2008 MLB Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

I suppose, Jason, one of the things that concerns me the most is "letting the genie out of the bottle." Once the system was put in place, there will be calls to use it excessively. Because even though the umpires calls are mostly right, there are going to be charges from the teams for which the call is not in their favor to see if that call should be overturned. If the officials refuse (whether their call was right or, maybe, wrong!) they would be worried about charges that "the fix was in."

From what I take from that mlb.com article I linked to several posts ago...there would, indeed, be a bank of officials glued to TV sets in a NYC bunker--not just one. but they would not be allowed to be proactive. they would only be allowed to react whenever the crew chief on the field deemed necessary.

As Scott noted, the same article said that they would expect those TV umpires to be called into play only ten times over an entire season. I cannot imagine that to be true. First off, if I was running a business and put such an extensive system into operation to be used such a limited time over the course of a year, I would be laughed out of industry. Secondly, I cannot imagine that there would not be undue pressure on umpires to give the electronic eye the chance to "get it right". Why run the risk of NOT checking if the service is available?

Look at the craziness that is Questec. Put an electronic system in place to oversee umpire accuracy and you end up with studies hinting that umpires are racist in the way they call balls & strikes.

Strike zones are amazing things. They are tall and short, skinny and wide. At times, they seem to change from pitch-to-pitch. They are maddening. They are the result of human frailty...and a human's best guess of how to imterpret a standard that was devised by other imperfect humans. Could you imagine MLB proposing to institute ESPN's "K Zone" as a substitute for the human umpire...or even a back-up technology to be utilized if a team feels it was wronged by a particularly egregious call?!? Seems ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet it's not altogether dissimilar from the proposal to use moving video images to determine if umpires HR calls are accurate. Now I clearly see the multitude of differences. But I cite the hypothetical to illustrate how once the silliness is begun, I fear it would be a slippery slope indeed.

===================

EDIT** I'd rather argue--on any given play--about how the umpires botched the call than find myself arguing about whether to use of replay definitively confirmed the umpire's original call...or, worse yet, whether the use of replay should have or shouldn't have been used in a particular instance.

"We wuz robbed" is a lot better than "we wuz robbed because the TV umpire couldn't see what I clearly saw...which was that the ball was definitely foul!" It's also better than "we wuz robbed because the stupid field umpire wouldn't allow the TV ump to correct the call."

 

[Jason Seaver]

I'd rather not argue at all. I'd rather baseball put the time and effort into improving officiating to the point where bad calls were unheard of and the game was decided completely by the actions of the players.

 

[Mike Frezon]

They way you're headed, Jason...it sounds like you want to eventually replace the players with robots.

 

[Jason Seaver]

No. The umpires, sure.

What I'm saying is I want the game completely in the hands of the players. The umpires should have as little effect on the game as is possible. I don't think the interpretation of the rules of the game should be subjective, and I think 100% accuracy should be the goal where there is enough information to get it right.

 

[Scott_J]

Imagine his reaction if the Yankees miss the playoffs this year because of a blown HR call by the umpires in the final game of the season.

 

[TonyD]

"I suppose, Jason, one of the things that concerns me the most is "letting the genie out of the bottle." Once the system was put in place, there will be calls to use it excessively.'

why would you expect that to happen.
it hasn't in hockey or basketball.

football is the only one that it has been a bit of a mess on a lot of occasions.

hockey only uses it for goals.
basketall as far as i can tell only for last second shots.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Because it will be there...available...and that anytime there is ANY question about whether a call is right, I'd think human nature would cause the on-field crew to second-guess themselves and not want to be scrutinized the next day for getting the call wrong when a simple "go the videotape" would eliminate any question or controversy.

Just see Jason and Scott's posts above. They are both advocating "whatever it takes" to get the calls right. Accurate calls seems to be what's most important to them. They say, let's eliminate as much of a chance for human error as possible. Wouldn't such thinking lead to "excessive use" of the system?

If Jason & Scott were co-commissioners of MLB there could be no such thing as "excessive use."

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel the human element is a large part of what makes baseball America's pastime. It warmed my heart a couple weeks ago to see Joe Girardi get ejected from a game for throwing his cap on the ground at an umpire's feet and then proceed to kick it back to the dugout.

I DO believe the implementation of Instant Replay would further slow down the game (a fate the game cannot absorb).

Interpretation of baseball's rules is subjective. As clear-cut as they are in some areas, there is always the pesky issue of practical application of those rules in real-life play. Look at how much time the Supreme Court takes trying to interpret the Constitution.

Like it or not, baseball is a game that is played by two teams and overseen by a team of umpires. It's not, obviously, that I WANT bad calls to happen. It's just that they will given the human element. And as quickly as you all start shouting at your computer screens that Instant Replay will eliminate that human element and improve the number of bad calls, I think for all the reasons I've stated above that phasing out of umpires would be a sad move for baseball.

BTW, Jason, you mis-read my use of the word "extensive" a few posts ago as "expensive." I'm more worried about the process and it's impact then I am the cost.

=========================

As for Hank Steinbrenner...

