Its never easy being a Pirates fan, huh

[evolver115]

I understand your point and good post, but how do we know that in Meals' mind he didn't think with 100% certainty the tag was missed? In that situation, he wouldn't even be considering those other factors. Perception of what happened and what actually happened do not always align and this will always be the case for judgment calls that occur at high velocity. Your argument is solid if the umpire was unsure of what happened (especially if he observed Lugo's body language right after the tag), but that might not be the case here. In his mind, h might have been sure the tag was missed, even if it was the wrong call.

That is why they need to include instant replay on plays at the plate. The implications are at their greatest point in this position.

 

[ELYEAH82]

scoring a run to win the game, and getting from a 1-2 count to a 2-2 count isn't the same thing.

It is if you hit a homer on the next pitch to win the game. I really have trouble getting your point here. Bias due to respect seems like a terrible thing, and should have no business in sport. The Maddux strike zone made me sick for years.

 

[Comeds]

It's a good debate topic, that's for sure. I just look at it from the standpoint that if you took the calling of balls and strikes away from the umpires, it would change the game in such a drastic way that you wouldn't recognize it, anymore.

Yeah it would speed it up and make it more legit.

If you took the control away from the umpire on a play at the plate, where a run is going to be scored or not scored, I'm not as sure it would impact the game in such a drastic way.

If you take control away there, why not plays at first with two outs and a runner on third? If the runner is safe at first the run scores, should that go to replay?

scoring a run to win the game, and getting from a 1-2 count to a 2-2 count isn't the same thing.

No, but in your example a rookie pitcher facing a respected batter would be far more likely to walk in the winning run in that situation. Even if he doesn't walk the run in he would have to pitch to a smaller strike zone greatly increasing the chance of it being hit well.

 

[elocomotive]

scoring a run to win the game, and getting from a 1-2 count to a 2-2 count isn't the same thing.

It is if the runner in that count might eventually score the winning run. These are all tiny math problems.

Errors on balls/strikes are frequent. I would guess in any inning you have 1-3 close calls that go the wrong way. Sometimes you even have a couple in a single at bat. That might mean 5-30 mistakes on balls/strikes in a given game and as many as a dozen batters affected by bad calls.

Close plays at a base happen only a handful of times in a given game, and even then, the right call is made about 98% of the time or higher. If you reviewed mistakes on safe/out calls, I bet you average around 1 mistake or less per game.

I'm sure Darkstone could calculate an awesome formula to prove it, but if you know how different the average is for hitters in a 1-1 count and an 0-2 count, pretty easy to see how a mistakes in the strike zone can quickly add up to outpace the impact of calls at the bases.

 

[evolver115]

It is if you hit a homer on the next pitch to win the game. I really have trouble getting your point here. Bias due to respect seems like a terrible thing, and should have no business in sport. The Maddux strike zone made me sick for years.

My point is it's black and white if a player is safe or not. He either reached before the tag was applied, or he didn't. The calling of balls and strikes, IMHO is a gray area. There are so many different situations that go into the calling of balls and strikes. I don't necessarily agree with the preferential treatment, but at the same time, I don't see why it needs to be changed.

How often do you see mass sports media pining for the calling of balls and strikes to be judged by a computer?

Subsequently, how many times do you see mass media piss and moan about plays at the bag needing to be judged by instant replay?

 

[elocomotive]

That is why they need to include instant replay on plays at the plate. The implications are at their greatest point in this position.

I already agree with you. Kinda two separate issues.

And I don't just think at the plate, but just a limited number (maybe 2 per game) that the manager can request to have reviewed. An attempted steal of 2nd with no outs late in a tie game is just as important as a play at the plate. You have to limit it to keep the game moving, but I don't like when sports legislate what can and cannot be reviewed. Let the teams make that call and just give the umps a second chance to get the call right, especially in baseball where there is no whistle.

 

[Comeds]

My point is it's black and white if a player is safe or not. He either reached before the tag was applied, or he didn't. The calling of balls and strikes, IMHO is a gray area. There are so many different situations that go into the calling of balls and strikes. I don't necessarily agree with the preferential treatment, but at the same time, I don't see why it needs to be changed.

How often do you see mass sports media pining for the calling of balls and strikes to be judged by a computer?

Subsequently, how many times do you see mass media piss and moan about plays at the bag needing to be judged by instant replay?

I have heard discussion in the media about a computer calling balls and strikes before.
I hear the media piss and moan about replay use for other things a couple times a year when something bad happens. Not very often. Its easier to argue. That doesnt mean its a bigger or more important problem IMO.

 

[evolver115]

It is if the runner in that count might eventually score the winning run. These are all tiny math problems.

Errors on balls/strikes are frequent. I would guess in any inning you have 1-3 close calls that go the wrong way. Sometimes you even have a couple in a single at bat. That might mean 5-30 mistakes on balls/strikes in a given game and as many as a dozen batters affected by bad calls.

Close plays at a base happen only a handful of times in a given game, and even then, the right call is made about 98% of the time or higher. If you reviewed mistakes on safe/out calls, I bet you average around 1 mistake or less per game.

I'm sure Darkstone could calculate an awesome formula to prove it, but if you know how different the average is for hitters in a 1-1 count and an 0-2 count, pretty easy to see how a mistakes in the strike zone can quickly add up to outpace the impact of calls at the bases.

