Who to Root for in the World Series?

At this time of year, fans of 28 of Major League Baseball's teams are forced to take on the rooting interest of a team other than their own. Sometimes the decision who to root for is an easy one, like when the Series involves the Yankees (everybody hates the Yankees, except Yankees fans), or the Red Sox (almost everyone hates the Red Sox, except Red Sox fans and people who don't yet realize the same reasons to hate the Yankees pretty much apply to the Red Sox. Except the having won 1/4 of all World Series thing, of course).

Other times, it's a much more difficult decision—see 1986: seriously, who in their right mind was a fan of either of those teams? I'm sure the same could be said about 2009, but not by me, of course—or simply that one is indifferent to both teams. This year is certainly closer to the latter than the former for me, so I had to go through the following exercise to decide who I would root for.


Reasons to root for the Tigers:

• Haven't won a World Series since 1984. Not the longest drought there is, but certainly more time has passed compared to the last time the Giants won it.
• If your team has to lose, on some level, it's a little more satisfying when they lose to the eventual champion.
• There might be another Leaping Laird Internet phenomenon.
• I predicted Tigers over Giants in a contest on another blog, so I could win some kind of prize.
• The Giants' Brian Wilson is about as likable as the Beach Boys' Mike Love.
• The American League hasn't won a World Series since 2009.

Reasons to root for the Giants:

• My childhood best friend lives in San Jose and is a Giants convert. Considering he grew up a Yankees fan, I'm sure you'll approve.
• Marco Scutaro is on the Giants. Have I mentioned I used to be a big Scutaro fan (and may have once even created a MySpace page for him)? That is, until he signed with the Red Sox. I could easily return to being the President of his fan club.
• There are a few Tigers who either rub me the wrong way (Jose Valverde, Jim Leyland, Phil Coke, Miguel Cabrera) or are just genuinely unlikable (Delmon Young).
• I'm getting a little tired of teams who didn't even win 57% of their regular season games (2011 Cardinals, 2010 Giants, 2008 Phillies, 2006 Cardinals) winning the World Series.
• Cabrera's going to win the AL MVP and he might not even be the second most deserving candidate in the league (or the most deserving on his own team, for that matter).
• It would be rooting for the underdog and the team that had a more championship-worthy regular season all wrapped into one.
• Melky Cabrera's on the Giants.
• The American League hasn't won a World Series since the Yankees in 2009.

I guess I'm leaning towards the Giants, but I won't be crushed if the Tigers win it, especially considering my prediction. So, as has been the case with the last two World Series, I'm basically playing it by ear, and ultimately pulling for an exciting series. If one team falls behind by a couple games, I'll likely root for them to come back and make things interesting. Or, perhaps something that occurs during the series will make my mind up for me.

Happy World Series everyone!

Not Wild About (But Not Opposed to) the Idea of Additional Wild Cards

I hadn't really thought much about Major League Baseball's plan for expanded playoffs until a friend of the blog asked me my opinion on Twitter the other day. Said friend, who writes the Outfield Grass blog, is a Mariners fan, but not really in favor of the addition of one wild card per league to the current system. I didn't ask, but I can only assume this is the product of bit of a purist mentality, as he also admitted it would probably help his team. Well, in the long run at least.

Obviously, more teams in the playoffs is pretty much a boon to every team's chances of qualifying, but I thought about what teams might not benefit from such a system. Like I said, that consideration had yet to really cross my mind, but the answer was pretty obvious.

The first teams that popped into my head were the Yankees and Red Sox, of course, but also probably the Phillies. At least in the game's current economic state, which doesn't seem likely to change in the foreseeable future. Then, almost predictably, Phillies skipper Charlie Manuel made some old school remark hearkening back to the days when the best two teams would meet in the World Series. Or, something like that.

Although the two best teams playing in the Series wasn't really guaranteed even in the pre-division play days (the two best teams could conceivably be in the same league), I kind of get where he's coming from. But, adding one more wild card per league doesn't change anything for teams except those that wouldn't have made the playoffs in any system prior to the current one anyway. So, I don't see how it really changes anything for anyone who likes things the way they used to be.

This is not meant to be criticism directed at Manuel, but the playoffs have expanded twice since his utopian scenario existed, and the new change won't affect teams who win their divisions anyway. After the wild card play-in game, there will still be four teams remaining in each league. So, all else being equal, division winners will still have a 25% chance of reaching the World Series.

So, we're really talking about a system that will have the most negative effect on teams who are expected to make the playoffs every year, namely the Red Sox and Yankees. Although the Rays have thrown a wrench into those two teams' collective dominance of the AL East, it's not unrealistic to expect, even in the one wild card system, that most years the weaker of those two teams would qualify for the wild card. Meaning they'll now be subjected to one-game playoffs instead.

I guess what I'm kind of saying is it's a system most fans should be in favor of, since it really only adversely affects the two richest teams in the game, and maybe a few other "haves" as well.

But, as a Yankees fan, I'm really not complaining. I kind of like the idea, in theory, of more teams playing meaningful games right up to the end of season. I don't really love the idea of a one-game playoff. But, given that it will only affect teams who didn't win their divisions anyway, I don't see it as a terrible injustice.

Now, I can only assume that all ties for division championships will now have to be settled by one-game playoffs preceding such wild card games, even when the loser of such a game will still qualify for the wild card. It would seem unfair to settle such division deadlocks by tiebreaker, given the major advantage of making the playoffs as a division champ. I suppose this scenario could further delay the start of the playoffs for all other teams, and given that's a situation MLB is trying to avoid by making the wild cards play only one game rather than best-of-threes, this could potentially be another drawback.

