remember how vastly different and fantastical the game looked on a manicured grass field. Midway through the game, my brother and I (8th & 9th grade, I believe), made our way down to the lower level. He was a little more daring and ventured all the way to behind the O’s dugout. I still have the photos he took of Cal Ripken on the on-deck circle. Thanks for jogging so many memories!

  • Jet | June 3, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    Ricko, not sure I get your point about “styles change.”

    People may have complained about stirrups being too high, but no one complained about stirrups PER SE… i.e. no one in the 60’s was saying, “Stirrups look like crap, players should really be wearing their pants down over their cleats, like pajamas.”

    Fifty years from now, do you think baseball fans will be looking back fondly on the pajama uniforms?

    -Jet

  • pk | June 3, 2010 at 11:05 am |

    Re: Ticket Stubs

    Thanks Paul!

  • mmwatkin | June 3, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    I don’t have an issue with the call. Joyce thought he made the right decision and stuck with it until he saw the replay. That is an umpires job.

    I take bigger issue with the fact that MLB has dragged their feet on implementing a system that allows umpires to get the right call on a play like that. I have no doubt that Selig won’t do anything about it and stick his head in the sand like always.

    I feel bad for Galarraga. He handled the situation with as much class as any professional athlete could. It breaks my heart even more to have this situation happen to an apparently good guy.

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”392787″]I don’t have an issue with the call. Joyce thought he made the right decision and stuck with it until he saw the replay. That is an umpires job.

    I take bigger issue with the fact that MLB has dragged their feet on implementing a system that allows umpires to get the right call on a play like that. I have no doubt that Selig won’t do anything about it and stick his head in the sand like always.

    I feel bad for Galarraga. He handled the situation with as much class as any professional athlete could. It breaks my heart even more to have this situation happen to an apparently good guy.[/quote]

    I’m concerned about an over-correction by Bud, myself. I can see a grand announcement, pitcher over one shoulder, umpire over the other, where Mr. Selig shows regret, promises that the issue will be reviewed and adjustments made, and because of the unprecidented circumstances – effecting the last out of a perfect game – that MLB has chosen to award Galarraga with a perfect game.

    And we thought we were done with asterisks in the record books. I just hope my vision is wrong.

  • flip | June 3, 2010 at 11:17 am |

    Loved the post today. Loved how the ballpark was integrated into your everyday life and how it was open for roaming. Too cool.

    Can’t say enough about Armando Galarraga and his class. Absolutely serene about it last night. It’s tragic that more words are being written about Jim Joyce. Yes, he blew it; yes, he owned up to it and apologized personally to Galarraga and the Tigers; and, yes, that was class. But Galarraga is not getting the credit he deserves today. Great game (lost, too, in the hub bub is the awesome catch by centerfield Austin Jackson.

    Armando Galarraga taught us all a great lesson last night.

  • flip | June 3, 2010 at 11:19 am |

    Rather than go to instant replay, let’s just say E, 1st base umpire and move on.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”392788″][quote comment=”392787″]I don’t have an issue with the call. Joyce thought he made the right decision and stuck with it until he saw the replay. That is an umpires job.

    I take bigger issue with the fact that MLB has dragged their feet on implementing a system that allows umpires to get the right call on a play like that. I have no doubt that Selig won’t do anything about it and stick his head in the sand like always.

    I feel bad for Galarraga. He handled the situation with as much class as any professional athlete could. It breaks my heart even more to have this situation happen to an apparently good guy.[/quote]

    I’m concerned about an over-correction by Bud, myself. I can see a grand announcement, pitcher over one shoulder, umpire over the other, where Mr. Selig shows regret, promises that the issue will be reviewed and adjustments made, and because of the unprecidented circumstances – effecting the last out of a perfect game – that MLB has chosen to award Galarraga with a perfect game.

    And we thought we were done with asterisks in the record books. I just hope my vision is wrong.[/quote]
    I think the chances for overreaction are slim and none. Selig has always regarded himself as a steward of the game and to make such a dramatic reversal flies in the face of everything he has stood for in his tenure.
    Besides, what kind of a precedent does that set? Will Cardinals fans want to go back and replay the 9th inning of game 7 of the 1985 World Series (Denkinger admitted to blowing that call)? Orioles fans want to revisit the “Jeffrey Maier Game” (Ditto Rich Garcia)?
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    @ John Kimmerlein: AWESOME post! I never got the chance to see a game in Memorial Stadium, but I drove past it with a friend who grew up nearby. That font was the first thing that caught my eye. I LOVED that entrance and thought it was a damn shame they were abandoning it… tho I went to Camden Yards that night and was just as awestruck.

    As a Tribe fan, I’ve never wanted a call to go against them until last night. That was a damn shame. Kudos to Joyce for manning-up and admitting his mistake and even bigger kudos to Gallaragga for his professionalism. Personally, I’d have gone George Brett/pine-tar on Joyce.

    Dang you Phil! The moment I saw that Cicotte/Rowland photo, I thought “Oooo… I’m gonna colorize it and send it in.” Maybe it’s best you did it tho (excellent job, btw) since I probably would’ve reversed the colors.

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    [quote comment=”392791″][quote comment=”392788″][quote comment=”392787″]I don’t have an issue with the call. Joyce thought he made the right decision and stuck with it until he saw the replay. That is an umpires job.

    I take bigger issue with the fact that MLB has dragged their feet on implementing a system that allows umpires to get the right call on a play like that. I have no doubt that Selig won’t do anything about it and stick his head in the sand like always.

    I feel bad for Galarraga. He handled the situation with as much class as any professional athlete could. It breaks my heart even more to have this situation happen to an apparently good guy.[/quote]

    I’m concerned about an over-correction by Bud, myself. I can see a grand announcement, pitcher over one shoulder, umpire over the other, where Mr. Selig shows regret, promises that the issue will be reviewed and adjustments made, and because of the unprecidented circumstances – effecting the last out of a perfect game – that MLB has chosen to award Galarraga with a perfect game.

    And we thought we were done with asterisks in the record books. I just hope my vision is wrong.[/quote]
    I think the chances for overreaction are slim and none. Selig has always regarded himself as a steward of the game and to make such a dramatic reversal flies in the face of everything he has stood for in his tenure.
    Besides, what kind of a precedent does that set? Will Cardinals fans want to go back and replay the 9th inning of game 7 of the 1985 World Series (Denkinger admitted to blowing that call)? Orioles fans want to revisit the “Jeffrey Maier Game” (Ditto Rich Garcia)?
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.[/quote]

    Like I said … I hope I’m wrong … but then I found this. The door isn’t closed on the chance of an overruling:

    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Ricardo Leonor | June 3, 2010 at 11:30 am |

    I thought Cabrera was going to go “George Brett” on Jim Joyce!!

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    PLEASE tell me you don’t wanna see them this short.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 11:33 am |

    [quote comment=”392794″]I thought Cabrera was going to go “George Brett” on Jim Joyce!![/quote]

    And he should be celebrated for NOT doing that!

  • Ricardo Leonor | June 3, 2010 at 11:41 am |

    I think right after the play the players were in shock. The anger after the game was over and they had a few minutes to think about it.

    And speaking of George Brett and powder blue uniforms…It’s hard to believe that as a kid it was the Royals I hated, not the Red Sox! Royals were actually the Yankees biggest rival for a while…almost doesn’t seem possible now…

  • duker | June 3, 2010 at 11:42 am |

    My father grew up right near Memorial Stadium too. I remember him telling me stories about how he’d ride his bike around in the stadium and how him and his friends would sneak into games. I think he got into nearly every game one year, including the game that Frank Robinson hit a home run clear out of the stadium. He said he was sitting near the top of the section that the ball went over and he saw one of his friends in the parking log snag it. I sent him the link maybe he’ll drop a comment about it.

    I went to many games in that Stadium too. My grandfather still lives down the street from 33rd. It was the only place I’d ever seen a game until the O’s left for Oriole Park at Camden Yards when I was only 11.

    I remember going back there for the first few seasons of Ravens games and thinking how much nicer Camden Yards was. But the first place you ever saw a ball game is always special.

  • Stuby | June 3, 2010 at 11:42 am |

    [quote comment=”392795″][quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    PLEASE tell me you don’t wanna see them this short.[/quote]

    …or even this short

    http://misterirrelev...

  • Giancarlo | June 3, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”392791″]
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.[/quote]
    There was a lot of concern about that back in the Pine Tar Incident game with George Brett in the 1980s. In that case, an after-the-fact ruling effectively changed the outcome of the game… a reversal that seemed wrong to me at the time. MLB’s rationale at the time for post hoc awarding a George Brett home run that was disqualified on the field of play was that it’s important in baseball that “what you see is what you get.” If the ball goes out of the park it’s a home run. Close calls at a base, though, might not be clear & obvious enough to invoke the “what you see…” principle. Hit/error rulings are frequently changed after-the-fact, but that’s just a statistical matter not affecting the result of the game.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”392797″]I think right after the play the players were in shock. The anger after the game was over and they had a few minutes to think about it.

    And speaking of George Brett and powder blue uniforms…It’s hard to believe that as a kid it was the Royals I hated, not the Red Sox! Royals were actually the Yankees biggest rival for a while…almost doesn’t seem possible now…[/quote]

    Man… the Royals were the sh*t back in the ’80s. I only wish MLB had gotten their new powder blues right… white text on powder not dark blue outlined in white on powder.

  • M.Princip | June 3, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    Scott was telling me all about the card that he designed for John Kimmerlein, and how excited he was about it. Thus, I was really looking forward to reading John’s story. It did not disappoint, simply a fantastic read.

  • jesse. | June 3, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”392748″]The official scorer, who has sole discretion re: hits and errors could have given Cabrera or Gallaraga on error on the play and the gut would have at least gotten credit for a no-hitter.[/quote]

    They have been talking about reversing the call, and giving the guy a perfect game. I wonder if this isn’t the compromise? They amend hits and errors with some regularity.

  • Bernard | June 3, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”392793″]

    Like I said … I hope I’m wrong … but then I found this. The door isn’t closed on the chance of an overruling:

    http://sports.espn.g...

    In 1991, a panel headed by then-commissioner Fay Vincent took a look at the record book and decided to throw out 50 no-hitters for various reasons.

    [/quote]

    I was not aware of this (I cared about baseball even less then than I do now). If MLB could do that, why can’t they award this guy a perfect game? It wouldn’t alter the on-field outcome of the game (in terms of W/L). Wouldn’t even change the score.

  • Giancarlo | June 3, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    But to add a HOWEVER to my last post, I suppose this is one of the rare cases where you could reverse a call after-the-fact and know for sure it wouldn’t have affected the course of the game.

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”392799″][quote comment=”392795″][quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    PLEASE tell me you don’t wanna see them this short.[/quote]

    …or even this short

    http://misterirrelev...

    Fielder looks bad but no worse than the guy behind him. Pants should be worn at mid calf but I’ll take the higher, ‘Babe Ruth’ look over the ‘how can you run without tripping’ anyday.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 11:58 am |

    [quote comment=”392798″]
    I remember going back there for the first few seasons of Ravens games and thinking how much nicer Camden Yards was. But the first place you ever saw a ball game is always special.[/quote]

    I always felt that way about Cleveland Municipal Stadium… it was a sh*thole, but it was our sh*thole.

  • Mark K | June 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm |

    Loved today’s post.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”392800″][quote comment=”392791″]
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.[/quote]
    There was a lot of concern about that back in the Pine Tar Incident game with George Brett in the 1980s. In that case, an after-the-fact ruling effectively changed the outcome of the game… a reversal that seemed wrong to me at the time. MLB’s rationale at the time for post hoc awarding a George Brett home run that was disqualified on the field of play was that it’s important in baseball that “what you see is what you get.” If the ball goes out of the park it’s a home run. Close calls at a base, though, might not be clear & obvious enough to invoke the “what you see…” principle. Hit/error rulings are frequently changed after-the-fact, but that’s just a statistical matter not affecting the result of the game.[/quote]
    In the “Pine-Tar Incident”, the AL President (Lee MacPhail) reversed the umpires’ decision because Brett did not gain an advantage by having the pine tar extending past the 18 inch mark of his bat. It was a reversal based on interpretation of a rule, not a reversal based on an umpire’s judgement. There’s a clear distinction (at least in my mind).

