Baseball’s transcendent moment
Even if you don’t follow baseball, you may have heard the story.
On Wednesday, Detroit Tigers journeyman pitcher Armando Galarraga—whose 21-18 career record is hardly spectacular—was one out away from that rarest of baseball achievements: the so-called “perfect game.” Twenty-seven batters up and 27 down. It has been done only 20 times in major league baseball history.
Galarraga had retired 26 batters when the Cleveland Indians’ Jason Donald stepped into the batter’s box. Donald then sliced a grounder to the right side of the infield, forcing first baseman Miguel Cabrera to field the ball. Cabrera threw the ball to Galarraga, who ran over to cover first. Everyone in the ballpark knew Donald was out by a half step.
Everyone except umpire Jim Joyce. Joyce called Donald safe. The blown call ended Galarraga’s bid for major league baseball’s 21st perfect game.
Detroit manager Jim Leyland leapt out of the dugout to protest, but—as all baseball fans know—the gesture was nothing more than theater: The only thing rarer than a perfect game is a reversed call. Jason Donald remained on first. Galarraga composed himself and disposed of the next batter. Twenty-eight up, 27 down. Galarraga ended up one out shy of the record book.
In the 24 hours following that blown call, there has been much second-guessing. Should baseball commissioner Bud Selig overturn the umpire’s call? He said he would not. Should there be instant replays employed in baseball, as there are in football?
Purists—or perhaps just those who understand baseball—say no. Why? Because it diminishes the human element in this most human of sports. Baseball—unlike football and basketball—is played by men who look like the rest of us. They are not 7 feet tall. They do not weigh 300 pounds.
Part of the myth of baseball is that an ordinary man, if he works hard enough, if he has enough heart, if he studies the game deeply, can play the game as well as the man with extraordinary natural gifts, as well as any man alive, perhaps as well as any man who has ever lived. The grand slam home run. The perfect game. These are achievements that—while limited and fleeting—cannot be improved upon. And when the umpire yells, “Play Ball,” the possibility of that perfection is within reach of all 18 men on the field, and they all know it. Will a million things have to go right to achieve that moment of transcendence? Of course, but one in a million times, they all do go right, and for that bright and shining moment baseball provides us with a glimpse of the good, the beautiful, and the true unlike anything seen in other sports.
But there are other moments in which we can glimpse that transcendence, and in the 24 hours following Jim Joyce’s blown call, we got to see not just one but several of them, and they were moments the inhuman precision of the instant replay camera would have stolen from us. The first one came immediately after the game, when Galarraga celebrated his team’s win, brushing aside questions about the blown call by observing humbly and thankfully (and truthfully) that this was the best game he had pitched in his career. No blame. No recriminations. Just character and grace.
We saw one from umpire Jim Joyce, too. He watched a replay immediately after the game and quickly admitted he had blown the call. No excuses. He immediately, emotionally, and publicly apologized to Galarraga. Again: character and grace.
The next day came perhaps the best moment of all: Joyce was scheduled to be the umpire behind the plate. It is the duty of each team to bring the starting lineup out to the home plate umpire. Usually the manager or a coach or the team captain performs the duty. On this day, Galarraga himself emerged from the Detroit dugout. He shook hands with Joyce, who was so choked up he could not speak. With head bowed, Joyce accepted the lineup card. And with his lip trembling, he gently touched Galarraga on the arm. There were a few boos from the watching crowd, but there were also a lot of cheers.
It was a very human moment. A very baseball moment.
As for Galarraga’s bid for the record book, don’t despair. After all, how many of the 20 pitchers who have pitched perfect games can you name? There’s Don Larsen’s in the 1956 World Series, the only perfect game ever pitched in World Series play. And—for a while—a few folk might be able to tell you the names of the pitchers who have made 2010 the only season in history to produce two perfect games.
Their names will soon fade, though, as have all the others. But the story of Galarraga and Joyce will, I predict, be told as long as the game is played, perhaps even as long as we imperfect human beings strive for and occasionally achieve moments of transcendence.
And that’s why I love baseball.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top31 Comments to “Baseball’s transcendent moment”
It was historic and I do think this will be more discussed and remembered than a “typical” perfect game.
Get that? A “typical” perfect game.
