CONGRATS TO THE YANKS, BUT WHERE’S THEIR MEDICAID CARDS?

Well the yanks finally did it.

Five years and nine months after trading Alfonso Soriano for Alex Rodriguez in February of 2004, their master plan of winning the World Series and avenging their defeats at the hands of first the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001 (Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson) and then the Florida Marlins in 2003 (Josh Beckett) finally came to fruition.

Well, not exactly. There were some weird detours in the road.

First, in 2004, they ALMOST got there. they hung a 3-0 lead on the Boston Red Sox in the ALCS–and you know the rest. They caved, the choked, they lost four straight–the only team in baseball history to do that–and the Red Sox reversed the curse and won the world series in 2004.

In 2005, the Yanks lost to the Angels in the AL Division Series. This was pretty awful. The Angels didn’t even make it to the Series–the White Sox did, and the White Sox won and reversed their Curse and won the series against the Houston Astros, which appeared in the series for the first time.

In 2006, the Yanks tried again. This time, they were destroyed by the Detroit Tigers 3-1 in the ALDivision Series, but at least the Tigers got to the World Series. But the Tigers, who had great pitching and Jimmy Leyland as manager, lost to the St Louis Cards and Tony LaRussa. That was a real upset, since the Cards had won only 83 games all season long.

In 2007, the Cleveland Indians, with a couple of guys named Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia, knocked the Yanks out of the AL Division Series for the third year in a row, 3-1. The Red Sox edged the powerful Indians 4-3 in the ALCS (which was probably the real world series) and then went on to sweep the hapless Colorado Rockies 4-0, who were probably just happy to be making their first appearance in world series play.

So now, since AROD had arrived, the yanks had 1) made one of the all time chokes in alcs history in 2004, and 2) lost three straight ALDS series for the first time in who knows when…

Did they trade A-ROD? of course not..they fired Joe Torre instead…

and in 2008, the Yankees missed the playoffs entirely, while the tampa bay rays (they took the name devil out, pleasing god) and the red sox took the two playoff spots in the al east. tampa disposed of the white sox while boston beat the angels, and then tampa got rid of the red sox in a great seven game alcs.

meanwhile, the phillies, who had edged out the mets in 2007 to win the nl east, only to be swept out in the nlds by the rockies, won the nl east again in 2008, and this time, they took care of business, beating the Brewers with cc sabathia, and then meeting–the la dodgers with joe torre as manager.

so in 2008 joe torre got to the playoffs but a rod did not.

hmmmm

the dodgers played the phils tough but the phils won in 5 in the nlcs, setting up a great world series, which was dominated by cole hamels and brad lidge’s great pitching.

Those scores, if you recall, were;
g1 philly 3-2
g2 tampa 4-2
g3 philly 5-4
g4 philly 10-2
g5 philly 4-3

notice that this was a low-scoring series with 3 one run games and a two run game and only one blowout? both tampa bay and the phillies had great pitching, great fielding, great speed, and great defense.

This year, the yanks decided to get drastic. they opened their wallets and bought;
1) cc sabathia
2) aj burnett and
3) mark teixeira

well, these were wise investments. the yanks won 103 games with these three guys, and blew through the playoffs to the world series.

burnett won one key game in the series. sabathia was solid in two games of the series, even if he lost game one. teixeira was an animal who had to be pitched around even if he wasn’t great, so a rod got more pitches to hit.

but as great as this team now is, there’s a big problem.

it took them so long to get here, the core is old.

1 C Jorge Posada# 37
4 SS Derek Jeter 35
5 3B Alex Rodriguez 33
6 LF Johnny Damon* 35
9 DH Hideki Matsui* 35
11 C Jose Molina 34
23 P Andy Pettitte* 37
24 P A.J. Burnett 32
29 P Mariano Rivera 39

Nick Swisher is 28, and Mark Teixeira is 29, so actually they might be expected to decline in the years ahead.

But clearly, athletes after age 27 or 28 have age related declines, and athletes after age 35, have sharp age related declines and are subject to career ending injuries.

The yankees are simply not just old, they are geriatric at five key batting positions, and three key pitching positions.

They also lack a #4 and a #5 starter, and lack depth in the bullpen.

Melkey Cabrera can’t field, and he can’t hit.

Hideki Matsui is a free agent in any case, and wants to go to the west coast by all accounts. He wants a lot more money.

CC Sabathia is 28, but let’s face it, the man looks like he lives on a diet of pizza and philly cheesesteaks. when i told my kids he was 28, my daughter, who is 15, remarked, “he looks like he’s 45″ or something like that.

pitchers with cc sabathia’s build and body type don’t tend to age well, and do tend to come down with arm problems, as opposed to pitchers with cole hamels or cliff lee’s body type.

for example, brett myers has always been overweight. this is one of the reasons he’s been injury prone his whole career. a pitcher needs to be light and have good mechanics to stay healthy over the course of a season.

cliff lee has beautiful mechanics.

the good news for the yanks is they have a lot of good young pitchers who may mature into much better pitchers. i like their young staff and i believe that one or two or more of them will emerge as real winners next year–after all, they have a good offense behind them.

I should point out one last point–the sabrmetrician in me needs to. Although the Yankees won 103 and lost 59, their pythagorean won lost record was only 95-67, based on their scoring 915 runs and allowing 753 runs. That means that they won eight more games than they should have based on random or luck factors–regression to the mean would suggest that they are actually a 95 win ball club that got a bit lucky this year. They did have a 22-16 record in one run games, which perhaps explains some of this disparity. Also, the Yanks were 7-3 in extra inning games as well.

But those kind of results tend to even out over seasons.

Assuming they regress back to 95 wins, and lose 7-8 wins off of that due to age or related factors, the yankees might not even get back to the playoffs in 2010.

The Yankees to get back, need to retool, get younger, and address their serious aging problem.

I will address the Phillies in a separate article.

In the meantime, the Yankees and their fans should enjoy their parade. It’s very likely the last hurrah of a great core that has now won five world championships in 14 seasons since 1996, and appeared in seven world series during that time, just about half of them. It’s a truly remarkable achievement.

Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Bernie Williams, Andy Pettite, all now seemed bound to cash in their ticket for the Hall of Fame.

Alex Rodriquez has tainted credentials due to steroid use. I personally would not vote for him, or any other steroid user. At least I would take a wait and see attitude on those guys. Roger Clemens, who was a key part of several of those teams, is also now a problem child due to steroid allegations, but Clemens is also clearly perhaps the greatest pitcher who ever took the mound, so he’s kind of a borderline issue case, whereas Rodriguez is kind of like Vern Stephens on steroids.

So hats off the yanks, and make sure their medicaid cards and long term care policies are paid for.

–art k philly
home of Mr. November, Chase Utley
Home of the 2008 World Champion Phillies
“it was a very good year” –frank sinatra

THE LATE GREAT CORY LIDLE RIP THE FORGOTTEN MAN IN THE SERIES

in 2006, the Phils and Yankees made the historic Bobby Abreu trade, but the forgotten man in that deal was Starting Pitcher Cory Lidle:

July 30, 2006: Pitcher Cory Lidle Traded by the Philadelphia Phillies with Bobby Abreu to the New York Yankees for C.J. Henry (minors), Carlos Monastrios (minors), Jesus Sanchez (minors) and Matt Smith.

Abreu spent 2 years with the Yanks, then moved on to the Angels, where he helped the Angels reach the ALCS before they fell to the Yanks. Abreu did not have a good ALCS vs the Yanks.

Why is Lidle that important? Because, as everyone knows, or has forgotten, the Yankees were looking for depth at the back end of their rotation at the time. Cory Lidle was an innings eater, a guy who averaged 185-200 innnings a year. His career 162 game average was 189 innings pitched per year with a 12-10 career won lost record, a 4.57 ERA, a very good strikeout to walk ratio, and a WHIP of 1.33, which is decent for a 4 or 5 starter.

But as everyone knows, or has forgotten, on October 11, 2006, Cory Lidle was killed accidentally while flying his airplane near new york city over one of the rivers bordering manhattan. It was a gruesome disaster, and spelled the end to a young life. Lidle was only 34 years old at the time and still pitching very well indeed–and probably would have stuck with the Yanks.

The reason I mention the late Cory Lidle is twofold.

First, you would think someone would have thought to honor his memory during this series. It would have been right.

Second, if Cory Lidle had lived, he surely would have been the back end starter that the Yankees were searching for all year this year–the guy to take heat off of Joba Chamberlain, and surely a guy they could have dialed up to start Game 5 instead of rushing AJ Burnett out there to get pounded on three days rest.

No one gives much credit to the #4 and #5 starters of the world–the Joe Blantons–but they do an important job–they eat up innings, hold the other team to 3 or 4 runs, and give their teams a chance to win.

Cory Lidle on normal rest would have done that for the Yanks, and hey, he would have loved to pitch in the world series against his old team.

It’s a shame he never got the chance.

–art kyriazis, philly
Home of Chase Utley, Mr. November, Five Homers in a World Series
Tying Reggie Jackson’s all time record, Mr. October, set 32 years ago, 1977 vs. LA Dodgers.
Phillies, 2008 World Champions, 2009 NL Champions, congratulate the 2009 World Champion Yankees.

TWO MORE DUMB MOVES BY THE YANKEES IN NL PARK

The Yankees may be winning this thing, based on AJ Burnett slightly edging Pedro in a pitchers duel and AROD getting a home run courtesy of a NEW YORK LAWYER sitting in Bud Selig’s office doing “impartial” instant replay (sure, that was really impartial, fair and just, new yawkers) based on illegal umpiring and illegal ground rules (for my discussion of the persecution of cole hamels going back to game 5 of last years world series, and the rules, see my prior blog entry, “if I had a hamels…”), but still, the Yanks are making mistakes.