  • joe | June 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”392791″][quote comment=”392788″][quote comment=”392787″]I don’t have an issue with the call. Joyce thought he made the right decision and stuck with it until he saw the replay. That is an umpires job.

    I take bigger issue with the fact that MLB has dragged their feet on implementing a system that allows umpires to get the right call on a play like that. I have no doubt that Selig won’t do anything about it and stick his head in the sand like always.

    I feel bad for Galarraga. He handled the situation with as much class as any professional athlete could. It breaks my heart even more to have this situation happen to an apparently good guy.[/quote]

    I’m concerned about an over-correction by Bud, myself. I can see a grand announcement, pitcher over one shoulder, umpire over the other, where Mr. Selig shows regret, promises that the issue will be reviewed and adjustments made, and because of the unprecidented circumstances – effecting the last out of a perfect game – that MLB has chosen to award Galarraga with a perfect game.

    And we thought we were done with asterisks in the record books. I just hope my vision is wrong.[/quote]
    I think the chances for overreaction are slim and none. Selig has always regarded himself as a steward of the game and to make such a dramatic reversal flies in the face of everything he has stood for in his tenure.
    Besides, what kind of a precedent does that set? Will Cardinals fans want to go back and replay the 9th inning of game 7 of the 1985 World Series (Denkinger admitted to blowing that call)? Orioles fans want to revisit the “Jeffrey Maier Game” (Ditto Rich Garcia)?
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.[/quote]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”

  • Mark K | June 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    I think the officials are more anonymous in the NFL because any given crew will only work your team’s game twice a year at the most, and there are 7 officials on the field.

    Contrast that to the other sports where there are 3 or 4 guys working the games and they probably work a given team’s games a dozen times a year.

    Plus baseball umps work an entire series, rotating positions each day- the names get reinforced in our brains.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”392810″]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole “This Time It Counts” think is assinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 12:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”392812″][quote comment=”392810″]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole “This Time It Counts” think is assinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?[/quote]

    I dunno… introducing the wild card and interleague play kind of affect the nature of the game. Love the wild-card (loooooong overdue), hate Interleague play (a novelty at best).

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”392813″][quote comment=”392812″][quote comment=”392810″]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole “This Time It Counts” think is assinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?[/quote]

    I dunno… introducing the wild card and interleague play kind of affect the nature of the game. Love the wild-card (loooooong overdue), hate Interleague play (a novelty at best).[/quote]

    But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.

  • pflava | June 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm |

    Great lead today about Memorial Stadium! It reminds me of the time, in 1994 right after the strike began, that I was in Chicago visiting my sister. She had to work one day and I took her bike and rode around the north side, eventually making it to Wrigley. When I got there, I rode around the park and realized that the door in the right field wall was open for the groundskeepers. I paused for a moment, and then rode my sister’s bike into right field and parked it against the ivy. When no one came over to tell me to get the hell out, I took an impromptu tour of right field and the third base stands. Eventually one of the groundskeepers came over, but instead of asking me to leave he talked to me about the park and the Cubs. When I left I did what anyone else would do – grab a piece of the ivy for posterity. If only camera phones had been around.

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”392813″][quote comment=”392812″][quote comment=”392810″]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realigned the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole “This Time It Counts” think is asinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?[/quote]

    I dunno… introducing the wild card and interleague play kind of affect the nature of the game. Love the wild-card (loooooong overdue), hate Interleague play (a novelty at best).[/quote]

    The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”392817″][quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.[/quote]

    The result would certainly be extraordinary, but it’s still just a regular-season game. As I said in my original post, if you’re going to retroactively overturn judgement calls, I think you’ll have the 1985 Cardinals and 1996 Orioles waiting in line to have their complaints heard. Those calls arguably changed the result of the World Series and ALCS, respectively.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 12:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”392816″][The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.[/quote]

    Wait… lose the pennant and still make the WS? To win the pennant, a team must win the LCS. You can lose the division and still win the WS due to the WC, but IMHO that’s not a bad thing. Some of the best runs have come from teams that didn’t win their Division — Bosox in ’04, for instance.

  • JTH | June 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    Great post today, John.

    As a kid, I was fortunate enough to get onto the field a few times at Wrigley Field through “perfectly legal” means (meaning with the team’s permission).

    Those experiences were all really great, but the one time that really stands out in my mind was when I was about 10 or 11 years old. (It was shortly after Dave Kingman’s stint with the Cubs.) My dad and I wandered into Wrigley Field on a day when the team was on the road. One of the gates had been left open and the park was pretty much deserted.

    We walked around the stands, then we got bold and went down on the field. Unchallenged by any security, we checked out the dugout for a bit. Then we walked down the tunnel to the players’ toilet and there scrawled on the wall was “King Kong is gone sucks DONG!”

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”392819″][quote comment=”392816″][The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.[/quote]

    Wait… lose the pennant and still make the WS? To win the pennant, a team must win the LCS. You can lose the division and still win the WS due to the WC, but IMHO that’s not a bad thing. Some of the best runs have come from teams that didn’t win their Division — Bosox in ’04, for instance.[/quote]

    My mistake. But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”392818″][quote comment=”392817″][quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.[/quote]

    The result would certainly be extraordinary, but it’s still just a regular-season game. As I said in my original post, if you’re going to retroactively overturn judgement calls, I think you’ll have the 1985 Cardinals and 1996 Orioles waiting in line to have their complaints heard. Those calls arguably changed the result of the World Series and ALCS, respectively.[/quote]

    But considering it was a perfect game, wouldn’t this be a great time to implement a new measure to further “grow the game” (and bring it closer to the 21st century) in terms of the fabric and nature of the game? I’m not saying they should go to the replay for balls and strikes, but when there are extraordinary circumstances surrounding a particular call (a perfect game in the ninth with 2 outs likely fits the bill), it may not be a bad thing. The question then becomes where do you draw the line? What if it’d happened in the first inning? Well, it didn’t so it therefore becomes a judgment call from the Commissioner’s office.

    I imagine Joyce was probably as hyped as anyone on the field and had a brain-fart. Maybe Selig should look at is instant therapy for Gallaraga and Joyce so they don’t have it hanging over their head for years to come.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

    Paul previously said there was a special reason why he allowed John Kimmerlein’s card design to be made. Today’s piece proved that most emphatically. Great story, John!

    Could you imagine trying to sneak into a stadium now? You can’t even get on some junior and high school fields now without a permit. Then again, a lot of kids now don’t have the respect that John did. Reading that story makes me wonder if we as a society will ever get back to that level of trust and respect again.

    Speaking of respect, I have tons of it for Armando Galarraga. He had more reason to be upset than Milt Pappas, yet Pappas still won’t shut up while Galarraga took the high road. Great article by Tyler Kepner.

    Yes, Joyce blew the call. No, I wouldn’t reverse it. Close play, honest mistake, move on. And for God’s sake, please leave Joyce and his family alone. For Galarraga and his teammates, yes, it’s a big deal. For the fans, it’s a freakin’ game. There’ll be another one today – don’t ruin it by being bitter over last night’s.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”392821″]My mistake. But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.[/quote]

    LOL. I can see your point. But doesn’t it throw a well-deserved bone to a team that wins 102 games yet goes home because another team in their division gets 103Ws who goes on to the playoffs to face a team that wins their division with 86?

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 12:57 pm |

    the wild card is a sham, but in lieu of an even number of divisions, there is nothing that can be done about it

    that was one of the great things about baseball that has also gone down the shitter — now, it’s just like any other sport; look at hockey — if the flyers don’t win the overtime shootout (a shootout to decide the playoffs — yep), the play golf 2 months ago…yet now they’re playing for the stanley cup

    if you’re going to let 8 (in baseball) teams into the playoffs, there’s a chance one (or two) of them won’t even win their division yet become world champs (like the marlins…2x — they’ve never won the NL east, but they have two WS rings)

    it’s worse in the other sports (football=12 teams in the post season and hockey/hoop=16)

    but the possibility of making the playoffs is what puts fannies in the seats and makes the bank for the owners once the season is over

    do i like the wild card? no…but there is no way we’re going to get rid of it (short of adding another division, or at least having an even number of divisions)

    does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be? absolutely

    still say MLB should actually add two teams and have 4 divisions of 4 teams each (like football)…and dump the wild card and interplague

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”392823″]

    Yes, Joyce blew the call. No, I wouldn’t reverse it. Close play, honest mistake, move on. And for God’s sake, please leave Joyce and his family alone. For Galarraga and his teammates, yes, it’s a big deal. For the fans, it’s a freakin’ game. There’ll be another one today – don’t ruin it by being bitter over last night’s.[/quote]

    I dunno… it wasn’t a very close play. if it had been “bang-bang,” then I’d give Joyce a pass on the call, but the runner was over a half-step away. Agreed, however, on the point that Joyce was being human. He blew it, but he owned up to it. The fact he went into the Tiger clubhouse to apologize shows me he’s a stand-up guy and a pro.

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 1:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”392825″]the wild card is a sham, but in lieu of an even number of divisions, there is nothing that can be done about it

    that was one of the great things about baseball that has also gone down the shitter — now, it’s just like any other sport; look at hockey — if the flyers don’t win the overtime shootout (a shootout to decide the playoffs — yep), the play golf 2 months ago…yet now they’re playing for the stanley cup

    if you’re going to let 8 (in baseball) teams into the playoffs, there’s a chance one (or two) of them won’t even win their division yet become world champs (like the marlins…2x — they’ve never won the NL east, but they have two WS rings)

    it’s worse in the other sports (football=12 teams in the post season and hockey/hoop=16)

    but the possibility of making the playoffs is what puts fannies in the seats and makes the bank for the owners once the season is over

    do i like the wild card? no…but there is no way we’re going to get rid of it (short of adding another division, or at least having an even number of divisions)

    does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be? absolutely

    still say MLB should actually add two teams and have 4 divisions of 4 teams each (like football)…and dump the wild card and interplague[/quote]

    I like that. How about Mexico City and Havana? That would stir up some interest.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”392825″]does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be? absolutely

    still say MLB should actually add two teams and have 4 divisions of 4 teams each (like football)…and dump the wild card and interplague[/quote]

    Your quote “does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be?”, to me, is the whole reason why the WC was a great idea. When it was 4 divisions, September baseball more often than not sucked unless you were a Yankee fan (it always sucked in Cleveland, but that was my rant yesterday).

    I wouldn’t mind the 8 division idea, but who gets stuck with the Yanks and Sox? The AL East is, to me, the perfect argument FOR the WC… even tho it usually ends up being one or the other of those sonsabitches.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”392821″][quote comment=”392819″][quote comment=”392816″][The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.[/quote]

    Wait… lose the pennant and still make the WS? To win the pennant, a team must win the LCS. You can lose the division and still win the WS due to the WC, but IMHO that’s not a bad thing. Some of the best runs have come from teams that didn’t win their Division — Bosox in ’04, for instance.[/quote]

    My mistake. But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.[/quote]

    Nah, they’d still screw it up. They’d call tails, then this would happen:
    http://www.youtube.c...
    And of course, each time they’d still call tails.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”392822″][quote comment=”392818″][quote comment=”392817″][quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.[/quote]

    The result would certainly be extraordinary, but it’s still just a regular-season game. As I said in my original post, if you’re going to retroactively overturn judgement calls, I think you’ll have the 1985 Cardinals and 1996 Orioles waiting in line to have their complaints heard. Those calls arguably changed the result of the World Series and ALCS, respectively.[/quote]

    But considering it was a perfect game, wouldn’t this be a great time to implement a new measure to further “grow the game” (and bring it closer to the 21st century) in terms of the fabric and nature of the game? I’m not saying they should go to the replay for balls and strikes, but when there are extraordinary circumstances surrounding a particular call (a perfect game in the ninth with 2 outs likely fits the bill), it may not be a bad thing. The question then becomes where do you draw the line? What if it’d happened in the first inning? Well, it didn’t so it therefore becomes a judgment call from the Commissioner’s office.

