Aubrey Huff, Bobby Cox not convinced Replay is good for baseball
Some quotes from the article..
"You're taking everything that's great out of baseball — the human element," Giants first baseman Aubrey Huff said Friday.
"I'm talking to more and more people that say we should have some type of review on plays," Cox said. "I'm not so sure it's a good idea, to be honest with you. "
over 1 year ago
kaseyi
127 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I probably could have posted this under Al's post about Madden, but
I wanted to counter his post. I don’t want replay. I like the fact it is humans that make the judgments on the field as the play happens, not someone watching a tv set. Also, it appears there is not a great hue and cry from the players, coaches, managers or Team management for replay. Yes, I am a traditionalist (unlike some here who want to “modernize” the game here), and yes, I do understand sometimes people make errors, but it is part of the fabric of the game to deal with the infallibility of humans and overcome them.
See the Cubs 2011 schedule at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2011.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
why?
I wanted to counter his post. I don’t want replay. I like the fact it is humans that make the judgments on the field as the play happens, not someone watching a tv set.
Why? I’ve heard this over and over, but I’d like an explanation. This is like a political campaign soundbite but is never explained. Why is having the human element a good thing? Why does that make the game better? And why does having an errant judgment based on the human element better than one based on what actually happened?
We’re not talking about having robots manning the umpire positions. We are talking about reviewing human decisions. I don’t consider myself a traditionalist or a modernist, I consider myself a baseball fan who wants to see the right decision made.
by dmlichte on Oct 10, 2010 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
because
it is humans that play the game. My feelings are that it should be humans that judge the games. We are not robots. We are not automatrons. Humans have faults. Life has bumps. Baseball in my opinion should keep it’s human aspects. To make everything computer graded and judged just takes that human element that I believe should be there out of the game.
See the Cubs 2011 schedule at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2011.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
Humans are looking at the replays.
Is that good enough for you?
What happens when a bad call costs the Cubs a playoff game? Is that what it would take?
No one is suggesting computers make calls. All we are saying is that humans should review other humans’ decisions using technology.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The subject of the strike zone by nature is subjective
Letters are different lengths and heights, the plate is shaped oddly, body types vary person to person
I agree. There are close calls in baseball but for the most part if an ump is consistant, I’m fine with it
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
Why?
If you’re against bad calls, why wouldn’t you be against all bad calls including balls and strikes?
Notice the slippery slope that the traditionalists (I’d call myself one) are always talking about (in conversations ranging from signage at Wrigley to expanding the playoff system). When replay was first introduced it was only to review boundary calls. Now many want to review safe and out calls. Why draw the line at reviewing balls and strikes?
Don’t get me wrong: I hate bad calls as much as the next guy. I don’t consider the “human element” a virtue in itself and I don’t really care about slowing down the game. I’m open to being convinced that it can be a workable system (I hate the arbitrary flag system in the NFL and would hate to see that come to MLB). I just doubt that replay will make everything perfect and do away with bad calls forever, like most proponents for it seem to think. Two out of the three blown calls several nights ago wouldn’t even have been reviewable. Replay would probably eliminate some obvious bad calls, but it would also likely lead to even more questionable calls/reviews and debated rule interpretations like you see in the NFL. There’s always going to be something that seems to be called incorrectly.
It seems to me that the NHL has the best system of review and that’s only on goals, not on penalties, icing, etc. They’re such different games. There’s not really a baseball equivalent to goals as every call builds on a previous one to enable/allow runs to score.
Sure, replay will fix some things on the surface, but it will continue to open up more and more avenues for “reviewable” calls, which I think ultimately will end up with reviewable balls and strikes. If that’s what you want, fine. But drawing the line at reviewing balls and stirkes seems rather arbitrary.
Not at all.
Want to slow down the game? Reviewing balls & strikes would slow down the game.
Whether we like it or not, balls and strikes are judgment calls. The other calls I have asked for inclusion on replay (fair/foul, safe/out, caught/trapped) are not. They’re pretty clear-cut, and as others have pointed out, much easier to judge on replay than an NFL call.
Would it “do away with bad calls forever”, as you state? No, but it would get us a lot closer than we are now, which is not close at all.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Why are balls & strikes judgement calls
and trapped balls / safe out etc are not? That is simply not true. We already have a computer generated accounting of balls and strikes , but it only appears on your computer and not at the park. You mean to tell me a camera replay could not see that a ball was way outside the plate, too high or too low.?What makes balls and strikes so special other than it would be impossible in terms of logistics to review them? Balls and strikes is where most mistakes are made but you would give them a pass from being reviewed because we all know it is not practical.
Mistakes on the base paths, in the OF etc stand out and may be more infuriating but they are in fact far less frequent than incorrect ball & strike calls.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
You want to slow down the game?
