To Replay or Not To Replay: The Debate of the Playoffs

Actually I did vote for Instant replay but ….. I couldn’t resist

but I’m with PT here. Especially for electronic strike zone. Just watch any televised game and you already see that the announcers (who are uniformly old-school baseball types) readily accept that the electronic pitchfx systems are more accurate than the human umpires. Specifically, I mean quotes along the lines of:

…and that’s a called strike three! Crosby isn’t happy about it, and he’s letting the home plate umpire know. Let’s take a look on the Fox-a-matic Pitch Trakification-ma-bob™. Well, it looks like that pitch was indeed inside, so the umpire missed the call on this one. But, hold on now, it looks like there is a silver lining here, because, citing a rarely used rule that I honestly haven’t ever heard of, the umpire is not just ejecting Crosby from the game, but is also banishing him to Mars, where he will be forced to swing at sliders low and away for the next 9 million years. You know Bob, it’s times like this where we see the importance of human error in baseball umpiring.

But joking aside, we all know that this system would do a better and more consistent job of calling balls and strikes (particularly after a transition period where any bugs have a chance to get worked out). Why not use it?

unless it means some sort of bump in revenue, somehow, somewhere.

The Almighty Dollar, not sports tradition, now rules Major League Baseball.

It’s hard to compare football to baseball for game delays because football happens once a week, 16 times a year for the regular season. People will sit and watch the game even if it’s 4 hours long because it’s only on once a week, on a day when you’re sitting there because you have nothing else to be doing.

There are 162 baseball games a year, each of which are… 2:50 or so on average? In other words, the total delays in the season are 10 times what it would be in football if we assume the same amount of delay.

This is manageable if baseball is only watched once a week, but obviously, there needs to be more viewership than that. So, while I think Selig is resistant to adding replays for maybe nostalgic reasons or something else, I do appreciate that argument. Whatever will be done, must be done concurrently with enforcing time-out limits, enforcing “rain delay” pitchers, limiting coach and catcher visits to one an inning each, and anything else that could work.

I thought it was pretty eye-opening. The “system” in place to develop Major League umpires is just laughable.

And the scare quotes around “system” are totally warranted, because there is no system to speak of.

Eventually they tire of their subservient position, revolt against their masters, and wipe out all human life.

Haven’t you read anything?

Human umpires call balls and strikes like this:

Robots, on the other hand, would call a LOT more strikes high and low plus a LOT fewer inside and outside. Chaos would ensue.

so that the question wouldn’t have even arisen.

The thing is, getting calls right is important. It adds to the overall enjoyment of the game, because you’re watching the true outcome of the contestants. Having the catcher roll out to talk to the pitcher 4 times in one at-bat? Not so much. Paps taking 5 minutes between pitches with no one on base? I don’t think even Massholes enjoy watching that. So it’s not that anyone here would argue that the game couldn’t use some speeding up, but that on the scale of things, there are so many other aspects to look at that don’t affect the overall quality of the game first. If it’s still too slow then, then arguing pace of play becomes relevant.

But I think we’re at the point where the bad officiating is dragging down the enjoyment of the postseason so much( I mean how do you miss-call a fair ball that’s fair by over a foot?? ), that it needs to be changed asap.

And every pitch that’s not hit.

Yes, in some situations the umpires would have to make a call like the ground-rule double sort of thing because you can only assume so much but it’s no different from existing ground-rule double calls, really. There have been times where it seems clear someone would’ve scored from first but they have to go back to third.

I think the goal would still be to use replay as little as possible. I don’t think adding replay to more situations would lead to umpires thinking “Well, I can just use the replay as a backup and not care as much about getting it right the first time.” I don’t think any of them would be looking at it that way. Rather, they’re likely to want to make it so it doesn’t even have to be used to begin with because each time it IS used it questions their accuracy.

of signalling “too close to be called”. In such a case, everyone plays it as if it were fair. They don’t wait for the “booth”. They play it as fair (or, “safe”) , and if it’s foul (or, “out by an eyelash”), they restart after the play on the field has concluded and the booth either affirms the action because it was fair (or safe), or resets the batter because it was “foul”.

NO CHALLENGE SYSTEM. For what? If you have say, five people in the booth, what is there to challenge? Poll the jury? The “booth” would review every play as it takes place, and intercede ONLY if it is to reverse a call, or judge a “too close, I didn’t see it well”-situation. But, no appeal. If the umps can just signal “cannot call” or they trip, fall, and cannot call, the call just comes down on the PA….“Safe at first base”.