    I imagine Joyce was probably as hyped as anyone on the field and had a brain-fart. Maybe Selig should look at is instant therapy for Gallaraga and Joyce so they don’t have it hanging over their head for years to come.[/quote]

    I’m enjoying this debate immensely, Marc and my productivity at work is suffering as a result :-)

    If what you’re arguing is that this incident should be the tipping point for expanded replay, then I’m all in favor. It’s an idea whose time has come. It’s incumbent upon MLB to make sure that the system is consistent and that it works the way it should, though. (Don’t ask me what that looks like, but Jayson Stark had some good suggestions over on ESPN).
    If you’re arguing that it should be the tipping point for expanded replay AND that it should be enacted retroactively to console Galarraga and get Jim Joyce off the hook, then I disagree. What’s past is prologue.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”392829″][quote comment=”392821″][quote comment=”392819″][quote comment=”392816″][The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.[/quote]

    Wait… lose the pennant and still make the WS? To win the pennant, a team must win the LCS. You can lose the division and still win the WS due to the WC, but IMHO that’s not a bad thing. Some of the best runs have come from teams that didn’t win their Division — Bosox in ’04, for instance.[/quote]

    My mistake. But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.[/quote]

    Nah, they’d still screw it up. They’d call tails, then this would happen:
    http://www.youtube.c...
    And of course, each time they’d still call tails.[/quote]
    Again: http://www.youtube.c...

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”392827″]I like that. How about Mexico City and Havana? That would stir up some interest.[/quote]

    Now THAT’S an idea! Screw expanding north (sorry, Canada). South of the border is where it’s at, baseball-wise. That’d do wonders for restoring US/Cuba relations plus it’d pump a whole lotta dough into the regional economies… and the drug cartels. Dammit, why does real-life always have to screw everything up?

  • Jim P | June 3, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    New logo for Las Vega Locomotives officially unveiled today by the UFL:

    http://www.ufl-footb...

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”392831″][quote comment=”392829″][quote comment=”392821″][quote comment=”392819″][quote comment=”392816″][The wild card is a sham to keep interest up in more cities. In St. Louis it renders the whole season an exhibition. With Pulous, the Cards will make the playoffs one way or another. Why pay attention to a mid season game? When it comes to what used to be the pennant race, a team can lose the pennant ans still make the W,S. What a scam.[/quote]

    Wait… lose the pennant and still make the WS? To win the pennant, a team must win the LCS. You can lose the division and still win the WS due to the WC, but IMHO that’s not a bad thing. Some of the best runs have come from teams that didn’t win their Division — Bosox in ’04, for instance.[/quote]

    My mistake. But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.[/quote]

    Nah, they’d still screw it up. They’d call tails, then this would happen:
    http://www.youtube.c...
    And of course, each time they’d still call tails.[/quote]
    Again: http://www.youtube.c...

    Speaking of screwing up…

    Fine, look for Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Part 1 on youtube. 3 minutes and 37 seconds into it is the clip.

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”392827″]I like that. How about Mexico City and Havana? That would stir up some interest.[/quote]

    well, i was thinking more like US cities without a major league team

    like portland, las vegas or baltimore

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”392830″]I’m enjoying this debate immensely, Marc and my productivity at work is suffering as a result :-)

    If what you’re arguing is that this incident should be the tipping point for expanded replay, then I’m all in favor. It’s an idea whose time has come. It’s incumbent upon MLB to make sure that the system is consistent and that it works the way it should, though. (Don’t ask me what that looks like, but Jayson Stark had some good suggestions over on ESPN).
    If you’re arguing that it should be the tipping point for expanded replay AND that it should be enacted retroactively to console Galarraga and get Jim Joyce off the hook, then I disagree. What’s past is prologue.[/quote]

    LOL! I have no work orders on my desk today, hence my prolific posting. Ditto on diggin’ the debate!

    I’m kinda 50/50 on what you’re saying… I believe MLB could use this particular incident as a starting point to reverse blown calls in extraordinary circumstances. Odds are it won’t happen since there’s a need for the typical “studies,” “focus groups” and all that other business-centric horsesh!t to cover up their inability to just make a dang decision.

  • Cort | June 3, 2010 at 1:20 pm |

    Thank you for the Memorial Stadium story. It was beautifully written, and beautifully told.

    It underscores two great truths about the old stadia: they were built on a human scale, integrated into neighborhoods; and they were part of the community. Forty years from now, no one is going to be telling stories like these about Minute Maid Park or Safeco Field or even Camden Yards: in their Epcot Center meets Albert Speer combination of drippy nostalgia and contrived eccentricity and hubristic scale, they are designed to appeal to corporations, not communities.

    Also, has their ever been a better example of graceful sportsmanship than Armando Galarraga? His response after the game was remarkable, pure class.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”392835″][quote comment=”392827″]I like that. How about Mexico City and Havana? That would stir up some interest.[/quote]

    well, i was thinking more like US cities without a major league team

    like portland, las vegas or baltimore[/quote]

    LOL… Baltimore. I feel for ya, Oriole fans.

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”392834″]
    Speaking of screwing up…

    Fine, look for Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Part 1 on youtube. 3 minutes and 37 seconds into it is the clip.[/quote]

    here ya go jim

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”392833″]New logo for Las Vega Locomotives officially unveiled today by the UFL:

    http://www.ufl-footb...

    In… ter… es… ting. It might help if they’d made it so it were actually legible. About the only thing I kinda like is that it echoes the Las Vegas sign everyone recognizes (just not enough)… but why’d they have to pull the leg of that star so far outta joint?

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 1:28 pm |

    Again, please call the Pirates and ask them to make the currant high cuffed team look permanate. I know if they lose one game its back to the ‘don’t trip’ style.
    The number is ” 412-323-5000. Thanks.

  • JL | June 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    For the Wilco fan among us (if you haven’t already seen it)…
    Wilco sponsoring little league teams.

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”392835″][quote comment=”392827″]I like that. How about Mexico City and Havana? That would stir up some interest.[/quote]

    well, i was thinking more like US cities without a major league team

    like portland, las vegas or baltimore[/quote]

    Oh!

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm |

    Is it coincidence that on the day MLB sees an almost perfect game an almost perfect player hangs em up?

  • JTH | June 3, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”392839″][quote comment=”392834″]
    Speaking of screwing up…

    Fine, look for Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Part 1 on youtube. 3 minutes and 37 seconds into it is the clip.[/quote]

    here ya go jim[/quote]
    Y’know, Jim…

    Since you figuring out how to code an anchor tag is probably not gonna happen, you really should start using tinyURLs.

    Woulda made that youtube link of yours into something you could copy and paste:

    http://tinyurl.com/3...

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”392828″][quote comment=”392825″]does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be? absolutely

    still say MLB should actually add two teams and have 4 divisions of 4 teams each (like football)…and dump the wild card and interplague[/quote]

    Your quote “does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be?”, to me, is the whole reason why the WC was a great idea. When it was 4 divisions, September baseball more often than not sucked unless you were a Yankee fan (it always sucked in Cleveland, but that was my rant yesterday).

    I wouldn’t mind the 8 division idea, but who gets stuck with the Yanks and Sox? The AL East is, to me, the perfect argument FOR the WC… even tho it usually ends up being one or the other of those sonsabitches.[/quote]

    I think that’s the big reason for the wild card – so the Yanks and Sox can face each other in the postseason. Because, after all, we just don’t see enough of them in the regular season…

    As for me, I’d rather have four divisions. And even though I’ll probably go see the Nats play the Indians, I’m with Phil on dumping interleague and the wild card. Get back to a schedule that makes sense, too.

    Win your division. Doesn’t matter if the other divisions are weaker (they might be stronger – your record might be from coasting in an easy division, after all). Just win your division. It’s the truest test of a champ in an imperfect world.

    As for the wild card making for exciting baseball, that’s only true up to a point. You can miss out on a lot of exciting baseball if you skip a game between two teams that have been out of it for months. You can also see a lot of bad games between two contenders. In fact, sometimes the wild card can lead to heightened expectations, which can lead to disappointment when a pretender starts to show its true colors down the stretch.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”392785″]Ricko, not sure I get your point about “styles change.”

    People may have complained about stirrups being too high, but no one complained about stirrups PER SE… i.e. no one in the 60’s was saying, “Stirrups look like crap, players should really be wearing their pants down over their cleats, like pajamas.”

    Fifty years from now, do you think baseball fans will be looking back fondly on the pajama uniforms?

    -Jet[/quote]

    No, but a lot of people DID say, “Why are they wearing stirrups anyway; they no longer serve a purpose?” (said during the ribbon stripe era).

    Those inside the game obviously decided the game was evolving away from stirrups. That became apparent the moment MLB teams began issuing solid color tube socks to the players. The currently high-cuffed Pirates players did not go buy their socks at the local Sport Authority. Those non-stirrups are team issue.

    Because teams rarely issue stirrups, and give players the option of wearing team-supplied solid color tubes instead, I think we can rightly infer that baseball itself no longer considers stirrups an essential part of the uniform. If they did, they’d be issuing only stirrups, wouldn’t they? That would be part of the uniform. I mean, all those high-cuffed Pirates also would be stirrupped Pirates, right?

    That being the case, it seems wrong to heap all the blame on the players.

    Not saying I agree…saying look at it from all angles…and that things DO change. And apparently they have.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”392845″][quote comment=”392839″][quote comment=”392834″]
    Speaking of screwing up…

    Fine, look for Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Part 1 on youtube. 3 minutes and 37 seconds into it is the clip.[/quote]

    here ya go jim[/quote]
    Y’know, Jim…

    Since you figuring out how to code an anchor tag is probably not gonna happen, you really should start using tinyURLs.

    Woulda made that youtube link of yours into something you could copy and paste:

    http://tinyurl.com/3...

    Baby steps, James.

    Phil’s helped drag me into the 21st century. After I start learning how to tweak on photoshop, maybe I’ll look into that.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    Mariners had a huge white “24” on the infield dirt behind 2b last night.

    Was gonna mention it and forgot.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

    OK, thanks to Phil, let’s put it all together:

    [quote comment=”392829″][quote comment=”392821″]But my point was a team dosen’t even have to win their division to make the playoffs. Why not just flip a coin? Maybe the Pirates would win the World Series.[/quote]

    Nah, they’d still screw it up. They’d call tails, then this would happen:[/quote]

    [quote comment=”392839″]here ya go jim[/quote]

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 1:53 pm |

    Moving along, it would depend on how the numbers looked on the back, but I just might wear that plaid French soccer jersey:
    http://farm5.static....
    I’d prefer argyle, though.

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”392847″]

    No, but a lot of people DID say, “Why are they wearing stirrups anyway; they no longer serve a purpose?” (said during the ribbon stripe era).

    [/quote]

    they also said, “why are we wearing buttondowns?”

    and then you got this this beautiful look

    sometimes, it’s NOT always about player comfort…they’re pretty comfortable in the bank account

    im sure not every bank president & lawyer wouldn’t prefer to go to work in their pajamas or sweats, since they’d be much more comfortable too

    i know where you’re coming from rick, so im not trying to just GYSFGYSS (give you shit for…), but there has to come a point where the uniform, despite it’s anachronisms and perceived uncomfortableness, is respected

    im sure we could tell two teams apart (after all, the true function of a uniform) if one were in blue sweats and the other were in gray sweats

    not everything is about player comfort

    sometimes it’s actually about respect for the history and tradition of the uniform

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”392847″][quote comment=”392785″]Ricko, not sure I get your point about “styles change.”

    People may have complained about stirrups being too high, but no one complained about stirrups PER SE… i.e. no one in the 60’s was saying, “Stirrups look like crap, players should really be wearing their pants down over their cleats, like pajamas.”

    Fifty years from now, do you think baseball fans will be looking back fondly on the pajama uniforms?

    -Jet[/quote]

    No, but a lot of people DID say, “Why are they wearing stirrups anyway; they no longer serve a purpose?” (said during the ribbon stripe era).

