Why the MLB All Star Game is Still One of My Favorite Sporting Events

The Major League Baseball All Star Game is still to this day one of my favorite sporting events of the year.

I know it doesn’t mean a thing. That it’s just an exhibition. But, it’s still one of my favorite sporting events of the year and I don’t think that will ever change.

You can debate whether or not the MLB All Star Game should “count,” as they say with the winning league receiving home-field advantage for the World Series. I personally don’t mind that aspect. But, I don’t think there’s a debate for the fact that the game shouldn’t exist.

It should still be a thrill for every single baseball fan to see stars from each and every one of the 30 teams in Major League Baseball play together and against each other one night of the year. If you don’t care for the game or even worse want to see it abolished I seriously have to question how big of a baseball fan you are.

When I was a kid this was the one baseball game all year I wanted to watch and if the game of baseball is going to survive and thrive into the future it should remain that way for the kids of this nation.

One of my favorite things as a young sports fan was actually the player introductions for the MLB All Star Game. Getting to see all of the stars smile and tip their cap, not only to the paying fans in attendance, but all of us at home made you feel like you were a part of it all. It’s still possibly my favorite part of the entire game.

Some who don’t think there should be a MLB All Star Game anymore claim that it’s just not special these days because due to cable television, MLB.tv and interleague play it’s just not thrilling to see one league compete against another anymore and you have the opportunity to see the stars of the game literally every night of the week.

It’s true that we have the opportunity to see the stars of baseball every night of the week, but how many of us actually do so? How many of us have that kind of time in our lives?

I have access to MLB.tv, meaning I have the opportunity to see each and every one of the 30 MLB teams play on any given night. Despite this there are many superstars who I will only see play all season long during the All Star Game. Between work, relationships and just living life who really has time to keep up with every star in the game?

That’s why I love the MLB All Star Game. That’s why I’ll always love the MLB All Star Game. If you don’t that’s fine, but don’t try to take my fun away. 

Just Another Tainted Home Run Record

A friend of mine was watching an Atlanta Braves telecast a few days ago and texted me the daily trivia question from the broadcast. The question said Chipper Jones hit 433 career homers under manager Bobby Cox, which player has the most career home runs under one manager?

The first answer that popped into my head was Albert Pujols under Tony La Russa. Pujols hit 445 homers with La Russa as his manager, but that wasn’t the correct answer. Some other player/manager combinations that popped into my head were Babe Ruth and Miller Huggins, which ranks second all-time on the list with 467 homers, and Jimmie Foxx and Connie Mack, who combined for 302.

Then the correct answer hit me. I texted my friend, “I figured out the answer, but I don’t like it.” He responded: Mark McGwire and Tony La Russa? I said, “Yep.” He responded with an expletive, obviously not liking the answer much himself.

Mark McGwire hit a record 494 home runs under La Russa’s management, which is 85 percent of his career total. When you think about it the answer is actually quite simple, because Big Mac played the majority of his career under La Russa in both Oakland and St. Louis.

My friend and I didn’t care much for the answer though because those numbers were obviously tainted with McGwire’s use of performance enhancing drugs throughout his career. That wasn’t all we despised, but more so the fact that it seems nearly every important home run record in baseball is tainted.

Most career home runs tainted by Barry Bonds. Most single season home runs tainted by Bonds, after previously being tainted by McGwire. Most career grand slams tainted by Alex Rodriguez. Most Major League Baseball stadiums homered in tainted by Sammy Sosa. Most consecutive seasons with 30-plus homers a tainted tie between Bonds and A-Rod.

If you are a big baseball fan, like I am, you probably consider the home run to be the most majestic thing in all of sports and for the longest time baseball home run records like Roger Maris’ 61 homers in a single season or especially Hank Aaron’s 755 homers for a career were the greatest records in sports. The most treasured records in sports. Then came the steroid era and Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Rodriguez and numerous others just utterly and thoroughly trashed and made a mockery at of these sacred records. It’s something a baseball purist like me can’t get over and probably never will. And, when I see the answer to a trivia question on yet another big home run record is tainted it steams me a bit.

Oddly enough one of the greatest baseball home run records for most in a single game (four) has been done by 16 different players and none of them, at least to my knowledge, has ever been accused of using performance enhancing drugs. So, for now maybe most home runs in a game remains the purest of all of the great home run records in baseball history.

