I figure that a player who has been removed from the game (Wang) can't rreturn, and the batter order presumably stays the same. But what if some of the players currently in the game are sent down, of DL, or traded?

If a player who has keft the game is released and another player added to teh roster, is the new player allowed to play? For example, let's say that the Yankees had pinch hit for Phillips last night (with Cairo or who ever). Phillips is in the meanwhile sent to AAA and they pick up (God forbid) Hillenbrand. Can Hillenbrand be substituted into the game in July, or must the Yankees designate a player to 'replace' Phillips, who must take his place on the bench? This could get complicated with multiple roster moves, especialy if the ratio of position players/pitchers changes.

Do suspended games create loopholes where a team can in effect multiple substitute?

And it's a strange and ugly season.

I guess this would only have a tactical advantage if, by the time the game is resumed, there are more position players on the 25 man roster. In that case, using my previous example, Phillips would be out, Hillenbrand in, Phillips' roster slot replaced by Britton; another position player could be added to the roster (let's say Bruney is sent down), so in effect two batters became available for the price of one. (Though, of course, at the cost of one pitcher.)

Because there has to be "fair outs"--if a visiting team scores the go-ahead run in the top of the inning, the home team has to have at least one chance (one side batting) to tie it in the bottom of the inning. In the older days (a few years ago), this game would have reverted to the last full inning, and the Yankees would have lost. Now they pick up the game where it left off.

Now, if the Yankees went ahead in the seventh, the O's batted in the seventh and did not tie the game, then Yankees batted in the eigth and the rains came, the game would be declared a win for the Yankees (because the O's had fair outs in the bottom of the seventh).

Game tied after five innings, Yankees go ahead in the top of the sixth (or whatever), rain comes and game is called, score reverts to the fifth inning tie. So, the game was declared a tie and replayed at a later date.

I love this sort of stuff!

;-P

And now we have time to come up with a good joke for which 7 gets to be the punch line. More coffee.

Could the Orioles officially protest the ump's suspect decision-making?

On the roster, I don't think 2 can be right because the 'roster slots' aren't individuated. So, for instance, suppose a team dropped four players from its roster, three who had played in the suspended game and one who had not. What would determine which of the new players was eligible to play in the continuation?
I believe all new players would be eligible. As monkeypants says, it's unlikely to make a difference in this instance.

Seriously. These are bizarre times in Yankee land. I've been busy at work which has allowed me to avoid what I'm sure is major frustration for everyone who has been watching the games. I can't really understand what just happened to this team.

How many years did they extend him for??

Ouch

13 I'm not so sure those rule changes were put in place as far back as post-1978. I checked baseball-reference.com, and the Yankees did play in a 1-1 tie game on July 17, 1995 against the White Sox, though teh details were little different than I recall. teh game was tied after six, the Sox batted in the top of the seventh, the Yankees then began to bat in the bottom of the seventh: the first two batters reached base, then the game was called w/ runners on 1st and 2nd, no one out. The score reverted back to the last full inning (6th), and the game was declared a tie.

Now the rules (4.10.d) make this situation a suspended game, to be completed at a later date. So, presumably the rules for suspended games were updated after 1995.

Signs?

I am not sure about the roster stuff, but I know someone who would be. Paging Bob Timmermann . . . OK, I have left Bob a note at the Griddle.

The Yankees could acquire Chris Ray in a trade and then send him to the mound and have him cough up the lead for two teams in one game.

You can theoretically have the same winning and losing pitcher in a game in this situation.

Jayson Stark and the Elias guys would have a field day with THAT one ...

Abreu is one of the laziest outfielders I've seen in quite a while. When was the last time he crashed into a wall or dove for a ball? Aaron Rowand ought to take Abreu behind the woodshed for a while.

And in theory, the Yankees and Orioles could each trot out 25 new guys. However, the only players right now who can't play in the completion will be Wang and Vizcaino for the Yankees and Cabrera, Shuey, Parrish, and Mora for the Orioles.

And if neither the Yankees or Orioles change their bullpens around before July 27, I would be shocked.

Not sarcasm ... Abreu has long been regarded as lazy in the outfield. Its one of the reasons the Phillies dealt him last year.

I'm not suggesting he need to risk life and limb like Rowand does, but I've seen enough of Abreu in person and on TV to recognize lack of effort.

15 If you want to know what it has to do with Sun Ra, just ask Melvin Mora. He'll tell you it's just like nuclear war: a motherf*cker.

Funny, as I was listening to the game, I thought the umps were trying to give the Orioles a chance to get the last out, then they'd call it as a tie.

I have to agree that 'lazy' doesn't work here. Abreu was hustling for Millar's batted ball, but to catch it required a head-first dive and MLB OFers, esp. those getting paid to hit are trained?, encouraged?, not sure which to protect their bodies.

I know when I start the softball season each year, I have to train myself to dive to make plays, it doesn't come naturally.

That said, that was a situation where Abreu should have gone 'all-out', diving head first in an attempt to save the game.

Abreu is the anti-Jeter: He's not awful but looks so because of some plays.

25 I'm changing my mind on the Sheffield trade and william spelled it out last night. At the time, I thought it was good. But if they knew Humberto would need Tommy J, then it's a pretty dumb trade. Shef would have been the DH. Giambi would have been the 1B. That would have lasted one month, if that. And Shef would have dealt with no extension - if he wanted to earn his next contract, just like in 2003.

See, everyone thought Giambi was getting hurt because of playing 1B. Instead he was breaking down from pumping his body full of chemicals.

As for Damon - last year when no one else in baseball wanted to pay him $13mil/year - all of a suddden suitors were going to line up to do so AND give up prospects? And who was lining up to pay Giambi 42 million over 2007-08?

The real problem, it seems to me, is that the season goes on so long, with so few real off days (mostly they are used for long travel), and the players and owners (and networks) are gainst double-headers, that there is intense pressure to play games in pretty bad weather. Ideally they would call games quicker, before the weather turns so crappy that they are forced to stop it once they've entered tied/suspended game territory.

Oh well, no solution is perfect.

Sorry .... maybe the Paul O'Neill era in RF warped my mind :-)

Also, if he slid or dove (slud or dived? slided or dave?) and missed the ball--as he did--the ball rolls into the corner for a triple or worse. Maybe the best play at that point would have been to control the ball and limit the damage to a double.

At the time of the Giambi signing, we knew these years were going to show up. Same deal with Damon. But were very overpriced and well past their prime.

They should re-jigger the schedule to regularize it (all teams should play the same number of division games, inter-league games, and so forth) and this would give them an opportunity to knock a few games off the schedule.

Torre is in full panic mode and his tight mentality is rubbing off on the team.

His bullpen management is comical.

It's time to hold him accountable.