There’s no explaining these types of calls.  In this particular case, the ball was obviously fair, yet Cuzzi blew the call.  And almost as soon as the wrong call was made, people started talking once again about the need for instant replay in baseball.

Murray Chass is one writer who is opposed to instant reply.  Like most people who don’t want instant replay to be used, his arguements are ridiculous. 

Here’s how Chass starts his ill-concieved contentions:

“Do not include me among them. Maybe a wrong call is unfair, but baseball has survived Don Denkinger’s wrong call in the 1985 World Series and Richie Garcia’s errant ruling in the 1996 American League Championship Series. When players stop making mistakes, baseball can institute a system to guard against umpires’ mistakes.”

What?  Because baseball has survived horrible calls in the past, we should do nothing to try to avoid horrible calls in the future.  Really?  Also, Chass is actually arguing that when players stop making mistakes, then MLB can worry about the mistakes umpires make.  Like I said, ridiculous.

Most people opposed to replay don’t go this far.  They argue that umpires making mistakes is part of the game just like players making mistakes is part of the game.  Their argument ultimately is that the human element, both good and bad, is part of the fabric of the game.  Chass is taking that arguement to ridiculous lengths and saying as long as players make mistakes, what the umpires do not important.

After firing his first salvo, Chass goes into a litany of player miscues that he cites for the purpose of reinforcing his arguement.  It doesn’t work, but Chass is undeterred. 

Chass then turns his attention to another common arguement made by the anti-replay crowd: replay will make the games too long.  Is that true?  How much time will it really take to review a play?  Even if it takes a minute or two once or twice per game, is that asking too much to get the call right? 

But let’s think about the arguement itself, that replay will take too long.  Do injury timeouts take too long?  Is the time between innings (when commercials are shown) too long?  What about coach/manager visits to the mound?  Do they take too long?  They are all “part of the game.”  Can’t replay also become “part of the game?”  Chass doesn’t think so.

“I can’t imagine anything worse – even wrong calls – than sitting through reviews of plays to determine if a ball was fair or foul, if a runner was safe or out, if an outfielder caught or trapped a line drive.”

Just in case Chass didn’t get ridiculous enough in the rest of his article, he adds one final paragraph to push his arguement over the ridiculous cliff:

“Yes, it’s unfortunate if an umpire’s wrong call creates an unfair situation. But the way to avoid bad calls is for umpires to work harder to get their calls right. If league officials find an umpire getting calls wrong, send him back to school and let him write on the blackboard 100 times “I will get the calls right.””

Trust me folks, I can’t make up something like that.  Chass concludes that the way to get more correct calls in baseball is for the umpires to “work harder” and to punish wrong calls by making umpires write 100 times on a blackboard, “I will get the calls right.”  Genius…

For a slightly more well reasoned analysis of the replay issue, let’s look at a column written by Joe Posnanski on his blog.   Posnanski tears down the three most popular arguments made by thise opposed to replay.

“And here’s the thing I’ve only just noticed: The arguments against replay don’t make a whole lot of sense. We all know the argument for replay. It would help get the calls right, which seems like the most important thing. The arguments against, meanwhile, sound pretty shallow. I think these are the three most common arguments against replay:

1. Bad calls are part of the fabric of the game.
2. Replay would make the games too long.
3. Players aren’t perfect, umpires aren’t perfect.”

He then attacks each arguement one-by-one:

“The idea that bad calls are part of the game is plain ridiculous. Of course they are part of the game … because for years and years there wasn’t a better way. Do you think that if in 1900, there were umpiring robots who could make perfect calls every time that baseball would not have used them? You think they would have said: “No, human error is an important part of our concept of umpiring?” I don’t think so.

“Replays could make the games a touch longer — depending on how it’s used — and nobody really wants that. But didn’t we pass that exit a long time ago. If they’re willing to make the delay between innings longer to make extra bucks on commercials, can’t they add a couple of minutes to game time to get calls right?

“Of course umpires are human. But umpires are not like players or managers. They have totally different jobs. Players, managers, they are trying to win a game. They will make mistakes in the process, of course, and this is part of what makes the game entertaining and frustrating and interesting. Their mistakes, in many ways, create the tension of baseball.

“Not so with umpires. Their job is to balance the game. That’s all. They are not the entertainment division of baseball. They are in oversight. And the job is to get it right. Period. Seems to me that the comparison is flawed because we are not looking for humanity from our umpires. We are looking for accuracy.”

So, who wins the arguement, Chass or Posnanski?  It’s a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.  Posnanski makes sense.  Chass, not so much.

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t like the idea of instant replay in baseball.  I don’t have a brilliant arguement to back up my position.  It just doesn’t feel right.  That’s a crappy reason and I’m open minded enough to listen to the type of logic Posnanski is dishing out.  I have to admit all of the good arguements are on the other side of the issue from me.  So while I might not be in favor of instituting replay in baseball, there is every reason for MLB to do it.

Is this just wishful thinking?  Maybe, but the Cubs have 34 games left to make up the 5.5 game deficit.  Also, all of the teams that the Cubs are chasing have a tougher road ahead of them than the Cubs.  For the remainder of the year, the Cubs only have seven games against teams with a record above .500, and four of those games are against San Francisco. 

Here are the number of games that the Wildcard contenders have against teams with a record above .500

• Colorado – 9
• San Francisco – 16
• Atlanta – 13
• Florida – 16

Of course, this is a bit deceiving because these teams do play each other head-to-head, so they can’t both lose in those games, but it is clear that the Cubs have the easiest schedule for the remainder of the year.

The quest gets started tonight as the Astros (59-72) come to town.  Roy Oswalt (7-5) takes on Rich Harden (8-7).  The game is on WGN.

**********

Speaking of Rich Harden, in my angst over Milton Bradley in my last post, I forgot to mention that both Harden and Aaron Heilman were claimed off waivers last week.  Reports are that Harden was claimed by Minnesota and Heilman was claimed by San Francisco.

There’s been a lot of talk about a possible trade with Minnesota for Harden, not so much about Heilmann going to San Fransisco.  Joe Christensen of the Minneapolis Star Tribune says that the Twins will not meet the Cubs demand for Harden.  Phil Rogers at the Chicago Tribune says they will.  Just about everyone agrees that the price for Harden is two top shelf prospects.  Minnesota may not be willing to pay that steep of a price for a five week rental of Harden, but the Cubs don’t have any incentive to accept less.  Harden projects as a type A free agent, meaning the Cubs will get two compensation draft picks if they offer him arbitration and he signs elsewhere. 

Although Harden’s record is just 8-7 this year with a 3.99 ERA, he has been much better in the second half of the season.  Since the All-Star break, Harden is 3-1 with a 1.80 ERA.  The Cubs are still alive in the Wildcard race and Harden is currently the team’s best pitcher (although Ted Lilly might argue with that).  Unless Minnesota overwhelms the Cubs with their offer (which is unlikely), I say keep Harden and offer him arbitration.  If Minnesota offer Joe Mauer, then the Cubs should make that deal.

Aaron Heilman is 2-3 with a 4.40 ERA.  He has not been particularly effective this year, but like Harden, he has been better lately.  If he had been claimed by a team other than a team ahead of the Cubs in the Wildcard race, I would say let him go for a middling prospect.  But since it is the Giants that claimed him, I would hate to see Heilman come back to haunt the Cubs.  Since the Cubs won’t get much for him anyway, and since they will only be saving about $240,000 on his contract if they move him, I say keep him.  There’s just not enough of a reason to let him go