Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
It's a topic that will be discussed in every sporting corner of the internet today: Should Bud Selig retroactively award Armando Galarraga with a perfect game? This would be an unprecedented move, and one that could potentiality open some sort of revisionist history floodgates both past and future (SLIPPERY SLOPE!), but there is also conclusive evidence that Galarraga deserved the perfect game.
You can read more about the topic here, here, here, here and here (and that's just on SB Nation alone). But we want to know what you think. So VOTE:
11 comments
Comments
I think Keith Law put it best:
Learn about Batting Metrics
Learn about Pitching Metrics
by Andrew Martin on Jun 3, 2010 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
While I agree w/ the sentiment of that tweet, this case is slightly different because it is so easy to point to that one obviously blown call. It would’ve been the last out, not the 10th.
Having said that, I voted “no.”
by Chris Mottram on Jun 3, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
We're having a pretty raging debate on Purple Row
but my concern about changing the call is that it will become a slippery slope.
It is absolutely so easy to change the one call, but we all know it’ll never be left at just that one blatantly easy call.
Learn about Batting Metrics
Learn about Pitching Metrics
by Andrew Martin on Jun 3, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
slippery slope is a logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
by jerryclore on Jun 3, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
In this case, I think just about everyone can agree that if Selig reverses the call, then there will be more pleas in the future to overturn calls (including other obvious mistakes made in the past). The question is whether you think that the positive outweighs the negative. Just because someone makes that point, and calls it a slippery slope, which is a colloquial usage derived from the name of the fallacy, doesn’t mean their point should automatically be dismissed.
STILL stopping every few minutes to realize "Whoa. The Saints won the Super Bowl."
by AllSaintsDay on Jun 3, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
wasn't dismissing it
just pointing out that it’s based on a premise that may not be valid. Personally, i think this seems like a pretty unusual situation: very last play of game, unequivocal video evidence, the ump himself would take it back if he could.
if it’s a firm, specific reversal, i don’t see the slippery slope happening.
by jerryclore on Jun 3, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You really think that reversing this call would most likely not result in more calls being overturned in similar vein?
STILL stopping every few minutes to realize "Whoa. The Saints won the Super Bowl."
by AllSaintsDay on Jun 3, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
a few more requests maybe
but i think people realize this is an unusual circumstance
by jerryclore on Jun 3, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Right and Wrong
Evidence gets Death Row inmates released. Correcting the call will NOT change the outcome of the game.
GO BULLS!
by MR.BDYZR on Jun 3, 2010 1:43 PM EDT reply actions
I'm sort of a hypocrite.
Given I have no emotional attachment to Detroit or Galarraga (good emotions or bad) I can be analytical and vote no because I agree it’d open a floodgate for overturning past mistakes and future ones (prior to any additional instant replay we get from this). I say this and believe it, and yet if it had been a Braves pitcher who had been fucked out of a perfect game in such a sad and bullshit way, I’d be having a huge internal battle going on. So I’ll stand by that no vote but I feel you, people who voted yes.
by l0stnumber on Jun 3, 2010 1:54 PM EDT reply actions
888 votes
I like where we’re headed.
The Dream Shake ...on Twitter.
"I think girls are probably just better shooters." - Steve Novak
by Tom Martin on Jun 3, 2010 8:25 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed