If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Major League Baseball)   For most of Fark, baseball season ended on Sunday with the Hall of Fame game, but for those Farkers still paying attention; THIS is the reason we need replay in baseball   (mlb.mlb.com) divider line 87
    More: Asinine, Pro Football Hall of Fame Game, Hall of Fames, Fark, mulligan, Major League Baseball, baseball, ready list, division series  
•       •       •

2455 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Aug 2012 at 2:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-08 01:19:52 PM
On slo-mo it looks like the ball hit the grass in front of the glove webbing. Subby sounds like a crying Rockies fan to me.

But I repeat myself.
 
2012-08-08 01:21:32 PM
Vin Scully is not infallible. The call was correct.

We still need replay, but come on. That was definitely a trap.
 
2012-08-08 02:20:02 PM
Bud Selig, here's a suggestion: Bring instant replay to baseball, then make it a suspension for anyone to leave the dugout to argue a call. Boom. Done.
 
2012-08-08 02:25:08 PM
That was totally a trap. But yes, we do still need instant replay.
 
2012-08-08 02:25:45 PM

obeymatt: Bud Selig, here's a suggestion: Bring instant replay to baseball, then make it a suspension for anyone to leave the dugout to argue a call. Boom. Done.


the umpire called him out of the dugout
 
2012-08-08 02:28:43 PM
funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-08-08 02:33:05 PM
"That is blinkin' fertilizer. You've gotta be blinkin' me!... I'm doing my best to translate."

/I don't disagree with the call. It was so close, even on slo-mo replay, that it could go either way.
/would like instant replay in baseball
 
2012-08-08 02:38:41 PM
Did anyone think to look for a grass stain on the ball?

Would it even have one if it hit the ground?

Inquiring minds, etc.
 
2012-08-08 02:39:49 PM

skrame: "That is blinkin' fertilizer. You've gotta be blinkin' me!... I'm doing my best to translate."

/I don't disagree with the call. It was so close, even on slo-mo replay, that it could go either way.
/would like instant replay in baseball


It took me about 15 times to get it right, but you can pause the video during the 34th second and see the ball on the ground AND on the glove at the same time. I do not know, nor am I going to look up, how an ump would rule on that, but it is pretty clear on that video, and I assume the umps could advance the video frame by frame to see it.

//Bring in replay, dump the DH, I am torn on automatic suspensions for arguing calls since it is usually hilarious
 
2012-08-08 02:40:09 PM
I read the headline, then started to watch the video. After the real-time play, I was thinking "Don't tell me the umps ruled that an out"

BKITU: Subby sounds like a crying Rockies fan to me.


This
 
2012-08-08 02:40:38 PM
No, there is no reason that provides a 'need' to have instant replay in baseball.

Subby and others might want one, but there is no need for one.
 
2012-08-08 02:46:29 PM
Another vote for "he trapped it but baseball still needs replay."
 
2012-08-08 02:51:20 PM
He didn't even trap it, he short hopped it.
I could tell from the replay... which maybe reason enough that baseball needs replay.
 
2012-08-08 02:53:21 PM
baseball is slow enough that you would need a nfl style system of 2 challenge calls per game per team, but you can not contest a game in which you lose a challenge.

cant contest balls and strikes
challenges count as a visit to the mound (just so we dont get the challenge commercials, mound visit, 2nd visit to replace pitcher more commercials)

/why would any rocky fan care this time of year
 
2012-08-08 02:57:41 PM

mootmah: [funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com image 487x306]


Yep, THIS
 
2012-08-08 02:59:48 PM
I'm just going to vote to dump the DH.
 
2012-08-08 03:04:02 PM
This is not the reason we need replay in baseball. However, it is the reason Vin Scully should do every baseball game ever until he retires. He's the best.

/Pirates fan forced to listen to hack announcers
 
2012-08-08 03:11:46 PM
Umm, it clearly hit the grass in the slo-mo. So yes, they do need replay so coaches and fans can STFU when they obviously called it right the first time.
 
2012-08-08 03:19:12 PM

NkThrasher: No, there is no reason that provides a 'need' to have instant replay in baseball.

Subby and others might want one, but there is no need for one.


Baseball can continue to fade into Bolivian without replay. Those of us in the 21st century won't mind its disappearance at all.
 
2012-08-08 03:21:46 PM

skrame: "That is blinkin' fertilizer. You've gotta be blinkin' me!... I'm doing my best to translate."


Came here for this.
 
2012-08-08 03:27:50 PM

PowerSlacker: Baseball can continue to fade into Bolivian without replay. Those of us in the 21st century won't mind its disappearance at all.


How, exactly, would replay save it from fading into 'Bolivian'?

In Football every action of every game matters because there are so few games and actions to be had. Thus replay makes sense, although I still don't think it can be called 'needed'. In baseball there are so many actions over so many games that any bad call situation gets averaged out over time and becomes just part of the game.

Touting a close call even with replay available as 'proof' for the necessity of replay is silly, show me where there are routine screwups that are easily seen on replay that happen all the time and that can be a discussion about the merit of it.
 
2012-08-08 03:31:42 PM
Here's why it isn't a trap or a short-hop:

Watch the white spot on the inside of the glove webbing that appears only at 0:33. The ball hits it dead on. This is what forces the top of the glove back. The ball is still completely in contact with that part of the glove. As the glove is pushed backward, the ball is rolling up into the palm. The ball does appear to bounce when viewed at the front angle (0:25) but it is doing so off the top of the webbing. I THINK it was caught.
 
2012-08-08 03:34:46 PM
I like football as much as the next guy, but who really checks out of the home stretch of the baseball season to watch preseason NFL games? Pennant chase > warm up football.
 
2012-08-08 03:38:38 PM

WinoRhino: Here's why it isn't a trap or a short-hop:

Watch the white spot on the inside of the glove webbing that appears only at 0:33. The ball hits it dead on. This is what forces the top of the glove back. The ball is still completely in contact with that part of the glove. As the glove is pushed backward, the ball is rolling up into the palm. The ball does appear to bounce when viewed at the front angle (0:25) but it is doing so off the top of the webbing. I THINK it was caught.


