Tim Donaghy Book a Warning to MLB
by Rev Halofan on Nov 9, 2009 11:00 AM PST
in Angels News
Email
PrintTim Donaghy is about to be released from prison for his part on fixing NBA games. His book was supposed to be release later this month. But... (as DEADSPIN reports) money talks...
About 10 months ago, Donaghy shopped the book to Triumph Books, an imprint of Random House, according to a source close to Donaghy. Triumph, the source says, "put forth a huge effort to verify every statement in that book." (Triumph's editorial director, Tom Bast, declined to comment.) Two weeks ago, Blowing the Whistle was ready for printing; 60 Minutes had plans to interview Donaghy in conjunction with the book's publication. Then the NBA came calling. "They came after Random House and threatened a lawsuit," the source says, "and Random House just rolled and decided to not go with it. It's really that simple."
Here is lengthy collection of excerpts from Tim Donaghy's book about gambling and cheating as a referee in the NBA.
Referee Dick Bavetta told me Denver needed the win and that it would look bad for the staff and the league if the Nuggets missed the playoffs by one game. There were still a few games left on the schedule before the end of the season, and the standings could potentially change. But on that day in Oakland, Bavetta looked at me and casually stated, "Denver will win if they need the game. That's why I'm on it."
I was thinking, How is Denver going to win on the road in San Antonio? At the time, the Spurs were arguably the best team in the league. Bavetta answered my question before it was asked.
"Duncan will be on the bench with three fouls within the first five minutes of the game," he calmly stated.
As it turned out, Denver didn't need the win after all; they locked up a spot in the playoffs before they got to San Antonio. In a twist of fate, it was the Spurs that ended up needing the win to have a shot at the division title, and Bavetta generously accommodated. In our pregame meeting, he talked about how important the game was to San Antonio and how meaningless it was to Denver, and that San Antonio was going to get the benefit of the calls that night. Armed with this inside information, I called Jack Concannon before the game and told him to bet the Spurs.
To no surprise, we won big. San Antonio blew Denver out of the building that evening, winning by 26 points. When Jack called me the following morning, he expressed amazement at the way an NBA game could be manipulated. Sobering, yes; amazing, no. That's how the game is played in the National Basketball Association.
A critical fact about the Donaghy scandal is that he was caught by a federal investigation that was wiretapping criminal suspects on completely unrelated charges. There was no internal investigation of Donaghy.
The media loves sports advertising revenue and is downplaying the whole affair relative to the terrible legacy it leaves. Of course, the level of naieveté on the part of supposed sporting insiders is astounding. One gets called all sorts of names when one implies anything besides the belief that umps are dishonest or biased or anything but trying to be good blue collar workers at their jobs. Meanwhile Tim Donaghy openly mocks veteran announcers' analysis of his rigged game calling...
We had another variation of this gag simply referred to as the "first foul of the game" bet. While still in the locker room before tip-off, we would make a wager on which of us would call the game's first foul. That referee would either have to pay the ball boy or pick up the dinner tab for the other two referees. Sometimes, the ante would be $50 a guy. Like the technical foul bet, it was hilarious — only this time we were testing each others nerves to see who had the guts to hold out the longest before calling a personal foul. There were occasions when we would hold back for two or three minutes — an eternity in an NBA game — before blowing the whistle. It didn't matter if bodies were flying all over the place; no fouls were called because no one wanted to lose the bet.
We played this little game during the regular season and summer league. After a game, all three refs would gather around the VCR and watch a replay of the game. Early in the contest, the announcers would say, "Holy cow! They're really letting them play tonight!" (emphasis mine) If they only knew...
...but just look at hype surrounding the steroid scandal and understand that baseball's status as the national pastime will not let any coming potential disaster of umpires adversely affecting the game go as lightly as buying off a publisher. The entire NFL is brain-cancer-in-waiting-roiders, but instead Henry Waxman demands MLB run the congressional hearing gauntlet. Why baseball? No matter how popular other sports are, baseball is part of the American DNA and everyone has an opinion on how to fix it. When it is baseball, the sharks taste blood in the water and attack with ferocity.
Could baseball survive such an attack like Tim Donaghy revealed? Think of the damage two strikes brought in the 80s and 90s and the taint of steroids this decade and think - would the discovery of a Donaghy behind the plate be a nail in the coffin for the MLB?
78 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We always Suspected
That MLB Umps were favoring a team by the ay they were calling the game, or blowing calls. I know there are a number of people who hate this ump or that ump because of the way they blew a call that cause thier team to loss…..
Doug Eddings (Spell check?) comes to mind……
Who was that ump that blew the call at 3rd base against the Yankees……
While Blown calls have always been part of the game, people have always wondered if that ump was rooting for the team that benefitted from the blown call….
I stopped following basketball 13 yrs ago.
As soon as I was old enough t know better.
Basketball officiating has always had the most subjective officiating of any sport (forget figure skating, gymnastics, etc) and thus the most vulnerable to having it’s games fixed. Baseball is at the other end of that spectrum. Sure there is opportunity but it’s a lot harder to get away with. An ump can try to squeeze a pitcher or a hitter or give a close call one way or another but, ultimately, he has no ability to ensure that those calls will put runs on the board or keep them off. Plus, probably every call an umpire makes can objectively be determined to to be right or wrong. This is not the case in basketball.
An NBA ref can reverse any possession he fells like and has the ability to take away points and take players out of a game. That’s far too much power and makes for a far less interesting competition.
Captain, there are doubt's...
I closed the door on the NBA back in 2004
I grew up attending Laker games at the Forum. I also played competitive basketball through High School, and was pretty good. I knew the game, I knew offenses, I knew defenses, I knew assignmentments and transitions. I knew the rule book. I followed the trend towards physical play in the 60’s, mostly between centers and forwards under the basket. I followed the trend toward increased travelling and palming of the ball, mostly with the Michael Jordan era. I watched the trend of allowing even greater physicality of play throughout the entire court, with the Bad Boys era of the Detroit Pistons in the late 80’s and how that crushed the Showtime era of the Lakers earlier that same decade.
