Top ump: Replay is coming to baseball

[Arctic Blast]

I have no problem with using a replay system on close-call home runs, things like that. Since I don't think current tech is sufficient for anything beyond that, I wouldn't support such a move at this time. And I don't see how such a replay would throw off the rhythm of a game more than prima donna batters stepping out of the box after every stupid pitch to adjust every piece of equipment they're wearing already does!

[OldFatGuy]

I have no problem with using a replay system on close-call home runs, things like that. Since I don't think current tech is sufficient for anything beyond that, I wouldn't support such a move at this time. And I don't see how such a replay would throw off the rhythm of a game more than prima donna batters stepping out of the box after every stupid pitch to adjust every piece of equipment they're wearing already does!

THANK YOUThis is one of the things that gets me about the so-called "12 second" rule. It's on the pitcher. Guess what folks, do you know why pitchers are late? It's because of what Artic Blast just talked about!!! I know when I pitched, I'm NOT even going to look at the sign until he steps in the box, because you know why, HITTERS WOULD LOVE TO GET A LOOK AT THE CATCHER'S SIGNS. I never met a hitter that wouldn't love to know what's coming, even given when Tony Gwynn famously said he'd rather NOT know. Well, I don't know if I believe that, but even if its true, most hitters aren't Tony Gwynn. Replay may slow the game down, but think about the number of instances where replay might be a factor in a game and THEN think about the number of instances where a hitter steps out after EVERY pitch, adjusts his jock, tightens his gloves, rearranges his helmet, says a prayer...............................

[ohms_law]

So, it's OK for the umpires and/or rules procedures to delay the game since the players do? Is that really the position you guys are taking?
Besides, those delays (and I certainly agree that their annoying as ****) are really the umpires' fault anyway. First, theres nothing to say that the umpire must give a time out, and he can call time in at any time. What's more, if it comes down to it, he can call strikes against hitters or balls against pitchers if he feels like it. Personally, I wish that the leagues would instruct their umpires to speed up the games in this manner, but I doubt that they ever will. I have a theory that they (the leagues) believe that not telling the umpires to speed up the game makes the game more television friendly. Of course, their wrong, since you can't really cut away from a batter in the middle of a plate appearance. The leagues can use statistics like "Time between pitches" to show network executives that there's plenty of time for commercials during the games, though.

Anyway, as for replay and other similar technological improvements, this is really a philosophical debate regardless. There's not really a right or wrong way to go here, it's simply what some of us believe in, is all. The technology does exist to call a nearly perfect game, whether we're talking about home runs, safe/out determinations, strikes and balls, or anything else. I don't have a problem with the desire for a perfectly called game, personally. I think that's an admirable goal. I simply would like to keep technology off the field as much as possible.

There have been advances in helmets, catchers gear, gloves, and even bats. However, most of those advancements have been deemed necessary for safety reasons (helmets, catchers gear, gloves, and "body armor"), and I think that we all agree that basic safety can and should trump "the purity of the game". Advances in things such as bats and the baseball itself have been heavily constrained at the Major league level, and I believe that is a very good thing.

One big problem that I have with replay is that it partially breaks our connection with the "big leaguers". Baseball players from t-ball all the way up to the Major league level are all largely playing exactly the same game. You can stand at home plate at a baseball field in your local park and easily imagine that you're standing at home plate at a major league baseball park (well, usually you can, depending on how well the park is maintained...). Introducing replay is something that creates a barrier, a distinct difference, between how the game is played at the major league level and how the game is played by your groups' local pick up game.

Regardless, the biggest problem that I keep coming back to is that human umpires, acting on their own, mistakes and all, are an integral aspect of the play of the game. If the human eye can't tell if a pitched ball is really a strike or not, does it matter that you can tell with advanced technology? Being the batter at the plate, it may as well be a strike if you can't pick the ball up, anyway. If a tag is so close that it takes super slo-mo replay to determine that the runner was actually safe or out, does it matter that the base umpire called the runner safe? According to the rules, "ties" go to the runner. According to physics, there's no such thing as a tie anyway, and with cameras we could eliminate any doubt as to whether or not a base runner is safe or out ahead of a throw. Why shouldn't we eliminate any doubt? Because the play of any game relies on our natural, unaided perception of how things should be in order for us to maintain our interest. If all doubt were completely removed from situations such as this, then there's a huge aspect of the game that is simply missing.
Most importantly, having human umpires to call the game using nothing but their own perception is just more fun, and fun trumps correctness every time in my view. It's fun to be able to say "that stupid ump! he's blind as a bat!"

[robinhoodnik]

Robinhoodnik: Are you aware of the training umpires go through? They have to come up through the minors just like anyone else. They get over 99% of the calls right, which is far better than most people can do.
No one ever gets it 100% right btw. It can't be done.