And the graceful repsonse will get the accent.
I love baseball statistics, but it is healthy to be reminded that they do not describe full reality, although they do lean toward it at best. So, contrary to the rule book, one of the oldest and most original teams in baseball have now had a “perfect” game, imperfectly speaking of course (smile).
Report comment to moderator
Copy and paste all our comments over here
But I appreciate your article. Leave out the replay!
Umps are part of the game.
Report comment to moderator
Baseball still has a lot of class, the steriod abusers and strikers notwithstanding. Galaraga took the bad call better than I would have. That humbles me.
If an infielder had made an “error”, the pitcher would have lost the perfect game and it would not have been the pitcher’s fault. But that is baseball. As it happened, it was the umpire who made the error! Can we still say, that’s baseball? yeah. Whether anyone uses this to bring in instant replays or not, the bigger fact remains– these guys living in an imperfect world with fellow imperfect people still acted like adults. That is bigger than baseball.
Report comment to moderator
Sept. 9, 1965; Sandy Koufax’s 4th no-hitter that was also a perfect game. There is a tape of Vin scully calling the 9th inning. That’s a vintage baseball combination if there ever was one.
Behind Koufax, the Dodgers beat the Chicago Cubs, 1-0, in spite of an awesome pitching performance by Bob Hendley who threw a 1-hitter and lost.
Report comment to moderator
The “human element” is irrelevant to the instant replay debate. The human element comes from the players, not the umps. The rulebook is written on the assumption that umpires should make the right call with no variation at all (no human element), and that the players play the actual game (there’s your human element).
If a guy beats the throw, he’s safe. This equation is as black and white as the distance between the rubber and home plate. It isn’t meant to vary.
Report comment to moderator
This game will be remembered the way Harvey Haddix’s game is remembered, not because it was a perfect game but because it wasn’t.
As I said on Whirled Views, while it would have been nice for it to happen (I was watching it on TV and I’ve never witnessed a perfect game in person or on television), it was even nicer to find out that both Gallaraga and Jim Joyce are honorable men – Joyce for being able to admit his mistake and Gallaraga for accepting Joyce’s apology.
May both men find success in all their endeavors.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, the human element does also come from umps. And the rulebook was not written with any presumption that umps would or could be perfectly right all the time.
But I would not mind if the commish had said, “MLB stands behind the umpires and respects their authority on the field and therefore, we do not overturn their calls. However, the umpire’s authority includes his right to overturn his call. So, we still stand behind him and his authority and he has decided to overturn it” (actually, a commisioner could not say this unless he had met with the umpire first and knew what his intentions were).
Okay, maybe that’s unrealistic. In any case, we all still have to live with imperfection.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no human element in the number of balls and strikes allowed to a batter, or the distance between bases. The rulebook doesn’t allow for a “human element” in calling games (the way it does, obviously, for *playing* games). Only exception might be catcher/runner interference calls and the like–calls that more closely resemble those made in football or basketball, where the human element actually *is* written into the rules. There’s no need to allow bad calls like Joyce’s to go uncorrected when we have a simple means for correcting them (and I acknowledge some complexity in the actual implementation, but nothing prohibitive, imo).
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga,
Baseball does allow for a “human element” when calling games.
The shortstop or second baseman is allowed to be “in the neighborhood” of second base when turning a double play. If the umpires held to the rule, far more middle infielders would be injured by sliding baserunners. (Strangely, baserunners are also given extra leeway when going out of the basepath to break up double plays on said middle infielders.)
Also, umpires often allow “phantom tags” where the ball beats the runner, but the tag is never made. You see this often on stolen base attempts; if the ball beats the runner, the runner is called out even if he beats the tag.
It may not be the correct way to call the game, but everyone who follows baseball knows that’s the way it’s going to be called.
Report comment to moderator
Scott Robinson,
And that’s a weakness of implementing the rules. I think it’s overstating it to say being in the neighborhood is “allowed”. Different umps call those plays differently. Many umps *don’t* make those concessions You’d think the arbiter would be the official rulebook, no?
Either way, a couple minor exceptions don’t mean an ump can give a team 4 outs because he’s exercising the “human element.”