Review balls and strikes.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You want to only review wrong calls that are fast?
You keep saying how important it is to get the call right. Balls and Strike calls make up the majority of calls, you exclude them for the obvious logiistical reasons than you are being hypocritcial. Let’s only correct those mistakes that don’t take too much time.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd actually be for reviewing balls and strikes
But I’d agree that a system to review that would have to be fast and efficient. I don’t think that can be a system where an ump goes to a replay booth to rewatch tape.
I don’t have any clue as to how accurate current systems that I see on gameday (or whatever TBS has been using) are. T
Then to be able to relay that to the pitcher, batter and the rest of the stadium quickly.
So because humans play the game...
… and humans make mistakes, the game is better when the wrong calls are made? Kasey, no disrespect is intended but your overall argument is totally inane. I am not advocating having robots or machines replacing umpires. You are ignoring the fact have humans are reviewing the plays. Your argument, extrapolated to any other work environment means that there should be no supervisors whatsoever. Have the entry level workers, and when they make mistakes, so be it.
Further, your argument totally flies in the face of the concept behind sports, and thats that the best team on a given day wins. The concept isn’t that the best team wins as long as a referee or umpire doesn’t make an egregiously bad call that impacts the outcome of the game. Umps are meant to be a peripheral part of the game, acting as impartial arbiters, not a part of the final outcome. They are to judge the plays being made. They are not to have any kind of role in determining the outcome of the game.
by dmlichte on Oct 10, 2010 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Same here
Humans are still officiating NFL and college football games and replay seems to have been made part of the game without too much heartache.
Even the NHL has replay. They don’t use it for offsides or plays of that nature, but they do replay goal/no goal situations to get it right. A goal or no goal call can be very important during the ebb and flow of a hockey game.
Baseball has so many things going on, getting the play called correctly because the umpire was not in the perfect position is ok by me.
"WGN, Channel 9 Cubs Baseball, Excitingly, Importantly, Dramatically Yours." - Jack Brickhouse
I like what the NBA does
Out of bounds and buzzer beaters. Every, and I mean EVERY shot close to the buzzer is reviewed. It’s at the end of quarters/halves, so there isn’t a delay in the game.
"Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off." ~ Bill Veeck
I may be the only one that agrees with Kasey at least 90%
I don’t want baseball turned into some triumph of technology with balls & strikes called by computer.
As disturbing as some of the bad calls have been I don’t want games constantly interrupted by review and it is a slippery slope. I accept replay for home runs grudgingly.
To me “traps” and “not exactly hit by the pitch” are very much part of the game in the same way Jose Cardinal’s classic planting of the ball in the vines was. Those are not merely “blown” calls but an important piece of the game to me. To me much of the beauty of baseball comes from a mix of skill, luck and the very human nature of the game not bound by clocks, instant reviews or other modern intrusions. Ironically the vast majority of players according to several polls, agree.
Per below I think MLB needs to improve the quality and temperament of umpires but not replace them with cameras & computers. I really don’t think Bobby Cox arguing with a computer would be much fun to watch.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 10, 2010 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions
"Constantly interrupted"?
Hardly. Most games would have no reviews. You might have one or two at most.
You are right when you state that:
much of the beauty of baseball comes from a mix of skill, luck and the very human nature of the game
Correct. The skill and luck of the players should determine the result of the game, not the decision of one individual who could be wrong about what he sees. As I stated earlier, Armando Galarraga threw a perfect game this year. The visual evidence of that is clear, and everyone knows it. But because one individual made a mistake, he doesn’t get credit for his actual accomplishment on the field.
All we are asking is to make it possible for another human being — NOT a computer — to correct this mistake. I don’t know where you get the idea that “computers” would be involved.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al, don't bother
Its clear that the anti-replay folks just want to come here, state their opinion, and then not reply to even the most basic of challenges to their statements. They want to jump to the extreme, that they don’t want robots, as though baseball is going to turn into part sport, part space odyssey. They don’t want to consider that any replay that is likely to be accepted won’t change the game fundamentally, it will simply result in expanding replay to include an additional handful of plays. They don’t want to consider that the vast majority of games will never see the use of replay and that those games that do see the use of replay won’t be substantially slowed down.
Other sports have seen the use of replay and the impact has been positive. The fact that someone can honestly believe that the wrong call made by an umpire is better than the right call corrected by a human in a booth is just beyond me.
by dmlichte on Oct 11, 2010 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely correct, and rec'd.
I’m not sure where the anti’s get their idea that “computers” would be making decisions. Not a single person in favor of replay review has ever proposed anything like that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Why only one or two per game?