Yes, I'm fully aware of it. I've also read books and articles written by Umps after they're done with their careers. They will admit it later that they blow it more often than you'd think. They also admit that they'll sometimes "right" their wrong later in the game or during another game. They'll also admit to "giving the benefit of the doubt" to some players and not to others. They are often harder on rookies who "haven't proved they know the strike zone." and easier on vets who do. They'll bust a whiners balls, while letting a "good guy" have a little more. That's the sort of stuff that they need to get under control.
I'd also love to see them call the strike zone as it's written. I'm tired of seeing a fastball on the lower half of a guys belt and down the middle called a ball.

The Strike Zone is defined as that area over homeplate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

Don't know about you CatKnight, but I don't remember the last time I've seen the above quoted strike zone enforced. Maybe when I was in Little League?

[HoustonGM]

So, it's OK for the umpires and/or rules procedures to delay the game since the players do? Is that really the position you guys are taking?

Not me. However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

Besides, those delays (and I certainly agree that their annoying as ****) are really the umpires' fault anyway.

True.

Introducing replay is something that creates a barrier, a distinct difference, between how the game is played at the major league level and how the game is played by your groups' local pick up game.

I don't see how that's true. Using instant replay, if it's limited to home run calls and fair/foul calls, means that it'll only happen every once in a while. It's not creating any fundamental difference. The game is still the same.

Regardless, the biggest problem that I keep coming back to is that human umpires, acting on their own, mistakes and all, are an integral aspect of the play of the game. If the human eye can't tell if a pitched ball is really a strike or not, does it matter that you can tell with advanced technology?

I say yes.

Being the batter at the plate, it may as well be a strike if you can't pick the ball up, anyway.

What if you correctly pick up the ball as outside the strike zone, and the umpire calls it a strike?

Because the play of any game relies on our natural, unaided perception of how things should be in order for us to maintain our interest. If all doubt were completely removed from situations such as this, then there's a huge aspect of the game that is simply missing.

I disagree. I don't think incorrect calls are a huge aspect of the game.

Most importantly, having human umpires to call the game using nothing but their own perception is just more fun, and fun trumps correctness every time in my view. It's fun to be able to say "that stupid ump! he's blind as a bat!"

Sure it's more fun maybe, but I don't think that's right to the players. If a player hits a home run, it should be a home run. If a player is safe, he should be safe. Yeah, it's more fun to yell at the ump, but I don't think it's fun for the players involved to not be correctly rewarded for what they do.

[ohms_law]

I'm sure I'll say more later, as I should be asleep right now, but...

but I don't think it's fun for the players involved to not be correctly rewarded for what they do.

To be blunt, who cares? Their professionals who are playing for our entertainment.

[Arctic Blast]

Not me. However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

I'm just quoting this, because this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. Thanks, Houston.

[Arctic Blast]

Not when they want to challenge every close call.

I don't know why you would bring this up, when I said clearly I'm talking only about close call home runs, and right now, MLB is talking only about close call home runs. That's all we're talking here. As I said, I would support delving deeper in to replay only when the technology present can properly support it. You're veering off in to Slippery Slope argument territory, here.

[Arctic Blast]

I think HGM was talking about more than home runs when he said that, so I had every right to chime in without donning my mountainering gear.

Lol. Nice.

[HoustonGM]

I think HGM was talking about more than home runs when he said that

I wasn't.

[dps]

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?

Well, IMO the experience of having watched instant replay in action in football is that they still don't get them right, even with the technology.

[HoustonGM]

Well, IMO the experience of having watched instant replay in action in football is that they still don't get them right, even with the technology.

I don't know very much about football, but isn't it fair to say that a lot of baseball calls are a lot more clear cut than football calls? The only football calls that I can think of off the top of my head that are as easily yes/no as the overwhelming majority of baseball calls are in/out of bounds and touchdowns.

[dps]

I don't know very much about football, but isn't it fair to say that a lot of baseball calls are a lot more clear cut than football calls? The only football calls that I can think of off the top of my head that are as easily yes/no as the overwhelming majority of baseball calls are in/out of bounds and touchdowns.

Well, yes, but they still don't get those right via replay enough to justify the disruption it causes to the pace of the game IMO. And baseball, even more than football, doesn't need anything to further slow the game down.

[HoustonGM]

Well, yes, but they still don't get those right via replay enough to justify the disruption it causes to the pace of the game IMO. And baseball, even more than football, doesn't need anything to further slow the game down.

How would instant replay slow the game down anymore than the arguing and the umpire discussions already do?

However, it does debunk the argument that having instant replay would make already historically long games even longer. THAT is not going to happen. Disputed calls take a chunk of time as it is. First, one team argues with the umpires. Then the umpires debate amongst themselves. Then, if the call is changed, the other team argues. Instant replay, I think, would actually CUT DOWN on the wasted time.

[ohms_law]

Take everything that currently occurs and add to it the time it'll take to actually review the replay. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it'll cut down time at all. Everyone will still argue the call(s), since no one on the field is going to care what the replay shows.