Otherwise, my only major reservation with expanded playoffs is the concern that baseball is gradually going the way of hockey and basketball, where more than half the teams qualify for the postseason (16 of 30 in both sports, to be exact). But, in baseball's soon-to-be-implemented new system, we're still only talking about one-third (10 of 30), so I can live with that.

Just, let's not get any crazy ideas about expanding to 12 any time soon, OK?

Obstruction and Adrian Beltre's Foot

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

A few postseasons ago I wrote about the controversial call that wasn't, a play I thought should have been more of a controversy than it turned out to be. In contrast, this year's World Series included a somewhat controversial call that shouldn't have been. At least in my opinion, but not if you ask a couple bloggers who have since written about a play in game six they think was, or at least should be, against the rules.

If you're interested in completely digesting this subject, you can read those viewpoints at The Captain's Blog and The Platoon Advantage.

First of all, let me say both bloggers made some solid points in their posts and in subsequent discussions I engaged them in, either via comments or on Twitter. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't feel my own explanation of the play to be worth the effort.

As I said, the play in question occurred in game six of the World Series. In the bottom of the 6th inning, with the bases full of Cardinals and one out, Rangers catcher Mike Napoli picked St. Louis' Matt Holliday off third. But, replays showed Texas third baseman Adrian Beltre had used his foot to at least partially block Holliday's return path to the bag.

Both of the aforementioned bloggers claimed this was obstruction, that Beltre moved his foot there with the intention of blocking the base, not because he had to in order to receive the throw.

First of all, let me just say that when a fielder possesses the ball, he's allowed to be anywhere he pleases. It's really as simple as that. He has no obligation to yield any kind of "right of way" to the runner. By the same token, the runner, in this instance, has equal right of way as the fielder. As you're probably well aware, this is why there are occasional collisions between runners and fielders, although most of the time these occur at home plate.

To further illustrate "right of way," I'll discuss a hypothetical example not related to the play in question.

Imagine there's a runner on second base and a ground ball is hit to the shortstop, who is attempting to field it directly in the path of the runner. Up to the point the ball reaches the fielder, assuming he's in the act of fielding it, he has the right of way. That is, if the runner collides with him, it's interference on the runner.

But, if the ball passes through the shortstop's legs, for instance, and then the runner makes contact with him, it's obstruction on the fielder. In other words, if he's no longer in the act of fielding the ball, the fielder has no right to be in the runner's path at all.

However, if the shortstop is no longer in the act of fielding the ball because he has it securely in his glove or hand, the runner and fielder now have equal right of way.

This is a little confusing, I realize, but it's important to the Beltre-Holliday example because one point that's been made is Beltre planted his foot in the base path before he caught the throw. So, the question is, does this mean he's guilty of blocking the base without the ball and, therefore, obstruction?

The answer is no, and the explanation for this is that essentially Beltre does so at his own risk. If the throw gets away from him and Holliday makes contact with his body, he's then guilty of obstruction. Whether or not Holliday would be awarded home as a result is left to the umpire's judgment, but I'm not getting into that scenario.

The important point is it's not obstruction until the fielder impedes the runner (in this case, when contact is made), so since the throw was securely in Beltre's glove before Holliday slides into his foot, what Beltre did was perfectly legal.

As well it should be. Another point that was made is the fielder shouldn't be able to do this regardless. But, what we're potentially getting into here is trying to dictate where a fielder is allowed to be when receiving a throw and/or preparing to apply a tag. I don't think the rule book can possibly govern that.

I also don't think intent can be part of the equation. That is, did Beltre put his foot there with the intention of blocking the base? Is it obvious that the answer is yes to that question? I don't think so, but even if you do, is it not entirely possible to envision a scenario where the fielder moves his foot into the same position in the act of fielding the throw? Most importantly, though, do we really want to add a rule that requires the umpire to determine intent? There are a few such rules in the book right now, but it's my opinion these situations should be minimized, and I suspect most people would agree with me on that point.

So, where does this leave us? I think we can draw only one conclusion, and that's to say what Beltre did was completely within the rules, and it should remain that way.

Of course, I'm not trying to claim I'm in any way the final word on this subject. In fact, as I learned back in 2008 when I interviewed former Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School instructor, and operator of rulesofbaseball.com, Rick Roder, there are still sections of the rules that are gray enough that they're subject to different interpretations by different umpires. That fact remains a problem Major League Baseball has failed to address, but the obstruction rule does not fall into that category.

What if There Was Instant Replay (Part 2)?

I'm really reaching for controversies here, but I guess that's kind of a good thing, right? In Part 1, I discussed the Victor Martinez HBP controversy from game two of the ALCS. In this post, I'm going to discuss a couple of potential controversies that occurred late in the NLCS and early in the World Series.

In the top of the 9th of Wednesday night's game one of the World Series, Adrian Beltre topped a grounder off his left toe. Or, so it seemed. The ball really didn't significantly change direction, and home plate umpire Jerry Layne ruled it a fair ball as Cardinals third baseman Daniel Descalso threw Beltre out at first for the second out of the inning.

Replays weren't exactly conclusive either, but Fox's new infrared view apparently showed the ball had nicked Beltre's toe. So, if the infrared evidence is considered reliable enough, this one could have been overturned.