It seems to hit both the grass and the glove when it lands, hence a trap.
 
2012-08-08 03:45:42 PM

downstairs: WinoRhino: Here's why it isn't a trap or a short-hop:

Watch the white spot on the inside of the glove webbing that appears only at 0:33. The ball hits it dead on. This is what forces the top of the glove back. The ball is still completely in contact with that part of the glove. As the glove is pushed backward, the ball is rolling up into the palm. The ball does appear to bounce when viewed at the front angle (0:25) but it is doing so off the top of the webbing. I THINK it was caught.

It seems to hit both the grass and the glove when it lands, hence a trap.


The ball hit the lip of the glove, which was on the ground, and bounced off the lip into the heel of the glove. It's a catch.
 
2012-08-08 03:54:39 PM
I really wish people would stop crying about the DH. Its been around for 40 years. It isn't going anywhere. Shut up.
 
2012-08-08 03:58:42 PM
It hit the grass while it was going from the webbing to the inside part of the glove, so it's not a pop fly. Just as it wouldn't count as an out if he caught it cleanly but it bounced out of the glove onto the ground and back into the glove.

i344.photobucket.com

It's a trap.
 
2012-08-08 04:17:18 PM

NkThrasher: No, there is no reason that provides a 'need' to have instant replay in baseball.

Subby and others might want one, but there is no need for one.


Yeah, there's no need for this sport to be behind the times, when half of these olympic sports - including ARCHERY - make full use of available technology.
 
2012-08-08 04:19:54 PM

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: I really wish people would stop crying about the DH. Its been around for 40 years. It isn't going anywhere. Shut up.


Because it removes a strategically fundamental part of the game? Additionally, the only thing I hate more than the DH itself, is the fact that only half of MLB uses it. I understand allowing variations in the outfield fence, but to have the pitcher hit in one league and not in the other isn't a quirky homage or a unique facet of the game, it's stupid. It affects everything about how a team is built and run, and how games are managed. The AL and NL may as well not have anything to do with each other. How they can use such disparate rules and yet maintain their monopoly exemption is beyond me.

That is the extending failure of every commissioner since the leagues began playing as one organization. Just pick one already (and by pick one, I mean get rid of the DH, it removes any strategy from an already easy to manage game).
 
2012-08-08 04:22:08 PM

ongbok: downstairs: WinoRhino: Here's why it isn't a trap or a short-hop:

Watch the white spot on the inside of the glove webbing that appears only at 0:33. The ball hits it dead on. This is what forces the top of the glove back. The ball is still completely in contact with that part of the glove. As the glove is pushed backward, the ball is rolling up into the palm. The ball does appear to bounce when viewed at the front angle (0:25) but it is doing so off the top of the webbing. I THINK it was caught.

It seems to hit both the grass and the glove when it lands, hence a trap.

The ball hit the lip of the glove, which was on the ground, and bounced off the lip into the heel of the glove. It's a catch.


Hmmmm... looks like you're probably right now that I look at it again. I'd say in such a close scenario like this, I'd defer to the fielder.

/Yes, we do need instant replay
 
2012-08-08 04:34:13 PM

mootmah: [funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com image 487x306]


thread over
 
2012-08-08 04:34:15 PM

roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: I really wish people would stop crying about the DH. Its been around for 40 years. It isn't going anywhere. Shut up.

Because it removes a strategically fundamental part of the game? Additionally, the only thing I hate more than the DH itself, is the fact that only half of MLB uses it. I understand allowing variations in the outfield fence, but to have the pitcher hit in one league and not in the other isn't a quirky homage or a unique facet of the game, it's stupid. It affects everything about how a team is built and run, and how games are managed. The AL and NL may as well not have anything to do with each other. How they can use such disparate rules and yet maintain their monopoly exemption is beyond me.

That is the extending failure of every commissioner since the leagues began playing as one organization. Just pick one already (and by pick one, I mean get rid of the DH, it removes any strategy from an already easy to manage game).


Because pitching around the 8 hitter to get a free strikeout from the pitcher batting is such a mind-blowing use of strategic genius.

It's not like it takes a rocket scientist to figure out a double switch either. I've seen it done in the AL plenty of times. There's more strategy involved in pitch selection, defensive alignment, and match-ups than there ever was in determining if you need to pinch hit for a pitcher in the 7th inning.
 
2012-08-08 04:46:01 PM
Why? They got the call right.
 
2012-08-08 04:47:18 PM
Season is not over and more replay would suck.
 
2012-08-08 04:51:25 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: Season is not over and more replay would suck.


How so? They'd get the calls right. I want that.
 
2012-08-08 04:52:56 PM
Okay, after that replay, umm it is fine as it is.
 
2012-08-08 04:56:22 PM

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: Season is not over and more replay would suck.

How so? They'd get the calls right. I want that.


Baseball is a game. Running to the booth slows it down and is unnecessary. It evens out in the end. More oversight is not necessary. Camera angles make mistakes as well.
 
2012-08-08 04:57:20 PM
Should the televised pitch boxes over rule the home plate ump?
 
2012-08-08 04:57:41 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-08 05:00:16 PM

spin359: obeymatt: Bud Selig, here's a suggestion: Bring instant replay to baseball, then make it a suspension for anyone to leave the dugout to argue a call. Boom. Done.

the umpire called him out of the dugout


So he wouldn't be suspended when I'm the commish.
 
2012-08-08 05:00:39 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: Baseball is a game. Running to the booth slows it down


Jawing at the ump for 5 mins after you've been thrown out of the game also slows it down, but that has been in baseball since it began. I'm of the belief that replay would at least cut down on the amount the Manager can argue with an Ump after a disputed call.

Manager: "Are you blinkin' kidding me? That's blinkin' fertilizer"
Ump: "Hey man, you can go and yell at the replay operators. We've got a ball game to get back to."
 
