Thursday, October 31, 2013

NFL Week 9 power rankings



By Rick Morris

NOTE: Previous rankings in parentheses, from Week 1 to present.

TOP TIER
1 New Orleans (10-6-8-3-3-2-2-1)
2 Denver (4-3-2-2-2-1-1-2)
3 Seattle (2-2-1-1-1-3-3-3)
4 San Francisco (1-1-4-7-5-4-4-4)
5 Kansas City (25-18-12-11-6-6-5-5)
6 Indianapolis (15-15-15-12-9-5-7-6)
SECOND TIER
7 Cincinnati (8-10-10-5-10-8-8-7)
8 Green Bay (7-8-5-8-8-9-9-8)
9 New England (5-5-6-6-4-7-6-9)
THIRD TIER
10 Detroit (19-19-21-17-14-14-11-12)
11 Chicago (11-9-9-4-7-10-10-11)
12 Dallas (14-11-13-13-15-15-14-10)
13 Tennessee (30-25-22-16-12-13-13-13)
14 Carolina (21-21-23-20-20-21-18-15)
FOURTH TIER
15 San Diego (23-23-18-18-17-20-16-17)
16 Miami (24-17-11-9-11-12-12-14)
17 Baltimore (9-13-14-10-13-11-15-18)
18 Arizona (28-29-26-26-22-19-24-24)
19 Buffalo (27-26-20-23-19-22-22-16)
20 Houston (3-4-3-15-16-16-20-21)
21 St. Louis (16-16-19-19-23-23-17-20)
22 New York Jets (29-27-28-21-25-18-23-19)
23 Oakland (32-30-30-30-30-27-27-28)
24 New York Giants (13-12-16-27-28-30-29-29)
25 Washington (18-20-24-25-24-25-25-23)
26 Philadelphia (17-14-17-22-26-24-19-22)
27 Atlanta (6-7-7-14-18-26-26-25)
28 Cleveland (26-31-31-24-21-17-21-26)
29 Pittsburgh (12-24-27-28-29-29-28-27)
FIFTH TIER
30 Minnesota (22-22-25-29-27-28-30-30)
31 Tampa Bay (20-28-29-31-31-31-31-31)
SIXTH TIER
32 Jacksonville (31-32-32-32-32-32-32-32)
BIGGEST RISERS: Arizona (6 spots), New York Giants and Oakland (5 spots)
BIGGEST FALLERS: Philadelphia (4 spots), Buffalo and New York Jets (3 spots)
RANKINGS BY DIVISION – 1 POINT PER RANKING SPOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TEAM, LOWEST SCORE IS BEST
1 AFC West 45
2 NFC West 46
3 NFC North 59
4 AFC East 67
5 AFC South 71
6 NFC South 73
7 AFC North 83
8 NFC East 87
RANKINGS BY CONFERENCE
1 NFC 265
2 AFC 266

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

World Series Game 3: Oquendo lucky, Farrell, McCarver & Buck have bad night



By Steve Kallas (posted by Rick Morris)

THE LUCKIEST MAN IN ST. LOUIS

Jose Oquendo is the St. Louis Cardinal’s third base coach.  Bottom of the fourth, Cards up 2-0, Yadier Molina (a slow but good base runner on second), nobody out.  Jon Jay hits a slow single up the middle and Molina busts it around third and is then held up by Oquendo.

Jacoby Ellsbury concedes the run, lobbing the ball into the shortstop.  But Molina doesn’t score.  In fact, Oquendo comes so close to touching Molina that Red Sox manager John Farrell comes out to ask the ump if Molina could be called out (Oquendo doesn’t touch Molina so no call.).

Generally, with nobody out and the bases loaded, you are inclined not to send the runner.  In fact, Tim McCarver told us that “the reason” Oquendo did not send Molina was because there was nobody out.

But that is certainly not an absolute.  Especially where, as here, you clearly had a slow single to center and Ellsbury didn’t even think about throwing home.

A gigantic mistake which would be remembered for a long time if the Red Sox won.

This writer spoke with Dan Gray, a brilliant baseball mind who played in the Dodgers organization for five years and now manages (and coaches third) for an excellent travel team at Pro Swing out of Mt. Kisco, New York.  Gray said, “On that play, you generally wouldn’t send the runner, but where it’s a slow single up the middle, you have eight, nine and one coming up in a National League ballpark, well, it would have been the right move to send Molina, who would have made it easily.”

