[Mike Frezon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

Here, I fundamentally disagree. I want the officials screwing up to have no part of my sports.

Screwing up is a part of life. I do it all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

Clearly, something is wrong, or less than ideal, or "broke", because potentially game-changing calls are occasionally wrong.

Again, getting it wrong (and I think we agree that it is a very small percentage of the time) is part of the game. Sometimes light hitters can't get bunts down either. Stuff happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

The fact that baseball did not have easy random access to high-definition video from multiple angles and wireless communications a hundred years ago is no reason not to make use of it now. Hell, baseball didn't have access to air travel a hundred years ago. Should we have teams make their road trips on trains?

I wasn't a big fan of the westward expansion of the sport ...but if we are going to have teams on the West Coast the subsequent train trips would probably have a deleterious impact of the game. I don't see the occasional botched call as having the same impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

"Tradition" is not a good argument for anything; it's an indicator that, at some point in the past, there was a good argument for something.

For many topics that's true. Not baseball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

Obviously there will be a delay. However, since the umpires do a pretty good job in most cases, those delays will be rare - the expected demand is such that baseball figures they only need to add one extra umpire rather than thirty, as your idea of adding two umps per game would require. It would likely be minimal, depending on how proactive the replay umpire is. And it would result in getting the call right. A small delay in exchange for a nearly guaranteed accurate call is a worthwhile trade.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Screwing up is a part of life. I do it all the time.

And you try to minimize it. When new technology or methods come along that can minimize or eliminate those screw-ups, you investigate and embrace them. You don't claim that the mistake is evidence of some sort of virtue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

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?

First, I'm pretty sure that "expensive" is a relative term. Even if they've got five people on duty in New York, that's still 1/6 the manpower costs of adding two umps/game, and I suspect you can set the system up relatively cheap; a couple million dollars out of Bud's slush fund.

Second... How many really controversial calls are there per game? Why not get them right? While it will certainly be an adjustment period, I suspect that within a couple years it will be a finely oiled machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

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

Not yet... But give it five years or so. Then get it done, and have it auditable by the clubs so that there's no hint of impropriety, the high strike is called, and umpires don't give up on nasty sliders and knucklers. That sounds heavenly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Seaver

I think 100% accuracy should be the goal where there is enough information to get it right.

Exactly. Since when has human error been a good thing? Baseball's goal shlould be to get as many calls right as possible, not getting some calls right while keeping the game's traditionalists happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Can you really believe that there won't be a delay as replays are checked?

I'm convinced a "replay delay" would be shorter than current delays when a manager argues a call, the umpires huddle to discuss it, then must explain their decision to the manager. Make it so a manager arguing a replay ruling is automatically ejected and there's the delay would not be longer than it is now.
--------------------
Now for something I think we can all agree on: Hank Steinbrenner needs to stop talking. His thoughts on the DH and Chien-Ming Wang's injury, suffered running the bases at the Astros:

Quote:

My only message is simple. The National League needs to join the 21st century. They need to grow up and join the 21st century. Am I [mad] about it? Yes. I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyD

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

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.

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