Hitting The Cutoff Man

I think most people who follow baseball are at least vaguely aware of the protest rule. Every once in a while, you'll be watching a game, and the announcer will say that one team is playing the game under protest.

Rule 4.19 of the MLB rule book states, in part: "Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final. Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team's chances of winning the game."

But it's rare that anything comes of it.

According to this article by MLB.com's Bryan Hoch -- written after the Yankees protested a game earlier this season -- the last successful protest in Major League Baseball occurred in 1986. The Cardinals protested a June loss to the Pirates in the sixth inning and it was upheld, although when the game was restarted from the sixth, St. Louis still lost.

Perhaps the most famous protested game took place in 1983 in a contest between the Royals and Yankees involving George Brett's bat that is now known simply as the "Pine Tar Incident."

Last night I actually witnessed a successful protest, although not in the big leagues.

I cover sports for a small newspaper in North Carolina and was out at a playoff game for the local American Legion team (American Legion ball is a 19-and-under summer league). The coach of the team filed a protest before the start of the seventh inning of a game his team trailed 6-4 and eventually lost 8-4.

This morning, we got word he had won the protest, meaning the game will be restarted going into the top of the seventh and finished before the next game begins.

Although the whole game was filled with bizarre moments -- the local team's starting pitcher left after two innings when the umpire said he would be ejected if he didn't -- the protest stemmed from a lineup change. After his starting catcher was ejected, the coach moved his center fielder to catcher, his left fielder to center, his second baseman to left and his designated hitter to second. The pitcher, who hadn't been batting, would go into the ejected catcher's spot in the lineup.

The umpires would not allow the maneuver, saying it violated the rules. But it didn't.

Rule 6.10 says, "The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order."

(Of course, you wouldn't see this come into play in the majors. But theoretically, the Twins (for example) could in the middle of a game, put DH Jim Thome at first base for Justin Morneau, keep Thome in his slot in the order, and put the pitcher in Morneau's slot.)

So tonight I will be watching 1 1/3 games. Just a reminder that anything can happen in baseball.

Follow Hitting The Cutoff Man on Twitter at HitTheCutoff

The All-Star Game selection process is broken.

This has been true for a while, but if there was any doubt about it, that was put to rest with NL Manager Charlie Manuel's mind-boggling selection of Braves backup infielder Omar Infante while the Reds' Joey Votto -- arguably the best hitter in the NL this season -- is left to try to make the roster through the fans' vote for the final spot.

The issue at the heart of the ASG's problem is that MLB has no idea what it is even trying to do. The selection process is like a movie that attempts to be an action-packed romantic comedy for the whole family and winds up being not particularly action-packed, funny or romantic and just disappoints Mom, Dad and the kids. You can't try to have it all ways. In the case of the ASG, it can't be an exhibition for the fans, a meaningful game with playoff implications and a reward/showcase for the game's best players at the same time.

When you aim for all of those things, you just wind up with a jumbled mess.

MLB needs to pick one course of action and stick with it. Either ...

-- the game belongs to the fans, in which case just give them total control of the rosters. If it's their game, why limit them to picking eight or nine players per squad? Of course, this will lead to some bad snubs, but at least there will be no confusion about why certain players were selected. The whole thing will be a transparent popularity contest.

OR

-- the game is a reward to the guys having the best seasons, in which case, take the power out of the hands of the fans, players and managers, none of whom have shown any ability to get this right. The fans vote on popularity, track record and based on team affiliation. The managers are caught in the unenviable position of having to decide whether their own players should make the team and cannot be unbiased (some of them with names rhyming with 'Marlee Granule' might also be making selections with the assistance of a bottle of moonshine). The players, being inside the game, have a lot of factors to consider beyond objective analysis. If you want to reward the guys having the best seasons, then get it right. Form some sort of panel of experts -- hopefully including plenty of sabermetric types -- and have them select the team based on a set of clearly defined criteria. This will make things much less fun but a lot more fair.

OR

-- the game should be as close to a real game as possible, considering it decides home field advantage in the World Series. In that case, use the same sort of objective analysis as in Option No. 2 to pick a roster not of the players having the best seasons but one that will give the league the best chance to win. This would have to balance how a guy is playing recently with his true talent level while doing away with the rule requiring at least one player from each team. There would probably have to be a bit more emphasis placed on positional versatility and specialists such as left-handed relief pitchers. Personally, I don't care for the idea of the All-Star game "counting," but if it's going to "count," at least make it fair to the teams who eventually will be involved in the World Series by making the team representing them in the ASG as likely to win as possible.

I'd prefer any of these options to what we have now, which is a system with so many moving parts and conflicting motivations that nobody knows what defines an "All-Star" (If Omar Infante is an All-Star and Joey Votto isn't, that's one screwed up definition) or what the purpose of the game is other than being anti-climactic and providing a thrilling opportunity to watch Jose Bautista pinch-hit against Evan Meek in the seventh inning of a 90-percent exhibition game.

Follow Hitting The Cutoff Man on Twitter at HitTheCutoff