Does the new replay rule hurt baseball?

[topper09er]

I'm all for it but just on HR not HR and Fair or Foul. Obviously they do not have it yet for fair or foul but they should, as evident by Friday night Brewers game. That one blown call cost the Brewers that game.

The brewers had 2 outs and no one on base that inning and then walk, single, single, double, single. They lost the games themselves not because of the call. Plus how do you know Clark would not have hit a HR the next pitch or a double that was fair or walked and then the next guy hit a double or maybe he would have hit a triple or maybe he would have hit a ruitine ground ball and reached on an error? You cannot say that call cost them the game.

 

My overall point is that it appears that a lot of people do understand/refuse to accept the fact that umpires and blown calls are part of the game of baseball, they have always been and we should not change the game now. Just because we can guarantee the right call every time (which is impossible as football, college or NFL, has shown over the last ~10 years) does not mean we should do it because that changes baseball. Baseball is often described as "timeless" because the game has essentially remained unchanged for 100+ and we can still try to debate who is better between Rogers Hornsby, Hank Aaron or Albert Pujols, players from 3 different generations. The umpires are the 3rd team on the field and they have an impact on the game. If you dont like this then you dont appreciate the uniqueness of baseball compared to all other sports. Thank god Bud will never allow this to happen, I just hope the next commish is not some young hotshot who trys to appeaise the majority of fans who are causual and change everything based on every whim just to make some more money.

[jeffy]

Baseball is often described as "timeless" because the game has essentially remained unchanged for 100+ ...

A glaring exception (and far more significant than using technology to increase the accuracy of umpires) being the abomination known as the DH.

 

 

Thank god Bud will never allow this to happen

He already has allowed replay.

[topper09er]

Baseball is often described as "timeless" because the game has essentially remained unchanged for 100+ ...

A glaring exception (and far more significant than using technology to increase the accuracy of umpires) being the abomination known as the DH.

 

 

Thank god Bud will never allow this to happen

He already has allowed replay.

Thank You!!!! I was waiting for someone to mention the DH?? So, who likes the (in your own words) abomination known as the DH? The answer is all of the dumb, annoying casual fans who do not really like or appreciate baseball and mostly like it when people hit dingers and their favorite team always changes to whoever is the best team at that time. And why was the DH added? Because runs were down and some of the casual fans who were too stupid to appriciate nice 3-2 games were getting bored because there were not enough dingers so the owners wanted to make more money so they ruined the beautiful game of baseball to appeice the casual fans and now real baseball fans prefer national league baseball over american league baseball hands down.

 

How does everyone not see the same pattern with this replay crap? A bunch of casual fans get really mad when some bad calls hurt their team (which dont even cost them a game although lots of people attempt to make that claim) and they demand that this is fixed and say well if they can use instant they have to. Then they will start putting in replay on fair/foul, then there will be a bad call on a strike 3 and they will add that the next season, then they will add a catch/trap replay, then they will realize there are problems and change the system. Then they will give managers 2 challenges per game and if they lose a challenge they have to remove the pitcher. Then Ken Griffey III will break his wrist sliding and they will outlaw sliding (horsecollar rule in football).

 

And 30 years from now people will be talking about the abomination of instant replay.

[TooLiveBrew]

There's just no truth in claiming that baseball has been unchanged for a century. The game has gone through many rule changes & shifts in playing styles/stats.

 

 

So, who likes the (in your own words) abomination known as the DH? The answer is all of the dumb, annoying casual fans who do not really like or appreciate baseball and mostly like it when people hit dingers and their favorite team always changes to whoever is the best team at that time.

 

Well, I like it for one. While I'm certainly no genius, I resent your categorization. You certainly don't come across as being very even-minded. Your overstatements & exaggerations make it hard to take this discussion seriously.

[topper09er]

There's just no truth in claiming that baseball has been unchanged for a century. The game has gone through many rule changes & shifts in playing styles/stats.

 

 

So, who likes the (in your own words) abomination known as the DH? The answer is all of the dumb, annoying casual fans who do not really like or appreciate baseball and mostly like it when people hit dingers and their favorite team always changes to whoever is the best team at that time.

 

Well, I like it for one. While I'm certainly no genius, I resent your categorization. You certainly don't come across as being very even-minded. Your overstatements & exaggerations make it hard to take this discussion seriously.

Sorry, you are right it is too much of a generalization, my point is that die-hard baseball fans like all aspects of the game including hitting for power, hitting for average, defense, umpiring, pitching strategy, managing strategy, etc., but the DH rule was only added for people who primarily care about scoring and homers and in my opinion has had an overall negative effect on the game and I see the same thing down the road if we allow instant replay.

 

Also, I do not personally know anyone who I would consider a true baseball fan who prefers the DH over the national league style.

[TooLiveBrew]

the DH rule was only added for people who primarily care about scoring and homers and in my opinion has had an overall negative effect on the game and I see the same thing down the road if we allow instant replay.

 

First, replay has already been added. Second, there's been no 'slippery slope' from the DH, so not sure why there would suddenly be one from instant replay.

 

 

Also, I do not personally know anyone who I would consider a true baseball fan who prefers the DH over the national league style.

