Master of Ale!
Probably the worst example of a massive change made at a weird time I can think of was when the NBA announced 3/4 of the way through a season not too many years ago that, as of that moment, the first round of the playoffs would be a Best of 7, rather than a Best of 5.Originally Posted by Mogul2000
Jesus is Our Savior
Why was that so bad?
With replay installed towards the end of the season, what happens to the games that needed replay earlier in the season. If the team with the questionable call that went against them which caused them to lose the game was in the playoff hunt and lost out by 1 game, then the team that was in first place benefited from a replay, won't the second place team have a point that because replay was installed during the season, they lost out on a playoff spot. Lets say the Mets lost the game to the Yanks when Delgado hit the homerun by one run. But with replay, they could have won. Lets also say that the Phillies win the NL East by one game. And in the last game, Ryan Howard hits a homerun that was originally declared a double and was reversed due to replay. Wont that cause problems with the Mets on how it was handled.
All of this is hypothetical because the Mets did win that game but I just used this as an example as I could not think of another.
o
I know what you meant, just so you know,
Master of Ale!
It's a rather substantial change to make that late in to a season. Also, and COMPLETELY by coincidence I'm SURE, the change in playoff format really helped the Lakers come back to beat the Timberwolves in round 1 that year.
Some call me Mr.Biggles
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .
Ain't the beer cold, hon
Interesting topic. I really would question the timing most of all. Why is this not being done during Spring Training? March baseball is made to test out new things. If you introduce something new, run the test first, see if it works, then implement it if it does - that just seems logical.
I'm against the idea of replay, but not in a hop-up-and-down way. Thing of it is, you need to consider rules in their whole effect before implementing them. The DH is an example: they introduced it to add offense to the game and spice up a boring ritual of the pitcher "hitting". And it has worked: there is, for that reason or others, much more offense in the game now than there was. Do we still need it? I'd say no - but there's no mechanism in place to get rid of it. It's existing now mostly as an on-field retirement plan - there are no real "game" reasons left for it.
To take another example from a field other than baseball, how about red light cameras? They were supposed to guard against drivers running red lights. Simple - and they worked. Except they worked a little too well. Drivers would slam on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow light, causing rear-end collisions as the guy behind them couldn't stop in time. Statistically, the number of red-light runners went down, but rear-end collisions went up just about as much - a prime example of a rule that doesn't work because of unintended consequences. Suppose a first baseman learns where the camera is and shields it with his body, or "pops" his glove in such a fashion that it makes it seem he gets the ball a half-second earlier. The ump is on top of it, and calls it correctly, but then gets a buzz from the booth...not saying it will happen, but there may be some unintended consequences, and they should be ready to scrap it if need be.
As far as baseball "purists", I'll have to disagree with HGM. What sets baseball apart is its pace and history. The large number of games and length of the season gives baseball an established rhythm; rule changes are more jarring under such a context. In addition, while the game has changed over the course of years, it does have an unusually long and rich history, and such changes tend to manifest slowly, over years and decades, not in the course of a week where a sudden rule change is pressed into service. If a recognition of that makes me a "purist", then that's what I am, I suppose. Not to mention the advent of the "statheads" in the game...number-crunchers who pay such close attention to stats that they believe nothing in the game exists outside of the numbers. No hunches can be played, no heart has a place...ya plug in the numbers, and if the chance is 50.001%+, you do it. Not only is that boring, it just plain ain't baseball - literally.
By the way, I do disagree with HGM sometimes, but I don't want anybody thinking that I don't respect his opinion. Frankly, I do so because he's very intelligent and a good student of the game. If I thought he was just mouthing off, I'd shrug and move on, but HGM never does. He's always got points that merit a look.
==+==+==+==
The Surf are back! Read up on the new exploits of baseball's most amazing team in Goin' to Surf City!, the ongoing story of the Ocean City Surf!
"Any kid who grew up in Maryland would feel that it was a great dream to play in an Orioles uniform...thank you all for always treating me like family."
-- Harold Baines, 46th member of the Orioles Hall of Fame
o
That specific situation is impossible right now, as the only calls that are subject to instant replay are home run calls. However, I'd imagine that any instant replay system would have multiple cameras from multiple angles, so attempting to "shield" from one camera might expose yourself MORE to another, for example. I don't see that as being a problem.
I'd agree, but I don't consider instant replay a "rules change", although I'd agree that it shouldn't be implemented mid-season.The large number of games and length of the season gives baseball an established rhythm; rule changes are more jarring under such a context.
As I said, I wouldn't advocate any such change in the rules, game, etc.In addition, while the game has changed over the course of years, it does have an unusually long and rich history, and such changes tend to manifest slowly, over years and decades, not in the course of a week where a sudden rule change is pressed into service.
I don't think that makes you a "purist". I think you misunderstood what I meant. I think mostly all of us could agree that springing this on midseason is a bad move, even if there has been significant "build up" in the press about it since last offseason. A "purist" would completely oppose any such change no matter what, for no reason other than "tradition."If a recognition of that makes me a "purist", then that's what I am, I suppose.
