My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that playoff games don't get shortened for rain. I know there's never been a WS game cut short due to rain, but I'm not 100% positive that it can't be done. I think the rule is a regular-season game rule. Regardless though, I think many more people would be in uproar if a 1-run game was cut short after 5 innings and decided the World Series - that would be a far worse scenario than anything else.
If that's the case, then it makes more sense. But the FOX announcers spoke afterward as though the game would've been over had the Rays not scored that run, or had the game been called a half-inning earlier. I understand it would've been worse from a public relations standpoint if the World Series-deciding game were ended after five innings. But from an integrity standpoint, there's nothing wrong with it. The rain came in harder than anticipated, and if the field was unplayable, unfair or dangerous to the players, it's their duty to call it at that time. Would people have been upset? Of course, but it's within the rules. What MLB did in this game was take a poetic license and bend the rules to the point in which they avoided the worst-case PR scenario. That's fine, but in my view, they damaged the integrity of the game in doing so. The conditions were every bit as bad throughout the fifth inning and in the top of the sixth as they were in the middle of the sixth. To me, it's an example of prioritizing convenience and/or public relations ahead of the integrity of the game -- the same principle that led to the Astros playing two home games against the Cubs in front of 30,000 screaming Chicago fans in Milwaukee. Again though, this is all with the assumption that the game would've been over had it been called earlier. If I'm wrong, the dynamics are greatly changed... hopefully we can find some confirmation on that soon.
The weather is going to be worse tomorrow? But it needs to be played... Only one solution: play in Milwaukee.
Doesn't Orlando have a minor league park? That's about 90 miles from Tampa, and would fit Selig's criteria for a Phillies' home game.
FWIW, Bud Selig was just asked what would have happened had the Phillies been leading when the game was stopped and he said the game would have gone into a rain delay that would go as long as necessary (days if need be) and that the game wouldn't have been called regardless.
Right, and Maddon seemed to be aware of some "flexibility" the Commissioner would have had if the Phillies were winning when the game was suspended. So, based on both Selig's and Maddon's comments, the Phillies may not have won with or w/out Upton's game-tying run.
Hmm, that makes it somewhat better. But if that's the case, then why the hesitation until the Rays tied it? Why not just call a rain delay in the 4th or 5th (they could see the radar, it wasn't going to stop)? It's not that big of a deal, but I would argue that it's a definite disadvantage to the defense to play in pouring rain conditions. The Phillies had to play six innings defensively in that, while the Rays only had to play five. I think a fair compromise would've been to either call a "rain delay" after 5, or play out the bottom of the sixth as well. But obviously, that's not THAT big of a deal. I wasn't aware that they had the power to call a "rain delay" for days... since they did, obviously that makes it a lot more fair than it seemed initially.
I didn't see any of the game - but I do agree you should always try to call games at the end of a whole inning instead of a half inning. Unless the rain is really sudden, there's no reason to play an extra half-inning there. On the flipside though, as far as practical effects go, the Phillies got 6 innings out of their star pitcher while the Rays only got 5. The umps were on ESPN saying that something changed with the wind in the 6th that made conditions worse even though the rain didn't pick up - no idea if that's true or what they were talking about there. Between the umps and Selig separately, they seemed to indicate that the forecast just a few hours before gametime was for very minimal rain today and more tomorrow, so everyone wanted to try to get the game in today. Maybe they were hoping it would let up some? No idea.
I always wondered who has the advantage in those conditions... the hitter or the pitcher/defense? One of the broadcasters during this game said the pitcher has the advantage over the hitter because the balls are dry while the bats are wet. I remember an Astros game in the last few weeks of the season where Arias was on the mound and it was raining. It seemed like every other ball he threw was slipping out of his hand. I'm not sure if that was due to Arias' grip or the rain but it certainly seemed to be hurting Arias more than the hitter.
The resumption of game 5 has been postponed until Wednesday, at least.... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6081775.html
This is interesting, because it pushes Game 7 (if it were to go that far) back until at least Friday. With Hamels having thrown only 75 pitches yesterday, I'm guessing he could go on three days rest. If they kept the travel day in between the Philly/Tampa games, he could actually start Game 7 on full rest. I'm hoping it ends in Game 5, but this thing could actually be a benefit to the Phils if Hamels got to make another start.
in the short term, does it benefit the Rays by allowing ALCS hero Garza to finish out Game 5 on 3 days rest? (put all your cards on the table facing elimination and worry a/b the later games as they come.. i.e. the Pete Munro strategy) They could also let Shields finish this game on regular rest and then have Garza on regular rest for Game 6
Selig sure does love to cite bizarre weather forecasts. The pregame weather forecast from last night had an 80 percent chance of rain, becoming heavier as the night progressed. It was evident on radar, which a huge clump of heavy rain coming north from Washington. Now, tonight? Not a drop of rain the rest of the evening: http://www.weather.com/weather/local/USPA1276?from=enhsearch_loc It reminds me of the bull**** "weather forecasting" Selig used to move the Astros' games to Milwaukee. The weather forecast for that Sunday in Arlington was 80 and sunny, and only an idiot would think a hurricane (even if it did move up I-45, which it didn't and wasn't forecast to) would cause significant damage to Dallas. In Atlanta, the forecast was a 20 to 30 percent chance of isolated thunderstorms -- or the same thing the entire country faces every day in the summer. A few thunderstorms fire up with daytime heating, they'll hit your location once every few days and blow through after 15-30 minutes. Same story in Tampa. It's certainly not going to wash out a baseball game -- at worst case, you'll have a 30 minute delay and resume it. But, based on a 20 percent chance of an isolated thunderstorm, Bud wiped the entire country off the map and decided Milwaukee was the only place they could possibly play. But while an isolated thunderstorm is utterly terrifying, a pregame forecast of 80 percent rain (intensifying throughout) and 40 degree weather with 20 mph winds is apparently nothing. Right. Whatever fits your bias, Bud... as usual.
