Does the new replay rule hurt baseball?

[topper09er]

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.

An umpire has never called a ball or strike wrong because whatever the umpire decides is a strike is a strike. This is how baseball works, I think it is a unique thing about the sport, the fact that there are different dimensions in every stadium and different strike zones for each umpire. As a baseball player you need to learn how to work the strike zone the umpire has.

 

Another thing that has been lost here, at least about the balls/strikes, is that as a hitter you do not know the exact strike zone when you are standing up there. Major league hitters have good eyes and know their zone but over the course of the season there will be hundreds of pitches that may be a strike by an 1/8" or less. As a hitter you know whether a pitch is a ball, a strike, or close. No one is good enough to be able to tell always whether a pitch is definetly a strike or a ball. You cannot expect a hitter to have that good of an eye, that is why the strike zone needs to be umpired by a human since humans are playing with it. Umpires are needed for pitches that are close, not robots. A good hitter should understand that you need to pay attention to the game and get a feel for the umpires zone when you are not hitting so when you are up you know what to expect. If the guy is calling the low strike then dont be surpried if you get a low strike called, but also if it is borderline high you can expect a ball. If there are 2 strikes you better foul off everything close low because you are risking a K even it is a ball by 1" low. That is how baseball is played. Whenever people complain about an umpires performance (major league at least) it is that they are not consistant, not that they have a bad zone. Also, what about things like if a pitcher hits his spot and it is close then he gets the strike, or the catcher framing pitches? There are some things in baseball which are an art and taking those away in my opinion takes away from the game, and umpiring is an art. I personally enjoy the little things that make baseball unique and would rather have them be a part of the game no matter how many people complain because they see one bad call that affects their team and demand that it is fixed.

 

Bad calls are part of baseball. Get used to it, there will never be any more replay than HR as long as Bud is in charge.

[TooLiveBrew]

Bad calls are part of baseball.

 

That's an awful reason to not seek ways in which to improve the officiating of anything, let alone baseball.

 

 

Well, Orville, looks like this plane just doesn't fly. Guess we'll just have to get used to it.

 

I guess you're right, Wilbur...

[topper09er]

TooLiveBrew[/b]]Bad calls are part of baseball.

 

That's an awful reason to not seek ways in which to improve the officiating of anything, let alone baseball.

 

 

Well, Orville, looks like this plane just doesn't fly. Guess we'll just have to get used to it.

 

I guess you're right, Wilbur...

Like I said in an earlier post, this is not national defense here, this is a game. Just because you can make things more accurate by using a computer doesnt mean you should. Obviously, if we are talking about whether or not we should upgrade the US Army's standard issue rifle to the newest and best technology or leave it the same because the old gun is the traditional one that we won WWII with there is no debate. How can you compare scientific research like aviation to baseball? That is ridiculous and embarrassing. Did you read my post, I listed several reasons why it is impractical to have a robot call balls/strikes (because the hitters themselves do not know the striek zone that well) and other reasons why it removes some of the art from baseball which players learned and practiced since little league (like framing pitches as a catcher).

[TooLiveBrew]

Just because you can make things more accurate by using a computer doesnt mean you should.

 

Well, the earliest versions of baseball utilized the best technology. They could draw foul lines so umpires wouldn't have to estimate as much what a fair/foul ball was... so they did.

 

They couldn't exactly draw 'lines' in the air & create a standardized strike zone, so they did the best they could. Now, we essentially have the technology to 'draw' the strike zone in the air. I don't want to turn myself into the computerized strike-zone advocate, bc I really don't necessarily care. I just think a lot of the rationale used in opposition to new technologies in baseball is bad, and some of it seems unnecessarily alarmist.

 

 

How can you compare scientific research like aviation to baseball? That is ridiculous and embarrassing. Did you read my post, I listed several reasons why it is impractical to have a robot call balls/strikes (because the hitters themselves do not know the striek zone that well) and other reasons why it removes some of the art from baseball which players learned and practiced since little league (like framing pitches as a catcher).

 

What you're calling 'art' is really just the manifestation of the limitations of technology once upon a time. I don't see how you aren't fully aware that this argumentative stance is basically Luddite.