Bobby, Tommy & Greg

Names I used to hear so much in my youth

In my dreams, my fantasies and on television

Bobby, Tommy, and Greg

Played a huge role in the sports fan I am today

Played a huge role in the man I am today

With every dazzling pitch, every precise decision

So many smiles, so many cheers, and even tears of joy

Enshrined right where they ought to be

With names like Aaron, Mays, Ruth, and Robinson

Heroes from the past mingling with heroes from my past

Someday soon to be joined by John and Chipper too

In Cooperstown the halls where legends never die

It's Time to Stop Villainizing Baseball Players Without Real Proof

Last night I was enjoying some of the best sluggers in the game of baseball like two-time champ Yoenis Cespedes, Giancarlo Stanton and Jose Bautista competing in the Home Run Derby and following along with what experts were saying about the derby on Twitter.

Shortly after Toronto Blue Jays slugger Jose Bautista put on quite the show by hitting 10 homers in the first round I saw a tweet from ESPN’s Max Kellerman more than insinuating that Bautista was or had been at one time a performance enhancing drug user. This isn’t an opinion that’s rare; back when Bautista went from unknown to 50-plus homer guy in 2010 it was an opinion that was quite prevalent among people, just as it was last year when Chris Davis of the Baltimore Orioles also went from relatively unknown to a 50-plus homer guy.

Kellerman seemed so certain that Bautista was a PEDs user because he went from a 15 homer a year guy at age 25-28 to 54 homers at age 29 and 43 homers at age 30, when Kellerman was certain his numbers should’ve been on the decline instead of a sharp and dramatic rise.

Kellerman’s flat out accusation of Bautista as a cheater irritated me because the slugger has never failed a drug test. I will also add that Bautista looks the exact same now as he did when he was a 15 homer a year player for the Pittsburgh Pirates, whereas Bonds, McGwire and Sosa all got noticeably bigger. But, I’m not sure how high and mighty I can really get on the topic, because I can understand the skepticism of a player going from 15 homers a year to 50-plus, because I was somewhat skeptical of Chris Davis last season.

A home run jump of nearly 40 home runs in a season’s span seems like something that should be accusatory because it seems so unlikely and borderline impossible, but then again we have seen players before who hit late maturity growths or made minute changes in their swing that resulted in becoming almost completely different players. The problem is it’s hard to determine these changes from performance enhancing drug induced changes and they also seem a little less likely to result in such mass differences.

Still, the accusations of Kellerman rubbed me the wrong way and I can’t help but thinking that players like Bautista and Davis deserve to be treated fairly and innocent until proven guilty. Bautista and Davis have never failed steroid tests, so why should we treat them as cheats? 

Maybe it’s because we’ve been made so skeptical of home run inflations by proven cheaters like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa who saw home run numbers fly to astronomical rates with the help of steroids that we just can’t trust the game and it’s most glamorous play anymore.

I understand why someone would look at Jose Bautista’s career and scratch and shake their head. I really do. But, I think it’s time to stop publicly slandering or defaming someone who’s never been attached to cheating before … especially when we’ve allowed players who have been connected with performance enhancing drugs and are cheaters, like Nelson Cruz, to start right beside them in the All Star Game. 

Hoping Instant Replay Doesn't Eject the Ejection from Baseball

Throughout the first few weeks of the 2014 Major League Baseball season the biggest discussion topic in the game has been the installation of instant replay into the game. It hasn’t gone as smoothly as the league would have preferred it too with many of the replays taking too long – some upwards of five minutes – and others being blown despite rather obvious replays.

These are obvious problems facing MLB, but I’m sure the system will take time to work out its kinks. I can’t remember how it was when the NFL instituted its instant replay, but I highly doubt it was a 100 percent smooth transition. Hell, today instant replay in football still isn’t perfect.

My biggest worry about instant replay coming into this season was actually that it would cut down on one of the most exciting moments or things in all of sports … the baseball ejection. Maybe it’s because I grew up loving the Atlanta Braves and their MLB all-time leader in career ejections manager Bobby Cox, but I absolutely love watching managers (and even players) arguing their heads off with an umpire and the impending will-they-or-won’t-they be tossed dramatics that ensue. Sure, some of these arguments lasted as long as it does to review an instant replay, but they were far more interesting and exciting to watch.

I thought my theory that instant replay would cut down on these exciting ejections in baseball was well on its way to being proven. Through the first two weeks of the season there had only been two ejections in the entire game: Chicago Cubs manager Rich Renteria and Texas Rangers shortstop Elvis Andrus. I don’t have statistics to tell me the average number of persons who normally would have been ejected in a two week span, but I can tell you with almost 100 percent certainty it would have been more than two.

