Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

[Wassit3]

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

[HoustonGM]

Yes.

[Wassit3]

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

[HoustonGM]

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?

[HoustonGM]

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.

[BorgHunter]

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.

[Wassit3]

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

[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.

[HoustonGM]

Some quotes from his article:

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.

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.

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.

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

[BorgHunter]

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.

[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?

[HoustonGM]

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.

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:

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.

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[Wassit3]

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?

[Alloutwar]

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?