I have seen a whole bunch of proposals but once you start allowing reviews there will be a push to allow them for any contested play including balls & strikes. By far the most mistakes happen with the calling of balls & strikes so either you allow them to be reviewed or you admit that human judgement including the possibiity of mistake is part of the game. Use instant replay for the Posey steal but not the Berkman checked swing? Review for the checked swing but not a ball 10 inches outside called strike that causes a batter to be out? Mistakes are made all the time and you can’t selectively correct only the “important” ones. Are “traps” and pretending to be hit by a pitch not part of the game? Do you automatically let the runner score because Cardinal stuck the ball in the vines and then pretended he had no idea where it was?
You would THINK the players would be the most upset yet more than 3/4 OPPOSED using instant replay on calls on the basebaths and two thirds opposed instant replay for fair/faul calls. I would think the players have a bigger stake and better understanding of baseball.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions
There is already replay review for home runs.
Safe/out, trapped/caught, fair/foul are just as easily reviewed. You’re already “selectively correcting” one type of play — home runs. So yes, MLB could choose any form of replay. You absolutely “can” do this, and should do this.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Of course you "can" do it
but per above it is hypocritical to say we will only review selective mistakes. Why not just have the plate umpire get the signal from the computer as to if the call was a ball or a strike. It can be done in second and it would clearly improve on the mistakes made by the umpire. If your goal is to use available technology to limit any human mistakes this would make perfect sense.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
balls and strikes
can still be considered a judgement call, like holding or interference in the NFL. The strike zone is different with each ump and as long as they are consistent, so be it.
A bad call is a clear cut mistake. There is a difference.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
So Huff thinks the "human element" is good?
Wait till he and/or his team gets screwed out of a playoff win by a bad call. He’ll change his mind in a big hurry.
As for Bobby Cox, he’s retiring.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
So we should ignore Cox
because he is retiring. The fact that he has been one of the most successful managers in baseball during my lifetime should mean that he has a good idea of what is and isn’t good for the game. In fact, I would trust his opinion much more than someone who has not been in the trenches playing the game professionally.
See the Cubs 2011 schedule at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2011.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
I happen to agree with Cox.
Was just stating a fact.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
your talking about 2 people
Im sure there are more, but ALOT more are for it, and most former players, now analysts, are for it as well.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
Didn't humans come up with the technology for replay?
Sorry, but as technology gets better and better and you can see images of a play splattered all over the TV and internet in a matter of seconds from every possible angle it gets more and more obvious (and I would think embarrassing to the umpire) when I a call is bad. I’m usually a traditionalist..but I think it’s time for replay.
Look into my eyes!
Ok...
The article says that
Commissioner Bud Selig insists there is no great outcry among players and club officials for increased use of instant replay to review calls.
yet Cox says
“I’m talking to more and more people that say we should have some type of review on plays,”
Which one is it?
Look into my eyes!
That'd be Bud's dream press conference - nothing but rhetorical questions...
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
More and More people may mean...
Cox has heard from people outside the actual players and team officials. Selig is talking about the people actually playing and involved with the sport, not some person sitting at a computer typing away, some drunk person calling sports radio or some newspaper hack expounding on how no replay is ruining the sport.
See the Cubs 2011 schedule at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2011.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
Selig's an idiot.
Just wait until a bad call costs a team a playoff game or series. It will happen.
Look at it this way. Every single person in baseball, or following baseball, knows that Armando Galarraga threw a perfect game this year. But because ONE MAN made a correctable mistake, it doesn’t go down in the record books that way.
Why not use available technology to fix those mistakes so that actual performances can be recorded the way they really happened?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You may be right about the first half of your statement.
The part that Cox may be referring to people outside baseball and Selig talking about only those involved. But why do you assume the newspaper person is a hack and the person calling the radio is drunk? I find that a little insulting.
Look into my eyes!
I find..
a lot of newspaper “reporters” to be hacks. Just look over comments about a lot of articles in the paper on this site alone and I believe you will find a lot of people commenting about how bad reporting in the papers have gotten. Also, have you listened to sports radio lately? Thanks to the radio of my boss, whos radio is on whenever I go into his office, I have. If you listen to the garbage some of the callers are spouting, you have to assume they are flat out stupid or drunk. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt saying they are drunk instead of being imbeciles.
See the Cubs 2011 schedule at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/sched2011.html
Also see what old Cubs Scorecards looked like at http://cubsbythenumbers.com/scorecards.html
Actually in this case I think Bud is actually telling the truth
Players by an overwhelming margin in an ESPN poll opposed using instant replay and I suspect
club officials feel the same way. Fans and broadcasters however clearly feel differently so that is likely who Bud is referring when he says more and more people think MLB should have instant replay.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Got a link to that poll?
