46-72, Game Thoughts
by Matthew on Aug 15, 2010 2:30 PM PDT
in Seattle Mariners Game Recaps
Email
PrintObviously a couple calls at first base ended up being pivotal points in this game and given the timing of the below story, people might be inspired to go on another umpire rant.
As calls to expand instant replay in the game continue, ESPN's ... [r]esearchers used broadcast footage of all games from June 29 to July 11 -- 184 in total -- and reviewed every call, with the exception of balls and strikes. The overwhelming majority of the calls (fair or foul, safe or out) were so obvious they did not require any sort of review.
But the "Outside the Lines" analysis found that an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call, with 65.7 percent confirmed as correct and 20.4 percent confirmed as incorrect.
I reviewed the tag on Figgins using multiple angles and super slo-mo, slowing the video down to individual frames. I couldn't tell whether Matt LaPorta made the tag or not. It does not appear that he did, but there's no definitive camera angle available to me. If that call was blown, that cost the Mariners at least one run.
Someone will then say, who cares, the Mariners lost 9-1? "You should care", I would retort "because all things are interdependent." First, there's no telling how many runs the Mariners end up scoring in that innings. Secondly, perhaps with some run support on the board, Felix does not go off the deep end in the 7th inning. Nobody can know. That is important point number one to take from this game.
Speaking of the 7th, there are two things I can say about Chone Figgins' error. Casey Kotchman's foot stayed on the bag.
But I am not sure the throw beat Valbuena.
While I fully support the intelligent expansion of instant replay in baseball (and other sports) and I think the ESPN piece illustrates that blown calls are a very real problem in the game today, with the close calls at first base today - both of them appear literally 50/50 to me.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would expect that if MLB instituted instant replay
then they would do more to require slow-motion cameras pointed at key points on the field. The cameras did not do a very good job at giving us a great angle to the Figgins tag, and frequently it seems cameras in Seattle have the frame in motion when the play is made, making it more difficult to judge.
I expect that would get some of those 13.9% “too close to call” plays off the fence.
Charter Member: Dave Sims Sweet Hat Club // Batting .400 in 30 AB for Rocky Diablos, PSSBL.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Aug 15, 2010 2:46 PM PDT reply actions
The relevant man to this discussion
The relevant man to this discussion is Alex Rodriguez.
Huh???!!!
Absolutely. While he is but one player out of 750 players (at any one time) pulling down a paycheck as a ballplayer in MLB. ARod’s paycheck is $33million for 2010, which breaks down (assuming 700 PA’s and four pitches average per AB) to about $11,000 per pitch.
$11,000 per pitch.
Given that expense number as a background perspective, I believe MLB can easily afford paying five (count ’em…five) extra umpires in a booth, every game, monitoring every play via video cameras. If there are close plays at first, bang bang plays, five people give you that extra buffer of opinion, and give extra weight when they reach a decision (even if it is 3-2, it is a very considered decision.)
So pay each ump $1000 per game, to sit in the booth and watch the monitors. That isn’t even HALF of what is paid to Alex Rodriguez for one pitch, in one game.
I believe MLB (given some of the salaries of players) can easily absorb the cost of these umpires and equipment to watch every play, every game. And, no calling up to the booth to initiate their action. The five umps in the booth would consider every play, including “in the vicinity” DPs. If the booth folk see a wrong call, they simply announce over the PA “The runner is out at first” or “The runner is safe at home” or “No catch on the fly ball to the outfield. The batter is safe at first” or “Fair ball !!” or “Foul Ball!!” if it contradicts the signal from the umpire in the field.
The best feature of this proposed system is that the umps could give a “too close to call” signal if they truly didn’t see it. Why not? Where is the ignominy in admitting you don’t have Superman’s eyes? If a third baseman momentarily fumbles the throw to third, and the runner is there, the ump may be shielded from seeing what truly happened, in what sequence. The best possible outcome is guaranteed by simply signalling “Too close to call” and let the booth decide, which they would do in a matter of seconds (remember, they are reviewing every play). Players would act in their interest (i.e. always assume a “safe” call) and would continue through the play.
Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power.
Beane: They believe it because it's true.
by One won lost won on Aug 15, 2010 4:57 PM PDT reply actions
Do you not realize that teams, not the MLB itself, pays player salaries?
Alex Rodriguez is not in any way relevant to the discussion.
There is literally nothing about Alex Rodriguez that is relevant to the discussion of instant replay
Its just an example people.
Seems he was just heading off the complaint that additional review crews would cost too much. Although it does beg the question who would pay for this new class of umpire.
by hcoguy on Aug 15, 2010 9:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the reference to Alex Rodriguez was an analogy.
The message was that if teams are generating enough revenue to pay such large salaries they can afford to pay an additional $5000 per game as an insurance policy against bad umpiring costing them a game.
by chezbergrur on Aug 16, 2010 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Teams don't pay for umpires, the league does
If teams paid for umpires, the possibility of bias, or the perception of that possibility, would outweigh the benefit provided by a staff of reviewers.