1) Melky Cabrera is not a very good hitter, and not a very good centerfielder. In fact, when I checked his stats, he’s one of the worst centerfielders in all of baseball. He also has a terrible arm. In the NL park, where the pitcher has to hit, it would make some sense to lift the weak-hitting Cabrera from the lineup and have either Damon, who still had great fielding stats, play center, or just have Swisher play Center, since Swisher was a centerfielder with the Chisox. Swisher is no worse than Cabrera. I’d put Matsui in Left Field, and get his bat into the lineup any way I could. If I got the lead, then I’d replace him with Cabrera, or better yet, Gardner. In fact, if I really wanted defense in center, I’d just play Gardner—Gardner’s defensive stats are amazing. Cabrera’s are not. Also, Gardner is fast, Cabrera is not.

2) Jose Molina should really be catching. He’s not just a little bit better defensively; he’s the BEST DEFENSIVE CATCHER IN BASEBALL, BY A LONG SHOT. Here are some amazing stats: Molina throws out more than 40% of all baserunners who attempt to steal against him—the average, good defensive catcher throws out about 25% in the current game—and Jorge Posada, at age 38, is throwing out just about no one, Posada throws out about 5% of baserunners, which is to say no one. Which means that the Phillies, a baserunning team with Rollins, Victorino and Werth all baserunning threats, will run wild on Posada, whereas with Molina, you shut down the Phillies running game, as demonstrated in Game 2 of the World Series, where Werth was picked off first to nip a rally in the bud. I would use Molina even in the NL park, and certainly in the AL park, where Posada can be the dh.

3) Matsui should be playing in the field. It’s a luxury to have a leftfielder perfectly capable of fielding playing dh. I’m not sure why matsui can’t field, because I saw him field for years. Damon can certainly play center and so can Swisher. You’d get more offense if you played matsui, damon and swisher in the of. Why play Cabrera at all? Plus with Molina at catcher, you shut down the running game of certain teams.

4) Last point, the yanks are dumb to throw their three best starters on three days rest. This mimeght work for Sabathia or Burnett once but not both twice, and what you’re going to end up with is Andy Pettite on short rest in game six, and Sabathia going twice on short rest in game 7, whereas Charlie Manuel has the option of going with something completely different in game 7 – he can flip flop Pedro and JA Happ for game six, and save Pedro for Game 7—or he can go Pedro game six and save JA Happ for Game 7—or he can consciously use Hamels with the idea that he’ll relieve him at the first sign of trouble and go Hamels, Happ, Myers. He could even start Myers, and go Hamels, Happ.

5) It’s a shame the Phils don’t have Jamie Moyer this year. Right now the Yanks could be fooled by the junkballing lefty after seeing a steady diet of hard-throwing fastballers like Pedro, Lee and Hamels. Moyer is a crafty vet and he cranked up good couple of games in last years’ postseason. Plus the yanks don’t hit lefties too well. A major loss for the phils especially now that they’re down a game. They could have used moyer to relieve hamels when hamels got upset after the arod call. Moyer would have come in and restored order and given the phils a chance to win.

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world series champion phillies
nl pennant winners, 2008, 2009
nl east division champs, 2007, 2008, 2009
The Philadelphia Phillies – the team that doesn’t need steroids, celebrities, actress girlfriends, the largest payroll in baseball, or instant replay to win – they do it the old fashioned way – they EARN it…

IF I HAD A HAMELS….UNICORNS AND ABSTRACT HOME RUNS UNIVERSALLY INSTANTIATED BY INSTANT REPLAY DO IN COLE HAMELS AND THE PHILLIES – BUT DO THEY VIOLATE THE PLAIN LETTER OF THE HOME RUN RULE?

Last night we witnessed the triumph of existentialism, or should I say, Instantiation, in modern baseball, because the alleged two run home run hit by Alex Rodriguez NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

To understand this, first we must review the Home Run Rule in modern baseball, which was first defined in 1885, and was subsequently amended in 1892, 1914, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1950 and 1955.

The key concept of the home run rule is most plainly expressed in the 1892 rule which has not been changed very much since 1892:

A FAIR BATTED BALL THAT GOES OVER THE FENCE SHALL ENTITLE THE BATTER TO A HOME RUN…

The key concepts here are that

1) the ball has to be fair; and
2) the ball has to go “over the fence.”

The 1892 rule adds that “A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.” Meaning, if the ball goes over the fence above the line, it goes “over the fence.”

However, and this is the key point, the ball still has to go OVER the fence, not just ABOVE the line.

Last nite’s alleged home run by Alex Rodriquez, as a careful examination of the Rules of Baseball in this blog will demonstrate, was not a home run, but a Ground Rule Double.

It was a Ground Rule Double, because the ball never went OVER the Fence, as require plainly by the Rules of Baseball, but merely hit an object, which was in the field of play, above the line, but still in the field of play.

As to whether the ball would have, could have, or should have gone over the fence, but for the object, which was a TV camera, that is an interesting philosophical debate (which is the same as conceiving of unicorns, trolls, a planet without war and the tooth fairy), but the result is still the same: the home run remains an abstraction, something INSTANTIATED and given EXISTENCE only in the collective minds of the umpires.

You see the replay plainly on Fox TV. At no time did the ball go OVER the Fence. Moreover, the camera was jutting a good five to ten feet into the field. Even if the camera wasn’t there, the downward arc of the ball meant that the ball might have gone over the fence, or it might have continued its downward slope and hit the fence at a point BELOW the line of the fence.

Now, as a careful examination of the rules will show, similar disputes such as balls getting caught in the wiring of the ivy fences at Wrigley have always been rules as ground rule doubles. At no time have such balls ever been rules home runs, not in World Series and never on instant replay, because there has never been instant replay in the World Series or at any time in baseball.

I’m certainly pleased to see that baseball, not content with attempting to stop the Phillies from winning the World Series last year by calling a rain delay halt for the first time in World Series History when Cole Hamels was pitching a brilliant game in game five, this year, for the first time in World Series history called a fake home rum and foiled Cole Hamels again from winning.

Up to the point of the fake homer call, Hamels was pitching a no-hitter. It was obvious that Hamels was furious with the call. And rightly so. The call was utter and total BS, and proves that Bud Selig and Organized Baseball are determined to see that the Yankees win the World Series at all costs. The Umpiring crew rules so quickly that they must have been told by Selig how to rule. They didn’t have time to deliberate.

This is reminiscent of 1950, when the Yankees used their connections with the US Government to have Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander with Sandy Koufax stuff, a twenty game winner, on the Phillies, get his draft notice in mid-September 1950, two weeks before the World Series was coming up with the Yanks. At the time, the Phils had Robin Roberts, now in the Hall of Fame, and Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander, on their staff. The two pitchers had combined for more than fifty wins. The two pitchers could each have won two games in the series and blown out the Yanks, much like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson won the 2001 Series for Arizona back a few years. But with Curt Simmons in the Army, the Phillies barely won the Pennant, and were eradicated by the Yanks in four games.

The Yankees always need to cheat to win.

Ok, so here are the Home Run Rules:

1885 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence at a distance less than 210 feet from home base shall entitle the batsmen to two bases. A distinctive line shall be marked on the fence at this point.

My comment: At this point, a ball “over the fence” is not a homer at all, it’s a ground rule double. Weird.

1892 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence shall entitle the batter to a home run; except that should it go over the fence at a distance less than 235 feeet from home base, the batter is entitled to only two bases. A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.

My comment: This is essentially the modern rule. The ball has to go “over” the “fence” to be a home run. And it has to go “over” the “distinctive line” of the “fence”. Not above, but over.

I think we all understand the difference between going near, above and around a line painted on a fence, and going over a fence. It’s the difference between a hurdler stumbling on the hurdle, and a hurdler clearing the hurdle entirely.

Rodriquez’ ball last nite, in Game 3 of the 2009 World Series, is not a home run under the Home Run Rule. It did not go “over the fence” or over the “distinctive line”, because in three dimensional space, it hit the camera before it crossed the plane of the line, and was knocked back into the field. Therefore, it never went over the line, never went over the wall, and never went over the fence.

Consequently, it was not a home run under the 1892 rule.

Are there any changes in the rules SINCE 1892 that could make it a home run? The answer is no, but let’s go through them all and see.

Note that this is not a “judgment call” by the umpires. The ball has to go “over the fence” and be a “fair ball” to be a home run. End of story. An umpire or group of umpires cannot make a ball that might have been or should have been a home run except that it hit something, into a home run by philosophical instantiation, or abstractive analysis.

In short, there are no unicorns, trolls or other imaginary beings just because we think there are; and there are no imaginary home runs. C.f. Occam’s razor—we don’t create a multiplicity of abstract universal beings just because we name them, think of them or create them in our minds. If we create now a class of abstract home runs, home runs that might have been, should have been and so forth, we now introduce into baseball a series of abstract balls, strikes, stolen bases, catches, hits and so forth and soon there will be entire parallel universes of baseball realities creeping into games, abstract realities which have nothing to do with what’s going on down at the field level, or, more pertinently, in the empirical world or in the rulebook. Everything will come down to what the umpires say and we’ll have a courtroom, not a ballgame.

1914 – Should an errant thrown ball remain in the meshes of a wire screen protecting the spectators, the runner or runners shall be entitled to two bases. The umpire in awarding such bases shall be governed by the position of the runner or runners at the time the throw is made.

My comment – this is the first indication that hitting a camera should be a ground rule double. Here the rule says if an errant thrown ball gets caught in wire screen mesh, the runner gets two bases and two bases only. It doesn’t matter if the ball is over the fence in fair ground, it’s still only two bases.