Seems to me a lot of baseball people — not just fans and broadcasters — are coming around to the idea of replay.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Here you go
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5281467
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Thanks.
Of course, that was right after the Galarraga game. I think, actually, that’s a surprisingly LARGE number of inside baseball people who want replay. You simplified the numbers — the two key numbers are the questions about fair/foul and safe/out.
36% of baseball players want replay on fair/foul? That’s a LOT.
Also, that’s a survey of 100 players — 13% of all major leaguers. Let’s see what ALL of them say, especially after the missed calls in the playoffs.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Be my guest 13% is in fact a HUGE number for any survey.
If statisticians surveyed 13% of an entire population/group that would be massive.I did not simplify it at all , you are the one using only one portion. Is stated that 2/3rds of players did not want instant replay for fair or foul and 3/4 did not want it for calls on the base paths and that is EXACTLY what the survey says . That and 83% did NOT think the call taking away Galarraga’s no hitter should have been changed.
Just curious if as I believe those numbers would hold out if every current MLB player voted, would it change your mind at all? I doubt it.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe Cox instinctively complains about every decision
I haven’t seen much of Huff, but he managed a nice little tantrum about a week before the end of the season because he felt the umpire was wrong.
Replay won't solve the BIGGER problem
of out of control umpires. It is not as big an issue in the post season but I think it is overall the bigger problem. When umpires are egging on players to argue and tossing them for nothing you have huge problem. Joe West has no business behind a plate. The umpire ( I forget his name) who spoke obsenities to Milton Bradley to deliberatly get him angry ( and in fact injured) because he thought Bradley had dissed another umpire should have been fired (and no Bradley jokes here ,what the umpire did was utterly inexcuseable) Until MLB starts
making umpires accountable for their actions, their behavior will cause far more damage then blown calls.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 10, 2010 12:32 PM CDT reply actions
I'm going to surprise everyone here...
… by agreeing with Jessica. Many umpires have decided they need to be “part of the show.” I’m convinced they want to see themselves on ESPN or MLB Network like the players.
The meeting between the players and umpires in December will be a good start to change this.
The umpire you are thinking about re: the Bradley incident (that was while he was still with the Padres) was Mike Winters.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
dont forget the fans!
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
by cooliogirl47 on Oct 10, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
here's what I think...
I try to imagine the ultimate…. that all technology is put into use in baseball, along with replays, some computer thingy calling balls and strikes. When I imagine it, I dont see my game ruined at all. I see accomplishment. I see amazing pitches called for what they truly are. I see great plays, that are a series of split second reactions made by defense, appreciated more because they were called right. I think the use of umpires will become minimal eventually and personally I dont mind.
"Well-behaved women seldom make History"---Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I haven't read through this entire thread.
So I apologize if these points have been made. It’s my experience that most players and coaches are traditionalists. They’ve opposed a lot of good things that have happened to baseball, including interleague play and realignment. They simply like things the way they are for the sake of tradition. And when tradition is the only argument you have to defend something — or it’s one of very few — then the change usually should be made.
And, really — screw the human element when it comes to officiating. It’s far more important to get the calls right as long as methods to change the system don’t slow down the game. I want the calls to be right, and I’ll let the players be the human element. Anyway, virtually no one wants to completely replace umpires.
by elgato on Oct 11, 2010 10:52 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I said that bit!
let the players be the human element
:P
I agree with that fully. Players are the human element: the one that gets to make mistakes.
The rules are the rules to be applied and the players should be playing within those rules. The rules shouldn’t change based on who is umpiring that day or how they feel about certain players. The rules are written down, published and known so as to take out the human element from that aspect of the game.
I don't actually recall the players opposing interleague or realignment
but I did so I am indeed a traditionalist. I think having instant replay would alter the game on an epic level. The umpires too are part of the “human element”. As I have said before part of the game of baseball is the tradition of players and managers trying to game the system from traps and pretending to be hurt or sticking a ball in the fines, to a manager coming out to argue a play with an ump. I don’t want to see Bobby Cox or TLR press a button in the dugout to register a request for review of whether a runner was safe or out on a steal or checked his swing or trapped a ball.
Yes most payers are traditionalists. They love the game and understand that errors both from umpires and fielders are part of the game that should not be dealt with by technology.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
So, riddle me this ...
Let’s say the Cubs are in the NLCS in two years. It’s Game 7, and the opposing team hits what looks like a home run in the final innings. But the ball is ruled foul by the replay system that’s already in existence, overruling an umpire’s call.
The Cubs hold on to win the game, and then win the World Series. If not for replay, the Cubs would have failed again.
All in the name of tradition. Awesome.
by elgato on Oct 11, 2010 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wrong.
The umpires are there to judge the “human element” correctly. The players are the human element. The umpires are there to be impartial arbiters — they don’t always do that part right, either (cough Joe West cough Bruce Froemming cough).
