Justin Masterson talks to Tim Tschida during Tuesday night's fan-induced delay.Sixteen minutes.

Sixteen minutes from the time Nelson Cruz’s foul ball evaded the grasp of an off-balance fan in the second deck of Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, until the next pitch of the ballgame was thrown.

It was as surreal as it was spine-chilling. One moment, we were watching a normal ballgame. Normal Cruz at the plate; normal umpire Chris Guccione behind him. Normal Cleveland fielders; normal dugouts; normal crowd.

Normal foul ball.

And then, of course, it happened: a fan trying to catch Cruz’s foul ball plummeted thirty feet into the seats below. Cruz, Guccione, the players on the field and in the dugouts, and the fans throughout the ballpark reacted with horror. It was hard to watch (and listen to the commentary from Josh Lewin, Tom Grieve, Eric Nadel, and Dave Barnett) and not imagine that the fan had fallen to his death.

While emergency medical technicians treated the fan and Indians players kneeled in prayer at their positions, first-base umpire and crew chief Tim Tschida consulted with his colleagues (Guccione, Tim Timmons, and Bob Davidson) as well as Ron Washington, Indians manager Manny Acta, Nolan Ryan, and other officials from the Texas organization. As their discussions ended, Ballpark announcer Chuck Morgan informed fans that the game would resume.

And so after what had to be 16 of the longest minutes ever experienced by fans watching a baseball game, Cruz stepped back into the batter’s box, and Justin Masterson retook the mound.

All things considered – and almost unbelievably – the story had a happy ending. Within an hour, the Rangers had announced that the fan was not only stable and responsive at Fort Worth’s John Peter Smith Hospital, but was also able to move all of his extremities. Four other fans hurt in the fall received treatment at the Ballpark for what were presumably minor injuries.

Well before that announcement, however, and even before Morgan’s confirmation that the game would continue, fans on online forums (and, surely, in homes and bars and at the Ballpark itself) were asking themselves whether the show really had to go on. And hours after the game’s conclusion, that question lingered: should the umpires, in consultation with the Rangers and Indians, have called the game?

My first reaction – the visceral one, the one driven primarily by disbelief and dread – was that play should’ve been stopped for the night, with the ramifications to be sorted out when a man’s life was not (presumably) hanging in the balance.*

* I’m not altogether clear what would’ve happened if the game had been called. MLB Rules 4.10 and 4.12 indicate that, since the fall took place with the Rangers up 3-1 in the bottom of the fifth, it would have resulted in a Rangers win. It seems possible, though, that the exigencies of the situation and the spirit of fairness would’ve justified a decision to resume of the game at a later date.

My second thought was that I didn’t envy the umpires or teams making that decision. As Rangers television broadcaster Josh Lewin noted during the deliberations, there are no official guidelines covering this sort of situation, and certainly no formal training or preparation that could make dealing with it in real time anything besides gut-wrenching.

The more I’ve considered it, the more convinced I am that league and club officials made the right call. Continuing play was very probably the best way to mitigate the impact for everyone involved. If nothing else, it helped take people’s minds off of the horrific scene many had witnessed. It provided crowd and players alike a chance to reestablish some semblance of normality in the midst of what by all indications appeared to be an unfolding tragedy. It permitted some, at least, to use the game as a way to cheer (and perhaps even play) for the injured fan – to channel the rest of the contest into wishes for his well-being.

Continuing the game also helped prevent every iota of media attention from being focused on the story of the fan and his fall for the next 24 hours. The fall was (and is) still a story, of course. Within minutes, every local media outlet had a blurb up about the incident; ESPN.com put a link to the story on its home page. Justifiably so. But with the game continuing, the fall was no longer the story. It wouldn’t be the only thing Rangers and Indians (and other teams’) fans would talk about until the first pitch was thrown this evening. However diminished in importance, the game’s implications for divisional races and individual lines remained. As a result, the fan (and his family and friends) would, in a perfect world, be spared at least a few lumen of the media spotlight.

I could be wrong about all of this. Perhaps the fan’s friends and family would’ve preferred the game had been called, out of respect for his circumstances. Perhaps that’s true of the fan himself. Maybe it was callous to ask players and coaches and umpires to continue to do their jobs, having seen what they saw. Maybe fans shouldn’t have been asked to care about a baseball game after witnessing that sort of event. I don’t think there are any easy answers to dilemmas like these.

What I do know is that if there’s any game that could accomplish what’s been suggested above, it’s baseball. Whether or not it’s been the one constant through all the years, I have to believe that every fan worthy of that term’s origins would agree that the rhythm of the pastime – through plate appearance and inning and game and season – is what draws and keeps them in. For a few hours each day, for a couple hundred days each year, that rhythm sets the tempo of fans’ lives.