I think this theory will ultimately prove to be right. At the end of the season it’ll interesting to see how many fewer ejections there will have been in 2014 as compared to 2013. However, this week has shown me that the highly exciting act of ejection may never be taken from the game completely. Through yesterday there have already been at least five ejections in the game this week, and likely there have been others that I’ve missed. Part of the reason for this is that ball and strike calls, which can’t (and never should be) reviewed will always lead to arguments between managers/players and umpires. Also, the introduction of instant replay in MLB has led to an automatic ejection for any manager who comes out to argue a reviewed call – which led to quick hooks for both Boston Red Sox manager John Farrell and Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington earlier this week.

This gives me at least slight hope for the ejection, which should never be ejected from the game.  

Is Yadier Molina a Hall of Famer?

The other day at work a co-worker of mine told me rather certainly that St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina would be a future baseball hall of famer. I gave a “are you kidding?” laugh, chalked it up to him being a Cardinals homer and said there was no way Molina had a shot at being a hall of famer.

I texted my friend Bobby, the smartest guy I know (other than myself, of course) when it comes to baseball, that my co-worker floated the idea of Molina as hall of famer. Bobby’s reply frankly stunned me. He texted: “Very likely if he continues to play like he has over the past few seasons … but, I wouldn’t call it a guarantee.” Even the name Yadier Molina and the words “very likely hall of famer” in the same sentence dumbfounded me.

I figured if Bobby thought there was a shot I might as well look into it a little further.

The best way to determine whether or not Molina is a future hall of famer is to, of course, compare him to hall of fame players at his position. There has to be some caveats, though, for the comparisons to be fair or ring true. For instance, hall of fame catchers before the modern era of baseball who played in the dead ball era before 1920 couldn’t be thrown into the mix, because the lack of offense from that era would skew the numbers. This eliminates hall of fame catchers like Roger Bresnahan and Ray Schalk.

That leaves us with 10 hall of fame catchers who’ve played the game of baseball since 1920. Those catchers are (in order of induction): Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Gabby Hartnett, Roy Campanella, Yogi Berra, Rick Ferrell, Ernie Lombardi, Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter.

Let’s start with the average age of these hall of fame catchers when they played their last full season (100 games or more) as a catcher. Because of the wear and tear of the catcher position, which hasn’t changed all that much over the years (although it may in the future with the elimination of running over catchers at home plate), the average age a hall of fame catcher plays to is only 35, and that number was actually skewed a little higher than it should be by freak of nature Carlton Fisk, who was an everyday catcher until the age of 43 (the next closest hall of famer at the age of his final full-time season as catcher was Ernie Lombardi, who was six years Fisk’s junior at the end). If you were to take Fisk out of the equation (a reasonable thing to do given his six extra years is a whopping total) the average age of a hall of fame catcher at his final full-time season would be a full season earlier at age 34.

Yadier Molina is currently 31 years old and will turn 32 during the halfway point of the 2014 MLB season. Based on the standards for his position we have to believe Molina only has four or five (and five is likely a stretch) years remaining as a full-time catcher. In fact, Molina (who’s likely seen the most playing time of any catcher over the last decade) is already starting to show some wear and tear when it comes to injuries, even if his offensive numbers have climbed over the last few years.

So, what are the average offensive numbers for a catcher in the baseball hall of fame?

The average hall of fame catcher gets around 1,882 base hits in his career in 6,593 at-bats, giving him an average of .285. This is almost identical to Molina’s career average of .284 (1,183 for 4,165) after nine full seasons. Now, Molina’s average is likely to fall a few percentage points over the late years of his career (as you’d expect from any major leaguer), but likely won’t fall below .280, which would give him a higher career average than hall of famers like Johnny Bench (.267) and Carlton Fisk (.269). I expect Molina to finish his career with a batting average akin to hall of fame catchers. I also suspect that he will have around the same amount of career hits as the average hall of famer. Molina has averaged 127 hits per season for his career and giving him four to five more seasons of everyday play would put him around 1,691 to 1,818 for his career, certainly not hall of fame averages for any other position, but for a catcher it’ll do.

