Challenge System Probably Incoming for MLB...quick questions

[Sweed]

I am against replay in baseball just as I am against replay in football. I am against it because the "we just want to get it right" reasoning isn't really true. If we really want to get it right let Quest Tech or whatever they call the pitch location computer call balls and strikes. Why is it ok to let human error determine balls and strikes that cost games but not calls in the field? What is the argument against letting a computer call balls and strikes if we "just want to get it right"? Are managers going to be able to challenge a ball\strike call? I bet not. Can you imagine a league where a computer called a perfect strike zone? A MLB batter knowing his exact strike zone for every game. That pitch that misses by an inch, yeah he'll never swing again. Many of these guys are just that good.

You can easily play a game where there are two missed calls, one for you and one against. If there is no replay you win the game. Now add replay and you find the call for you is reviewed and overturned while the call against you can't be reviewed. You now lose a game you shouldn't have because of human error. How is this different than what we have now?

Runner on first, ball hit down the RF line called foul. Reviewed and it is determined to be fair. Where do the runners end up? Is it a double? Does the runner on first score? Is it up to the umps judgement (more human error)? What if it was Rickey Henderson on first or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference on where you place the runner? If they both go to third then human error probably cost Rickey Henderson's team a run even with replay.

In the end human error will even out and you should win as many as you lose because of it, shouldn't you? I would much rather live with it as it is now and take my chances. It is much more painful, to me watching my football team, lose a game because the opposition got a call overturned that helped them but the call against my team couldn't be reviewed "by rule" even though we just want to "get it right". I really don't look forward to that same scenario in baseball.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

What I'd like to see one day is a Heads-Up Display that the home plate umpire could use in a helmet/goggles setup to put an overlay of the real strike zone into his vision. No challenges by the managers, no reviews from the league office, just helping the humans on the field do a better job of calling balls and strikes, which are by far the most influential "blown calls" in the game of baseball.

I'm curious what do you think league batting\pitching stats would look like in a league with a computer generated strike zone?

Would a Wade Boggs or Joe Mauer ever strike out?

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm curious what do you think league batting\pitching stats would look like in a league with a computer generated strike zone?

Would a Wade Boggs or Joe Mauer ever strike out?

Would David Price ever give up a walk?

[Mancandy]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

No thanks. Leave baseball alone people, it doesn't need expanded replays and doesn't need replays. This is just what it needs, however, to interrupt game flow and increase game times even more.

This is just me, but I'd much rather have the game flow interrupted for 75 seconds to make sure the call is right than have it interrupted for 7.5 minutes while the manager throws a temper tantrum that is guaranteed to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Sweed

I am against replay in baseball just as I am against replay in football. I am against it because the "we just want to get it right" reasoning isn't really true. If we really want to get it right let Quest Tech or whatever they call the pitch location computer call balls and strikes. Why is it ok to let human error determine balls and strikes that cost games but not calls in the field? What is the argument against letting a computer call balls and strikes if we "just want to get it right"? Are managers going to be able to challenge a ball\strike call? I bet not. Can you imagine a league where a computer called a perfect strike zone? A MLB batter knowing his exact strike zone for every game. That pitch that misses by an inch, yeah he'll never swing again. Many of these guys are just that good.

With current technology, games would take approximately nine hours to complete using robots to call every pitch...with no guarantee that every call would be correct. So, there's that. If/when the technology is available to quickly and accurately call balls and strikes every time, they absolutely should do that.

And, by the way, you do realize that pitchers will know the exact strike zone too, right? And that they're "just that good" like batters? And how often do you see batters strike out looking? I mean on a pitch that they knew where it was going to be and thought it'd be a ball but it wasn't? That's extremely rare. Most batters strike out looking because the ball had movement that they didn't pick up on, or didnt pick up on in time, and it didn't end up where they thought it would. This wouldn't change anything. It's not like an individual umpire's strike zone is that different. And even if it was, batters(and pitchers) can look at tapes and figure out where each unpire's strike zone is. They do exactly that. So, yeah, I don't for one second buy that a consistent strike zone would change anything, and it certainly would not be an advantage for the hitter. At all.

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm curious what do you think league batting\pitching stats would look like in a league with a computer generated strike zone?

Would a Wade Boggs or Joe Mauer ever strike out?