Report comment to moderator
At the start of the season, there had been only 18 perfect games in the 100+ year history of major league baseball. Amazingly, we very nearly had 3 perfect games occur in one month! (Braden, Halladay, Galarraga).
This wasn’t the first time an ump has had figured prominently in a near perfect game. The Cubs Milt Pappas walked the 27th batter on a full count pitch back in ‘72. Many feel that plate umpire Bruce Froemming blew that call.
Dale Mitchell, the Dodger batter who took a called third strike during Larsen’s 1956 perfect game, maintains the the final pitch was high and should’ve been a ball. Replays do show it to be a very high pitch.
Jane Leavy’s recent biography of Sandy Koufax is based almost entirely around Koufax’s perfect game that Joel mentions in his post above. Excellent read, including the story of how the tape of Sculley’s radio call came to be (most broadcasts were not recorded back then).
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga,
Your point is well made on the four outs. I said on the other thread I wished the other umpires had conferred to see if one of them had a good enough view to overrule the original call.
I will give you another example in your favor. The strike zone is clearly defined by the rulebook, but umpires are notorious for calling their own strike zone. Technology has allowed ball/strike calls to be reviewed with greater scrutiny, but there are still (and probably will be as long as human umps call balls and strikes) “pitcher’s umps” and “batter’s umps”, based on the balls and strikes they allow.
But I’m arguing over, at least to me, minor annoyances. Major annoyances would be the designated hitter, postseason games that end after midnight, and nationally televised games that only involve teams named Yankees or Red Sox.
Still, baseball remains the best of the major sports.
Report comment to moderator
I am content with leaving this piece of history as is. It will be in the next edition of “Strange but True Baseball Stories” right after the chapter on Harry Haddix.
I don’t like the idea of Instant Replay. If we use it on this play, how about also on a third strike call in the fifth inning that was borderline and was actually ball four? If that is the case then there is no perfect game to be debated. What if a hitter had a consecutive game hitting streak going; do we review that play to give him a hit and break up a no-hitter? Instant Replay would have to be used for every play in order to be fair, but in baseball – because of continuous action – it is a lot more difficult to decide what could have happened if a wrong call is going to be reversed…
Report comment to moderator
I agree, Scott Robinson. I wish they’d go with the technology on calling balls and strikes (not saying you agree with me on that part). The *pitch* is the nucleus of the game (to my thinking), and it’s ridiculous that it’s so arbitrarily judged. There’s a *reason* the strike zone is defined as it is. I know it would be awkward leaving ball and strike calls to a machine, but it’s a precise game. If the ‘human element’ should be eliminated at all, it should be from behind the plate. And hear, hear to your 3rd paragraph.
Dad of 5: Because of human fallibility, there will always be the possibility of outcomes affected by error. Why embrace that error when it’s from the umps? Currently, using replay on balls and strikes would be impractical. But what would have been impractical about using replay on the Joyce call?
Report comment to moderator
Nicely written article. Thanks Warren!
Report comment to moderator
Blah, take your mechanical baseball run by machines and shove it
I like the human element in umps.
You might as well simulate the whole game if you take them away.
Report comment to moderator
At the end of the day, it is what it is, and everything has its own way of leveling things out so that all is about as fair as it can be.
Report comment to moderator
Practice makes perfect…
but nobody’s perfect, so why practice?
Report comment to moderator
The game wouldn’t be played by machines.
What’s to like in the Froemming or Joyce call?
Why hold umps to a standard? What’s the reasoning behind it? Is it so the umps can contribute more of the human element?
I generally agree with you, Fritz, and when it looks like my football, hockey, or basketball team is getting jobbed by the officials, I never complain, knowing that there’s probably a lot of stuff the TV cameras and I didn’t see that could have been called. Baseball’s different. You can have 60 or 70 entirely indisputable at bats, with a *single* bad call altering the outcome.
And actually, I don’t ‘have’ a basketball team. I don’t watch the sport–they never call palming anymore. Bogus.
Report comment to moderator
The other aspect of this story is that technology (i.e. instant replay) is a “remedy” for man’s imperfect nature. There exists an idolatrous ideology within the present culture which tempts us to think that “technology” will “cure” or “improve” our flawed condition and make things “better”.
