Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

The major leagues' top umpire believes instant replay will become a reality but cautioned that baseball needs to set a high standard for using the technology.

While participating in an online chat with the Houston Chronicle, umpire supervisor Rich Rieker discussed how support for using replays for home runs or close plays has surfaced with several disputed calls in recent weeks.

"Replay is coming," Rieker wrote. "If done properly we have an opportunity to set the gold standard in replay, learning from pros and cons from other sports. But we must do so in a fashion that will not delay the game further."

Rieker doesn't anticipate lengthy delays during games if replays are utilized.

"Replay could slow down the game, but it could also eliminate unneccesary arguments," he wrote. "So there might be a canceling effect. But surely, there will be some delay."

Since mid-May, Carlos Delgado, Alex Rodriguez and Ben Francisco have all lost home runs to incorrect calls, and Geovany Soto had to leg out out an inside-the-parker on a ball that had actually cleared the outfield wall.

The sport's general managers voted 25-5 during the offseason to consider using instant replays to verify home-run calls. A system may be tested in the Arizona Fall League.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8192264?MSNHPHMA

Yes.

personally I think it would detract from the flavor of the game, part of the game's color is seeing calls argued...

I personally think that instant replay should only be used for home run calls and fair/foul calls, not for every type of play.

However, Joe Sheehan did make a rather convicning argument in a subscription article on Baseball Prospectus the other day. His overall thesis was that he wants the outcome of the game to be decided by the players, and thus, the calls should be correct. He did go as far as advocating for machines to call balls/strikes, etc., saying that the game should follow the rulebook strike zone, which it doesn't, which isn't a bad point.

And you know, what's the problem with that? What is so bad about embracing technology? What is so bad about making it so that the calls are 100% right and the games are decided purely by how the players played, instead of by some old guys judgment calls, often times made when they are not in a position to make an accurate judgment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Since sabr attributes things to luck, why not embrace the luck of the umpires calls?

---

Once again, thank you for displaying your ignorance to sabermetrics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And you know, what's the problem with that? What is so bad about embracing technology? What is so bad about making it so that the calls are 100% right and the games are decided purely by how the players played, instead of by some old guys judgment calls, often times made when they are not in a position to make an accurate judgment?

---

I think George Carlin had it right, here. Baseball is a 19th century pastoral game. Football is a 20th century technological struggle. Instant replay "fits" football, with its miked refs, warlike nature, and eminently protected players.

Baseball, on the other hand, still looks pretty much the same as it did in Babe Ruth's day. Sure we have distinictions between the dead ball and live ball era, and there have been some changes, but it's still really a pastoral game. Having umpires with varying strike zones, who sometimes blow calls, etc. is part of the charm of the game. Just a couple days ago, the home plate umpire at a Rays game (I think it was Bill Welke) was consistently calling inside balls as strikes, and called three strikeouts on those off-the-plate pitches, Iwamura twice. Seeing the players jaw at Welke was fun, as was being slightly ticked at his calls. Stuff like instant replay is sort of dehumanizing and sterilizing, which works for football, but not for baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BorgHunter

I think George Carlin had it right, here. Baseball is a 19th century pastoral game. Football is a 20th century technological struggle. Instant replay "fits" football, with its miked refs, warlike nature, and eminently protected players.

Baseball, on the other hand, still looks pretty much the same as it did in Babe Ruth's day. Sure we have distinictions between the dead ball and live ball era, and there have been some changes, but it's still really a pastoral game. Having umpires with varying strike zones, who sometimes blow calls, etc. is part of the charm of the game. Just a couple days ago, the home plate umpire at a Rays game (I think it was Bill Welke) was consistently calling inside balls as strikes, and called three strikeouts on those off-the-plate pitches, Iwamura twice. Seeing the players jaw at Welke was fun, as was being slightly ticked at his calls. Stuff like instant replay is sort of dehumanizing and sterilizing, which works for football, but not for baseball.

---

well said

I don't think it's dehumanizing. I think it puts more of an emphasis on what the people actually involved in the game do...you know, the players. I think that the constant incorrect calls is in a way dehumanizing to the players. They are not being properly rewarded for what they do. Instant replay, or in the more extreme case that Joe Sheehan advocated, games monitored by machines with "umpires" as the "relayers" of the information, allows the games to be determined by the players themselves...and I don't see how that is dehumanizing.

