?

Log in

No account? Create an account
ENTRIES FRIENDS CALENDAR INFO PREVIOUS PREVIOUS NEXT NEXT
Capitalizing On "Their" Mistakes - De File
Does Collecting Make You Feel Dirty?
cbertsch
cbertsch
Capitalizing On "Their" Mistakes
The conclusion to the Angels-White Sox game was insane! Chicago's A.J. Pierzynski apparently struck out to end the bottom of the ninth inning. The ball was in the dirt, but the third-string Los Angeles catcher Josh Paul clearly thought that he had caught it cleanly. Home-plate umpire Doug Eddings called strike three. As Paul rolled the ball back toward the mound and the Angels started streaming in off the field, Pierzynski suddenly ran to first as if the ball had gotten past Paul on the strikeout. Since Paul no longer had the ball in hand, he couldn't have thrown to first if he'd wanted to. Astonishingly, Pierzynski was ruled safe at first. The White Sox sent in a pinch runner, who stole second. On the next pitch, batter Joe Crede hit a ball off the left-field wall. Game over. But the controversy never will be.

As a boy I obsessively read my cousin Donnie's paperback books filled with baseball lore. Many of the best tales concerned strange gaffes: balls hitting rocks, balls hitting people, balls hitting nothing. I can already imagine how tonight's game would have been written in the style of those books from the 1950s, with Pierzynski as the wily veteran, Angels' pitcher Kelvim Escobar as the ill-starred victim, and Crede as the beneficiary of an improbable opportunity to put his name in lights.

The more I watched the replay, the stranger the whole sequence seemed. But the postgame interviews clarified matters. Crede spoke first and, in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand worthy of a politician, repeated one of the mantras of the professional athlete, talking about "capitalizing on their mistakes," without ever specifying the antecedent for that possessive pronoun. Usually it means the other players; here it could only have meant the umpires, since the Angels didn't make any mistakes in the inning.

Then Pierzynski, a catcher himself, explained that he had belatedly decided to run to first because he thought he'd heard the ball hit the dirt and recalled a play from last season -- he was playing for the San Francisco Giants then -- when, after failing to catch the pitch cleanly, he had failed to tag a batter who had apparently struck out. When Pierzynski said that, I remembered the play he was talking about quite distinctly and wondered whether he had merely concluded that the catcher had to tag him tonight or, more interestingly, had made the split-second decision to execute a devilish ruse. I suppose we'll never know. And it would be better if we didn't.
2 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 13th, 2005 12:08 am (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
As a lifelong Sox fan I'm just ecstatic over the outcome, but as a lifelong fan of the game I think this is one I'd rather not celebrate too heartily. It may be the stuff of future baseball lore but damn if I don't feel like we just pulled a Lyle Lovett.
-D. Low-
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: October 13th, 2005 12:50 am (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
Man. But there are so many bad breaks that have gone the Sox way since 1919 that I suppose they're entitled. The sad part is that they might well have won anyway, without this cloud hanging over the outcome. And that brings us back to 1919 and the events so nicely portrayed in the film Eight Men Out and touched upon in The Great Gatsby as well. How are things in your world, BTW?
2 comments or Leave a comment