Protesting the Appeal
CC Sabathia continued his National League dominance yesterday with a one-hit shutout against the Pittsburgh Pirates. The hit, which came in the fifth inning, was a little squibber back to the mound off the bat of recently acquired Andy LaRoche. Sabathia left the mound and went to make the seemingly routine play, but bobbled the ball and decided any further effort would be futile. The official scorer ruled the squibber a hit, and CC could no longer pitch a no-hitter.
In watching the replay several times, I firmly believe that if Sabathia fielded the ball cleanly he would have thrown LaRoche out. If Andy clearly would have beaten the throw regardless of the bobble, then I am definitely in favor of ruling the play a hit, but the bobble did seem to prevent Sabathia from completing the play.
Following the game, Brewers skipper Ned Yost looked livid as he lambasted the Pirates’ scorer for ruling the ball a hit. I thought it was such a peculiar response given that CC just pitched a one-hitter and the team had a great game. Then, a couple of hours later, the ESPN bottom line informed me that the Brewers plan on protesting the call to get it changed to an error. Their hope, I guess, is that the protest is upheld, the hit becomes an error, and Sabathia magically has a no-hitter.
While I mentioned earlier that I agree the play probably deserved an error as he would have thrown the baserunner out had he not bobbled the ball, I am almost as livid as Yost that they would even attempt this ridiculous move. You cannot just change the past without considering actions from that step forward. Say Sabathia does get charged with an error there… it does not guarantee that the rest of the game plays out exactly the way it did. Perhaps the next inning he gives up a double and a home run. Perhaps he pulls his groin and has to leave the game in the seventh inning. Perhaps the pressure of sustaining a no-hitter would mount and get to CC; or, adversely, perhaps the Pirates hitters would “try harder” in an attempt to avoid being no-hit.
The possibilities are endless, but the point remains that you cannot just magically change one event in a game after the fact and expect that everything else would remain the same. Those who saw that Ashton flick know what I’m talking about. This is very similar to when announcers allude to the fact that if a certain run scored earlier in the game, their team would lead by two instead of one going into the ninth; as if they think everything else would have remained the same. What if that run did score earlier, and led to a big rally? Or, what if the run did score, and then the opposition came out and scored four of their own.
All of these are hypotheticals, but they all point to the fact that you simply cannot change what you do not know. You cannot change the call from hit to an error and then award Sabathia a no-hitter because you have no idea exactly what would have happened from that point on had the ruling been different. Maybe it would have stayed the same, but since we do not know it would not be prudent to guess. I’m sure this protest will be denied, as I’m not the only one who will find it ridiculous, but is this really what the Brewers are concerned about at this point?
Or, maybe they are just taking the Michael Jordan approach right now… you know, where MJ used to get so bored that he would stir something up or purposely take a facial gesture the wrong way to motivate himself. Maybe the Brewers are so used to Sabathia dominating the NL already and are bored by it that they need to find a way to keep the themselves pumped up. I honestly have no idea, but I do know that attempting to get a hit from the fifth inning turned into an error in order to give someone a no-hitter, after the fact, even though nobody knows what would have happened from that point on, is utterly ridiculous.
Print This Post
The way Yost reacted, you’d have thought the play in question came with two outs in the ninth: “Whoever the scorekeeper was absolutely denied major league baseball a nice no-hitter right there.” No he didn’t. He denied major league baseball fourteen consecutive hitless batters and nothing more, for all the reasons you stated above. Yes, what if someone decided to try to bunt his way on in the later innings? The prospect of being no-hit is likely to change the approach of a batter, and once you change the approach of one batter, you change everything that happens thereafter, whether for better or for worse.
I’d love to know what Yost’s reaction was at the time, because it certainly wasn’t “that bastard cost us a no-no!” I really hope that there’s no backlash against the scorekeeper, because even though I disagree with the call, he gave his honest opinion and is at no fault for what ultimately transpired. CC has allowed .312 hits per batting out recorded this year, and assuming I’m doing the math correctly here, the chances of him recording the final fifteen outs without allowing a hit using these numbers would be 273 to 1. The scorekeeper shouldn’t be held responsible for a 273 to 1 long shot that paid off.