1920 – Home Run/Game-Ending – If a batsman, in the last half of the final inning of any game, hits a home run over the fence or into a stand, all runners on the bases at the time, as well as the batsman, shall be entitled to score, and in such event all bases must be touched in order, and the final score of the game shall be the total number of runs made.

My comment – this is the famous “walk off homer” rule change. Prior to 1920, if someone hit a walk off homer with one, two or three men on that won the game, the only runs that counted were the ones that won the game, e.g. if the score were 9-8 the road team, and you hit a grand slam, you got two runs, the score ended 10-9 home team, and you were credited with either a single or a double, usually a single. Not a grand slam. But under the walk-off rule, the score ended 12-9, the batter got credit for a homer, a grand slam and 4 RBI.

Note again that the rule says “over the fence” and “into the stand”. Rodriquez’ alleged homer last night meets neither of these key tests.

1926 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence or into a stand shall entitle the batsman to a home run, unless it should pass out of the ground or into a stand at a distance less than 250 feet from the home base, in which case the batsman shall be entitled to two bases only. In either event the batsman must touch the bases in regular order. The point at which a fence or stand is less than 250 feet from the home base shall be plainly indicated by a white or black sign or mark for the umpire’s guidance.

My comment – again, the rule says “over the fence” or “into a stand” in order for a ball to be a home run. This changes the 1892 rule by making the minimum fence distance 250 feet for a home run instead of 235 feet in order not to have “cheap” home runs, although even 250 feet would be a pretty short distance. Of course, Yankee Stadium had a 297 foot right field porch for years for their left handed sluggers, another example of the Yankees “cheating”, and then they would have an all-lefthanded staff to keep the other team from stacking up lefties against them, c.f. Lefty Gomez, Whitey Ford, Andy Pettite, Ron Guidry and so forth. This unfair advantage has been wiped out with the new Yankee Stadium, although allegedly there remains a slightly easier job of hitting to right field.

1931 – Batter/Awarded Bases – A fair hit ball that bounds into a stand or over a fence shall be a two-base hit. Note: There is no reference to distance in this rule and any fair hit ball bounding over the fence or into the stand is a two-base hit.

My comment: This is the modern ground-rule double rule. It hasn’t changed at all. Most importantly, READ what it says. “A FAIR HIT BALL THAT BOUNDS INTO A STAND OR OVER A FENCE SHALL BE A TWO-BASE HIT.” That means that if the ball bounces off a camera and then over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If the ball bounces off a fan and over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If it bounces off the top of the Astrodome, and back into the field of play, as happened to Mike Schmidt in 1974, it’s a two base hit; but if it went off the top of the Astrodome and then over the fence, it would be a ground rule double according to the rule.

According to the plain language of the ground rule double rule of 1931, the ball A Rod hit last nite in game 3 of the World Series was a double. Not subject to review, not subject to judgment call. A ground rule double. It went off a camera and bounded over the fence and then back into the field. It was in play. It’s a ground rule double in that case.

In 1950 the rulebook was entirely recodified and rewritten, refined and clarified:

1950: Batter/Awarded Bases: Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability of being put out, advance to home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes over the field fence in flight and he touch [sic] all bases legally; of if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have cleared the field fence in flight, is deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel, the runner shall be awarded a home run.

My comment – to be a home run, the ball must go over the fence “in flight”. The only case where an umpire may exercise judgment and rule on whether a ball “would have cleared the field fence in flight” is solely and exclusively the case of when the ball is “deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel”. This is the one and only situation where an umpire may exercise abstract judgment and award a hypothetical or abstract home run under the rules of baseball; where a fielder attempts to block the ball by throwing his glove, cap or article of his clothing at the ball.

This was not the case with A Rod’s home run last night. Jayson Werth did not throw his cap, his glove or any article of his clothing at the ball last night. Consequently, the ball would have had to clear the fence “in flight” to be a home run. Since the ball never cleared the fence “in flight”, it was not a home run under the 1950 rule, as amended.

More 1950 changes:

The batter becomes a baserunner when a fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands or passes through or under a fence or through or under shrubbery or vines on the field, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair ball which, either before or striking the ground, passes through or under a fence or through or under a scoreboard or through or any opening in the fence or scoreboard or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands or over or under a fence on fair or foul ground, in which case the batter and all baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair fly ball is defelected by the fielder into the stands or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run.

My comment – the first three rules make clear that deflections by the fielder and interference with the ball by objects on the field, such as vines, fences and shrubbery, are always ground rule doubles. The only case where a ball is NOT a ground rule double is when there is a deflection by the fielder, and for this to be a home run, there are four requirements;
1) a fair fly ball in fair territory;
2) deflected by a fielder;
3) into the stands; or
4) over the fence.

Note that even if argued analogically to last nites hit by A Rod, the 1950 rule does him no good. First, the camera deflected the ball back into the field. Second, the deflection was by a camera, not by a fielder. Third, the deflection was not “into the stands.” Fourth, the deflection was not “over the fence.”

Consequently, it’s really, really, really crystal clear that what we have is a ground rule double, under the remaining provisions of the 1950 and 1932 ground rule double rules. A Rod and the Yankees were only entitled to a ground rule double last nite in game 3 of the World Series.

1955 Rule Change

The 1955 rule change is very, very minor, it just provides that if a hitter hits a homer and has an accident while running the bases and time is called, he can have a runner come in and pinch run for him and run out the homer run and score it. It has no effect whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Ok, through 1995, that’s all the rule changes I have from the source J. Thorn, P. Palmer, M. Gershman, D. Pietruskza, Total Baseball V: The Official Encyclopaedia of Major League Baseball (Viking NY 1997), c.f. D. Bingham & T. Heitz, “Rules and Scoring,” at pp. 2376-2432.

Now let’s hit the Net.

The rules as they exist through 1955 continue to exist and are codified in Official Rules of Baseball at Rule 6.09, exactly as they were enacted in 1950, see for yourself:

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
(a) He hits a fair ball;
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.
(c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;
(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;
(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;
(g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/06_the_batter.pdf

the deflection by the fielder rule is also exactly the same as adopted in 1950 and has not been changed, and is codified in Rule 7.05(a);

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/07_the_runner.pdf

See? It’s exactly the same. The only way an upire can judge if the fair ball would have left the stadium and gone out of the playing field in flight, is if it was deflected by the act of a fielder under Rule 7.05(a).

The umpire can’t make a judgment call under any other of the rules of baseball.

All the rules of baseball, incidentally, are on line and available for you all to read for yourselves at;

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp

see also these websites:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulemenu.shtml

http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_rules

There IS however, a rule which pertains to interference by media, and that is rule 3.15, which I hereby quote now:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

NOTE WHAT RULE 3.15 SAYS ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH A BALL BY NEWSPHOTOGRAPHERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE FIELD OF PLAY: In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play.

Since A-Rod’s ball was UNINTENTIONALLY INTERFERED WITH BY A PRESS CAMERA, RULE 3.15 COMES INTO PLAY EXPRESSLY AND THE BALL IS IN PLAY. It’s not a case of fan interference where the umpires are allowed to make a judgment call to nullify the fan interference and create a home run abstractly.

To the contrary, the rule is clear and express- “the ball is in play” says the rule. Since the ball did not go over the fence or into the stands or over the fence in flight, but back to the field, and since Werth relayed it back, the Yankees runners were stuck at 2d and 3d.

There was no interference, and if there were a ground rule here, it was at best a ground rule double. See discussion above, supra.

NOTE THAT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN IF A FAN HAD INTERFERED WITH THE BALL.

The Umps and all of major league baseball got the rules wrong last night.

The ball was alive and in play last night and/or was a ground rule double, under the ground rule double rules and also under official Rule 3.15.

The Umps had no interference discretion under rules 3.15 or 3.16 because NO FAN touched the ball—instead, an authorized member of the press touched the ball.

The camera was an authorized photographer.

Consequently, the ball was in play.

Note the difference if a spectator had touched the ball:

3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.
Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

The ground rules for ground rule doubles are exactly the same as the 1950 and 1932 rules discussed above, and are codified at the official rules of baseball 7.05;

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;
(b) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril;
(c) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a fair ball. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.
(d) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play;
(e) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a thrown ball. The ball is in play;
Rule 7.05(b) through 7.05(e) Comment: In applying (b-c-d-e) the umpire must rule that the thrown glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched.
Under (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.

(f) Two bases, if a fair ball bounces or is deflected into the stands outside the first or third base foul lines; or if it goes through or under a field fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence; or if it sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines;
(g) Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench (whether or not the ball rebounds into the field), or over or under or through a field fence, or on a slanting part of the screen above the backstop, or remains in the meshes of a wire screen protecting spectators. The ball is dead. When such wild throw is the first play by an infielder, the umpire, in awarding such bases, shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the ball was pitched; in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made;
APPROVED RULING: If all runners, including the batter-runner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made.
Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.
APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.
The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.
The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.
If an unusual play arises where a first throw by an infielder goes into stands or dugout but the batter did not become a runner (such as catcher throwing ball into stands in attempt to get runner from third trying to score on passed ball or wild pitch) award of two bases shall be from the position of the runners at the time of the throw. (For the purpose of Rule 7.05 (g) a catcher is considered an infielder.)
PLAY. Runner on first base, batter hits a ball to the shortstop, who throws to second base too late to get runner at second, and second baseman throws toward first base after batter has crossed first base. Ruling—Runner at second scores. (On this play, only if batter-runner is past first base when throw is made is he awarded third base.)
(h) One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher’s plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead;

APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead.
If, however, the pitched or thrown ball goes through or by the catcher or through the fielder, and remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected into the dugout, stands or other area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be two bases from position of runners at the time of the pitch or throw.
(i) One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire’s mask or paraphernalia.
If the batter becomes a runner on a wild pitch which entitles the runners to advance one base, the batter-runner shall be entitled to first base only.