Some quotes from his article:

Quote:

---

Let me make this simple: the only human element I want involved in the outcome of a baseball game has a minimum salary of $400,000. Players and their actions should be all that determines wins and losses, not the interpretation of what they’ve done by what amounts to middle management making a fraction of that number.

---

Quote:

---

So if a player’s left hand scrapes across the plate just before a catcher sweeps his glove hand across the sliding player’s back, that player is safe, and the run counts. It shouldn’t be not so because a 45-year-old man couldn’t see through the catcher’s legs to where the player’s fingers were, but could see the tag. When a 2-2 slider, moving in three dimensions at 88 miles per hour, runs off the plate by two inches, and the batter correctly reads the break and takes the pitch, he shouldn’t be called out on strikes because the man standing slightly behind and to his right wasn’t able to correctly discern the location of home plate and the baseball, a task for which human eyes are poor tools at that level of detail.

---

Quote:

---

Machines can do these things better than people can. That’s not an insult, that’s a fact. There’s a reason they let machines get involved in tennis now: the balls move too quickly for the human eye, even the well-trained one, to track. Machines don’t have that problem. Systems have now been installed in all 30 major league parks (and will be installed in each of the new ones coming on line) that can do a better job of calling balls and strikes than people can. They should be used for that purpose, because the game will be better for it.

---

Quote:

---

So bring on replay. It can’t solve everything—there are significant "flow" questions that have to be handled carefully—but it can make the game better.

---

Here's a link to the article for those with BP subscriptions: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=7592

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't think it's dehumanizing. I think it puts more of an emphasis on what the people actually involved in the game do...you know, the players. I think that the constant incorrect calls is in a way dehumanizing to the players. They are not being properly rewarded for what they do. Instant replay, or in the more extreme case that Joe Sheehan advocated, games monitored by machines with "umpires" as the "relayers" of the information, allows the games to be determined by the players themselves...and I don't see how that is dehumanizing.

---

It's dehumanizing because it's taking away the possibility of (some) judgment calls by people, i.e. the umpires. Instant replay puts a much more technological emphasis on the officiating of the game, and a ball/strike, QuesTec-like machine doubly so. Personally, I think the variable strike zones from different umpires adds a charm to the game that a machine would totally take away. You wouldn't be able to see players getting ticked at the umpires and how they handle it, if they adjust or simply explode. It would be taking away a major factor of the game, the human element of officiating, while adding added complexity in the rules surrounding the use of instant replay. Sure it sucks when an umpire's blown call goes against your team, but that's life sometimes. And what's more, the umpires almost always make the right call, save this sudden spat of home run confusion. It'd be taking away a significant amount of charm while only helping in maybe 0.1% of cases. Instant replay, and especially automated ball/strike machines, take away too much while contributing too little.

I've always felt that the game should be as correct as possible...it's a precision game, and relies on inches sometimes to determine the outcome of an at-bat, play, or the entire game. How is having the most precise and accurate method available a bad thing? Especially if it's only used for challenges or important plays.

I understand the yearning for nostalgia, and wanting to protect those manager-umpire yelling contests...I don't think they're going away. But if I were a manager, I'd want to spend my time planning moves and analyzing the game, not arguing calls and delaying the game for 3-5 minutes to get my fill of yelling. Especially while my team suffers due to a blown call (charming human error).

Tennis is an 'old school' sport, and they've instituted instant replay seamlessly. Player challenges, replay is reviewed (even showed to the fans), outcome is factually determined. No one is arguing that the sport is worse off without that 'personal touch' that the official scorer's eyesight gave. Technology is here, we're using it to analyze stats, help heal and repair injuries, and improve player training. Why draw this arbitrary line on its effect on the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BorgHunter

It's dehumanizing because it's taking away the possibility of (some) judgment calls by people, i.e. the umpires.

---

And why is that a bad thing? The PLAYERS should decide the game, not the umpires.

Quote:

---

Instant replay, and especially automated ball/strike machines, take away too much while contributing too little.

---

I disagree. I think that sacrificing arguments for accurate outcomes and calls is a worthwhile sacrifice.



Here's something else from that article that I found interesting:

Quote:

---

For all the whining about the run-scoring levels in the modern game, and the style of play that has become prevalent, the single fastest way to change both of those things is to call the rulebook strike zone. Give pitchers back the the four inches from the belt to the letters, and you change the game. At the same time, call a 17-inch wide plate, instead of the 19-, 21-, and 23-inch versions so prevalent today.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I've always felt that the game should be as correct as possible...it's a precision game, and relies on inches sometimes to determine the outcome of an at-bat, play, or the entire game. How is having the most precise and accurate method available a bad thing? Especially if it's only used for challenges or important plays.

