When the Giants Come to Town, It's Bye-Bye Baby

08.26.2008
Let's Go to the Videotape

Starting Thursday, MLB will use video replay on controversial home runs. Odds are good it will come into use at least once at Mays Field before the season is over, seeing how often fans reach above and perhaps over the left and center field fences to catch deep flies.

I can remember one such case, I think it was Kelly Stinnett of the Diamondbacks who hit it. Bonus points if you can find the game.

One interesting aspect about this new, limited use of replay is that it won’t eliminate umpires’ judgment calls:

Any decision regarding the placement of runners, should a home run call be reversed, will be made by the crew chief. As is done in cases of fan interference, the crew chief will place the baserunners where he believes they would have been had the call been made properly. 

The default ruling is usually ground rule double, so imagine how many teams will be screwed when a fast runner on first is allowed to advance only to third. It’ll particularly hurt teams with a lot of speed and not much power. One team comes to mind immediately.

That leads me to propose a rule change: on a ground rule double where the ball bounces over the fence, a runner on first should be allowed to score if…

a) The ball hops the fence in the farthest reaches. In symmetrical parks, this would be roughly between the power alleys. In asymmetrical parks, it shouldn’t be difficult to designate the “extra base” zone. At Mays Field, it could be from the 404–foot notch to the 421–foot mark.

b) There are two outs. With two outs, a runner takes off on contact. Only the Bengie Molinas of the world can’t score from first on a two-out double, so let’s just make it an easy call. 

A ground rule double due to fan interference is different, especially when the ball is hit down the line and a fan reaches over the box seat rail. But I think the two-out scenario above makes sense here, too.

Whatever the case, any fan who interferes with a ball in play should get frogmarched out of the stadium, but not before being pelted with mustard-soaked hot dog wrappers. For season-ticket holders, if it happens a second time, how about a possible revocation of their tickets? That’ll learn ‘em!

Video replay to make accurate home run calls: the slippery slope into a newfangled lake of hellfire, or a welcome sign that baseball has finally entered the second half of the 20th century? Discuss.



Also on the Network:



[August 27, 2008 1:34 AM]  |  link  |  reply
Paul R. said

If I hear the argument that this will take the "human element" out of umpiring again, I'm going to scream. I just don't understand the opposition to this. Isn't it a good thing to get calls, you know, right?

[August 27, 2008 1:46 AM]  |  link  |  reply
Paul R. said
[August 27, 2008 2:44 PM]  |  link  |  reply
trilljester said

Hockey uses it for determining a goal or not. Absolutely necessary in that sport. The NFL has a great system for replays. It used to be terrible, but they reworked it and perfected it. It doesn't matter what the sport is, if they have a human officiating, there WILL be mistakes, why not use video to get it right? I can't understand the opposition to this. Home run calls = Yes. Plays at home plater = Yes. Balls and strikes = No.

What do you guys think about plays at 1B (safe vs. out)? How about foul or fair on line drives down the line? Remember that game against Texas at Mays Field where Buck Schowalter got tossed?

[August 27, 2008 3:02 PM]  |  link  |  reply
ELM replied to trilljester

Baseball is ridiculous in its aversion to technology. I say use video replay for any disputed call. Balls and strikes are more difficult, as trilljester notes above, but the game would certainly benefit from a crackdown on the umpires' vague and shifting notions of the strike zone. The Questec system hasn't helped, apparently.

[August 27, 2008 3:19 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Santa Fe said

I guess you'll have to scream:

1. Technology slows down the game. It's silly and frustrating to wait around while umpires look at replays.

2. Technology doesn't affect teams except in the playoffs. Over a long season (162 games) good calls and bad calls even out; I'd be surprised if it affected the wins of any team by more than a game.

3. Baseball's charm is based on history and tradition. Let all the stupid sports (that is, every other national sport) use replays; baseball should remain singular.

4. Your assumption is that the issue is getting the call "right." That's never been the issue in baseball. In fact, in every game there are many, many questionable (and subjective) calls, mostly in the strike zone. The "judgement" and skill of the umpire is a fundamental part of the game.

This is the worst decision since adding the DH in the American league.

[August 27, 2008 3:36 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Paul R. replied to Santa Fe

I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or not (I hate the Internet), but in the event that you aren't...

Technology slows down the game, really? You mean more than when a manager spends twenty minutes yelling and kicking dirt at an umpire in a completely fruitless display of theatrics? Or when Nomar Garciaparra takes his sweet time doing a dance outside of the batters box in between every pitch? Or when a manager brings in four different relievers in one interminable inning?

If you want to speed the game up, take steps to eliminate this kind of garbage instead of forbidding something that will actually help the integrity of the sport.

[August 27, 2008 4:27 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Santa Fe said

Paul,

You and I like baseball for very different reasons.

I don't think baseball needs more integrity, and it wouldn't improve my enjoyment one bit to know that umpires are getting all the calls right. In fact--and I'm being only slightly facetious--I would find that pretty darn boring, just as boring as watching a hitter with an OBP of 1.0.

Some people would say that the magic of baseball--the reason it captures the imagination--is that perfection is so elusive. A damn good hitter gets on base no more than 40 percent of the time; even a good umpiring crew is likely to make questionable calls in almost every game.

[August 27, 2008 5:38 PM]  |  link  |  reply
ELM said

>Baseball's charm is based on history and tradition.

Blown calls are charming? Doing something wrong for decades (i.e., history and tradition) isn't an argument for continuing to do it wrong. Otherwise we'd have poll taxes, lynchings, miscegenation laws, and other charming historic traditions.

OK, sorry for the hyperbole. But if implemented wisely and with a minimum of delay, replay will not take any of the charm out of baseball.

[August 27, 2008 11:41 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Owen said

Does anybody here worry about the phantom tag of 2nd base on double play?

The thing that cheeses me off about the instant replay debate is that all we seem to be worried about is the home run. As if that's the only way to score runs. If the idea is to "get the call right," you need to apply or develop technology to review every aspect of the game that you reasonably can. We have the technology to call balls and strikes, why not let Questec make that call? My guess is that most folks would say no because they're worried about the "romantic" aspect of the game or they're worried about the length of time. In reality, it looks to me like we could have ESPN calling balls and strikes faster and more consistently than most of the umpires in baseball.

I'd make the case that that double play call and tight strike zones generally have a far bigger impact on the outcome of games than the missed home run call, particularly over the course of the regular season. So what exactly are we getting right under this system?

At the end of the day, I'd allege that you have to make a choice between the romantic and the logical, particularly in this sport. To say that it's okay to apply replay for home runs but nothing else is an untenable position; it doesn't satisfy the requirements of either school of thought.