2012-08-08 05:05:08 PM

degenerate-afro: Fear_and_Loathing: Baseball is a game. Running to the booth slows it down

Jawing at the ump for 5 mins after you've been thrown out of the game also slows it down, but that has been in baseball since it began. I'm of the belief that replay would at least cut down on the amount the Manager can argue with an Ump after a disputed call.

Manager: "Are you blinkin' kidding me? That's blinkin' fertilizer"
Ump: "Hey man, you can go and yell at the replay operators. We've got a ball game to get back to."


I like pissed off managers. That is their job.
 
2012-08-08 05:05:49 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: Season is not over and more replay would suck.

How so? They'd get the calls right. I want that.

Baseball is a game. Running to the booth slows it down and is unnecessary. It evens out in the end. More oversight is not necessary. Camera angles make mistakes as well.


Well, at least how about some sort of challenge flag scenario. You get 1 or 2 challenges per game, like the NFL. That way it would be limited to the worst of the worst calls (which you have to admit, have been increasing like crazy lately.)

Also, the replay call would take like 1 minute. Like someone said above... without replay, you're going to get an argument on the field for 3-5 minutes.

I'd also support a rule that any argument after replay is an automatic ejection.
 
2012-08-08 05:06:28 PM

SlagginOff: roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ***snip***

Because pitching around the 8 hitter to get a free strikeout from the pitcher batting is such a mind-blowing use of strategic genius.

It's not like it takes a rocket scientist to figure out a double switch either. I've seen it done in the AL plenty of times - why would an AL manager ever have to do a double switch with the pitcher in an AL park?. There's more strategy involved in pitch selection - What the hell team are you watching where the manager chooses the pitches?, defensive alignment - determined by a spray chart on a computer and handed out by a base coach, and match-ups -really? Use the lefty against lefties, use whichever righty didn't go yesterday, use your closer in the 9th with a lead, than there ever was in determining if you need to pinch hit for a pitcher in the 7th inning.


Ok, here is a pretty common scenario:
5th inning, 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd and the number 9 batter at the plate. Starting pitcher has struggled and is at 85 pitches. Score is tied.

Here is the AL manager's thought process, "Hope this guy gets a hit since he is either the 9th best hitter on my team or anyone who is better than him has the day off."

Here is the NL manager's thought process, "Who do I have on the bench to hit, can I afford to blow a bullpen arm on one inning that my starter could cover, how badly am I messing up the rotation of bullpen guys that we have been using, can I trust anyone on my bench to get a hit since all of my good hitters have to be competent fielders too and are, therefore, already in, and 20 other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head."
 
2012-08-08 05:07:28 PM

roc6783: skrame: "That is blinkin' fertilizer. You've gotta be blinkin' me!... I'm doing my best to translate."

/I don't disagree with the call. It was so close, even on slo-mo replay, that it could go either way.
/would like instant replay in baseball

It took me about 15 times to get it right, but you can pause the video during the 34th second and see the ball on the ground AND on the glove at the same time. I do not know, nor am I going to look up, how an ump would rule on that, but it is pretty clear on that video, and I assume the umps could advance the video frame by frame to see it.

//Bring in replay, dump the DH, I am torn on automatic suspensions for arguing calls since it is usually hilarious


Automatic expulsion for boring argument of calls.
Expulsion retracted when a heated argument ensues.
Call is reversed if dust is kicked up and there is that thing with the coach/ref, they're on their toes and their faces are centimeters apart.
Points (runs) given if bases are taken or resin bag is grenade-tossed.

/there-they're-their in same sentence!
 
2012-08-08 05:08:30 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: I like pissed off managers. That is their job.


Heh. We agree here. Me and my wife always use the term "baseball fight". Its when we've been bickering so long, none of us are going to agree, but we just keep bickering for the heck of it.
 
2012-08-08 05:09:07 PM
Fark needs more AKBAR!
 
2012-08-08 05:11:06 PM

shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]


I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.
 
2012-08-08 05:11:32 PM
Once again, I see a video showing baseball umpiring working exactly the way it's supposed to work, and a threadful of farkers calling for a change to instant replay based on the video.
 
2012-08-08 05:16:13 PM

skrame: roc6783: skrame: ***snip***

//Bring in replay, dump the DH, I am torn on automatic suspensions for arguing calls since it is usually hilarious

Automatic expulsion for boring argument of calls.
Expulsion retracted when a heated argument ensues.
Call is reversed if dust is kicked up and there is that thing with the coach/ref, they're on their toes and their faces are centimeters apart.
Points (runs) given if bases are taken or resin bag is grenade-tossed.

/there-they're-their in same sentence!


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-08 05:18:14 PM

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: Season is not over and more replay would suck.

How so? They'd get the calls right. I want that.

Baseball is a game. Running to the booth slows it down and is unnecessary. It evens out in the end. More oversight is not necessary. Camera angles make mistakes as well.

Well, at least how about some sort of challenge flag scenario. You get 1 or 2 challenges per game, like the NFL. That way it would be limited to the worst of the worst calls (which you have to admit, have been increasing like crazy lately.)

Also, the replay call would take like 1 minute. Like someone said above... without replay, you're going to get an argument on the field for 3-5 minutes.

I'd also support a rule that any argument after replay is an automatic ejection.


I dont want to see more, but you make some good points.
 
2012-08-08 05:19:18 PM

downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: I like pissed off managers. That is their job.

Heh. We agree here. Me and my wife always use the term "baseball fight". Its when we've been bickering so long, none of us are going to agree, but we just keep bickering for the heck of it.


I like that! That is a truism.
 
2012-08-08 05:35:14 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: downstairs: Fear_and_Loathing: I like pissed off managers. That is their job.

Heh. We agree here. Me and my wife always use the term "baseball fight". Its when we've been bickering so long, none of us are going to agree, but we just keep bickering for the heck of it.

I like that! That is a truism.


I've even turned my hat backwards, Earl Weaver style to continue... it generally turns the fight into her laughing because I'm ridiculous.
 