 

I don't personally know you, but imo you're being a jerk about this labeling.

[BuckyBrewer61]

If major league baseball were to ever implement replay (which, personally, I hope they never do), I'd like to see some sort of analysis or study first of how often umpires actually blow a call. My guess would be that they make the correct call >99.9% of the time. Literally. Baseball umpires are the best officials in all of sports and I don't think replay is necessary at all. I recall a recent report (though I can't verify this at the time) that even said, based on the "standard" strike zone, that home plate umpires accurately call balls and strikes over 95% of the time.

 

As a sports society, we tend to amplify the importance of one or two instances and overreact, in my opinion (see Terrell Owens rule, Tom Brady rule, home run replay rule). All of a sudden, last year, there were so many homeruns that were incorrectly called! Really? I'd venture to guess that there weren't significantly more than in the past, and less than a handful over a 2,592-game season were misjudged (though a couple involved the Mets and Yankees, so there was legitimate outrage).

 

Besides, with all the talk of appeasing the average fan, what is the number one complaint of the casual baseball fan? The game is too slow. Why make it worse with replays that may fix <0.01% of the calls. Under the current situation, over the course of a 162-game season, the best teams will have the best records, even if Tony Clark gets a phantom 2 RBI double in April. Isn't that the point, anyway?

[Ennder]

Those would be very misleading stats though. A ball hit right to Hart that he catches counts in those stats but really isn't telling you anything about how good the umpire is doing their job. You would have to isolate close calls and see what percentage of those they make. For balls and strikes my money is on under 75% personally.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Those would be very misleading stats though. A ball hit right to Hart that he catches counts in those stats but really isn't telling you anything about how good the umpire is doing their job. You would have to isolate close calls and see what percentage of those they make. For balls and strikes my money is on under 75% personally.

This is true, but what percentage of calls are "close" calls? For those of you with DVR, how many times, per game, do you go back and put the game in slow-mo to see if a man beat out a throw? Once, maybe twice (at least this is how often I do it...)? So say 2 calls out of 100 in a game are actually close (excluding balls and strikes for this argument). How often is an umpire right on these close calls? I'd argue it's still the vast majority of the time (based on my extensive, scientific DVR research).

 

So do we really need a system to fix 10% of 2% of the calls? I say no. Over the course of an entire season, I'd argue that a few missed calls won't matter, so why make a dramatic change in the sport to fix what is not a dramatic problem?

[BuckyBrewer61]

Also, in regards to balls and strikes, I still stick to my above logic, though agree that there is more penchant to "miss" calls in that realm. I, personally, like that pitchers and hitters have to adjust to the home-plate umpire's strike zone, it just feels like part of the game to me.

[TheRealMattKain]

Under the current situation, over the course of a 162-game season, the best teams will have the best records, even if Tony Clark gets a phantom 2 RBI double in April. Isn't that the point, anyway?

Sure, 162 games will definitely tell you that the Red Sox are better than the Nats, but, this should be pretty obvious, teams often miss the post-season by a hair. Looking briefly over the past three seasons:

 

2008 Twins finish 1 game behind division lead

2008 Mets finish 1 game behind wildcard lead

2008 Diamondbacks finish 2 games behind division lead

2007 Brewers finish 2 games behind division lead

2007 Mets finish 1 game behind division lead

2007 Padres lost 1 game playoff for wildcard

2006 Astros finish 1.5 games behind division lead

 

All it would have taken was a single bad call in a close game or two and any of the above teams could have seen the post-season... including the Brewers in '07. Having 162 games gives the umps plenty of chances to screw up. In most cases, it won't matter, but in close divisional and wildcard races (which happen almost every year), a single blown call at any point during the season can change who plays in October and who sits at home.

 

So, yes, I'd rather have correct calls 100% of the time rather than 95% of the time (or whatever the numbers may be). And, if anyone really think umps call balls and strikes correctly 99% of the time or better, they need to do some serious research. I suggest looking into the strides that have been taken with Pitch FX or QuesTec and the many umpire studies out there on the web. Here's a quick analysis from last year's World Series:

 

http://www.baseballdigestdaily.com/blogs/2008/10/29/pitchfx-reasonable-doubt-and-world-series-game-5a/

[BuckyBrewer61]

All it would have taken was a single bad call in a close game or two and any of the above teams could have seen the post-season... including the Brewers in '07. Having 162 games gives the umps plenty of chances to screw up. In most cases, it won't matter, but in close divisional and wildcard races (which happen almost every year), a single blown call at any point during the season can change who plays in October and who sits at home.

I'm not arguing this, there is certainly a possibility that one bad call can change a game and, in a rare circumstance, cost a team a win. My points are these:

 

1) Bad calls are rare. More so than in any other sport.

2) Given the small amount of missed calls and the large amounts of games, I doubt umpires often significantly factor into a team's final record. Can it change the outcome of one game? Sure, occasionally. But over 162 games, the number of calls that help you and the number that hurt you will tend to normalize. I can't offer any stats, but it's my belief that the chances that umpire error alone will flip two teams in the standings are quite low.