Pitch by pitch, run by run, out by out, inning by inning, the decision to resume the rhythm last night – even in the face of tragedy – helped put those 16 minutes behind us. Until, finally, the good news could arrive.

Michael Young indicates his confusion over the Rangers' on-going bankruptcy proceedings.Yesterday afternoon, Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal scooped everyone by posting breaking news about the Rangers' bankruptcy proceedings on Twitter.  "Federal judge finds Texas Rangers impaired," he wrote, "likely means they can block the sale." 

This wasn't quite right. Judge D. Michael Lynn, who's presiding over the Rangers' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, did not find the ballclub impaired. (Nearly four decades of Rangers fans might've agreed with him if he had, but that's beside the point.) And the Rangers were not going to block their own sale. Rather, the judge found the club's creditors impaired, along with its equity owners.

(At the prompting of a contributor at Lone Star Ball, Kaplan later corrected his "tweet"; the original is no longer online.) 

Kaplan quickly moved on. "Said source close to creditors: 'This is great news. [...] Means plan is not confirmable,'" he reported. He made no other further information available. For an hour or two, there was no further indication from Kaplan regarding the context for his coverage. There was no explanation of the grounds for the judge's decision, or detail about Kaplan's source(s), or why he granted one source close to the creditors anonymity. 

Meanwhile, Judge Lynn's memo was uploaded to the website Scrib'd, where anyone could peruse it. Within an hour or so of Kaplan's initial posting, "Unfair Park" -- the blog of the Dallas Observer -- had posted a link to the document, accompanied by an entry quoting Kaplan's messages, and the claim, "It would appear to be a good day for the creditors." 

Soon thereafter, however, the Observer updated its story, adding the following: 

A good Friend of Unfair Park, who happens to be a local bankruptcy attorney, summarizes thusly for those of us who were not smart enough to go to law school: 

"If the creditors are happy, it's because Lynn didn't just completely pour them out. He is not going to confirm the plan as it now stands, but all Hicks has to do is amend the plan to pay the creditors interest on their 75MM. 
 
Once the new plan goes on file, the two Rangers equity companies have to re-vote to approve it. In order to scuttle the deal now, the creditors have to figure out a way to take control of the Rangers equity companies so they can cast the vote the way they want. The involuntary bankruptcy cases that the creditors filed against the Rangers equity companies may eventually get the creditors some control, but not soon enough I'll bet. Later, I think Kaplan et al. will realize the creditors (Monarch) just won the battle and lost the war." 

At the same time, Kaplan was engaged in an argument with another, legally trained reader from LSB, who -- having read the memo -- found it less of a victory for the Rangers' creditors than Kaplan's reporting implied. In response to the reader's observation that the judge's memo seemed to indicate that minor changes might resolve the situation, Kaplan replied, "Minor? Oh come on. The judge ruled the plan can't proceed without lender approval. End of story."

But, of course, it wasn't the end of the story. And with due respect to the good friend of "Unfair Park," the required modifications to the plan were not obviously limited to adding interest to $75 million dollars. 

And the reports kept coming, fast and furious.  

Buster Olney, about an hour after Kaplan's tweet: "The judge's decision today on the Rangers' creditors is viewed by execs in baseball as a big blow to the team's efforts to trade pre-Aug. 1." No word on which execs; no word on whether or how Olney had managed to poll a representative sample of informed decision-makers within an hour or so of Kaplan's tweet, and before most people had a chance to digest the judge's memo. 

Craig Calcaterra, at about the same time: "Big loss for the Rangers in b[ank]r[u]ptcy court today. Decision could end any hopes of a move before the deadline." In his accompanying blog entry, he stated, "[The judge's ruling] means [the lenders] can vote to accept or reject the prepackaged plan that the team had come up with. Of course, the creditors have said they would reject the prepackaged plan, so unless something dramatic happens soon, they probably will." He made this assertion despite the fact that, as he admitted, he hadn't read the judge's memo in its entirety. 

In lieu of that, Calcaterra referred readers to Maury Brown's website, and concluded, "That sound you hear is every Rangers fan in the world screaming bloody murder to the heavens above. Once they get done venting, however, they should refocus those screams at Tom Hicks because he's the one that got everything in such a mess to begin with." 

What did Maury Brown's website have to say at the time? The headline read, "Judge's Ruling in Texas Rangers Bankruptcy Case Could Pave Way for Lenders to Block Sale"; the report opened, "The bankruptcy judge in the voluntary bankruptcy case of the Texas Rangers may have dealt a blow to the prospective ownership group led by Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan." Brown's piece cited Kaplan's earlier "tweet." Separately, he tweeted agreeably at Kaplan, "Yeah, this is no small deal. Mediation seems like best route for both sides. Plan would have to be amended greatly, otherwise." 

