Holliday Never Touched the Plate

Tony Kornheiser did something yesterday that Tim McClelland should have done in the 13th inning the night of Oct 1st. He called Matt Holliday out. While many in the media, including ESPN’s own Sportscenter, have described the replays as being “inconclusive,” Kornheiser has been adamant from day one that Holliday missed home plate. On PTI, the show he co-hosts with Michael Wilbon, Kornheiser asked an increasingly sheepish Matt Holliday point blank about the issue during a segment of “Five good Minutes.” Watch the video below and see how Holliday handles the question at the 3:20 mark.

Holliday trots out, among other things, the now familiar circular argument that “if he (McClelland) says I was safe, I was safe.” The net effect of this video is that Holliday’s non-committal responses and nervous laughter make it seem as if he is almost acknowledging that he missed the plate. A little wink here, a little grin there, and an admission that “that call went our way.’ To his credit Holliday never does say that he touched the plate.

Had the Rockies not swept the Phillies and D-Backs, this interview, and others like it would never have taken place and the disputed call may have been relegated to a historical footnote. But, as much as the Rockies and their fans might wish this topic would go away, it seems as if the scrutiny of Holliday’s slide is only increasing as the World Series draws closer. And more and more as the light of day is being shone upon the play, the message is coming back “Holliday never touched the plate.”

Tags: ESPN by admin
4 Comments »

Just how did the replays of Matt Holliday’s slide come to be described as “inconclusive?” On October 2nd, the day after the game, two major media outlets, one in print, and one in video, went with the “inconclusive” description. One of those outlets was ESPN whose coverage changed markedly from the TBS’ announcers call of the play. The other outlet was the Associated Press who went with a story that contained the description of inconclusive within the following sentence “Replays were inconclusive on whether Holliday touched the plate with his left hand or was blocked by Barrett’s left foot.” Together these two assessments carried the message to America that there were in fact no replays that showed the play clearly.

While its hard to create a chronology of how the description of “inconclusive” came into being with 100% accuracy, I’ll try to outline what I feel are the major points in the days right after the game.

1. Oct. 1st - The TBS broadcast: When the play was reviewed live on air during the TBS broadcast of the game, the key comment was: “the hand never got home plate.” If you click the “Carroll drives in Holliday” link on this page under the More Coverage related links section you will hear the comments PLUS you will see the only still frame I have been able to locate from the “reverse angle replay” first base camera.
2. Oct. 1st -ESPN post game Sportscenter: It was during this broadcast that the word “inconclusive” first appeared. When showing the replay in slow motion the key comment was, “More importantly Michael Barrett sticks out his left foot blocking Holliday from touching home plate. Did he touch home? Yeah ,Ump says yes but we look at it again, and inconclusive to maybe no.” While the word “inconclusive” is used, its clear from the context that ESPN thought it was highly possible, or at least more likely, that Holliday missed the plate.
3. Oct. 2nd - AP story by Arnie Stapleton: The AP story by reporter Arnie Stapleton contained the fateful phrase “replays were inconclusive on whether Holliday touched the plate with his left hand or was blocked by Barrett’s left foot.” What we don’t know is if Mr. Stapleton ever saw the reverse angle replay from the first base cameras. This story is widely featured in online and print media and represents the dominant assesment of the replays at the time.
4. Oct. 2nd - Bud Selig weighs in on the play: On ESPN’s Pardon The Interruption, Tony Kornheiser notably railed against the call deriding it as a blown call. Significantly however, later in the program (here is ESPN’s podcast link) Bud Selig offered his opinion on if Holliday touched the plate, ” I really believe he did, but if I supose somebody said they were inconclusive that would not be a bad answer.” So here you have the commissioner of baseball stating for the record that he feels a description of “inconclusive” would not be a bad way to describe the replays. It’s impossible to know if this pronouncement colored ESPN’s view of the play but that can’t be ruled out.
5. Oct. 2nd - ESPN next day Sportscenter: The following day, when many were tuning in to see the play for the first time, ESPN changed its assessment of the play. In this clip Steve Levy, Orel Hershiser, and Tim Kurkjian debate the slide before Kurkjian offers the final pronouncement of “I don’t think he got to the plate either, but its inconclusive.” You’ll notice that ESPN uses a heavily cropped set of replays this time, even cutting out the plate in some spots. The message sent on Oct 2nd by ESPN was that you could have an opinion about the slide but that the replays would be inconclusive. Sadly I don’t know the taping times of these two shows but if PTI were taped first, it is possible that Selig’s comments helped shape Kurkjian’s opinion.
6. Oct. 3rd - AP story by Jim Litke: This story by Jim Litke covered commissioner Selig’s appearance on PTI and was widely syndicated in print and online media. The pertinent excerpt from the article is ” ‘But if somebody said it was inconclusive,’ Selig said during an ESPN interview, his consensus building side peeking through again, ‘that would not be a bad answer.’ ” Litke seems to insinuate that Selig’s message is designed in part to lay down MLB’s official position on the play, that the replays were inconclusive.