Then, with marriage and kids to tend to, I stopped attending games in person. It got kind of pricey for me. I stayed away until the 2004 NBA Finals, when I sane my first in person games in about 15 years.
I felt like Rip Van Winkle. The game had changed so much that it was despicable. It had become one level up from pro wrestling. There was so much beat down going on throughout the entire court that the refs were free to pick and choose which infraction they felt like calling with every single play. I could count three or four infractions with every change of possession. Calls that were being made, were not making sense. It was not that they were inconsistent. In fact, they were highly consistent. There were physical aspects of the game that Detroit was clearly allowed to do without penalty, while every time the Lakers tried to counter with anything close to a similar style of play would get a whistle immediately. One side was playing a different game than the other, and the refs were enforcing that difference.
That is when I realized that all the power for the outcome of the game was in the hands of the refs. Not some. Not a lot. All. Suddenly, I knew what the Sacramento Kings were wailing about. I understood the Dallas Mavs complaints. I agreed with the Philadelphia 76’ers. Everything I thought that I was cheering for as a Lakers fan was all a prop. A Hollywood production.
Worse, since I was not being force-fed a television perspective of the competition, I could watch the players as they walked back to the bench at timeouts. My interpretation of their body language, their demeanor, the facial expressions, and their interaction with one another, was all that they knew that the fix was in. Nothing the Lakers could do that series was going to change the fact that the NBA was going to crown a champ from the Eastern conference. Nothing. And they knew it, to a man.
I watched both home games at Staples. Even though the Lakers won game 2, I walked away sick. The game is a fraud. The game is fixed. The game is not basketball. The league has way too much opportunity for influence via the refs, and the difference in two decades was so crystal clear that I could not, with any level of honesty, accept that the league was not leveraging the refs to guide results. Suddenly, the 2002 Western Conference Finals and the granting of 22 free throws in the 4th quarter to the Lakers against the Kings made all the sense in the world. Click! I shut off the NBA and have moved on.
Donaghy was no surpise.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Fascinating...
I dont “know” basketball like I know baseball. Unlike basketball, I grew up playing baseball all the way through HS. That being said, I follow basketball lightly. Check the standings every couple of days, maybe catch a couple games month via TV at a bar.
I guess I never really knew how much BS was involved. Everything you say makes sense though. One thing about basketball I have never understood is the refereeing. There is just TOO much subjectivity. I guess the same could be said about baseball and he strikezone. But something like tagging a man out, catching a flyball or having your foot on the bag before the runner gets there has always seemed much more concrete (most of the time) that any of the fouls/rules/infractions called in basketball.
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Nov 9, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Fundamentally, there is not as much subjectivity as you would think.
Basketball was originally intended as a non-contact sport. Sure, that concept was thrown into the trash decades ago, but that is part of the problem (non the contact, but the subjectivity that comes with allowing contact). It is fairly easy to recognize when two players make contact, and which player is the one initiating the contact. That would make for very easy calls by the refs.
Taken as a non-contact sport, basketball is the one major sport that allows the competitor to plan well enough and execute well enough and neutralize the athletic advantages of the competition. But, implementing and supporting that method of play can make for a match that is extremely difficult to watch. Oklahoma could stage a slowdown against the Lakers and force a game that might end up 40 – 36. Imagine a baseball game between two pitchers throwing no-hitters, where there is no special reward or honor on the back end for accomplishing the feat. Snore. This would be fatal to the success of basketball as an enterprise. It might as well be field hockey. So they have to grant a freer reign towards athleticism, which will result in contact. It makes for a watchable and marketable product. But it also introduces all the subjectivism. And, I submit, Stern has learned to use that subjectivism to promote the NBA.
This, of course, is Rev’s point. Selig has similar powers. He may not be as clever as Stern, and execute his officiating leverage more clumsily, and the umpire’s union may be a lot stronger than what the NBA deals with, but he does have levers to pull. Instinctively, the integrity of the game should mandate that Selig do whatever he can to shed light on calls made “in game”, and help the umps get the calls right. The worse thing Selig could do would be to dismiss such efforts because, at a minimum, it creates an appearance of protection and secrecy, and leaves open the door for conspiracy mongering.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Well said Stirrups
And I also think the 2002 Western Conference Finals are the epitome of blatantly scandalous referring, and the primary example I point to when explaining the fixing of NBA games to relative non-believers. Game 6 of those playoffs (Lakers vs. Kings) was so obviously fixed to the Lakers favor that non-sports consumer advocate Ralph Nader actually contacted Congress about it!! That says alot. And, one could tell from the body language of the Sacramento players that they definitely knew the fix was in.
Another example I point to was David Stern’s suspension of Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw for Game 5 of the 2007-8 ? playoffs. In that same game Tim Duncan had left the bench and he was not suspended. That suspension effectively gave that series to the Spurs who went on to face the Cavaliers in the Finals. Other than the LA Lakers or the Knicks, it is common knowledge that teams from TEXAS (Rockets,Spurs, Mavs) draws better TV ratings for Finals contests than
other cities would (MJ had long since retired, otherwise Bulls would be higher on list).
Although, the 1976 finals between the Suns and Celtics was the greatest NBA series ever televised
I was living in Phoenix at the time, and was spellbound.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
For me it was Game 2 of the 2008 championships...
Lakers – Boston. The Celtics, once a cornerstone franchise of the NBA, hadn’t been to the finals in 19 years. In that game the Celtics were 27 for 38 from the freethrow line. The Lakers were 10 for 10.
That’s right, the Celtics shot 4 times more free throws than the Lakers, out scored them by 17 points from the freethrow line, and won the game by 6.
Sure, I watched and enjoyed the playoffs this year but I will never believe that the NBA front office doesn’t have some say in some games with the intent of proping up some teams so they gain more fans in the long run…
If that was the game that set you off
then why did virtually the same thing in 2002 with the Kings/Lakers…the most frequently cited game in all investigative reports….not set you off as well?