Kaplan, for his part, posted his own story on the Sports Business Daily website (with no paywall); its headline was, "Judge rules Rangers' creditors have right to block sale of team." In this report, however, he also noted, "Lynn did not order the Rangers to pursue the Crane bid, and in fact ruled the club was not bound to take the highest offer." This was an aspect of the memo that had not received much attention on the afternoon, though it had been a central focus of coverage leading up to the judge's ruling. 

Kaplan and Brown proceeded to give on-air interviews with Dallas-Fort Worth radio shows (the former with "The Hardline"; the latter with Randy Galloway) to explain their expert opinions on the day's events.  

Meanwhile, the churn continued -- but with a twist. One or two hours after Kaplan's initial tweet, Evan Grant posted his first comments at the Dallas Morning News -- and struck a cautionary note. "First," he wrote, "Rangers business-side officials did not comment on judge's opinion today, so most of this is speculation of the purest nature." Similarly, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Barry Schlachter observed, "The decisions represented a partial victory for the lenders… [but] just how big the setback is remains to be seen." 

Just more than an hour later, Grant returned with a copy of Eric Morath's coverage of the memo for Dow Jones. The headline: "Ruling does not give lenders ability to veto sale." Morath's reporting is also worth citing at length: 

A U.S. bankruptcy judge said Tuesday that the Texas Rangers baseball team's Chapter 11 plan doesn't make lenders to the club's owners whole, but that doesn't give the lenders the right to block a sale of the franchise…. 

The judge said the plan must be modified to grant [the lenders] the same rights against the bankrupt entity, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, once it emerges from Chapter 11, as the lenders had before that entity filed. But since that entity likely will have sold its most valuable asset -- the Major League Baseball team -- the lenders' "rights may have lost much of their usefulness"... 

[Lynn] said the lenders could pursue possible damage claims against the bankrupt entity and Hicks Sports Group following confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan. If the changes Lynn suggested are incorporated into the team's bankruptcy-exit plan, "the plan will be confirmable," the judge said in court papers. 

Later, Maury Brown weighed in again, but with a considerably different tone. "Upon Further Review, Texas Rangers Bankruptcy 'Plan' Could Move Forward Shortly," his headline read. Brown's intro: "After further inspection, press reports regarding a U.S. Bankruptcy judge's ruling saying creditors had veto power over a 'prepackaged plan' that would exit the Texas Rangers from voluntary bankruptcy may not be as detrimental as initially believed." 

For his part, Kaplan refocused on the appointment of William Snyder as Chief Restructuring Officer. He began by noting, "Other huge development of the day with [Texas R]angers: judge appointed a chief reconstruction officer to also vote on the sale: more in S[ports] B[usiness] D[aily] tom[orrow]." He later admonished Brown that the latter's latest entry reflected "the team spin, but for now [the sale is] blocked. And the real power has been shifted to this chief reconstruction officer." 

In another post, Kaplan asked his persistent LSB interrogator, "What are you, a team plant?" and reiterated, "Believe what you want. Right now the sale is blocked and the CRO has a lot of power." But not long thereafter, he opined, "[The] judge will really try to resolve this…. But this may partly fall on the new CRO and his opinion" (emphasis added). And Brown came back with his own rebuttal: "But, there's ample text in the ruling that allows Debtors to reach certain criteria that blocks vote. Going to be tough."

So what are we to make of all of this? From a facts-about-the-sale perspective, I'm not going to venture an opinion. I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I have zero -- zero -- legal training. I've read Judge Lynn's memo a couple times now, and spent a fair amount of time talking about it with folks who seem to be knowledgeable, but I'm absolutely not in any position to make any definitive claims about the legal situation of the Rangers at this point. 

(Before you read any further: reread that last paragraph.) 

I don't think you have to be a lawyer, though, to follow the media chronology set out above -- and, in doing so, to realize something's not right. So I do have one strong opinion about today's events: the media coverage, especially of Judge Lynn's memo, left a lot to be desired. 

I don't mean to paint the media with too broad a brush. I appreciate those reporters (mainly but not exclusively local) who, like Grant, cautioned readers that their analyses were speculative, and who emphasized that the ramifications of Judge Lynn's memo had yet to be properly contextualized. And I am equally thankful for those few journalists who, like Morath, not only appeared to have read the judge's memo thoroughly, but also included key passages of it in their reports, with enough context and depth for readers to start making sense of the ruling. 