Butterfly Effect!!
A butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing… C.C. Sabathia’s throwing hand gets sweaty and therefore unable to pick up the ball.
Eric – I agree this is totally ridiculous. Yost should only care that his team picked up another win. I too hate the fallacy of thinking that you can change one event and nothing else changes. It’s like when someone gets thrown out stealing and then the batter hits a home run and the announcers say “Well it would of been two runs if so and so doesn’t get thrown out there” Maybe…maybe not. Because the runner was out stealing the pitcher would be pitching out of the windup…he might change his pitch selection…the hitter might change his approach…etc.
Minor correction note: “This is very similar to when announcers ELUDE to the fact…” I think you mean allude not elude.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allude
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elude
Not sure I entirely agree. I think the “impact” of the no-hitter will certainly be weakened if the call is changed, but I’m not sure that many of your points are valid.
But I don’t think you can assume things would turn out differently. This is nothing like Nick’s example – “if so and so doesn’t get thrown out” – because the game situation would not change at all. There’s still a guy on first, still the same number of outs. In Nick’s case, it’s very reasonable to think that the pitcher or offense would do something differently. In this case, it’s not.
“The Pirates would have tried harder” sounds pretty weak to me. CC would have been nervous – maybe, I guess. It’s a lot of hand-waving though.
I guess I see it this way: if runs can be earned or unearned based on assuming plays for the rest of the inning, then I have no problem assuming that the rest of the game would play out the same way, when the play in question did not change the state of the game in ANY way whatsoever.
Jon, it is very reasonable to think that things may have happened differently. Not as reasonable perhaps as Nick’s example, which I mentioned in the actual article, but still reasonable nonetheless.
Teams don’t like being no-hit, and pitchers have to feel some sort of pressure as each inning passes without a hit. To just assume automatically that every single event would have stayed the same is incorrect. Earned runs and unearned runs are different.
The unearned runs rule with 2 outs might be what you’re referring to in that, all runs scored after an error with 2 outs are unearned because that play would have ended the inning. In that case, it makes sense because no more batters would have come to the dish that inning. Things may happen later but the pitcher “earned” his way out of the inning. Because the fielder botched it the idea is that it shouldn’t count against the pitcher.
Saying that if the LaRoche ball is called an error, that everything else would have stayed exactly the same is wrong. It MAY have stayed exactly the same, but we have no proof that something different would not have happened. You’re right in that the hit/error call doesn’t change the game state in that inning, but it would more than likely change the scope of the game for both the Pirates and CC if it were a no-hitter.
If there is any doubt then you just shouldn’t reverse this call.
The unearned runs rule I mean (and I apologize if I’m wrong about this) is the following situation:
Man on 1st, 1 out, grounder to 3B goes through his legs, men on 1st/3rd with 1 out. Next batter pops out. Next batter singles, run scores. I believe in this case the run is unearned, because the popout is assumed, and if not for the error, it would have ended the inning. Clearly it makes less sense (to me, at least) to assume the popout than the rest of the MIL/PIT game, because the game state was different as a result of the error. So if that popout can be asusmed, and the run is unearned, then I think the error could be reversed.
(If I’m wrong about how that would be scored, please let me know.)
Another argument would be that you should look at the play in isolation. The fact that it would affect a no-hitter should be irrelevant. They make retroactive changes all the time that affect batting averages, ERAs, etc. – a no-hitter is just like any other statistic.
Doesn’t this incident just display the absurdity of the error as a statistic. If the scorer makes a different decision does it change anything about the game? He still gave up one baserunner, on a difficult to field ball. Whether it’s a hit or an error is pretty much immaterial. The error should be eliminated and all runners reaching base should be given hits, since some more or less constant fraction of batted balls turn into errors.
I completely agree with the original post. Of course Sabathia would have been more nervous, and I would bet that in the 8th and 9th innings, the hitters would have been pressing to get a hit. Anything could have happened, and you are also right in that Yost was probably not hopping mad after CC got out of the inning. His postgame tirade was ridiculous. He definitely gets the “Just Shut Up Award” of the month.