None of the “hanky crap” and “NFL” foolishness. The people in the booth are part of the officiating…at all times.

Players play as if they are “safe” until there is a call of “out”. Same as it is now, with a 3-2 pitch and the runner going. The catcher throws regardless of hearing the call, many times.

You need a team in New York watching all the games.

if every play were reviewed, and I mean the guys in the booth with three camera angles are ready and waiting, and watching every routine grounder to first, it would allow the umpires to “wave it off” as “too close to call”. That is, instead of the thumb (out) or spread arms (safe!), an ump could give a signal the same as football refs give for “out of bounds” (two hands motioning downward at a 45 degree angle). That would be the signal “Too close to call, I can’t see it, I’m out of position” whatever the reason. This would eliminate guessing. And if the booth is doing their job, they call it out over the PA… “Safe! At first base!”. None of this “review” or “thrown hanky”. Just let the umps take the “defer to the booth” route whenever it’s necessary.

It’s long been known that umpires are trained to make every call with emphasis and a display of absolute certainty. Isn’t it time to let reality into this anachronism??

When the home plate is a fixed position (as opposed to a man running in and making a catch) tracking in three dimensions is not a problem. You see a lot of it in MLB.com “Gameday”.

The idea I have, is that -every- play is scrutinized by the team (three-four people) in the booth, at the stadium (not in New York!!) If the call is pretty obvious, there is silence from the booth, the game appears as it has for the last 130 or so years (except, they used fewer umps in the old days). If the play is really bang-bang, it is being reviewed, just like every play is reviewed, and the umps have the option of simply signaling “too close for my eyes, I cannot call it” (my suggestion is a downward 45-degree wave of both hands, like the football “out-of-bounds” call). The ump defers to the booth, rather than await a challenge. The booth is ready, waiting, practiced. The ump waves off a decision, the booth announces over the PA “saaaaaafe!!!!” and fifteen seconds have transpired. No “hanky throws”, no delay of game. So the umpires wave off ten calls in a Game Seven of the World Series?? Much much preferred to the “Denkinger Debacle” of 1985.

is that Zito’s success depended very strongly on whether or not the home plate umpire was willing to call his curveball for strikes. That’s not right. His curveball should be judged solely on where it crosses the plate, and that inconsistency in umpiring was a huge factor in his career.

Robots are well-programmed, but there is some sort of a nuance to a strike zone call that you can’t quite replicate. I think.

So one of the things my company( well the company I work for, I’m just a code monkey ) is working on is a project that automates pruning of grape vines. One of the most strenuous arguments we heard when we were first pitching the project was “How are you going to have a computer figure this out? It’s really complicated.”

Well it turns out that every one of these vineyard owners employed a large crew during pruning season – and would have to teach said crew how to prune( at least once, not necessarily every year ). So we asked the owners how they taught the crew, and they responded “Well, you want to keep 8 buds per 1/2 cordon, you cut about so high, etc, etc.” Basically, they handed them a set of rules to follow – something which robots are really, really good at. Because it turns out that people aren’t born innately knowing how to prune grape vines( at least not for the most part ).

Similarly, great umpires aren’t people who were born knowing how to call a strike or a ball. They were taught how. They’re given a set of rules and to some degree a set of unspoken rules and go from there. Robots are really, really, really good at this sort of thing.

Also, when I mention robot here, I’m not thinking Terminator or even Wall-E style. Basically, a strike-calling robot would be an output screen/speaker, a few cameras scattered around and a computer or two stashed away somewhere.

To your first point, I don’t think anyone would say replay implemented now would be a panacea and make every call correct. But it would certainly be a step in that direction, and every such step is a good step.

Those who don’t buy into the point that it keeps people talking about the game and keeps interest high should also be in favor of a college playoff system.

Two responses to this:
1) See mine and PT’s examples above. It’s not that it makes it interesting, it’s that it makes it interesting for the wrong reasons. I want to remember the game for the great plays, not the terrible calls. If we need umpires making wrong calls to make a game interesting, why don’t we tell them to do it all the time? I mean a blowout isn’t as interesting as a close game, right? So why not have the umps “help” the game stay close?

2) When you bring in college football playoffs( or the lack thereof ), you’re debating something different than when you argue instant replay. It’s like saying we should add boxing fights in the on-deck circles to make baseball more interesting. While technically true( Finally something to watch other than Posada trekking out to the pitcher’s mound!!! ), it’s at best a tangential argument.