How this whole scandal isn’t 10 times larger than the steroid scandal is a testament to how much more the American public loves, and is therefore disappointed by, baseball.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 9, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe
or $tern is just that much better than this. Donaghy confirmed what many have suspected and Stern’s PR people got the entire thing silenced all year for whatever reasons (probably because virtually all of the media is completely owned by a few giant corporations who profit greatly from people not thinking the shit is rigged).
Besides people are pissed at baseball because they/Selig were such complete pigs about it. They literally just pissed all over the sacred record books for a few $.
The entire system encouraged the ’roids. Players doubled in size almost overnight. The whole world knew but baseball needed to get fans back after the strike. “Chicks dig the longball” right? They juiced the ball and the players, and shrunk the stadiums (the new Bankee stadium is an effing joke).
Simultaneously, Selig made sure the Bankees and other marquee teams got special ‘priveleges’ to make sure they had a large interested fan base.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 9, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't see the 2002 Kings/Lakers game live...
We were driving home from a memorial day weekend family trip so I didn’t see the game live, just heard it on the radio. Chick, like any radio or TV anouncer, isn’t going to point out foul call discrepencies so to me, the game was just an amazing come back victory.
I didn’t actually learn about the controvery surrounding that game until after the 2008 finals when I decided to dig a little.
for what its worth.
Sacramento shot about 20 more free throws than the Lakers for that series. And a large portion of the Lakers free throws were Shaq getting fouled on purpose. So if anything, the Lakers were probably getting a makeup game for what had already happened in the series.
The point is there was ref/league manipulation which is not surprising to anybody who follows the sport.
NBA (inconsistent foul calls), MLB (balls and strikes), NHL (penalties) and NFL (Holding on any play if they want) are all somewhat riggable. Some more than others, the issue is it a Ref/Ump doing it for themselves or a mandate from upstairs because billions in corporate/tv revenue is in play. The Bankees/Red Sux, Celtic/Lakers, etc. are marquee matchups that guarantee bigger ratings.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 9, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
Exaggeration
Derek Fisher 0.2
Vlade tipping the ball out to Horry.
Refs aren’t making amazing shots at the buzzer, or tipping the ball out to the top of the key. Yes, there is no doubt that the refs are orchestrating some (or many) NBA games, but they do not hold ALL power in determining who wins or loses. That is a huge exaggeration.
I was in attendance @ Game #6 in the Staples Center vs the Sacto Kings. Yes, it was pretty obvious that the refs/league office or whoever wanted the Lakers to win that game. The same could be said about Game #5 in Sacramento. They obviously wanted a seven game series. For Game #7 went into overtime and the Kings had plenty of chances to win that game. The referees did not decide who won that series. But I won’t disagree that someone wanted that series to go seven games.
Reffing basketball is very difficult and you are correct in your statement that it is one of the most subjective sports to officiate (NFL also is ie – holding, pass interference), but I think you are exaggerating quite a bit in your conclusion.
vr, Xei
They aren't making amazing shots at the buzzer
but that’s a logically faulty argument that tries to appeal to emotion. They may not make the buzzer-beating shot, but they spent the previous 47:58 making sure that a buzzer beating shot could even be taken.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 9, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Ok. "All" is an exaggeration. But NOT a huge one.
Throughout the bulk of the game, NBA refs have a near puppet-master control of the players and the flow of the game, and they do have near-complete control to adjust the results leading up to the final conclusion should they desire or should they be directed. There may be times when the players receiving favorable calls may fail to execute within the game as the game goes along, which would force the refs to work harder to favor them. If Donaghy is to be believed (and I, for one, am completely willing to suspend disbelief), this kind of manipulation (as opposed to a reaction to what is going on among the players) is too possible, too probable, and too frequent.
But, certainly, it is entirely up to the players to make any final play(s) as time expires, since the lack of further time is one thing that the refs cannot overcome.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
David Stern is a liar.
He said that the NBA wouldn’t threaten legal action against the publication of this book on the Dan Patrick show last friday.
Do it for Nick '09
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Nov 9, 2009 11:56 AM PST reply actions
Why baseball?
Why does Henry Waxman hold hearings on MLB?
Because the MLB owners have their waiver regarding antitrust matters, and that is the cudgel lawmakers use to bring the owners into some sense of compliance.
Congress holds no such leverage over the NFL, NBA, WWF or any other organization.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
And what, exactly, does that exemption provide MLB anymore?
What is the burden of running a pro baseball team that is unlike that of other professional sports leagues, from which the MLB finds so difficult that they do everything they can to maintain the exemption? If they simply surrendered it, they would immediately declaw Congress.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Antitrust exemption
It exists more for the Commissioner than anyone else, since it is the teeth in the ability of MLB to prevent any owner from moving his franchise wherever he wishes. Without it, the sport risks having a bunch of Al Davises, George Shinns and Bob Irsays moving their franchises whenever they felt the grass to be greener.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 9, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Who wants to play in Buffalo in April?
I won’t even bother asking about October :-P
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
Wind factor baby
Snowdrifts are nothing like they are in upstate NY
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
For those of you who think Baseball is immune...
I agree that calls on the field such as the missed double play call at third against the Yankees are not a real problem. Those can’t really be used by an ump to throw a game because a) they have to happen at important points in the game b) they have to be close enough to be questionable and they’re just not that many opportunities for both of these conditions to be met for an ump to be able to use to determine the outcome of the game…
In the NBA there are probably 2 or three things that can be called a foul on every play so the ref has a huge opportunity to influence the outcome by simply calling or not calling those things.
Just look at what half a dozen called balls and strikes can do for a team in a game. A player getting called out looking at a pitch that has been called a ball all game long, a pitcher losing a batter on a 3-2 count on a pitch that has been called a strike all game long, can turn the tide of an entire game, and all it takes is an opinion from the guy behind the plate. Sure we as fans can question them but nobody’s going to take us seriously if we try and build a conspirasy case aound them.
