Though there have not been any controversial calls for the Yankees–or the rest of the league it seems–thus far in the season, replay has been a hot topic in the YES Network booth through the first two games of the season. During Sunday night’s game, both Al Lieter and Ken Singleton expressed their displeasure with the idea of expanding replay (they agreed with using it for home runs and other “boundary” calls). Unfortunately for them, their arguments were basically red herrings. They may have been “winning” the argument, but they were doing so against strawmen.
The first misplaced argument was the classic “Well, then you’d have every pitch under review!” Of course, when one hears the idea of every single pitch being eligible for review, one is against that. The game would take FOREVER if that were the case. Too bad for Kenny and Al, though, that no one was suggesting that. The closest argument I’ve heard to that is to have a computerized strike zone (more on that later), but as for what Singleton and Lieter were arguing against…no one’s suggested that.
Secondly, the announcers said that any expansion of replay would cause the game to run too long. This argument ignores the fact that the current replay format is ridiculously long. There is absolutely no reason for all of the umpires to leave the field, watch the play on a TV somewhere, and then come back to make the call.
What to do, then? It’s simple, really. I wrote about it in October and our own Steve S. agreed with me, via internal communication:
Use it, but speed it up. The stuff with Umps going into dugouts is absurd. Have someone from the league in the TV booth and the head ump with an earpiece. Calls from upstairs overrule those on the field. It would take a few seconds.
That sums up my argument pretty nicely. There’s no reason for the umpires to leave the field. All MLB needs to do is have an extra umpire or official somewhere in the stadium or in the production truck or anywhere with access to a television. This person is in constant communication with the crew chief and calls him when an incorrect call is made. That call is then corrected and the game proceeds. This would take, as Steve said, mere seconds.
My point on robot umpires above is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. While it would be nice to have a computerized strike zone, it’s not going to happen. Baseball is far too slow moving to implement it any time soon, and the umpires’ union would definitely not approve. If that’s not going to happen, though, then there needs to be a more standardized strike zone that is more readily enforced by Major League Baseball. Pitchers and hitters should not have to play a guessing game or radically change their gameplans based on who the home plate umpire is that night.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
3 Responses to Replay Should be Expanded
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
Why does MLB insist on dragging its feet on such clear-cut, easy-to-implement solutions that would make the game better? The Nate McLouth play on opening day is a perfect example. The ump/league official stationed upstairs would see the same exact replays that we the fans get to see on TV and it would take no longer than 20 seconds to overturn an incorrect call. In that case, the play as called was an absolute rally killer; the Braves were able to double up Aramis Ramirez who, after seeing the ball touch the ground before McLouth threw it back in, advanced to second. Who knows how that inning plays out if two runners on base aren’t replaced with two outs. To make matters worse, the Cubs were down 8-3 at that point, I believe, and could certainly have used such a spark to mount a comeback.
I’m all for traditionalism and purism in the game, but not at the expense of getting the call right.
Agree that the expansion of replay would be beneficial and that the utilization of an umpire in the press box is the best way to go though to expect each disputed call to be decided in a few seconds is unrealistic. Often you can look at multiple replays from varying angles and still not be sure what the correct call should be. However, this is a minor point and hardly a deal breaker. Regarding the strike zone, strongly disagree with the arguments made in the post for a couple of reasons.
1 In all sports, players have to make adjustments based on who is calling the game. Looking at a baseball specifically, there is not a tremendous variation between “pitchers umpires” and those who have a tighter strike zone. Further, because of the tremendous scouting of each game, in 2010 players know prior to the game the tendencies of that night’s home plate umpire and can prepare accordingly without having to play a guessing game.
2- Divergences among umpires’ strike zones faced by players is no different than the mild inconsistencies faced by people in virtually any occupation. Those who recognize the differences and can adjust accordingly are those who are the most successful. In law. attorneys are confronted by some judges who run a very tight courtroom and others who let them get away with more. If you know the judge, you can plan your strategy accordingly. Similarly in sales, not all customers are alike. Some respond to a “hard sale” while others you need to stroke and be a little more patient with.
While obviously there are differences among the strike zones of the different umpires, I think with few exceptions they aren’t that great that they cause a fundamental difference in how the game is played. A really interesting article about the subject was “A Zone of Their Own” by Jonathan Hale which appeared in “The Hardball Times” on November 28, 2007. To summarize briefly, the author compared the various the umpires to what would have been proper strike calls as determined by a computer and found that the greatest difference was approximately 10 pitches/ 150. between the smallest and the biggest zone. Not exactly a game changer.Interestingly, the author noted that Roger Clemens took extensive notes about the tendencies of umpires.
My conclusion:
We should institute a computerized strike zone when we have robots who can recognize pitches to such an extent that they only swing at strikes.
I’m not sure an umpire up in the booth is even necessary. MLB could just keep a tablet computer in the dugout that the batboy could just bring to the umps when they need it. I mean if I can get live video streamed to my phone, it shouldn’t be that hard to get replays to the men on the field.