From there the word “inconclusive” was cited by multiple sources and represented the dominant opinion in media accounts of the replays. Of course the use of the word “inconclusive” to describe replays of Holliday’s slide has other potential root sources. The word could have been borrowed from the vernacular of NFL replays. since no lexicography has yet been defined for the evaluation of baseball replays, it seems that the terms of Football’s replays may have been called in to pinch hit. There is also the possibility that the replays are in fact inconclusive. But before we assume that, we’d have to know what happened to the missing “reverse angle” first base camera video. And even without that missing footage, we have to explore the possibility that, while no single replay angle shows the whole play, we can in fact combine various camera angles to obtain conclusive proof that Holliday missed the plate. That is one of the things I have tried to do on this site, and despite the handicap of not having access to original footage, I feel that goal has been accomplished. Why none of the major media outlets have undertaken similar steps to prove the matter either way is debatable.

What isn’t debatable is that the initial impression of the TBS broadcast crew that had access to all of the replays including, presumably, the “reverse angle,” was that Holliday’s hand “never got home plate.” Somehow along the way, this original source assessment was discarded in favor of the term “inconclusive” and it remains to be seen if the descriptive pendulum will once again swing the other way.

Tags: Conspiracy?, ESPN, MLB, TBS by admin
1 Comment »

Dan Patrick had MLB umpire Tim McClelland as a guest on his Dan Patrick Online interview program on Wednesday Oct 3rd, just two days after McClelland made his delayed safe call on Holliday’s slide in the bottom of the 13th. As you might expect given his reputation, Patrick pulled no punches when he began the interview by saying McClelland “made a call that I thought that he missed,” and concluded the conversation by sheepishly telling McClelland, “I don’t think Matt Holliday has touched home plate yet Tim.” Between these noteworthy bookends Patrick also asked McClelland about the call directly as well as other topics. Here are some of the highlights:

Patrick: How many times have you seen the replay?
McClelland: I saw it about four or five times right after the game and maybe another four or five times just having TV on.

Patrick: And how do you feel?
McClelland: I feel that I… got the call right. (pause) Because I’m not sure that there’s a replay that shows that I got it wrong so I think I got the call right. (pause) I believe I got the call right.

Wow! I’m sure that convinced a lot of people. Given that line of thinking McClelland’s position could be fairly rephrased as “I think I got the call right because there is no replay that shows I got it wrong.” That’s not exactly the kind of statement that is going to defuse speculation that the call was missed. McClelland also conveniently ignored the fact that there is also no replay that shows that he got the call correct! Because there is no confirming replay, McClelland’s logic could also be used against him if someone were to say, “I believe you got the call wrong because there’s no replay that shows you got it right.”

Patrick follows up with a question that got to the point of what criteria was McClelland basing his safe call on. (Note: I considered abbreviating the following questions and responses but decided that there was no way I could do so without introducing a bias so I have included them in full.)

Patrick: I was going by body language and I was reading Holliday. It seemed like he was looking to you for sympathy almost to say “god I hope he thought I got home plate.” And you looked at Barrett just to see if he had held onto the ball. Were you judging the call on whether or not Barrett held onto the ball ?
McClelland: That’s part of what I need to do on that play Dan. When I look at a play… What happened was I saw that Michael Barrett kicked his leg out to try to block the plate off and Matt Holliday kind of slides through it his hand goes through Michael’s leg. It (Barrett’s leg) wasn’t planted in the ground, it was up in the air kind of kicked out in the air and Matt, his hand, or body, kind of pushed Michael’s leg out of the way. And part of my… When I make a call I need to make sure that Michael Barrett retains the ball and so I wait to have Michael Barrett show me the ball and that he has retained possession of it. So I delay the call, I process everything that’s happened and when I saw the ball roll away I knew that Matt was safe at the plate because Michael had not held onto the ball.