Agree with this Jietoh:
Just look at what half a dozen called balls and strikes can do for a team in a game
I wrote a whole fanpost about one pitch (See “7th Inning 3-2 pitch to Posada…What was that..”) and what it can mean. That Lackey pitch to Posada took a comfortable 4-1 Angels lead and turned it into a 6-4 Yankee lead. We were lucky that the series didn’t end right there, on that night. Sigh, the powers that be did get their desired result ultimately.
I’m glad to say that my post fueled this recent discussion and I think stimulated much more discussion and thought on this issue (not just NBA but re: MLB games). I have actually been talking about this issue on Halos Heaven for years now. It is good to see that many folks are coming around to at least examining the legitimacy of my claims. I also think REV. deserves alot of credit for his courage in making this a headline issue. He, as the site manager, is obviously more in the limelight, so more subject to criticism and ridicule. I commend him for his unwavering coverage of this important issue.
by Jack Frost on Nov 9, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
But so many other things had to happen for that pitch to be a factor.
Umps can’t make calls that favor one team all night hoping that eventually one will make the difference. It would be too easily exposed. In basketball you CAN favor one team without being obvious about it.
Captain, there are doubt's...
you can't argue
balls and strikes. And it doesn’t have to be more than a few calls. Pettitte got calls that Kasmir and Sanders didn’t, early on. In years past it was Schilling getting a huge strike zone that our pitchers didn’t. Meanwhile, both the Bankees and Red Bankees are literally shocked when a pitch not worthy of them swinging (i.e. one which they didn’t properly guess the pitch and location in advance) is called a third strike.
Jack Frost, that was a brilliant post and it’s a topic I’ve been screaming about for years also. Just not here. The Yankees and Red Sox both get separate strike zones for their hitters and pitchers. It will never be absolutely proven but anyone who follows the game knows it.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 9, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
I've always felt that it's more urban legend than anything else.
Just about every pitch is endlessly reviewed by coaches, players, highlight shows, historians and statisticians. Even more so now with the explosion of sabrmetrics. If there were prominent incidents of an ump significantly deviating from the norm, it would have come out by now.
Captain, there are doubt's...
But, the "norm" of umpires calling balls and strikes is that there is no norm.
Only recently, with the advent of public Pitch F/X data, are people starting to analyze trends in zones as they are called. And more often these analyses are focused on trends concerning individual pitchers, not individual umps.
MLB does do reviews of balls and strikes and reviews this data with umps that deviate from the expected interpretation of the rule book (at least, they did at one point), but that data is (was) kept private.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Fair enough
but to then say from that that umps are fixing games is a bit of a step. There has to be more evidence than, ‘my favorite team got screwed over by this pitch or that play’. Everybody agrees that the umps did a piss poor job this post-season but that’s just it: even the umps admit that missed a lot of calls.
The problem is that a lot of these guys are too old and a lot of them are not willing to accept someone or something correcting them. That’s got to change. When Jack Frost says in his post, “…the powers that be did get their desired result…” that automatically paints the argument that the umpires need help as little more than tin-hat conspiracy blather.
Captain, there are doubt's...
I agree.
From my perspective, there are three kinds of problems.
1) An umpire can place himself above the game and, through sheer force of ego, alter the outcome from what it might have been naturally, all things being equal and according to the rulebook that both sides agreed to coming into the competition. That they can do this is something that only MLB can rectify.
2) The lack of authorative and fully transparent control and oversight over the plate umps opens the door to conspiracy theories. Only the MLB can change this and, by failing to do this, they have no right to complain about the theories.
3) MLB is in total cahoots with (at least) some umps and the ump union, keeping it all a total secret from the players and the players union (the sporting media being totally useless here), and is intentionally manipulating critical games so as to promote their own financial interest.
We don’t have to go all the way out to #3 to have problems, and just getting to #1 exposes serious MLB culpability.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
by Stirrups on Nov 9, 2009 8:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well Stirrups
I think your tiered approach here does makes sense in terms of the severity of each level of manipulation. Obviously, 1) would be the easiest for most folks to accept, because it simply does not shake the foundation of their world view, whereas for most people accepting # 3) (or something akin to that) would shake the foundation of their world view.
Since most Americans are socialized in an educational system which indoctrinates them to A) obey authority B) trust authority and C) NEVER question authority, it is inherently difficult to accept. But intelligent, worldly and analytical people usually are able to get beyond the psychic bonds of their upbringing when it comes to entertaining paradigm challenging ideas.
This all being said, as you so accurately point out, we don’t have to accept a situation akin to 3) to have problems. In fact, I would add that gross incompetence in itself is a major problem. It would be hard to argue that gross incompetence was not displayed in the MLB playoffs this year. As I have stated elsewhere, however, I believe that what we’ve witnessed is more than gross incompetence. Do I have concrete proof? No. But the answer to many of life’s perplexing questions (philosophical and otherwise) does not always lie in the in the realm of the concrete, as I think (or at least hope) you would agree.
But I think we can use logic and deduction to say that if we accept 1), then consequently 2) and by thus 3) become more likely. If the conditions of 1) are evident, then the fact the MLB would not take immediate action and make its action widespread and known to the public would tend to perpetuate the thinking of those like myself who think we’re being hoodwinked. As you say;
Only the MLB can change this, and by failing to do this, they have no right to complain about the theories.
The best analogy I can think of is that if anyone, such as you or I, were accused of a criminal activity (or of just gross incompetence) in the execution of our profession, we would naturally defend ourselves (assuming we were innocent). This is not to say that a guilty person would also not defend himself/herself, but you can bet that any innocent person with a functioning ego and basic communciation skills would do so. That fact that MLB fails to make a peep in the course of these recent displays says alot to me. It reeks of a child who has knocked over a glass of milk while stealing cookies from the cookie jar and then leaves the milk on the counter because they think being seen cleaning it up will implicate them in the theft of cookies.
