FanDuel - WFBC

October 06, 2012

Infield Fly Call Helps Cards Oust Braves: "An infield fly is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. ... When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare 'Infield Fly' for the benefit of the runners."

posted by rcade to baseball at 08:34 AM - 31 comments

I'm sure this one will come up in tomorrow's (Saturday) Huddle, but just to get the first word in, the infield fly call in the St. Louis vs Atlanta game was correct. It is a judgment call, the elements of which are the number of outs (<2), runners on base (1st & 2nd or bases loaded) and a fly ball (not a line drive or bunt) that can be handled by an infielder with ordinary effort. All of the necessary elements were in place, but the infielder let the ball drop, and the call was made late. It does not matter whether or not the ball is caught, except when a runner tries to advance (tag up after a catch vs running from a lead if the ball drops). The confusion seems to be over the timing of the call. When I was first umpiring, our instructors taught us not to make the infield fly call until we were sure that the infielder had turned toward the plate. If the infielder was running with his back to the plate, or even running across with the plate to his side, there was not ordinary effort. As soon as the infielder turns, even though he might be backpedaling, the catch becomes ordinary effort, and the infield fly should be called. Atlanta ought to be happy the call was made, as it is quite conceivable that the left fielder could have fielded the ball behind the shortstop, thrown to 3rd for a force, and there might have been time for a relay to 2nd for a double play. Such a scenario is exactly what the infield fly rule is intended to prevent.

posted by Howard_T at 11:40 PM on October 05

My problem was the lateness of the call, and the fact that the shortstop was NEVER actually under the ball at any time. He was running backwards the entire time, and the umpire didn't think he was in any position to catch it (or he would have signalled the IF fly rule sooner), until almost the exact point when the shortstop stopped TRYING to catch it.

That said, the call was probably #3 on the reasons why the Braves lost.

#1 would be horrific defence.
Three errors? Three unearned runs, and 5 of the St. Louis runs were scored in the two innings with the errors.

#2 would be terrible batting with runners on base.
They had multiple men on base in the 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, and only scored one run in those innings.

posted by grum@work at 12:13 AM on October 06

I'm sure this one will come up in tomorrow's (Saturday) Huddle, but just to get the first word in, the infield fly call in the St. Louis vs Atlanta game was correct.

I completely disagree. The ump didn't make the call until the shortstop had stopped pursuing the ball. Not to mention the shortstop never settled under the ball.

There is also the small matter of the ball falling 60 feet away from the infield.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:38 AM on October 06

Yeah, if the infield fly rule is going to be applied to outfield fly balls, like this basically was, then there's a problem. Plus the umpire waited too long to make the call.

Yes, though, the Atlanta fans who threw all that garbage on the field are scumbags.

posted by dyams at 08:34 AM on October 06

That said, the call was probably #3 on the reasons why the Braves lost.

Loading the bases in the eighth with no outs could've been the #1 reason the Braves won. The what-ifs swing both ways.

posted by rcade at 08:37 AM on October 06

I always thought the infield fly rule, when used correctly, applied largely to, you know, like, the infield.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:36 AM on October 06

Loading the bases in the eighth with no outs could've been the #1 reason the Braves won. The what-ifs swing both ways.

First of all, there was already an out in the inning. Fielder's choice, Freeman out at second.

According to win probability, the Braves chances of winning the game:

Before the infield fly ball was hit (Bottom of the 8th, 1st and 2nd, 1 out, trailing 6-3): ~14%

After the call (Bottom of the 8th, 2nd and 3rd, two outs, trailing 6-3) : ~10%

If the call was simply a single (Bottom of the 8th, bases loaded, one out, trailing 6-3): ~23%

Even if the call went in the Braves favour, they were still less than a 1-in-4 chance of winning the game.

You can do your own calculations here. I used a 4.5 run environment, even though the National League averaged less (4.22).

posted by grum@work at 10:08 AM on October 06

I always thought the infield fly rule, when used correctly, applied largely to, you know, like, the infield.

It doesn't. If it did, an infielder could simply step outside the scope of the infield, then let the ball drop at his feet and throw out the lead runner (or whichever runner he felt it was more advantageous to remove). The umpire has to have the discretion to call it when he feels the infielder is going to make the catch.