    Those inside the game obviously decided the game was evolving away from stirrups. That became apparent the moment MLB teams began issuing solid color tube socks to the players. The currently high-cuffed Pirates players did not go buy their socks at the local Sport Authority. Those non-stirrups are team issue.

    Because teams rarely issue stirrups, and give players the option of wearing team-supplied solid color tubes instead, I think we can rightly infer that baseball itself no longer considers stirrups an essential part of the uniform. If they did, they’d be issuing only stirrups, wouldn’t they? That would be part of the uniform. I mean, all those high-cuffed Pirates also would be stirrups Pirates, right?

    That being the case, it seems wrong to heap all the blame on the players.

    Not saying I agree…saying look at it from all angles…and that things DO change. And apparently they have.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’m a sturrup fan, but it leaves too much up to the player as to how to wear them. The players say they’re uncomfortable and I remember the feeling of she strip under my feet. Full socks would be fine with me if high cuffs were made a rule and they would put some stripes back on them.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”392849″]Mariners had a huge white “24” on the infield dirt behind 2b last night.

    Was gonna mention it and forgot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    So now it’s gotten to the point where they’re memorializing the living?

  • Bernard | June 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”392818″][quote comment=”392817″][quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.[/quote]

    The result would certainly be extraordinary, but it’s still just a regular-season game. As I said in my original post, if you’re going to retroactively overturn judgement calls, I think you’ll have the 1985 Cardinals and 1996 Orioles waiting in line to have their complaints heard. Those calls arguably changed the result of the World Series and ALCS, respectively.[/quote]

    To me, the difference between those two incidents and what happened last night is that reversing last night’s blown call would not change the result of the game. It wouldn’t even change the score. If Cleveland had gone on to rally in the top of that inning, take the lead and win the game, and THEN they decided to reverse it, that would be different, and I would be against reversing the call. But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?

  • JTH | June 3, 2010 at 2:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”392848″][quote comment=”392845″][quote comment=”392839″][quote comment=”392834″]
    Speaking of screwing up…

    Fine, look for Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Part 1 on youtube. 3 minutes and 37 seconds into it is the clip.[/quote]

    here ya go jim[/quote]
    Y’know, Jim…

    Since you figuring out how to code an anchor tag is probably not gonna happen, you really should start using tinyURLs.

    Woulda made that youtube link of yours into something you could copy and paste:

    http://tinyurl.com/3...

    Baby steps, James.

    Phil’s helped drag me into the 21st century. After I start learning how to tweak on photoshop, maybe I’ll look into that.[/quote]
    Well, my suggestion was undercut by the fact that I didn’t even link to the tinyurl homepage but rather to an error page. Nice.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”392855″]But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?[/quote]

    Excellent point!

  • JTH | June 3, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”392852″]
    they also said, “why are we wearing buttondowns?”
    [/quote]
    I’m pretty sure no MLB team has ever worn button-downs.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”392855″]

    To me, the difference between those two incidents and what happened last night is that reversing last night’s blown call would not change the result of the game. It wouldn’t even change the score. If Cleveland had gone on to rally in the top of that inning, take the lead and win the game, and THEN they decided to reverse it, that would be different, and I would be against reversing the call. But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?[/quote]

    So if it doesn’t change the outcome of the game (cue Herm Edwards, “You play to WIN THE GAME!) where’s the impetus to change the call? If you can name all 20 pitchers who threw perfect games (and I’ll spot you Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay) without looking it up, then I’ll change my tune. If it’s the historical notoriety for Armando Galarraga that you’re concerned with, I believe that he’s already gotten more notoriety with the way his “imperfect game” ended than the vast majority of the guys who actually threw perfectos (Exhibit B. would be Harvey Haddix)

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 2:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”392856″][quote comment=”392848″][quote comment=”392845″]Since you figuring out how to code an anchor tag is probably not gonna happen, you really should start using tinyURLs.

    Woulda made that youtube link of yours into something you could copy and paste:

    http://tinyurl.com/3...

    Baby steps, James.

    Phil’s helped drag me into the 21st century. After I start learning how to tweak on photoshop, maybe I’ll look into that.[/quote]
    Well, my suggestion was undercut by the fact that I didn’t even link to the tinyurl homepage but rather to an error page. Nice.[/quote]

    Hey, as Armando Galrraga said, no one’s perfect…

    Thanks. I’m saving this for future reference.

  • scott | June 3, 2010 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”392837″]
    It underscores two great truths about the old stadia: they were built on a human scale, integrated into neighborhoods; and they were part of the community. Forty years from now, no one is going to be telling stories like these about Minute Maid Park or Safeco Field or even Camden Yards: in their Epcot Center meets Albert Speer combination of drippy nostalgia and contrived eccentricity and hubristic scale, they are designed to appeal to corporations, not communities.[/quote]

    The stories will be different 40 years from now, but I’m sure people will still be telling them. It’s like Bob Costas talking about walking on the field of old Yankee Stadium to exit the park. Sure, today’s kids may not have that story to tell their grandkids about new Yankee Stadium, but I’m sure they’ll have some amazing story that they can relate. This is baseball, after all, where every previous era is better than the one we’re currently in.

  • Flip | June 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”392844″]Is it coincidence that on the day MLB sees an almost perfect game an almost perfect player hangs em up?[/quote]

    Nice sentiment. Interesting that on this site, no one has chimed in on how Junior introduced the goofy backward cap look. Perhaps, like today’s lead-in post, it was because it exhibited a genuine enthusiastic love for the game.

    As for how MLB handles — or doesn’t handle — Armando Galarraga’s perfect game, I’m thinking we’ll remember it far, far longer than the other perfect games this season. And since there’s no juice any longer in the batter’s box, who’s to say there won’t be another one or two?

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”392857″][quote comment=”392855″]But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?[/quote]

    Excellent point![/quote]

    No it’s not. There were no changes to box scores in any of those games. It’s not like they went back and took away Andy Hawkins’ no-hits allowed performance vs. the White Sox by giving Robin Ventura a hit. They just took those handful of games off of a list.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”392852″][quote comment=”392847″]

    No, but a lot of people DID say, “Why are they wearing stirrups anyway; they no longer serve a purpose?” (said during the ribbon stripe era).

    [/quote]

    they also said, “why are we wearing buttondowns?”

    and then you got this this beautiful look

    sometimes, it’s NOT always about player comfort…they’re pretty comfortable in the bank account

    im sure not every bank president & lawyer wouldn’t prefer to go to work in their pajamas or sweats, since they’d be much more comfortable too

    i know where you’re coming from rick, so im not trying to just GYSFGYSS (give you shit for…), but there has to come a point where the uniform, despite it’s anachronisms and perceived uncomfortableness, is respected

    im sure we could tell two teams apart (after all, the true function of a uniform) if one were in blue sweats and the other were in gray sweats

    not everything is about player comfort

    sometimes it’s actually about respect for the history and tradition of the uniform[/quote]

    I didn’t mention anything about comfort. Didn’t get into the why, just the what. And pointed out that things DO change, and that when they do many have found them not so good.

    Also, in earlier comments, I have mentioned that for 50 years or more MLB players have be able to, unless their TEAM says otherwise, do pretty much as they wish from the knees down.

    Discussing requiring shorter pants and/or stirrups MLB-wide is much like, in its tiny baseball-centric way, the discussion of uniforms in public schools. Kind of what’s involved, in its tiny baseball-centric way–is taking back something that previously has been given.

    Although in the case of schools there are more issues than just “everyone should look alike.”

    —Ricko

  • concealed78 | June 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”392791″]
    I think the chances for overreaction are slim and none. Selig has always regarded himself as a steward of the game and to make such a dramatic reversal flies in the face of everything he has stood for in his tenure.
    Besides, what kind of a precedent does that set? Will Cardinals fans want to go back and replay the 9th inning of game 7 of the 1985 World Series (Denkinger admitted to blowing that call)? Orioles fans want to revisit the “Jeffrey Maier Game” (Ditto Rich Garcia)?
    The effect and affect of such a ruling is not a Pandora’s Box that Mr. Selig will want to open, nor should he even be willing to.[/quote]

    Except there is some MLB precedence (George Brett’s pine tar bat). And Bud Selig true to his word? Almost everything he says is against his nature. Wild Cards, Instant Replay, new stadiums bring winning teams, teams relocating, team contraction, Interleague Play, home field advantage decided by the All Star Game, dissolved designated league umpires, replacement players. Traditionalist my ASS. He sold out for the almighty dollar. He changed things that didn’t need changing.

  • Bernard | June 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”392859″][quote comment=”392855″]

    To me, the difference between those two incidents and what happened last night is that reversing last night’s blown call would not change the result of the game. It wouldn’t even change the score. If Cleveland had gone on to rally in the top of that inning, take the lead and win the game, and THEN they decided to reverse it, that would be different, and I would be against reversing the call. But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?[/quote]

    So if it doesn’t change the outcome of the game (cue Herm Edwards, “You play to WIN THE GAME!) where’s the impetus to change the call? If you can name all 20 pitchers who threw perfect games (and I’ll spot you Dallas Braden and Roy Halladay) without looking it up, then I’ll change my tune. If it’s the historical notoriety for Armando Galarraga that you’re concerned with, I believe that he’s already gotten more notoriety with the way his “imperfect game” ended than the vast majority of the guys who actually threw perfectos (Exhibit B. would be Harvey Haddix)[/quote]

    I suppose I can see what you’re saying, but to carry your point a little further, why (if you’re only playing to WIN THE GAME), why keep record of the final score? If all that matters is the W or L, shouldn’t that be all that’s in the books?

    I’m not concerned at all with the notoriety of the achievement; I’m concerned with the historic significance of the achievement. He earned something that only 20 other people out of 8 bazillion games have ever earned, only thanks to a mistake that everyone acknowledges, it will never be recorded as such. I think it should be okay to give him what he earned.

  • Christopher | June 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm |

    My thoughts:

    The reason we don’t know NFL officials beyond the main ref is they get very little screen time, and most fans probably don’t know which official made what call.

    In baseball and basketball (I don’t know much NHL)… its patently obvious who made the call.

    Also, MLB and the NBA allow their umps/refs to talk to the media (a big mistake in my opinion).

    Finally, in the NBA, judgement/bad calls are much more frequent. Refs become notorious. I’m a Bulls fan, and I still know exactly what the “Hue Hollins Game” is.

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”392857″][quote comment=”392855″]But they didn’t, so if MLB can wipe no hitters off the books (1991), why can’t they make this one right?[/quote]

    Excellent point![/quote]

    Since I’m sure others were wondering the same I was …

    http://www.baseball-...

    (paraphrasing) A no hitter has to be 9+ innings now. If your defense stinks, and they error in a run while you’re on the road, and you never pitch that bottom of the ninth, no no-no for you! Same for rain-shortened games.

    Now … if there’s a hurricane, and you’re shuttled 1,500 miles to a park 90 miles from your competition’s home field with little to no sleep … oh well! THAT’S an official no-no!

  • concealed78 | June 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”392854″][quote comment=”392849″]Mariners had a huge white “24” on the infield dirt behind 2b last night.

    Was gonna mention it and forgot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    So now it’s gotten to the point where they’re memorializing the living?[/quote]

    Jr. Griffey put the M’s on the map. They’d probably be in St. Petersburg right now if not for him. A bit over the top, but he is the best player they ever had, and I guess that’s how MLB is now.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”392865″]

    Except there is some MLB precedence (George Brett’s pine tar bat). And Bud Selig true to his word? Almost everything he says is against his nature. Wild Cards, Instant Replay, new stadiums bring winning teams, teams relocating, team contraction, Interleague Play, home field advantage decided by the All Star Game, dissolved designated league umpires, replacement players. Traditionalist my ASS. He sold out for the almighty dollar. He changed things that didn’t need changing.[/quote]

    We covered this earlier, the Pine-Tar Incident is not analogous because it reversed a call that was made by incorrectly applying a rule, NOT a judgement call.