Ultimately, these types of discussions, for me at least come down to common sense and deductive reasoning, rather than concrete “proof.”
And of course it is also not just possible but likely that various combinations of your own or similar scenarios could be operating at any particular time and during any particular game and/or series. If we look at the Donagy example, there we see both an individual (Donagy) pursuing his own selfish interests, while simultaneously, there is allegedly a larger entity, the NBA, pursuing its’ own interests for purely selfish reasons. These coincidences are not mutually exclusive, and may either work together or at cross purposes,with any variety of outcomes. There are just so many variables involved that to think we have contemplated each and every one is really folly.
For what it is worth, I remain highly dubious of the officiating in the playoffs.
My most disconcerting event was McLellan confessing that he did not call Cano out at 3B because he expeccted Cano to have made his play and be on the bag. Elsewhere, I have called that my vote as the single worst umpiring error in the history of MLB. McLellan confessed that he made up his mind ahead of the real time actions. (It may be the only way to be that boneheaded.) But there is a psychology there that needs to be investigated. What drove McLellan to believe, in advance, that a player was going to make the correct play? Did it have anything to do with that player being a Yankee? Is it reasonable to presume that McLellan would have made that assumption if the baserunners were Royals? Pirates? Angels? Nobody, not even McLellan afterward, could defend that horrid call. So we had, by his own admission, an authority standing out there in the field of play who, even if in conflict with the real world playing out in front of him, was working with a mind already made up. For how long? For how many innings? For how many games?
To your point “…they think being seen cleaning it up will implicate them in the theft of cookies”. You are right. You don’t structure a correction for a problem if you want or need to avoid acknowledging that there is a problem in the first place. (Of course, those trained in contemporary law will not act as openly and forthrightly as common people – you and I – because they are well aware of the liabilities that come with confronting an issue that they would prefer to remain non-existent.) Perhaps Selig and his fellow attornies are thinking shallow and short term. The heartache for 3 to 5 years is uncomfortable, and Selig won’t be around to bask in the glory 10 years from now, of having created a solid foundation of integrity.
To your last point, this is wonderfully worthy of further exploration: that the underlying behavior of the higher authority (i.e. the NBA) may create an environment wherein the dubious behavior of Donaghy is rationalized by Donaghy himself as an internal motive to justify independent abherrent behavior. Which brings us back to McLellan. Could it be that, as insiders, umpires such as McLellan have access to sufficient curious information from MLB officials over the course of their career (or in recent months) which leads them to believe that they would be capable of making some assumptions going into a gig? Not necessarily so much that they would outwardly throw a game or a series, but enough to force him into taking liberties or, in pressure situations, erroring in favor (both of which corrupt the game)? Isn’t this what lies in the minds of those who smell a greater conspiracy, that a regular litany of bad calls are the tell-tale circumstantial smoke of the hidden fire of some corrupt environment?
(P.S. – my wife is the classic example of bowing to an authority figure. I used to be amazed at how strongly she would defer to soccer refs, even if she knew that they were ignorant volunteers pulled from the ranks of fellow parents to act as line judge. But she is an Air Force brat, so I understand how she got this way.)
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
There's a HUGE difference between
complaining about a peer who had the balls to volunteer and HELP officiate a high school game or whatever and going after a paid professional. Any parent who would go after a youth official who’s only trying to help out is the epitome of a douchebag if not worse.
Captain, there are doubt's...
Well, those parent volunteers...
If they realy are ignorant volunteers pulled from the ranks of fellow parents to act as line judge, they probably have very strict instructions to only call stuff that they can see with no real knowlege of the game required. When I would ref a game and had to rely on parent volunteers to act as line judge, I would tell them to try and stay even with the last defender, point the flag in the direction of the team the ball went out on and don’t worry about anything else. Its then up to me to call offsides and penelties. You don’t have to be trained to know who kicked the ball out of bounds and that’s all they’re there for.
All the more reason for
moronic parents who think their kid is Pele to back off.
Captain, there are doubt's...
Whooosh! My personal anecdote went right over your head.
The point of the anecdote was to present a personal, first-hand, example that IS hugely different from the main topic. Miles and miles apart, and humorously so as it is miles beyond (but in the same direction as) the well-articulated point Jack Frost made earlier about deference to authority.
My wife absolutely respects authority, even if that authority is something as simple as some simpleton stuck as a sideline judge in an emergency. It does not matter how unqualified or unsuccessful that “volunteer” is, she bows absolutely to their authority. And she is the first to stand up on behalf of that volunteer if it is obvious that the person is making a complete hash of things. Sure, some knuckleheads and jackasses get totally lit in those situations, but my wife was always there to shut them down. The rest of us just smile and chuckle over the errors, but my wife was there to shut us down, too. “He’s the ref! He makes the call! That’s the rule!!”
“But, dear, it’s Ok to admit that he got the call wrong. It’s not the end of the world. Maybe the field judge could help him understand how to make that call correctly next time. The coach might be thinking that he wants chat with the field judge at the half.”
“No! He is the ref. He made the call. That’s THE RULE!”
“Ok, dear.”
To your point, it is absolutely true that there are moronic parents. True for every extra-curricular activity in which kids participate. I don’t defend them in the least. But to Jack Frost’s point, just because some parents are total assholes does not mean that all authority figures are perfect. My trick, as a parent, was to realize that as soon as the current event has concluded, the kids themselves have already moved on to the next thing. It. Really. Does. Not. Matter. Learn from your child, and let it go.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
I saw what you meant but I'm not sold on the idea that
the problem is one of deference to authority.