I understand the yearning for nostalgia, and wanting to protect those manager-umpire yelling contests...I don't think they're going away. But if I were a manager, I'd want to spend my time planning moves and analyzing the game, not arguing calls and delaying the game for 3-5 minutes to get my fill of yelling. Especially while my team suffers due to a blown call (charming human error).

Tennis is an 'old school' sport, and they've instituted instant replay seamlessly. Player challenges, replay is reviewed (even showed to the fans), outcome is factually determined. No one is arguing that the sport is worse off without that 'personal touch' that the official scorer's eyesight gave. Technology is here, we're using it to analyze stats, help heal and repair injuries, and improve player training. Why draw this arbitrary line on its effect on the game?

---

what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

And why is that a bad thing? The PLAYERS should decide the game, not the umpires.


I disagree. I think that sacrificing arguments for accurate outcomes and calls is a worthwhile sacrifice.



Here's something else from that article that I found interesting:

---

why not replace humans with machines that can hit better, throw harder?:p

Now we're talking about BaseWars. Good game.

Sports are about humans competing; they're not about humans officiating. Yes, I like the personal touch of an umpire's strike zone, but no one is collect stats or baseball cards of Tim McClellan. Umpires are like the IT guys of a baseball game - when they do their job well, they are invisible to the game; when they do poorly, even on one tiny item, they get punished savagely.

I don't think we are replacing them with machines; we still need them out there doing their job, and doing it well. We're giving them an extra tool.

What do the umps have to say about this, anyway? Are they all against it, in favor of old times' sake? Or are some looking forward to not being forced to stick with a bad call under pressure, and being the favorite target of fans every time they visit Cubs stadium or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

If you want baseball to be fair, lets mandate standard altitudes for all stadiums as well as size. Baseball is a precision game and why let the differences is stadiums affect the stat creato... er baseball players?

---

Park factors and umpires are completely and entirely unrelated and there is no similarity between the two.

Quote:

---

Seriously, the umpires are fine. I wouldn't mind instant replay for homeruns, but this will just open the door for these sabr weirdos to totally destroy the game.

---

OH COME THE **** ON. What the **** are you talking about? First of all, instant replay has nothing to do with sabermetrics. You need to get over your anti-sabermetric obsession and stop bringing it into every conversation, even when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Secondly, how does sabermetrics want to "Destroy the game"? I'd love to know. You just continue to prove how utterly ignorant you are to sabermetrics. Sabermetrics is nothing more than statistical analysis. It is nothing more than seeking out answers to questions and better understanding the game of baseball. It has nothing to do with changing the game. How in the world does having accurate calls somehow "open the door for sabr weirdos to destroy the game", when a) sabermetricians don't want to destroy the game they love and b) accurate calls has nothing to do with sabermetrics?

Get over your obsession. It's sickening.

Quote:

---

The umpires are a part of the game. You can't just remove them, because they are a part of it. Remove umpires means baseball is no longer baseball.

---

Yep, having correct calls and following the rulebook makes baseball no longer baseball. :rolleyes:

Word of the day......

Baiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

The MLB rulebook actually has things the chief umpire is responsible for - removing him would alter the game.

---

Nobody has suggested removing him.

More from the above article:

Quote:

---

The system I have in mind would turn ball/strike calls over to the technology, with the umpire there to receive the signal from the system and relay the call to the participants and fans. The umpire would still play a critical role on foul tips (most often called by sound) and checked swings (for which there will never be any good solution).

---

Quote:

---

For decision plays, I would implement the college football approach. Every crew would have a fifth member in the booth, observing every play and buzzing the crew chief when a call deserved review. The opinion of that official would be final.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

So stop then.

---

Alternatively, you can stop being a troll.

I'm entirely against this.

A little tired to put forward a coherent argument last night, but I find the BP article...annoying.

People whine about umpire calls all the time, and yet there HAVE been tests as I recall...and as I recall the umps do fine well over 99% of the time. Personally, I'm willing to live with under 1% failure rates.

Highlighting a few specific examples in recent weeks does not make umpires incompetent, which is pretty much what the article alleges.

