Armando Galarraga hopes MLB will finally recognize his perfect game

[AnotherAlias]

Not sure, if this is going to fly. Would this mean that MLB would need to look into other controversial calls too?

IMHO, I think it might be a little late to ask for a reversal.

I could be wrong...

What do you think?



https://sports.yahoo.com/armando-gal...234119635.html

[PocketsAintFull]

Not for me, I think something like that needs to be ruled on the field at the time

[Westheim]

If he gets his perfect game, Johan Santana's no-hitter would have to be taken away, so over my DEAD BODY.

[Ragnar]

The sad thing about this is if the crowd kept quite for just a moment he would have got that call right.

First base can be really easy to ump unless it's too loud.

[bwburke94]

This would be historical revisionism at its worst.

[Hrycaj]

Everyone that’s remembers this knows he was on the negative end of a really bad call. Yet, if the call was made correctly nobody would remember this at all. He even co-authored a book about the whole thing with Jim Joyce. It is a small part of baseball lore. Does it really NEED to be reversed? I guess it does to him though. Weird story ten years down the line.

[CBeisbol]

You can lose a perfect game on a defensive error

I guess you can lose one on an umpire error as well


But, I don't think there's an obvious right or wrong answer for this.
-A perfect game with an asterisk? I'm ok with that. But, I think it sets a precedent that might open up some other cans of worms. Any batting titles that might have gone the other way with a different call on a hit/error? Can someone with XX99 hits go to the tape and say they really had XX99+1 hits? Is every statistic now up for review?
-His performance is more famous because of this incident? I'm ok with that. Though, I see how a list of perfect games is more likely to survive into history than the story of this one game.



There's no perfect (no pun intended) solution.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

Cool by me...as long as they award the Cardinals the 1985 World Championship while they’re at it!

[rudel.dietrich]

He was a very mediocre pitcher with a short career. He is arguably more famous with this type of perfect game and the sympathy may get the casual fan to not look at baseball reference and see that he was a below average pitcher.

10 years after the fact I would probably just let it stand.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

You can lose a perfect game on a defensive error

I guess you can lose one on an umpire error as well


But, I don't think there's an obvious right or wrong answer for this.
-A perfect game with an asterisk? I'm ok with that. But, I think it sets a precedent that might open up some other cans of worms. Any batting titles that might have gone the other way with a different call on a hit/error? Can someone with XX99 hits go to the tape and say they really had XX99+1 hits? Is every statistic now up for review?
-His performance is more famous because of this incident? I'm ok with that. Though, I see how a list of perfect games is more likely to survive into history than the story of this one game.



There's no perfect (no pun intended) solution.

If say the first baseman drops a foul ball but the batter is still retired later in the count, is it still a perfect game? It's still 27 up and 27 down.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

If say the first baseman drops a foul ball but the batter is still retired later in the count, is it still a perfect game? It's still 27 up and 27 down.

I have no idea
I just know it shows the absurdity of assigning no-hitters and perfect games to pitchers instead of teams,

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

This would be historical revisionism at its worst.

Agree. It's opening Pandora's Box.

The Pitch comes to mind. They say that "missed call" changed the course of the 1998 World Series. Would we now micro-analyze that video, declare it a strike and strikeout, and thereby nullify the result of that Series? It cannot be replayed from that point, of course.

The time to have overturned that call, given the lack of play review in 1998, would have been that evening or the next day but imagine the turmoil it would have caused. The game needing to be replayed; the telecast rescheduled; subsequent statistics wiped out. Chaos.

This discussion gives me new appreciation of play review and automated umpiring/refereeing. The time to overturn a call is at the moment, not later on. Bad calls are part of history and should remain so. Here's to not allowing them to continue, however.

[CBeisbol]

Big difference is, of course, that in Galaraga's case, it was the final out. Nothing to replay

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Big difference is, of course, that in Galaraga's case, it was the final out. Nothing to replay

Yeah, if it had been out 26 I'd say leave it be because there is no telling what would happen after that. But out 27? We all know what would happen after that.

And I think, of all the missed calls, this one is unique. Meaning it wouldn't set a precedent that other calls would need to be turned over should this one be.

[Hrycaj]

My opinion is heavily biased because I have always absolutely hated replay in all forms. If the point of replay is to get the call right I think most fans can call up a number of instances where replay still “screwed” their team. Of course the opposing fan base would see it differently. Obviously the Galarraga call is not the best example to make an anti-replay argument because it was so clear. Yet, they aren’t all this clear and in many cases lead to more unneeded controversy. Then on top of it, the replays suck the lifeblood out of the drama of the moment. How many times have fans literally held their emotions In check looking for a challenge flag or call from a dugout or whatnot. Like I stated, I have a clear biased opinion. I just don’t see the positives actually outweighing the negatives. So why have it at all?

[Déjà Bru]

Leaving out "Monkey Rodeo," which is tantamount to "No Opinion," the strict constructionists outweigh the revisionists by better than 3 to 1.