2012-08-08 05:52:24 PM

downstairs: I've even turned my hat backwards,


I need to try that.
 
2012-08-08 05:55:56 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: Running to the booth slows it down and is unnecessary.


I hear you on this, and to that point I've often wondered by the NFL has to make such a big goddamn ceremony out of it every time replay is used. It's like they're trying to make it a slow, cumbersome process just so the critics will have a reason to biatch. There's the tossing of the red flag, then the running over to pick it up, then the endless session at the monitor under the hood, then the big announcement detailing exactly what body part was where on the play.

Let the coach/manager press a button, give someone up in the booth 30 seconds to check the play from two or three angles, relay the decision down to the ref/ump's earpiece, let the game continue with the right decision. If you don't have enough to overturn it within 30 seconds you never will, so at that point you just get on with the game. Sometimes it takes that long between plays/pitches anyway, so people might not even notice.

NCAA basketball comes closer to the way it should be.
 
2012-08-08 06:13:10 PM

roc6783: SlagginOff: roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ***snip***

Because pitching around the 8 hitter to get a free strikeout from the pitcher batting is such a mind-blowing use of strategic genius.

It's not like it takes a rocket scientist to figure out a double switch either. I've seen it done in the AL plenty of times - why would an AL manager ever have to do a double switch with the pitcher in an AL park?. There's more strategy involved in pitch selection - What the hell team are you watching where the manager chooses the pitches?, defensive alignment - determined by a spray chart on a computer and handed out by a base coach, and match-ups -really? Use the lefty against lefties, use whichever righty didn't go yesterday, use your closer in the 9th with a lead, than there ever was in determining if you need to pinch hit for a pitcher in the 7th inning.

Ok, here is a pretty common scenario:
5th inning, 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd and the number 9 batter at the plate. Starting pitcher has struggled and is at 85 pitches. Score is tied.

Here is the AL manager's thought process, "Hope this guy gets a hit since he is either the 9th best hitter on my team or anyone who is better than him has the day off."

Here is the NL manager's thought process, "Who do I have on the bench to hit, can I afford to blow a bullpen arm on one inning that my starter could cover, how badly am I messing up the rotation of bullpen guys that we have been using, can I trust anyone on my bench to get a hit since all of my good hitters have to be competent fielders too and are, therefore, already in, and 20 other things I am not thinking of off the top of my head."


Wow, you really overestimate the actual decision making of a NL manager in that situation. Since you didn't say whether it was the top or bottom of the 5th I can't tell you if the pitcher would definitely hit (no manager is going to risk the wrath of the pitcher being pulled out of a potential win in the top of the 5th) but he NL manager is going to do the same thing every time too. With the exception of Joe Madden and maybe Buck Showalter, there are no original thinkers left in the game and even Madden does the same thing 90% of the time. Do you really think Fredi Gonzalez, Jim Tracy, or Dusty Baker are going through an elaborate decision tree using a multivariate analysis to come to an optimized probability? Those guys can barely decide what to have for lunch, and whatever decision they make will be wrong. These are the same guys who still use the sacrifice bunt in this situation even though it has been proven to lower your chances of winning in every analysis. (The sacrifice is only a good strategy with less than one out in a tied or -1 run situation in the seventh inning or later)

The question of when to pull a pitcher in the AL is always more complicated than the NL for the simple reason that the AL team carries one less relief pitcher.
 
2012-08-08 06:13:32 PM

Super Chronic: Fear_and_Loathing: Running to the booth slows it down and is unnecessary.

I hear you on this, and to that point I've often wondered by the NFL has to make such a big goddamn ceremony out of it every time replay is used. It's like they're trying to make it a slow, cumbersome process just so the critics will have a reason to biatch. There's the tossing of the red flag, then the running over to pick it up, then the endless session at the monitor under the hood, then the big announcement detailing exactly what body part was where on the play.

Let the coach/manager press a button, give someone up in the booth 30 seconds to check the play from two or three angles, relay the decision down to the ref/ump's earpiece, let the game continue with the right decision. If you don't have enough to overturn it within 30 seconds you never will, so at that point you just get on with the game. Sometimes it takes that long between plays/pitches anyway, so people might not even notice.

NCAA basketball comes closer to the way it should be.


First off, I think many fans fall for the drama. 5 minutes of wondering if you're ahead or farked.

But at this point I kinda feel Football is almost *too* perfect. Hard to explain. Just a feeling.
 
2012-08-08 06:24:53 PM
Didn't this thread sort of happen yesterday?

Also, this was a close play that an umpire called, was challenged, and the umps discussed before issuing a final ruling. The whole thing took about 6 minutes. Now, regardless of the ultimate outcome (to me, it looked like the fielder got leather between the ball and the field, but I understand that it was a close play and subject to some interpretation based on camera angles), the appearance of subjectivity is what made the manager lose his mind and fume for four or so minutes. People need to stop talking about NFL-style challenges in MLB: baseball is a totally different game, with vastly different circumstances impinging on the review process. Besides, baseball has its own system of challenges, and umpires have got pretty good at conferring about controversial calls. Some crews are obviously better than others, but so it goes-- look at the 2004 ALCS crew for game 6: not only did they correctly reverse the initial call when Slappy Rodriguez purse-smacked Arroyo, but they had also (before film review, mind you) correctly reversed the double call on Bellhorn's home run to left field. There's already a sort of challenge system in place; the real problem is that games feel interminable and there are so many games per season that contests blur together without an interstitial week to rehash every aspect of every game. It's a gruelling slog of a season-- 30 teams times 162 games each times an average game-time of 3 hours (14 minutes of which are live-ball action) provides vastly more material than football's 32 teams times 16 games apiece times 3-hour games (11 minutes of which are live-ball action). In a given week, there are something like 13-16 NFL games to rehash; this week alone in MLB, sport programmes have like 96 games to review. Anything MLB allows to delay a game makes the season seem longer and more dull, and news cycles aren't equipped to deal with so much material. Unlike some other sports, baseball has very little suspense outside those 14 minutes of action, and allowing this kind of stupid argument to rage on and on and on without hope of success might be entertaining to some fans and encouraging to some players, but is ultimately useless and slowsome.