[topper09er]

Framing pitches is a skill that catchers need to learn just like throwing out runners or calling pitches. How do you know that the game wasnt meant to be that way, you are assuming that if they had instant replay in 1876 they would have implemented it. You dont know that, they could have made a rule that a manager could ask for an appeal on a call from some other umpire than the one who made the call as a form of 19th century instant but they didnt? Why, who knows, maybe they wanted the unpires to be in charge of the game and not let the managers and players dicatate how it is officiated. Maybe they wanted umpires to have be so in charge of the game that they could interpret some rules, you cant say the only reason there are umpires today is because they didnt have computers in 1876. You are assuming that every time some robot could make a call but doesnt it is some limitation of technology instead of an intended design of how the game is called and played.

 

Blocking the plate as a cather is totally illegal, everytime the catcher is sitting on the plate without the ball obstruction should be called and the runner should be safe, but umpires ignore that rule because that is how the game evolved, like it or not that is part of baseball even though it is not in the rulebook and if you changed it so that it is called "correctly" you would change the game. The same is true of the strike zone, there is a definition in the rule book but the game has evolved in such a way that the strike zone is really up to the interpretation of the umpire. If you change that by having a robot enforce the rulebook you are changing the way baseball has been played for 100+ years and I dont like that or think it is necesary.

[TooLiveBrew]

The same is true of the strike zone, there is a definition in the rule book but the game has evolved in such a way that the strike zone is really up to the interpretation of the umpire. If you change that by having a robot enforce the rulebook you are changing the way baseball has been played for 100+ years and I dont like that or think it is necesary.

 

Can we let the 'game has been the same way for 100+ years' stuff go? The game has changed many times, and in many ways.

 

I do want to underscore, however, that I agree with the rest of your point here.

 

 

Maybe they wanted umpires to have be so in charge of the game that they could interpret some rules, you cant say the only reason there are umpires today is because they didnt have computers in 1876.

 

Absolutely.

 

 

You are assuming that every time some robot could make a call but doesnt it is some limitation of technology instead of an intended design of how the game is called and played.

 

Not at all. I am saying that resisting technology because 'it wasn't around' & 'the game hasn't changed for __ years' is poor reasoning. I by no means -- as I stated -- am the 'robot ump lobbyist'. I think replay has been & will continue to be an invaluable addition to MLB. I also think that MLB should investigate (in great detail) all the ways in which adding something like what ATP (tennis) uses for borderline calls could/would help & hurt the game... not just resist it bc of some 'unwritten rules' interpretation.

 

I would hope that if the idea seemed unlikely to be an overall positive, it would get scrapped. I would also hope, however, that if MLB felt it was a good idea, it would be instituted.

 

 

I guess, to me, the 'integrity of the game' argument goes both ways. What about horrible, horrible calls that umps make? Aren't they insulting the integrity of the way baseball is meant to be played? Surely we don't simply have to settle for the status quo because some people don't like even the possibility of change.

[topper09er]

When I bring up the 100+ years crap my overall point is that (I think) some of changes that have happened are good for the game like playing night games or adding more teams and some are bad like the DH or astroturf, so if we are going to change something that has remained the same for the past 100+ years (and has worked) we better be careful and consider if it is worth it and whether it makes the game better or worse. I think replay changes the gameplay too much and makes the game worse and opens the door for more replay which will make the game even worse.

 

Also, I do not think it is a bad arguement to say that because something has been around for a long time it should not be changed, again because we are not talking about life or death or whether people will get their paycheck on friday. We are talking about a game, and has absolutely no NEED for any change of any kind ever. I honestly think the opposite is true, that it is a bad arguement to say that just because we can implement robots to make some calls we should do it.

 

This is a sport, the reason I follow baseball and like to watch it is because I played it when I was younger and I enjoy watching people play it at a high level because I can appreciate how difficult it is, and because I follow the brewers because they are my home team so I watch all of their games and want them to win. The only thing that really matters is whether or not the brewers win the world series, period. They made the playoffs last year which was exciting but they went home with the same result as every non Philadelphia team. The only plus was that we can be more opptomistic about this year because they were good last year, but they didnt win the world series so my goal as a fan was not reached. OK, my whole point this story is that any bad call by an umpire will never actually change who the wins the world series so as a fan we should not be concerned with fixing any bad call because no team has ever been screwed out of a world series because of 1 call and never will. (The outcome of the 1985 WS was NOT affected by the bad call in game 6).

[jeffy]

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?

That is what is called an exxageration, which makes the point that the most important factor is not always going to be to "get it right". If getting it right, via more extensive use of replay, legthened the average game by 10% I'd be against that...because it would be about 15 minutes of nothing happening...umpires trudging off the field to review a call, etc.