With the college football argument, you’re debating between opposing systems. With the instant replay/robot argument you’re not debating the system, but whether the system’s better if it fails occasionally.

…is either directly profiting from the current system or is a total moron.

And that includes Colin Cowherd.

Like most profoundly awful ideas that earn a select group of people large amounts of money, the BCS, lacking any rational arguments in its favor, has an unusually large number of inane and irrational arguments presented in its defense.

Let’s take the “keeping people talking about it” argument, since that’s what’s come up in this thread.

Do people talk substantially more about college football than, say, pro football or college basketball? I don’t think so. And much more of the college football discussion is fruitless speculation thanks to the BCS.

Want to know what a rotten idea the BCS is? Ask yourself whether any other sport, at any level, anywhere in the world, that current has a playoff system would benefit from scrapping that playoff system and going with a BCS-system. Better yet, ask yourself whether there is anybody anywhere in the world promoting such a change. It’s not only a bad idea. It’s an impossibly idiotic idea. Think of all the terrible sports reforms that actually have support. This one is worse.

The BCS is a total disaster. And I say that as a fan and season ticket holder of the program that has arguably benefited the most from the system since its inception.

OK. Flame off.

Until 1895 (that’s over twenty years of professional leagues) the catcher played in the field until there were two strikes on the batter. Otherwise, it was just the ump and the batter at home plate.
The ump would run back and retrieve the pitched ball…almost every pitch!!

Finally, one ump refused to run after the ball. He made the catcher run off the infield, and get it. Pretty soon, all the umps joined in, and the catcher simply caught every pitch from behind the plate, instead of waiting for “strike two”.

you give the umps the option of deferring to the booth, immediately, and not have to make an impossible choice (and then be rushed by BOTH managers!!)

If the ump immediately defers to the booth, the guys in the booth will be already waiting, and know the “best” call in fifteen seconds max. They may have to simply go with “good enough”, but everyone would be much, much more satisfied IMO.

Nothing inflames anyone watching, whether on the field or at home, than an emphatic, but wrong, call. Can live without that type of “blood boiler”.

Because I do agree that it sure looks like there needs to be better training as it is (which I mentioned way up top), but I also believe that ultimately the right calls need to be made. There needs to be more consistency in that area and I just don’t think a blown call is on the same level as a mistake pitch or an error. Physical and mental mistakes by the players are to be expected. The ones making the calls that sometimes affect who wins and loses need to be held to a higher standard than they’ve been.

I suggested a 130 game season, with the top six teams playing only each other for the last 30 games in September, to determine who goes to the World Series.

It got roundly criticized, utterly dismissed here.

I go back to the late 1950s, 1960s, with MLB. The “NHL” style of playoffs is not right for baseball, IMO. But as you said, for another time/place.

Were they really the best team? But one game difference, any game, would’ve taken Detroit into the playoffs, with no 163rd game. And how much luck did it take for Minnesota to go like, what, 17-5 in their last stretch? Were they better because they finished better, or were they just better?

not really some sort of philosophical juxtaposition. No one wants to watch or listen to 4 hour games every night. Well, maybe we do, but the casual baseball fan who tunes in a few times a week will be turned off by that.

Of course, if it is implemented right, then it could be relatively painless, which is what we all hope for now that the writing on the wall is becoming clearer.

I mean, did the humans ever get mad that they were being used as the slaves of deities?

The problem now is that umpires are trained to show a total unequivocal decision…even if they are only guessing!! The fact that I had backup as an ump, and part of a team of umps, would make me feel I could “do no wrong”. If I chose to be conservative, and make a no call, great. If I think I see it correctly, I give it the “WHAM-O” out signal with full force, knowing that I’ve got back up if I missed something.

And the players would not jump up and down, pointing, 3rd base coach charging in. Instead, they’d wait…and when the call was reversed, they’d clap….or if there was no indication of change, they’d trot off the field, knowing that the correct call caught them.

I would never advocate, “Oh, let’s call the booth”. Terrible. The “booth” of five judges would watch every play. No “call upstairs” ever, none of that NFL stuff. The “booth” watches every play, but they are SILENT in every case except to reverse a bad call, or render a call when “no call, too close” was indicated.

The “slippery slope” of “thus in turn” simply would not happen. I cannot understand that logic.