MLB: Braves/Ex-Braves vs. the Official Scorer(s)

Commentary: Official scorers' rulings open to debate
By Joe Capozzi

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 24, 2006

PHILADELPHIA — Greg Maddux was able to do it. John Smoltz was able to do it.
Joe Borowski was not, but he certainly tried.

Borowski doesn't have as sparkling a résumé as Smoltz and Maddux, who have a
combined 522 victories and five Cy Young Awards. But Borowski thought he
might get a little help in at least lowering his ERA by having an official
scorer's call reversed.








Borowski knows it's possible. It happened twice this season for opposing
pitchers facing the Marlins.

On May 24, Maddux wasn't happy when Hanley Ramirez was credited with a hit
on a ball bobbled by Cubs shortstop Ronny Cedeno. Maddux filed a protest and
eight weeks later the hit was changed to an error, shaving five earned runs
off Maddux's line score.

It took Smoltz just a couple of hours to do it Sept. 16, when the Braves
pitcher stormed off the mound and pointed at the Turner Field press box to
protest an infield RBI single that was given to Miguel Cabrera on a hard
grounder that shortstop Edgar Renteria momentarily bobbled.

By the time the game ended, the hit was changed to an error, and Smoltz's
ERA dropped.

The next day, Borowski entered the game in the 10th inning with a 7-3 lead.
Florida's defense imploded and the Marlins lost 8-7 after the Braves scored
five runs, two unearned.

The rally started after one out when catcher Brian McCann - batting .326
with an outside shot at the National League batting title - hit a slicing
fly ball off left-fielder Josh Willingham's glove.

It was ruled a double - to the dismay of a Braves broadcaster who said on
the air: "I'm not an official scorer, but how can he possibly ... I mean, a
major-league ballplayer has to make that play, doesn't he?''

The inning ended with Borowski walking off the field with his head down as
the Braves celebrated their improbable come-from-behind victory. Borowski
did not point at the press box.

The next day, he reflected on the rally, which started on McCann's hit and
eventually ended with Borowski being charged with three earned runs. That's
when he said he recalled the image of Smoltz angrily pointing at the press
box the day before.

"What probably brought it out more than anything was seeing Smoltz having it
changed right there on the spot. That put it in the back of my head: 'If I
can get something changed for me, why not (try)?' " Borowski said.

"As a reliever, you need all the help you can get. One run makes a big
difference in your ERA. Two is even bigger.''

Borowski went into that game with a 3.64 ERA, which went up to 4.04 after
the ugly inning. He made it clear that his contract has no financial
incentive clauses related to his ERA.

"It's just a matter of pride,'' he said.

Marlins media relations chief Matt Roebuck asked official scorer Mike Stamus
to reconsider his call. Stamus refused.

The Marlins went to New York the next day for a four-game series against the
Mets. Roebuck brought a DVD of the inning to Major League Baseball's offices
in Manhattan.

The play was reviewed by a five-member panel that was formed at least three
years ago to review close plays. The panel doesn't have the power to
overturn a call; the final decision rests with the official scorer. But when
the league recommended the call be overturned - as it did in Maddux's case -
Stamus still refused.

What does Willingham think? "I felt bad about the play,'' he said. "I don't
know if it's an error, but I make that play nine out of 10 times.''

Borowski understands the official-scorer system but he is disappointed that
he didn't get the same treatment as Maddux or Smoltz.

"Baseball is supposed to be sacred. The game is about numbers,'' Borowski
said. "When you don't have anyone to answer to, you can pretty much do
whatever you want.

"As a scorekeeper, you're supposed to impartial and unbiased and score the
game as if you are not rooting for one team. What if McCann wasn't hitting
..330-something. Would you do it differently?''

<crosem.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote ...
> Commentary: Official scorers' rulings open to debate
> The play was reviewed by a five-member panel that was formed at least
> three years ago to review close plays. The panel doesn't have the power to
> overturn a call; the final decision rests with the official scorer. But
> when the league recommended the call be overturned - as it did in Maddux's
> case - Stamus still refused.
> What does Willingham think? "I felt bad about the play,'' he said. "I
> don't know if it's an error, but I make that play nine out of 10 times.''

Interesting, I didn't know there was an appeals system for this kind of
thing. Still, it's this kind of thing that highlights the absurdity of the
whole earned/unearned run thing.

Colin