Patrick: If Barrett had held onto the ball would Holliday have been out?
McClelland: No.

WAIT! So first McClelland says that Barrett’s leg was “up in the air” and “not planted” which the video clearly shows is not the case, then he says Holliday’s “hand OR body” pushed Barrett’s leg out of the way (it was neither as Barrett’s leg was dragged, not pushed, by Holliday’s hand which was underneath Barrett’s foot), all of which leads up to two statements by McClelland so puzzling that even Klingons must recognize how illogical they are. So mind numbingly contradictory that I’m going to repost those last three sentences again.

McClelland: …I knew that Matt was safe at the plate because Michael had not held onto the ball.
Patrick: If Barrett had held onto the ball would Holliday have been out?
McClelland: No.

Do you see why I couldn’t just go with the short quote? Look at those three lines and try to make sense out of them. Take your time. Draw a flow chart. Construct a proof. Do something that can show how these statement can possibly be true. When you figure it out post it in the comments and I’ll show everyone how clever you are because I couldn’t do it.

There’s a lot more good stuff in the interview so I highly recommend that you visit Dan Patrick’s site and give it a listen. For those of you who may think I’m being overly harsh on McClelland, I can assure you I am not trying to be. I simply can’t understand the logic behind his statements. It’s only two days after the call so he can’t claim the ravages of time for dimming his memory. Nor is there any explanation for the things he says about Barrett’s leg not being planted and being “up in the air,” given that the video replays (which McClelland admits to having seen eight to ten times) show Barrett’s heel firmly and flatly on the ground.

As entertaining and as baffling as some of McClelland’s quotes are, the interview is perhaps most valuable for what you won’t hear him say. At no point in the interview does McClelland ever say he saw Holliday touch home plate. So at least let’s give him some points for honesty.

Tags: McClelland by admin
14 Comments »

Matt Holliday never touched the plate. Period. The 2007 National League Wildcard one game playoff between the Padres and the Rockies was decided on a play that will live forever in the minds of baseball fans everywhere. With the score tied at 8, and with no outs in the bottom of the 13th inning, Colorado’s Matt Holliday stood on third while Jamey Carroll stepped to the plate to face the all time saves leader Trevor Hoffman. Carroll hit a short fly to shallow right that the Padres’ Brian Giles fielded on the run before throwing home as Matt Holliday tagged up and lumbered towards the plate. What transpired next was perhaps the most influential blown call in any major sport in recent history. Watch below and judge for yourself.

As the Padres’s catcher Michael Barrett sets up for the throw, he lets Holliday have a clear shot at the plate. But at the last second, while fielding the ball, Barrett swings his foot over to block the plate from Holliday’s outstretched hand. You can clearly see Barrett’s foot go down in advance of the slide and watch as Holliday’s hand is completely blocked from the plate. Holliday slides well past home, deflected away from the baseline by Barrett’s block at an angle that makes it impossible for him to touch home plate.

But, as Barrett tries to field the short hop, the ball pops loose. Barrett scrambles after the ball and begins to crawl/lunge towards Holliday to apply the tag as Holliday just lays on the ground dazed after taking a blow to the chin during his headfirst slide. Meanwhile the Rockies’ on deck batter isn’t jumping up and down in celebration. Why? Because he had a better view of the play than the umpire and knows that Holliday missed the plate.

Then comes the blown call that decided the game. The home plate umpire, Tim McClelland, meekly signals Holliday safe and the game is over. There is no demonstrative pointing at the plate that would signal that McClelland saw Holliday touch the dish. In fact there’s not much of anything in McClelland’s call, no conviction, no emotion, and certainly no accuracy. Its as if he just sort of said “close enough, let’s all go home.” and with that the game was over. Rockies win, Padres lose, thanks for playing. If this situation had played out in the 50’s or 60’s this would have been a different story. With no clear pictures to illustrate the play, the arguments would never be settled, the protagonists would never agree, and if we were lucky we’d get some confession that the runner missed the plate 30 years after the fact. But in 2007, with TV cameras rolling, with frame by frame analysis, and with the video clip spreading across the web, there’s no avoiding the plain simple truth. Matt Holiday never touched the plate.

Tags: Video posts by admin
9 Comments »