The No-Hitter Double Standard - jmik58's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

jmik58's Blog

The No-Hitter Double Standard Stuck

Posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM.

(10)

The third base line has carried on a difficult relationship with the New York Mets so far in the month of June.

Two weeks after Johan Santana threw the first no-no in Mets history, knuckleballer R.A. Dickey came within one hit of duplicating the feat. In Santana's gem, St. Louis Cardinals veteran Carlos Beltran hit a ball that video replay clearly showed hit the chalk-line past third base -- the call, however, was foul.

In Dickey's case it isn't the call of an umpire that is in question. Instead, the official scorer's choice to rule a first-inning dribbler as a hit off the bat of B.J. Upton is what the Mets are appealing for change -- and for history.

But the peculiar part of the appeal by New York lies in the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of the human element within the game of baseball. You can't expect the Mets to file an appeal to have Santana's no-hitter overturned, but declaring that an objective call such as a scorer's decision is grounds for a change; what does that say for your support of the Santana decision?

To ask the Mets manager Terry Collins about the appeal is to understand that the organization has their expectations set low in regard to the outcome. A decision on the matter is expected by week's end, but Collins and company aren't getting their hopes up.

In reference to the attempt of third baseman David Wright, Collins stated, "You've got a guy who can really run and an outstanding third baseman. The only way he can make the play is to barehand it. And he knows that. And he can't make it."

The man in the MLB office who must make the final decision is none other than Joe Torre. The former Yankees and Dodgers skipper has stated he will seek additional opinions -- including a discussion with Tony LaRussa -- before coming to a consensus.

LaRussa, the former manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, and Torre who used to play for them, aren't expected to support the Mets' appeal. Torre and LaRussa, who are close friends off the field, fit well into commissioner Bud Selig's support staff as each is known for viewing the game through a traditionalist perspective.

But in the event that the MLB somehow overturns the call to charge Wright with an error and subsequently award Dickey with a no-hitter; the proverbial can of worms is already open. While the fair/foul call on Beltran during Santana's game is an untouchable protest, the message being sent may be a confusing one.

And for fans of the game it might be more damaging due to the uncertainty such decisions would impart on viewing the game in the future.

The next time a questionable call rears its ugly head mid-no-hitter; would the black cloud hovering over the remainder of the game ruin the moment? And conversely, being rewarded a no-hitter after the fact would be like receiving a gold medal two months after the assumed Olympic champion was disqualified and had to forfeit the gold.

While justice may be served, the moment will have passed and the toothpaste will be out of the tube. The emotions that define the moment can't be artificially created.

And what about the impact of the stress that a pitcher and team feels throughout the course of a no-hitter? Would Dickey have folded under the pressure? How would he have pitched differently during the last half of the game?

The Mets have potentially thrust a double-edged sword between the two outstanding performances of Santana and Dickey. It's a dangerous contradiction -- a catch-22.

For the Mets, they also hope it's an E-5.

Should the Mets be allowed to appeal for R.A. Dickey's game to be changed to a no-hitter?

Justin Mikels is a staff writer for Operation Sports. You can follow him on Twitter @long_snapper.

Comments

# 1 BIG17EASY @ Jun 15

Fair or foul calls can't be changed after the game, hence the Beltran "hit" can't be changed, rendering the entire crux of your post pointless. Nice try, though.

# 2 Joe Chacon @ Jun 15

@BIG17EASY Fair and foul calls are made by the umpires on the field. Those calls cannot be appealed.

Hits and errors are made by an official scorekeeper and can be changed should an appeal be filed and won.

Per the MLB rulebook:
The League President shall order changed any decision of an official scorer that contradicts the rules of scoring set forth in this Rule 10 and shall take whatever remedial actions as may be necessary to correct any statistics that need correction as a result of such mistaken scoring decision.

Good read, jmik!

# 3 jmik58 @ Jun 15

@BIG17EASY Thanks for reading and for taking the time to comment.

You make valid points about the non-reversable aspect of the fair/foul call during Santana's game. The closest thing I can think of is the classic George Brett pine tar incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident). If applied the same way to the Beltran situation, the game would have to be resumed in the 6th inning with Beltran being awarded 2nd base most likely. What matters though is that it can't be changed (thanks to @Joe Chacon for posting the official rule).

Furthermore, the entire crux of this blog isn't an argument in favor of changing Santana's no-hitter. It's about the awkward situation the Mets are placing themselves in by challenging R.A. Dickey's game. And more profoundly, my goal is to produce discussion regarding the ultimate question here: should something as significant as a no-hitter be able to be "awarded" based on a protest or appeal?