Everybody who’s seen baseball over the years knows that Molina is not a power hitter, but even though catcher is historically not a power position the average hall of fame catcher hit long balls at a higher rate than Molina. The average hall of fame catcher hit 246 career home runs and this number is skewed drastically by Rick Ferrell (often considered the most egregious hall of fame selection, and one made by the veteran’s committee and not Baseball Writers Association of America) who’s 28 career homers are tied with shortstop Ozzie Smith for the least of any position player hall of famer whose career came after the dead ball era. The next lowest hall of fame catcher in home runs was Mickey Cochrane (who had his career drastically cut short by injury), who hit a huge 91 more homers than Ferrell. Without Ferrell’s measly total, the average for a hall of fame catcher becomes 270 (more than a season’s worth of homers than it is with Ferrell). If you exclude Ferrell and add the numbers of Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez, who should be no-brainer hall of famers and likely one day will be, the average goes to 289. You may say Piazza and Rodriguez played during an era of inflated numbers, but both are generally considered to have been clean (and I won’t make accusations otherwise) and Piazza’s 427 homers (most ever by a catcher) aren’t alarmingly more than Bench’s 389 or Fisk’s 376. Rodriguez’s 311 (over a longer than average career) would only be ranked sixth among hall of famers if he were currently inducted.

After nine seasons, Molina has 89 career homers, or an average of 10 per season. Homers could (maybe should) go down with age, but we’ll give Molina 40 to 50 more for his career giving him a total of 129 to 139. If you account for the fact that Cochrane was already out of the league due to injury by Molina’s current age, Molina would have the fewest homers of any catcher if he were to be inducted.

How about RBI?

The average for hall of fame catchers is 1,116 RBI, which would also go up slightly if you threw in Piazza and Rodriguez’s numbers. Molina is currently sitting at 546 RBI for his career. He averages 59 RBI a season. Using his career averages I foresee Molina finishing his career with around 782 to 841 RBI. This means that Molina would finish his career with around 300 fewer RBI than the average hall of fame catcher, which might not seem like a lot, but you have to realize that’s at least four to five seasons for a catcher of hall of fame status.

Now, you might be thinking that Molina’s last few seasons (the ones according to Bobby he’d have to maintain to be a hall of famer) are higher than his career averages and that would be correct. However, the numbers don’t jump drastically enough to make up for 300 fewer RBI and 150 fewer home runs, and it isn’t even close. Also, almost no player in Major League Baseball maintains his career high averages toward the end of his career.

It’s not a prerequisite for a hall of fame catcher to have won a Most Valuable Player award, but the majority have (60 percent). It would seem unlikely at this point in his career and given the average numbers of MVP players that Molina would ever win a MVP. Even if he did, it wouldn’t matter because of many of the other reasons listed in this piece.

Molina has also rarely if ever been considered the best overall catcher in the game during his career. That honor has typically gone to Joe Mauer for much of Molina’s career and Molina has had to battle with Brian McCann and recently Buster Posey to even be considered the best in his own league. This is something that hall of fame voters look at as hugely significant, and every hall of fame catcher (with the likely exception of Rick Ferrell) was considered the best at their time in baseball or at least their league.

Offensively, Yadier Molina isn’t a hall of fame catcher. If Ted Simmons couldn’t make the hall of fame with career numbers of .285 (the average for a HOF catcher), 248 homers (two higher than the current average) and 1,389 RBI (way above the average and second most among all catchers in MLB history) than no way can Molina. In fact, Simmons finished his career with the most hits in baseball history by a catcher with 2,472 (Ivan Rodriguez since passed him) and didn’t even sniff the hall of fame, receiving less than four percent of the vote in his only year on the ballot and falling off. Based on his numbers, Simmons should be a no-brainer hall of famer and he trumps Molina in every category but defense.

Ah, there it is … defense.

Molina has never been known for his offense, but has as long as he’s played been considered the premiere defensive catcher and game-caller in the league.

Let’s start with game-caller. Do you think hall of fame voters would even for one second take game-calling into consideration? I hope you’re not thinking hard on this, because it wouldn’t even cross their mind (whether it should or not).

So, down to defense (which both my co-worker and Bobby thought would be the thing to tip Molina into possible hall of fame territory).

Yadier Molina’s defense is at hall of fame level, in my opinion. He may be the greatest defensive catcher to ever play the game. There really aren’t too many ways to quantify this, though, and hall of fame voters aren’t spending too much time on defense anyway. Basically what you have to go by here are number of Gold Gloves won and defensive WAR (wins above replacement), despite the fact that I’m not a huge fan of Sabermetrics.

Molina currently has six Gold Glove wins. Johnny Bench finished his career with 10 Gold Gloves. Ivan Rodriguez finished his career with 13 Gold Gloves. If Molina were to win the Gold Glove every year until the end of his career (which, I believe, many would say is unlikely especially when he ages) he would finish with around nine or 10. This puts him at Bench’s level and a few behind Rodriguez. Gold Gloves may not always be the best argument or representation of defense, but it’s one of the few defensive aspects hall of fame voters are going to pay attention to. Even then it doesn’t matter a whole lot, just ask Keith Hernandez what his 11 Gold Gloves or Jim Kaat what his 16 Gold Gloves did for them, and they both have more impressive numbers respectively when it comes to their positions than Molina does overall.

