Wednesday, July 24, 2013

George Brett and the Pine Tar Incident



Baseball Hall of Famer George Brett turned 60 earlier this year.

That's kind of hard for me to wrap my mind around. I remember watching him play ball when I was a kid.

Well, we're all older now.

But I mention Brett's age because when he was exactly half his current age — 30 years ago today — he was involved in perhaps the most notorious incident of his time.

They called it the "pine tar incident" then, and I presume they still do today.

Brett's original major–league team, the Kansas City Royals, was playing the New York Yankees in Yankee Stadium on that day. Brett started playing in the major leagues in 1973. A decade later, the Royals and Yankees had met in the American League Championship Series four times, and they had kind of developed an animosity toward each other.

Now, I say that knowing that just about every team in baseball loathes the Yankees. They've won more championships than any other team — by far. The Royals were no different than any other team in baseball, but, since they didn't exist until 1969, they were just a little later to the party than the others.

Anyway, as I was saying, the teams were playing each other on this day in 1983. The Royals trailed by a single run with two outs in the top of the ninth, and Brett came to the plate. Hall of Fame reliever Goose Gossage was on the mound. Gossage delivered the pitch, Brett connected and the ball sailed over the fence. Home run. Two runs scored. Royals led, 5–4.

But when Brett crossed the plate with the apparent go–ahead run, Yankee manager Billy Martin left the New York dugout and walked up to the home plate umpire. Martin said he wanted Brett's bat examined. He had observed what he thought was an excessive amount of pine tar on the bat.

Now, at this point, it is probably useful to explain the relevance of pine tar in baseball. Pine tar is a sticky material that has several applications, one of which is to make a baseball bat easier for a player to grip and helps keep a bat from slipping out of a player's hands when he swings.

According to the rules of major league baseball, players may only apply pine tar from the handle of the bat up 18 inches. Martin believed the pine tar on Brett's bat exceeded the 18–inch restriction.

Actually, players are allowed to use any substance or material to improve the grip as long as it does not exceed 18 inches. If it exceeds 18 inches, the rules call for the bat to be removed from play. If a player made a hit with such a bat, it was termed at the time an "illegally hit ball" — resulting in an out.

So, the home plate umpire and the rest of the umpiring crew gathered at home plate to examine Brett's bat — with Brett and the rest of the Royals watching from their dugout. Apparently unable to make an eyeball assessment, the umpires measured the pine tar on the bat against the width of home plate, which is 17 inches, and they determined that Martin was right.

Brett was ruled out, giving the Yankees the victory.

Infuriated by the ruling, Brett ran from the dugout and vigorously objected. He had to be restrained by his manager and teammates, but his protest made no difference. The ruling stood.

(Memorably, a commentator on the scene said that Brett was the first player in history to hit a "game–losing home run.")

The Royals challenged the ruling, and American League President Lee MacPhail overruled it, awarding the victory to the Royals. He explained that the "spirit" of the rule had nothing to do with an unfair advantage for one player or team over another. Rather, it was based on economics. Pine tar that is any higher than 18 inches on a bat runs the risk of smearing the ball and rendering it unfit for use in a game. Home teams are required to provide the balls for games, and that would raise the home team's expenses.

MacPhail believed Brett had not violated the spirit of the rule and that the ball had not come in contact with the pine tar. He decided that the game should be resumed with the Royals leading, 5–4, and Brett was not to play. He was ejected for arguing with the umpire.

So the game was resumed nearly a month later on a scheduled off–day for both squads. Brett, his manager and two of his teammates were ejected per MacPhail's decision. There were additional maneuvers by the Yankees, made necessary by various things that had happened since the July 24 encounter (one of the Yankee players who was in the lineup that day was injured and another had been traded) but, in the end, Kansas City reliever Dan Quisenberry retired the side, and the Royals won the game.

And the pine tar incident took its place in baseball's history.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Feeding Frenzy



The 142nd British Open started today at Muirfield, a privately owned course in Scotland.

Greg Norman (aka The Great White Shark) never won the British Open when it was played at Muirfield. He won his two British Opens at Royal St. George's Golf Club in Sandwich, Kent, England, the last time on this day 20 years ago. It was quite a sight to see.

In that 1993 edition of the Open, Norman set the aggregate score record for the four–day tournament with a total of 267. That's a daily average of 66.75. Pretty impressive, huh? Yep — but not as impressive as Norman's final round.

At the end of the first day of the tournament, Norman was tied for first with three other golfers at four–under par 66.

He shot a two–under par the second day but slipped to a tie for third behind Nick Faldo and Bernhard Langer. Faldo, who was three strokes off the lead when the day began, recorded a seven–under par 63 that day.

Nevertheless, Norman made the cut, which former British Open winners Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Sandy Lyle and Tony Jacklin — all of whom were at least four–over par when the day ended — did not.

After the third round, in which Norman fired a one–under par 69, he was only one stroke behind the co–leaders, Faldo and Corey Pavin.

And that set up a truly remarkable final round.

On that last day, Norman shot a 64, his best day of the four, and secured his aggregate record, but, as Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated observed, it went down to the wire for him. Norman, who finished before Faldo did, was all too well acquainted with finishing second, and, until Faldo wrapped up his final round, "the trapdoor could still open."

He could not permit himself to relax and enjoy his accomplishment until Faldo was in the clubhouse.

That trapdoor did not open on him this time. Faldo shot a 67 and finished two strokes behind Norman. Langer, who also shot a 67, finished third, one stroke behind Faldo.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

The Legs Feed the Wolf



As France's Marion Bartoli neared the conclusion of her straight–set triumph over Germany's Sabine Lisicki in Saturday's Wimbledon women's final, the announcing team — which included 10–time Wimbledon finalist Chris Evert — looked for explanations for Lisicki's apparent collapse.