How often do you really think a Boggs or Mauer strikes out looking because the pitch went where they thought it would, which they thought would be a ball, but the umpire called it a strike? I can't imagine that describes more than 5% of their strikeouts. Umpires may have their own individual strike zones, but batters still have a very good idea of what that strike zone is for each umpire. And by the way, so do pitchers. You could ask the same question of them- would a Greg Maddox or Matt Harvey ever walk anybody? It's weird that you're talking like a static strike zone would be a huge benefit for the batter, when it'd actually be a wash, or maybe a slight advantage to the pitcher.

And what's so bad about pitchers and batters knowing exactly where the strike zone is, anyway? They know exactly where the bases are, that doesn't seem to hurt the game any. Outfielders are allowed to see exactly where the fence is, I don't think that gives them an unfair advantage. That's just a very strange argument all around, I must say.

Originally Posted by Sweed

You can easily play a game where there are two missed calls, one for you and one against. If there is no replay you win the game. Now add replay and you find the call for you is reviewed and overturned while the call against you can't be reviewed. You now lose a game you shouldn't have because of human error. How is this different than what we have now?

Yes, how IS that different? Is the supposed to be an argument against replay? The fact that, at worst, it's no different than what we have now? That's not much of an argument. Especially given the fact that the scenario you described will probably play out about once a season in all of baseball.

Originally Posted by Sweed

Runner on first, ball hit down the RF line called foul. Reviewed and it is determined to be fair. Where do the runners end up? Is it a double? Does the runner on first score? Is it up to the umps judgement (more human error)? What if it was Rickey Henderson on first or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference on where you place the runner? If they both go to third then human error probably cost Rickey Henderson's team a run even with replay.

Runner on second, ground ball hit at the shortstop, he throws the ball into the dugout or into the stands. Where does the runner go? Does he go to second base? Does the runner advance to third, does he score? What if it was Rickey Henderson or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference?

Runner on first, line drive hit into the gap, bounces off the grass and into the stands. Where does the batter go? Is it a double? Where does the runner go? Does he score? What if it was Rickey Henderson or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference?

You know the answers to those questions because they're covered in the rule book, just like your questions would be.

And how is Rickey Henderson's team cost a run with replay? Without replay, he's still on first and the at bat is continuing with another strike on the batter. You would prefer that, getting it blatantly wrong, to having him on third when he arguably should have scored? That...doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Sweed

In the end human error will even out and you should win as many as you lose because of it, shouldn't you? I would much rather live with it as it is now and take my chances. It is much more painful, to me watching my football team, lose a game because the opposition got a call overturned that helped them but the call against my team couldn't be reviewed "by rule" even though we just want to "get it right". I really don't look forward to that same scenario in baseball.

Yeah, this one doesn't work either. The problem is that the calls that be reviewed will even out just as much as the ones that can. That means you will win just as many as you lose because of them, right? That's your logic, not mine. So you just completely debunked your own argument against replay.

The fact of the matter is officials in every sport should be allowed to get the calls right whenever they can. The idea that you can't get them right all the time means you shouldn't even bother trying is ludicrous.

[DreamTeams]

I'm taking a wait and see approach on replay. If it works, great. If it doesn't... oh brother. Anyway, I also hope they make batters stay in the box like they were thinking of doing. At least give them a limit on how many times they can step out and if they go over it giv'em a strike. That'll speed things up quite a bit.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by dkgo

You might be the only person who loves blown calls and enjoys having games decided by one man's guess at what happened instead of, you know, what actually happens during the game.

Although many people like you also called things like email and cell phones foolishness when they came out.

nm

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by dkgo

You might be the only person who loves blown calls and enjoys having games decided by one man's guess at what happened instead of, you know, what actually happens during the game.

Although many people like you also called things like email and cell phones foolishness when they came out.

I don't love blown calls and never said I did. Please learn to read and comprehend.

What I did say, is I love that they get called against my team same as they do others.

One man's guess - well that one man happens to be a highly trained and paid professional. Not just "one man" as you put it.


Now, if you want to start being rude and slinging insults, please move along. The debate here is about instant replay, not about email and cell phones. You like the idea of instant replay, I respect that. Please try and show the same respect back to those who don't like it.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Mancandy

This is just me, but I'd much rather have the game flow interrupted for 75 seconds to make sure the call is right than have it interrupted for 7.5 minutes while the manager throws a temper tantrum that is guaranteed to accomplish absolutely nothing.