When it comes to defensive WAR, Molina is currently behind both Bench and Rodriguez (that along with the Gold Gloves tells us that Molina is likely only the third best defensive catcher of all-time currently, if that, because I’ve only included data from HOFers and those that should be). Molina’s career averages show that he could likely pass Bench in this category, but shouldn’t reach Rodriguez’s total. This means that it’s very unlikely that Molina will retire as the greatest defensive player to ever play his position.

But, what if he did retire as the greatest defensive player to ever play his position?

The chances of Molina’s induction into the hall of fame would still be slim-to-none. Ozzie Smith is the only player in baseball’s modern era that made the hall of fame mostly on the basis of his defense, but even still Smith had nearly 2,500 base hits and stole 580 bases (which ranks him in the top 25 all-time). Being the best defensively simply doesn’t make one a hall of famer. I use Keith Hernandez as my example. He’s considered to be the greatest defensive first baseman by far, and has the hardware to show it. He was also talented with the bat hitting .296 for his career, with over 1,000 RBI and 2,000 hits. He also won the 1979 National League Most Valuable Player. He never got more than 10.8 percent of the vote.

Yadier Molina is a great player, one of the best of his era at least defensively and is a generally likable person (which could help come voting time), but he’s not going to get anywhere near the 75 percent needed to make the hall of fame if guys like Hernandez and Simmons are only getting 4-to-11 percent.    

Molina is going to fall into the category of very good baseball player and likely one of the 25 greatest to ever play his position when his career comes to an end, but he’ll have to settle for that and not induction into Cooperstown.

   

Best Sports Journalism of 2013 - Part 5 of 5

All year long I’ve been reading great sports journalism online to recommend to the followers of my podcast’s (Basement Sports) Facebook fanpage. I’m a writer and a huge sports fan, so the two mingling together to form great journalism has always mesmerized me. The year has truly seen some great sports writing, and I wanted to share the best of the best that I’ve read from 2013.

Over the next few days I will be unveiling the ‘25 Best Sports Writing Articles of 2013’ from the many that I have read. While I’ve read more than 100 fine pieces this year I’m sure that some truly fantastic online sports writing has slipped through my grasps, so I do apologize if an obvious piece of great sports writing has been omitted.

In the final part of this five-part list are excellent works on the national Skee-ball championships (yes, that exists), a mother’s plea to Johnny Manziel to change his bad boy ways, the uncovering of Manti Te’o’s fake dead girlfriend, the unique way of re-telling a season-changing play and the Amish’s love of baseball.

5. "Grand-torino: Shane sends Sox to Series"by Providence Journal's Brian MacPherson (October 20)

Providence Journal sports writer Brian MacPherson gets my award this season for the most interesting coverage of a big play or event with the incredibly unique and to my knowledge original way he covered Boston Red Sox outfielder Shane Victorino’s game-winning grand slam in the American League Championship Series that sent the Red Sox to the World Series and an eventual championship. MacPherson was able to capture the grand slam from the viewpoint of many throughout the stadium, including players and coaches in the dugout, bullpen and clubhouse, as well as executives of the team in their offices or team suites. The unique perspective given of the play from those within its vicinity really sets this article apart from the rest of the field.

4. "Manti Te’o’s Dead Girlfriend, The Most Heartbreaking And Inspirational Story Of The College Football Season, Is A Hoax" by Deadspin's Timothy Burke and Jack Dickey (January 16)

This rather extensive expose from Deadspin’s Timothy Burke and Jack Dickey is quite likely the most read bit of sports journalism from 2013 as the duo uncovered the highly odd and controversial story of former Notre Dame Heisman candidate linebacker Manti Te’o’s dead girlfriend being a complete hoax. The Te’o girlfriend hoax would quickly become one of the most overplayed and annoying sports stories of the year and be supremely embarrassing to Te’o himself, but the initial story proves to be one of the most stellar and important sports journalism pieces of 2013.  

3. "At the Skee-ball Super Bowl" by The Classical's Sean Hojnacki (June 27)

Who doesn’t enjoy a good game of Skee-ball every now and then? According to The Classical’s Sean Hojnacki in his great firsthand piece of the Brewskee-Ball National Championship in Austin, Texas some people take the arcade game extremely serious. This piece is fascinating for similar reasons as John Metcalfe’s piece at The Atlantic on thumb wrestling championships, which appeared earlier on this list. Much like the thumb wrestling championship, the Skee-ball championship features unique individuals with nicknames like Joey the Cat and Snakes on a Lane. The fact that something of this caliber takes place annually was incredibly appealing to me.  