    I never said Selig was a traditionalist or anything about being “true to his word”. I said he was a steward of the game, meaning that he the things he acts on HE feels are in the best interest of promoting the game, putting money in the pockets of the owners (his bosses, don’t forget!) while still remaining true to the spirit and the history of the game. There’s a huge difference.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”392868″]
    Now … if there’s a hurricane, and you’re shuttled 1,500 miles to a park 90 miles from your competition’s home field with little to no sleep … oh well! THAT’S an official no-no![/quote]

    Carlos Zambrano, party of one, your table is ready . . .

  • rpm | June 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    i have nothing to say but *tears*.

  • Jeff | June 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    Joe Hilseberg said:

    [quote comment=”392759″]To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.[/quote]

    I feel much the same way about Milwaukee County Stadium. Seeing Miller Park and going inside Miller Park hasn’t ever been the same.

  • Bernard | June 3, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”392852″]

    i know where you’re coming from rick, so im not trying to just GYSFGYSS (give you shit for…), but there has to come a point where the uniform, despite it’s anachronisms and perceived uncomfortableness, is respected

    [/quote]

    Precisely why I’ve long been lobbying for this:

    http://www.nursebrok...

    to return to this:

    http://www.uab.edu/h...

    Or, you know… something similar.

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 2:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”392864″]
    I didn’t mention anything about comfort. Didn’t get into the why, just the what. And pointed out that things DO change, and that when they do many have found them not so good.

    Also, in earlier comments, I have mentioned that for 50 years or more MLB players have be able to, unless their TEAM says otherwise, do pretty much as they wish from the knees down.

    [/quote]

    true that…

    but the DO regulate the uniform in other ways…such as you can’t wear your cap backwards (although flat brims are ok), and you can’t play with your shirt untucked

    i’ve NEVER argued for a sock and/or stirrup requirement, only that a team look uniform…i just pine for the days when that look included stirrups and for a few teams, socks with stripes

    should mlb regulate pant length (other than they can’t be pulled underneath your cleat?

    no, they shouldn’t have to

  • mike 2 | June 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm |

    Talking about anonymous referees and officials, it wasn’t all that long ago that NHL referees and linesmen still wore their names on their jerseys.

    This:

    http://blog.nj.com/d...

    changed to this:

    http://blog.nj.com/d...

    Mostly I don’t mind it. If I have any reason to know the referee’s name, it probably wasn’t a very good game.

    Most of the officials whose names we do know liked being the centre of attention too much and didn’t realize nobody was coming to the game to see THEM.

  • mike 2 | June 3, 2010 at 3:01 pm |

    F’ed up the second link

    http://photos.upi.co...

    In any event, no prizes today for identifying the circumstances of the first photo.

  • GoTerriers | June 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”392877″]F’ed up the second link

    In any event, no prizes today for identifying the circumstances of the first photo.[/quote]

    But if there were prizes a dozen doughnuts would be appropriate!

  • Chris in Nashville | June 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

    Here is an odd way for Everton to show off their new away kits for next year…

    http://deadspin.com/...

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”392879″]Here is an odd way for Everton to show off their new away kits for next year…

    http://deadspin.com/...

    Wow. I think Toffees are giving the Seattle X-Boxes a run for their money on the eyesore of the year table.

  • joe | June 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”392812″][quote comment=”392810″]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he’s all about “stewardship”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole “This Time It Counts” think is assinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?[/quote]
    exactly, the A/S game is an exhibition, but butt selig has it determining HF advantage for the biggest stage in baseball.

  • Dane | June 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm |

    Red Wings goaltender Jimmy Howard trying out a new catching glove yesterday:

    http://mlb.mlb.com/v...

  • joe | June 3, 2010 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=\”392814\”][quote comment=\”392813\”][quote comment=\”392812\”][quote comment=\”392810\”]

    yeah, bud is a steward of the game, changes the A/S game, realignes the divisions, allows TV to dictate when games are played in NOVEMBER! he\’s all about \”stewardship\”[/quote]

    The A/S Game is an exhibition, so who really cares (and yes, that means I think the whole \”This Time It Counts\” think is assinine). The other stuff you mention is all about $$$$ . . . there\’s a difference between growing the bottom line and stewarding the fabric and nature of the game. Why do you think it took so long for an obvious improvement like instant replay even its present, limited format?[/quote]

    I dunno… introducing the wild card and interleague play kind of affect the nature of the game. Love the wild-card (loooooong overdue), hate Interleague play (a novelty at best).[/quote]

    But both of those things were introduced as a means to \”grow the game\” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce\’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don\’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    a ball or strike is a judgment call (unless they can project a strike zone at the front edge of the plate to make it a hard line thing), fair or foul, and if a guy is safe or out is not judgment, its black or white.

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 3:22 pm |

    Re: Bud’s Wildcard.

    I don’t mind the idea, it’s the horrendous 5 game series that gets to me. Baseball goes through 162 (sometimes 163) games to get to the playoffs – only to have 6 months of work possibly be decided in 27 innings? Totally goes against the nature of the season.

    There’s no enough advantage given to the teams that performed the best over the span of the season. Sure they get homefield, but a hot pitcher in the other dugout can negate that immediately.

    The 5 game series levels the playing field for the #4, who by all rights should be at severe disadvantage for not winning their division.

  • joe | June 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”392818″][quote comment=”392817″][quote comment=”392814″]But both of those things were introduced as a means to “grow the game” (read: turn a profit). Reversing Joyce’s call, while it would be a popular decision, would then open an avenue for any team who gets shafted by a judgement call to call for a play to be overturned. I just don’t think Selig has an appetite to go there.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. But this particular call has extraordinary ramifications, does it not? This is not your run-of-the-mill game, but rather an historic occasion that deserves recognition as such.[/quote]

    The result would certainly be extraordinary, but it’s still just a regular-season game. As I said in my original post, if you’re going to retroactively overturn judgement calls, I think you’ll have the 1985 Cardinals and 1996 Orioles waiting in line to have their complaints heard. Those calls arguably changed the result of the World Series and ALCS, respectively.[/quote]

    except in this case, there is no chance that if the ruling was change it would have affected the end result of the game. if the call was made correctly in the first place the game would have ended. the only difference if the call was changed would be the batter in question averaged is corrected down to what it should be and the next batter never come to the plate.

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

    The AllStar/HF connection is a joke too. You’re allowing an exhibition game to have an actual bearing on your sports championship?!?! Sheer lunacy!

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”392873″]Joe Hilseberg said:

    [quote comment=”392759″]To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.[/quote]

    I feel much the same way about Milwaukee County Stadium. Seeing Miller Park and going inside Miller Park hasn’t ever been the same.[/quote]

    After the final game at Met Stadium, after the Vikings had lost to the Chiefs 10-6, after the fans had swarmed from the stands, climbed all over the scoreboard, ripped up the turf and taken whatever could be taken from the box seats and loges and mezzanine, after all the hardware and signage that could be manually removed had been manually removed…

    …the young woman sportswriter from St. Cloud whose seat was next to mine in the press box all season walked with me among rows and rows of rubble and broken glass, about halfway up from the first base dugout. I looked around, then up at the upper decks and the gloomy gray early Winter sky. It was SO quiet because most everyone was gone.

    “What are you thinking?” she asked.
    “I’m thinking how much of my childhood is in this place.”

    —Ricko

  • Mike Engle | June 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, you know I respect you, but I don’t buy your “individuality” argument for one second. There’s already a huge individuality factor built into the uniform, and it’s on every player’s and coach’s back. Hard to miss. (And yes, even the Yankees have it.) So you don’t need to futz with pant tailoring, bagginess, or inseam length.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”392888″][quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, you know I respect you, but I don’t buy your “individuality” argument for one second. There’s already a huge individuality factor built into the uniform, and it’s on every player’s and coach’s back. Hard to miss. (And yes, even the Yankees have it.) So you don’t need to futz with pant tailoring, bagginess, or inseam length.[/quote]

    Then you’re choosing to deny how it’s been for 50 years. A lot of people here are very good at that, btw.

    Again, not supporting anything, just saying, “Look at the world as it is…and as it has been for half a century.”

    If “uniformity” truly is the issue then we should be telling the high-cuffed Yankees to go to ankle length because they don’t look like the rest of the team.

    We should be congratulating the Red Sox, because I don’t believe any of them show any sock anymore. They’re the “Red Sleeves” now.

    We should be damning Brendan Ryan, Barry Zito and others for being “look at me” mavericks (just as people did the “high stirrup” players). If there is no rule regarding pants and stirrups, then style and prevalence–or the preference of the most players on a given team–is what defines the current standard.

    What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”

    Well, we can, but we’d sound pretty dumb.

    —Ricko

  • Tony | June 3, 2010 at 4:12 pm |

    Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?

  • Jeff | June 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”392887″][quote comment=”392873″]Joe Hilseberg said:

    [quote comment=”392759″]To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.[/quote]

    I feel much the same way about Milwaukee County Stadium. Seeing Miller Park and going inside Miller Park hasn’t ever been the same.[/quote]

    After the final game at Met Stadium … “I’m thinking how much of my childhood is in this place.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I miss the Met, too, and I was just an occasional visitor from Wisconsin for Twins games.

  • Chris from Carver | June 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”392889″][quote comment=”392888″][quote comment=”392760″]I’d love to see more players wear their pants shorter. And wear stirrups. And even some individual teams make it their rule like the Big Red Machine did.

    But I also love that since the early ’60s when Willie Mays started tapering his pants and he and Frank Robinson started extending their stirrups, it has been possible for many people to recognize many players almost instantly—in person, on TV or in a highlight—by the way they chose to wear their pants and socks.

    And that’s still fun today. Brendan Ryan can be ID’d immediately, as can Brad Penny, Barry Zito, Juan Pierre, Reed Johnson and many others. So can many of the excessively pajama-ed players.

    It isn’t about changing the rules, because none exist (other than pants extending under the heel is a no-no). And it isn’t about creating a rule where none has existed. Ever.

    What we’re going through is a period where the current style preferred by players isn’t popular with a lot of people. Especially here. For those of us who were around at the time, we heard similiar moaning about stirrups “pulled up so high they might as well not bother wearing them.”

    I recall people griping about Scott Ericson, the Twins pitcher who was the first that I remember to swap stirrups for solid dark socks beneath his almost-ankle length pants. They said he looked like he was wearing his office socks (because no white showed).

    Styles change. On the street and on the playing field. In the Bobby Jones era all golfers wore knickers. Wilt Chamberlain played in really short shorts. Whatever happened to knee pads in football? Those things are style, not changing the game at all. Because the don’t alter the game, they CAN change. And they do. Pretty much always.

    Shoot, an old guy I know used to grumble about Ty Cobb managing to “get 4,000 hits without batting gloves or stripes on his shoes.”

    The point? I’d really hate to see MLB go to Uni Cops like the NFL. I liked being able to pick out Tito Fuentes back then. I’ve always liked being about to pick out Jim Thome. And, for better or worse, I like being able to pick out Manny Ramirez.

    That element has been part of the game for close to 50 years now. How can no one have noticed that?

    It’s like the weather here in Minnesota. Don’t like it, just wait a while, it’ll change.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, you know I respect you, but I don’t buy your “individuality” argument for one second. There’s already a huge individuality factor built into the uniform, and it’s on every player’s and coach’s back. Hard to miss. (And yes, even the Yankees have it.) So you don’t need to futz with pant tailoring, bagginess, or inseam length.[/quote]

    Then you’re choosing to deny how it’s been for 50 years. A lot of people here are very good at that, btw.

    Again, not supporting anything, just saying, “Look at the world as it is…and as it has been for half a century.”

    If “uniformity” truly is the issue then we should be telling the high-cuffed Yankees to go to ankle length because they don’t look like the rest of the team.

    We should be congratulating the Red Sox, because I don’t believe any of them show any sock anymore. They’re the “Red Sleeves” now.

    We should be damning Brendan Ryan, Barry Zito and others for being “look at me” mavericks (just as people did the “high stirrup” players). If there is no rule regarding pants and stirrups, then style and prevalence–or the preference of the most players on a given team–is what defines the current standard.

    What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”

    Well, we can, but we’d sound pretty dumb.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    With regards to the Red Sox, none of them consistently wear their pants high. Here and there you’ll get a guy doing it, but depressing nonetheless.