This call was correct, albeit late. The shortstop clearly turns, takes two steps and then jumps away when he thinks Holliday is going to freight-train him. The ball's still in the air that whole time, and that's plenty enough time for the umpire to think the shortstop is going to make a pretty routine play.

Turn it around the other way. Given that Uggla got to third pretty quickly after the ball dropped, there's a chance had the shortstop not ducked out of the way, he could have doubled Uggla off, and then Braves fans would be screaming there was no infield fly call made.

I have a friend who has just finished his first season umping in the minors, though (thinking about interviewing him for a post here), and I'll ask his opinion when I see him tonight.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:29 AM on October 06

They need to change the name of the rule to the infield-and-half-the-outfield fly rule.

posted by dyams at 10:58 AM on October 06

I'm in disagreement with the call. Sixty feet into the outfield is considered the infield? Some judgement by Holbrook there. Was he calling a football game in Seattle two weeks ago?

That said, the Braves probably had this game lost before the 8th inning anyway, blown call or no blown call. You don't commit three errors and expect to win too many playoff games. It may suck for Chipper, but the most deserving team advanced to the NLDS last night.

posted by NerfballPro at 11:08 AM on October 06

I thought the call was correct, albeit late. That should have been a routine play. The shortstop, umpire, and left fielder all thought it was routine right up to the point where he decided not to catch it. Like Howard said, if/when the infielder turns toward the infield that is what I've heard umpires talk about that they are looking for when making these calls.

posted by tron7 at 11:13 AM on October 06

The call was terrible. Sure, it was a routine play, but that doesn't mean the Cards don't have to make the play.

You don't commit three errors and expect to win too many playoff games.

The Cards had three errors in game six of the World Series last year.

posted by drezdn at 11:44 AM on October 06

I don't like the call. "Ordinary effort" should not include a fly ball where the fielder isn't camped out under the ball at any point. If the ump has to wait that long to call it an infield fly, it shouldn't be one.

posted by rcade at 12:55 PM on October 06

Exactly. The call didn't have to be made. The umpire was confused and unsure of what to do. The Cardinals messing it up proves it wasn't necessarily "routine" because the infielder decided to give way to the outfielder. Very few "infield flies" are routine catches for the outfielder, too.

posted by dyams at 03:01 PM on October 06

Turn it around the other way. Given that Uggla got to third pretty quickly after the ball dropped, there's a chance had the shortstop not ducked out of the way, he could have doubled Uggla off, and then Braves fans would be screaming there was no infield fly call made.

Or, think about it the other way. The Cards were given a free out because there was no play to be made on the ball and it was an error.

I'm not a HUGE baseball person but it seems to me that it's a lot more reasonable to call the hitter out if a ball is intentionally allowed to drop, and a runner already on base is successfully thrown out all in the same play. Protect the lead runner(s) and call the hitter out.

Otherwise, you are punishing the offense for what should have been called an error.

posted by phaedon at 03:13 PM on October 06

Define "camped out." In my mind (and the mind of the rulebook), if a major-league infielder has time to run out to the outfield, then turn around and backpedal a bit, he should catch the ball.

That would also mean that any ball blown by the wind or where the fielder is drifting to make the catch would not be an "ordinary effort."

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:23 PM on October 06

Define "camped out."

Standing under the ball waiting for it to come down without requiring more steps forwards or backwards.

In my mind (and the mind of the rulebook), if a major-league infielder has time to run out to the outfield, then turn around and backpedal a bit, he should catch the ball.

The question isn't whether he should catch the ball. All Major Leaguers should catch that ball. It's whether he should catch it with "ordinary effort."

posted by rcade at 03:40 PM on October 06

Rob Neyer's take on the controversy.

SPOILER ALERT: he agrees with me.

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:44 PM on October 06

So what's not ordinary effort about that play? The ball was hit a mile in the air, Kozma has plenty of time to run back, turn, call for the ball ... and then get the hell out of the way as the ball falls less than five feet from him? He was not running particularly hard, he did not appear to lose sight of the ball.

What's extraordinary about this play?

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:50 PM on October 06

It doesn't. If it did, an infielder could simply step outside the scope of the infield, then let the ball drop at his feet and throw out the lead runner (or whichever runner he felt it was more advantageous to remove). The umpire has to have the discretion to call it when he feels the infielder is going to make the catch.