Jake Peavy pitched out of the jam.

Fortunately for Jose Oquendo, Cardinals 5, Red Sox 4.

BAD GAME FOR JOHN FARRELL

Farrell’s biggest mistake, in this writer’s opinion, was not appealing the final play of the game (Allen Craig never touched home) or, at a minimum, protesting the game (which would have been denied).  Apparently nobody on the Red Sox side saw that Craig missed home.  A play for the ages.  And how Farrell didn’t walk Jon Jay (just prior to the crazy ending) with first base open and poor hitting Pete Kozma up next was a total mystery.

Having said that, it would have been nice to see Will Middlebrooks, just in the game, protecting the line at third in a 2-2 game in the bottom of the seventh (you know, that’s what was routinely done in baseball for decades) with runners on first and second.  Matt Holliday hits a rocket to third that Middlebrooks can’t stop.  If he’s guarding the line, it’s a double play, maybe a triple play.  But somehow, today, managers don’t do this as much as they did for decades in major league baseball.

Throughout the day, and even before, everybody discussed what a weapon Farrell would have on the bench with Mike Napoli, since Big Papi was going to play first base.  Yet when Brandon Workman, in the top of the NINTH, came to the plate, Farrell let him hit.  Where was Napoli?  On the bench in a tie game on the road.

A gigantic mistake made worse when Workman pitched to only two batters in the ninth.  While Farrell admitted after the game that he made a mistake by not double-switching when he brought Workman in in the eighth inning, he still could have given Napoli a shot to win it in the ninth.

When you lose the game and your best weapon off the bench is still on the bench, well, that’s a disaster.

BAD GAME FOR McCARVER AND BUCK

Yeah, it’s been a tough postseason for this duo.  After never mentioning the huge mistake that Victor Martinez made in that Dustin Pedroia-started magical double play against Detroit (they put all of the blame on Prince Fielder), it got worse in Game 3 of the World Series.

While McCarver told us that Oquendo held up Molina because there was nobody out, the play called for a much deeper analysis, especially when Ellsbury lobbed the ball in.

There was a bizarre exchange between the two in the top of the ninth, when Buck said something like “you couldn’t even begin to recap all that has happened” which was met by McCarver saying, “I wouldn’t want to so I’m not going to” and “No, I’m not analyzing.”  OK, maybe that was a joke.

But when Workman came to bat in the top of the ninth (for his first major league at bat) with Napoli on the bench, no mention was made of this non-change.  In fact, McCarver and Buck actually joked about Workman’s chances (“slim” and “slimmer”).  Maybe trying to help them out, the director (or whoever the person is who puts up the cuts on TV) actually showed a picture of Napoli in the dugout.

To no avail, as neither broadcaster got the hint.  It wasn’t until after the next commercial break, when they must have been verbally told of the non-Napoli at bat, that it was even mentioned.

On the final, wacky play, when, breaking it down, McCarver told us that Saltalamacchia made “a great play,” presumably by tagging Craig at the plate.  While it was a good play, Daniel Nava made one of the greatest back-up plays in the history of baseball (maybe only Derek Jeter’s back-up cut-off play (you know, the “Flip” play) to get Jeremy Giambi at home in the playoffs against Oakland was better).  Nava’s name was never mentioned in terms of what he had done.

Stunning stuff.

@ COPYRIGHT 2013 BY STEVE KALLAS  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

World Series obstruction call right, but should the run have counted?



By Steve Kallas (posted by Rick Morris)

After a complete review of MLB Rule 7 and the Obstruction definition under Rule 2, some interesting things have come to light.  Also, further review of the play also adds an interesting dimension.

THE CALL

You know the play: Game 3, Bottom 9, tie game, one out, second and third, infield in.  Hard grounder to Pedroia, who throws Molina out at home.  Saltalamacchia (hereafter “the catcher”) tries to get Craig at third, Middlebrooks can’t handle the throw, which deflects to the wall behind third towards left-field.

Craig gets up, trips over Middlebrooks and starts home. Third-base ump Joyce points at Middlebrooks (apparently calling obstruction) and Nava, with an unbelievable back-up, throws Craig out at home.  Home plate umpire DeMuth signals safe and points towards Joyce (who had raised his hand, presumably to point out obstruction).