Rule 7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out does not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases. For example: batter hits a ground ball which an infielder throws into the stands but the batter-runner missed first base. He may be called out on appeal for missing first base after the ball is put in play even though he was “awarded” second base.
If a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch, he must retouch his original base even though, because of some ground rule or other rule, he is awarded additional bases. He may retouch while the ball is dead and the award is then made from his original base.
(j) One base, if a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/07_the_runner.pdf

as you can plainly see, nothing has changed in the ground rules at all.

Consequently, A-Rod’s hit was either a ground rule double under rule 7.05, or it was a ball in play since it hit a media camera which was authorized to be in the field of play under rule 3.15. What it was not was a home run under either rule 6.09(d) or rule 7.05(a) or any other rule of baseball.

I’ve looked exhaustively and so have my sabrmetric friends, and there isn’t a rule in the book supporting what happened last night.

What happened also violates the laws of logic and violates the laws of physics. It violates the laws of logic, because the home run was created by an act of particular instantiation—abstract thought created a thing from a concept—what we in philosophy call a “unicorn”—which would make my old professor of logic at Harvard turn over twice—and violates Occam’s razor—that you don’t create needless entities through nominalism.

Instead, empiricism and realism dictate that a home run is a home run when we SEE and WITNESS that the ball goes over the fence—not that we imagine or suppose that it MIGHT have gone over the fence.

The problem with the umpires’ supposition last night is that it is what we call in philosophy a “modal” proposition, an “if….then” statement, that is conditional.

“If the camera were not there, then the ball would have flown over the fence.”

This can readily be recognized as a categorical statement of conditional form—namely, if there were no camera “x”, the trajectory of flight of the ball would have been different in form “y”.

The problem, as anyone knows, is that without an actual observation of same, there are a plethora of possible universes of possible “y’s”.

All we know is that the ball may or might have gone over the wall—or it may or might have bounced below the line and back onto the field. All we have is a possibility that it might have gone over the wall.

All conditionals are like this.

Moreover, accepting conditionals as true introduces a host of problems.

The medieval philosophers didn’t like conditionals, and neither should we.

It’s true that rule 9.03c states that

Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/09_the_umpire.pdf

however, in this case, the A-Rod double IS covered specifically by the baseball rules. There is no room for discretion or authority to rule.

Here’s what actually occurred before game 3 of the World Series according to the umpiring crew:

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.
“We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that,” Davis said. “Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it's a] home run.”
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb

So, the umpiring crew themselves MADE UP THEIR OWN GROUND RULE that the camera, if it was hit, would be a home run.

That would be fine, except that it’s in direct violation of Baseball Rule 3.15, as cited above, supra, that a media photographic camera, if a ball strikes it, the ball is in play and NOT a home run.

The Umpires don’t have discretion to make a ground rule about that.

The statement made by Umpire Davis is totally and completely WRONG. The rules cover the situation of when a ball strikes a camera held by a camera man.

Let’s see the rule again:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/03_game_preliminaries.pdf

Ok, then, cameramen, news photographers who unintentionally interfere with the ball, and the interference is unintentionall, the “ball is alive and in play.”

It’s not up to Davis and his crew to make up a ground rule there. It’s up to Davis and his crew to follow Rule 3.15. Rule 3.15 trumps Article 9 and the umpire discretion rules.

Now let’s discuss the instant replay rule.

Here’s the story on the instant replay rule adopted in September of 2008:

5. Instant replay
Main article: Instant replay
In November 2007, the general managers of Major League Baseball voted in favor of implementing instant replay reviews on boundary home run calls. [19] The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
On August 28, 2008, instant replay review became available in MLB for reviewing calls in accordance with the above proposal. It was first utilized on September 3, 2008 in a game between the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays at Tropicana Field. [20] Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees hit what appeared to be a home run, but the ball hit a catwalk behind the foul pole. It was at first called a home run, until Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon argued the call, and the umpires decided to review the play. After 2 minutes and 15 seconds, the umpires came back and ruled it a home run.
About two weeks later, on September 19, also at Tropicana Field, a boundary call was overturned for the first time. In this case, Carlos Peña of the Rays was given a ground rule double in a game against the Minnesota Twins after an umpire believed a fan reached into the field of play to catch a fly ball in right field. The umpires reviewed the play, determined the fan did not reach over the fence, and reversed the call, awarding Peña a home run.
Aside from the two aforementioned reviews at Tampa Bay, replay was used four more times in the 2008 MLB regular season: twice at Houston, once at Seattle, and once at San Francisco. The San Francisco incident is perhaps the most unusual. Bengie Molina, the Giants’ Catcher, hit what was first called a double. Molina then was replaced in the game by a pinch-runner before the umpires re-evaluated the call and ruled it a home run. In this instance though, Molina was not allowed to return to the game to complete the run, as he had already been replaced. Molina was credited with the home run, and two RBIs, but not for the run scored which went to the pinch-runner instead.
On October 31, 2009, in the fourth inning of Game 3 of the World Series, Alex Rodriguez hit a long fly ball that appeared to hit a camera protruding over the wall and into the field of play in deep left field. The ball ricocheted off the camera and re-entered the field, initially ruled a double. However, after the umpires consulted with each other after watching the instant replay, the hit was ruled a home run, marking the first time an instant replay home run was hit in a playoff game. [21]
Source:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Home_run?t=3.

Citing to

• ESPN – GMs vote 25-5 to use replay to aid home run decisions – MLB
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20080903&content_id=3412731&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy
• http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091031&content_id=7586236&vkey=news_mlb

Now, let’s parse all this.

What instant replay boils down to is this.

A lawyer sits in Bud Selig’s offices in NYC and HE reviews the play and decides how it should be called.

The head of the umpiring crew calls NYC and asks the lawyer how the play should be ruled.

Then they decide.

Uh, what’s wrong with this picture if the NEW YORK YANKEES are one of the teams in the playoffs?

Let’s see, a NEW YORK LAWYER making the call? Against a PHILLY team?

Oh right, that would be really fair, impartial and just.

Incidentally, let’s review the rule again:

The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
Id, supra.

Note that the ball has to hit an object BEYOND the fence while in flight.

Not in front of the fence, but BEYOND the fence.

This is completely consistent with Rules 6.09 and 7.05(a) which define a home run as one hit “over the fence in flight”.

The camera, in this case, was jutting out over the fence by a good five to ten feet.

So it was not beyond the fence, but on the field of play.

Second, because it was on the field of play, it was therefore a photographic interference under Rule 3.15, and should have been considered an unintentional interference, and a live ball in play under Rule 3.15.

Third, if not a live ball in play, then the ground rule double rule of 7.05 (b) et seq. comes into play.

What’s wrong with this picture?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY JURISDICTION FOR HOME RUN REVIEW UNDER THE HOME RUN INSTANT REPLAY RULE BECAUSE THE BALL HIT BY A ROD NEVER WENT OVER THE FENCE IN FLIGHT OR BEYOND THE FENCE.

Let’s review the criteria for instant replay;

1) is it fair or foul? Well, it was a fair ball. No need for instant replay.
2) Is it a live ball that hit the fence and bounced back to the field? No. No need for instant replay.

Was it a live ball that hit some object beyond the fence while in flight?

No. It never went beyond the fence. So no instant replay was required.

Well, it hit the camera==part of which was behind the fence, but the part of the camera the ball hit was NOT beyond the fence.

This is not a semantic issue, but a real rules issue, because if you start saying that balls that don’t go over the fence in flight are home runs, just because the umpires make up ground rules before the game to make them eligible for instant review, doesn’t make it so.

I think the key here is to parse the fact that the umpiring crew made a mistake before the game establishing false ground rules, by making a camera that jutted INTO the field, a candidate for HOME RUN instant replay.

That wasn’t their call to make.

Under the instant replay rule, the camera has to be entirely beyond the fence for them to make that decision, end of story.

Remember, the rule is to decide the boundary issue of when a ball has hit an object BEYOND the fence–not an object within the ballfield.

The Umps exceeded their rulemaking authority. Also, see #3, below, because there’s actually a different rule that applies to cameras that are in the field of play and not beyond the field of play, in which case the ball is either a ground rule double or in play. In either case the result is the same; arod at 2d, texeira at 3d.

3) There was not spectator interference, but rather, photographer interference under rule 3.15, which made it a live ball under the rules, and on the field of play.

Consequently, there was no jurisdiction for an instant reply. Rather, the umpires AGGREGATED and SEIZED inappropriately the jurisdiction for home run instant replay because they forgot their own rule book and the rules of baseball.

They got the call all wrong.

It’s an insult to our collective intelligence and our common sense to say that a ball that fell short of the wall, and never went over the wall, is a “fair ball” that “went over the fence in flight” or that after instant replay, was shown to have struct an object “beyond the fence” in flight. None of these things occured on arod’s hit.

And messed up a 25 year old kids’ no hitter in the processs.

Did they purposefully do it?

Did the NY Offices of baseball reverse the call to obstruct the Phillies from repeating?

I don’t know—go ask the Atlanta Braves. No one in Bud Selig’s office was happy when they went up 2-0 on the Yankees in 1996 either.

The Commissioner’s office basically wants LA or NY to win the series because that’s good for TV ratings.

They like to ignore Philly and Atlanta even though we’re much more rabid about baseball than New Yorkers, most of whom are too poor to afford to go to a game, whereas in Philly or Atlanta, it’s mostly the middle class who attend.