I get where you're going with this, but by that logic, doesn't it mean that if a team positioned an infielder in the medium outfield, any medium depth fly ball could be considered an "infield" fly? Shouldn't it have SOMETHING to do with where the ball is hit, rather than where the position player ends up? A really fast infielder who can backpeddle can thereby make a ton of flyouts, or potential flyouts, into automatic outs? And then what do you have? Dogs and cats, living together, MASS HYSTERIA.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:50 PM on October 06

So what's not ordinary effort about that play?

He was never under the ball. Not for a moment. The umpire didn't make the call until after Kozma gave up on the ball, as you can see at the 50 second mark. How can it be ordinary effort when the umpire makes the call so late?

posted by rcade at 03:58 PM on October 06

I agree with rcade and most others commentating at the time -- it was a terrible call. When you consider the situation that an infield fly is normally called, this case was extraordinary. You could also argue that the left-field/right-field umpire should *never* make an infield fly call -- there are three infield umpires there to do just that.

What frustrated me most about the situation was that baseball has no culture to get the call right. You have six umpires and one guy makes a judgment call which I suspect the other five would have disagreed with. In other sports, officials can change their mind or change a bad judgment call (soccer is an example). Surely the primary aim of officiating is to get the call right, even if it means making someone (Holbrook, in this case) look bad in the process. I don't know why the crew chief can't get them all together, discuss the play, and determine the correct call.

posted by geneparmesan at 06:06 PM on October 06

Count me among those who thought the call was atrocious. The point of the rule is to prevent a potential double-play by letting the ball drop, but there was zero chance of that occurring given how deep the fly ball was. If the left-fielder could have reasonably caught it, then it's not an "infield fly".

posted by TheQatarian at 06:33 PM on October 06

I have one more thought on this. I believe that Kozma, the shortstop, might have made up his mind to let the ball drop before he heard the infield fly call. He would do this because he thought he could get one or both of the base runners. They would have had to stay close to the base occupied lest they be put out by failing to return after a caught fly ball. Had the call been made earlier, I believe Kozma would have gone ahead with the catch. As most have agreed, it all boils down to the timing of the call, and in looking at the video, the umpire's arm goes up just as Kozma turns toward the plate and starts to backpedal. 2 or 3 more steps back is all Kozma would have needed to be able to make the catch, thus ordinary effort can certainly be inferred.

For those who think the depth of the fly ball should have a bearing on the infield fly call, perhaps the name of the call should be changed to "infielder fly". That would cover everything from the plate to about 200 feet out.

rcade, thanks for moving my original comment in the Friday Huddle to lead off this discussion. I appreciate it, and it saved me from having to reference or link to it.

posted by Howard_T at 10:45 PM on October 06

the infield fly call in the St. Louis vs Atlanta game was correct. It is a judgment call,

This whole debate is fascinating to me. Most people that approve of the call label it 'correct', or the 'right' call, while those that disapprove label it 'terrible' or something similar. Yet everyone seems to agree, looking at the actual rule, which is vague, that it's a judgment call. So how is the call correct? Or right? It simply can't be black and white like that, because judgment is going to vary among people.

This reminds me of the end zone interception that was ruled an offensive completion a couple of weeks ago. It seemed a ridiculous call immediately to most people, and yet after there was a group that tried to show that by the rule, it was actually the correct call. I don't think most people changed their mind, and I still think it was a terrible call, and trying to make the rule fit the scenario of a completion paled in comparison to actually seeing the call. In other words, if I hadn't watched the play, but only heard about it, and then read the rule, I might agree it was a completion. But having seen the play, you'll never convince me that the play was anything but an interception. The best call was an interception.

I feel the same here. I don't care if 500 umpires declare the play correct, and I'm not really saying the call is incorrect, because again, judgment is involved. But I have no doubt it was a terrible call, and considering everything, the absolute wrong call to make.

The call was very late (which is another story), but the big problem for me is the 'ordinary effort' clause. The umpire has stated that as soon as the shortstop raised his hand to call for the ball he considered it ordinary effort. He's chose to ignore:

- the length the shortstop had to run to get to the ball.

