Farewell to the Metrodome

I was at the last two Minnesota Twins games ever at the HHH Metrodome, with tonight's elimination against the Yankees being the finale. While it was disappointing to watch yet more base path blunders from a team that is supposed to be known for its fundamentals, it clearly wasn't meant to be for this team this postseason. (Along with Nick Punto's impression of a class D co-rec softball player, I count Cuddyer failing to get to second on what should have been a hit to right a blunder, even though it was somewhat understandable.)

Those who know me for giving MLB umpires a hard time may wonder what I thought of Phil Cuzzi's gaffe in game 2. It was horrendous, to be sure. No one really knows whether it actually cost the Twins the game, but I am certain of two things: It is absolutely inexcusable, and would have been avoided with instant replay.

I got a kick out of the back-and-forth on the game logs, blogs, and message boards about that play. Twins fans complaining and looking somewhat foolish by over-reaching with their logic, followed by Yankees fans yelling back with a plethora of idiocy.

The most annoying counter to complaints about Cuzzi is the one that goes like this: "Oh yeah, well if the ump in Game 163 didn't F-up, you wouldn't even be in this game!"

First, it's a red herring. More specifically, aa kind of tu quoque - a logical fallacy commonly found in political arguments. Second, while both calls were incorrect, and the one that went against Inge in game 163 was arguably more costly to his team, as I stated in my previous post, the Inge call was entirely understandable. That kind of call (or no-call) cannot be reasonably held personally against the umpire. Not so for Cuzzi's blown call.

In a recent article by Ken Rosenthal, he claimed the Inge call was "perhaps even more egregious" than Cuzzi's. I agree with much of what Rosenthal was trying to say in the article, but seriously...egregious?? To borrow a line from Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. And he makes a living as a writer?

I guess if Phil Cuzzi can make a living at about three times of my own by missing the one call he was put in there to make, then anything is possible.

But enough about the calls. You know what I found interesting about these last couple of nights? What might have really made a difference in this series is just the luck of the asymmetrical nature of ball park design.

If Yankee Stadium and the Metrodome swapped ball park dimensions (i.e., it was 343 down the left field line at Yankee, 318 at Metrodome, etc.), then Brendan Harris's triple in game 2 is a home run, and Texeira's game-winning home run would have been a ground rule double (assuming, of course, Cuzzi called it correctly). In tonight's game 3, Posado's home run would likely have been caught for an out.

I enjoy thinking of the "what ifs" to the point where I probably have built a reputation as an excuse-maker. But that's not what it's about at all. I just find it fun to look for the things announcers normally don't. There's a lot of luck involved in the game, even in a seemingly easy three-game sweep.

As a Twins fan, it's not too hard to go outside of the "good piece of hitting right there" box we Twins fans are so used to. But sometimes I like to get carried a way with it. What if Yankee Stadium and the Metrodome had the same dimensions as the old Polo Grounds? Well, then neither of A-Rods atomic bombs would have been home runs.

All right, I'll admit that's a bit much.

Go Vikings!

Edited to add: After finishing up this post, I went back to the Rosenthal bit to read some more of the comments. I had missed this one, obviously from my twin from whom I was separated at birth. Check out the last lines:

theoneeyedjack 10/11/2009 3:19:34 PM
While I agree with the overall point here, the Twins have nobody to blame but themselves for the loss, there are a couple of strangely incorrect statements. "the apparent double that was ruled foul by left-field umpire Phil Cuzzi." APPARENT double? Are you kidding me? It could not have been more obvious that Cuzzi blew the call. It hit Melky's glove in fair territory and clearly landed at least half-a-foot inside the foul line. Also to say that the umps rendered a "perhaps even more egregious decision on the Tigers just three nights earlier" that benefitted the Twins is absurd. More egregious? The ball barely grazed Inge's jersey. Even on super slow-mo replay, it was hard to tell whether there was actual contact from some angles. A blown call, but totally understandable how it was missed. It's impossible for me to see how Cuzzi blew the call on Mauer's double.
Kenny Boy, me thinks you need a dictionary. Apparent? Egregious? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean."