Don’t you just love baseball? First we had Steve Bartman, then we had the Red Sox winning the World Series after coming back from 0-3 against the Yankees in the American League Championship Series (ALCS), and now, instead of the “catch”, we have the “no catch”. Except that umpire Doug Eddings didn’t say “no catch” when Angels catcher Josh Paul rolled the ball to the pitcher’s mound after a third call strike on White Sox batter A.J. Pierzynski in the second game of the 2005 ALCS.

He didn’t say anything. He did, however, tepidly make a fist, the universal sign for “out”. Paul would not have seen that because the umpire is behind the catcher. Pierzynski, however, turned around as if to head to the dugout and realized that Eddings had not said “batter out” so he quickly hightailed it to first base. A classic case of ambiguity. Eddings was not sure if Paul trapped the ball or fielded it cleanly; thus the mixed signal of a fist signaling out but no words to accompany it.

Pierzynski is a catcher himself and he’d been burned on this very same play last year in San Francisco. Framing a ball, the practice of a catcher making the ball look like it’s in the strike zone when it isn’t, or running to first base after a third strike call, are examples of working the umpire. That’s what Pierzynski did. He saw Eddings’ indecision and he forced Eddings to make a call.

He had nothing to lose unlike Josh Paul. Rolling the ball towards the mound then running off the field to assure the umpire that you caught the ball, whether you did or did not, is a bad idea. If you’re wrong, you do have something to lose. The batter stands at first base and could bring the winning run to the plate. Which is exactly what happened. Even worse, it happened in the ninth inning of a playoff game. Paul’s glove hit the ground even if the ball didn’t. That’s an automatic play for any catcher. If there’s any doubt whatsoever, tag the runner.

A third string catcher – how many teams even have a third string catcher, an indecisive umpire, and a batter who’s memory bank pulls up the still fresh embarrassment of being burned by exactly the same play. A scriptwriter could not have come up with that story.

A third string catcher, … an indecisive umpire, and a batter who’s memory bank pulls up the still fresh embarrassment of being burned by exactly the same play. A scriptwriter could not have come up with that story.

The only thing that would have made it better is if the call had gone against the White Sox. They haven’t won a World Series since 1917. The futility of their title quest hasn’t reached the status of the now released Red Sox curse of the Bambino, but an Eddings curse might have elevated it to that status.

Eddings did confer with his fellow umpires as he should have. The umpires could not conclusively tell him whether the ball hit the ground or not. Eddings should have used this as an opportunity to stick with his original decision which was to pump his fist indicating that the batter was out. By choosing to decide that the ball had been trapped, and at this point, it was a decision that could have gone either way, he made himself look even more indecisive.

And created yet another item of baseball lore known as the “no catch”.

We are in Filderstadt, Germany for the final of the Porsche Grand Prix tournament. Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo are playing today. Davenport has already won five tournaments this year. Kim Clijsters was knocked off in the quarterfinals by Elena Dementieva so there is a chance that Davenport can end the year at number one.

The TennisSporthalle is a boxy indoor stadium with a very fast hard court. The bottom tier of stands has only a few rows at the end and only five rows on one side. An overhanging tier brings the spectators close to the court and makes the building seem small. It looks like an elegant high school gym in comparison with the huge outdoor stadiums where many tennis tournaments are now held. Clearly the prize money does not rely on gate income.

Davenport hits hard flat shots and has a strong first serve. Mauresmo hits looping topspin shots and has an average serve. Mauresmo’s weaknesses play to Davenport’s strengths which are magnified on this fast surface. Davenport’s serve will be stronger and her flat shorts will get where they’re going that much quicker. If I were trying to make some easy money, I’d place more than a few dollars on Davenport in this match.

On the first point in the third game, Mauresmo floats a ball to Davenport who then slams it into a corner out of Mauresmo’s reach. You have to put the ball in the middle of the court and keep it low to prevent Davenport from hitting winners. Mauresmo hit it to the middle but it was high and that allowed Davenport to take the ball early and put it away. Mauresmo is broken at love in the game.

On some days a player hits the ball so well that it doesn’t matter what their opponent does. Early on, that’s what Mauresmo must be saying to herself. Everything Davenport hits goes for a winner. But it goes both ways. In some matches one player starts out playing poorly and this stokes the other player’s confidence so much that it helps propel them to a high level of tennis. Mauresmo knows that she has to play more aggressively if she wants to win a grand slam so she’s been adding more net play to her game. She starts the match by coming to the net often. Problem is, Davenport passes her and it’s just gets worse as the set continues. In fact, by the end of the match, Davenport will have come to the net more often and won more points there, 10/14 versus 7/12.

If I were trying to make some easy money, I’d place more than a few dollars on Davenport in this match.

It might be hard for Mauresmo to flatten out her topspin ground strokes, they come in handy on clay after all, but she could improve her serve. She falls off to the left at the end of her service motion. If her toss propelled her into the court instead of off to the side, she would have more power and get more aces – something she desperately needs today. Watch Davenport’s serve. Her toss is far forward and she ends up a few feet inside the baseline at the end of the motion. When she gets behind, she can throw in an ace or a service winner to catch up.

Mauresmo hangs in better in the second set. In the best point of the match, Davenport serves wide and low and Mauresmo hits it back with an equally wide crosscourt shot. Davenport has to run completely off the court to get to the ball and hit it down the line and into the corner. Mauresmo manages to stab at it and get it over the net and that’s enough because Davenport still hasn’t made it back to the court. On the next point Mauresmo hits a rocket flat backhand so fast that Davenport doesn’t even take a step towards it. See, she can do it. Davenport wins the game with yet another ace but Mauresmo has picked up some momentum and gets to a 3-2 lead.

Mauresmo has luck and skill in the next game. Davenport has game point when Mauresmo floats yet another return. She then runs Davenport wide left and right. Davenport manages to makes two great saves but Mauresmo runs her back the other way one more time and the point is over. Lucky for Mauresmo, Davenport goes through one of those walkabouts she sometimes takes when she gets a set lead. She started off with a double fault and hit five more errors in the game to give Mauresmo a 4-2 lead.

Things are back to normal quickly in the next game. Davenport breaks with three winners. The crowd is trying to make this a match, they rhythm clap any time Mauresmo gets behind, but Mauresmo sends too many balls long and into the net. She’s had her chances, she had six break points but only converted one.

It’s over pretty quickly now and Davenport has her fiftieth career title, ninth on the list of all-time career titleholders, a beautiful candy red Cayman S Porsche. It’s worth about $58,000. That explains some of the prize money. Davenport can add this to her black Cayenne and Carrera from her titles here last year and 2001. Maybe she’ll trade a few of them in for a Toyota Prius if gas prices keep rising.

The day ends with Davenport folding her six foot two inch frame into the car and driving it in a half circle on the court while the announcer sits in the passenger seat with a microphone and asks her about the sound system. If Porsche is going to put up all that money, they’re going to get their mileage out of it.

NBA training camps opened this week and it’s a sign of weirdness on my part that I have already had an NBA dream. I live in Los Angeles, land of the dysfunctional Lakers. Who says that having a dysfunctional team to root for is a bad thing? I get to process my psyche through their woes.

The specter of Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson together again is bad enough. Jackson wrote a diary of his last season with the Lakers, the 2003-2004 season, called The Last Season: A Team In Search of Its Soul, in which he rips Kobe for being selfishness and uncoachabie. I was also trying to prepare myself for the possibility of having to cheer for a team playing Latrell Sprewell at the guard position. This is a the guy who tried to strangle his coach, P. J. Carlesimo, then sued his agent for signing him to a contract with a morals clause covering such things as, horrors, trying to strangle your coach. Luckily that possibility seems to have passed.

In my dream, Kobe had taken a tab of acid and was sitting on the top of a sixty-foot high cement column. I floated up there at one point to see what it was like. How did I get there? I don’t know. Maybe teleportation or astral travel. The column was swaying back and forth but I’m not sure why because everything was indoors, there was no wind. The motion terrified me so I immediately descended. Kobe has a fondness for living on the edge that I don’t share. After his conflict with teammate Shaquille O’Neal was dissolved because Shaq was traded to Miami, Kobe managed to get into a conflict with Karl Malone over Malone’s flirtacious remarks to his wife, Vanessa Bryant.

Kobe and I were scheduled to be married the next day, wife or not. All of our friends and family wanted us to get married so we decided we would. Everyone was milling around and gathering in corners, sitting on the floor strangely enough, kind of like basketball players who sit at the end of the court instead of on the bench. We were wondering what we should do to help Kobe. He either couldn’t or wouldn’t come down.

We were wondering what we should do to help Kobe. He either couldn’t or wouldn’t come down.

In my dreaming mind I was marrying someone of the same gender. The obvious explanation is that, in the dream, I was actually Phil Jackson. Jackson has re-submitted himself to an uncomfortable marriage with Kobe by signing a new three-year contract to coach the Lakers. In preparation, he has added a sixteen-page addendum to the paperback version of The Last Season that reads as an apology to Kobe. In addition to expressing sympathy for Kobe’s difficult legal trial in Colorado, he was accused of rape but the case was dropped because the accuser refused to testify, Jackson writes that “Kobe will be coachable and I think he’ll do what we have to get done to be competitive this year”.

Eventually, from somewhere, a set of L shaped structures appeared approximating a staircase that allowed Kobe a regal walk from the top of the tower to the ground. When he reached the bottom, I put my arm around him and told him, “It’s alright, we don’t have to marry”. He breathed out a sigh of relief and we walked off to celebrate.

Most Lakers fans were thrilled when Jackson decided to re-sign. Last year’s coach, Rudy Tomjanovich, was a disaster and who else is there? But the message of the dream is that this is a permanently uncomfortable relationship. Kobe, the notorious loner, will come down and join us but not join in. He’s not likely to be the leader of the team with his personal skills but he’s also not likely to let any other player be the leader because he needs to be the star. Jackson will soften his criticism of Kobe but the damage is done.

I know a number of relationships like this and I have even lived through a few myself. I just didn’t expect I’d have to live through one with my local basketball team.

Whoa, nasty labor tactics in the usually civil world of international tennis.

The conflict started earlier this summer when the ATP announced that doubles matches will be played with no-ad games and five game sets starting in September. Also, beginning in 2008, only players in the singles main draw will be allowed to play doubles with two exceptions.

As you can imagine, doubles specialists are not happy about these changes. They are essentially being phased out of tournaments. At the US Open, a group of 45 doubles players announced that they have filed an antitrust suit against the ATP and the ATP’s board of directors.

The ATP Madrid Masters tournament has decided to retaliate by suspending the doubles competition until the suit is withdrawn or resolved. Since the tournament starts on October 17, the chances of the suit being resolved are close to nil. Therefore, unless the players drop the suit, they will lose out on a share of the $400,000 prize money and an opportunity to earn computer points to qualify for the year-end championships in November.

The tournament’s website states that “it [the players’ suit] makes no sense and therefore it is not coherent” for the tournament to offer a doubles competition because the doubles players are suing the ATP and the tournament is a member of the ATP. This is an interesting approach. You sue me and I fire you. Surely Europe has labor laws to cover such tactics. You have to think that the ATP is supporting, if not applauding, Madrid’s move because otherwise they would protest and we haven’t heard anything yet. It is an ATP sanctioned tournament, after all.

The October issue of Inside Tennis reports that Bob Bryan, he and his brother Mike are the defending champions in Madrid, called Patrice Dominguez, an ATP board member representing tournament directors, a “Hitler”. It also reports that Wayne Bryan, Bob and Mike’s father, described a DVD of the 2005 year end ATP highlights as “scrubbed clean like Stalin used to scrub clean the people he assassinated” because it didn’t include any doubles highlights.

Come on now, this is ATP doubles tennis where free-roaming, good-looking players get to make a lot of money playing in sun-filled stadiums, not the Gulag.

Come on now, this is ATP doubles tennis where free-roaming, good-looking players get to make a lot of money playing in sun-filled stadiums, not the Gulag.

Neither side is looking very good at the moment. Madrid seems to have taken the players’ suit as an excuse to drop doubles altogether supporting the players’ suspicion that this is the long-term goal of the new changes. Tournament directors complain that they lose money on the doubles competition.

The players have a problem because the issue is not politics, it’s economics. If your product isn’t selling, you’re gonna go out of business. If the players don’t propose an alternative, increase the number of exceptions, for instance, or settle for reduced prize money, they could be history.

I’d like to say that I’d miss them but I can’t remember the last time I watched an entire doubles match.

A small but stunningly precious moment occurred at the end of the Roger Federer-Nicholas Kiefer match midway through the recent U.S. Open. Kiefer is a player who has bothered Roger over the years. He has something of an all-court game too, and he knows how to pick it up at key points and get under Roger’s skin. He even managed on this day to get a set off of Roger. But he still lost.

As Roger was being interviewed on court at the end of the match, he stopped suddenly right in the middle. “There goes Nicholas,” he said, taking a moment to turn so that the camera could see and follow his glance as Kiefer left the field of battle. Roger wanted to make sure that his opponent would be acknowledged too for putting up a pretty decent fight.

I do not ever recall seeing a player do this before. To give up any amount of that precious post-game spotlight to honor your opponent is, well, pretty amazing. Tennis is these days a fierce battle of egos as well as play styles and corporate sponsors. That anyone has time – and inclination – to do what Roger Federer did is rather out of the ordinary.

Who says graciousness and cordiality is absent from the tennis courts these days?

– – – – – – –