It was suggested that Lisicki, who gained a reputation as a "giant killer" in this year's tournament, simply couldn't maintain that level of intensity. She knocked off Serena Williams in the fourth round, then defeated fourth seed Agnieszka Radwanska in the semifinal. Bartoli wasn't the big name that the other two were, but she was seeded in the top 20 (Lisicki was 23rd) — and, as always in a Grand Slam tournament, when you're in the final, you can count on facing an opponent who has been playing very well for at least the last couple of weeks.

It isn't impossible, the announcers agreed, for a player to remain focused against three more highly regarded opponents in the same week. It's just very hard to do, especially at the Wimbledon level.

I agree, but for a different reason.

Women's tennis matches are best–of–three–sets affairs. Men's matches are best of five. A quick start is essential in women's tennis because it is a comparative sprint. A fast start is important in men's tennis, too, but it is easier to overcome a bad set in men's tennis — unless it is the fifth one. It's more of a marathon.

If you have a bad first set in women's tennis, your back is against the wall.

And that was the situation Lisicki faced today. She lost the opening set to Bartoli, 6–1, and knew right then she would have to go the three–set distance to win the title.

She had done it before in this tournament.

Two days earlier, she beat Radwanska in three sets. That third set was a doozy, too, a marathon, and Lisicki finally prevailed, 9–7. Epic.

On Monday, Lisicki beat Williams in three sets. She won the first one, then lost the second one and had to turn back the champion in the third set, 6–4.

A few days before her match with Williams, Lisicki needed three sets to beat the lesser known but just as dangerous Samantha Stosur from Australia.

To reach the finals at Wimbledon, it was necessary to win six matches. Lisicki needed three sets to win half of them.

Bartoli, by comparison, won all six of her previous matches in straight sets, just as she did today, and she never faced anyone who was seeded higher than she.

As late U.S. Olympic hockey coach Herb Brooks allegedly said, "The legs feed the wolf." I don't know if Brooks really said that, but, whether he did or didn't, it was appropriate for his U.S. hockey team in 1980 and it is appropriate for this year's Wimbledon women's final.

It speaks to endurance. Strong legs permit a wolf to outrun its prey.

I think Lisicki ran out of gas. It wasn't a matter of motivation or emotion. She showed plenty of emotion when the match was over, and Bartoli accepted the trophy Lisicki had dreamed would be hers. The spirit was willing, but the flesh, worn down by seemingly endless tests in the earlier rounds, was too weak.

Killing the other giants had taken too much from her.

Bartoli, on the other hand, was fresh. She hadn't lost a set in the whole tournament. She had more left in the tank. A lot more. Once she got over her first–set jitters — and there weren't many of those — she could have gone into cruise control against the increasingly frantic but ineffective Lisicki.

The legs feed the wolf.

Friday, July 5, 2013

A Different Kind of Final



About 12 hours from now, Sabine Lisicki and Marion Bartoli will meet in the Wimbledon women's singles final.

I'm sure this isn't what most observers expected when this tournament began two weeks ago.

Lisicki defeated the defending champion, Serena Williams, in the fourth round. That's been typical for the women's singles this year. Bartoli is seeded 15th, Lisicki is 23rd. Only one of the top 14 seeds — Agnieszka Radwanska — got to the semifinals.

Bartoli will be making her second appearance in the championship (she lost in 2007); Lisicki is in her first–ever Wimbledon singles final. Obviously, no matter who wins, it will be her first title at Wimbledon, and that is something that Wimbledon watchers have rarely been able to say. By the time the field has been narrowed down to the last two, most of the time at least one has won the Grand Slam event before.

It has been rarer still for Wimbledon watchers to see a final in which both contestants were seeking their first Grand Slam title, but that is precisely what those in attendance tomorrow will see.

"Neither Bartoli nor Lisicki is a household name," writes Liz Clarke in the Washington Post — and, in the age of Maria Sharapova and the Williams sisters, who can argue with that?

The 28–year–old Bartoli seems to be savoring this shot at redemption. "I do just everything a bit better than what I was doing six years ago," Bartoli said this week.

Paul Birch of BBC Sports writes that the final will be a "fascinating encounter between the big–serving Lisicki, 23, and Bartoli, who boasts one of the best returns in tennis."

Birch reports that Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert pick Lisicki to win. Their selections are based primarily on the aspects of the individual games — Navratilova said, "I always go for the person who has the biggest game to win and she has a bigger game."

Evert was more restrained in her praise, but she said, "If Sabine Lisicki plays the same way she has been playing and serves like she has been serving ... then I think she definitely has a slight edge."

I agree with their assessments of the performances in the tournament, but my pick is based on how they have played against each other in the past. I know Bartoli was seeded higher in this tournament, but the fact remains that Lisicki beat a higher–seeded foe in the semifinals (Radwanska) than did Bartoli.

The two haven't faced each other often, but the head–to–head advantage belongs to Lisicki, who is 3–1 against Bartoli.

It should be interesting, and I'm looking forward to watching it tomorrow morning. I feel like I did when I was a child, and my mother made a big production of watching the Wimbledon finals. We would settle in to watch the women's and men's finals and eat strawberries and cream — or what I am sure was my mother's version of it (and may have borne no resemblance to what they actually eat).

I have no strawberries and cream to eat tomorrow — but I think I have a strawberry Pop–Tart somewhere ...