Umpire error is part of the game. Always has been. If the teams have willingly submitted themselves to this “embodied” form of mediated play for over a century, let’s keep it. There is something christological and incarnate about man, however flawed, being given the divine mandate and authority to judge righteously, even in his fallen state. We accept by faith that those trusted with the authority to judge fairly and accurately will do so and even when they don’t, we can forgive.
The most powerful and compelling aspect of the story I believe is the character and grace displayed by both the umpire and the pitcher. The high stakes and the human element ending in forgiveness makes you want to be out there on the mound and weep with the umpire and hug the pitcher.
That is Jesus Christ. A great deal at stake and God “comes down” in our flesh and even when we know we’re “out” He makes a way. He takes our errors and graciously transforms them, bidding us to live; taking beauty from ashes, mourning into dancing. This story is compelling because of the grace involved.
Errors are still a part of the scoreboard for the players, the “E”, and it’s always the case with the umpires. No matter how sophisticated the technology, errors will continue to be a part of our everyday lives till Jesus comes back. Leave the impersonal techno-replays out of the ballparks, let the umps do their jobs without the digital intrusions.
Let’s always be ready to forgive, too. Seventy-seven times seven. I thank God for the example of Mr. Galarraga. Very inspiring.
PLAY BALL!
PLAY BALL!
But increasingly,players have been trained and conditioned (and paid) as if it were possible to play error-free. There is an emphasis on the modern athelete to be an errorless machine which is able to reproduce championship after championship.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. Sloppy self-edit up there after the first PLAY BALL! The last part was supposed to have been reinserted earlier in the essay.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Maestro. As I was watching the game on mlb.com I hit the epitome of happiness when Jackson raced deep into centerfield to make that totally awesome catch for the first out of the ninth.
I noticed that Galarraga gave a simple, almost shy smile in response to the catch. No fist pumping, no heart pounding, just a simple smile. But actually, I just noticed – at the time. After Joyce’s bad call at first base, my emotions went as far south as you can imagine. I had to confess the sin on anger to Facebook friends the next day. But what I noticed – again – was Galarrage’s response then. The SAME simple, shy smile. That’s the essence of grace! What a great future sermon illustration.
Report comment to moderator
It is fascinating to see how often the umpire’s calls behind the plate differ from the pitch location computer. As you are watching a batter you can see how often the umpire gets it wrong and yet no one seems to mind. Bad calls are on public display for nearly every batter, yet it is accepted as part of the game. Amazing! You couldn’t have that in any other sport.
Perhaps that is why the batter gets three strikes and the pitcher gets four balls, because the ability to call them accurately is so difficult. It is taken for granted that within seven tries, the batter has ample chance regardless of the calls.
As a result, it is a game that has been played in parks by children for over a century without even the need for an umpire. Remember all the arguments as kids while playing baseball, but we were always back the next day.
Report comment to moderator
There are good things about technology, too. I like cars. MRIs are pretty cool. I don’t think of those things as remedies for man’s fallen nature, just as I don’t think advanced player equipment is.
Umpires are an extension of the rulebook; players aren’t. The rulebook is deliberately black and white. Games are meant to be determined entirely by the actions of the players. It’s true that umpire error has been a part of baseball ‘lore,’ here and there–and many of those stories are interesting, as is this Gallaraga/Joyce event. But I’d think a so-called purist would see this missed call, or, say, the Denkinger call, as having tainted the outcome. And the game would still generate plenty of stories even if the number of blown calls were reduced.
Why do they add 2 umps in the playoffs? Why do they review the performance of umpires? Why do they have a rulebook at all? If there’s a theological aspect here, I’d say the aversion to a fairly simple application of technology actually borders on the gnostic. But that’s OK. I understand personal preference. Mine is that the players determine the outcome.
Report comment to moderator
Maestro wrote; “…technology (i.e. instant replay) is a “remedy” for man’s imperfect nature.”
And I always thought it was Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Fine post, Maestro. I especially liked your point about the character and grace displayed by both the umpire and the pitcher and the point about forgiveness when the stakes are high.
Report comment to moderator
The character shown by Armando and Jim has been a lot of fun to watch. BUT– I cringe a little every time people start coming back to this purist, human element thing. Yes, baseball is about he only sport left that refuses to use instant replay. Yes, perhaps this keeps the sport “pure” and free of the extra technology.