Manager arguments with umpires are ridiculous, delay games longer than replay review would and often result in suspensions and/or fines. Enough of that. Also, this would save many players from ejections and suspensions because they would know that close calls would be reviewed.
No one’s going to “push a button” in the dugout. I did originally suggest a “red flag” system like the NFL but I think the best way is just to have a fifth umpire in the booth who reviews all close calls and signals the umpires on the field that he is doing so by radio contact with the crew chief.
Players play the game. Accomplishments they make on the field should be accurately recorded so we don’t have another lost perfect game, or worse, a team cheated out of a World Series win by a bad call.
I don’t see how any reasonable person can oppose such a system.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Because tradition is the most important thing!
Because change is bad! Because everything should be exactly the way it always was!
Never mind that baseball has changed in so many ways — mostly for the good — in the past 150 years. Ideas shouldn’t be rejected because they defy tradition. They should be rejected if they’re bad ideas.
I can't believe how long it took for baseball to integrate.
And, no, I’m not saying that a lack of instant replay is on par morally with racial segregation. But preserving tradition was one argument used to justify segregating the game for decades.
And we must uphold that, too!
MLB’s slow decision making must be preserved! The human element of delaying important decisions for years must be upheld to protect the sanctity of the game!
I can't imagine baseball without arguements with umpires
What Cox does is brilliant and calculated. He goes out either to protect his players or rev them up. Players and umps have been arguing since the game began. The oldest film in
my silent baseball dvd was an 1899 film shot on Thomas Edison’s lawn with players jumping on an umpire who they believe blew the call. Not all tradition is bad. We all know it is dangerous for players to jump on top of each other when someone hits a walk off especially in a big game. It should be banned right? Players who do it should be fined.
No pitcher should be allowed more than 15 seconds to throw the ball and no batter should be allowed to leave the batters box unless injured. It would speed up the game enormously and cut down on that silly psyching the other guy out stuff.
FYI who decides when the “5th” umpire reviews a play. A manager gets to make 5 objections per game, 10, yes he can object to balls and strikes? I mean he should be since that is a crucial part of the game. When you have someone like Maddux or Glavine pitching imagine dozens of calls or if it is King Felix fewer. Will players now swing far less knowing they can appeal? Oh no balls and strikes because it takes too long and better to have the “human element” than delay a game too much. Safe calls OK to review but not balls & strikes? It is not a slippery slope it is a tsunami
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Huh
I can’t imagine baseball without arguements with umpires
And, in terms of importance, you put this ahead of getting calls right?
I put it as part of the game
If you had the technical means to eliminate umpires and get everything exactly right I admit no I would not want it. It would not be the same game. Umpires and their judgements are part of the game to an old foggy like me.
Someone had an article once projecting a bit into the future when it would be likely
athletes could have surgeries that would greatly enhance strength, vision . speed , etc. It would make better players. Would you want it?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Unreal.
So instant replay will lead the way to enhancing athletes through surgery. Get a grip.
Like the ticket thing, she's 100% wrong, but won't ever admit it.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well since you mentioned it
I am still waiting for you to admit you were mistaken about the tickets when you wrote back in March that if the Cubs did not draw between 3.1 and 3.2 million you admit you were wrong. I know they were “close” so you don’t have to admit it even though you mocked me for saying the initial sales numbers were much worse than previous years and that unless the team was good and had good weather sales would decline.
Here is your exact quote
"Sure, I’ll admit I’m wrong if I’m wrong.
My position is: by the end of the season, as CK said, the Cubs will be at around 3.1 – 3.2 million tickets sold, about the same as the last two years."
but of course I am a broken record.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, you said it.
Yes, the Cubs sold fewer tickets than the previous couple of years — but not for the reasons you claim. That was my point.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yep you keep changing the goal post
I made it very clear back in Feb/March that sales were way down and you said I was dead wrong and it didn’t matter anyway because it was early and they would sell out later.. I said they would IF the team was good and had good weather, but that was too risky to assume and that the failure to sell BEFORE the start of the season as they had in the past was a HUGE problem. Still waiting for you to admit your mistake but I don’t expect it.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 12, 2010 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll repeat, since you clearly did NOT read my post.
Yes, the Cubs sold fewer tickets than the previous couple of years — but not for the reasons you claim. That was my point.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
So again you get decide the reasons they didn't sell
despite saying you would admit your mistake if they didn’t?
I must try that some time.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 12, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think you'd ever promise to admit a mistake ...
judging by this discussion thread.
True.
Yes, I was wrong about the tickets selling, although the Cubs were only down 100,000 from 2009 — probably would have been much lower if they hadn’t had the presales, another thing Jessica railed against.