2. "An Open Letter to Johnny Manziel" by My Sacred Hideaway's Beth Bates (August 31)

“An Open Letter to Johnny Manziel” is almost certainly the only piece of sports writing on this list that was not actually written by either a journalist or a published writer … in fact, it was written by a Texas mom in her blog. That fact really makes the entire thing more interesting, impressive and just all-around perfect. The blog post is Beth Bates’ open letter to 2012 Heisman Trophy winner and Texas A&M college football quarterback Johnny Manziel on his attitude, and the fact that he’s being a horrible role model to children, like her son, who idolize him. Hopefully Manziel somehow got a chance to read this piece, because it was advice that he really needed to hear.

      1. "The Boys of Lancaster: There's a genius to the way the Amish play baseball" by New Republic's Kent Russell (March 22)

One of the things that will most draw me to a sports journalism piece is its uniqueness. I don’t believe that I read anything quite as unique and interesting this year as Kent Russell’s story on Amish baseball for New Republic. The story of this fantastic bit of culture from Russell’s trip to Lancaster County, Penn. is one that captured me immediately and wouldn’t let go until I had finished. I had never thought of Amish playing sports before, but as Russell states in his piece Amish and baseball seem to be a perfect fit. “’The Amish play baseball! Of course they do.’” The story of this community’s love for the game is well-worthy of the number one spot on this year’s best sports journalism of 2013 list.

World Series Obstruction Is Correct Call, But Should It Be?

For the second postseason in a row in Major League Baseball a controversial call by an umpire that was mostly the correct call (you could argue that the infield fly rule called in the 2012 National League Wild Card game was a bad call) has played a huge role in an incredibly important game.

Game three of the World Series on Saturday night (Oct. 26) ended with the St. Louis Cardinals defeating the Boston Red Sox and taking a 2-1 lead in the series thanks to an obstruction called on Red Sox third baseman Will Middlebrooks for impeding Cardinals baserunner Allen Craig by third base umpire Jim Joyce.

Here’s the rule, as it reads in the official MLB rulebook:

Rule 2.00
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.

Many on Saturday night and afterward were claiming the obstruction call to be a bad call by Joyce, which is understandable given the rarity of the call, the circumstances of the game and the common sense aspect of it all. However, those people claiming the call to be a bad or wrong call are simply wrong. Jim Joyce made the right call according to the official MLB rule stated above.

In fact, the actual example given in the rule book is almost exactly what happened at the end of game three. Middlebrooks dove for an errant throw by Red Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia that ended up in left field. However, when Craig made his way to home after the ball went into the outfield Middlebrooks was still lying on the ground in front of Craig.

Sure, Middlebrooks was essentially in a no man’s land and did not appear to knowingly (although some people debate this) do anything to attempt to impede Craig’s progress to home. However, intent is not a factor as to whether or not a defensive player has obstructed a baserunner. Thus, Middlebrooks being in the wrong place at the wrong time was going to be obstructing no matter what – whether he lay still, kicked his legs into the air or stood up and did the hokey-pokey. By rule, Middlebrooks obstructed Craig. Craig was by rule awarded the next base, which was home plate and as a result he was the winning run of the game. It became the first World Series game in the history of baseball to end on an obstruction call, which most people seem to agree is not the greatest way to end such an important game, especially one as exciting as game three was.

Jim Joyce was correct. But, I don’t believe the Major League Baseball rulebook is, or rather it shouldn’t be. This is where I think a case can be made. Arguing a call was bad when it was explicitly right by the rulebook is pointless. Arguing whether or not the rule should be a rule, like in this case, has validity.

Obstruction is a rule that is over 100 years old in baseball. It’s not something you see a whole lot, though, and until Saturday night it’s not something I can recall ever seeing in such an important game, especially to end that game. Obstruction has been around more than a century, but it took something as catastrophic as game three on Saturday night for me to realize that it’s faulty.

The rule is faulty or a bad rule in my opinion as it’s worded because it seemingly gives an unfair advantage to the offensive team.

How so?

To best answer this question I’ll have to do so with another question … What was Will Middlebrooks supposed to do in that situation?

If Will Middlebrooks gets called for obstruction either way by the rulebook whether he just lies there or kicks his feet or does the hokey-pokey how can the rule be fair to the defensive team? It’s not. Essentially you are penalizing a player and a team for just trying their best to stop a ball from getting past them and into the outfield.