With current technology, games would take approximately nine hours to complete using robots to call every pitch...with no guarantee that every call would be correct. So, there's that. If/when the technology is available to quickly and accurately call balls and strikes every time, they absolutely should do that.

And, by the way, you do realize that pitchers will know the exact strike zone too, right? And that they're "just that good" like batters? And how often do you see batters strike out looking? I mean on a pitch that they knew where it was going to be and thought it'd be a ball but it wasn't? That's extremely rare. Most batters strike out looking because the ball had movement that they didn't pick up on, or didnt pick up on in time, and it didn't end up where they thought it would. This wouldn't change anything. It's not like an individual umpire's strike zone is that different. And even if it was, batters(and pitchers) can look at tapes and figure out where each unpire's strike zone is. They do exactly that. So, yeah, I don't for one second buy that a consistent strike zone would change anything, and it certainly would not be an advantage for the hitter. At all.



How often do you really think a Boggs or Mauer strikes out looking because the pitch went where they thought it would, which they thought would be a ball, but the umpire called it a strike? I can't imagine that describes more than 5% of their strikeouts. Umpires may have their own individual strike zones, but batters still have a very good idea of what that strike zone is for each umpire. And by the way, so do pitchers. You could ask the same question of them- would a Greg Maddox or Matt Harvey ever walk anybody? It's weird that you're talking like a static strike zone would be a huge benefit for the batter, when it'd actually be a wash, or maybe a slight advantage to the pitcher.

And what's so bad about pitchers and batters knowing exactly where the strike zone is, anyway? They know exactly where the bases are, that doesn't seem to hurt the game any. Outfielders are allowed to see exactly where the fence is, I don't think that gives them an unfair advantage. That's just a very strange argument all around, I must say.



Yes, how IS that different? Is the supposed to be an argument against replay? The fact that, at worst, it's no different than what we have now? That's not much of an argument. Especially given the fact that the scenario you described will probably play out about once a season in all of baseball.



Runner on second, ground ball hit at the shortstop, he throws the ball into the dugout or into the stands. Where does the runner go? Does he go to second base? Does the runner advance to third, does he score? What if it was Rickey Henderson or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference?

Runner on first, line drive hit into the gap, bounces off the grass and into the stands. Where does the batter go? Is it a double? Where does the runner go? Does he score? What if it was Rickey Henderson or a 35 year old pitcher? Does that make a difference?

You know the answers to those questions because they're covered in the rule book, just like your questions would be.

And how is Rickey Henderson's team cost a run with replay? Without replay, he's still on first and the at bat is continuing with another strike on the batter. You would prefer that, getting it blatantly wrong, to having him on third when he arguably should have scored? That...doesn't make a whole lot of sense.



Yeah, this one doesn't work either. The problem is that the calls that be reviewed will even out just as much as the ones that can. That means you will win just as many as you lose because of them, right? That's your logic, not mine. So you just completely debunked your own argument against replay.

The fact of the matter is officials in every sport should be allowed to get the calls right whenever they can. The idea that you can't get them right all the time means you shouldn't even bother trying is ludicrous.

So yes, then as I stated earlier there are many people out there that are fine with human error deciding games with selective replay and you are one of them. I am not.

There's nothing like watching an NFL game and a replay comes up. Everyone in the stadium knows the call should be overturned. All the commentators know the call should be overturned. Everyone at home knows the call should be overturned. The ref comes out of the booth and guess what? The call stands. Going to love seeing that in baseball.

[Nunyer]

Football is a fundamentally different sport. The cameramen have no better idea where the action will play out then you or I do sitting at home. It is an entirely different ballgame. The vast majority of reviewed calls in baseball will occur at the bases... the bases don't move... the bases can't be surrounded by six 300lb lineman... NFL replay is simply not anywhere near an apt comparison to how this will play out in MLB.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

If this challenge system is implemented in OOTP, I am going to break things. And possibly people. But mostly just things. I like the fact that some of the human stupidity is not a part of this particular simulation of baseball, manually injecting error that is an unfortunate byproduct of the real thing would ruin a part of the user experience for me.