However, she was also wrong about the REASONS the tickets weren’t selling. It wouldn’t have mattered if they had blared trumpets from the rooftops the day before the on-sale date in February, they wouldn’t have sold any more than they did.
They won’t next year, either, and it has nothing to do with “buzz”.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You admit mistakes, Al.
To your credit. You’ve repeatedly noted how you overestimated the daycare bullpen coming out of ST.
I wish it had been different.
But obviously, that was a big reason the Cubs got off to such a horrible start, and couldn’t make up any ground later.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Amazing...
… in order to attempt to prove your point you insist on going to extremes. Simply amazing. No one is recommending that you eliminate umpires through technical means. I, at least, am recommending using replay to correct the errors that umpires make on several types of plays. Yet you seem to feel that getting these calls correct is less important than creating opportunities for managers to fight with umpires. Simply amazing.
Isn’t it remotely possible that MLB could say that certain types of plays, fair/foul, safe/out on stolen bases and at home plate, etc are eligable for review (by a human) without setting up a computerized strike/ball system?
Per below
Why? The technology is easier and MUCH faster for the correct calling of balls and strikes ,why not use it?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Because...
… with the nation’s employment problems, I don’t want umpires out of work.
I love how you answered my questions with another question, continuing to avoid how inane your position is.
by dmlichte on Oct 11, 2010 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
So we should still play the game the way it was in 1899?
That’s just nuts. Also, you ask:
who decides when the "5th" umpire reviews a play
The 5th umpire does. As I said, I used to think the manager should be able to object, but now I think it should be up to the umpire. As now, a manager could ask the umpires to “get help” — but I think that over time, the review procedure would become automatic.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yes, I know.
You have to remember, she refuses to go to interleague games.
One of these days next year, you’ll have to come out to the bleachers when she’s in town and sitting with us. The show is worth the price of admission.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I could be up for that.
Though I’m the very opposite of a traditionalist. I don’t think very much in life is sacred, and I think that tradition is often an excuse to block progress.
Interleague play (though I think it could be improved) was progress. Realignment was progress. A drug policy with teeth — they didn’t have that in the good old days! — was progress. Integration of the sport was progress.
So is the increased use of instant replay. The technology is there. The human element stays by way of the players AND the umpires, who would still call something like 99 percent of the game.
I like tradition, too.
For example, I was 100% against the “radical realignment” of the leagues that was discussed in 1997. That would be throwing out 120+ years of history. What happened was better; change, but incremental change, not radical change.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Are you talking about the geographic realignment?
I didn’t like that because I didn’t think it was an improvement in any way. The existing system was better — and had only been around since 1995.
No, they had another proposal...
… to completely realign the leagues, put the Yankees/Mets, Cubs/Sox, Dodgers/Angels in the same divisions, completely throw out league history dating back 120+ years.
I don’t have a problem with the current structure.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
We do.
But for different reasons. You didn’t want to throw out 120+ years of history. I just didn’t like what the new system proposed.
I didn't like the new system proposal either.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
'Not all tradition is bad'.
Well, of course not! Good lord. It’s truly incredible how much you’re reaching, DS.
You’re invoking slippery-slope arguments that are the last resort of desperate debaters (“If we let the womenfolk vote, what’s next? Farm animals?”). You’re defending tradition because it’s tradition (which is inexplicable, given how much the game has evolved in the past 150 years). And, perhaps worst of all, you’re arguing that watching managers argue is somehow more important that accurately officiating games.
by elgato on Oct 11, 2010 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
How is it not a "slippery slope"
Replay for calls on the bases but not balls & strikes. If you want to make the game as accurate as possible you should instant replay for any disputed call not merely a select group of plays under a select group of circumstances.
In your world we get nearly all the calls right, instead of arguing/ complaining about about any play players/ managers just request a look at the video tape. No fuss no muss. I freely admit a game in which players don’t get to pretend they caught a ball or got hit and a manager can’t go out every once and a while and jaw at an umpire is not the same for me and not for the better.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions
So you'd really rather have managers jawing at umpires ...
than correct officiating? Really?
Apparently so.
An absurd position to take, in my opinion.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I would rather have umpires make the calls to the best
of their ability and managers argue with them when they disagree over using technology. It absolutely part of the game to me and again I can’t imaging baseball without a manager arguing with an umpire from time to time ( or often for Cox , TLR etc). If you choose to go with technology because you want the right calls then you must use it for balls & strikes if you don’t you are making a choice that you don’t really want “corect officiating” except on certain plays.
Do you want it available on all plays? Why not use the computer imaging for balls & strikes if it gives you a much more accurate reading than umpires?
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd rather get rid of the stupid arguments, yelling, ejections and suspensions...