What happens when Craig and Middlebrooks make contact as Craig tries to race home is incidental contact. It’s not intentional contact. Intentional contact would be cheating or attempting to take advantage of a rule. Therefore, intentional contact should be (and is) covered under the obstruction rule. Incidental contact should be considered just a part of the game – something that happens in the course of playing hard – similar to if a baserunner is hit with a thrown ball while on the basepaths. In my opinion, incidental contact between a defensive player not in the process of making a play, because he was previously in the process of trying to make a play (Middlebrooks on Saturday night) and the baserunner attempting to advance should not be considered obstruction.

Some would say that what I’m advocating would instead of being an unfair advantage to the offensive team be the exact opposite. To those people I would say that’s not necessarily the case at all. After all, Craig should’ve scored on a ball thrown to left field despite the incidental contact with Middlebrooks, but wouldn’t have had the obstruction not been called because of 1) being not 100 percent healthy 2) being slow 3) good hustle on part of the Red Sox defense.

People would also say that determining intent on obstruction calls would leave umpires forced to make judgment calls. My two answers to this are 1) wouldn’t that be better than unfairly ruling in favor of the offense? and 2) don’t umpires already make judgment calls all of the time whether it’s by calling balls and strikes or with bang-bang plays at bases?

Nothing about the obstruction call on Saturday night felt right to me, even though as clearly stated in the rulebook it was a correct call. It didn’t feel right to me because it felt like one team was unfairly punished because its player had gone all out to try to stop a ball from getting past him. It didn’t feel right, because it felt as if Craig should’ve been able to get around Middlebrooks and score without stumbling anyway. It didn’t feel right because this is a World Series game and whether it’s wrong or right it doesn’t seem like it should end on a faulty rule.

The controversial obstruction call last night, much like the controversial infield fly rule from last season’s playoffs is meant to be a good rule. It’s meant to keep defenses from unfairly taking advantage of offenses. However, because of the seemingly incompleteness of the obstruction rule and the obvious vagueness of the infield fly rule both rules have come into question as to whether or not they should be revised or re-worded.     

If there is one thing that is certain it’s that baseball truly is amazing in that something can happen that you almost never see and make you realize that a rule that is over 100 years old is at best faulty.

National Networks Show Understandable, But Still Irritating Bias Toward Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals

I’ve had a theory about Major League Baseball telecasts for a while. The theory states that every single time the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, likely the most storied rivalry in the history of the game (and sports in general), play each other the game will be nationally televised.

I’ve long theorized that every single Yankees vs. Red Sox game in at least the last decade has likely been televised. Unfortunately, I have no way of finding out whether or not this is indeed a fact. What games have appeared on which networks over the last few seasons is not something you can easily find anywhere, probably because few people honestly give a damn.

However, for the last few seasons I’ve heard a good many people give a damn. These people are, of course, not fans of the Yankees or Red Sox as those fans (and there’s a good many of them sprinkled throughout the entire United States) seem thrilled that many of their favorite team’s games (and every time they play their heated rival) are broadcast nationally. It’s not hard to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan in say Arkansas (where I’m from) because you know your favorite team will have as many as a third of their games all season broadcast. But, if you’re a fan of say the Cleveland Indians or Oakland A’s or Milwaukee Brewers in Arkansas or Nebraska or West Virginia you’re going to have trouble ever seeing your favorite team on television unless you want to shell out major bucks for the baseball television package or MLB.tv online (which many people simply cannot afford). This is a feeling that sucks for a good many a baseball fan in this country, especially when they keep getting the same old teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and other teams like the St. Louis Cardinals crammed down their throats.

There are four networks that currently air MLB games nationally: ESPN, Fox (games are regional, but there’s a small enough selection (unlike say NFL on Fox/CBS) to really matter), TBS and MLB Network – all of these networks are shown on most cable or satellite providers. Almost every day of the week there will be at least one nationally televised baseball game. That’s actually a lot of baseball available to baseball fans around the country, but if you’re not a fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, etc. it can become pretty fatiguing. This is why every Yankees vs. Red Sox game being broadcast nationally can become irritating to non-fans of those teams.