But, what I also think instant replay proved was that Beltre's reaction was instantaneous. That is, he immediately reacted as if the ball had hit him. Since I don't think there are any major league players—except maybe Derek Jeter—who are that good at acting, and because I know umpires are trained to go on the reactions of players in such situations, I think the replay would have been enough to overturn the call and give Beltre's at bat new life. 

Since there were no runners on base, but more importantly, since the potential reversal would result in a dead ball situation, this would have been an easy change to apply.

That one was easy, but I also want to go back a few days to game six of the NLCS. In the bottom of the 5th, with Carlos Gomez on third and no outs, Ryan Braun hit a slow bouncer to Albert Pujols at first. Pujols fielded the ball cleanly, but had to dive to tag Braun, who attempted a head-first slide into first. The ruling on the field was out, but one particular angle of the replay clearly showed Braun had beat the tag.

Since the runner from third had gone on contact, he had reached the plate by the time the play was made, so a reversal of the call would not have any effect on that outcome. The run would have scored whether Braun was safe or out. However, I'm going to play a little what-if game here.

The runner was Carlos Gomez, one of the fastest men in baseball. So, for the sake of example, let's suppose he was on first base instead of third, and that there were two outs instead of none. With the ball hit so slowly, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that the speedy Gomez would have rounded second and taken 2-3 steps toward third by the time the tag was applied on Braun. With Braun being called out—for the third out—in live action, there would be no reason for Pujols to concern himself with Gomez's attempted advance to third.

But, with the call being reversed after reviewing instant replay, the question would be, what to do with Gomez? There probably was no chance that Pujols, who had to dive to make the tag on Braun, would have been able to get back up and prevent Gomez from going to third, but the fact remains he was only a few steps past second at that moment. Is this another judgment the use of replay would force the umpires to make? This may not seem like a big issue, but once again, we're entering into dangerous territory here...settling one controversy, while potentially creating another.

I'm certainly not trying to throw a wet blanket over the concept of expanded use of instant replay in Major League Baseball. In fact, I'm 100% in favor of the idea. But, I suspect being able to work out all the potential complications that could be created, and to write these contingencies into the rule book, is a factor in how slow the commissioner's office has been to react.

What If There Was Instant Replay (Part 1)?

OK, I'm going to come right out and admit it. This is a part one that may not have a part two. What I mean is I've decided to take a look at controversial calls in baseball's postseason and discuss what would have happened in various related scenarios had there been a system of expanded instant replay in place in Major League Baseball.

Or, perhaps there won't be a part two until next year. I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

My first example wasn't really all that controversial in retrospect (it was made a moot point by Ryan Raburn's three-run homer that immediately followed), but it brought a manager out of the dugout, and was the subject of a question at the manager's post-game press conference, so that's enough for me.

In the top of the third inning of game two of the ALCS on Monday, a pitch appeared to hit Detroit's Victor Martinez in the foot. Well, at least by his reaction it did. But, it was initially unclear what the call was by home plate umpire Larry Vanover.

Vanover immediately appealed to first base umpire Jim Wolf to see if Martinez had swung at the pitch in question. My initial reaction was he had ruled Martinez was hit by the pitch, but had to determine if he'd swung or not (he hadn't) in order to decide if he should be awarded first base.

In hindsight, though, Vanover apparently did not rule it a hit by pitch. Amidst some confusion, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera came around to score from second as the ball got away from Texas catcher Mike Napoli.

The umpiring crew conferred and the play was ruled a hit by pitch, so Martinez was awarded first base and Cabrera had to return to second. Detroit manager Jim Leyland subsequently argued, and my initial reaction was he had no argument. His player—Martinez—by his body language had indicated the pitch hit him, and that was the ruling on the field. To me, at the time, Leyland was arguing because he decided a different outcome was more favorable to his team.

It wasn't until his post-game press conference that we learned what Leyland was complaining about. His beef, albeit a weak one, was he had never seen umpires confer to determine a hit by pitch. In the past, home plate umpires had always told him they couldn't get help on such a play, that other members of the crew would make the ruling immediately if they saw it.

But, back to the instant replay what-if scenarios. Assuming the initial ruling on the field was the ball had not hit Martinez and, most importantly, the play had not been ruled dead, the outcomes are pretty simple. If replay determines the ruling on the field was correct (i.e. no HBP), then all subsequent action is allowed. Martinez remains at the plate and Cabrera scores from second. If the replay ruling is it was an HBP, then the ruling is exactly what happened in the actual game: Martinez to first, Cabrera remains on second.

Things get complicated if the initial ruling on the field is that the pitch hit the batter. In that case, the play is ruled dead, and this makes it more difficult to correct if it is, in fact, an incorrect ruling. Obviously, if replay subsequently confirms the HBP call, Martinez gets first and Cabrera stays at second. But, if the replay determines the batter wasn't hit by the pitch, the question is what to do with Cabrera.

Assuming the play was ruled dead on the field, Cabrera's advance from second can't be allowed, no matter what the replay determination is. After all, the defense's efforts would have stopped when the ruling on the field was to call the play dead, so there is really no way to decide what would have happened otherwise.

This would be analogous to the fumble/no fumble ruling in football. In the NFL, if the whistle blows the play dead, there is no changing the call.