I think most people get that. It's not an overly shrouded connection to make.
The problem is that as an analogy it’s a decidedly poor one. It introduces confusion instead of clarifying a potentially complex point.
That's exactly the story
The level of $$$ in MLB is such that paying for extra officiating should not be a consideration. I only threw ARod in there because (1) it is such an incredible statistic, that I like to surface it when it is possible/helpful, and (2) as soon as someone mentions “five additional officials” people think “Five salaries, every game?? To cover one (average) error per game? Where is the cost/benefit of that?”
I knew people would wonder what the connection was, in some cases, but it’s simply to get people to think more intently about my proposal. I’m not saying I’ve got the magic “One”, but more ideas, the more likely a successful proposal will surface.
Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power.
Beane: They believe it because it's true.
by One won lost won on Aug 16, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I saw the same report and had similar thoughts.
I saw this slightly differently than the previous two posters, however.
One of the complaints frequently lodged by those that oppose the use of instant replay is that it will slow down the game with constant interruptions, challenges, etc. Clearly, examining 1 or 2 calls a game is not going to make a material difference to the length of games. Further, rather than worry about the 14% of calls that are too close to call or adding a number of television match officials to review everything to the nth degree, I would suggest that
A) The study seems to substantiate that umpires really do a good job insofar as the vast majority of calls,
B) Challenging one or two calls a game to fix those 20% of the calls that are clearly wrong would benefit the game and would not result in substantial disruption.
In other sports where there are TMO’s (take rugby league and union where this is used in try/no try decisions), I believe most parties would now agree that the use of the technology has been beneficial. In rugby, it does not result in 100% correct decisions – there are times where there are no clear camera angles to see the grounding of the ball over the line – but it does result in better decisions, and thus arguably, a better game.
Happy to hear about rugby
insofar as it cannot result in 100% correct calls, but everyone can agree, no better calls are really possible. So as in so many sports played at the highest caliber of play, it becomes a game of inches. Same thing with the line calls in tennis. Every ball is ready to be called, but every ball near the line is not reviewed “to the nth degree”…it is simply a matter of being at the ready, to examine the close plays quickly.
With five people as play reviewers, they would soon get into a rhythm where, on close plays, a review of five different angles by one person is replaced by five people reviewing five different angles, each of the five trusting in the other four’s abilities, and a decision rendered in three or four seconds. That is my thinking behind “five” reviewers. Speedier verdicts rendered.
My philosophy on review by replay: if it is possible to get the correct call, by the best, fastest, method, get the correct call by the best method. As you point out, the happy news is that only one call per game needs correcting, so the five people in the booth have a reasonably easy job, and are transparent to the game. One may think that one call misjudged per game is acceptable, so why not forgive “traditional human error” and keep the game traditional? I put that into the category of “one fatality average per one hundred landings” for an airline. One percent sounds small, but who would be flying that airline?? It’s not so much the absolute number per se, but the circumstances that surround it. It’s an unacceptably high number if zero mistakes are possible.
Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power.
Beane: They believe it because it's true.
by One won lost won on Aug 15, 2010 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions
5? Why not 3?
What do they do between close plays? Or are you including balls and strikes?
ignacio
No, not balls and strikes...yet
I favor an electronically-measured strike zone, but just the home plate ump and the machine are involved: if the pitch is a strike, a buzzer goes off in the ump’s pocket. Nothing visual, no apparent change. The ump still yells out the call. In fact, you get possibly more animation from the umps behind home plate, as they are supremely unchallenged in their calls. Sorry Milton B, no more storming about, pal.
You could have a light simultaneously register in the dugouts, so there would be no possible “brain cramp” by the ump that would go un-noticed.
Then the home plate ump could concentrate on foul tips, HBP, catcher’s interference, balks, …there’s a lot going on.
No more Tom Glavine-type strikes to rookies.
From 1900 to around 1908-1910, almost all Major League games had one umpire, calling everything. Read the book “More than Merkle” by David W Anderson, about the 1908 season (and the Cubs). You understand why umpires developed the infallible ethic. Players were invariably trying to fool the umpires, and players often fought/punched umpires. The only way one guy could maintain order was by maintaining the first call as the one and only right call.
I picked five “booth umpires” instead of three, so there would not be so much pressure on one person if one of three said “Out!” and simultaneously two of three said “Safe!”. But that is simply a supposition, solvable by real experimentation. Maybe three is ideal. Heck, contrary to expectations, maybe two or four are in reality the ideal headcount.
Worth experimenting ….
“Booth Umpires” also would permit women to work in an “in game” capacity.
Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power.
Beane: They believe it because it's true.
by One won lost won on Aug 16, 2010 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