Yes. Let's assume all that goes on behind the scenes and is part of the play result. I can just imagine the dialogue box: "Umpire Jones has just made a questionable call at first base. Do you want to challenge? Yes or No." Lame.

[Matt Arnold]

The support I have for challenging in OOTP is along the lines of:

"And Jones is out by an eyelash at first. I think he could have been safe there.

Oh, and it looks like the manager is coming out of the dugout to resolve the call. Let's have a look at the replay on that one:

And wow, turns out he was safe! I bet the opposing team really hates this new replay rule today!"

Bring it into the game text, like other "random" or rare plays are now, but don't give it as a user input.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

The support I have for challenging in OOTP is along the lines of:

"And Jones is out by an eyelash at first. I think he could have been safe there.

Oh, and it looks like the manager is coming out of the dugout to resolve the call. Let's have a look at the replay on that one:

And wow, turns out he was safe! I bet the opposing team really hates this new replay rule today!"

Bring it into the game text, like other "random" or rare plays are now, but don't give it as a user input.

I don't have a problem with the idea but we really must wait for a season of it IRL in order to see the frequency of challenges. I'd also expect changes to occur.

[markprior22]

I wish "robots" would take over baseball umpiring. I'll accept human error in the case of umpiring as long as that is the only or best thing available at the time. We have the technology to get things right now and it should be used. I can't wait for the day when balls and strikes are called correctly.

How it is implemented is another human flaw. I understand some plays deserve scrutiny but if it takes 5 min to look at the blown call at 1B in the 85 world series or the perfect game a couple years back, then that is foolish. Like someone else mentioned, they should have a group at a central location reviewing the calls and reporting to the crew chief. These guys don't need to leave the field to look at a TV. Like so many things, it should be fairly simple but many people can't live with that.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by DreamTeams

I'm taking a wait and see approach on replay. If it works, great. If it doesn't... oh brother. Anyway, I also hope they make batters stay in the box like they were thinking of doing. At least give them a limit on how many times they can step out and if they go over it giv'em a strike. That'll speed things up quite a bit.

Yes. No timeouts except for good reasons.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

Your right, and blown calls are part of the game

They always have been a part of the game. It doesnt mean they need to be. I like the challenge system especially if its only used for tag plays, force plays, foul balls. If they start challenging strikes/balls I will hate it. And it cant mess with game flow too much which it doesnt sound like it will.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by metsguy234

I'm on the fence about the real-life version of this, but I can't think of a way it could be incorporated into OOTP without seeming clunky. The game doesn't include umpires, first off. Secondly, we have no visual evidence of the plays, obviously, so we have to rely on the play-by-play text. This would make challenging a play in OOTP essentially a total crapshoot and not really worth adding IMO.

It would just have to be in a way where it is mentioned on the PBP but the human manager doesnt actually do the challenging. It could be done that way.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm curious what do you think league batting\pitching stats would look like in a league with a computer generated strike zone?

Would a Wade Boggs or Joe Mauer ever strike out?

A static strike zone that is known to all hitters and pitchers would seem to be a net neutral factor after a year or two of adjustments. You'd just have less individual variation from pitcher to pitcher, where "veterans" get calls that "rookies" haven't "earned" yet. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine would get the same strike zone that Matt Harvey or any other young pitcher would. I think that would be a good thing.

I'm assuming your last question is hyperbole for dramatic effect. Of course those hitters would still strike out, they'd just strike out on earned strikes instead of gifts from an umpire's mistake.

[Le Grande Orange]

Here is an article from yesterday on the subject from MLB's web site. It lays out some details as to what plays are and are not included, and how the system will likely work.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Here is an article from yesterday on the subject from MLB's web site. It lays out some details as to what plays are and are not included, and how the system will likely work.

"A manager could still argue in situations not open to review, such as when defending a player or questioning an improper substitution."

So much for abolishing the 7.5 minute manager temper tantrum. I am anxious to see what plays they are going to list as reviewable.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Here is an article from yesterday on the subject from MLB's web site. It lays out some details as to what plays are and are not included, and how the system will likely work.

From that article:

"The stats we have -- only one missed call per five games is our data right now"

One bad call per five games? That is ludicrous. Fire the current umps and get some people to replace them who have vision and judgment.

No wonder the MLB realizes that we need instant replay. MLB umpiring right now is a joke.