Because of the infrequency of close plays at the plate, I personally feel that instant replay would be more of a help than a hindrance. Maybe someday the calling of balls and strikes will be controlled by a computer, however I think the judgment of a runner being safe or out at the plate has reached a point where it should no longer up to a human. Just like a goal in hockey is judged with a review, and just like a touchdown in football is judged by an instant replay.

The men who run the MLB have a desire to keep it as pure as it was 100 years ago, and for the most part, I'm ok with that... up until the point when the score goes up on the board. At that point, it had better be legitimate.

 

[elocomotive]

My point is it's black and white if a player is safe or not. He either reached before the tag was applied, or he didn't. The calling of balls and strikes, IMHO is a gray area.

Wha?!?

 

[awaz]

i think i'm more with evo on this one..

if you gave each team 3 challenges, how many do you think would be used on balls/strikes? probably none. i think that shows you right there that balls and strikes dont have the same kind of impact as plays at the base, particularly home plate.

i dont think its right that players get preferential treatment, but it happens in every sport, and every fan of teams that get the short end on those will complain about it.. but preferential treatment does not guarantee any team, anything. missing a call at the plate is concrete.

 

[elocomotive]

I have heard discussion in the media about a computer calling balls and strikes before.

Yes. Someone complained about the computer judgement of balls/strikes being shown too much during games earlier. That is the "media" (a TV channel broadcasting the game) questioning the call's accuracy. It happens in nearly every inning or nearly every game on every night.

 

[evolver115]

I have heard discussion in the media about a computer calling balls and strikes before.
I hear the media piss and moan about replay use for other things a couple times a year when something bad happens. Not very often. Its easier to argue. That doesnt mean its a bigger or more important problem IMO.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a system to review a play at the plate, or any base, would probably have a greater likelihood of being accepted in the game than the calling of balls and strikes by a computer.

Baseball has such a strange appeal that other professional sports don't have. It hasn't changed all that much when compared to other major sports in North America.

Think how much hockey has changed, just over the past five seasons!! Now, compare that to baseball (excluding the doping).

When I look at it that way, I can see why the FO of major league baseball has such a hard time with change, compared to the others.

 

[elocomotive]

if you gave each team 3 challenges, how many do you think would be used on balls/strikes? probably none. i think that shows you right there that balls and strikes dont have the same kind of impact as plays at the base, particularly home plate.

Well, we don't know how they would use them, so it's impossible to guess. That would also have something to do with a player being able to tell his coach "I was safe" vs. saying "I think it was a ball." Easier to be sure of the former than the latter.

EDIT - I gotta give Awaz props for providing evidence that something is more important b/c of evidence of the number of challenges used from a system that isn't even yet in place. Cheers!

 

[evolver115]

Wha?!?

preferential treatment

 

[Comeds]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a system to review a play at the plate, or any base, would probably have a greater likelihood of being accepted in the game than the calling of balls and strikes by a computer.

Baseball has such a strange appeal that other professional sports don't have. It hasn't changed all that much when compared to other major sports in North America.

Think how much hockey has changed, just over the past five seasons!! Now, compare that to baseball (excluding the doping).

When I look at it that way, I can see why the FO of major league baseball has such a hard time with change, compared to the others.

I certainly agree with you here.

 

[evolver115]

i think i'm more with evo on this one..

if you gave each team 3 challenges, how many do you think would be used on balls/strikes? probably none. i think that shows you right there that balls and strikes dont have the same kind of impact as plays at the base, particularly home plate.

i dont think its right that players get preferential treatment, but it happens in every sport, and every fan of teams that get the short end on those will complain about it.. but preferential treatment does not guarantee any team, anything. missing a call at the plate is concrete.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.. excluding the challenges

A play at the plate is concrete. A count going from 1-2 to 2-2 is still in the cement mixer.

 

[elocomotive]

Regardless of your opinion, pretty fun discusssion, gang.

I think we can all agree on one thing - this is somehow all Matt Cooke's fault.

 

[awaz]

Well, we don't know how they would use them, so it's impossible to guess. That would also have something to do with a player being able to tell his coach "I was safe" vs. saying "I think it was a ball." Easier to be sure of the former than the latter.

EDIT - I gotta give Awaz props for providing evidence that something is more important b/c of evidence of the number of challenges used from a system that isn't even yet in place. Cheers!

hey i'm just trying to say that if you are going to review an individual play, 1 pitch, or 1 tag at homeplate, every single time the team would review the tag at homeplate.

if you're looking to make small changes in baseball to improve the game, i think that way is to review calls at homeplate.

baseball isn't going to make sweeping changes like a computer calling balls/strikes.

the line for me is whether or not the individual call concretely effects the game. reviewing a run, reviewing a goal, those HAVE to be in place for me to consider the sport fair. missing a penalty or a ball or strike MIGHT change the outcome in the game, therefore i'm ok with umps/refs having that power.

EDIT: had a previous hockey comparison in there, hence no transition at all in that last paragraph.. hope you guys still followed

 

[awaz]

Regardless of your opinion, pretty fun discusssion, gang.

I think we can all agree on one thing - this is somehow all Matt Cooke's fault.

well thats a no brainer!

 

[elocomotive]

hey i'm just trying to say that if you are going to review an individual play, 1 pitch, or 1 tag at homeplate, every single time the team would review the tag at homeplate.

Right, if you had the choice, I agree. But not knowing if that would even be an option, a fair/foul ball might be a review, a strike might be reviewed, a steal at second might be reviewed. You'd have to weigh each situation against possible future situations. I think as long as you limit the frequency, you should be able to review whatever situation or play a team deems to be important in it's own eyes.