What makes baseball different to many other sports is that there's no real time limit. No clock. There's also no easy way to penalise a team for its dickish behaviour. Umps can't move the ball, can't give the other team the attempt at scoring more points, can't make players sit without ejecting them, and can't really punish teams in any real way for not immediately accepting their rulings. Not exactly. After games, there can be fines, but no one really cares about that.

But imagine an MLB in which umpires held stopwatches and timed post-ruling tantrums. There's already a rule that allows umpires to increment the ball-count on a batter by 1 if the pitcher fails to pitch the ball (with no one on base) within 12 seconds. It's rarely used, but a slight adaptation could allow umpires to receive a challenge, confer, ideally consult a video-umpire in the booth, make a final ruling, and then time any outrage that follows, divide the total number of post-ruling seconds by 12, and award the offending team's offense with the resulting number of balls. A hypothetical four-minute tirade would be 240 seconds, constituting 20 balls or 5 walks, meaning at least two unearned runs (depending on the number of runners already on base) awarded to the other team and loaded bases for the pitcher. It would play merry cob with box-scores, but we'd quickly adapt to delay-of-game balls versus pitched balls. Of course, this system would only work if the umpires' decisions used the best available technology when challenged by a manager, and inconclusive footage deferred to umpire consensus. The types of reviewable plays would also have to be limited: not pitches or checked swings, but only plays at bases, catches/hits, and fouls/hits would be eligible for challenge.

In an even better world, the opposing manager would be allowed immediately to apportion those D-O-G balls to the batters of his choice, but only usable during the very next inning, with to-be-issued automatic passes determined (as units of 4 balls with any remainder either tossed out or all given to a single batter) before resumption of play and not changeable thereafter-- so a 5-walk delay would allow the opposing manager to strategise (albeit quite quickly) and put slumping or low-OBP players on base in front of streaking players, so wasting a few walks might be worth it to give slow sluggers a chance to hit instead of having to navigate the bases. Of course, some managers would work out a way to game the system and use timed arguments to create delays just long enough to walk dangerous opponents without running up the pitch-count, but that's how penalties sometimes work: in basketball, late-game fouls are practically de rigueur because the penalty for fouling is less bad than the alternative. The opportunity for abuse would be pretty minimal, given the number of controversial calls.

I further propose that, after a certain number of failed challenges, the team loses its right to dispute any play or contest the game. In baseball, I'd set that number at 3 per team per game. Only the player holding the ball or running in the play or a designated team captain or manager (including the acting manager if the manager has been ejected already) can initiate a challenge, and the umps must immediately contact the video ump to check all available angles to help their ruling. Once that challenge has been handled, the manager risks ejection and possible charged balls in favour of the opposing team with any further argument. If he's wrong, he loses a challenge; if he loses 3 in the game, any further argument starts the D-O-G clock and harms his team. A player who argues has to be considered slightly differently: he should be allowed to make his case and vent some frustration, but if the manager doesn't argue with him, he's expected to let it go and return to the game after... let's say 20 seconds before ejection and possible D-O-G balls.

I would also suggest that umpires' calls be reviewed publicly after every game, and that they be subject to fines not for blown calls (of which some are bound to happen), but for failing to consult with other umps (including the video ump) and for allowing arguments to delay the game. They ought make the call, review if it's challenged, announce the ruling, and get back into position; any further dialogue is unnecessary and fruitless. If a manager chooses to pursue the umpire back into his position and delay the game, then on his own head be it. Then, at certain points during and certainly after the season, the league or an independent organisation should publish umpire rankings based on correct calls (allowing for review) and length of unnecessary delays. If I had my druthers, I'd also dock them for showboating and evident self-importance, but that world would be too close to perfect.

(I tried linking to the WSJ articles that provided the 14-minute and 11-minute counts, but they've blocked some links. Just google it and you'll find the counts)
 
2012-08-08 06:58:02 PM

xpisblack: Didn't this thread sort of happen yesterday?

Also, this was a close play that an umpire called, was challenged, and the umps discussed before issuing a final ruling. The whole thing took about 6 minutes. Now, regardless of the ultimate outcome (to me, it looked like the fielder got leather between the ball and the field, but I understand that it was a close play and subject to some interpretation based on camera angles), the appearance of subjectivity is what made the manager lose his mind and fume for four or so minutes. People need to stop talking about NFL-style challenges in MLB: baseball is a totally different game, with vastly different circumstances impinging on the review process. Besides, baseball has its own system of challenges, and umpires have got pretty good at conferring about controversial calls. Some crews are obviously better than others, but so it goes-- look at the 2004 ALCS crew for game 6: not only did they correctly reverse the initial call when Slappy Rodriguez purse-smacked Arroyo, but they had also (before film review, mind you) correctly reversed the double call on Bellhorn's home run to left field. There's already a sort of challenge system in place; the real problem is that games feel interminable and there are so many games per season that contests blur together without an interstitial week to rehash every aspect of every game. It's a gruelling slog of a season-- 30 teams times 162 games each times an average game-time of 3 hours (14 minutes of which are live-ball action) provides vastly more material than football's 32 teams times 16 games apiece times 3-hour games (11 minutes of which are live-ball action). In a given week, there are something like 13-16 NFL games to rehash; this week alone in MLB, sport programmes have like 96 games to review. Anything MLB allows to delay a game makes the season seem longer and more dull, and news cycles aren't equipped to deal with so much material. Unlike some other sports, baseball has ...

.... D-O-G clock and harms his team. A player who argues has to be considered slightly differently: he should be allowed to make his case and vent some frustration, but if the manager doesn't argue with him, he's expected to let it go and return to the game after... let's say 20 seconds before ejection and possible D-O-G balls.