And if we have to cheat and violate the rules to make the Yankees winners, what the hay?

Just remember Curt Simmons’ draft notice, and Bud Selig’s ridiculous rain delay call in last year’s Game Five in Philly.

Definitely be sure there’s bias against the Phillies in NYC.

And of course, let’s not forget they used a single New York Lawyer as the judging panel for instant replay of a World Series play involving….

The New York Yankees.

Like that’s really fair.

This is the Second World Series in a row where Bud Selig has personally messed around with our ace, Cole Hamels, in a World Series game.

First was Game Five in World Series 2008, in which Cole Hamels was shutting the door down on Tampa Bay. Selig allowed the game to proceed in the rain, then let Tampa Bay score a cheap run in rain soaked conditions against Hamels, a cheap run in conditions not fit to play in, and then Selig announced the game would be suspended—a first in Series history—which infuriated not only the Phillies, but Hamels, who had pitched well enough to win. Last year the story line was supposed to be tampa bay to win, cindarella, last place to world champions. New york didn’t want philly winning.

Conspiracy theorists, you are right if you think Selig hates Hamels.

And now this year, Selig sends Davis and an experienced umpiring crew out, and they set up illegal ground rules, and use the first chance they get, to award a two run instant replay home run—an existential, instantiated home run—an abstraction if you will, because nothing ever left the park or ever went over the fence in flight—for the sole purpose of screwing up Cole Hamels’ game in game 3, the pivotal game of the 2009 world series.

I need not point out how furious Hamels must have been with all this BS; for the second year in a row, he’s been messed with, not by the opposing lineup, but by lawyers and umpires and the commissioners’ office. They just won’t let him do his job.

I understand why he might have hung a few curves the next inning to Swisher and Damon.

What I don’t understand is why the Phillies don’t aggressively move

1) for Bud Selig’s immediate ouster as Commissioner of Baseball; and
2) an immediate amendment of the baseball instant replay rule requiring that the review of plays always be done in a neutral city by an impartial panel of three arbitrators, not lawyers, with one chosen by each team and the third chosen by the other two.
3) And the umpiring crew and ground rules be reviewed two weeks in advance of the World Series by the front office of each team, and by the teams attorneys, to be sure there are no conflicts with the Rules of Baseball.

Even my 80 year old mother in law, who just had eye surgery, who watched the game last night, and used to be a Brooklyn Dodger fan from Brooklyn, saw the play last night and she knew that the A-Rod hit wasn’t a home run.

“it didn’t go out of the park” she said. “how could it be a home run?”

Exactly. To be a home run, under rule 7.05(a), and in the common sense of every fan, a home run must go over the fence in flight.

And to be a home run for instant replay purposes, it has to go over the fence in flight and THEN hit some object.

Not hit some object which inteferes with the ball from going over the fence in flight. That’s a ground rule double or a ball live in play, as we have seen from our discussion, at length, of the rules.

The difference last night was two runs.

But the difference, from our perspective, is the lawlessness of the Bud Selig regime.

A regime which bars Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame, but tolerates steroid use by the likes of A-Rod and David Ortiz, and turns a blind eye to the income inequalities between teams like the Yankees and the Twins that keep baseball from truly being competitive.

A regime which makes arbitrary and capricious decisions each and every year about rain delays, rain suspensions, instant replay home runs in the World Series, and which plays games of law and fate which affect a man’s life and career in the case of Cole Hamels, who is a truly great pitcher along the lines of a Steve Carlton.

In fact, if you study Hamels stats, you will see that his 2009 is to his 2008, as Carlton’s 1973 was to Carlton’s Cy Young 1972.

I expect Cole Hamels to have a very bright future.

And he will not take much more of this abuse from Bud Selig and his cronies.

And neither should we philly fans.

And New York Yankee fans, you are cheating to win.

And to think I actually shed tears for you guys on 9/11.

And by the way, your NY Giants got rolled by the Eagles. At least the NFL runs a fair league. Thank you Pete Rozelle Paul Tagliabue and your successors.

Guess those memories of Joe Namath are starting to fade, eh?

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phillies, 2008 world champions
2008, 2009 National League pennant champs

I AM NOT A NUMBER—I AM A FREE MAN!!! THE PRISONER (1967) ABOUT TO BE REMADE ON CABLE TV

“Where am I?”
“In the Village.”
“What do you want?”
“Information.”
“Whose side are you on?”
“That would be telling. We want Information. Information. Information.”
“You won’t get it.”
“By hook or by crook, we will.”
“Who are you?”
“The new Number #2.”
“Who is Number #1?”
“You are Number #6.”
“I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN!!!!!”
[stranger laughs diabolically at his assertion of freedom].

THE PRISONER (1967) STARRING PATRICK MCGOOHAN (SOON TO BE SHOWN AS A REMAKE ON CABLE TV) – This is truly one of the legendary TV shows of all time, and an inspired choice for a remake. The originals are now out on Comcast on demand and available to be seen for the first time in quite a while. They are in color and in excellent, really superb quality, considering they were filmed more than forty years ago and have been in the vaults a long time. The Prisoner was a cult hit in both Britain, and later in the US, where it was shown on PBS sometime after it was shown in Britain. Along with Monty Python and Sesame Street, it was one of PBS’ biggest hits of the late 60s/early 70s.

Every episode of the Prisoner started the same.

McGoohan, who is a british spy, obviously working for British Intelligence, has an angry argument with his superior, then bangs the table and throws his resignation letter on the desk.

Then cut to McGoohan’s apartment, where we see him packing. Meanwhile, next cut to a strange looking man in a top hat who approaches the apartment door from the outside. Cut to inside view and gas starts pouring visibly inside McGoohan’s flat, overcoming him.

He wakes up in a strange bed in a strange place. He does not know where he is. He looks out the window and sees a strange town. Then cut to a strange place, a strange person seated in a throne like chair in a round room. McGoohan is being interrogated by the Stranger.

McGoohan: “Where am I?”
Stranger: “In the Village.”
McGoohan: “What do you want?”
Stranger: “Information.”
McGoohan: “Whose side are you on?”
Stranger: “That would be telling. We want Information. Information. Information.”
McGoohan: “You won’t get it.”
Stranger: “By hook or by crook, we will.”
McGoohan: “Who are you?”
Stranger: “The new Number #2.”
McGoohan: “Who is Number #1?”
Stranger: “You are Number #6.”
McGoohan: “I am not a Number, I am a Free Man!!!”
Stranger: [laughs diabolically].

So many aspects of the show are classic—the bubble chasing down anyone trying to escape, the taxi which goes nowhere (local service only), the oblique references to a “New World Order”, the bicycle logo with its subtextual semiotic references to Orwellian dystopias, the constant references to the battles between McGoohan and science, McGoohan and psychology, McGoohan and being watched all the time, and the hilarious fact that every week, McGoohan defeats #2 and a new #2 has to brought in to break him down because McGoohan has broken down the previous #2. No one has money in the Village, only “work units,” and there appears to be a sort of communitarian utopia. There is a democratic council, but there are no actual rights. In one episode, McGoohan runs for election, but he quickly finds out he is not actually allowed to say or do anything that would upset the status quo. “your local council” is just a hollow slogan, a catch phrase for a democracy that doesn’t exist at all.

The key concepts of the show are freedom, human aspiration, knowledge, escape, dignity, free will and liberty. Everyone in the village has all their material needs met, but they must sacrifice all of their liberty, including their own individual identities, their memories and their minds, in order to obtain it.

In short, this show presents a working picture of what a communist or fascist society must really be like, in which everyone enjoys health care, work, food, leisure and a decent living quarters, but absolutely no freedoms whatsoever to think or exist except as dictated by the state. Presented hour after hour, episode after episode, the Prisoner is an unqualified call to freedom everywhere.

In our own times, many movies and series have been inspired in whole or in part by the Prisoner. The X-Files, certainly, draws some inspiration from the Prisoner. The Jim Carrey movie “The Truman Show” draws heavily on the Prisoner for its set designs and concept of an observed, controlled village, and for the notion that a person is subject to psychological control by an unseen central force.

Finally, we have the current phenomenon, worldwide, of people being arrested and detained without due process of law, in places unknown, for periods of time, and being interrogated in all sorts of ways for what they know. Every side politically does this, including our side with Guantanamo Bay and all our allies who assist in the war on terror. Of course, at the time of the Prisoner, it was understood that Russia and the US were both doing this as part of the Cold War—and yet both the James Bond series of movies, as well as Get Smart, the Prisoner, the Man from Uncle, and numerous other fictional spy shows continued to assert the existence of a third, “shadow” force, as powerful as the US or Russia, which also employed spies, torture methods, interrogation methods, and bargained or double-dealt using agents who had defected from one or both sides—under such acronyms as KAOS, SPECTRE, and so forth. Even the recent series of Mission Impossible films remade with Tom Cruise as their star clearly posit a so-called “third party” of international force. This premise was cleverly lampooned in the Austin Powers-Man of Mystery series of spy-lampoon movies, where the third power was led by a man called “Dr. Evil”, who was laughably played by the same actor playing Austin Powers, in perhaps the most brilliant series of spy spoofs ever committed to film.

Without commenting on the right or wrong of it, imagine if you will the situation of a man seized and placed in a “village” one day, deprived of his freedom and dignity, and forced to give up not only his secrets and knowledge, but also his identity, his selfhood and everything that makes him a man. Every dystopian novel or non-fiction work ever written—Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, Player Piano, the Gulag Archipelago, The Road to Serfdom, the Open Society and Its Enemies, Atlas Shrugged—posits precisely this sort of situation coming to pass in our own day.

