What Would Baldrige Say about the Detroit "Perfect Game?"

Posted by Harry Hertz, the Baldrige Cheermudgeon

It's over. Thinking in Baldrige terms, I saw it as three real issues: 1. ethics, 2. governance, and 3. work systems and processes.

For those who don't follow baseball at all, this week Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers pitched a perfect game, in deed but not in the record books. Facing the last batter necessary to earn the distinction of pitching a perfect game, the umpire, Jim Joyce, made a hideously incorrect call and pronounced the batter safe at first base. Joyce admitted the mistake after seeing a post-game instant replay. Galarraga took it like a man, Joyce apologized publicly, and Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig waffled and eventually had a spokesperson say his waffling meant no reversal of the bad call.

 So, what would Baldrige say about all this? Let's start with ethics. There was no breach of ethical behavior. Both Galarraga and Joyce displayed high ethics, integrity, and the ability to admit openly when a mistake had been made. A Leadership strength from a Baldrige perspective.

Next is governance. When the parent organization, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB) had to display accountability and transparency, the initial response was totally unclear. Eventually a clear decision of no reversal of the bad call was communicated by an MLB spokesperson and the logic was explained, with a door left open for further consideration of the larger work system issue in the future. I'll call this one a weak opportunity for improvement (OFI) from the Baldrige perspective. After initial pronouncements, there was accountability and transparency.

Now let's move to work systems and work processes. There was a systems breakdown. It was triggered by unintentional human error. There is a work system fix possible, but it can't be handled through the Detroit Tigers' or the umpires' own work processes. It involves a key partner, the MLB. Only that partner can institute the corrective action through allowing instant replay in the future. It would be an indication of organizational learning. A sign of proactive process improvement that would reduce variability and improve performance. This one is a definite Baldrige OFI. Do you think Commissioner Selig will "step up to the plate" and correct it?

The good news is that Galaragga will forever exist in record books with an asterisk and special recognition. A reward for behaving like a good sport and gentleman!

Want to think systemically about improving your outcomes? The Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence can help! Check them out.

Comments

[Robert Hertz]

I suppose that if we were to follow the logic stated, then if we spot a serious component defect on a product that is about to ship, a component that passed all previous quality tests, then we are to let the product go out the door with the uncorrected component remaining? I can't speak for other people's ethics, but for me, when mistakes are made, uncovered, and then acknowledged, TRUTH demands that the mistake be corrected. We shouldn't hide behind some artificial construct and say that we played by the rules and expect everyone else to accept a blown judgment call.

[Harry Hertz]

I think the logic is somewhat different. I would agree with you on a flaw detected before shipment. In this case the product had shipped (the game was over and in the books, when the umpire reviewed the replay). The product was not flawed by current specifications: these calls are as seen, not subject to instant replay. However, there is learning possible and the opportunity to improve the next generation product, by introducing instant replay in the future.

[Bryan Zak]

How would reversing this call apply to other sports like hockey and basketball where calls are either bad or missed all of the time?

[Bruce Waltuck, chair-elect, Government Division, ASQ]

Thanks for this post and thread of conversation. As a prelude to overall response, let me note that I'd strongly disagree with calling this a "hideously incorrect call." I was watching the game, and in real-time (as sports writers from my local paper also said), the play looked very close. From the umpire's position, although he could see the footwork of both the runner and fielder relatrive to the base, it was quite hard to see where the ball was, at the moment the runner touched the base. This was compounded by the throw to the base, which was a bit behind the fielder. This put the fielder's glove a bit behind his body, relative to the umpire. In other words, this was a very close play from the ump's perspective in real time. As Detroit manager Jim Leyland noted after the game, umpires get it right a lot more than they get it wrong.

So what about the incident from a quality/Baldrige perspective? As Deming said "your processes of work are perfect...they are perfectly designed, to give you the results you are getting." In baseball, the process of calling balls and strikes, and plays on the field, rely completely on human perception and judgment. The human eye and brain can only process so much, so fast. So there are mistakes and variation in calls. Was the process that night "in control" from a statistical perspective? Almost certainly. This was an extreme example of the "black swan" event- very low probability, very high impact.