Foul balls....eh, okay, though that's usually pretty clear cut. Homers? Again, no real objection and again it's usually obvious. Ball/strike? H*** no. Ask managers and catchers, and they will tell you that the umpire's idea of a strike zone (and sometimes convincing him otherwise) is part of their strategy.

Anyway, the idea of using tech to help with balls/strikes has been tried before. By Charlie O. Finley. That should be enough of a warning right there.

The umpires are an integral part of the game. You may think he's baiting, Houston, but in this case YH is right: It's just another thing to consider, EXACTLY like park factors favoring some players over others.

The BP author pretty much says the only people he wants affecting a game are the players. Fine. Let's replace all the managers and coaches with computers as well.

For that matter, fans sometimes do affect game play. Maybe we better sanitize that and remove them as well.

Yes, it's a bit of an extreme...but ya know, the extremes are what you have to watch out for sometimes. In principle having replay for fouls and homers isn't such a big deal...but where does it stop?

I say a human, properly trained and working his way up through the minors just like players, is far more capable of calling and controlling a game than any computer, any time, anywhere. If anything, I find this idea an insult to umpires everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

I'm The umpires are an integral part of the game. You may think he's baiting, Houston, but in this case YH is right: It's just another thing to consider, EXACTLY like park factors favoring some players over others.

---

This is baiting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

but this will just open the door for these sabr weirdos to totally destroy the game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

Yes, it's a bit of an extreme...but ya know, the extremes are what you have to watch out for sometimes. In principle having replay for fouls and homers isn't such a big deal...but where does it stop?

---

At foul balls and home runs, if that's what is deemed best. I think that's a fine cut off point.

Quote:

---

I say a human, properly trained and working his way up through the minors just like players, is far more capable of calling and controlling a game than any computer, any time, anywhere. If anything, I find this idea an insult to umpires everywhere.

---

A machine has pinpoint accuracy. A human doesn't. I don't find it insulting to say that a machine can call strikes better than a umpire. That's like saying it's insulting to mathmaticians that a computer can do calculations better. A human is more capable of keeping a game under control, and dealing with other humans, obviously, which is why removing umpires totally would never, nor should ever, happen, but I don't think a human can make calls as accurately as a computer (for strike zone calls) or a human looking at a camera at a good angle can (for calls like home runs).

Honestly, I wouldn't be in favor of computeresque calls to the extent Sheehan advocated in his article, but I do see his point. At this point, I'm in total favor of instant replay for home run calls and fair/foul calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Have you ever worked in a shop? Machines need to be recalibrated all the time. This is why we have human Quality Control.

---

And is anybody advocating that any such machines implemented in baseball not have humans to monitor them?

Quote:

---

Camera angles can lie. At least humans will know when they don't have a good angle and defer judgement.

---

And when that happens on say, home run calls, they defer judgment to the other umpires who were further away from the play than they were. That's a great plan.

Instant replay allows you to look at multiple camera angles if needed. Sometimes, just one look at the replay from any angle is needed, like with the Alex Rodriguez ball that clearly was over the fence last week.

Quote:

---

Heh sabr weirdos is baiting? Its my personal view on them based on reading a lot of what they spout.

---

Saying that instant replay on home run calls opens the door for "sabr weirdos to destroy the game" is baiting because a) sabermetrics has nothing to do with this discussion, b) people that like sabermetrics do not want to destroy baseball, and c) it serves no purpose other than to generate a reaction.

I, for one, am sick and tired of YH just bashing whatever HGM believes in...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

But he can bash what I believe in? I disagree, then state why I disagree.

---

And make competely unfounded statements, bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, in order to incite reaction. Disagreeing is one thing. Trolling is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Yes. Because a machine can monitor with pinpoint accuracy.

---

Please show me specifically where somebody has advocated letting a machine by itself, without human oversight, do something.

.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I agree. You can stop at any time.

---

Just wondering, did you see HoustonGM on the street somewhere and he gave you the bird?

Honestly, it seems like you have something personal against him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

No and no. We just have diametrically opposed views on baseball.

---

As if that wasn't obvious. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BravesFan4Life

I, for one, am sick and tired of YH just bashing whatever HGM believes in...

---

Frankly, I'm tired of both of them. Neither of them has any ability whatsoever to simply LET SOMETHING GO. They're both too stubborn and, possibly, pompous to just end a conversation, because they simply HAVE to get the last word in. I see them both as pretty much even when it comes to any kind of fault.

Edit : I should note that I enjoy conversing with both of them, and aside from when they 'communicate' with each other, have no issues with them at all.