Perhaps no two writers were more articulate about this phenomenon than Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, who wrote frequently, passionately and articulately about the dangers and evils of communism, socialism and false utopias. Koestler’s Darkness at Noon is the dystopian novel which most clearly reflects, and inspires, the series “the Prisoner,” in that it is directly a synopsis of the main character’s experience of what must have been the experience of Stalin’s purge and show trials of the late 1930s—first capture, then interrogation, then brainwashing, then being made to confess one’s sins in public, and finally, the inevitable lengthy prison sentence in Siberia or, perhaps more mercifully, death. The forturnate few were “rehabilitated” if they could be made to “understand” Stalinist communism and completely confess and revoke their sins, and be made to be a number, and not a free man.

The Prisoner is a powerful reminder of why liberty is the most important right we have.

Art Kyriazis, November 1, 2009
Philadelphia, PA
Eagles Pounding Giants as we speak

FAMOUS MOMENTS IN REVISIONIST AMERICAN HISTORY ACCORDING TO HEALTHCARE REFORM ADVOCATES

1) “I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE: BUT AS FOR ME, GIVE ME UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OR GIVE ME DEATH!”
–Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

2) “A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND. I BELIEVE THIS GOVERNMENT CANNOT ENDURE PERMANENTLY, HALF SLAVE AND HALF WITHOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
–Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858, Lincoln-Douglas Debates

3) “FOURSCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO, OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH UPON THIS CONTINENT A NEW NATION, CONCEIVED IN THE GOAL OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, AND DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND THAT ANYONE MAKING ONE PENNY MORE (ESPECIALLY DOCTORS) THAN ANYONE ELSE SHOULD BE HEAVILY AND CONFISCATORALLY TAXED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. NOW WE ARE ENGAGED IN A GREAT CIVIL WAR, TESTING WHETHER THAT NATION, OR ANY NATION SO CONCEIVED AND SO DEDICATED, CAN LONG ENDURE…..
–Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863, Gettysburg Address

4) I AM PROUND TO ANNOUNCE THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROCLAMATION. IN THIS UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROCLAMATION, I HEREBY PROCLAIM THAT EVERY SLAVE OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES WILL HEREBY RECEIVE UNIVERSAL FREE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FROM THE NORTH. THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE FREEDOM, LIBERTY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OF COURSE. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE SLAVES AND WORK FOR THEIR MASTERS. BUT THEY WILL GET THE BEST HEALTH CARE THE GOVERNMENT CAN BUY. THIS IS A LANDMARK PROCLAMATION.
–Abraham Lincoln, 1863

5) “LIFE as dictated by death panels, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS as dictated by psychiatrists appointed by the Government Health Care Plan.”
–Preamble to the The United States Constitution, 1789, as amended by Universal Health Care Reformers.

6) “I MUST HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WITHAL, AS LARGE A CHARTER AS THE WIND, TO BLOW ON WHOM I PLEASE.”
–William Shakespeare, As You Like It, II.vii.47.

7) “THE SOLE END FOR WHICH MANKIND ARE WARRANTED, INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY, IN INTERFERING WITH THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OF ANY OF THEIR NUMBER, IS SELF-PROTECTION.”
–John Stuart Mill, ON UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, introduction (1869)

“THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST BE THUS FAR LIMITED: HE MUST NOT MAKE HIMSELF A NUISANCE TO OTHER PEOPLE.”
–John Stuart Mill, Id.

9) “THE ROAD OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE LEADS TO THE PALACE OF WISDOM.”
–William Blake, Proverbs of Hell, @ 1790

10) “LICENSE THEY MEAN WHEN THEY CRY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE; FOR WHO LOVES THAT, MUST FIRST BE WISE AND GOOD.”
–John Milton, Sonnets, @ 1630

11) “MY COUNTRY ‘TIS OF THEE, SWEET LAND OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUREAUCRACY, OF THEE OF I SING, LAND WHERE MY FATHERS DIED, LAND OF THE THE PILGRIMS’ PRIDE, ON EVERY MOUNTAINSIDE, LET UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BELLS CALLLING MY TURN IN LINE TO SEE THE STATE PAID DOCTOR RING…..”
–America, by Samuel Francis Smith, 1808-1895

FOUR REAL QUOTES FROM ABE LINCOLN:

“YOU CAN FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU CAN NOT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.”

–Abraham Lincoln September 8, 1858

“WHAT IS CONSERVATISM? IS IT NOT ADHERENCE TO THE OLD AND TRIED, AGAINST THE NEW AND UNTRIED?”

–Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860

“THE BALLOT IS STRONGER THAN THE BULLET”

–Abraham Lincoln, May 19, 1856

“IT IS BEST NOT TO SWAP HORSES WHILE CROSSING THE RIVER.”

–Abraham Lincoln, June 9, 1864

A REAL QUOTE FROM JOHN STUART MILL:

“A STATE WHICH DWARFS ITS MEN, IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE MORE DOCILE INSTRUMENTS IN ITS HANDS EVEN FOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSES—WILL FIND THAT WITH SMALL MEN NO GREAT THING CAN REALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED.”

–John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1865)

ps if you didn’t get the joke here, simply substitute the phrase “universal health care” for the phrase “liberty” in each of the above well known quotations.

it’s worth noting that in John Rawl’s Book “A Theory of Justice,” health care is hardly mentioned at all, is not a part of the two principles of justice, is not a primary good, is not considered a constitutional good or matter, and Rawls considers it at best something for the legislature to take up somewhat as a third or fourth rate issue. This is only taken up in Rawls’ articles and lectures and not even in his updated version of “Theory of Justice.”

Ronald Dworkin has stated that although he personally would like to view universal health care as a constitutional right, he believes that if the US Supreme Court were to make such a ruling, it would be completely contrary to the entire body of us constitutional law. In short, Dworkin does not view health care as an american legal right in the context of the american legal or economic system. and he is our leading liberal american philosopher.

only socialist legal philosophers and outright socialists seem to still cling to the rejected tenets of goldberg v. kelly that there is a right to welfare–even though the us supreme court rejected this in goldberg, and also rejected a right to an equal funding of education in antonio v rodriguez as well in the 70s.

there is no right to equal funding for welfare rights in the usa.

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the 2008 world champion phillies 2008, 2009 NL Pennant winners we don’t need no stinkin replays to hit our home runs!

THE HEALTH BILL – NO COMMON SENSE

The health bill is out, and has no proposal for tort reform or for free schooling of doctors.

I don’t have to point out that every country with socialized medicine has free education for doctors, has no tort exposure for doctors and finally, no malpractice premiums to pay.

the democratic congress wants to cut doctor salaries while expecting people to pay for med school, pay malpractice of 100000 dollars a year and also pay millions in court awards. and higher taxes. it’s all too much to bear.

Stan Dorn, formerly of the harvard debate team, was one of the key writers of all these proposals at a think tank in DC. his ex debate partner jeff pash esq. has been legal counsel for the National Football League for years.

Mr. Dorn works at a place called the Urban Institute. the website for all of Stan Dorn’s papers is http://www.urban.org/expert.cfm?ID=StanDorn.

here’s some of the great titles there:

Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies from the Tobacco Wars (Policy Report)
Carolyn L. Engelhard, Arthur Garson, Jr., Stan Dorn

To combat the epidemic of obesity, lawmakers can adapt policy approaches that have substantially cut tobacco use. A 10 percent tax on fattening food, identified based on a model used by the British government to determine the foods that may not be advertised to children, would reduce consumption while raising more than $500 billion over 10 years. Adding simple, “traffic light” nutrition labels to the front of each food package would change consumers’ buying habits, as would listing calories on menus at chain restaurants. Consumption of fattening food would be further reduced by banning its advertisement in the mass media.

Posted to Web: July 27, 2009 Publication Date: July 24, 2009

look familiar? they want people who are heavy to be discriminated against as if they had voluntarily undertaken to smoke tobacco.

in short, they want to discriminate against the fat.

Since Dorn and others like him wrote the health bill, i take it they are little more than debate plans, which is to say they will have enormous disads as well as cosmic workability problems like all debate plans do.

here’s another unbiased paper from Dorn:

Current Health Reform Proposals: No Government Takeover of American Health Care (Policy Briefs/Timely Analysis of Health Policy Issues)
Stan Dorn, Stephen Zuckerman

This paper debunks claims that proposed health reforms represent a government takeover of health care. We show, among other findings, that pending legislation would: (1) retain the nation’s largely private medical care system, in which more than 90 percent of doctors are in private practice and 84 percent of all hospital admissions are to private facilities; (2) avoid government interference in the practice of medicine, instead simply extending existing public responsibilities to fund coverage for low-income Americans and regulate insurance; and (3) cover only 12 million people through a public option, based on Congressional Budget Office projections.
Posted to Web: September 08, 2009 Publication Date: September 08, 2009

See? a paper that reaches the conclusion before it examines the premises. This is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. The bill will not be a government takeover–because the bill is not a government takeover.

here’s another post by Dorn:

Debunking the Government Takeover Myth (Commentary)
Stan Dorn, Stephen Zuckerman

Pending health reform legislation would leave our largely private medical care system intact, give the federal government no new authority to intervene in private health care decisions, and increase health care options for millions of Americans, two senior researchers make clear.
Posted to Web: September 14, 2009 Publication Date: September 14, 2009

Do you believe this one?