In our baseball example, however, the call would be changed from a hit by pitch to simply a ball, but the runner would have to stay on second. There's no way around that, in my opinion. I suppose the runner could be awarded a one-base advance in the umpire's judgment, assuming the ball legitimately got away from the catcher, but I think this would open up another can of worms. That is, using instant replay to get one call right, while creating another potentially debatable judgment call for the umpire to make.

While this is not the best example of such a play, it does point to the potential complications created by calls on the field resulting in the play being ruled dead. A foul ball that should have been ruled fair and a home run that shouldn't have been are a couple other examples.

Scenarios created by such situations will have to be worked out in order to make expanded use of instant replay in Major League Baseball an effective solution. I think it can be done, but it's just a little more difficult than most people think.

On a related note, one thing I would like to see is more explanation from the umpiring crew regarding calls requiring interpretations of rules that aren't common knowledge to fans. It's something they do in the NFL and, although I follow football much less than I do baseball, it seems to me NFL officials receive much less criticism than MLB umpires do.

Maybe a better understanding of some of the more controversial calls would help. I'm not suggesting this be done during the games, as in football, but perhaps requiring crew chiefs to explain such calls in post-game press conferences would be beneficial.

World Series or Bust?

This is a (slight) re-write of something I posted last year at about this time. Unfortunately, it's just as apt now as it was then.

Last year at around this time, I got to thinking about what constitutes a successful season for a sports franchise. Not from the perspective of players, coaches and front office personnel of the team, but from the point of view of the fans.

As spectators, what is our primary motivation for watching our favorite sports? I'm sure the answer varies a little from person to person, but I think the common denominator is entertainment. That is, we watch the games because they are enjoyable to us. Does it get any simpler than that?

Taking this a step further, why do we choose to follow a particular team, rather than just let ourselves be entertained by individual games in which we're less personally invested in the outcomes? I would assume the answers to that question vary a little more than the first, but, I think ultimately it boils down to increased entertainment level.

So, my point here is really to ask the question, is the only entertainment value associated with rooting for a specific team to witness them win a championship? If the answer is yes, then it's a pretty said state of affairs, because that means we spend 5-6 months a year worrying about an outcome that most likely will never happen.

I contend the answer, in fact, is no. We root for a specific team because it provides us with added entertainment value, and that value is measured on a spectrum, rather than being an absolute either/or proposition. That is, the more successful our team's season, the more entertainment value they've provided us with. If they kept us believing they had a chance to win a championship for over six months—and survived only a few weeks less than the most successful teams in the league—then they did a very good job of entertaining us.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not saying I'll ever take consolation in a season that simply exceeds expectations, especially when it comes to the Yankees. In fact, it could be argued that, since the Yankees can never truly exceed expectations—although this year might be the exception—that a little entertainment value is foregone just being a fan of theirs. But, that's a discussion for another day.

What I am saying is I'm not going to let myself get sucked into that 29-losers-and-only-one-winner mentality. I enjoyed my team's success for much of the season, despite being disappointed in its final outcome. In the end, though, it provided me with a great deal of entertainment, and—with all due respect—that's probably more than the fans of about 18 of Major League Baseball's 30 teams can say.

What Have You Done For Me Lately (Part 2)?

I don't have much more to say today than this.

Well, I want to, at least.

Congratulations to the Giants, and No Hard Feelings for the Eviction

Unless you really couldn't care less about baseball—in which case, you're probably not reading this—you're well aware that the San Francisco Giants are 2010 World Series Champions. This makes me happy on a number of levels, one of which I'll get to in a moment.

What you may or may not know is that the Yankees and the Giants used to share the same home. Actually, the Polo Grounds were the Giants' home, and the Yankees were their tenants. That is, until they were evicted in 1921. Yes, due to the overwhelming success at the box office the Yankees were experiencing—mainly as a result of the purchase of the popular Babe Ruth from the Red Sox—the Giants decided they had to go.

The Yankees and their fans hold no ill feelings towards the Giants regarding their actions, though. I suppose that would be like holding a grudge against your landlord who kicked you out of your $500/month apartment, when you're now living in a $10-million mansion. But, I digress.

The main reason I'm happy for this year's champions of the baseball world is that my mother's family were New York Giants fans. It's a special feeling that, less than two months after visiting my maternal grandfather's birthplace—the Tuscany region of Italy—the team he grew up rooting for wins its first World Series since leaving New York for the West Coast.

Now, I'm not so certain my grandfather would actually be happy for the Giants, as he was in the camp of those who were angry with them for moving, and was a Mets fan during the time I knew him. Still, I fondly recall hearing about his hero, Bill Terry, in addition to the amusing stories about him running from truant officers across Manhattan roof tops. I'm pretty certain, though, that my mom—a much more benevolent soul—would still be happy for the Giants, although she was also a Mets convert.

It's also hard not to like the current cast of characters that constitutes the 2010 San Francisco Giants. From likable veterans—Aubrey Huff, Édgar Rentería and Juan Uribe—to unassuming youngsters—Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner and Pablo Sandoval—as well as non-conforming individuals—Brian Wilson and Tim Lincecum—the Giants are a team that's easy to root for. Plus, I'd much rather see the citizens of San Francisco celebrate their team's first World Series victory than the folks from Dallas.

Here We Go Again

For the third consecutive year, I'm writing about umpiring controversies in Major League Baseball's postseason. The playoffs are only two days old, and already there have been four calls that are being talked about, and instant replay is—once again—a hot topic.