Baseball is also the only sport left that still gets easy calls WRONG– and important calls too. It would’ve kept basketball more pure not to employ instant replay, but how many calls have been upheld or changed in terms of 2 vs. 3-pointers, buzzer-beaters, scuffles in which players cannot avoid due-punishment.
In game 3 of the Stanley Cup, the Flyers put a puck in the net that was not called a goal. Play was stopped, the refs reviewed the replays, and saw that the puck was CLEARLY over the line fully. The goal was awarded, and while Blackhawks fans didn’t like it, the feeling could not be avoided that a goal had been awarded that was EARNED. It was clear, and they made the right call. These are the things that make the game “pure.”
A “challenge” is one of the most exciting moments in an NFL football game. The refs are staring into the monitor, and millions of people are seeing the exact same replays they are. Maybe they still miss the call sometimes, but the fact is that these replay opportunities provide the chance for the RIGHT CALL to be made retroactively. This is “pure.”
On Wednesday, Armando Galarraga pitched what should have been a perfect game. The base runner was out by no less than a half-step. Jim Joyce called him safe, and the perfect game opportunity was lost in an instant. I’ve tried to justify the situation in my mind, telling myself that this is part of baseball, that it is acceptable. But I can’t get away from this fact:
Every one of the thousands and thousands of people watching the game watched the replay immediately following the call, over and over again, and saw that the runner was out. Everyone knew it– everyone’s heart sunk for this young pitcher. Everyone, that is, EXCEPT FOR THE FOUR MEN WHO NEEDED TO MOST. The four men who could possibly do anything to uphold the correct call– these were the ONLY four men in the WORLD, at that moment, without the information needed to DO was was needed.
Yes, the story of character and grace exhibited by these two individuals has been a wonderful one. And though the story of a young man getting what he rightfully earned would not have been quite the tear-jerker, it would have been fundamentally more powerful.
Report comment to moderator
“The game wouldn’t be played by machines.”
Where did I say “played”? I said RUN BY.
The word umpire is taken from the original word came from the French “nonper” which means “one who is requested to act as arbiter of a dispute between two people”
In essence one who is not partial to ethier side, has the final say, and does so by his judgement, based on the rules/law.
Originally both teams would agree on who would umpire the game. The umpires have final authority (not the rule book) based on closest ump to the play. Only if he requests help or difference, can another umpire overrule or concur..
This is why your “black and white rule book” is a flawed arguement for baseball. The final authority, is the Umpire, and the game has always been, and should always be governed by his judgement, rightly or wrongly, and it stated so, by your black and white rule book.
They are not referees
Report comment to moderator
Sorry that last line shoulda been erased.
Report comment to moderator
Where did I say “played”? I said RUN BY.
I understand that. I emphasized ‘played’ because the human element comes from the players. Say MLB were able to implement a thoroughgoing replay system. Would the human element of the playing of the game be eliminated? If so, how so? The gain would be fewer missed calls and an outcome (and record books) based on the playing of the game. Wouldn’t that be a “purist’s” wish? In my view, that’s a good tradeoff to lessening the role of umps. You see it differently; that’s cool.
In essence one who is not partial to ethier side, has the final say, and does so by his judgement, based on the rules/law.
I understand this, too, but it’s what we’re ‘debating’ here—whether this role should be augmented (and superceded, in many cases) by replay.
The umpires have final authority (not the rule book) based on closest ump to the play.
Not in the context of our discussion. The umpire’s authority is delineated by the rulebook. How could he then have ‘final’ authority? He doesn’t hold up his hands after 3 outs and say, “Wait a minute, guys! Rulebook says 3 outs, but I’m giving the Red Stockings 4 this inning! And all baserunners are safe unless the throw beats the guy by 2 steps.”
This is why your “black and white rule book” is a flawed arguement for baseball.
So I disagree here. I do think it’s a great game. Though I’d prefer they used more replay, it won’t break my heart if they never make more use of it. But I don’t consider “technology” to be of the devil (not saying you do), and I don’t think of bad calls and inconsistent strike zones as indispensable “human elements.”
Report comment to moderator
The human element in baseball comes from all human beings on the field. Sometimes it comes from the fans too. This is not an argument for or against more instant replay. It is just a fact.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!