The new bill will not affect the status quo–because it will not affect the status quo. Again, circular reasoning.

but the next paper tells you the system WILL be affected:

Capping the Tax Exclusion of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Is Equity Feasible? (Research Report)
Stan Dorn

Some policymakers propose capping the amount of employer-sponsored insurance that is exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. If such a cap is based on employer premiums, inequities will result. Workers could pay higher taxes if their employer is located in a high-cost area, if many co-workers are in their 50s and 60s, or if a few employees have a major illness or accident. To avoid such inequities, the cap could be based on benefit generosity, measured by actuarial value, which is the cost of expected claims if a nationally representative population received the covered benefits.
Posted to Web: June 02, 2009 Publication Date: June 02, 2009

oh, gee, caps on employer premiums being shielded from the income tax? sounds like a tax hike to me. That would really, seriously impact the current system, like a lot.

employer would drop health coverage like hot cakes if they had to pay tax on it.

well, you get the flavor.

Stan is a great guy, really smart, and like brilliant, smart.

I’m sure he and everyone else involved in health care reform mean well.

but here’s the bottom line:

in greece, and in england, and in other socialized medicine countries, you still have to give extra cash to the doctors to get to the front of the line. It’s called a bribe, or an envelope, or whatever.

Why? Because in any economic system, where supply exceeds demand, the price will rise. the government cannot ration something which is priced by the market. If people can afford heart surgery, they will bribe the best surgeons to provide it faster, which is why my father’s old friend in Salonika greece drives a sports car and has a mistress along with a wife and two kids–he gets regular bribes to do surgery on his rich patients first in his private clinic, which the government officials overlook because they, too, get bribes.

This is where we’re headin, lincoln country road or armageddon, to quote bob dylan.

the free market, the invisibile hand of adam smith, cannot be denied.

You can see that the obama-ites all studied law, not economics or they would know this plan will only fail.

Also that they obviously don’t know as much about socialized medicine as they think.

–art k philly
home of the world champion phillies

EVIL IS REALLY REALLY WRONG – A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE STUPIDITY OF THE PHRASE “THE BANALITY OF EVIL” POPULARIZED BY THE SO-CALLED SCHOLAR HANNAH ARENDT

i have never been comfortable with Hannah Arendt’s notion of “the banality of evil.” Rather, free will, free choice and choosing between being a good or a bad moral being are all choices we make each and every minute of every day. it may be true these are mediated by cognitive behavioral or social disorders, effects, etc. but these men knew right from wrong, and they must pay for their wrongs.

If we believe otherwise, why not repeal all of our criminal codes and blame crime on bad parenting? or on gang leaders who order their members to commit crimes? Is being a nazi any different than being a crip or a blood? If you join the gang, isn’t that an immoral act?

incidentally the film “the reader’ with kate winslet seems to follow arendt’s reasoning more closely than i would like. it seems to suggest that winslet’s character, a nazi prison guard, is evil for banal and not for willful reasons. this is what happens when you get away from concepts like sin, guilt and free will and start going secular and freudian.

Hannah Arendt’s quip on “the banality of evil” is not just an apologia for the holocaust, but an insult to every victim of every holocaust and of every genocide, an insult to every victim of every crime, an insult to every casualty of every war.

Death in war, whether by gas chamber or at the front line, is an awful, terrible thing–but we must remember the dead, cherish their cause–and most importantly, we must never, ever forget.

Arendt’s phrase suggests that these acts were somehow trivial. I don’t remember them that way. I remember someone standing up and shooting President Kennedy. It didn’t seem banal at all at the time. It seemed evil and wrong and terribly, awfully wrong. I wanted someone punished. I wanted retribution. I wanted someone to pay for this misdeed.

I pretty much imagine it was the same way on Kristallnacht or at Auschwitz when the prisoners were unloaded from the trains–and delivered to the gas chambers to be executed. People standing up and killing other people. Nothing banal or boring about that. In fact, it sounds hellishly sinful, ghoulish and beyond the pale to me.

In fact, I get sick even thinking about the fact that a man could do that to another man.

So spare me your “banalities” and give me Dante’s 14th circle of hell for these men (and women) and as for Kate Winslet’s reader, they should have crucified her and burned her alive at the stake for killing people in concentration camps, as far as I’m concerned. The notion expressed in “The Reader” that somehow evil is “banal” or that she was taking orders is silly–people who do wrong things should pay for their sins.

–art kyriazis, philly

THE 2009 YANKEES ARE THE 2003 TEXAS RANGERS AGAIN – A TEAM THAT WON 71 GAMES WITH TEIXEIRA AND A-ROD BUT WITH AROD UP THEIR NOSE?

the 2003 texas rangers, with mark teixeira and alex rodriquez, won 71 and lost 91, and finished last in the al west.

the rangers then got a salary demand from AROD and decided to unload him on the yanks for alfonso soriano and build around Teixeira.
the next year, the rangers went up 20 games and were in first place most of the year. you have to remember Buck Showalter was manager, a hardass, and he thought arod was lazy.

of course, since arod went to ny, they blew the 3-0 lead to boston in 2004 (arod batted .258), have lost all those series since, he’s been photographed with strippers and ladies of the night in toronto and elsewhere, he’s been CAROUSING with madonna, born in 1958 (older than me), CAVORTING with kate hudson, who was married to a wild rock star (cooties galore in her privies) and of course, he was taking steroids.

plus, he’s now 35 and on the downside of an illustrious career. 7 years ago he was hiting 57 homers a year. now it’s down to 30 or so. He’s still good, but he’s declined with age. It’s obvious he can’t hit the high fastball or the low one the way Teixeira or Matsui can. AROD collects all his hits off bad pitchers. plus he’s ugly.

why did the yanks get good this year? one word: Teixeira. He’s the man. the phils almost drafted him in 1999, but they had scott rolen at 3b, so Texas drafted him instead. T-man was a 3d baseman in college.

can you imagine if the phils had Teixeira now at 3b with Rollins, Utley and Howard?????

the “mighty” yanks have feet of clay. they have three starters and a lousy bullpen.

derek jeter is 40. but has heart and will to win.
jorge posada is 40. but has heart and will to win.
mariano rivera is 40. but has heart and will to win.
andy petitte is 39. but has heart and will to win.
alex rodriguez is 35. no heart, clubhouse cancer. losing mentality. net minus on any ballclub.
melky cabrera is all field no hit.
hideki matsui is 35 but he can still play.
nick swisher is a legit young player.
mark teixeira is a great player with heart.

cc sabathia is great, but he has a psych prob with phils dating back to last year with milwaukee. he’s 0-2 with 3 homers in 11 innings in 2 playoff games. he averages .7 hrs given up a game. but in playoff games v. phils, that number is 4 homers per 9 innings. methinks he chokes in phils games. phils are 2-0 v sabathia in post season play. sabathia has never beaten the phils in a post season game.

aj burnett is great. he was great with the marlins. always had filthy nasty stuff.

johnny damon is nearly 40. he’s done. nothing left. he looks lost as a lamb out there. can’t even field. the guy’s whole game was built on speed. it’s all gone now. bat speed and foot speed.

meanwhile, all of the phillies are around 30 and at their peak, end of discussion. Pedro is the oldest guy, and he’s only 38 and still has a live arm, as you can plainly see.

cole hamels is 25. cliff lee is 31. ryan howard is 29. chase utley is 30. rollins is 31. only ibanez is old at 37, but he was the starting lf for the all start team.

phils lineup:

rollins – nl mvp 2008, gold glove 32
victorino – nl allstar 2009, gold glove 25
utley – nl allstar multiple years, silver slugger multiple years, gold glove 30
howard – nl mvp 2007, nl all star multiple years, silver slugger, home run derby champion 29
werth – nl all star 2009 30
ibanez – starting lf nl all star 2009 37
feliz – gold glove quality defense 34
ruiz – gold glove quality defense, can hit some 30

our lineup is younger and more powerful than the yanks.

and our pitchers are younger and better than the yanks.

also they have arod. no team with arod has ever won anything.

i’ve looked at the yanks pitching stats, and i’m mystified at who their #4 starter will be, because they don’t have one. joba chamberlain’s numbers are horrible and so are everyone else’s, but cc sabathia can’t work on 3 days, plus the phils have a hoodoo on him of some kind dating back to the milwaukee series last year.

the phils by contrast are throwing cole hamels, last years 1 starter, as their 3 starter this year, and joe blanton, who used to be the a’s 1 starter, as their 4 starter, and they still have ja happ, the nl rookie of the year, their 5 starter, available to come in and bail anyone out who can’t get out of the 3d inning.

the phils look a lot deeper in the bullpen and starting rotation to me. plus pedro looked pretty good to me last night. burnett was filthy and nasty but pedro only made two mistakes.

at this point i will note that it’s Teixeira, not ARod, that’s the money player. last year Teixeira was with the Sox, and the Sox went to seven games with the Rays. the yanks were eviscerated.

this year, teixeiras with the yanks, and the yanks get to the series. coincidence, I think not. let’s examine history.

in 2003, the Texas Rangers had ARod and Teixeira. they won 71 and lost 91. they finished last, dead last, in the al west.

and that team had rafael palmeiro and some other big boppers on it too.

in feb 2004 they traded arod to ny for soriano to build around Teixeira.

the next year, 2004, texas rangers, the awful texas rangers, who everyone thought stunk, well, they improved by 20 games. remember, buck showalter was a hard ass who thought arod was a playboy who was ruining the clubhouse.

guess what, he was right.

the rangers almost won the al west without arod and led by teixeira, who had a monster year. because texeira is about baseball, not partying or steroids.

arod meanwhile reversed the curse for the sox, blowing the 3-0 lead (and batting only .258 in the alcs in 2004) (see fever pitch) and led the yankees to five years of division and alcs losses. you might as well tatoo “loser” on arod’s arm or something.