I would also suggest that umpires' calls be reviewed publicly after every game, and that they be subject to fines not for blown calls (of which some are bound to happen), but for failing to consult with other umps (including the video ump) and for allowing arguments to delay the game. They ought make the call, review if it's challenged, announce the ruling, and get back into position; any further dialogue is unnecessary and fruitless. If a manager chooses to pursue the umpire back into his position and delay the game, then on his own head be it. Then, at certain points during and certainly after the season, the league or an independent organisation should publish umpire rankings based on correct calls (allowing for review) and length of unnecessary delays. If I had my druthers, I'd also dock them for showboating and evident self-importance, but that world would be too close to perfect.

(I tried linking to the WSJ articles that provided the 14-minute and 11-minute counts, but they've blocked some links. Just google it and you'll find the counts) yp holmes to Bel-air!




FTFY
 
2012-08-08 06:59:20 PM

mikaloyd: and you'll find the counts) yo holmes to Bel-air!

FTFY


FTFM
 
2012-08-08 07:11:33 PM
Those two posts were certainly an improvement.
 
2012-08-08 07:32:43 PM

roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: I really wish people would stop crying about the DH. Its been around for 40 years. It isn't going anywhere. Shut up.

Because it removes a strategically fundamental part of the game? Additionally, the only thing I hate more than the DH itself, is the fact that only half of MLB uses it. I understand allowing variations in the outfield fence, but to have the pitcher hit in one league and not in the other isn't a quirky homage or a unique facet of the game, it's stupid. It affects everything about how a team is built and run, and how games are managed. The AL and NL may as well not have anything to do with each other. How they can use such disparate rules and yet maintain their monopoly exemption is beyond me.

That is the extending failure of every commissioner since the leagues began playing as one organization. Just pick one already (and by pick one, I mean get rid of the DH, it removes any strategy from an already easy to manage game).


If they pick one and go with the DH (which they would because the NL is in the severe minority), I would pay to see the head explosions and rants that would ensue from people like you.
 
2012-08-08 07:38:51 PM

UNC_Samurai: NkThrasher: No, there is no reason that provides a 'need' to have instant replay in baseball.

Subby and others might want one, but there is no need for one.

Yeah, there's no need for this sport to be behind the times, when half of these olympic sports - including ARCHERY - make full use of available technology.


So the outfielders should be wearing moon shoes so they can jump higher to rob more homers?

So the batters should be using bats with extra springy material in them to hit the ball further?

So the infielders should have augmented reality glasses that plot the course of the ball vs statistical likelihood of hits based on this pitcher/batter combination?


Adding technology to a game is not by any measure a necessary step just because the technology exists. Any claim to that effect is idiotic at best.
 
2012-08-08 07:59:32 PM

NkThrasher: UNC_Samurai: NkThrasher: No, there is no reason that provides a 'need' to have instant replay in baseball.

Subby and others might want one, but there is no need for one.

Yeah, there's no need for this sport to be behind the times, when half of these olympic sports - including ARCHERY - make full use of available technology.

So the outfielders should be wearing moon shoes so they can jump higher to rob more homers?

So the batters should be using bats with extra springy material in them to hit the ball further?

So the infielders should have augmented reality glasses that plot the course of the ball vs statistical likelihood of hits based on this pitcher/batter combination?


Adding technology to a game is not by any measure a necessary step just because the technology exists. Any claim to that effect is idiotic at best.


I never said a damn thing about altering the play on the field, I just pointed out that other sports have gotten up to date on how technology can help correct human error in refereeing. It's funny that you use the word idiotic when YOU were the one that went all moon shoes strawman.
 
2012-08-08 08:11:35 PM

Super Chronic: Another vote for "he trapped it but baseball still needs replay."


Just to be difficult, I say it was a catch, and replay is the Devil's work.

/how 'bout them A's!?!
 
2012-08-08 08:21:13 PM

FishyFred: If they pick one and go with the DH (which they would because the NL is in the severe minority), I would pay to see the head explosions and rants that would ensue from people like you.


Currently, the NL has 16 teams (and therefore 16 owners or ownership groups); the AL has 14. Of the most profitable teams in MLB as of earlier this year, 12 of the top 20 were from the NL and 8 from the AL. Of the top 5, 3 were NL teams; of the top 10, an even 5 were NL. In terms of actual money, the Yankees are worth the combined value of the second- and third-place Dodgers and red Sox (respectively), and values fail to drop so precipitously after the 1-2 spot. Of the bottom 5 teams, 4 are AL, and 1 is NL (the Pirates). In terms of actual money, the AL obviously has an advantage with the Yankees and Red Sox as marquee franchises; all told, AL teams are worth ~$8.634 billion; NL teams are worth ~$9.514 billion. On average, AL teams are worth ~$616.71 million; NL teams are worth ~$594.63 million (admittedly less.... on average and not in reality). The NL, by having more teams, employs more players and managers and sanctioned staff, so entertains a numerical advantage to complement its financial one.

Full disclosure: my maths might be off. I just tallied the figures in my head; feel free to correct me.

In other words, I don't understand how the NL is "in the severe minority" on any sort of actual record. When the Astros switch leagues next year, the balance will clearly shift some; as of right now, though, the NL represent the clear majority in every pertinent category except average team value, which is skewed by the billionaire Yankees and Red Sox. Oh, and operating income, which is less important than it seems and was affected this year by lawsuits and the like. But virtually every other metric puts the NL in the majority. Which figures are you using to justify your placement of the NL in the "severe minority"? Attendance figures, because location of teams is clearly the best validation? I can't think of any reasonable figures to justify the suggestion that the NL are in the "severe minority."

Maybe by "severe" you meant "slight"?
 
2012-08-08 08:22:20 PM
Baseball sucks.

Always has, always will.
 
2012-08-08 09:05:54 PM
i719.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-08 10:16:38 PM

BKITU: On slo-mo it looks like the ball hit the grass in front of the glove webbing. Subby sounds like a crying Rockies fan to me.

But I repeat myself.


Trap
 
2012-08-08 10:18:48 PM

jmr61: Baseball sucks.