 

"Getting it right" needs to be balanced with keeping the game enjoyable. Football limited the provisions for "getting it right" to 2 opportunities per game (etc.) for a reason. However, to me there is too much replay foolishness in Football. I would not want to see that much in baseball.

 

Now technology that can help make correct calls in real time or near real time, would be another matter. On balls and strikes, I think you may still need the umpire to have the final say if the weaknesses of systems like questec, would be considered to be a problem:

 

A core weakness of the system is that it consistently misses certain types of pitches, mostly sweeping pitches (sliders and curves), as well as late, hard, 'boring' pitches such as the cut fastball. These pitches can land all the way into the opposite batter's box, but because they caught a tiny slice of the front corner of the plate, the computer calls them strikes. No umpire who values his safety is going to call a pitch that lands in the opposite batter's box a strike.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3326

But if there were a way to relay to the umpire instantaneously that the tracking system says "ball" or "strike", he could consider that information in making his call. Maybe a pitch was so close that it could go either way and so he goes with what the system says.

[TooLiveBrew]

That is what is called an exxageration, which makes the point that the most important factor is not always going to be to "get it right". If getting it right, via more extensive use of replay, legthened the average game by 10% I'd be against that...because it would be about 15 minutes of nothing happening...umpires trudging off the field to review a call, etc.

 

But even your example of 15 min. seems really overstated. I understand what an exaggeration is (really?), but my whole point is that making up extreme scenarios and then saying, 'this wouldn't be good' doesn't really further the discussion. Sure, there is a remote possibility that an extreme scenario comes true every once in a blue moon. But for the most part, discussing replay only under the context that 'we can't have these extreme scenarios happen' is to me a lot like the logic behind walking a guy with the bases loaded so he doesn't beat you with a grand slam.

 

 

the weaknesses of systems like questec

 

I think Questec has been criticized a lot, and doubt that new systems (if a new system were to be seriously investigated &/or implemented) wouldn't improve from its mistakes.

 

 

"Getting it right" needs to be balanced with keeping the game enjoyable. Football limited the provisions for "getting it right" to 2 opportunities per game (etc.) for a reason. However, to me there is too much replay foolishness in Football. I would not want to see that much in baseball.

 

Agreed -- and just inherently I don't think baseball lends itself to as much actual video replay as football does.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

If there was an additional replay or override umpire in the booth that could be in contact with the umpiring crew, it would barely take any time. If it eliminated the manager coming out kicking and screaming about some horrible call it might even shorten the game.

 

I find nothing enjoyable about a bad call changing the outcome of a game...in fact, nothing frustrates me more. I felt horrible after that lazy ump blew that call down left field line in the D-Backs game a couple weeks ago. That call ruined the game for me and blew a shot at the Brewers winning. Imagine if there was no replay on that HR on Wednesday. We'd all be melting down right about now. Where is the enjoyment in that?

 

Given the poor quality of some the umpiring crews in baseball, any technology that can improve the quality of the calls while not overly impeding the flow of the game (I will give you that point) is good with me. I believe it can be done if MLB put it's mind to it.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Now technology that can help make correct calls in real time or near real time, would be another matter.

This is my biggest sticking point. I don't want NFL-esque instant replay reviews taking 5-10 minutes each. I don't want umpires down in the replay booth looking at frame by frame pictures of a play at first and all arguing if someone was safe or out when really the best way to tell was watching the play live and listening for the slap of the ball in the glove and watching for the runner's foot on first.. There are limitations to instant replay. Even tennis, which has the best replay in sports, takes 5 seconds to review an in/out call, so it may not really be possible to instantaneously call balls/strikes, fair/foul, etc.

 

There is really just a spectrum of how invasive instant replay will be in the flow of gameplay, and I think many of us have different opinions on where along that spectrum we would be happy. If they could immediately make every call with computer-like precision, would I be for that? Yeah, sure I would (though again, I do still enjoy players adjusting to an umpire's strike zone. That's just a difference in opinion though). I just worry that expanding instant replay from homeruns will soon lead, in time, to replaying everything including trapped balls, bang-bang plays at first, etc until it's like football where, really, instant replay just doesn't work a significant amount of the time (would replay have helped in the 2005 ALCS with AJ Pierzynski's dropped strike 3?).

 

Also, just a thinking point, it's easy to see a blown call once, like the other night, and say replay is great. But since it was implemented, the 2 overturned homeruns the other night doubled the total of changed calls since replay started last August. 4 calls (vs. 10 reviewed and upheld) in how many games? I'm not saying the current system is bad (though I'm not a huge fan), I'm just saying I don't think you can point to one changed call (or 4 total calls in 3 months/~1300 games) and say it's very necessary in the grand scheme of things.