… and get the calls right.
No one is asking for computers. We are asking for humans to correct the mistakes of other humans using technology.
It’s unbelievable that you don’t understand the difference, and keep on this like that broken record and making strawman arguments.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
"FYI who decides when the "5th" umpire reviews a play?"
college football, and even hockey dont need a coach to challenge. If it looks like a bad call, the replay guy in the booth makes a call to stop the action, looks at it and makes the right call. Its real simple. Most bad calls are easily recognized by the time the pitcher even gets the ball back by the tv announcers, and fans at home. a trained official should be able to pick it out pretty quick.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
Right.
They could even have a system of lights on each press box. A white light turned on by the booth umpire would indicate he is reviewing the play. Green means the call on the field is good, red means it’s overturned. Don’t necessarily even need a radio.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I will be against replay when the following are shut-down
Instant replay
HD TV
ESPN, Fox Sports, and Comcast Sportsnet
Bleed Cubbie Blue and all other baseball fan sites
YouTube
Facebook and other social networking sites
Twitter from players
Digital video cameras at baseball games
iPhone MLB Application
Then the playing field will be fair for Umpires and the viewing public.
"They come to see me strike out, hit a home run, or run into a fence. I try to accommodate them at least one way every game." - Gorman Thomas
Some Things to Consider
There are obviously times when umpires are due criticism. There are undoubtedly times where umpires inject themselves into the game, allow their ego to get involved, and go out of bounds. First and foremost, I think we need to recognize that these umpires are not the norm. Including the AAA umps who are called up from time to time to spell major league umpires there are probably 80-90 umpires, and for every Joe West, there are dozens of umpires who remain unknown by the majority of fans. This isn’t to say that the Joe Wests shouldn’t be dealt with, they should, but there are lots of umps who do a really good job.
Secondly, we tend to neglect how difficult it is to umpire a baseball game. Aside from the fact that these umps work day after day, its simply not an easy game to arbitrate. It is the one sport where there are constantly snap plays that require split second decisions. We have the benefit of replays, but I don’t think most people consider how difficult it is to make the calls that umpires have to. Further, calling balls and strikes on pitches going 90MPH+ isn’t exactly a walk in the park. The fact that anyone wouldn’t want to make life easier on umpires by giving them the tool of instant replay to correct their errors is just beyond me.
The umpires are TOTALLY opposed to replay
They do NOT see it as making their life easier, they see it as having themselved 2nd guessed by machines. The see it as a massive loss of authority. You may disagree with this view, but adopting instant replay will not make their life easier, it will reduce them to presumably making unimportant calls since review will be used for anything that really matters.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 11, 2010 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions
again...
… jumping to the extreme
it will reduce them to presumably making unimportant calls since review will be used for anything that really matters.
I don’t think I’ve seen as silly an opinion on BCB in quite some time, at least from someone being serious.
Well than please explain
If no one objects to the umpires call than no problem, if they do they can ask for a review
how does this not reduce the umpires authority to basically making calls that are not contested.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 12, 2010 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Well ...
the umpires could, you know, get the calls right to preserve their authority. That way, a review wouldn’t be necessary or they would be validated when the replay shows they were right.
My point sort of sounds like what law-and-order advocates use to fight claims of overly aggressive searches in criminal investigations — the if-you’ve-done-nothing-wrong-what-have-you-got-to-hide thinking. But the big difference is that we’re talking about a quick video replay done in a booth for (presumably) a handful of calls a game — as opposed to something like unlawful searches of personal property.
And, if you’re really that desperate for fights between umpires and managers, don’t you think managers would argue against calls that weren’t overturned? You said yesterday that a lot of the arguments are “calculated,” and I instantly thought of Lou’s blowup in 2007 when Angel Pagan was (correctly) called out at third. It’s worth nothing that Lou vaguely indicated that he knew Pagan was out, and argued anyway.
My point is that managers will continue to argue. There will be calls that (presumably) don’t fall under the review structure (balls and strikes, I’m guessing). There will be others that aren’t overturned that managers will still think were blown. And there will still be others where managers do what Lou did in 2007 — even if replay is extended.
I’ll give you SOME credit for sticking to your guns. But your arguments don’t make much logical sense.
by elgato on Oct 12, 2010 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
There you go again
Answering a criticism with another question, and not actually responding to the criticism.
If no one objects to the umpires call than no problem, if they do they can ask for a review how does this not reduce the umpires authority to basically making calls that are not contested.
Well, it does reduce their authority to making calls that are not contented. How you make the jump to “reducing them to making unimportant calls” is just beyond comprehension, however you are, quite frankly, proving to be irrational here. So, if you want to claim that it is reducing their authority to making calls that are not contested, I’ll agree. Yes, it reduces their authority from making 99% of calls (since they can be overruled) to making 95% of calls. Most games have no plays that would be up for review and why you can’t see this, why you make it seem like every play would be reviewed and overturned just is ridiculous.