3) Let's say for the sake of argument that every year a team's final record will be plus-or-minus 1 win based completely, solely on umpire performance alone (which I'd guess is a high estimate). Maybe once every few years, one team will miss the playoffs due solely to umpire error. Yes, that sucks, but is that reason enough to add 10-20 minutes of delay for replay to every single major league baseball game? You may think it is, I say no.

 

I will say that I wouldn't mind an automated strike zone as long as it was immediate and didn't slow down the game. I don't prefer it, but I could live with it.

[PeaveyFury]

Also, I do not personally know anyone who I would consider a true baseball fan who prefers the DH over the national league style.

 

You may not know them personally, but there are a lot of them here (myself NOT being one of them). Kindly refrain from broad, insulting generalizations, thanks.

[jeffy]

And 30 years from now people will be talking about the abomination of instant replay.

 

Leaving aside replay reviews, are you opposed to using any technology that would improve the accuracy of umpires? I'm thinking of things that would work in real time, not the idiocy of the umpiring crew trudging off the field to watch TV replays for 15 minutes. For example the idea presented here of sensors in the ball and on the lines to assist in fair/foul calls. I don't think this is all that easy to do, but let's pretend it could be done in such a way that it would not change the game in any perceptable way. In some way the umpire would get a signal that would indicate to him that the system says "fair", he agrees or thinks it is too close to call and instantly makes the call. Would you object to that?

 

I'm wondering because I can understand being opposed to replay, but I can not understand being opposed to greater accuracy and consistancy on calls if it can be done without changing things in any perceptable way.

 

I'm not actually a fan of replay, but I am in favor of improved accuracy of umpires' calls. I can live with the limited use of it, but it should be implemented the way it has been described above for College Football.

 

(I would take expanded replay in exchange for the end of the DH, though http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif)

[TooLiveBrew]

Like was already posted... in the NHL, NFL, & MLB helmets were once upon a time only for sissies. Heck, some hockey goalies initially opted to not wear helmets, bc they thought it wasn't 'man enough'. The resistance to change never fails to startle me, even though it shouldn't by now.

[TheRealMattKain]

Tonight 2 minutes of replay saved the Brewers from an erroneously called 2 run Marlin homer. Instead of cursing the heavens that Wes Helms tied the game and worrying that Hanley Ramirez or Jorge Cantu might beat us in extra innings, we can all sit back and thank instant replay for helping us enjoy first place where we rightfully belong.

[rluzinski]

Tonight's game perfectly illustrated how instant replay should be implemented in professional sports. It reversed an obvious error and it took a matter of two minutes to do it. I understand objections to expanding the role of instant replay in baseball (although I don't agree) but I can't understand objecting to how it's currently being used. A sport needs to eliminate obvious errors to officiating when it can.

[pitchleague]

of course, if the ump last night showed a little hustle to get out there and get a better view, they probably wouldn't have needed to use replay in the first place. Same thing with the Tony Clark double a couple of weeks ago.

[jeffy]

It looked to me like the ump had gone down the line. He must have had his eyes closed to miss that call, in any case. He was standing on the line looking right at the foul pole, his boss should be asking him what the problem was...why did you miss such a simple and obvious call?

[Postseason2006]

Last night was another rough night for the boys in blue. The guy that tried to push Magglio out of the box will likely be getting some time off to get into shape. Just brutal.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Replay works. It worked last night in 2 games, it works in football and other sports where it's used and it should be expanded in baseball. Baseball is way behind the times on this one. The overriding factor is to get it right. I'm all for expanding it as far as they can including that Questec system (or whatever it's called) for balls/strikes. I've seen too many Phil Cuzzi or Jerry Lane ump'd games that are just out of control for how bad they are not to move forward with this. I'd push it as far as the technology allows to get rid of the umpires and their biases.

[TooLiveBrew]

I understand objections to expanding the role of instant replay in baseball (although I don't agree) but I can't understand objecting to how it's currently being used. A sport needs to eliminate obvious errors to officiating when it can.

 

Totally agreed, & I wish people would stop obscuring the discussion with the 'bad calls are part of the game' & 'baseball has remained unchanged for __ years' stuff.

[jhart05]

I don't see how it would make them lazy. If anything it may help them be less lazy.

 

I wouldn't want to make a call, then have the replay system show me that I made a terrible call.

 

That's got to be embarrassing for the ump.

[jeffy]

The overriding factor is to get it right.

 

I would say the overriding factor is to have an enjoyable sport to watch. I'm not saying what they have now is a problem, but replay could certainly be overdone. Suppose every call including every ball and strike were reviewed on replay to ensure they "get it right". What if all this made the average game last 5 hours. Would it be worth it to "get it right"?

[TooLiveBrew]

Suppose every call including every ball and strike were reviewed on replay to ensure they "get it right". What if all this made the average game last 5 hours. Would it be worth it to "get it right"?

 

But what is the point of proposing this hypothetical situation that would realistically never happen? What does that have anything to do with whether or not replay is a good idea?

 

Sure, it wouldn't be a good idea to change the rules so that a BB is only issued after 37 balls to a batter. The game would take an excruciatingly long time... but that's not going to happen, so why propose it as something to be worried about?