also a divorce, pictures with strippers and hookers, an affair with madonna, born in 1958, an affair with kate hudson, who was married to a filthy drug addicted rock star from the black crowes (so shes a skank too) and he’s outed as a steroids user.

plus he’s 35 and on the downside of his career. he’s hitting 30 homers, but remember, this is a guy who used to hit 47, 57, 59 a year in texas when he was younger. he’s in age-related decline, and he can’t hit the fastball anymore like he used to. he hits bad pitchers only now. he looked awful against lee and worse against pedro martinez the last two night, legit aces both.

plus he’s ugly.

it’s teixeira who’s the ballplayer–and when the yanks needed someone to step up–he did. that was as clutch a homer as you’ll ever see a guy hit. and matsui’s was even better, on an unhittable pitch.

but i like the phils to sweep at home and close these yanks out.

by the way the phils almost drafted teixeira in 1999–he was a college 3d basemen–but they had scott rolen at the time and took a pass so texas had him.

can you imagine if we had an infield with teixeira at 3b, with rollins utley and howard?

the yanks won one legit last night. matsui hit an unhittable pitch, so did texeira, plus burnett was filthy and nasty. the yanks still pedro’s daddy. but the phils were playing with house money since they won game one. they have cole hamels, last year’s #1, pitching third in the rotation, and the yanks have 39 year old andy pettitte, which is not great for them. and they have no #4 starter. we have joe blanton and rookie of the year ja happ.
the phils will sweep at home.

bank it. jro had it right.

also the birds beat the giants sunday to make it a clean sweep of new yawk.

art kyriazis philly home of the world champion phillies
nl pennant winners 2008
nl pennant winners 2009
2-0 vs cc sabathia in post season play
world series champions 2008
3-0 at citizens bank park in world series play

PHILLIES REPEAT AS NL PENNANT WINNERS; FIRST NL PENNANT REPEATERS SINCE 95-96 BRAVES

THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED THEIR NATIONAL LEAGUE PENNANT BY DEFEATING THE COLORADO ROCKIES 3-1 IN THE NLDS AND THE LA DODGERS 4-1 IN THE NLCS. RYAN HOWARD WAS NAMED NLCS MVP WHILE JA HAPP WAS NAMED NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR. NEITHER SERIES WAS AS EASY OR AS LOPSIDED AS THEY SEEMED. THE ROCKIES PLAYED LIKE THE 2007 PENNANT WINNERS THEY WERE; THEY WERE TOUGH; WHILE THE DODGERS VERY NEARLY TOOK GAME 4 TO TIE THE SERIES AT 2-2; ONLY A 2-OUT JIMMY ROLLINS DOUBLE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE 9TH SAVED THE PHILS AND PLATED TWO RUNS FOR A WALK-OFF WIN THAT PUT THE PHILS UP 3-1 AND SEEMINGLY TORE THE HEART OUT OF THE DODGERS, WHO WERE WINNING GAME FOUR ALL THE WAY.

FORMER PHILLIES RANDY WOLF, VINCENTE PADILLA AND JIM THOME ALL PLAYED WELL, EXCEPT FOR PADILLA’S FINAL START IN CITIZENS BANK PARK IN GAME 5, WHERE HE WAS ROUGHED UP A BIT, BUT PADILLA WAS BRILLIANT OUTDUELING PEDRO MARTINEZ IN GAME TWO TO GET THE DODGERS THEIR ONLY WIN. SOME MIGHT WONDER WHY JIM THOME WAS NOT PLAYING FIRST IN CITIZENS BANK PARK WHERE HE HIT AROUND 25 HOMERS IN 2004; LONEY IS NOT AS MUCH OF A POWER THREAT AND COULD HAVE COME IN AS A DEFENSIVE REPLACEMENT AND BEEN THE PINCH HITTER.

NOT SINCE THE 1929-31 PHILADELPHIA ATHLETICS HAS A PHILADELPHIA BASEBALL TEAM REPEATED AS PENNANT WINNERS. THAT TEAM FEATURED HALL OF FAMERS LEFTY GROVE, AL SIMMONS, JIMMY FOXX AND MICKEY COCHRANE, AND MANAGER CONNIE MACK.

NOT SINCE 1996 HAS A NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM REPEATED AS NL PENNANT WINNERS; THE BRAVES DID IT IN 1995-96 AND 1991-92, FEATURING THEIR ROTATION OF SOON TO BE HALL OF FAMERS JOHN SMOLTZ, TOM GLAVINE AND GREG MADDUX. CAN WE FORGET SID BREAM ON FIRST BASE IN 1991?

NOT SINCE 1976 HAS AN NL TEAM REPEATED AS WORLD SERIES CHAMPS TWO YEARS IN A ROW, AND LIKE 1976, THE PHILS WILL LIKELY HAVE TO DO IT AGAINST THE YANKEES, AS THE REDS DID IN 1976. THE 1975-76 REDS FEATURED HALL OF FAMERS TONY PEREZ JOE MORGAN JOHNNY BENCH AND SHOULD BE HALL OF FAMER PETE ROSE. THE 1976 REDS BEAT THE 1976 PHILLIES TO GET TO THE WORLD SERIES, AND THE 76 PHILS WON MORE THAN 100 GAMES.

OTHER NL REPEATING TEAMS;

1967-68 CARDS (WON WORLD SERIES 67, LOST IN 68)
1965-66 DODGERS (WON SERIES IN 65, LOST IN 66)
1957-58 MILWAUKEE BRAVES (WON SERIES IN 57, LOST IN 58)
1952-53 & 55-56 BROOKLYN DODGERS (WON SERIES IN 1955 ONLY)
1942-43-44-46 ST LOUIS CARDS (WON SERIES 42, 44 & 46)
1939-40 CINCINNATI REDS (WON SERIES IN 40 ONLY)
1936-37 NY GIANTS (LOST TO YANKEES BOTH YEARS)
1930-31 ST LOUIS CARDS (WON SERIES IN 1931 ONLY)
1921-22-23-24 NY GIANTS (WON SERIES IN 1921 & 1922)
1911-12-13 NY GIANTS (LOST ALL THREE SERIES)
1906-07-08 CHICAGO CUBS (WON IN 1907 & 1908 SERIES)
1904-05 NY GIANTS (WON 05 SERIES, NO SERIES IN 04)
1901-02-03 PITTSBURGH PIRATES (LOST 03 SERIES, NO SERIES O1 02)

WHAT WE SEE FROM ALL THIS IS THE LIST OF NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAMS THAT HAVE REPEATED AS WORLD CHAMPIONS IS VERY SHORT:

1) 1975-76 CINCINNATI REDS
2) 1921-22 NY GIANTS
3) 1907-08 CHICAGO CUBS

THAT’S IT. THREE TEAMS. IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD SERIES, ONLY THREE NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAMS HAVE WON THE WORLD SERIES, AND THEN COME BACK THE NEXT YEAR AND DONE IT AGAIN, AND SINCE 1950, ONLY ONE TEAM HAS DONE IT–THE REDS. THE ATLANTA BRAVES HAD THE VERY BEST SHOT AT IT–BUT THEY LOST THE 1996 WORLD SERIES TO THE YANKEES.

THESE TEAMS WERE TRULY GREAT.

THE 1907-08 CUBS WERE THE CUBS OF TINKER TO EVERS TO CHANCE.

THE CUBS HAVE BEEN CURSED SINCE THEN, OF COURSE.

THE 1921-22 GIANTS FEATURED FRANKIE FRISCH “THE FORDHAM FLASH”, ROSS YOUNGS, GEORGE KELLY AND PITCHER ART NEHF–FRISCH, YOUNGS AND KELLY ALL IN THE HALL OF FAME. THE 1922 GIANTS ARE EVEN MORE FAMOUS BECAUSE FUTURE YANKEES MANAGER CASEY STENGEL PLAYED OUTFIELD FOR THEM, AND HE WAS PRETTY DARN GOOD, BATTING .368 AND SLUGGING .564. AND OF COURSE, THE LEGENDARY HALL OF FAME MANAGER JOHN MCGRAW MANAGED THE NEW YORK GIANTS.

THE GIANTS HAVE NOT ENJOYED AS MUCH BASEBALL SUCCESS SINCE THEY SNUCK OUT OF TOWN IN THE DARK OF NIGHT IN 1957 TO GO TO SAN FRANCISCO. THEY WON A LOT MORE BEFORE 1957 THAN SINCE, DESPITE HAVING GREAT PLAYERS LIKE WILLIE MAYS AND JUAN MARICHAL AND BARRY BONDS.

NO NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM HAS EVER WON THREE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS IN A ROW, ALTHOUGH THE 1940S CARDINALS, WITH HALL OF FAMERS ENOS “COUNTRY” SLAUGHTER AND STAN “THE MAN” MUSIAL CAME THE CLOSEST, WITH THREE TITLES IN FIVE YEARS. THEY WERE MANAGED BY THE LEGENDARY BILLY SOUTHWORTH, ANOTHER HALL OF FAME MANAGER.

AND OF COURSE THE 1975-76 REDS WERE MANAGED BY HALL OF FAME SKIPPER SPARKY ANDERSON.

SO IF THE PHILLIES REPEAT AS WORLD CHAMPS, IF THEY BEAT THE YANKEES–WHICH OF COURSE IS A BIG IF–BUT IF THEY DO IT, THEY WILL BE MAKING HUGE, ENORMOUS, EARTHSHATTERING HISTORY.

THEY WILL BECOME ONLY THE FOURTH NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM IN HISTORY TO ACHIEVE THIS FEAT, AND ONLY THE SECOND SINCE 1922.

–ART KYRIAZIS, PHILLY, HOME OF THE WORLD CHAMPION AND 2008/2009 NL CHAMPION PHILLIES