  • mike 2 | June 3, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”392890″]Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?[/quote]

    The ump can do just about anything on the field. The only real remedy is a protest.

    I’d have loved this – Jim Joyce says “screw it, let me look at a replay” and then calls him out. What does Manny Acta do? Protest an illegal instant replay that resulted in a correct call and a perfect game? Not a chance.

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 4:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”392893″][quote comment=”392890″]Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?[/quote]

    The ump can do just about anything on the field. The only real remedy is a protest.

    I’d have loved this – Jim Joyce says “screw it, let me look at a replay” and then calls him out. What does Manny Acta do? Protest an illegal instant replay that resulted in a correct call and a perfect game? Not a chance.[/quote]

    Maybe that’s the answer… make any call (except balls and strikes) eligible for replay… at the umpire’s discretion. Or would that bruise egos?

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”392875″][quote comment=”392864″]
    I didn’t mention anything about comfort. Didn’t get into the why, just the what. And pointed out that things DO change, and that when they do many have found them not so good.

    Also, in earlier comments, I have mentioned that for 50 years or more MLB players have be able to, unless their TEAM says otherwise, do pretty much as they wish from the knees down.

    [/quote]

    true that…

    but the DO regulate the uniform in other ways…such as you can’t wear your cap backwards (although flat brims are ok), and you can’t play with your shirt untucked

    i’ve NEVER argued for a sock and/or stirrup requirement, only that a team look uniform…i just pine for the days when that look included stirrups and for a few teams, socks with stripes

    should mlb regulate pant length (other than they can’t be pulled underneath your cleat?

    no, they shouldn’t have to[/quote]

    Maybe they SHOULDN”T have to but they DO have to.

  • JTH | June 3, 2010 at 5:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”392894″][quote comment=”392893″][quote comment=”392890″]Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?[/quote]

    The ump can do just about anything on the field. The only real remedy is a protest.

    I’d have loved this – Jim Joyce says “screw it, let me look at a replay” and then calls him out. What does Manny Acta do? Protest an illegal instant replay that resulted in a correct call and a perfect game? Not a chance.[/quote]

    Maybe that’s the answer… make any call (except balls and strikes) eligible for replay… at the umpire’s discretion. Or would that bruise egos?[/quote]
    Implement a challenge system, kinda like the NFL. Each manager gets one challenge. If he challenges and he’s right, he can challenge again. If he’s wrong, no more challenges.

    Automatic ejection/possible suspension for a manager who argues a call after an unsuccessful challenge.

  • JimWa | June 3, 2010 at 5:10 pm |

    How odd. MLB is going to do the right thing …

    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Shane | June 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm |

    Vancouver MLS franchise to unveil logo June 8th.

  • BurghFan | June 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm |

    “Paperless tickets require buyers to make purchases with credit cards and then swipe the card at the venue for entry. Opponents say such tickets are difficult to pass on to a friend or family member.”

    I used this system at a couple of Cavalier playoff games. The person at the turnstiles confirms that your entire party is there, swipes the card, and the swiping machine prints out a “seat locator” for each person on glossy paper that identifies the seat location but says “THIS IS NOT A TICKET.” This, for all intents and purposes, is your ticket stub.

    I think the primary purpose of this system is to make sure that any resale is through the official secondary market that the team gets a piece of.

    FAQs about the mechanics of the system that Cleveland uses.

  • BurghFan | June 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm |

    “What are you thinking?” she asked.
    “I’m thinking how much of my childhood is in this place.”

    Not just childhood….

    Great contribution from Mr. Kimmerlein.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 5:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”392895″][quote comment=”392875″][quote comment=”392864″]
    I didn’t mention anything about comfort. Didn’t get into the why, just the what. And pointed out that things DO change, and that when they do many have found them not so good.

    Also, in earlier comments, I have mentioned that for 50 years or more MLB players have be able to, unless their TEAM says otherwise, do pretty much as they wish from the knees down.

    [/quote]

    true that…

    but the DO regulate the uniform in other ways…such as you can’t wear your cap backwards (although flat brims are ok), and you can’t play with your shirt untucked

    i’ve NEVER argued for a sock and/or stirrup requirement, only that a team look uniform…i just pine for the days when that look included stirrups and for a few teams, socks with stripes

    should mlb regulate pant length (other than they can’t be pulled underneath your cleat?

    no, they shouldn’t have to[/quote]

    Maybe they SHOULDN”T have to but they DO have to.[/quote]

    That’s pretty much my point. According to WHO do they have to? And what standard/benchmark should they use? If we use the last 50 years or more for the standard, we’ll see that it’s exactly what they do now.

    If we want to go back in time and set a standard based on 1955, then I suppose we could opt for that, too.

    One just seems a tad more realistic than the other, that’s all.

    —Ricko

  • marc | June 3, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”392901″]If we want to go back in time and set a standard based on 1955, then I suppose we could opt for that, too.

    One just seems a tad more realistic than the other, that’s all.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Exactly.

    TO THE TIME MACHINE!!!

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

    Let’s imagine the NBA with a prescribed length for shorts.

    Or would it be a range?
    “Shorts shall be no longer than just above the knee, and no shorter than mid-thigh where the lower end of the hamstring and groin muscle kinda meet the lower part of the upper leg on the inside, y’know, long enough so there’s no chance of anyone seeing anything that looks like a baby bird.”

    Yeah, that’s workable.

    We often talk here about how uniforms have evolved through the years. That’s well and good.
    But we have to remember…by definition, evolution never stops.

    —Ricko

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 5:44 pm |

    Majestic unveiled the Yankee player designed apparel yesterday.

    For everyone who’s wondered what Yankee alts might look like:
    Blue home jersey by Joba
    Blue away jersey by Swisher
    Blue w/red BP jersey by Tex

    Swish’s came out the best.

  • Mike Engle | June 3, 2010 at 5:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”392904″]Majestic unveiled the Yankee player designed apparel yesterday.

    For everyone who’s wondered what Yankee alts might look like:
    Blue home jersey by Joba
    Blue away jersey by Swisher
    Blue w/red BP jersey by Tex

    Swish’s came out the best.[/quote]
    Hmmm, I’m a Yankees fan, and I’d almost wear some of those selections. Actually, if I received that as a gift, I’d pray the tags were still attached so I could get store credit towards a more traditional pinstriped Yankees jersey.
    –Mike Engle, NOT Jim Vilk.

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 6:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”392905″][quote comment=”392904″]Majestic unveiled the Yankee player designed apparel yesterday.

    For everyone who’s wondered what Yankee alts might look like:
    Blue home jersey by Joba
    Blue away jersey by Swisher
    Blue w/red BP jersey by Tex

    Swish’s came out the best.[/quote]
    Hmmm, I’m a Yankees fan, and I’d almost wear some of those selections. Actually, if I received that as a gift, I’d pray the tags were still attached so I could get store credit towards a more traditional pinstriped Yankees jersey.
    –Mike Engle, NOT Jim Vilk.[/quote]

    Right on, brother. I brought up the topic of Yankee alternate tops recently, and some thought the Yanks were “above” wearing alternates, which I don’t understand. Those two options for game action are just fine, another option would be a white alternate, sans pinstripe, utilizing the logo on the chest.

  • JWin | June 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

    On a site where we celebrate dressing well (as we see it)in athletics, I have enjoyed all of the comments about the Detroit incident last night. That the unfortunate call in Detroit allowed both men to show their true character is something I will remember, probably longer than a perfect game.

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 6:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”392901″][quote comment=”392895″][quote comment=”392875″][quote comment=”392864″]
    I didn’t mention anything about comfort. Didn’t get into the why, just the what. And pointed out that things DO change, and that when they do many have found them not so good.

    Also, in earlier comments, I have mentioned that for 50 years or more MLB players have be able to, unless their TEAM says otherwise, do pretty much as they wish from the knees down.

    [/quote]

    true that…

    but the DO regulate the uniform in other ways…such as you can’t wear your cap backwards (although flat brims are ok), and you can’t play with your shirt untucked

    i’ve NEVER argued for a sock and/or stirrup requirement, only that a team look uniform…i just pine for the days when that look included stirrups and for a few teams, socks with stripes

    should mlb regulate pant length (other than they can’t be pulled underneath your cleat?

    no, they shouldn’t have to[/quote]

    Maybe they SHOULDN”T have to but they DO have to.[/quote]

    That’s pretty much my point. According to WHO do they have to? And what standard/benchmark should they use? If we use the last 50 years or more for the standard, we’ll see that it’s exactly what they do now.

    If we want to go back in time and set a standard based on 1955, then I suppose we could opt for that, too.

    One just seems a tad more realistic than the other, that’s all.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    And what if they decide to wear their hats sideways. It wouldn’t look any worse than the wrinked or bell botton pants. Or maybe you think there’s no such thing as looking ‘sharp’ on the field, that its all up to the players. I can’t even watch the highlights on the news anymore they look like SHIT!

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm |

    Thought of something recently concerning the use of the name of cities on visiting MLB uniforms. I could be wrong, but it appears the Phillies and Angels are the only two current teams to never have their city/state names on a road jersey. It’s a little unusual for the Angels, since they’ve been around since the 1960s. But the Phils have been in existence much longer than that, and it seems strange “Philadelphia” has never appeared on a jersey.

  • Skycat | June 3, 2010 at 6:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”392869″][quote comment=”392854″][quote comment=”392849″]Mariners had a huge white “24” on the infield dirt behind 2b last night.

    Was gonna mention it and forgot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    So now it’s gotten to the point where they’re memorializing the living?[/quote]

    Jr. Griffey put the M’s on the map. They’d probably be in St. Petersburg right now if not for him. A bit over the top, but he is the best player they ever had, and I guess that’s how MLB is now.[/quote]
    Now that Jr. has retired, perhaps we can retire the backward baseball cap which he popularized.
    http://www.theonion....

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 6:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”392889″]What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”[/quote]

    A line that deserves a mention all by itself.

    Yeah, I’d like to see things a certain way, too, but as I’ve said in the past, I’m also in favor of a little leeway. If you have some things set in stone (shirts tucked in, no backward hats, etc.) then there are other things you can let slide within reason. It’s like raising kids – you can’t micromanage everything or else you’ll just fuel their sense of rebellion.

    Look at the NFL. They have the uni police and all those goofy rules, and players still break them. What’s a few tens of thousands of dollars to some of these multimillionaire look-at-me players? Yeah, you’ll get a journeyman player to follow the rules, but not the big stars, unless they want to.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”392905″][quote comment=”392904″]Majestic unveiled the Yankee player designed apparel yesterday.

    For everyone who’s wondered what Yankee alts might look like:
    Blue home jersey by Joba
    Blue away jersey by Swisher
    Blue w/red BP jersey by Tex

    Swish’s came out the best.[/quote]
    Hmmm, I’m a Yankees fan, and I’d almost wear some of those selections. Actually, if I received that as a gift, I’d pray the tags were still attached so I could get store credit towards a more traditional pinstriped Yankees jersey.
    –Mike Engle, NOT Jim Vilk.[/quote]

    I’d wear those, but like Mike, I’d take store credit (for another team in my case) instead.

    I like sleeve patches, but that second jersey has a little too much going on there.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”392903″]Let’s imagine the NBA with a prescribed length for shorts.[/quote]

    Oh, I do…
    http://www.detroitps...

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 6:56 pm |

    If you call not wear[quote comment=”392911″][quote comment=”392889″]What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”[/quote]

    A line that deserves a mention all by itself.

    Yeah, I’d like to see things a certain way, too, but as I’ve said in the past, I’m also in favor of a little leeway. If you have some things set in stone (shirts tucked in, no backward hats, etc.) then there are other things you can let slide within reason. It’s like raising kids – you can’t micromanage everything or else you’ll just fuel their sense of rebellion.