Let’s get this obvious point out of the way. Yes, it makes complete sense for networks to want to show as many Yankees vs. Red Sox games as they can (and those two teams individual games along with Cardinals games) because these fanbases are the largest (and by a good margin) in the country and the network wants viewers, ratings and the advertising dollars that come from them. Baseball, unlike the NFL and NBA, is not a sport that is watched all that much anymore by the casual sports fan. If you’re a Cardinals fan how often would you watch a game involving a team other than the Cardinals in the regular season? Probably, not very often, especially if you have a busy life. This is partially why the networks search for the big fanbases for their games, because a Yankees or Red Sox or Cardinals game will pull in fans from all around the country, whereas a Pittsburgh Pirates or Colorado Rockies game likely would not.

It makes a lot of sense why networks do this, but it also comes off as bothersome to baseball fans because there are a lot of nationally televised games to go around and there are also a lot of other good baseball teams in the country than just the few that are constantly shown on television.

I don’t have the numbers of televised games for the entire 2013 MLB season, because I unfortunately only thought to keep a tally of nationally televised games for the second half of the season. The second half of a baseball season’s nationally televised games are more likely to be skewed than the first half of the season by team records and the playoff hunt, which would’ve made an entire season sample slightly better than just the second half sample. For example, the incredibly hyped before the season Toronto Blue Jays probably had a handful of first half nationally televised games, but didn’t have a single nationally televised game during the second half of the season. In fact, the Blue Jays were one of only four MLB teams to not have a single nationally televised game during the season’s second half with the other three teams understandably being the Houston Astros, Miami Marlins and Milwaukee Brewers – all teams with losing records and few, if any, bankable stars.      

The team with the most nationally televised baseball games during the second half of the season was also understandably the best team in baseball when the season ended, the Boston Red Sox. The Red Sox had 31 nationally televised games during the second half of the season (16 on MLB Network [which televises many more games a week than the other three networks], eight on ESPN, four on Fox and three on TBS). The National League leading St. Louis Cardinals at the season’s end had the second most nationally televised games with 25 (15 on MLB Network, seven on ESPN, two on Fox and one on TBS). The only issue with these numbers is that the Red Sox were only the best team in baseball, record-wise, for the last two-to-three weeks of the regular season and the Cardinals were only the best team in the National League, record-wise, for the very last day of the regular season.

Which team was the best team in the game, record-wise, for most of the season’s second half in both the N.L. and baseball as a whole?

The Atlanta Braves.

Despite leading baseball for most of the season, including the second half of the season, the Braves only appeared on national television 10 times (five times on MLB Network, twice each on ESPN and Fox and once on TBS). Ten MLB teams appeared on national television more during that span (Red Sox, Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, Orioles, Rays, Reds, Pirates, Rangers and Tigers). The Braves do have a pretty good sized following, mostly from the days when they were shown exclusively on TBS, but it’s not near of a following the likes that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals have. So, they could be the best team in baseball, but if they aren’t bringing eyes to the networks the networks don’t care. It’s a business. It leads to biases. It’s not really right, but nothing’s ever going to come of it. But, the fans are still going to grow fatigued and complain. Both sides are understandable.

The New York Yankees, by the way, appeared nationally on television the third most of any team in the sport during the second half of the season with 24 appearances (11 times on MLB Network, five times on ESPN and four times each on Fox and TBS) despite not making the playoffs. You can thank their national following for that.  

That’s right; the Yankees appeared in 14 more nationally televised games than the Braves. They appeared in more nationally televised games than seven other 2013 playoff teams, as well. The Yankees were broadcast nationally seven more times than the Tampa Bay Rays (who appeared on TV more because they played both the Yankees and Red Sox a lot during the season’s second half), seven more times than the Cincinnati Reds (who benefited from many games against the Cardinals), 10 more times than the Pirates (baseball’s best story of the year), 11 more times than the Dodgers, 12 more times than the Detroit Tigers,  18 more times than the Oakland A’s and a whopping 21 more times than the Cleveland Indians.

Sure, many people will be saying those lesser featured teams need to grow larger fanbases so that they can compete for TV time with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox and Cardinals. But, to them I ask the question: How does a team build a larger fanbase? The answer: appear more times on national television.

But, now that we’ve seen that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals ride their large fanbases to more nationally televised games than other franchises, some with better records/teams, it’s time to go back to my initial theory. All of those damn Yankees vs. Red Sox matchups are broadcast nationally aren’t they? Some people haven’t believed me when I’ve said this in the past, but here’s the proof. During the second half of this MLB season the Yankees and Red Sox faced each other 10 times … all 10 of those games were broadcast either on ESPN, Fox, TBS or MLB Network.

Man, it sure must be good to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan. The rest of us might want to find a job that pays better so we can invest in MLB.tv or move to a region that shows are favorite teams locally, because that’s the only way we’re ever going to see them play.