- the fact that when he pealed off because of the left fielder he still had a step or two to get to the ball. He was never camped under the ball. Again, we seem to have different opinions on what 'camped' means, but still trotting back to reach the eventual landing of the ball doesn't seem in any way being 'camped' under the ball, by the very definition. If you're camped, you're not moving.

The vast majority of infield fly rules are called with an infielder that's camped under the ball, waiting several seconds for the ball to come down. That's ordinary effort. If you're going to call THIS play ordinary effort, what's a normal infield fly? Sub-effort?

From the umpires explanation, it sounds as if the shortstop simply had to turn towards the infield and raise his hands. That was all he needed to make the call. If that's all he needs, the short stop should have turned towards the infield much earlier. Who cares where the ball actually is.

I also disagree that this was a routine play. This was a very dangerous play, an almost perfectly placed tweener that often causes problems with communication. It's not rare to see this play result in an error or a ball landing between players, as happened here. The runners were almost half way between bases, because they knew it was possible trouble.

Watch the players (pitcher, shortstop, left fielder) . No one was screaming for an infield fly call, because no one thought it was an infield fly rule. The rule is intended to protect the offense, and in this case failed miserably. Would the game have been a better game with a non-call or did the call add anything or solve anything in the game? It took away from the game, of course. The wrong judgement was made. I have no rooting interest, but this was a case of the umpire inserting his influence where none was needed. He should have simply let them play. And even if I thought it was the correct call based on my interpretation of the rule, I'd also believe that the rule needs to be re-examined.

Turn it around the other way. Given that Uggla got to third pretty quickly after the ball dropped, there's a chance had the shortstop not ducked out of the way, he could have doubled Uggla off, and then Braves fans would be screaming there was no infield fly call made.

I disagree. I don't think anyone there thought it was an infield fly play. Again, look at the players on the cardinals. No one was running to the umpires. The players seemed shocked at the call. How many infield fly rules has anyone seen that even resembled this one? I'm guessing if there had been no call nothing would have happened, no complaining, no bottles on the field, no discussion on sportsfilter.

AJC:

The spot where the ball landed was 225 feet from home plate, according to Baseball Info Solutions. In the past three seasons, there were six infield-fly rulings in the majors on balls that were not caught, and the longest measured at 178 feet 47 feet less than the ball Simmons hit.

"I've seen [the infield-fly ruling on a ball that's] shallow, but not that far out, pretty much in left field," said Simmons, a shortstop. The spot where the ball landed was 225 feet from home plate, according to Baseball Info Solutions. In the past three seasons, there were six infield-fly rulings in the majors on balls that were not caught, and the longest measured at 178 feet 47 feet less than the ball Simmons hit.

I've never seen that before. I don't think anybody had seen that before."

Seems rare enough.

Rob Neyer's take on the controversy. SPOILER ALERT: he agrees with me.

Others disagree:

Cliff Corcoran (SI):

Holbrook erred in invoking the infield fly in that situation for two reasons. The first was that Kozma, though he did ultimately appear to be in position to catch the ball, had to race well into shallow leftfield to make the play. The infield fly rule specifically states that it is to be used on a fair fly ball "which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort." Kozma's was not an ordinary effort ... Second, the rule states that "when it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare Infield Fly for the benefit of the runners." In this case, Holbrook didn't signal for the infield fly rule until the ball was more than half-way through its descent, mere moments before Kozma flinched and the ball hit the outfield grass... So it was an awful call...

Keith Law (ESPN):

There is no way that ball could be caught by an infielder with "ordinary effort." Total incompetence by the umpires.

--------

When you consider the situation that an infield fly is normally called, this case was extraordinary. You could also argue that the left-field/right-field umpire should *never* make an infield fly call -- there are three infield umpires there to do just that.

I think that's the ironic part. I have serious doubts an infield fly rule would have ever been called with a normal set of umpires. Instead of a left field umpire waiting for the ball to come down from a position he rarely stands you would have an infield umpire watching the shortstop running to almost mid left field to try and catch a fly ball.

I believe that Kozma, the shortstop, might have made up his mind to let the ball drop before he heard the infield fly call. He would do this because he thought he could get one or both of the base runners.

Based on what exactly? I see no sign of this, and Kozma gave no indication that was his plan.

They would have had to stay close to the base occupied lest they be put out by failing to return after a caught fly ball.

They weren't close to the base occupied. Both runners were either halfway or close to halfway between their occupied base and the next base.

It would also be a remarkably stupid play to intentionally drop the ball. The Cardinals have a 6-3 lead in the bottom of the 8th and only need 5 outs. If Kozma catches the ball there are now 2 outs in the inning with runners at 1st and 2nd. Only 4 more outs to go with a 3 run lead in a do or die playoff game.

But Kozma runs out to mid left field and drops the ball, giving up the out while hoping he can double up both runners (getting one runner makes no sense. He an do the same by catching the ball)? And if you watch the play, he never looks at the runners, so he has no idea how far off the base they are.

Would have been a senseless decision by Kozma.

posted by justgary at 12:04 AM on October 08

Nailed it.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:24 AM on October 08

Joe Posnanski weighs in:

However, in review, it's a ludicrous call. For two reasons: One technical, the other more important. The technical reason: Kozma had to run at least 50 or 60 feet into the outfield to catch the ball. I don't see a convincing argument that it was an ordinary-effort play. There is no official scorer on earth who would have given Kozma an error on the play, and in fact there was no error given on the play. I would argue that Holbrook just lost his bearings -- the play built up pretty slowly, and I don't think Holbrook appreciated just how far Kozma had to run, how difficult the angle was. The ball landed several feet BEHIND him. That's why the fact that Holbrook signals for the infield fly at the very moment when Kozma realizes he can't catch the ball is telling. Such judgments are hard.

But the second reason seems more compelling to me. Why do we have an infield fly rule in the first place? Sometimes it seems like we let process overwhelm purpose, we allow the letter of the rule to be more important than the spirit. Why is there an infield fly rule? Because more than 125 years ago, fielders would purposely drop balls in order to get cheap double and triple plays. And without the rule, fielders would be trying to do the same thing today.

Where Simmons' ball was hit, was a double play even possible? No. If runners are paying attention, there is no way in the world that Kozma could have dropped that ball and gotten a double play. Heck, from out there, it would have been hard for him to purposely drop that ball and even get one out. The focus of the call has been around those words "ordinary effort," and that's a worthwhile discussion point. But if you go beyond the specifics of the rule and back to the heart of it calling an infield fly on that ball was egregious. It was putting a vaguely worded rule ahead of the essence of the game.

I don't know if the other umpires could have overruled the infield fly or if Holbrook could have taken it back. But it seems to me, within only a few seconds, everyone on the field should have realized that calling the infield fly was a mistake, and it would perhaps cost Atlanta its last-gasp chance of saving its season.

posted by justgary at 11:49 AM on October 08

I don't know if the other umpires could have overruled the infield fly or if Holbrook could have taken it back. But it seems to me, within only a few seconds, everyone on the field should have realized that calling the infield fly was a mistake, and it would perhaps cost Atlanta its last-gasp chance of saving its season.

I almost hate to say it about a writer with Joe Posnanski's credentials, but this paragraph betrays his lack of knowledge about the rules and the situation. Once the infield fly ruling is made, it is too late to change the call. The final part of the rule says that the runners may advance at their own risk. The call is made and the ball falls, but suppose a runner advances toward 3rd, the 3rd baseman stands on the base with the ball, but fails to tag the runner. If the infield fly call is somehow overturned, then the batter-runner would be safe at 1st base, a force play would be in effect at 3rd, and the runner would then be out. In other words, you can't have it both ways. What do you do after the fact? Whom do you put on base and where? If you take an out away from the team on the field, you now open the argument that the fielder let the ball fall on purpose once he heard the call. Perhaps he would like a 'do-over'? It doesn't wash.

If the ball landed "about 225 feet" from home plate, just how far did the shortstop have to run? Depending on how deep he was playing to start with, he would be somewhere around 140 feet from the plate. Was he playing at double play depth and shading 2nd base? This would be the worst case scenario, and would leave him with about 120 feet or less to run. One with pretty good speed, which I would expect most middle infielders to have, could cover the distance in less than 5 seconds, which is within the time it would take a pop-up to come down.