Unfortunately, two of the four calls being discussed cannot be addressed by the expanded use of instant replay. Those calls, of course, involved the non-strike call on Lance Berkman in game two of the Yankees-Twins series and the check swing call on Michael Young in game two of the Rangers-Rays series. Now, I suppose a check swing ruling could be reviewed, but I'm going to assume this falls into the category of ball-strike calls and—rightfully so—will not be considered reviewable.

So, let's focus on the two plays that potentially could have been reversed by the use of instant replay. Those plays are the Greg Golson catch/no-catch in game one of the Yankees-Twins series, and the stolen base attempt by Buster Posey in game one of the Braves-Giants series. The former had no impact on the game's outcome, while the latter controversial call led to the only run scored in a 1-0 Giants victory, although Tim Lincecum's masterful two-hit, one-walk, 14-strikeout performance probably played a part as well.

Both plays involved situations in which the calls could have been overturned seamlessly. In the case of the no-catch ruling on the Golson play, changing the on-field ruling would have resulted in the final out of the game, so there's no problem there. In the case of the steal attempt by Posey, since he was the only runner on base at the time, ruling him out rather than safe would have had no impact on any other action.

What I'm working up to here is that not all situations are going to be as easy. There are going to be instances when overturning the ruling on the field would be much more complicated, possibly to the point of not allowing the play to be reviewable.

The best way to illustrate this is with an example. Suppose there are runners at second and third, with one out, and a sinking line drive is hit in the direction of the second baseman. The umpire rules a catch as the second baseman gloves the ball, then fires to second in an attempt to double off the runner, but the throw is wild and deflects off the shortstop's glove into left-center field. Both runners score on the play, leaving the bases empty, two outs and two runs in.

The play is reviewed and the on-field call is overturned, as replays show the second baseman actually trapped the ball. What happens next? He never would have thrown to second had the initial ruling been that he had not caught the ball in the air, so you can't allow both runners to score. But, you also can't assume that he would have thrown the runner out at first, especially considering he threw wild to second. So, there's really nothing that can be done, in this case, to correct the umpire's mistake.

This is just one example, and plays like the one I've described here might not be all that common. But, this points to the fact that some calls are not going to be reversible. Given that it's important to be able to define such situations, this also underscores that such definitions aren't always that easy. This is a catch/no-catch call just as the previous Golson example is, but one that is much more complicated.

So, while I'm in favor of the expanded use of instant replay—not just for the postseason, but during the regular season as well—it's just not as easy as many would have you believe. Far be it from me to be a Bud Selig defender, but I feel this is why Major League Baseball has been slow to continue progress in this area.

I also believe, however, that they'll figure it out. I'll continue to be working on my solution. Who knows? Maybe I'll come up with a proposal that is worthy of being sent to the commissioner's office.

What's a Yankees Fan to Do? The Sequel

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post suggesting some ideas for how Yankees fans could fill the void created by a lack of October baseball. A few of my suggestions turned out to be good ones, although I got called out by a fellow Yankees loyalist for hinting that a Red Sox-Dodgers World Series would be a matchup worth pulling for.

This year, fans of the Bronx Bombers didn't have such problems. The Yanks won the World Series and all was right in their world, except for the fact that pretty much everyone has been insinuating—check that, complaining—that they purchased themselves a championship. Of course, no one was suggesting that they bought a third-place team last year, but that's not really my point.

Most of the Yankees fans I know are native New Yorkers, so they're fans of the team because they learned to be at an early age. But, as we've grown older, we've certainly had plenty of opportunities to switch loyalties. After all, most people would consider it more exciting to root for an underdog, a team whose success would create even more of a sense of euphoria.

So, if we're going to continue rooting for "The Evil Empire," we need to embrace all of the reasons why it's great to be a fan of the most hated team in baseball, maybe in the entire sporting world:

1. The first reason, of course, is that we are the Evil Empire. Seriously, folks, do you really enjoy pulling for the good guys? How much fun is that? If you were going to become a fan of professional wrestling, who would you cheer for? The bad guys, of course. Why? Because all the other idiots are rooting for the good guys, as they try to hang on to that out-dated belief that good always triumphs. It doesn't.
   
   
2. Spinning off #1, isn't it great to listen to everyone else whine that the Yankees are back on top? Could there possibly be any better evidence that, once again, all is right in the baseball world?
   
   
3. Let's not forget to mention that "The Curse of A-Rod" didn't last quite as long as "The Curse of the Bambino."
   
   
4. Last, but certainly not least, is the fact that our team spoiled the Red Sox claim to be the team of the decade. Despite eight AL East titles and four American League championships, it would be hard to argue against the Red Sox two World Series victories. But, two World Series, four AL pennants and eight AL East titles versus two World Series, two pennants and one division title? Maybe next decade, Sox fans.

Now, fellow Yankees fans, feel free to add your own reasons to this list. But, most importantly, I want you to go out and continue to enjoy an offseason—and subsequent 2010 campaign—during which your team is the defending champion. Just don't let me catch you wearing one of those silly "Got Rings?" t-shirts.

Common Misconceptions, Part 1

A couple of the umpiring controversies from this postseason, as well as last year's, got me to thinking about a post I originally planned to do over a year ago. Unless you're new here, you probably know that I attended Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School in 1994. My "dream" to become a professional baseball umpire died pretty quickly after that, but this and my 10+ years of umpiring experience give me a slightly different perspective than your average fan and/or amateur player.