What should the parties/organizations have done, after the fact? On replay, everyone agreed the call was botched. The players, managers, and umpire all acted with remarkable grace and compassion. The Commissioner of Baseball had a tough decision. To right one (very significant for the pitcher in question) error/defect, or to say that this call was within the tolerance of the existing system, and this was merely an unfortunate improbable occurrence. On the one hand, a young pitcher who, however talented, may never get another chance for a perfect game. On the other hand, the integrity of the entire system of judgment throughout baseball. The Commissioner's authority allows him to overturn field calls when it is in the "best interests of baseball." In this perspective, we may argue that however unfortunate for the pitcher, the Commissioner acted in an ethical and appropriate manner.

The real implications are for the opportunities to improve the process. Technology now enables a level of instant knowledge and certainty that surpasses the human eye/brain. Watch a tennis match, and be amazed at the instant precision with which human calls are compared to machine data. Baseball could, and I personally tihnk should, balance the customer interests (players/teams) of having more accurate calls, against the customer interests (fans) of having a game of reasonable pace and duration. A likely compromise will be a limited number of challenges available to each manager through the game. This is the response taken by the National Football League, and it also relates to the very low incidence of on-field calls that are that close as to warrant review.

While I'd have loved to see the pitcher get his perfect game, I agree with the writer in the Trenton Times and elsewhere, that the grace and courage displayed by all, are a great and sufficient "perfect" footnote to the game itself. One more reason why I love baseball.

[Harry Hertz]

I agree with your recommendations. I said “hideously incorrect” on the basis of replay and that is really what is at issue for the long-term. There was no “personal blame” in Deming’s terms, it is about process failure because of newer technology that would permit process improvement.

But what a great opportunity to illustrate how Baldrige can be used in all settings and to explore the potential for organizational learning.

[bill kalmar]

Permit me to respond to the “perfect game” controversy from a Detroiter’s point of view. We in the Motor City regularly get criticized and chastised for our winless football team, our crime stats, our unemployment, our jailed Mayor, our failing schools and our two bailed out automotive companies. Now as a result of the way Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga and Manager Jim Leyland handled the botched perfect game call we are suddenly a “class act” according to the media. Actually, what with the problems in our city we have learned to become good losers so it was not difficult for us to accept the bad call. On the other hand, it demonstrates something that us Detroiters have known for a long time – we are in fact a class act! We applauded umpire Jim Joyce when he appeared the next day at the ballpark and again when he arrived at the airport upon departing for his next assignment. It is indicative of the way we treat people here – we have become accustomed to everyone leaving our town and we applaud them for their wisdom – just kidding!

Having said all that, let me give my take on the perfect game. When discussion comes up about the number of perfect games in baseball in 2010, no one will remember the names of the two pitchers who can claim that accomplishment. For the record, their names are Roy Halladay of the Phillies and Oakland pitcher Dallas Braden. But everyone will remember Armando Galarraga because when the topic comes up about the record, the reporters will always mention his name stating that there should be another name on the list. So Galarraga has attained something no one else on the list has achieved – name recognition. In addition, he received a shiny red 2010 Corvette convertible courtesy of General Motors and the Tigers. He probably would have received the car anyway had the ump not botched the call but it was a crowning moment when the car was pulled onto the field the next day.

So as you can see, we in Detroit know how to accept defeat and criticism. We may lose a game here and there – we may be at the top of the crime stat sheet – and many continue to be unemployed – but our spirit never wavers and as the media has reported – we are a class act! And those of you in other American League and National League cities will realize that when you come to Detroit in the Fall for the World Series to watch our Tigers dismantle the Cardinals. And just for your enjoyment, Galarraga will be pitching another perfect game!

[Susan Allred]

Very interesting blog discussion. I wonder if the focus on just the one call really misses the intended result of the process. Is not the purpose of baseball to score the most runs and thus win the game? A pitcher having a perfect game is a perk for a talented workforce member it would seem.

[Maureen D'Agostino]

I too have enjoyed reading this blog. I am also fromt he Detroit area and Bill Kalmar's post was right on. We talk about this game alot here as if the crown jewels were stolen but we walk away with our heads held high and the spirit of engagement when we needed it the most. The recognition this young pitcher will now have for the rest of his life is worth the "botched call" of a name no one will remember.