I couldn't be happier than to have George Will arguing on the same side of these issues as me...and Hank Steinbrenner arguing the other side. 'Nuff said.

Even Joe Girardi said that pitchers are "too important" to be running bases. :rolleyes

=========================

 

[TonyD]

the only thing important aout pitchers is there isnt enough of them that are good.
i guess that makes it a supply and demand issue.

i'm for instant replay so we do disagree on that one.
doesnt really matter what we think anyway it has no impact on what baseall will do.

just ecause we dont have the same opinion doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

over the course of the entire history of baseball
rules have rarely been changed.
and most of the changes have been minimal, DH being an exception.

A problem with the sport is that the entire thing is watered down, including
the umpires.

htere are too many and there are too many that flat out stink.
adding 2 more per game means more watering down and more stinky umps.

if the umps could figure out how to see a baseball go over a fence or sail past a pole then they wouldn't have HR calls taken out of their hands.

a few weeks ago a third base ump called a homerun.
the home plate overruled him.
the ball hit the foul pole.

over ruling ump was crew chief
what would stop the chief from over ruling the out field umps again on a correct call.
how about an instant replay proving it was or was not a HR.

 

[Brian Perry]

It seems many of the HR calls are incorrect because today's stadiums have all of these wacky configurations that can create optical illusions to the umps. As irregular as Fenway is, it's pretty clear if something is a home run. In Houston, however, they've got a VERTICAL line for part of the home run strip. I say make the fences clearer/simpler and forget replay.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Tony: Completely agree that the baseball talent pool is watered down because of the number of teams and players. But you just know that contraction will never happen as long as there's money to be made.

But I'd have a hard time believing that there's not enough quality umpires who could be properly trained to fill the positions required under the "Frezon Plan."

Brian: I love the quirky ballparks. I think all the oddities appeal to that "human element" of the game that we keep referring to on this topic.

IIRC, Fenway also has a vertical HR line at one point out where the Monster meets the Triangle. I'm sure someone will be able to set me straight quickly.

I was extremely happy when the new Red Sox owners decided to keep Fenway Park and renovate it while adding seats and luxury suites. I am stunned at the Yankee management decision to build a new stadium and walk away from years of "Yankee tradition." It's a shame, really. I doubt anyone who's ever been there (or played on that field) doesn't go through the mental process of "this is the place that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, etc. played."

==========================

I have a photo of Fenway's vertical HR line...but cannot seem to locate Photobucket today to host it so I can post it here. :frowning: The internet gremlins must've sacked Photobucket.

 

[Philip Hamm]

They use it to determine where a shooters foot was on close 3-point shots a lot.

 

[TonyD]

Yes, that's right.
Still not out of hand with the replay use.

 

[Mike Frezon]

They should have used it last night to figure out where the Lakers disappeared to.

 

[Philip Hamm]

LOL

!!!

 

[Scott_J]

Here's something that doesn't happen often: the Dodgers beat the Angels last night, 1-0, with a 0 in the hit column (the run scored on 2 errors and a sac fly). But it doesn't count as an official no-hitter for the Angels because they only pitched 8 innings (the home-team Dodgers didn't hit in the 9th because they had the lead). MLB only recognizes no-hitters of at least 9 innings.

 

[Brian Perry]

Does the WHIP stat include batters hit-by-pitch? If not, I think it definitely should.

 

[Mike Frezon]

WHIP = (Hits + Walks) divided by Innings Pitched. That's all.

If you want to include HBP, maybe there'd be a way to include balks, too.

 

[Scott_J]

What will likely be the biggest trade before the July 31st deadline appears to be a done deal. The Indians and Brewers apparently have a deal in place, sending C.C. Sabathia to Milwaukee for some minor leaguers, led by top Brewers prospect Matt LaPorta.

The deal is expected to be finalized tonight, with Sabathia likely pitching for MIL Tuesday vs. Colorado. This should make the NL Central race a little more interesting.

 

[ZacharyTait]

That means that the Indians are looking to 2009. Dammit. :frowning: 60 years and counting now.....

 

[Walter C]

Just got back from my Midwest road trip. I got to visit 3 more ballparks for games, and one for a tour (which won't count as a visit), and another that is about to be torn down, and one that is under construction.

Comerica Park (Tigers) - one of the best if not *the* best. The tiger theme has been put into overdrive, as you will see statues of them everywhere. Some history displays throughout the concourse, and some fun stuff to do.

Comiskey Park (White Sox) - I don't like the current name and won't refer it as that. But this ballpark is underrated and surprisily a great place to watch a game. Enjoy the fireworks everytime the White Sox hit a home run, which goes off even in daylight. Just missed the retro era by a couple years.

Metrodome (Twins) - reminds me of the old Veterans Stadium, old home of the Phillies, and those other cookie-cutter stadiums. It felt weird watching a baseball game indoors. Nothing really special. But this is where I came very close to a foul ball being hit to my area.

Plus:

I got to visit Wrigley Field for a tour, saw Tiger Stadium before the demolition started, and the new Twins ballpark under construction.

7 down, 23 to go