If an official (paid pro AND ignorant volunteer from the stands) makes a call that is obviously favored to one side then everyone involved has the obligation to say something. Now, there certainly is a protocol regarding whom to approach about this and how but if my kid was was involved in a match where an ump or a ref was helping out an opponent I like to think that I would have the stones to make the coaches aware of this, make the head official aware of this and possibly even tell my kid to resign from the match in protest. Furthermore, I’d especially like to think that would be the case if said official was favoring my own team! (my oldest is only 3 so it’s hypothetical right now) If the game has no integrity whatsoever then why bother playing? What are you trying to prove?
With the recent postseason’s umpiring debacle I believe the bad calls were made because of laziness, ineptitude and pride. I don’t think it had anything to do with MLB or the umps favoring one team or another. That’s just too difficult to do in baseball and too easily revealed to be worth it. McLellan and others have been in the game so long and are at an age where they are going to assume that certain things will happen (a player touching a base, a shortstop being ‘close enough’ to second on a DP, a fast player beating a throw, a slow runner not) that they won’t bother to actually judge whether those things happened. Then when a question arises they are simply too proud and too sure of themselves (which can be a good thing) to ask for help or to defer to an instant replay. The Angels lacked aggression, the Phillies got tired and the Yankees FINALLY met expectations. If, anything, you would have to argue bias AGAINST the Yankees because it took them 8 yrs just to get back to the Series.
Basketball is a completely different sport in that the refs have a tremendous amount of control over how a game will play out. It’s a well established practice for coaches to call them out during the postseason and to call attention to certain players in the hopes of swaying the refs in a particular direction. There is not the same historical tradition and prestige associated with the NBA as there is with the World Series thus, a lower ethical barrier for a referee to get past in throwing a game to one team or another. Plus (and I have no evidence of this) but gambling in the regular season is probably far more active and lucrative for basketball vs. baseball. The temptation to participate and the formation of culture is much more likely there.
Finally, the umpire’s role in the came is almost completely different than referees in other sports. With a few exceptions, an umpire is not there to call penalties on rule breakers and he is not there to prevent excessive rule breaking from occurring. An umpire is there to determine what happened on a play. Strike or ball, safe or out, fair or foul, etc. It would be very difficult and very stressful for an umpire to believe that he could get away with calling clear balls as strikes and clearly out runners as safe or whatever on a consistent enough basis to favor one side without being easily exposed as doing such. If he tried it in the regular season he would be exposed quickly and fired. If he tried it in the postseason, well, there would be 10 times as much scrutiny and would just be asking for trouble. Other referees ARE there to be the authorities and they ARE there to control a game. The opportunity and the temptation to abuse that is much greater.
Fans, players and coaches understand that mistakes are going to be made and no one is arguing that there is a perfect alternative. All that is being asked is that every attempt be made to make sure that the correct call be made:
1)use instant replay where appropriate
2)ask for help if it is available
3)own up to your mistakes
4)recognize that a day will come when you can no longer make the most accurate calls and retire 1 year before that day
Play ball.
Captain, there are doubt's...
by Match Day 5 on Nov 10, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Comments:
“I’m not sold on the idea that the problem is one of deference to authority.”
It is not THE problem. It is a PART OF the problem. Inherent deference to authority (not to mention to “sour grapes” counter arguments and dismissals) creates an environment which can foster bad behavior on the part of authority. This is inarguable. It is buried in the history behind the 1st Amendment.
“That’s just too difficult to do in baseball and too easily revealed to be worth it.”
You have no proof of this. That’s an emotional statement.
“If, anything, you would have to argue bias AGAINST the Yankees because it took them 8 yrs just to get back to the Series.”
Red herring. A conspiracy would exist even if it were merely to place the Yankees in a more favorable position to win. It would still be up to the Yankees to actually win. And the notion that the world is fair to the Yankees because it takes them 8 whole years to win the AL is laughable. The Cleveland Indians are calling on line 1.
“It would be very difficult and very stressful for an umpire to believe that he could get away with calling clear balls as strikes and…If he tried it in the regular season he would be exposed quickly and fired. If he tried it in the postseason, well, there would be 10 times as much scrutiny and would just be asking for trouble.”
Ahem….uh…really? Think Eric Gregg. I mean, come on. There is absolutely no dispute that umpires create their own strike zone no matter what time of year. I could point to factual data after factual data which only reinforces this truth. It got so out of hand that MLB tried to correct it first with Questech. MLB further issued an edict reinforcing the rule book definition of the strike zone. This is the MLB trying to correct this behavior, not some fantasy on my part. Even still, over and over on televised games there are pitches reviewed by the Pitch F/X system that leave the announcers speechless (perhaps from embarrassment). So, with umpires clearly capable of calling balls as strikes and vice-versa, and with a clear history of arrogance concerning their right to call their own zone, where do you find support to make those statements? It IS a problem. And the fact that it is a problem is the barn door that is being left open for conspiracy mongers to drive their herd of accusations through, year after year.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
If the same umpire
makes a call that leaves a runner on 3rd who was clearly out also calls out at 3rd a runner who was clearly not, how do you say he was favoring that team? There is an unfortunately phenomenal amount of evidence of bad officiating. There is almost no evidence of fixed games. It’s all just speculation.
Where was this speculation when these calls were going against Youkilis in the ALDS?
Captain, there are doubt's...
I am not saying that games were fixed.
I am saying that MLB has failed to eradicate all doubt that games are fixed. In fact, they have failed to even eradicate the doubt that games are skewed. They haven’t even taken any steps to eradicate any doubt that individual (non-conspiratorial) personal bias may have been at play. They have the power, and the fiduciary duty, to do so. Not only do they NOT do these things, but they insist that there is no reason TO do these things.
MLB has openly agreed with the public that the post-season officiating was troublesome. They are the only ones with the power to define this ineptitude as a random abberation and the only ones with a stake in the loss of integrity should the public continue to suspect this ineptitude. It is unconscionable that, in that unique position, they fail to act to defend the inegrity of the game over which they have chosen to take charge.
I will leave to others the explanation of how umpires can alter the natural outcome of games without needing to alter the outcome of every call. And I will leave it to you to go over to OTM and read all the complaining the Sox fans had about the Youklis calls at the time.