So, the idea is to write about common baseball rules misconceptions. That is, interpretations of rules that, over the years, have come to be considered common knowledge, despite the fact that they may or may not be correct.

The first of these is possibly the most earth-shattering. Maybe you've heard the phrase "tie goes to the runner" a time or two before. Well, it's not true. First of all, the word "tie" isn't even mentioned in the rule book, except in reference to the score of a game. But, you probably knew that, and you probably could guess that no experienced umpire would ever use that as the reason to rule a runner safe, anyway. What you probably don't know is that, according to the rule book, whether or not a tie goes to the runner or the fielder actually depends on the circumstance.

I'll start with the situation that confirms our long-standing belief. Rule 6.05(j) states, "A batter is out when...after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base." The requirement that he or first base must be tagged before he reaches means that if the two events occur at the same time, the requirement is not satisfied. Therefore, he's not out. So, in this example, he's safe in the case of a tie.

However, rule 7.08(e) states, "Any runner is out when...he fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner." The requirement here is that he reaches the base before he or the base is tagged. Therefore, if the two events happen at the same time, the runner has failed to reach base before the tag, and he is out. So, in the case of a force play on a runner other than the batter-runner, according to the rules, the tie goes to the defensive team.

Now that I've covered the force plays, and thoroughly confused the issue, I still need to address tag plays. Well, rule 7.08(c) declares that, "Any runner is out when...he is tagged, when the ball is alive, while off his base." So, if he reaches the base at the same time as he is tagged, then he is not off base. Therefore, he is safe. In this case, once again, tie goes to the runner.

In two of the three relevant circumstances, tie does, in fact, go to the runner. However, this hardly reinforces our accepted understanding. So, does "tie goes to the runner" hold true, or does it really depend on the circumstances? Further muddying the issue is MLB.com's Ask the Umpire page. When asked about this particular rule, the umpire responds, "There are no ties and there is no rule that says the tie goes to the runner. But the rule book does say that the runner must beat the ball to first base, and so if he doesn't beat the ball, then he is out." This umpire is clearly wrong, unless the wording of the rule has been changed since this Q&A was written. The umpire in question, incidentally, is none other than Tim McClelland.

I do recall, though, being taught that the exception to the "tie goes to the runner" concept—so worded because I would be incorrect to call it a rule—is the play on the batter-runner at first base. That backs up what McClelland says, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to rush to judgment by saying he's flat-out wrong. But, the phrasing of the rule book does not reinforce my memory.

So, where does this leave us, and what wisdom do I think I'm imparting on my readers? That is, if any of them are still reading at this point. I guess it's that "tie goes to the runner" is a myth, and if anyone uses that phrase in your presence, you're now fully prepared to call them out on it.

Thrill vs. Agony, Part 2

I didn't intend to write a part two to this post—actually it's probably better described as an addendum—but a reference to it over on a site that I read regularly and contribute to irregularly, Pickin' Splinters, reminded me of another angle. That is, the idea that the success of one of your teams can go a long way towards softening the blow from the failure of another. A prime example of this is summed up by my current facebook status:

"I feel like a kid again...the Yankees are champions and the Giants suck."

Of course, this is not to mention the fact that the Rose Bowl hopes of my alma mater, Penn State, were crushed—as was the team—by Ohio State this past weekend, 24-7. Between that and the Giants' dismal loss to San Diego, which drops them to 5-4 after a 5-0 start, it was a pretty rough weekend for my football teams. But, it still doesn't feel all that bad.

Check back with me in a couple weeks on this one, though. I'll have a better idea by then how long this "honeymoon" will last.

The Thrill of Victory vs. The Agony of Defeat

Is it just me, or does every serious sports fan agonize over their teams' losses far more than they celebrate their wins? Only a few days after my team once again became champions of the baseball world, it already seems like old news. On the other hand, I'm still sometimes haunted by the memories of the 9th inning of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series (not to mention the 2004 ALCS). In fact, I still have that game on VHS, and for years I've been curious to go back and see if Scott Brosius really could have turned a double play on Jay Bell's failed sacrifice attempt, but I probably never will. Still, I never taped over it because it was the final game of one of the most exciting World Series in baseball history.

I sometimes wonder if Red Sox fans realized this after the 2004 World Series. A few hours of partying it up, a day of suffering through a terrible hangover, and one parade through the city later, and I'm pretty sure they discovered that their joy paled in comparison to the pain they felt from the previous season's ALCS loss and all the heartbreaks that came before. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

The pain of losing, of course, is only half the story. There's also the level of stress that we experience during and between games. As an example, just hours after the Yankees' impressive 9th inning versus Brad Lidge gave them a commanding 3-1 lead in this year's series, I woke up worrying that their plan of pitching Burnett, Pettitte and Sabathia on three days rest for Games 5 through 7 was going to backfire.

So, why is this? Why are we as fans better able to live vicariously through our teams' losses than their wins? Or, is it just me who feels this way? Lastly, if you do feel the same as I do, is it all worth it? I still say it is, although I'm not really sure I could explain why.

That said, I'll close this post with a list of my all-time top five favorite sports championships:

1. Super Bowl XLII (2008): New York Giants 17, New England Patriots 14
2. 1996 World Series: New York Yankees 4, Atlanta Braves 2
3. 1987 Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 14, Miami 10
4. Super Bowl XXV (1991): New York Giants 20, Buffalo Bills 19
5. 1980 Winter Olympics: USA Hockey Gold Medal

That Old Familiar Feeling

If you're at least a semi-regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm a New York Yankees fan, but that I write more about baseball in general than I do about the Yankees. So, I'm not going to turn into a cheerleader now and talk about how psyched I am that they finished their run to the World Series yesterday, ending a "drought" of eight seasons without winning one. But, the title of this post seems appropriate, this being their 27th championship overall and seventh during my lifetime.