[cwolf2012]

"An umpire has never called a ball or strike wrong because whatever the umpire decides is a strike is a strike. "

 

I'd like to elaborate on this real quick. So, if an ump sees 2 identical pitches, and calls one a strike and one a ball, do you see something wrong with that? I can live with the idea that each ump has his own strike zone, in fact, I kind of like it, but if there's two identical pitches that are called differently, that's a problem. Simply saying "that's the nature of the game" is not relevant to me. If a computer system could call those consistently and without delaying the game, what is the harm there? I don't see how you can want human error in a competitive game.

 

Competition is about fairness. The ump would still have the right to overrule a call, and he would still need to make the judgment calls that happen. If you throw out the "it'll slow the game down" argument from this equation, what else do you have to argue with? Tradition? That means nothing to me. Small ball is based on tradition, and it's become more and more abundantly clear in the age of the internet and advanced statistics that small ball scores less runs and wins fewer games. The same goes for the perception that if someone has a low batting average and strikes out a lot, then that player is bad. There is so much more to work with now, why waste it if all it does is improve the competitive fairness of the game with no delay to the game?

[Invader3K]

I didn't think this was worth starting a new thread over, but this one here is pretty galling.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?affiliateId=CommentWidget&affiliateId=facebook_share&content_id=5982611

[mrbergmann]

That is ridiculous! I missed that the other night. Later that inning, Blake hits a 3-run homer, when he never should have even batted. Unbelievable! At least the Braves were able to come back and win the game.

 

When are the umpires finally going to be held accountable for these atrocious mistakes??

[PeaveyFury]

Wow, what an absolute joke. The guy behind the plate CLEARLY indicates a strike, then changes his mind after the runner is thrown out? Holy cow.

[Gobias Industries]

Shane Victorino was thrown out today...from centerfield.

 

The problem that is MLB umpiring probably deserves its own thread.

[pitchleague]

Shane Victorino was thrown out today...from centerfield.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand. Thrown out at first? What do you mean?

[PeaveyFury]

I had to read it a couple of times too- Victorino was ejected by the home plate umpire while he was playing defense in CF.

 

Stunning.

[logan82]

Here is the video. Helms in the center of things again. I think the announcers were upset. Link

[Fatter than Joey]

Shane Victorino was thrown out today...from centerfield.

 

He meant "ejected"

[bucks2281]

Ed Rapuano is pathetic. That's just as bad as it gets.

[Janelle Larson]

That is ridiculous! I missed that the other night. Later that inning, Blake hits a 3-run homer, when he never should have even batted.

If the play was called correctly, it would be 3-2 count, one out and bases empty. Anything can still happen in that inning.

[sgtcluels]

This is Victorinos ejection.

Nats also got an out with another blown call.

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/223985/jerrycrawfordmakesworstcallof2009_medium.jpg

 

Umpires aren't infallible, they make mistakes. I make mistakes at my job, so it's going to happen. But unlike when I make a mistake, Umpires are not punished. The umpire union needs to come down on these mistakes, rate their pay based on % of correct calls based on Questtec auditing of their strike zone. Call a game with in a margin of error of ~3% you aren't docked pay.

 

As far as replay goes, that needs to be done in a way to prevent large delays as well as not allow for teams to keep doing it. That way you discourage frivolous replay requests to buy your pitcher a few more second of a break.

 

And to add fuel to fire. Here's Brauns stirke 3 called from yesterdays game.

 

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/65434/location_php.png

 

JUUUUUUUUUUST a bit outside.

[Gobias Industries]

JUUUUUUUUUUST a bit outside.

Haha, that is nuts. And to think, Bill S still said it's too close to take with 2 strikes. I can see why he had a sub .300 OBP for his career. Also, I'd be interested in seeing Cam's called third strike, as I'm pretty sure it was a ball as well. Definitely borderline though.

 

I can live with them making a mistake. But it seems like a lot of the time they compound said mistake by throwing out someone who has a legitimate beef with the call. That's something that needs to stop asap.

[brewers19]

If the play was called correctly, it would be 3-2 count, one out and bases empty. Anything can still happen in that inning.

True. Though if the play was called correctly the Dodgers would have had only a 57% win probability, as opposed to the 70% that resulted from the missed call. So while that doesn't guarantee any specific outcome, it still certainly made things more difficult for the Braves.