I've thought a lot about Jim Joyce's blown call on Galarraga's perfect game, and while I think that both have shown incredible grace and class, Bud Selig (surprise!) dropped the ball in his reasoning for refusing to overturn it:
"In this job, precedence [sic] is very important," Selig said. "A lot of people don't really understand that. But it is important. And while you can say, 'This was really aberrational,' there are a lot of situations -- I've had clubs call me and say, 'What about that game I lost, why didn't you think about doing that?' And they were serious."
No, Bud, it is YOU who don't understand precedent, because anybody who brings forth such an argument based on the "precedent" and "slippery slope" it would create has a poor grasp of both logic and baseball history. That is a patently absurd argument.
One of the most common logical fallacies is the argument from precedent, wherein one argues that we cannot make correct decision X because we'd have to also apply the same process in situation Y, because X and Y seem the same. Namely, "we can't overturn this Galarraga call, because then we'd have to overturn every incorrect call ever made!"
Hogwash.
The precedent would only apply to circumstances that are fundamentally THE SAME - when the essential circumstances of X are identical to the essential circumstances of Y. So yes, if you overturned the Galarraga call, you'd have to overturn every other call in which a perfect game was lost on a blown 3rd out call which had no bearing on the outcome of the game. But that's where it ends. Overturning this one doesn't mean jackshit for some random blown call in a Twins game, or even Jeffrey Maier, as much as it pains me to admit. I daresay that its precedential impact on baseball history would be minimal. And besides, why is it better to be wrong in every situation rather than correct in this one and wrong in all the others? Quoth Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
But even setting aside my criticism of this middle school debate tactic, Selig ignores that there already is a precedent, and that precedent is that yes, calls are overturned after the fact. Have we already forgotten the Pine Tar incident? At least now we know where Bud's values lie - being wrong is okay, as long as you're consistently wrong. That must explain the Brewers' closer situation.
At any rate, let's expand instant replay. Better yet, let's replace the home plate ump with K-Zone. We can even program it to eject Milton Bradley at random intervals for added realism.
"In this job, precedence [sic] is very important," Selig said. "A lot of people don't really understand that. But it is important. And while you can say, 'This was really aberrational,' there are a lot of situations -- I've had clubs call me and say, 'What about that game I lost, why didn't you think about doing that?' And they were serious."
No, Bud, it is YOU who don't understand precedent, because anybody who brings forth such an argument based on the "precedent" and "slippery slope" it would create has a poor grasp of both logic and baseball history. That is a patently absurd argument.
One of the most common logical fallacies is the argument from precedent, wherein one argues that we cannot make correct decision X because we'd have to also apply the same process in situation Y, because X and Y seem the same. Namely, "we can't overturn this Galarraga call, because then we'd have to overturn every incorrect call ever made!"
Hogwash.
The precedent would only apply to circumstances that are fundamentally THE SAME - when the essential circumstances of X are identical to the essential circumstances of Y. So yes, if you overturned the Galarraga call, you'd have to overturn every other call in which a perfect game was lost on a blown 3rd out call which had no bearing on the outcome of the game. But that's where it ends. Overturning this one doesn't mean jackshit for some random blown call in a Twins game, or even Jeffrey Maier, as much as it pains me to admit. I daresay that its precedential impact on baseball history would be minimal. And besides, why is it better to be wrong in every situation rather than correct in this one and wrong in all the others? Quoth Ralph Waldo Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
But even setting aside my criticism of this middle school debate tactic, Selig ignores that there already is a precedent, and that precedent is that yes, calls are overturned after the fact. Have we already forgotten the Pine Tar incident? At least now we know where Bud's values lie - being wrong is okay, as long as you're consistently wrong. That must explain the Brewers' closer situation.
At any rate, let's expand instant replay. Better yet, let's replace the home plate ump with K-Zone. We can even program it to eject Milton Bradley at random intervals for added realism.
No comments:
Post a Comment