Always has, always will.


I, for one, value your crucial and timely input, which has thoroughly enlightened this discussion.

But seriously, why even click on a thread about baseball if you don't like baseball? When I see a thread about synchronised diving, I don't click unless I want to understand why other people give a damn about something I disdain. Clearly, you're a more civilised and evolved individual, though, so you've glossed right over the whole ancient idea of suum cuique and moved directly to expressing ignorant, self-important, and self-involved douche-swizzlery. In public, no less, removing any question that you might have a working adult brain, so well done there.

Also, some random sport/band/entity you like totally sucks. Always has, always will. Do you feel the burn, the sick burn of the acerbic and stunning wit required to inject such an irrelevant but presumably shattering enlightenment into this discussion of a topic about which I care not a whit (your preferred thing), but about which you probably care slightly more? Do you feel it?

Everyone here interested in baseball was totally put into place by your biting cleverness. Totally. MLB--despite its astonishing profits, media coverage, political importance, fanatical fanbase, and other advantages-- will now go away because you, the first person ever to voice this opinion, said it sucks.

Mission Accomplished, you thoroughly effective and interesting poster, you.
 
2012-08-09 01:11:51 AM

degenerate-afro: shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]

I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.


Inconclusive?

Trap, and way more obvious than they made it out to be. Any angle you look at it.
 
2012-08-09 01:27:27 AM

ongbok:

The ball hit the lip of the glove, which was on the ground, and bounced off the lip into the heel of the glove. It's a catch.


That ball is clearly sitting on the grass.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

It looked like a trap in real time, and slo-mo only confirmed it.
 
2012-08-09 01:48:17 AM

I can't get the cap off!: ongbok:

The ball hit the lip of the glove, which was on the ground, and bounced off the lip into the heel of the glove. It's a catch.

That ball is clearly sitting on the grass.

[i.imgur.com image 652x416]

[i.imgur.com image 650x418]

It looked like a trap in real time, and slo-mo only confirmed it.


Look at the white on the lip of his glove in the first picture. The Ball is past that and on the lip of his glove. The second picture the ball is bouncing of the lip into the heel of the glove. I don't know what you are seeing, but in the first picture the lip of the glove is clearly under the ball.
 
2012-08-09 02:16:51 AM

ongbok:

Look at the white on the lip of his glove in the first picture. The Ball is past that and on the lip of his glove.


Only a small portion of the ball is. 2/3 or more is beyond that. It very clearly bounces off the grass and into his glove, if it didn't hit the grass, it would have bounced off the tip away from his glove.

The second picture clearly shows the ball in the grass without glove completely under it.
 
2012-08-09 02:21:19 AM
That was a trap, but they need replay
 
2012-08-09 03:18:33 AM
Being honest I don't believe that replay has a place in baseball. That said this thread really doesn't help the arguments for it. We've all watched that play a dozen times (or more) and are still arguing about it. If the best umps in the world (us) can't get it right are we really gonna trust some booth jockeys to get it right, much less timely?

UNC_Samurai: ARCHERY

Do tell what replay technology they use in archery that baseball is missing out on?
*shoots arrow* "Bulls-eye!" "nu-uh" *Quick! fire up the replay so we can see where it hit on the target!

/archery was not best example
 
2012-08-09 04:16:35 AM

el_pilgrim: Being honest I don't believe that replay has a place in baseball. That said this thread really doesn't help the arguments for it. We've all watched that play a dozen times (or more) and are still arguing about it. If the best umps in the world (us) can't get it right are we really gonna trust some booth jockeys to get it right, much less timely?


That's not really the point. The point is that, with replay, arguments that delay the game and egregiously bad calls on objective events ought to dwindle. The crew chief can radio up to the video ump and get an official ruling; if the film is inconclusive, then the field umps can decide on an appropriate course of action based on their observations and call the matter closed, secure in the knowledge that no better call can be made. They can get it as close to right as possible, and then make sure they haven't got it wrong (by appealing to the video ump) before closing the book on the play. It's the managerial argument that takes so much unnecessary time. Few plays last longer than a few seconds, so reviewing the play from every camera angle available oughtn't take more than 30 seconds, compared to four-minute tirades by managers protesting the umps' inability to make a correct call. If the video ump can't make a definitive call, then everyone involved has to admit the call is open to some subjectivity, and the result of the umpires' discussion has to be final. No further discussion should be necessary or even remotely worthwhile, so umpires can return to their positions, restart play, and stop needing to soothe upset managers after disliked calls. If managers should choose to continue their tirades, they would do so at the risk of delaying the game.

Or at least, that's how I see the matter.
 
2012-08-09 09:27:04 AM

italie: degenerate-afro: shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]

I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.

Inconclusive?

Trap, and way more obvious than they made it out to be. Any angle you look at it.


A trap is called when the ball hits the ground and bounces into the glove. From that shot, you can see that the ball hit the webbing, but you can't see the resulting bounce, thus that shot by itself is inconclusive.
 
2012-08-09 10:38:34 AM

FishyFred: roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ***snip***

If they pick one and go with the DH (which they would because the NL is in the severe minority), I would pay to see the head explosions and rants that would ensue from people like you.


You will definitely not get a head explosion or rant from me since, if you would have actually read my post, you would have seen that I am much more irritated with the fact that the leagues play different games.

I think that sacrificing a major strategic part of the game for ~1 run per game (I believe that is the runs scored differential between the leagues, but if I am wrong, please correct me) is dumb.

I know that having half of your league's teams play a different game than the other half is stupid.

Going with or without the DH would at least resolve one of those issues.

Also, I am a Brewers fan, I have seen my team with and without a DH. No DH is a much more interesting game to me.

//

scandalrag: roc6783: SlagginOff: roc6783: R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: ***snip***


You're right, I forgot to mention that in the NL scenario, the pitcher was about to hit, my bad.

Here are your points as I understand them:
1. The only 2 managers with any creativity are in the AL and there are a few stupid managers in the NL who don't do any complex decision making when deciding how to manage their teams.