It reduces their authority on calls they get wrong. Why is this a bad thing?
by dmlichte on Oct 12, 2010 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
edit
Should read: Yes, it reduces their authority from making 99% of calls (since they can be overruled on missed HR calls) to making 95% of calls.
I don't believe it reduces umpire authority at all.
… because the person reviewing the calls would be an umpire, who would be part of the crew, rotating with the other umpires. All the umpires would perform this role, so they would be helping each other.
I don’t see how this undermines authority at all.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
it doesn't
I’m just venturing into Jessica’s world here and saying that even if it does reduce their authority, it hardly reduces them to being the quivering piles of jelly that she seems to think that it does.
Actually, quite a number of umpires have gone on record as being in favor of replay...
… because, presuming one of their own would be in charge of replay review, it would make them look better, not worse.
Your position is incorrect.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Perhaps you could give some examples?
You asked me to provide the link showing players overwhelming opposed instand replay and I did, so i assume you can provide same to show that quite a number of umpires do support it.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 12, 2010 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Here's one link I found on a quick Google.
Arbiters leaning toward being in favor of expanded use of replay
Veteran umpire Tim McClelland said on ESPN’s “Mike & Mike” radio program that he believes umpires are growing increasingly in favor of expanded replay, and former umpire Don Denkinger said he’s for it.
“I think more and more umpires are coming to this because … there’s such an increased scrutiny on umpires and officials in general, in all sports — maybe undue or unfair,” McClelland said. “But I think more umpires are coming around to that way of thinking.”
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Oh gee one umpire has gone on record
saying he thinks others might favor it. Not exactly “quiet a number” on the record.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 12, 2010 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
???? I never mentioned Bobby Cox or any manager's opinion on replay
I used Cox as an example of what I think instant replay would take away from the game in terms of strategy. The only baseball personal views I cited was the survey of 100 players that were overwhelmingly opposed.
I merely pointed out above that Al said quite a number of umpires had gone on record as supporting instant replay and that was not true. Per below McClelland may be well respected but his so far the only umpire on record.
I would sincerely like to know what Jim Joyce thinks.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 13, 2010 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Jessica...
I’m done arguing with you on this. In one posting you say
Oh gee one umpire has gone on record saying he thinks others might favor it. Not exactly "quiet a number" on the record.
then you say
I would sincerely like to know what Jim Joyce thinks.
So you don’t care when one umpire goes on record… unless he agrees with you. You’re free to have your opinions but your unwillingness to respond to any of the criticisms of the points that you’ve raised just shows me how ridiculous that opinion is.
I respond to your criticisms
and you tell me I am an idiot. We have a very big disagreement on
the value of instant replay so there is little point in my continuing to say why I don’t want it. Just think of me like one those neanderthal traditionalist players who don’t want it either.
I have NO IDEA what Jim Joyce thinks, but considering what happened to him, I would really like to know. I did not mention him because he agrees with me, anymore than I ever said anything about Bobby Cox’s opinion. I simply caught Al grossly exaggerating his claim about quite a number of umpires going on record and pointed it out.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 13, 2010 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Go back..
… and re read this thread. You’ll see that any time anyone questioned any of your criticisms of instant replay, you simply responded with another question or with the slippery slope argument. You have yet to actually answer any of the questions and critiques of your statements and opinions. I didn’t call you an idiot, I called your opinion idiotic, and one that you have yet to be able to defend.
Um that WAS my answer
If you want to make it clearer, I am willing to accept mistakes over
instant replay system that will for me drastically alter the game.
Yes I consider arguments both “real” and strategic to be part of the game. I don’t want a game where players and managers will simply ask to go to the replay and where umpires will simply review close calls. On a practical note I don’t see how or why if you decide to review foul/fair. fielding & base path plays you can not also review balls & strikes. They are in many cases the easiest and fastest ones to review. In fact i believe the technology exists for the umpire to merely “repeat” the call from the computer/camera (or whatever they call it these days)
Mistakes on balls & strikes are by far the most common mistake call in game, so I don’t see how you exempt them or reserve them for only a few calls per game. Do you want to eliminate all mistakes that you feasibly can or limit replays to calls deemed more crucial or ones that won’t slow up the game too much?
Like I said I am willing to accept the mistakes and yes I do consider them part of the game, crazy as that may seem to you.
PS go back and read the thread re any remarks you claim I made about Cox or umpires objecting to replay which of course I did not make.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Oct 14, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
they should talk to the NFL refs
they were against it as well at first, now they know it makes them better.
"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- 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