I will say, though, that it didn't really feel all that special, other than the fact that KJ put aside her Red Sox loyalties and watched several of the games with me. It did feel a little more exciting than 1999, when the Yankees completed their second consecutive sweep of the World Series and it seemed they would never lose again. Of course, we know that they did—lose again, that is—and that they are far from achieving the status of dynasty again. But, they were expected to win, and when you're expected to win, it's just not as fun as when you're not. As far as I'm concerned, there probably will never be another 1996.

Then, there's the backlash I'm hearing and reading about, mostly from bitter fans of other teams who just can't seem to put the return of the World Series championship trophy to Yankee Stadium in perspective. I have no problem with Yankee haters. I've said before that I almost always root for the underdog, unless of course, the favorite is my team. So, I expect the rest of the country to root for the Yankees to lose. But, there are a lot of people out there who seem to be mad at the Yankees, as if they consider it their responsibility to make sure the playing field is level. I've got news for you, folks. If the Yankees limitless budget is ruining baseball—which it's not—then it's Major League Baseball's responsibility to do something about it.

Besides, if the past eight years have proven anything, it's that you can't buy a championship. You can buy a contender, and I won't try to dispute that's what the Yankees have been doing, but throwing money at players doesn't guarantee anything beyond that. I've also said this before, but I'm all for a salary cap in baseball. There are a lot of constraints making it difficult to imagine that it will ever happen, though. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the economics of baseball, but there will still be the "haves" and the "have-nots." There's no getting around that fact, and it shouldn't be news to Red Sox and Phillies fans that they're in the haves category, whether they want to cling to their idealized self-images as underdogs or not.

I'm not sure if I have a real point to make here. These are just my thoughts following the completion of a really interesting 2009 baseball season. It's hard to believe this was the outcome of the same season that I was writing things like this about superstitions. Let's also not forget that it was only April of 2008 that I was warning Red Sox loyalists against messing with a good thing. Maybe I was right about that.

Sorry Mets Fans

This year's World Series matchup, the realization of every Mets fan's worst nightmare, gave me an idea for an interesting list. Since the teams involved include one of their biggest division rivals, and their hated crosstown rivals, fans of New York's junior team are left with nothing to root for except injuries.

So, the list, of course, is of World Series showdowns involving two teams so despised by the fans of a third team. I decided to only go back as far as the beginning of the division play era (1969), as we all know there would be a very familiar theme if I went back further. Here's what I came up with, in reverse chronological order:

2004 (Boston Red Sox vs. St. Louis Cardinals): OK, so they don't hate the Red Sox, but Cubs fans had nothing to gain when these two teams faced off. They were either going to lose their partners in misery, or see their least favorite team win it all. I have to say that I'm happy for Chicago's north-siders that there's never been a Cardinals-White Sox World Series.

2002 (Anaheim Angels vs. San Francisco Giants): The Giants-Dodgers rivalry was so strong that it traveled 3,000 miles with them as both teams moved across the country in the late '50s. So, it certainly couldn't have made Dodgers fans happy when the Giants matched up with the team they battle with for Southern California supremacy.

1999 & 1996 (Atlanta Braves vs. New York Yankees): Lately, it seems that the Phillies are the team most hated by the Mets, but it used to be the Braves. So, these two teams squaring off in the '90s had to be at least as bad, if not worse, for Mets fans as this year's Phillies-Yankees series.

1988 & 1974 (Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Oakland Athletics): Giants fans probably didn't watch a second of either World Series in which their Bay area rivals opposed the hated Dodgers.

1986 (Boston Red Sox vs. New York Mets): This was to Yankees fans what White Sox-Cardinals would be to Cubs fans. I know from personal experience that the former group wasn't too enthusiastic about this one.

1981, 1978 & 1977 (Los Angeles Dodgers vs. New York Yankees): Back in the days when there were three teams in New York, it seems that just about every year it was either Dodgers fans or Giants fans who were miserable. Thankfully for the Yankees, a Dodgers-Giants World Series matchup was an impossibility.

If I'm missing any, feel free to let me know via comments. Unconventional criteria are encouraged.

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

Since it's the playoffs, and there was a controversial call this past weekend that wasn't strictly about the umpire's judgment, I thought I should chime in on the issue. Saturday night's ALCS game two call by umpire Jerry Layne on Erick Aybar's double-play-that-wasn't had the potential to result in serious controversy. Well, since the call went in favor of the hated Yankees, there probably will still be a lot of conspiracy theory discussion, but fortunately, it turned out to have no noticeable effect on the outcome of the game.

Layne was roundly criticized by FOX commentators Joe Buck and Tim McCarver for not allowing the "neighborhood play" on a potential 10th inning double play. The problem with the so-called neighborhood play is that, since there's no specific definition, the amount of leeway each umpire is willing to give would have to vary. To illustrate this by exaggeration, if Aybar had caught the flip from second baseman Maicer Izturis two feet from the bag, and clearly did not touch the base as he followed through to make the throw, I don't think any umpire would have given him the call. However, is it possible that one umpire would give a few more inches margin for error than another? Of course it is.

If we asked them, no major league umpire would admit that such a neighborhood play exists, but it may very well be that Layne gives the call as long as he doesn't see daylight between the foot and the bag. Of course, we'll never know. But, what we do know is that "in the neighborhood of the base" is not as easily defined as "touching the base."

Due to these potentially significant inconsistencies, I contend that the neighborhood play is a myth. The origin of the term is likely unknown, but its use certainly has been perpetuated by the sports media. Having been to professional baseball umpire school myself, I honestly don't recall how we were instructed to handle these calls. What I do know is that a major philosophy of umpiring is self-preservation.

Self-preservation, in this context, means not going out on a limb when it's unnecessary. Could Layne have gotten away with calling the runner out in this particular circumstance? Probably. So, did he go further out on the limb than he had to? Most likely. Did he properly define the unwritten rule that is commonly referred to as the neighborhood play? There's really no answer to that question.

The call that went against the Angels in last year's ALDS probably wasn't as controversial as I contended it should have been. Ironically, this call was much more controversial than it had the right to be, particularly considering it technically was the correct call. Fortunately, though, the call didn't result in a second consecutive year that this Angels team was potentially robbed by a strangely controversial call.

World Series Wrap: No Recantation

The World Series didn't work out quite like I predicted. I was recently reading an article over on Seamheads where one of the comments offered the suggestion that the writer would eventually be given the opportunity to recant his predictions. Huh? Why would someone recant a prediction? The nature of predictions is that they're sometimes, or perhaps often, incorrect. I might admit that I was wrong--like when I said the Rays' starters would pitch more innings than the Phillies', and this didn't even happen in one of the five games--but I'm certainly not going to take back what I said.

The Phillies' starting pitching performed better than the Rays' in the Series, and the Phils proved me wrong when I claimed that they weren't as good as the Red Sox. They were significantly better, as Cole Hamels was everything that Josh Beckett and Jon Lester were not, and Jamie Moyer showed Tim Wakefield a thing or two about being a old, but crafty, soft-tosser. Still, it's difficult to know whether to credit Philadelphia's pitching or blame Tampa Bay's hitting for the fact that B.J. Upton, Carlos Pena and Evan Longoria combined to go 8-for-57 (.140) with no home runs in the World Series after going 23-for-81 (.284) with 11 HR in the ALCS. Of course, it's probably a combination of those factors.

Regardless, the Phillies are a worthy champion, and their long-suffering fans are certainly deserving of their second celebration in over 100 years of existence.

Post-Season Off Days: A Silver Lining in the Rain Clouds?

I'm sure, if you're a baseball person, you've already heard plenty about rain delays and suspended World Series games. If you read here regularly, you've also heard my rant about so many off days during the post-season. Well, the perfect rationalization for those days is that they make it an easy decision to create an official rule requiring that all playoff games go the full 9 innings, or 8 1/2 if the home team is ahead.

This is pretty simple. Any game during the post-season that is started, but not finished, becomes a suspended game, even if only an inning is played. Although if that's the case, then a serious error was made in beginning the game in the first place. The excessive number of off days make it easy to do this without extending the World Series, unless, of course, the suspended game occurs in Game 7.

Pretty simple, right? Hopefully that's the decision that is eventually made by the MLB front office.

World Series Game 3 Wrap

There are a couple of recurring themes here, with respect to my series predictions. The first is that the Phillies' starting staff has pitched better than I thought. Last night, Jamie Moyer out-pitched Matt Garza, allowing 3 runs on 5 hits and a walk, with 5 strikeouts, over 6 1/3 innings. With Garza lasting 6 innings, and giving up 4 runs on 3 home runs, it was the third game in a row that the Rays' starter has failed to last as long as his counterpart.

The second is related to the lefty vs. lefty matchups. While Chase Utley hasn't been shut down as badly as Ryan Howard, it has proved beneficial to the Rays that these two bat consecutively in the order. J.P. Howell came on in the 8th and struck out Utley and Howard back-to-back, although his 9th inning HBP of Eric Bruntlett eventually earned him the loss and the Phillies a 2-1 series lead.

Games 1-3 self-evaluation: C+

World Series Game 2 Wrap

Brett Myers didn't pitch badly Thursday night, recovering after a shaky start to make it through 7 innings. Still, yielding 3 earned runs in the first 4 innings does not qualify as coming up big, so I feel like my vote of no confidence in him was not totally unwarranted. James Shields only lasted 5 2/3 innings, scattering 7 hits and allowing 2 walks, but no earned runs, and that's the bottom line. However, this is the second game in a row that the Phillies' starter went further than the Rays', contrary to my prediction. Actually, I wasn't referring to Cole Hamels vs. Scott Kazmir when I said this, but I certainly expected Shields to last longer than Myers.

Once again, we saw last night why the back-to-back of Chase Utley and Ryan Howard will continue to be a problem for the Phillies. The Rays only used one of their three left-handers out of the bullpen, but it's no coincidence that David Price's 2 1/3 innings of relief began and ended with Utley and Howard. After starting off by walking Utley in the 7th, Price then struck out Howard. In the 9th, Price made Utley look bad in striking him out and induced a groundball from Howard to end the game. Howard is now 0-for-6 with 4 strikeouts and a walk vs. lefties in the series, and 2-for-3 vs. Shields, the only right-hander he's faced.

My Game 2 self-evaluation: B