2. AL teams have it harder because they have to carry one less pitcher due to the DH.

1 - Well, I do not watch enough baseball outside of Brewers games to comment on the creativity of 29 other managers, but whether or not NL managers are doing complex analysis does not diminish the complexity of the impact of the decision.

2 - Pretty sure the AL bench could consist of 1 outfield defensive specialist, 1 infield defensive specialist, and a backup catcher. That leaves 8 spots for relief pitchers. Shockingly, if you look at the Brewers roster right now, they have 8 relief pitchers.
 
2012-08-09 10:49:17 AM
 
2012-08-09 01:03:06 PM

FishyFred: By "severe," I meant almost every high school, college, and professional league in the world uses the DH.


Ah. Fair enough. In order to talk about how the NL are in the minority during a discussion about MLB, you link a wikipedia subpage called "The designated hitter outside Major League Baseball." Okay, that's at least... context. Thank you.

But so, are you essentially saying that upstarts and wannabes should set the course for their superiors and predecessors, who should abandon their rules and traditions and cave to new (given the history of the game) trends? Never mind that NCAA rules require that pitchers who want to bat be listed as playing two positions (P and DH) and other foolishness-- you're right that 16 out of 30 top-level pro teams are clearly the professional minority (and come on: Americans insist that every other country's attempts at pro leagues are barely minor leagues compared to MLB), with rare exceptions given to NPB-- which is similarly split between DH and non-DH teams. NCAA and high school rules also allow the use of aluminium bat, and there are more NCAA and high school teams than MLB ones; does that mean that, by majority, MLB should allow aluminium bats, too, and give up on its own tradition and rules?

img594.imageshack.us

For the record, I think MLB's "single piece of wood" requirement for bats is stupid-- an MIT grad has come up with a pretty exceptional alternative, and the NCAA have begun requiring metal bats to perform more like wooden ones-- but I drew the analogy because of my belief that changing a rule simply because more (and worse) players don't adhere to it is foolish. I also have no problem with the DH or the difference between leagues in its use. And it is entirely possible that the day-in, day-out practicalities of post-Astros-realignment will impel the NL's DH adoption because near-daily interleague play will force NL teams to address the glaring disparity in offensive roster construction and change the rule to overcome the disadvantage. That's fine; it will be a sort of sad day, but it'll make sense because a practicality, not an amateur majority, will have forced it. The change will have nothing to do with the NL's being a minority, much less a "severe" one, in any way that counts among major league personnel.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:39 PM

degenerate-afro: italie: degenerate-afro: shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]

I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.

Inconclusive?

Trap, and way more obvious than they made it out to be. Any angle you look at it.

A trap is called when the ball hits the ground and bounces into the glove. From that shot, you can see that the ball hit the webbing, but you can't see the resulting bounce, thus that shot by itself is inconclusive.


Any way you look at that image it points to the ball touching the grass.
 
2012-08-09 02:50:46 PM

UNC_Samurai: I never said a damn thing about altering the play on the field, I just pointed out that other sports have gotten up to date on how technology can help correct human error in refereeing. It's funny that you use the word idiotic when YOU were the one that went all moon shoes strawman.


To quote you:

Yeah, there's no need for this sport to be behind the times, when half of these olympic sports - including ARCHERY - make full use of available technology.

No mention of refereeing.

You left it broad, I asked questions to clarify your position and derided it under the condition that it met them. That's not a straw man, that's clarifying a position that you left vague.


A similar series of questions applies...

So there should be lasers defining the strike box?

So there should be chips in the balls to decide if they actually hit the ground / passed the foul line etc?

So there should be cameras mounted on all angles of the pitchers mound to ensure the ball isn't tampered with?


It's just as silly, there is no need for any of this. People may want it, but the game has existed just fine for over a century without this type of interaction. Why is it necessary just because it exists?
 
2012-08-09 04:59:02 PM
It's not so much a matter of what technology can do, because I'm sure the geeks could find a way to totally get rid of the human element of officiating. It's a matter of what you want for your sport. Those same geeks could also design a pitching machine that only threw strikes into the corners, so do you want to get rid of human pitchers? People might argue that mistakes from the officials can cost a team a game, maybe even a season, but if you see every pitch out of the zone or swung strike as a player mistake, not to mention fielding errors or getting tagged stealing, which are mistakes by the players, who really has the biggest effect on the outcome of any game? I'd stick my neck out and say that officials in most sports make fewer mistakes than the players, it's just that when they do they tend to be significant and really stand out.
 
2012-08-09 05:53:42 PM

italie: degenerate-afro: italie: degenerate-afro: shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]

I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.

Inconclusive?

Trap, and way more obvious than they made it out to be. Any angle you look at it.

A trap is called when the ball hits the ground and bounces into the glove. From that shot, you can see that the ball hit the webbing, but you can't see the resulting bounce, thus that shot by itself is inconclusive.

Any way you look at that image it points to the ball touching the grass.


i.imgur.com

From that image alone you cannot say that the ball definitely touches the grass. Even MSPaint comes with a zoom tool.
 
2012-08-09 10:43:13 PM

degenerate-afro: italie: degenerate-afro: italie: degenerate-afro: shiryatsya: [i.imgur.com image 678x360]

I'd say inconclusive from that image. The ball could have webbing under it from that point, but with that angle you can't really see it clearly.

Inconclusive?

Trap, and way more obvious than they made it out to be. Any angle you look at it.

A trap is called when the ball hits the ground and bounces into the glove. From that shot, you can see that the ball hit the webbing, but you can't see the resulting bounce, thus that shot by itself is inconclusive.

Any way you look at that image it points to the ball touching the grass.

[i.imgur.com image 678x360]

From that image alone you cannot say that the ball definitely touches the grass. Even MSPaint comes with a zoom tool.



Then maybe you should use it and take a closer look. The lip of the glove isn't where you think it is.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-10 01:01:29 AM
It would have been an easy call if that fielder was Luis Polonia.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report