The argument about ordinary effort requiring a player to 'camp out' under the ball was refuted in nearly every game I've watched this season. How often have you seen an outfielder on the dead run snag a fly ball in the gap? It's not quite a routine play, but it's one that most outfielders will make, thus ordinary effort. For an infielder to run for a few seconds, establish the track of a popup, then have to backpedal to make a catch, is nothing out of the ordinary for a player. Don't forget, we are talking about major league baseball players here. These are not your college, high school, or little leaguers. The standard of ordinary effort is much higher here than is true elsewhere.

Late call? I do not disagree the call was made late, but it was so by the necessity for the umpire to be sure that the shortstop had the chance to make the play. The call was correct in all respects, and the writers who have so vehemently disagreed are doing so because the topic offers such an easy chance to sell a column or two. It's their job, so I have no problem with their writings. I merely think they are incorrect.

posted by Howard_T at 03:15 PM on October 08

It's not quite a routine play, but it's one that most outfielders will make, thus ordinary effort.

It's amazing to see how far "ordinary effort" is being stretched to defend an atrocious call. Now catching a fly ball in the gap on a dead run is ordinary?

Weak weak weak.

posted by rcade at 03:55 PM on October 08

There is no official scorer on earth who would have given Kozma an error on the play, and in fact there was no error given on the play.

Could an error have been given, considering the infield fly rule was invoked?

posted by rcade at 04:04 PM on October 08

It's amazing to see how far "ordinary effort" is being stretched to defend an atrocious call.

I think this shows a weakness in the rule as worded. Both those that say it was ordinary effort and those that believe it was more, despite it being a judgment call, seem to think they're opinion is the obvious answer.

There's not doubt, that in the area of your typical infield fly play, this was out of the ordinary. I'm not sure how anyone can claim other wise. So those that claim ordinary effort aren't using that as a measurement. They're judging the effort based on any random play.

But running into mid outfield to catch a pop fly/ fly ball is a larger effort than your average infield pop-up. So to me, and those that thought the call was incorrect, their was greater effort than what is ordinary. It seems to me that those that consider it ordinary don't see effort as a continuum. It's ordinary, ordinary, ordinary, then boom... extraordinary. In other words, everything is ordinary, until the player dives for the ball, or leaps, and then it's extraordinary. I think that's really weak, but being a judgment call, I'm not going to argue the point much.

The key to me is what Posnanski referred to as the 'spirit' of the rule, and that's what I was pushing during my last answer. As I said before, the call solved nothing, stopped nothing, did nothing, except turn a game that could have been a great one into a complete mess.

Most of those that claim it was a correct call, both here and elsewhere, ignore that part of the discussion. They argue their view as if we're dealing with a generic infield fly play, instead of what actually happened. So they go on about how this also protected the Braves, which it didn't do in any shape or form.

The umpire simply performed his job as if he were a robot. The infielders arms went up right before the ball came down, in mid left field, while still not being under the ball, and he called the infield fly, ignoring everything else happening during the play. I expect more out of professional umpires. And I agree with Posnanski, after the play, there was no going back. But I think it was quite clear almost immediately that the call was terrible and should never have been made.

Tim Hudson:

I think it's one of the worst judgement calls I've ever seen. Obviously it was a pop up, but it was a pop up that was in shallow left field. It was a baseball play in my opinion. There was nothing routine about it. The rule of the infield fly rule was to keep the infielders from being able to deke the runners from getting an easy double play to not leave the base runners out to dry. That ball was so deep that even if they did drop it on purpose they couldn't even have got one force out at any of the bases. Dan [Uggla] was on second base and he was half way between second and third because he was anticipating him not being able to make that catch because it wasn't a routine ball. It was so much further than any infield fly rule that I have ever seen and at the same time there is plenty of pop-up balls that land in that bermuda triangle that are base hits a lot, that are misplayed. In my opinion it was a baseball play. It wasn't an infield fly rule.

----------------

The call was correct in all respects, and the writers who have so vehemently disagreed are doing so because the topic offers such an easy chance to sell a column or two. It's their job, so I have no problem with their writings. I merely think they are incorrect.

Please stop it with this nonsense. I've read Cliff Corcoran and Posnanski for years. If you disagree with them, fine, but claiming they're just aiming for attention is insulting. They disagree with you. Just accept that instead of making up ulterior motive.

posted by justgary at 04:14 PM on October 20

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.