# 4 jmik58 @ Jun 15

Update: MLB has DENIED the appeal. The game stands as a one-hitter for Dickey -- http://es.pn/OSQl7R

# 5 BIG17EASY @ Jun 15

@Joe Chacon He chides the Mets for appealing Thursday's play because what if MLB changed the Beltran "hit" and took away a no-hitter. But that's not possible, that's my point.

@jmik58 The only way the Mets put themselves in an awkward position was by looking greedy. It was a hit, no question. Appealing the play was a waste of time that could only make the Mets look bad. But the comparison to the Beltran "hit" is pointless because the situations are not comparable. Your blog post would've been better served without it.

# 6 jhendricks316 @ Jun 15

I don't that the question should be whether or not it should be allowed. We should question how we look at the Mets.

# 7 jmik58 @ Jun 15

@BIG17EASY Whether the MLB overturned the Santana no-hitter is irrelevant. They can't, and I acknowledge that. My point is very clear: the Mets' appeal for a change in a potential no-hitter creates an awkward circumstance considering that Santana's no-hitter was tainted due to the Beltran fair/foul call. Think of it like a sports version of Matthew 7:5 ("...first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"). And if the Santana game is ignored, as you suggest, then there is no contrast to the decision to appeal the Dickey game.

Furthermore, it's completely analogous due to the fact that a single decision stands out as the difference between a no-hitter and a one-hitter. You're really turning this into an apples-to-oranges argument. Why not go one step more and say it's not the same because it wasn't the same teams involved, wasn't the same day, or it was played in a different state?

The big question I've yet to hear addressed is how "cheapened" the no-hitter accomplishment would become if they are awarded after the fact.

# 8 BIG17EASY @ Jun 15

@jmik58 You created the apples-to-oranges situation, not me. A mistake by an umpire is not comparable to a mistake by an official scorer. One is a decision that can be definitively called right or wrong. The other is subjective.

I'm not trying to be a hard-*** (although I problem am), but I was a sports editor at a mid-sized daily newspaper for 12 years. This blog post would never see the light of day in a printed publication for the reasons I've stated. Maybe I sound like Buzz Bissinger for complaining about bloggers and things posted on the Internet, but that's my feeling here.

And if your big question hasn't been addressed, perhaps that's the topic you should've written about in the first place. In fact, your big question is a good one because if they had changed Dickey's game to a no-hitter, you could've written about which was more tainted -- his because it was awarded after the fact on an appealed error/hit play, or Santana's for having a hit that was called foul. That's a great sports topic for debate.

If we were sitting in a newsroom right now, that's what I'd be telling you to right about.

# 9 jmik58 @ Jun 15

@BIG17EASY I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of the comparison. I agree with the point you make that the problem with each no-hitter is different. But I never attempted to take that literal of an angle in comparing the two no-hitters. You're focusing on technicalities and I'm speaking more conceptually in much broader terms. Your focus is on how each game is tainted. I'm zoomed out much more than that. My perspective is simply on the game itself and that each no-hitter, regardless of the exact reasons (if Dickey's game was ruled a no-hitter) is tainted -- nothing more. There is a black cloud over Santana's and a black cloud would have fallen over Dickey's as well. That is the comparison I made -- not an apples-to-oranges argument. I didn't get specific enough for it to qualify as such. When you bring in the technicalities you're presenting an argument for me to defend that I never made in the first place.

Regardless of whether we agree or not, I definitely appreciate your feedback and hope you continue to read and comment in the future.

# 10 BIG17EASY @ Jun 16

@jmik58 Fair enough, if you say you weren't making that literal of a comparison, then so be it. But the following paragraph comparing the "human element" isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

"But the peculiar part of the appeal by New York lies in the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of the human element within the game of baseball. You can't expect the Mets to file an appeal to have Santana's no-hitter overturned, but declaring that an objective call such as a scorer's decision is grounds for a change; what does that say for your support of the Santana decision?"

One is a right-wrong call; the other is an opinion call. Therefore, the human element involved is not the same and makes the comparison a flimsy one. That's the exact point where myself, as the reader, got the idea that you were directly comparing the two "problems" in each game.

Good luck with your writing. Don't be afraid to look at things a little deeper. It will provoke your readers to look at things differently, and any writing that causes the reader to either think differently or feel an emotion is good writing.

Hopefully you can continue to work hard and your work gets more exposure than on a video game website.