    Look at the NFL. They have the uni police and all those goofy rules, and players still break them. What’s a few tens of thousands of dollars to some of these multimillionaire look-at-me players? Yeah, you’ll get a journeyman player to follow the rules, but not the big stars, unless they want to.[/quote]

    I don’t call not wearing the full uniform ‘within reason’. I don’t consider looking like you’re going to trip on your own pants ‘within reason’.
    I don’t see NFL players wearing long wrinkled pants. They all look uniform.They have a commissioner who has some sense of propriety.
    If the baseball players want to look like their hip hop idols, they should become rappers. At $10,000,000 a year they could conform to the traditional look of baseball players.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”392910″]Now that Jr. has retired, perhaps we can retire the backward baseball cap which he popularized.[/quote]

    Ah, yes, who could forget that classic look?
    http://seattletimes....

  • jesse | June 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”392909″]Thought of something recently concerning the use of the name of cities on visiting MLB uniforms. I could be wrong, but it appears the Phillies and Angels are the only two current teams to never have their city/state names on a road jersey. It’s a little unusual for the Angels, since they’ve been around since the 1960s. But the Phils have been in existence much longer than that, and it seems strange “Philadelphia” has never appeared on a jersey.[/quote]Thought the Angels had Los Angeles and or California on their jerseys, once upon a time.

  • JimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 7:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”392914″]If you call not wear[quote comment=”392911″][quote comment=”392889″]What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”[/quote]

    A line that deserves a mention all by itself.

    Yeah, I’d like to see things a certain way, too, but as I’ve said in the past, I’m also in favor of a little leeway. If you have some things set in stone (shirts tucked in, no backward hats, etc.) then there are other things you can let slide within reason. It’s like raising kids – you can’t micromanage everything or else you’ll just fuel their sense of rebellion.

    Look at the NFL. They have the uni police and all those goofy rules, and players still break them. What’s a few tens of thousands of dollars to some of these multimillionaire look-at-me players? Yeah, you’ll get a journeyman player to follow the rules, but not the big stars, unless they want to.[/quote]

    I don’t call not wearing the full uniform ‘within reason’. I don’t consider looking like you’re going to trip on your own pants ‘within reason’.
    I don’t see NFL players wearing long wrinkled pants. They all look uniform.They have a commissioner who has some sense of propriety.
    If the baseball players want to look like their hip hop idols, they should become rappers. At $10,000,000 a year they could conform to the traditional look of baseball players.[/quote]

    NFL players all look uniform. Yeah.
    So Al Harris http://www.stlouisra... and Larry Fitzgerald http://swamigp.files... look just like Peyton Manning http://z.about.com/d... and Chris Hovan? http://www.tampabay....

    The NFL talks a big game, but they look just as non-uniform as MLB. Sometimes worse. Not saying Peyton looks bad, by the way – he was the “proper” in-between look from the other guys.

    You want to get rid of the hip-hop look? Then you have to get the overall culture to embrace the next big look. You sound just like the guys who decried the big hair and mustaches of the 60s and 70s. Those seeped in from the culture of the times, just as “proper uniforms” were a reflection of the more conformist times of the 30s-50s. Unfortunately, baggy pants are part of the scene now, and it’s a little too late to rein in the players, who shrug the fines off by saying, “Ah, pocket change. I’m an individual.”

  • Chris from Carver | June 3, 2010 at 7:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”392916″][quote comment=”392909″]Thought of something recently concerning the use of the name of cities on visiting MLB uniforms. I could be wrong, but it appears the Phillies and Angels are the only two current teams to never have their city/state names on a road jersey. It’s a little unusual for the Angels, since they’ve been around since the 1960s. But the Phils have been in existence much longer than that, and it seems strange “Philadelphia” has never appeared on a jersey.[/quote]Thought the Angels had Los Angeles and or California on their jerseys, once upon a time.[/quote]
    They had Los Angeles on their roadies from 1961-64. Since then, nada.

  • Ben Fortney | June 3, 2010 at 7:18 pm |

    Was digging for something else, but just can’t pass up sharing another look at the classics

  • jim greenfield | June 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”392917″][quote comment=”392914″]If you call not wear[quote comment=”392911″][quote comment=”392889″]What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”[/quote]

    A line that deserves a mention all by itself.

    Yeah, I’d like to see things a certain way, too, but as I’ve said in the past, I’m also in favor of a little leeway. If you have some things set in stone (shirts tucked in, no backward hats, etc.) then there are other things you can let slide within reason. It’s like raising kids – you can’t micromanage everything or else you’ll just fuel their sense of rebellion.

    Look at the NFL. They have the uni police and all those goofy rules, and players still break them. What’s a few tens of thousands of dollars to some of these multimillionaire look-at-me players? Yeah, you’ll get a journeyman player to follow the rules, but not the big stars, unless they want to.[/quote]

    I don’t call not wearing the full uniform ‘within reason’. I don’t consider looking like you’re going to trip on your own pants ‘within reason’.
    I don’t see NFL players wearing long wrinkled pants. They all look uniform.They have a commissioner who has some sense of propriety.
    If the baseball players want to look like their hip hop idols, they should become rappers. At $10,000,000 a year they could conform to the traditional look of baseball players.[/quote]

    NFL players all look uniform. Yeah.
    So Al Harris http://www.stlouisra... and Larry Fitzgerald http://swamigp.files... look just like Peyton Manning http://z.about.com/d... and Chris Hovan? http://www.tampabay....

    The NFL talks a big game, but they look just as non-uniform as MLB. Sometimes worse. Not saying Peyton looks bad, by the way – he was the “proper” in-between look from the other guys.

    You want to get rid of the hip-hop look? Then you have to get the overall culture to embrace the next big look. You sound just like the guys who decried the big hair and mustaches of the 60s and 70s. Those seeped in from the culture of the times, just as “proper uniforms” were a reflection of the more conformist times of the 30s-50s. Unfortunately, baggy pants are part of the scene now, and it’s a little too late to rein in the players, who shrug the fines off by saying, “Ah, pocket change. I’m an individual.”[/quote]

    As I posted earlier players should be allowed to wear their hair any way they want. It belongs to them. The uniforms belong to the team. 2 of them looked ridiculous but what was wrong with Manning?
    I don’t want to argue anymore. I grew up with baseball, Stan the Man and Harry Carry in St. Louis. I suffered through the pajama years, but if the Pirates don’t keep wearing the high socks, I’m through with the game untill the nest commish straightens things out. If he dosen’t I’ll live the rest of my life without seeing another game. I hate Albert Puhols, I hope he dies before he breaks any of Musial’s records.

  • ST3 | June 3, 2010 at 8:47 pm |

    Thanks for sharing the Memorial Stadium stories, John K – Loved reading about your adventures as a kid!

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”392918″][quote comment=”392916″][quote comment=”392909″]Thought of something recently concerning the use of the name of cities on visiting MLB uniforms. I could be wrong, but it appears the Phillies and Angels are the only two current teams to never have their city/state names on a road jersey. It’s a little unusual for the Angels, since they’ve been around since the 1960s. But the Phils have been in existence much longer than that, and it seems strange “Philadelphia” has never appeared on a jersey.[/quote]Thought the Angels had Los Angeles and or California on their jerseys, once upon a time.[/quote]
    They had Los Angeles on their roadies from 1961-64. Since then, nada.[/quote]

    My bad, I guess that leaves the Phillies as the only team. Not a big deal of course, but one of weird uniform quirks. I wonder if any Phillies fans out here remember if this question has come up. I think it could work with the current font, it just would have to be slightly smaller to fit across the chest.

  • scott | June 3, 2010 at 9:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”392906″]
    Right on, brother. I brought up the topic of Yankee alternate tops recently, and some thought the Yanks were “above” wearing alternates, which I don’t understand.[/quote]

    Why don’t you understand it? Like the Yankees, the Tigers, Cardinals and Dodgers are also above wearing alts, and so should teams like the Red Sox and Reds. Traditional teams should not be wearing alts. Period.

  • jimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”392920″][quote comment=”392917″][quote comment=”392914″]If you call not wear[quote comment=”392911″][quote comment=”392889″]What I’m saying is, we can’t really say “We want uniformity, but it damn well better only be OUR definition of uniformity.”[/quote]

    A line that deserves a mention all by itself.

    Yeah, I’d like to see things a certain way, too, but as I’ve said in the past, I’m also in favor of a little leeway. If you have some things set in stone (shirts tucked in, no backward hats, etc.) then there are other things you can let slide within reason. It’s like raising kids – you can’t micromanage everything or else you’ll just fuel their sense of rebellion.

    Look at the NFL. They have the uni police and all those goofy rules, and players still break them. What’s a few tens of thousands of dollars to some of these multimillionaire look-at-me players? Yeah, you’ll get a journeyman player to follow the rules, but not the big stars, unless they want to.[/quote]

    I don’t call not wearing the full uniform ‘within reason’. I don’t consider looking like you’re going to trip on your own pants ‘within reason’.
    I don’t see NFL players wearing long wrinkled pants. They all look uniform.They have a commissioner who has some sense of propriety.
    If the baseball players want to look like their hip hop idols, they should become rappers. At $10,000,000 a year they could conform to the traditional look of baseball players.[/quote]

    NFL players all look uniform. Yeah.
    So Al Harris http://www.stlouisra... and Larry Fitzgerald http://swamigp.files... look just like Peyton Manning http://z.about.com/d... and Chris Hovan? http://www.tampabay....

    The NFL talks a big game, but they look just as non-uniform as MLB. Sometimes worse. Not saying Peyton looks bad, by the way – he was the “proper” in-between look from the other guys.

    You want to get rid of the hip-hop look? Then you have to get the overall culture to embrace the next big look. You sound just like the guys who decried the big hair and mustaches of the 60s and 70s. Those seeped in from the culture of the times, just as “proper uniforms” were a reflection of the more conformist times of the 30s-50s. Unfortunately, baggy pants are part of the scene now, and it’s a little too late to rein in the players, who shrug the fines off by saying, “Ah, pocket change. I’m an individual.”[/quote]

    As I posted earlier players should be allowed to wear their hair any way they want. It belongs to them. The uniforms belong to the team. 2 of them looked ridiculous but what was wrong with Manning?
    I don’t want to argue anymore. I grew up with baseball, Stan the Man and Harry Carry in St. Louis. I suffered through the pajama years, but if the Pirates don’t keep wearing the high socks, I’m through with the game untill the nest commish straightens things out. If he dosen’t I’ll live the rest of my life without seeing another game. I hate Albert Puhols, I hope he dies before he breaks any of Musial’s records.[/quote]

    As I posted earlier, there was nothing wrong with Manning. He was the “just right” between Harris’ and Fitz’s bike shorts and Hovan’s super-slob look.

    Not wanting to argue either, but just want to point out – if you give up the game just because some of the players look sloppy, it’ll hurt you more than it’ll hurt them. And if you hope Pujols dies just because he wears pajama pants, you may want to reconfigure your priorities a bit.

    Nice unis are important to me, but they’re not the be-all-end-all. To be honest, when I went to a Pirates game last month (against the Braves) I didn’t really even notice if any players went with high pants or pajama pants. I was too busy watching the game and enjoying the surroundings.

    One more example before I shut up: I love college basketball but hate the System of Dress unis some Nike schools wear. Just can’t stand them. I watch anyway. And if I would have quit watching just because I didn’t like the way some teams looked, I would have missed one heck of a tournament.

  • jimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm |

    You know why they call it the NBA Finals instead of the NBA Championship Series?

    Because once it gets started, just about every one says, “FINALLly.”

    Both teams look good tonight. Classic green vs. yellow matchup.

    While I like college hoops better, the NBA wears its unis much better than the NCAA teams do.

    Go Lakers.

  • Komet17 | June 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”392825″]the wild card is a sham, but in lieu of an even number of divisions, there is nothing that can be done about it

    that was one of the great things about baseball that has also gone down the shitter — now, it’s just like any other sport; look at hockey — if the flyers don’t win the overtime shootout (a shootout to decide the playoffs — yep), the play golf 2 months ago…yet now they’re playing for the stanley cup

    if you’re going to let 8 (in baseball) teams into the playoffs, there’s a chance one (or two) of them won’t even win their division yet become world champs (like the marlins…2x — they’ve never won the NL east, but they have two WS rings)

    it’s worse in the other sports (football=12 teams in the post season and hockey/hoop=16)

    but the possibility of making the playoffs is what puts fannies in the seats and makes the bank for the owners once the season is over

    do i like the wild card? no…but there is no way we’re going to get rid of it (short of adding another division, or at least having an even number of divisions)

    does it make baseball exciting in september in a lot of places where it wouldn’t normally be? absolutely

    still say MLB should actually add two teams and have 4 divisions of 4 teams each (like football)…and dump the wild card and interplague[/quote]

    I think the National League should go to four divisions:

    – WEST: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona.

