Charlie Manuel and the Integrity of the Game

Eyes are on Phillies manager Charlie Manuel this upcoming weekend as they play the Braves to close out the season.  The Phils have already clinched the division, but the Braves are fighting for a wild card berth with whoever doesn't win the NL West, the Padres or Giants.  There is concern on behalf of the west team that Manuel will juggle his rotation and rest his stars to get ready for the playoffs.  This would give the Braves an unfair advantage in the wild card race.  The same situation arose several years ago with the Braves' Bobby Cox.

A long standing ethical baseball tradition holds that if you're playing against a team at the end of the season, and that team is in the pennant race, you push your experimentation with your September call-ups aside, and go at the game with your best.  This guarantees the other team in the pennant race that things will be fair.  This upholds the integrity of the game.  And I completely agree with this tradition.

Except in the Phillies' case.  Why?  Well, traditionally, baseball didn't have divisions.  Each league consisted of all teams racing for the same pennant.  This meant that only the teams that were no longer in any pennant race at all were facing teams that were.  The season no longer mattered to them because they had no shot at the pennant, or a yet to be created division title.  When division play came along, however, each division had an even number of teams, and the schedule guaranteed that the last several weeks were played amongst teams in their own divisions.  So the tradition of not rolling over against a playoff contender stood.

But then several new developments came on the scene.  With AL expansion in '77, and NL expansion in '93, there were no longer an even number of teams in a division.  This meant that during the pennant race, there was always at least one series playing between teams of opposite divisions.  Then with realignment in '94, a wild card was introduced along with three divisions.  Most divisions didn't (and still don't) have an even number of teams.  Now, it's guaranteed that teams playing out of their divisions, and against wild card contenders, happens more often.  So, we're bound to see this situation occur where a team that has already clinched a playoff spot will play against teams that haven't yet.

But it's also another baseball tradition, albeit one of strategy, to do whatever necessary to get your team ready for the playoffs.  Rest stars, juggle rotations, use your call-ups.  And traditionally, since that team had already clinched, it meant that no other team they faced was still in a pennant race.  They could afford to lose games after clinching, since those games had no importance, whereas the post-season games did.

So, what the addition of a wild card and interdivision play caused by odd numbers of teams within divisions has done is to pit two baseball traditions against each other in a head-to-head fashion.  And if you're the team that has already won a spot in the playoffs, your self-interest trumps all others.  Period.  In essence, what people are calling on Charlie Manuel to do is to jeopardize his team's ability to win the World Series just to satisfy the desires of a team that obviously hasn't played well enough to have already clinched.  And that is a ridiculous thing to ask.

The real question about the integrity of the game that should be asked is whether interdivision play at the end of the season and a wild card format are the ideas that compromise the integrity of the game.  Even though my Giants could be affected by Manuel's managing decisions this weekend, I realize that it's in his best interest to try to win the World Series in any way possible.  I would expect nothing less than for Manuel to tell his critics to shove it, even if those critics were Giants fans and management.

Tradition, The Human Element and Instant Replay (1)

The blown call on the last out of a perfect game that took a perfect game away from a pitcher has given new fuel to the instant replay debate. The call took a perfect game away from the pitcher because the perfect game was already completed when the call was made. The ball beat the runner to first base. The runner was out, but the ump called him safe after the play was made.

The big part of the debate is over the human element of the game. I'm glad that baseball has taken the "get it right" attitude on the field where other umpires can meet to review their own take on a play rather than let the offending umpire stew forever in his mistake. This allowance for an umpire conference upholds the human element - a traditional element at that - of the game. Baseball realizes that it is possible for human error, and also recognized that human error can be corrected on the spot. I wonder whether the other three umps could have overruled the erring ump to preserve the perfecto? Also, could the scorekeeper have, judging that the throw actually beat the runner, ruled the play an error on either the pitcher or first baseman to at least preserve a no-hitter? Would this not be included in the human element of the game?

But one thing baseball also recognizes is that some games or moments are more important than others. Not every play during every season has the same importance. For example, extra umpires are added down the foul lines for post-season and All-Star games, and extras are at the park just in case. Regular season games allow for ill or injured umpires to leave the game and go with three. I'll bring this difference of importance into another post coming soon.

Throw Back Days

Back when I was much more of a baseball traditionalist, I liked those "turn back the clock" days, where old uniforms or old ways of doing things were put into play at a particular game. But not really anymore. I saw an A's/White Sox game recently that had throwback uniforms to 1929, a year the A's won the Series. The granddaughter of Connie Mack and grandson of Jimmy Foxx threw out first pitches.

The uniforms were interesting to look at, but when I looked at the total picture, it wasn't a real throwback attempt. Only the jerseys and pants were throwback. It just didn't look authentic because the uni's were polyester, not flannel with the right bagginess, and the players had their Nike swoosh spikes on, the A's wore their contemporary white shoes. Players also used modern gloves, had helmets, wore shin guards, arm guards, batting gloves, and other modern trappings. And I hate those throwback games where the current helmets are used if they don't fit the uniform. This game, the A's at least used blue helmets with a lone white "A" logo, like it was in 1929.

But the ones that are even worse are those games that use minor league uniforms or other past teams. Watching the highlights on SportsCenter is useless to identify those teams. If somebody broke some all time record or threw a no-hitter during one of those games, I'd hate to see endless replays of somebody who had to be explained every time. Oh, he threw a perfect game, but they were wearing minor league uni's in tribute to something or other.

Bay Bridge Series

This weekend marks what we here in the San Francisco Bay Area call "the Bay Bridge Series." The A's and Giants play each other the last few games of spring training, but here in the Bay Area, in each ballpark. This is a tradition that has lasted since 1982, and has its roots in the 1981 players strike.

In '81, when the strike was ended in mid-summer, a date was set for resuming the schedule. With quite a bit of fan dissatisfaction, the A's and Giants decided to play a pair of exhibition games against each other just prior to the season resuming, one game in each park. This was designed to get the fans back into baseball, and to offer some real game practice to the players. It was so successful that they decided to do this the weekend prior to the '82 season. It also formed a new kind of rivalry because interleague play had not entered the scene yet.

The series took the form of two games, one in each park. But unless there was a sweep, a series tie could result. So they introduced a post-game homerun derby in case of tie. Later on, sometime in the 90's I think, the series was extended to three games to guarantee a series winner. Each year the teams alternated in hosting two of the three games. The series remained a success, was drummed up in the media, and the fans enjoyed it. Some couldn't take sides because they liked both teams and created two-way hats with both logos, and the like. It was a tailgate party's paradise. It could be fun for fans of both teams, because prior to interleague play, the teams never played each other when it really counted, and playing each other in the World Series was not even thinkable. (Then 1989 happened!)

Then in '97, the series fell in importance. This was because of the introduction of interleague play, with the two teams being among the "special" metro area rivals each year, playing each other in real games. One complete three-game series would be held in each park each year, regardless of rotating divisional matchups from year to year. Bragging rights meant something different. The pre-season version of the series also suffered a few other setbacks on occasion. The Giants, acting arrogantly toward their cross-bay rivals upped and scheduled games against other teams one year ('96 I think), leaving the A's hanging. The year 2000 also brought the opening of the Giants new ballpark, PacBell Park, as the villain. The Giants scheduled games against the Brewers and Yankees to christen their new yard, leaving only one game against the A's, if I remember correctly.

This decade, the series still exists, but with two games in SF and only one in Oakland. The Giants have taken advantage of their new ballpark's favor among all fans in scheduling three home exhibition games each spring end, two against the A's. Attendance is almost guaranteed to be greater in SF, so more ticket revenue is in view. Last night, the teams played to a 2-2 tie in 10 innings before quitting (spring training doesn't allow taxing of players when it doesn't count) and at the time of this writing, they had a 4-4 tie in the 5th. Tomorrow's game is in Oakland. I don't care who wins, as it is only exhibition, but it can still be fun.

Ugly St. Patty's Day Uniforms

We're watching the Cubs/Padres game on WGN, and each team is wearing kelly green hats for St. Patrick's Day. But the rest of the uniform is the usual, so it looks stupid. I like the old Cincinnati Reds uni's where every piece of red was changed to green.

Baseball Traditionalists

Sometimes it's hard to tell what a baseball traditionalist believes in because traditions have changed over time. Which tradition or group of tradition is in view? Often, traditionalists will point to the 50's as the ideal for such things as fan rowdiness. "Back in the good ol' days, fans were polite and had manners and never said bad things to the players." But just 50 years before that, things were even more rowdy than they are today. Gambling and organized crime were rampant, fans threw bottles, fruit and vegetables at players on the field during the game, and umpires were routinely targets of death threats. The clubhouse wasn't dreamed up yet, so fully uniformed players took the trolley from the hotel to the ballpark, where youngsters lined the rails to throw mud at the invaders. In my expert opinion, fan drunkenness, rowdiness and the like peaked in the late 80's, and have been in steady decline ever since. Last year while mildly heckling some visiting players, my friend Mike noted that if we attempted to yell some of the things we routinely did in the 80's, we would end up in jail.

My favorite reference to tradition was when the Cincinnati Reds offered to sign Rollie Fingers to a contract near the end of his career. A condition of the contract would be that he would have to shave off his trademark handlebar moustache (acquired in his days in Oakland when Charlie Finley allowed his players - he actually offered them $50 - to grow long hair and facial hair) because of the Reds' policy against wearing facial hair. "We're a traditional team" was the reason given. Naturally, Fingers turned them down. What was so hilarious about this pretension of traditionalism, was that the Reds were a team that was owned by a woman, wore double knit polyester uniforms with pullover tops and pants with elastic waist bands, and played in a cookie-cutter multi-purpose stadium with artificial turf. But a look at old tobacco playing cards would reveal that ballplayers of that era sported facial hair, especially moustaches, far more regularly than today.

"Take Me Out To The Ballgame" - A Giants Fan's Version

Take Me Out To The Ballgame is a wonderful song. I've known it my whole life. My mother sings it to my children. I sing it every game I go to a game. I wish it would replace the Star Spangled Banner as our national anthem. But I've changed the words.

Back in the mid 80's, I changed a few words to make it fun for Giants fans. Mike and I sing it this way each time we go to a game. Here are the words, with my updated ones in italics:

Take me out to the ballgame
Take me out with the crowd
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack
I don't care if I never get back
Let me root, root, root for the home team
Unless they play in L.A.
For it's one... two... three strikes you're out
At the old ball game.