Game over.  Unbeknownst to this writer until further review of the play on Sunday, the catcher, with his hands outstretched (you know, seeming to indicate, “How could he be safe?”), has the ball in hand and STEPS ON HOME PLATE (more on this later).

Craig, who never touched home, is lying injured near home and is helped off the field by the trainer while the Cardinals celebrate and manager John Farrell and other Red Sox complain vehemently.

To no avail.  Cardinals 5, Red Sox 4.

LOOK AT SOME RULES AND WHAT HAPPENED

The two main MLB Rules regarding Obstruction are the definition of Obstruction at Rule 2.00 and MLB Rule 7.06 (a).  Obstruction is defined at 2.00 as:

                “Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession
                  of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the
                  progress of any runner.”

The example under the Comment to 2.00 Obstruction is right on point and is exactly what happened on the field:

                “For example, an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball
                  passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays
                  the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the
                 runner.”

MLB Rule 7.06 (a) states, in part:
      

                  “If a play is being made on the obstructed runner …, the ball is dead
                   and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the
                   bases they would have reached, in the umpires judgment, if there
                   had been no obstruction.”

There was a press conference after the game with Joe Torre, who now works for MLB, and a number of umps.  They made it very clear that they got the call right, they were sure about it and that intent didn’t matter.

Based on these rules, and especially the Comment to MLB Rule 2.00 Obstruction, it appears that the call was correct.  Middlebrooks did obstruct Craig. 

              
Here’s another Note to a Rule that may apply, if, in fact, time was never called by either umpire (Joyce at third and DeMuth at home) and the ball remained live.  The Note to Rule 7.04 (d) states, in part:

               “When a runner is entitled to a base without liability to be put out,
                 while the ball is in play, and the runner fails to touch the base to
                 to which he is entitled [in this case, home], the runner shall forfeit
                 his exemption from liability to be put out, and he may be put out by
                 by tagging the base or by tagging the runner before he returns to the
                  base.”

DID ALLEN CRAIG HAVE TO TOUCH HOME?

Allen Craig clearly has a responsibility to touch home.  Here’s the Comment to MLB Rule 7.05 (i):

               “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.”

Clearly, Craig was awarded home and didn’t touch it.

SO, THE REAL QUESTION BECOMES, GIVEN THE FOLLOWING RULES, DID THE RED SOX APPEAL WHETHER CRAIG TOUCHED HOME OR NOT?

Rule 7.08 (k) states that any runner is out when:

               “In running or sliding for home base, he fails to touch home
                 base and makes no attempt to return to the base, when a
                 fielder holds the ball in his hand, while touching home base
                 and APPEALS TO THE UMPIRE FOR THE DECISION.”
(emphasis added)

Now, if you watch the replay, the catcher had his arms out (certainly more of a “How could you make that call” as opposed to “I appeal”), the ball in his hand and, it seems to this writer, accidentally stepped on home.  Could this be an appeal?

The answer is clearly “No.”

Why?  The Comment to MLB Rule 7.10 (d) states, in part:

                 “A player inadvertently stepping on a base with a ball in his
                   hand would not constitute an appeal.”    

SO, WHERE DOES THAT FINALLY LEAVE US?

Well, if somebody on the Red Sox had appealed the play by notifying the umpire and stepping on home before the defense left the field, it is submitted that Craig could have been called out and the game resumed as a tie game.  While unlikely, if the ball remained live the entire time (while obstruction was called, no umpire ever called Time), maybe Craig could have arguably been called out without an appeal (see Note to 7.04 (d) above).

Of course, apparently, no appeal was made.  However, looking at the replay, it did not seem that the home plate umpire ever even looked to see if Craig touched home.  And that’s a COLOSSAL mistake.  Since DeMuth had no interest in calling the play at the plate (he appeared to look at it and then stand up and give a safe sign (Craig was clearly tagged by the catcher) and point towards Joyce at third), his SOLE responsibility at that point in time is to see if Craig touched home, much like, when somebody hits a game-ending home run, the home plate ump always waits for the player to touch home and then leaves the field.

DeMuth simply never looked.

SO, WAS IT REALLY THE CORRECT CALL?