    – CENTRAL: Colorado, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee.

    – SOUTH: Houston, Florida, Atlanta, Cincinnati.

    – EAST: New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington.

    Schedule: 18 games against division opponents; 9 against non-division opponents; no interleague.

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 10:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”392923″][quote comment=”392906″]
    Right on, brother. I brought up the topic of Yankee alternate tops recently, and some thought the Yanks were “above” wearing alternates, which I don’t understand.[/quote]

    Why don’t you understand it? Like the Yankees, the Tigers, Cardinals and Dodgers are also above wearing alts, and so should teams like the Red Sox and Reds. Traditional teams should not be wearing alts. Period.[/quote]

    Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I just don’t see any rule prohibiting the practice, let’s not forget, the Cards have an alternate hat. Traditional teams like the Pirates have won a world title with alternate uniforms, so I see nothing wrong here. It’s worth noting the Bucs have won as many titles as the Reds, and one more than Detroit.

    I think the Tigers and Dodgers briefly wore an alternate jersey roughly a decade ago, and I just don’t think Ty Cobb or Jackie Robinson were turning over in their graves. We don’t want to get too serious here, tastefully done, alternates have a place in MLB. Besides, they give people like us additional fodder on this message board!

  • Komet17 | June 3, 2010 at 10:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”392887″][quote comment=”392873″]Joe Hilseberg said:

    [quote comment=”392759″]To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.[/quote]

    I feel much the same way about Milwaukee County Stadium. Seeing Miller Park and going inside Miller Park hasn’t ever been the same.[/quote]

    After the final game at Met Stadium, after the Vikings had lost to the Chiefs 10-6, after the fans had swarmed from the stands, climbed all over the scoreboard, ripped up the turf and taken whatever could be taken from the box seats and loges and mezzanine, after all the hardware and signage that could be manually removed had been manually removed…

    …the young woman sportswriter from St. Cloud whose seat was next to mine in the press box all season walked with me among rows and rows of rubble and broken glass, about halfway up from the first base dugout. I looked around, then up at the upper decks and the gloomy gray early Winter sky. It was SO quiet because most everyone was gone.

    “What are you thinking?” she asked.
    “I’m thinking how much of my childhood is in this place.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, this sounds like the opening paragraphs of the novel you’re writing…

  • jimV19 | June 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm |

    Because he took the high road, Armando Galarraga can now take to the road in style:
    http://sports.yahoo....

    Yeah, he deserves a perfect game, but this display of sportsmanship and class to me is an even better feel-good story.

    And yes, the way he handled himself means more to me than the way he wears his pants.

  • Gusto44 | June 3, 2010 at 10:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”392928″][quote comment=”392887″][quote comment=”392873″]Joe Hilseberg said:

    [quote comment=”392759″]To this day I can not bring myself to drive past the grounds where the stadium was on 33rd St. I will go out of my way to avoid it because I want to remember it as it was to me as a kid….the best place I’ve ever seen a baseball game.[/quote]

    I feel much the same way about Milwaukee County Stadium. Seeing Miller Park and going inside Miller Park hasn’t ever been the same.[/quote]

    After the final game at Met Stadium, after the Vikings had lost to the Chiefs 10-6, after the fans had swarmed from the stands, climbed all over the scoreboard, ripped up the turf and taken whatever could be taken from the box seats and loges and mezzanine, after all the hardware and signage that could be manually removed had been manually removed…

    …the young woman sportswriter from St. Cloud whose seat was next to mine in the press box all season walked with me among rows and rows of rubble and broken glass, about halfway up from the first base dugout. I looked around, then up at the upper decks and the gloomy gray early Winter sky. It was SO quiet because most everyone was gone.

    “What are you thinking?” she asked.
    “I’m thinking how much of my childhood is in this place.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, this sounds like the opening paragraphs of the novel you’re writing…[/quote]

    Not a Vikings fan, but Jim Marshall belongs in the Hall of Fame. His consecutive games streak for his position is very underrated.

  • Ricko | June 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm |

    Jim Greenfield said…

    “I hate Albert Puhols, I hope he dies before he breaks any of Musial’s records.”

    You know that line we aren’t supposed to cross, the one between rational and irriational thinking?

    Look behind you.

    —Ricko

  • Mike Engle | June 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm |

    For the first time all year (maybe the third, but whoever is counting would have a small number), I am watching the NBA. I’m used to seeing the special O’Brien Trophy alongside Jerry West logo on the Finals uniforms. This year, it’s different. Anybody have info on this?

  • Nick | June 3, 2010 at 10:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”392750″]In that 1917 White Sox pic, Eddie Cicotte has his jersey sleeves cut short, I’m assuming because he was a pitcher. Look at Pants Rowland, how baggy those long sleeves are (and with contrasting stripe at the wrist – nice)

    -Jet[/quote]
    Am I right to see that the American Flag is on BOTH sleeves? I can barely make it out on the right side player’s other sleeve. Isn’t that kinda rare?

  • inkracer | June 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

    No screenshot (I just saw it on TV) on USA Network’s summer hit Royal Pains, an NCAA black laced football is tossed around between the main characters.
    Figured i’d pass it along, since I remember seeing something on here about it earlier.

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 11:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”392933″][quote comment=”392750″]In that 1917 White Sox pic, Eddie Cicotte has his jersey sleeves cut short, I’m assuming because he was a pitcher. Look at Pants Rowland, how baggy those long sleeves are (and with contrasting stripe at the wrist – nice)

    -Jet[/quote]
    Am I right to see that the American Flag is on BOTH sleeves? I can barely make it out on the right side player’s other sleeve. Isn’t that kinda rare?[/quote]

    oh yes…on both sleeves

    here’s another shot — special world series home uni (back then the WS was best 5 of 9)

    im not at home, so i cant quickly find another 1917 (non WS pic), but i believe they wore that special WWI flag on both arms during the season as well (can’t tell from okkonen’s graphic)

  • LI Phil | June 3, 2010 at 11:30 pm |

    ok…found one

    joe jackson in 1917

    looks like that flag was just on the left sleeve

  • John K | June 4, 2010 at 12:05 am |

    Glad that everyone appreciated the Memorial Stadium stories. It was truly such a part of the landscape for us that I never considered our stadium exploits all that extraordinary.

    And HUGE thanks to Scott for the effort he put into the card image. I asked for the font, and got the whole facade. Very,very nice.

  • JimV19 | June 4, 2010 at 12:17 am |

    [quote comment=”392932″]For the first time all year (maybe the third, but whoever is counting would have a small number), I am watching the NBA. I’m used to seeing the special O’Brien Trophy alongside Jerry West logo on the Finals uniforms. This year, it’s different. Anybody have info on this?[/quote]

    Can’t tell for sure, but it looks like a gold basketball with “Finals” and the NBA logo on it.
    http://espn-i.starwa...
    Looks pretty good.

  • Mike Engle | June 4, 2010 at 12:41 am |

    [quote comment=”392938″][quote comment=”392932″]For the first time all year (maybe the third, but whoever is counting would have a small number), I am watching the NBA. I’m used to seeing the special O’Brien Trophy alongside Jerry West logo on the Finals uniforms. This year, it’s different. Anybody have info on this?[/quote]

    Can’t tell for sure, but it looks like a gold basketball with “Finals” and the NBA logo on it.
    http://espn-i.starwa...
    Looks pretty good.[/quote]
    Confirmed by the LA Lakers’ online store.
    http://lakersstore.c...
    My take: it looks good, but it’s a downgrade. I used to like the old logo. Same old Jerry West logo, but a nice, elegant juxtaposition with the trophy. The new patch looks kinda clunky in comparison, just like any World Series patch.

  • Josh Petty | June 4, 2010 at 4:21 am |

    [quote comment=\”392918\”][quote comment=\”392916\”][quote comment=\”392909\”]Thought of something recently concerning the use of the name of cities on visiting MLB uniforms. I could be wrong, but it appears the Phillies and Angels are the only two current teams to never have their city/state names on a road jersey. It\’s a little unusual for the Angels, since they\’ve been around since the 1960s. But the Phils have been in existence much longer than that, and it seems strange \”Philadelphia\” has never appeared on a jersey.[/quote]Thought the Angels had Los Angeles and or California on their jerseys, once upon a time.[/quote]
    They had Los Angeles on their roadies from 1961-64. Since then, nada.[/quote]

    That\’s incorrect. For a short time (02, 03) the Angels current uniform set featured a grey road uniform with \”Anaheim\” on the front. They participated in the World Series with those jerseys. I believe they switched to \”Angels\” on both after the whole Los Angeles of Anaheim thing.

    http://exhibits.base...

    http://exhibits.base...

  • Josh Petty | June 4, 2010 at 4:31 am |

    [quote comment=”392893″][quote comment=”392890″]Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?[/quote]

    The ump can do just about anything on the field. The only real remedy is a protest.

    I’d have loved this – Jim Joyce says “screw it, let me look at a replay” and then calls him out. What does Manny Acta do? Protest an illegal instant replay that resulted in a correct call and a perfect game? Not a chance.[/quote]

    I don’t remember the circumstances, the umpire(s), the teams involved, or even the year, but there was a Major Leauge umpire that used a television monitor to either verify or change a close call (again, I don’t remember any specifics). This was before baseball incorporated any kind of instant replay, well before if I remember correctly. For some reason I’m thinking early 2000s or mid to late 1990s. I do remember though that that umpire was suspended for his use of “instant replay.”

  • Josh Petty | June 4, 2010 at 4:56 am |

    [quote comment=”392941″][quote comment=”392893″][quote comment=”392890″]Like everyone else, I feel terrible about the Tigers game last night. But you can’t reverse a call after the game is over.

    My question is–can an ump change his mind after he makes a call? Couldn’t Joyce had conferred with the other umps then called the runner out? Prior to instant replay on HR calls, didn’t umps call suspicious HRs fair then reverse their decisions from time to time?[/quote]

    The ump can do just about anything on the field. The only real remedy is a protest.

    I’d have loved this – Jim Joyce says “screw it, let me look at a replay” and then calls him out. What does Manny Acta do? Protest an illegal instant replay that resulted in a correct call and a perfect game? Not a chance.[/quote]

    I don’t remember the circumstances, the umpire(s), the teams involved, or even the year, but there was a Major Leauge umpire that used a television monitor to either verify or change a close call (again, I don’t remember any specifics). This was before baseball incorporated any kind of instant replay, well before if I remember correctly. For some reason I’m thinking early 2000s or mid to late 1990s. I do remember though that that umpire was suspended for his use of “instant replay.”[/quote]

    This is from the Wikipedia article “Instant Replay in Baseball” – http://en.wikipedia....

    “Instant Replay in MLB actually had been used once before in the 1999 season during a Florida Marlins home game at Pro Player Stadium. This was the first instance in which instant replay was utilized in Major League Baseball. While playing the St. Louis Cardinals, Cliff Floyd hit a ball off of the top of the left field scoreboard. Originally ruled a double, then ruled a home run, NL Umpire Frank Pulli reverted the call back to a double, after consulting a TV monitor in the Marlins dugout. The Cardinals would win the game, 5-2, and the Marlins protested the use of the TV monitor. The National League Office declared the umpires erred in using Instant Replay, and the American League Office concurred that Instant Replay was not to be used in the future. However, the Marlins protest was denied on the grounds that it was a judgment call rather than a rules violation as such, and the play stood. MLB would not use Instant Replay again for almost a decade.”

    I swear it happened, but I’m not seeing anything about a suspension for the umpire. I guess I could be wrong, but I still seem to remember a short suspension.