Unfortunately, those responsible takes were swamped by the coverage of those who, in their rush to get the story out first and fastest, made very questionable decisions. These were professionals -- people who make their living doing this sort of thing. And from them we saw reports that got basic facts wrong. We saw dependence on anonymous sources, with no stated rhyme or reason. We saw questionable assertions backed by little if any evidence. We saw reportage that more or less reversed course in the span of five hours.  

And none of this happened because there were unexpected events that surfaced over the course of the afternoon. The news of the day was the judge's memo, and that was anticipated to be the case. The memo contained almost all of the new facts that (as I write this) have been reported and analyzed. That memo raised a number of obvious questions (both to my untrained eyes, and to a number of more trained pairs). But most of those who were quickest to report the story punted those questions for several hours -- even as they were publicly weighing in on the purportedly dire consequences of the judge's ruling for the Rangers. 

Blurring breaking news with preliminary and tentative analyses is bad enough. Compounding the confusion by going live with incomplete information is worse. Adding ad hominem replies to readers to that mixture is toxic.  

Look: I'm no Luddite. I'm (obviously, I hope) a fan of blogs. I think they have an important role to play in the media. I believe that even Twitter has its place in conveying key information. But the professionals who provide us with news have to do a better job of reporting in situations like these. 

One reader here suggested that rather than post a piece like this, I should contact some of the reporters involved, and engage them in private, constructive, critical dialogues. That's a good suggestion, and I'm open to it. But after reading some of the responses to those who've already posed critical questions and perspectives, it doesn't seem sufficient. 

The sale of the Texas Rangers is, on the grand scale of world events, a very minor issue – but that doesn't excuse journalists from reporting on it in a responsible, thorough, and professional manner. And if some don't, readers have no excuse for sitting by and letting it happen. 

In short: the sound we should hear is "every Rangers fan in the world screaming bloody murder to the heavens above" – but for one day, at least, it's not just about Tom Hicks.

It’s been about a month.

One month – give or take a day or two – since we took a long, hard look at Ian Kinsler. In that time, according to Baseball Reference, Kinsler’s played 27 games. He’s had 122 plate appearances, and 105 at-bats. What’s the damage?

.248/.331/.286.

26 hits. No homers. Four doubles. 11 walks. 17 strikeouts.  3 times hit by a pitch. 4 stolen bases (with no failures on attempts). A couple sacrifice flies; a questionable sac bunt. One GIDP. A ton of frustration. And one serious question:

What’s wrong with Ian Kinsler?

There are a lot of possible answers. Some of them were supplied in response to the last question we raised about him – namely: Why isn't Ian Kinsler getting anything resembling the same sort of love as, say, Elvis Andrus? Kinsler’s attitude was cited repeatedly, with examples ranging from his power-happy approach in the leadoff spot to his fan-unfriendly comments in the local press.

What was interesting to me, however, was that most readers were largely complimentary of Ian. They defended him. They were loyal. They expressed hope that he’d keep up his strong return from the DL by reestablishing his power at the plate, without sacrificing his improved plate discipline and recharged ability to get on base. And many of them agreed with the prediction that, “as for Kinsler's missing power: hard to believe that -- as he himself anticipated -- the dingers won't come with time.”

But they haven’t. A month later, Kinsler’s still just got one home run. He’s sporting a home run to fly ball (HR/FB) percentage of 1.7 – meaning that fewer than 1 out of every 50 fly balls he hits is leaving the park. (His season low was 8.8 percent, from his rookie year.)

And that’s far and away the best answer to the question of what’s wrong with Ian Kinsler: missing power. Even during the past 10 games, during which Kinsler put up a healthy .333 batting average and an even healthier .413 on-base percentage, his power has been conspicuously absent. He racked up only two extra-base hits – both doubles – in that 39-AB stretch, and as a result, his slugging percentage over the period was .385 (which is still 30 points higher than his mark for the season).

Really: if someone had told you before this season that after 205 PA in 2010, Ian Kinsler would boast a .273 BA and a .377 OBP, wouldn’t you have just mentally filled in the last third of the slash line with a figure between .450 and .480, and been pretty damn pleased?

Instead: .349, and a .076 isolated power metric (ISO). The league averages for those stats are .405 and .147, respectively. Players with an ISO above .076 this season (with at least as many PA as Kinsler): David Eckstein, Jerry Hairston, Jr., Ronny Cedeno, and Julio Borbon.

That’s right: Julio Borbon.

And this one’s for the fans who locked their faith inside.

So what’s the scenario? It’s a good news, bad news situation.

