Skip to content

UPDATE: Nationals get their rainout anyway

Sep 7, 2011, 6:00 PM EDT

Los Angeles Dodgers v Washington Nationals Getty Images

6:00 p.m. EDT update: Mother nature overruled MLB.

Tonight’s game between the Dodgers and Nationals in D.C. is again off, the Nationals announced.  A split doubleheader will be played Thursday.

Both teams had agreed to call it off hours ago, but MLB intervened and insisted that the Nationals wait before calling it.  With the forecast for the game still looking terrible, the Nationals got permission to postpone the game just before 6 p.m. local time.

///

The Dodgers announced this afternoon that Wednesday night’s game against the Nationals in D.C. had been postponed due to rain and would be made up as part of a doubleheader Thursday.  Nats manager Davey Johnson confirmed it, and players tweeted to the same effect.

But the game is, for the moment anyway, still on.  The Washington Post’s Adam Kilgore reports that MLB stepped in and ordered the Nationals to try to get the game in tonight.

Kilgore adds that GM Mike Rizzo has been in communication with Joe Torre in the league office about the situation.  Apparently, MLB is none too happy with some of the early calls on rainouts lately, even though the early calls make it easier for fans set to go to the game.

So, the two sides will at least try to play tonight.  Dana Eveland and Chien-Ming Wang are the scheduled starters.

  1. bleedgreen - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:15 PM

    Just stupid. Rain-laden baseball is no fun to watch and if the teams are OK with doing a double header tomorrow, who cares?

    • natstowngreg - Sep 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM

      Those of us who had tickets to tonight’s game, and can’t get to tomorrow’s makeup game. Though it is true that watching rain laden games isn’t much fun (having sat through last night’s rain-laden game).

  2. halladaysbiceps - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    ” Apparently, MLB is none too happy with some of the early calls on rainouts lately, even though the early calls make it easier for fans set to go to the game.”

    Yeah, because it possibly involves potential lost revenue. I would like to see MLB get this upset when one of it’s umpires, like Joe West, continues to make a mockery out of officiating a game.

    • kellyb9 - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM

      Cepts, I don’t think the issue is lost revenue. It’s more about the ability to get every regular season game in before the start of the playoffs. Every potential rain delay is going to go up to the wire.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        But, Kelly, it is. Think about it. If they have to reschedule a game, you are looking at forcing a day/night doubleheader. Not as many people will be able to go to the day game as opposed to a night game because of work. As a result, revenues are lost with parking, concessions, etc., all which MLB get a piece of due to the revenue sharing agreement. Being that they have already had to reschedule so many doubleheaders on the east coast, their bread and butter market, they don’t want to do it anymore to lose more money. That’s basically the truth.

      • bambam08 - Sep 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM

        It’s not about the lost revenue & shouldn’t be about the season in before the playoffs.

        A double header gives them the revenue & gets it in before the playoffs. Neither team is making the playoffs.

        They just don’t want to start the phone chain to inform the 10 Nationals fans that they don’t have to come to the game.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 7, 2011 at 5:44 PM

        bambam,

        Of course it’s not about the playoffs. But, don’t fool yourself into believing that this isn’t about money. Are you joking? Every decision I have ever seen when MLB intervenes in a team’s decision to call a game due to inclement weather has everything to do with money and not the fans. It has nothing to do with the fans best interests at heart. Never has been. It’s all about $.

    • addictedzone - Sep 7, 2011 at 5:52 PM

      Two points:

      1) If you check the weather forecast the chance of rain is the same tomorrow as tonight so trying to get one in today makes sense.

      2) The Phillies protest was denied.

      • halladaysbiceps - Sep 7, 2011 at 5:55 PM

        1) Rain is supposed to end by morning for the area of DC.

        2) Phillies protest denied? Not sure what that has to do with weather and this game.

      • addictedzone - Sep 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM

        You brought up Joe West. I just passed along info to squelch your bicker.

        And the weather report I viewed says 60 percent chance of showers tonight, tomorrow, and tomorrow night.

  3. Kevin S. - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:29 PM

    Well, that would explain why the ushers told me game on despite reports to the contrary. That’s actually fine by me, since I have the game in Baltimore tomorrow anyway. Let’s get ‘er in!

  4. cakrywyj - Sep 7, 2011 at 4:42 PM

    Don’t confuse the issue…ITS ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY… this is still America right? If you have to question motivation 99.999999999% of the time. It’s money

  5. cakrywyj - Sep 7, 2011 at 7:06 PM

    Lots of meteorologists in here lol. They’re easily going to get the game in …

  6. jimbo1949 - Sep 7, 2011 at 11:14 PM

    At 9:41am on April 17th, 2011 the Nationals postponed a 1:05 pm scheduled game with the Pirates due to rain. It was not raining, did not rain anywhere near Nationals Park that afternoon. This was a big local story in DC and was covered nationally.
    .
    Actually here’s Craig’s take on it: “An unnecessary rainout in Washington today”……
    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/an-unnecessary-rainout-in-washington-today/
    .
    Given the Nationals track record, can anyone dispute the action MLB took regarding tonight’s game?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Jackie Robinson Day is bittersweet
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Wood (5174)
  2. S. Kazmir (4841)
  3. J. Kubel (4700)
  4. K. Uehara (4176)
  5. I. Nova (4031)
  1. G. Springer (3374)
  2. T. Walker (3187)
  3. J. Reyes (3045)
  4. M. Machado (3025)
  5. M. Moore (3005)