(For the record, my opinion is that the Angels played like crap and that, had they played as they did during July/August, they would have walked away with every one of these series AND the trophy. neither the Sox, nor the Yanks, nor the Phillies in the WS played particularly well. The bad officiating was merely the tossing of smelly garbage on top of a heap of trashy execution.)
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
I don't see how
MLB could ever “eradicate all doubt that the games are skewed” short of some sort of digital/holographic strikezone that hovers above homeplate. It could turn blue for a ball and red for a strike.
Nor do I see why MLB should have. The fact is, the games are skewed. Skewed towards human involvement. Humans call balls and strikes, safe or out, fair or foul. They are affected by fatigue, adrenaline, boredom, a whole host of things. There has not been, to my knowledge, any evidence presented anywhere, unlike the Donaghy situation, that these umpires in question were favoring a specific team. This is classic Occam’s Razor: the simple explanation is sloppy officiating and the complex explanation is some still unrevealed conspiracy (Yankees to win another WS? Angels to not win? Yanks v Phillies? Major TV markets? A-Rod? Jeter? What is it?) The simplest explanation is the best.
Thus, if the only issue is that the umpires made mistakes (as I argue), then the only “steps” MLB can take to correct this (as you contend they should) is to make sure that their umpires are perfect or as close as possible. That means Instant Replay. Hey guess what? They already added that. Perhaps they should expand it? I’m pretty sure that’s something they’ve considered greatly in the last month and if they can come up with a fair way to put balls back in play that were incorrectly ruled out or put runners back on base who were incorrectly called out then I’m confident that action would taken in that regard. Maybe there is something to be gained by having Selig say these things from a podium in front of cameras but there are a lot of things he could do better. Constantly reassuring us that the Bilderburgers, or the Priory of Scion are not involved is not one of them.
Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have a Stonecutters meeting to attend tonight.
Captain, there are doubt's...
by Match Day 5 on Nov 10, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
One does not have to make humans perfect
in order to create a perfectly acceptable system of checks and balances. And, yes, MLB should. As should any governing body of a sports enterprise.
Allow me to follow your example, and argue from supercilious extremities: you would suggest that it is perfectly acceptable that Selig would surrender to the human condition inherent in umpiring, and allow the umps to trample an otherwise fair competition into shambles because it is possible that they are entitled to having as many bad days as they see fit. Further, you see no problem within this arrangement, wherein individual umpires might discover themselves free to “go off the reservation” for any reason whatsoever, knowing that they remained protected under the Selig Blanket Insurance Policy for Margin Of Human Error.
Thank you for the discussion, I need to return to my nature studies.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
In my opinion
There has not been, to my knowledge, any evidence presented anywhere, unlike the Donaghy situation, that these umpires in question were favoring a specific team.
Donaghy is the evidence.
The differing sports has little to do with it. A Major sport referee is admitting that a league/network “really likes it” when a big series gets extended, particularly when a “big market” team advances.
It’s not about blatant calling balls strikes and vice versa.
If a pro like Pettitte/Posada or Schilling/Varitek knows that they’ll get the call on a ball 2-3 inches off the plate, that’s all they need to work with.
Conversely, not establishing a consistent strike zone early in the game can fry a pitcher’s brain and force him to throw right over the plate (i.e. Kasmir, Saunders, Lackey).
It’s not a sure thing but it sure can tilt the playing field.
Also, it’s not about umps betting games, It’s about umps doing what they’re told by their bosses.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 11, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A thorough, concise, accurate assessment of the situation
Or at least the situation as I see it. There is no need to craft an elaborate conspiracy theory to hold that there is something very wrong with the relationship between umpires and MLB, and that individual umpires have been allowed to become complete egomaniacs without fear of consequences for errors or misbehavior.
For starters, it is a complete abdication of responsibility for MLB not to ensure that only the umpires with the best records of accuracy are allowed to work in the postseason. The fact that they don’t raises the question, “Why don’t they?”, and thus opens the door to suspicion.
What we've got can't be bought
It IS coming out now
How more prominent an example of significant deviation from the norm do you want than the 2009 postseason?
What we've got can't be bought
So your saying that
at least a half dozen umps were bought off? So that the yanks could beat the Phillies in the WS? Why not another Yanks/Sox ALCS? Why not Torre vs. Girardi in the WS? If you’re arguing that someone just wanted the Yankees to win then why the blown calls against the Sox and the Cards? Also, didn’t the Nick Swisher call go against the Yanks?
These calls were just bad. Plain and simple. There was no conspiracy.
Captain, there are doubt's...
Well, yeah
Don’t you think the large number of very bad calls constitutes a significant deviation from the norm?
There is no need to use straw men here, by the way. I never said anything to justify any of the questions you ask.
What we've got can't be bought
Go watch pro wrestling then.
Since you think baseball is just as fixed.
Captain, there are doubt's...
Again
stop putting words in my mouth. I’m not even sure we have a real disagreement here.
Stirrups has been making the point that MLB has created a situation that encourages the promulgation of conspiracy theories, and has pointedly done nothing to correct this situation. I am merely agreeing with this.
If you disagree with this, that’s fine with me. But please go find someone else to put that tinfoil hat upon.
What we've got can't be bought
Question:
“So you’re saying that at least a half dozen umps were bought off?”
Answer: “Well, yeah”
I apologize for misunderstanding if you meant something else.
Captain, there are doubt's...
A nail in MLB's coffin?
No. A speedbump to be ground down as quickly as possible.
Witty .sig goes here.
For baseball the larger threat is that a player or group of players would throw a game, not that the umpires would. But most MLB players have too much to lose, thus not likely to throw a game. Where you would be more likely to see it, would be in some of the foriegn leagues like in Taiwan.
vr, Xei
I'm not so sure I agree with this.