The good news is not just that Kinsler seems to be aware of his lack of power. (How could he not be?) It’s that he also seems to be trying to adjust to it. He may not be happy about it. (The numerous grimaces and bat flips indicate as much). But despite the lingering claims from some parties that Kinsler’s “pulling a Blalock,” Kinsler hasn’t been swinging out of his shoes during every plate appearance the past month. He hasn’t been hacking away at every pitch. He’s swinging at only slightly more pitches out of the zone as he ever has, and is  five percent under league average in that category; he’s also offering at many fewer pitches in the zone, though making contact with them more frequently.

He hasn’t even been popping up as often as some might have you think. In fact, according to the TexasLeaguers Pitchf/x database, Kinsler popped out (very slightly) less frequently in the last month than he did from April 30 through May 19. And according to FanGraphs, he hasn’t had an infield pop fly in June. His post-Memorial Day ground ball/fly ball ratio is right around even, as it was throughout May.

And Kinsler’s still using the whole field. Recall his comment to the Star-Telegram’s Jeff Wilson a month or so ago: “I'm staying away from hitting the ball in the air. I'm hitting it the other way, hitting it on a line. It just makes me a better hitter. Eventually, home runs will come, but right now I'm really happy with where I'm at offensively. I'm going up there trying to hit the ball the other way, trying to be a better hitter this year.”

Let’s reevaluate that self-assessment. Here’s Kinsler’s spray chart for the past month:

And, as in the last piece, during his first 19 games: 

Kinsler’s pulling the vast majority of his infield outs, but his hits are, indeed, scattered to all fields. Very few of them, however, are deep. It’s not just the home runs; he’s posting a career low fly ball percentage thus far, and his line on such balls is .182/.175/.291, per Baseball Reference.

And that starts us in on the bad news. In his early action, Kinsler was somewhat compensating for his lack of high-trajectory power by (as he claimed) hitting a high number of balls hard, low, and all over the field. And when he has hit line drives, Kinsler’s continued to be extraordinary (.815/.815/1.037 for the season). He’s just not hitting the ball on a line often enough. In June, he’s only posting about 14.5 percent line drives – down 3.5 percent from May, and more than five percent off his career average.

In addition to the plethora of weak fly balls, Kinsler’s simply hitting many, many more balls (40.4 percent, to be precise) on the ground than he ever has before. A lot of those ground balls are ending up as outs (a .263/.263/.281 line), and his .324 BABIP (and .306 expected BABIP, based on Chris Dutton’s quick calculator) indicates that overall, he’s been a bit fortunate in his batted-ball outcomes.

The most likely explanation for all of this would appear to be injury. It’s very plausible that Kinsler’s balky ankle is preventing him from hitting the ball with any consistent authority. Trouble is, he’s stated definitively that his ankle won’t be 100 percent this season – and considering the wear and tear that he’ll accumulate through the next 90-odd games (assuming he stays “healthy” throughout), it seems quite likely that Kinsler will finish with the worst slugging numbers of his five-year career.

On a sardonic note, Kinsler’s approach has, in some ways, been exactly what many fans were howling for last season – he’s being more patient at the plate, hitting fewer balls in the air, and has sacrificed power so as to reach base more frequently.

But even with tongue squarely in cheek, it’s worrisome that in the past month, Kinsler’s stopped walking at his early, prodigious pace. Just 9 percent of his PA in the last 27 games have ended in a base on balls, compared to the 15.7 percent from his first 19 games of the season. (His strikeout percentage decreased much less markedly, from approximately 17 to 13 percent.)

The walks are going to be a key statistic to watch if Kinsler’s power outage continues. Right now, his .377 OBP and his glove are his saving graces; without a steady stream of free passes, however, Kinsler’s offensive productivity could drop to a dire level. Even in the midst of his recent 10-game tear, Kinsler walked just over 9 percent of the time (and 3 of his 4 bases on balls came in one game against the Astros). Over the same period, he struck out in 16 percent of his PA.

(It’s also worth noting that Kinsler’s displaying the massive platoon and home/road splits that he avoided in 2008 – though given the small sample sizes, it’s probably too early to say much more than “keep an eye on them.”)

Ian Kinsler’s too talented a ballplayer to write off, even if he’s not 100 percent. And for all his vaunted stubbornness, there are encouraging signs that he’s trying to find ways to fight through his pain and misery in relatively productive fashion. But at some point, if Kinsler’s offensive woes continue – and if his ankle is truly a major culprit – then the Rangers are going to have to weigh the merits of a return trip to the DL. It may well be more effective to feature a stronger, healthier, more-rested Kinsler during the stretch run than to push him to play every day up through the All-Star break.