No such person exists. Such a person is a strawman created by "anti-stat" people to make people that are in favor of looking at what happens on the field to make decisions seem silly.Not to mention the advent of the "statheads" in the game...number-crunchers who pay such close attention to stats that they believe nothing in the game exists outside of the numbers.
Never heard of any such person, besides in the written word of people that don't understand statistics.No hunches can be played, no heart has a place...ya plug in the numbers, and if the chance is 50.001%+, you do it.
If it's played by the rules of baseball, it's baseball. Sorry to be so literal.Not only is that boring, it just plain ain't baseball - literally.
Likewise.By the way, I do disagree with HGM sometimes, but I don't want anybody thinking that I don't respect his opinion. Frankly, I do so because he's very intelligent and a good student of the game. If I thought he was just mouthing off, I'd shrug and move on, but HGM never does. He's always got points that merit a look.
Ain't the beer cold, hon
That was hypothetical, yeah; the point was that unintended consequences will arise. Here's a more pragmatic example: Joe Sluggo is batting with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in a tight ball game. He swats a 3-2 pitch straight down the left field line; it's initially signalled a homer but is overturned by a replay. Sluggo stands in again and the next pitch is a sinker, down and away - and the ump rings him up.
Anyone want to guess what's in the home town paper the next day? Or on ESPN that night? If the replay was good for that aspect of the game, why not the other? Indeed, why not every aspect?
The answer would lie in one of two ways: either detail precisely the province of the ump and the use of the camera, or don't go there at all. I feel this is opening a bit too much of a Pandora's Box.
Good point. Perhaps it would be better to say a change in the character of the game.
Semantics, I guess. There are some who describe themselves as "purists" (Jon Miller, Bob Costas, George Will, etc.) who do advocate changes, and have written extensively about them - but in a very measured way, and with careful consideration of the game's pace and history.
Hate to tell you, but I've met an awful lot of those "strawmen" in person. Sure, not as many as the crusty old-timers who ***** about how the game was then...but the obsessive statheads are a newer breed, one that's peculiar to the baseball research field.
(Present company definitely excluded, btw.)
==+==+==+==
The Surf are back! Read up on the new exploits of baseball's most amazing team in Goin' to Surf City!, the ongoing story of the Ocean City Surf!
"Any kid who grew up in Maryland would feel that it was a great dream to play in an Orioles uniform...thank you all for always treating me like family."
-- Harold Baines, 46th member of the Orioles Hall of Fame
o
I don't really meet any fellow "hardcore" baseball fans in person, so my experience is limited to the internet, the only site I frequent/participate on with user interaction besides this one is Baseball Think Factory, which has many very intelligent posters, and I've never seen any such people there. I read articles on many different sites/blogs, and I've never seen any articles that are like that, either. I think a lot of that sentiment comes from people misinterpreting heavy use of statistics as that person ONLY thinking in statistics. I don't know how such a person can exist, because baseball is played by human beings, not numbers. I can't even grasp what it means to think that baseball is just numbers.
παραλία
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...erage-the-umps
If the umps are okay with two extra bodies being added down the lines for the playoffs, we can infer that they’re willing to trade some of the authority they have during the regular season in an attempt to improve accuracy of calls in the playoffs.
They’re also willing to defer to each other. The home plate umpire asks the base umps for help on check swings. They gather to talk about home runs down the lines, with the guy who thinks he had the best view usually convincing everyone else to go along with him.
So, why wouldn’t they be okay with a seventh umpire that’s just watching the game on TV like the rest of us?
Give an earpiece to the crew chief, and let the replay ump just tell him “hey, Tim, you missed that one. Cano was out, no question.” It is fundamentally no different than the home plate ump pointing down to third base on a checked swing. They’re getting help from each other in order to increase accuracy
This is the kind of thing that could be implemented in a day. Bring in an extra ump and give him a room with a couple of TVs and a two-way communicator, and we won’t have scenes like last night again. We don’t need a complicated system with flags and challenges. Just have an ump watch TV and talk to his peers.
I concur
o
Registered User
I agree that instant replay would work, and would improve the occasional call - but I don't think that it would be as seamless as you are making it out to be. Would there only be replay for the playoffs? Or is there a need to have an extra umpire, plus the technical people, to overturn the one bad call every couple of games that happens during the regular season.
Given a 162 game schedule, everything evens out and while I'd welcome replay done right, I don't actually believe that is possible. In the playoffs, errors are magnified and there isn't time for things to even out, so it may be logical to use replay - though changing the way the game is called for the playoffs could generate its own problems - such as whether a neighbourhood play should be called safe or out.
Resident Canuck
That's a great idea fili. Especially since it wouldn't require extensive replay delays.
Active Dynasty
Meeting Success: A New Regime - Follow us as etothep chronicles me and eddie's efforts to bring a championship back to Queens
Paused Dynasties
The Goose continues the Hawk's battle for Capital Hill
Une Rève Réaliser: Les Expos de Montréal (1969-)
Retired Dynasties
The San Diego Padres, into a Friar Destiny (with Jeffy25 and Ragecage)
A New Era Takes Flight - The 2008 Toronto Blue Jays
The Blue Birds: A new Era
Reply With Quote