A player, unless he is a pitcher or catcher, or maybe MAYBE possibly a first baseman, has only a few chances to really impact a game with his glove or bat. It’s really hard for one player to throw a game, in my opinion. If the umpires, collectively (as in the NBA case provided) attempted to alter the outcome of the game, they have the ability to deliberately make poor calls in high leverage situations, and at any point in the game they choose.
For some offseason fun, check out the Mac & Windows Space Shooter game I helped make: Insectoid
Disagree Xeifrank that it is larger danger....
The umpires do pose a threat! Agree it wouldn’t happen with players but not for reason you stated. It is not really that they have too much to lose but really more that there is not really anything to gain. For players already making millions there would not be much to gain. If you speculate on amount that would probably be paid it wouldn’t make dollars and sense (yes, pun is intended).
I too disagree...
At the MLB level, the pitchers live on the edges of the strike zone. Both pitchers in the early innings test the umpire to determine what he’s calling balls and strikes (which is one reason Chone gets so many early inning walks). All an umpire needs to do is establish a strike zone, and then deviate from that on crucial 2-2, 3-1, and 3-2 counts later in the game. What that does is make the picther who’s getting squeezed throw meater pitches which leads to more hits/homeruns or walk a batter. Nobody’s going to argue because that’s an automatic ejection. Nobody in the Media is going to seriously question the umpires integredy, because that’s not what they do, and the fans ranting is going to be dismissed as crying. The ump gets off scott free…
If a player throws a game, it’s going to effect the perception of his ability which ultimatly effets his paycheck. No player is going to risk his future pay to throw a game, not in today’s environment.
Actually, you guys are either ignoring or helping make my argument. I said it was more likely to happen in an overseas league where salaries are not as high and I said it would be more likely to happen as a group of players. Take a look at the Taiwanese Professional baseball leagues and its history if you want a good example of what I am talking about. It would be very difficult for a major league umpire to throw many games. Their calls are a lot less subjective than those in the NBA or NFL. Sure it is possible, just quite a bit less likely than in those other two sports.
vr, Xei
Like Mark Teixeira said, "To the rich go the spoils."
The 2009 Pregame Picks Winner and Iron Man of Halos Heaven.com
Did he
really say that?
It’s hilarious either way? And I’d still rather have Kendry than that store-bought hooker.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 9, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, he did
A delicious Freudian slip. I guess his wife wasn’t around to tell him what to say.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Nov 9, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
Good Lord!
I hate that guy (Teixeira) more the more I know about him. Next I expect I’ll learn he said, “Let them eat cake.”
What we've got can't be bought
With Baseball going through the recent steroid era
and the player strikes of recent years past, if it were to come to light that the umps threw games by admiting to “squeezing” pitchers and close plays, it would be fair to say that America’s Past Time would have a hell of a time recovering.
Everyone has had time to settle down from the ALCS loss to the Yanks. I would invite everyone who has MLBNetwork to watch the replays they are showing of this series with an open mind and compare calls at first and at the plate. If it were a single game in the series I could let it slide, but when it appears to be consistant…….
When I'm not at the stadium, I'd rather be watching my Halos back in Costa Rica!
the very fact
that baseball owners removed the traditionally impartial office of the commissioner of baseball and put in its place one of their own took any credibility it may have had and flushed it. That’s the equivalent of a coup d’etat for our nation’s pastime.
After that, the concept of manipulating games to form more profitable matches is child’s play.
by Los Angeles de Inglewood on Nov 10, 2009 1:35 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
A B S O L U T E L Y
I’ve argued here many times that Selig is not a real Commissioner, and it’s nice to hear someone else say it. A lot of MLB’s problems stem from the lack of an independent Commissioner.
What we've got can't be bought
Sweet blog
Hey, isn’t this the blog that accused of Mariano Rivera throwing a spitball in light of their “indisputable visual evidence”. This despite anyone who ever played Little League knowing that’s not how you doctor a baseball. Whatever happened to that? Oh that’s right, the HD camera view clearly showed the spittle falling on the mound, and never going anywhere near the ball. Funny that I never saw a retraction, like any respectable media outlet would have done, never mind an apology. Sweet blog.
I don’t mean to come into the sanctum sanctorum of Angel fandom and “diss” your team, but the Angels lost the ALCS because they played inferior to the Yankees. Any impartial observer already came to this realization weeks ago. The umpires were atrocious, I realize it. But so was the Angels’ defense at times. If you accuse the umpires of rigging the series in light of their terrible performance, why not accuse the Angel players themselves? The Figgins/Aybar dropped pop up in Game 1 was at least equal to Tim Mcclelland’s screwups at third base in Game 4. And Izturis’ errant throw to second in Game 2 was mindnumbing on several levels. Why didn’t he just take the easy out at first? Was it because Bud Selig/Rupert Murdoch/The Baseball Illuminati told him to lose the game on purpose? Why not ask these questions? While most of the bad umpire calls did go against the Angels, there were several that did go against the Yankees. Swisher’s tag up at third in Game 4 and Damon clearly beating the throw at first base in Game 5. Further, I don’t think any of the blown calls resulted in a single Angels’ loss in this ALCS. The closest was the 3-1 pitch to ARod in Game 6. But let’s remember the count only would have been full, and Rodriguez was red hot while Joe Saunders was pitching terribly, and the pitch was sort of borderline. Odds are a walk was the best thing that could have happened to the Angels there. Also, ARod was called out on a ptich that was indisputably 6 inches outside of the zone in Game 6 against the Phillies with the bases loaded. It all evens out
The Angels lost because they played uncharacteristically terrible defense. Plus they had to start Joe Saunders in a must win Game 6. Plus their bullpen is terrible. Don’t get me wrong, the Angels are a formidable club. And I do realize the Yankees’ advantage in talent is derived from their tremendous financial resources, the result of an unfair playing field. Despite what the conspiracy mongers at HalosHeaven would have you believe, there’s no evidence that the umpires were in any way biased against the Angels in the ALCS.
by VoxVeritasVita on Nov 10, 2009 12:42 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
