Well, Instant Replay, you got one right. Last night, against the Minnesota Twins, Carlos Pena of the Tampa Bay Rays launched a home run that was called on the field as 'fan interference'. The fan interference play was ruled a double, Pena was awarded second base and Eric Hinske would have crossed home plate with Akinori Iwamura
This article is also featured on
The Outsiders Look at the Insides of Baseball
5 comments Last one added 9 months ago — Leave a Comment
Ben Currie 9 months ago
Interesting read. Also, never heard of fangraphs before that looks real cool. I have to see this as a good thing, anytime you add integrity to the game it's the right move in my mind. But I can certainly see how this long delay would effect the pitcher on the mound, or as you mentioned buy more time for the pitcher in the 'pen who's almost ready to throw.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brandon Heikoop 9 months ago
But isn't what MLB is doing a blatant disregard for integrity?
The claim is, 'we have the technology, so why not use it?'
So why not use it? Why not use it entirely instead of partially?
My point was that home runs and 'boundary calls' hardly change the outcome of a game, but plays at first, questionable catches in the outfield, even the strike zone have a much larger impact...
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Currie 9 months ago
I agree with that, definitely, I would like to see the base-running and strike zone get a little better. True all good points.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Graham 9 months ago
I really don't understand the author's take-away point here at all. For one thing, managers don't get 'challenges' nor can they compel umpires to examine a play, so it's not like replay can be used as a reliable stall technique as is implied in the final paragraph. The odds that a play so controversial as to convince umpires to review the play would occur at the exact moment the manager needed time for an emergency bullpen warm-up seems infinitesimal.
As for the fact that the 3 replay situations so far happen to have occurred in lopsided games...um, so what? What do these graphs have to do with anything? The majority of games are close, so, over time, the majority of replay situations will be in close games. That's a fact that a sample size of three does not have any impact on whatsoever. Moreover, a replay situation is as likely to occur in the first inning as the 9th inning, before it is even apparent if the game is close.
So, if I can take any meaning out of this article at all, it seems to be that the author is advocating umpires applying some sort of screening methodology in which they elect not use replay in blowouts in order to save fans the indignity of a irrelevant 2-4 minute delay once or twice per team per season. Is this really something worth worrying about?
Edit Comment Cancel
Brandon Heikoop 9 months ago
Jim,
Thanks for reading and replying...
While Managers do not have specific 'challenges' they certainly can encourage umpires to review a play. Previously, a manager could come out and tell the umpire chief to 'discuss' the call with the crew, but now the Manager can be slightly more adamant and suggest that the umps review the call.
Also, who said it had to be the 'exact' moment? What if the reliever had already been warming up and simply needed another minute or two? We seen managers do stuff like sending the pitching coach, then go up to the mound themselves to give extra time.
But keep in mind, this is a minor detail of my article. I believe I touch on this point for a total of one sentence. Talk about infinitesimal.
You are correct that the likelihood is about equal. However, replays are entirely random chance. So of 100 replays, it isn't as if 50% will be useful and another 50% will be useless. Thus, claiming that 'over time' things will even out is a stretch. The fact is, more often then not, the umpires make the right call. When they do not, the chances are equal that the replays will be in useful and useless situations.
However, given the fact that in around a month we have had one play overturned by replay, I'd say the odds of a game changing ninth inning home run will sit at about once every 5 or 6 years. The odds of that home run having substantial implications on a playoff race, will probably occur once in a lifetime.
And there lies my point. As I mentioned in a previous article, however, there are MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT portions of the game which affect moment to moment scenarios then do boundary calls. Boundary calls, for all intents and purposes, hold little to no actual variance in the big picture. Certainly it can affect the odd close game (I bet we will be lucky to see a single call overturned next season that actually changes the outcome of a game), but the fact is, these calls simply do not occur often enough to make a difference.
So as a proponent of instant replay, as you seem to be, how can you agree that once a week, a ballgame should be delayed for no reason? Because there is a slight chance that one game a season will truly be impacted by the 'right' call? Then how can you argue that instant replay not be used for all facets of the game?
How about balls and strikes, for example? Consider a 2-1 pitch on the outside edge that is called for a strike. Upon review, this pitch was clearly a ball. Despite MLB's stance that umps are 93% accurate, that is still nearing 21 pitches a game that umps blow. Thus, argue for NOT using instant replay on balls and strikes and you will have your answer as to why I argue against instant replay for boundary calls.
This article was simply to point out how useless instant replay has been thus far.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.