The call of obstruction was correct.  But, after Craig failed to touch home, the Red Sox failed to appeal and the home plate umpire never looked to see if the game-winning run in the third game of the 2013 World Series actually touched home.  Had the Red Sox appealed, the home plate umpire would have either called Craig safe or asked for help (and remember, the main reason Craig missed home was because he was trying to avoid the catcher’s tag).  And, unlike the call last week when DeMuth was looking down at players’ feet at that force at second when Pete Kozma did not catch the force throw and five umpires overruled him, on this play at home, no umpire (other than DeMuth) could have seen that Craig missed home.

Lots of blame to go around.  And fascinating stuff.

@ COPYRIGHT 2013 BY STEVE KALLAS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Sunday, October 27, 2013

In Game 3, Allen Craig never touched home!



By Steve Kallas (posted by Rick Morris)

By now you know all about the play:  Bottom 9, 4-4, Cardinals have Yadier Molina on third base and Allen Craig on second base, one out, infield in, Jon Jay up (forget for now why Jay, inexplicably, wasn’t walked; John Farrell had a very tough game).

Jay hits it hard to Dustin Pedroia’s right, Pedroia makes an excellent play and throws home to get Molina.  Craig, breaking from second to third, must have hesitated a bit.  Jarrod Saltalamacchia, makes the tag on Molina and throws to third.  Will Middlebrooks has to come off the base and can’t handle the not-great throw as Craig slides in safely.

Craig gets up to run home (with the game-winning run), gets tangled up with Middlebrooks (who is on the ground), breaks free and runs home.  Daniel Nava, with one of the great back-up plays ever (did anybody even mention his name?), runs all the way to the wall (the ball had deflected off the bang-bang play at third) up the third base line way in foul territory and throws Craig out at home as Saltalamacchia applies the tag.

Jim Joyce (the third base ump), however, had already called obstruction on Middlebrooks (intent doesn’t matter), who literally was lying on the ground when this happened.  Dana DeMuth, despite the fact that Craig was tagged out, gave the safe sign and pointed to Joyce at third.

AND HERE IS WHERE IT REALLY GETS INTERESTING

Nobody noticed that Craig, with his awkward slide (as he was tagged out by the catcher), NEVER TOUCHED HOME.  Watch the replay,; he’s close, but he doesn’t touch it and, lying face down and injured, he doesn’t get up to make an effort to touch it.  His teammates pound him and literally pick him up, but nobody (as far as one can tell from various angles – it was a madhouse at the plate) told him to touch home.

Unfortunately for the Red Sox, neither Saltalamacchia nor anyone else tagged Craig after he missed home.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

Well, the immediate question is, when Craig is awarded home for obstruction, DOES HE HAVE TO TOUCH HOME?  A quick review of the rule book (and more on this tomorrow) appears to say that he does (see NOTE to Rule 7.04(d), which at least discusses the fact that a runner who fails to touch the base to which he is entitled, “forfeits his exemption from liability to be put out, and he may be put out by tagging the base or by tagging the runner before he returns to the missed base”).

While this rule may not be exactly on point (and there may be other rules to review), at first blush, it seems almost clear that, if the catcher had tagged Craig while he was lying on the ground after he failed to touch home on the slide, he could have been called out.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

There’s a lot more.  When was the base “awarded?”  If it was deemed “awarded” when Joyce made the call at third, does the catcher’s tag mean he tagged Craig after the base was awarded?  Or, if the play is dead, did he stop Craig from touching home by continuing with the play?  If he tagged him a second time, would that have made a difference?

Should John Farrell, when he was out arguing with the umps, have told the catcher or anyone to tag Craig?  (The answer, of course, is yes, but would they then have reversed the call?).  Should he have protested the game (well, he should have but it probably would not be overturned as it’s a judgment call at third and, frankly, it looked like the ump at home never looked to see if Craig touched the base).

A lot more research into this play and these questions has to be done to get some answers.

It’s just almost funny (sad?) that, in 2013, with millions watching and thousands covering a World Series game, it seems that nobody saw a huge part of one of the biggest plays in World Series history (imagine if this had been Game 7)

 More on this and some hard-to-believe mistakes in Game 3 will be discussed in Monday’s column.

@ COPYRIGHT 2013 BY STEVE KALLAS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED