Expanded replay

[User Name]

This hasn't been brought up, but:

 

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Major League Baseball took another giant step toward implementing expanded instant replay with unanimous approval of funding on Thursday at the league's quarterly Owners Meetings.

 

"We made a gigantic move today, and I'm very pleased about that," Commissioner Bud Selig said.

 

Some details remain to be worked out before a vote for final implementation at the next scheduled Owners Meetings, set for Phoenix in January. Additionally, the plan must still be approved by the Major League Baseball Players Association and the World Umpires Association.

 

However, all indications are that the new system will be up and running in time for the opening of the upcoming season.

 

"I think we're quite far along," Selig said. "The bottom line is, we're moving forward on replay. People spoke very emotionally about it. Clubs are very excited about it. Unless there's something I'm missing right now, we're going to have replay in 2014."

 

Added chief operating officer Rob Manfred: "We've had positive discussions with both the WUA and the MLBPA about the expansion of replay, and I'm confident we're going to be able to make an agreement with both unions in time for next season."

 

Manfred said the "contours" of the new system -- a manager challenge system, all replays reviewed out of MLB Advanced Media's offices in New York, umpires on the field communicating with the review officials via headphones -- are pretty well established. Still, there is much to nail down.

 

There has already been one change made from the blueprint that was unveiled at the Owners Meetings in Cooperstown, N.Y., in August. At that time, managers were to have one challenge in the first six innings and two from the seventh to the conclusion of the game. Instead, there will be one set of challenges for the entire game, although it's still to be determined whether each manager will get one or two challenges.

 

In either case, the manager would retain his challenge if he's right and forfeit it if he's wrong. There are ongoing discussions about the circumstances under which the umpires could decide to review a close call if one or both managers has run out of challenges.

 

It also hasn't been decided how many replay officials would be in New York.

 

"What I would say to you is that the people who review in New York are most likely to be active or former Major League umpires, or people with extensive umpiring experience," Manfred said.

 

Another issue still being studied includes how to keep managers or players from stalling to allow a coach or club employee to look at a replay in order to help a manager decide whether to challenge or not. Selig volunteered Thursday that he is aggressively seeking suggestions to improve the pace of games, and that's part of the bigger picture involving replay.

 

"We have thought extensively about that, and there are a series of rules that are out there for consideration to deal with that issue," Manfred said. "The current thinking is that if a manager comes out and argues, once he argues, he can't challenge that play. Thinking about pace of game, what we'd like to have is a tradeoff. We no longer spend time arguing. In return, you have a right to challenge. What we want to avoid is, 'You argue for awhile and then you challenge,' because it's obviously cumulative at that point.

 

"We are very intent on dealing with ... controlling the time of [a] challenge. We don't want to be subject to manipulation. I think we've been clear from the beginning that we want to get more plays right, the ones that matter. And the countervailing consideration is how long it's going to take."

 

Replay currently addresses only boundary calls involving home runs. The new system will encompass almost all decisions -- although notably not balls and strikes -- but even exactly which plays will be included remains somewhat in flux.

 

Manfred said he couldn't get into specifics on various proposals or say exactly what the project will cost.

 

"Some of these operational details, we're talking to two unions about," Manfred said. "And talking to two unions is hard enough without me talking to [the media] about it. Whatever I say publicly about it probably won't be helpful, one place or the other.

 

"And I'd rather not do system costs. At this point, there are some decisions that need to be made from a technology standpoint that could change those numbers significantly. So until those decisions are made and we've cleared them with the clubs, it's just not fair for me to do it here. It's not cheap, I'll tell you that. Truthfully, though, cost has not been a driving determination."

 

Even when expanded replay is fully operational, there are likely to be tweaks in the future.

 

"It is likely that the system will see some continuing evolution until we get to the point of stability," Manfred said.

 

Still, Thursday's vote was significant and neatly sets the stage for final approval in January.

 

Among the other topics Selig addressed on Thursday:

 

• Plans by the Blue Jays and Mets to play exhibition games in Montreal this spring.

 

"I think it's wonderful," Selig said. "I think it's great. I really do. I will pay close attention to it. ... Listen, this comes from them; it doesn't come from us. We don't have any clubs moving, and we certainly don't have any expansion plans. But I give them a lot of credit. There are people up there who really believe in this, and good for them. I'm happy about it."

 

• Whether baseball has or needs an anti-bullying policy in the wake of the National Football League's controversy involving the Miami Dolphins.

 

"The only thing I can say to you about baseball -- and I don't want to talk about any other sports -- is that I'm proud of our players," Selig said. "I'm proud of the way they've acted. And I don't have any concerns on that subject."

 

• The report by chief executive officer Bob Bowman on the status of MLB.com.

 

"[He] gave a marvelous presentation on the success of [Major League] Baseball Advanced Media," Selig said. "It's interesting. I remarked to the clubs that I remember the day -- January 19, 2000 -- that we created BAM. I never could have believed that, 13 years later, it would be the great success it's been -- really a leader in the field. It's exceeded every expectation. I can't tell you how proud I am."

 

Selig added that there is nothing to report on the efforts of the Athletics and Rays to secure new ballparks, but he noted that Tampa Bay owner Stuart Sternberg will meet soon with new St. Petersburg mayor, Rick Kriseman, who will be sworn into office in January. The Commissioner had previously mentioned the possibility of intervening, but he said that isn't necessary at the moment.

 

From Mlb.com.....thoughts?

[Youk Of The Nation]

I am very much in favor of replay for everything except balls and strikes. Home runs, fair/foul calls, safe/out calls on the bases and at the plate, and all the other little things that don't come up often (catcher's interference, contested HBPs, et cetera). A lot of noise has been made by people about the integrity of the game and the value of keeping baseball the way it has always been, but I don't really see any benefit in that. As far as I can see, the major arguments are these:

 

1. Baseball should not be changed dramatically.

 

Well, this one is ridiculous. I am a huge proponent of the preservation of important ideas, achievements, and historical landmarks. I have already made it clear on this site that I would never support, for example, the demolition of Fenway Park. However, I believe that the best way to continue pushing baseball along with us into the future is to keep a balance between the old and the new. Batting helmets, home run replay, free agency, and a dozen other changes to baseball both on and off the field have taken place between the creation of the major leagues and today. Each one has been accompanied by a ludicrously hyperbolic group of "purists" assuring us all that these changes would represent the beginning of the end of professional baseball, it's popularity, and possibly the universe itself. Thus far, unsurprisingly, that has not happened. Forgive me for getting Trekkie on you, but the Federation government has strict regulations regarding the preservation of historical buildings. Some are still around by the 24th century, and yet many have public transporter stations built into them. That is what baseball needs to do. Mix the old and the new. Preserve the essence of this great game while not letting it get swept away in the raging river of progress. As long as the baseballs remain the same, the bats are still made of wood, and it's still being played by human beings, I see absolutely no problem with implementing technological advancements. It can only serve to keep baseball part of the 21st century.

 

2. It will slow down the game

 

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but baseball is slow. It is always slow. Between coaches and catchers visiting the mound, pitching changes, pitchers taking their sweet time, time-outs, and occasionally naked people running onto the field and taking selfies (I swear, the voices told me I would be rewarded!), baseball has been, is, and always will be much more slowly paced than nearly any other sport. (I'm looking at you, soccer. f*** you, you suck). Home run replay has been in use for a few seasons now and it has not noticeably corrupted the smooth flow of a baseball game. It has not even been used during every game. Retrosheet has a list of every reviewed HR call since the creation of the rule and it is barely a fraction of a percent long as the list of games that have been played in the same timeframe. Even replay of every disputed call during a game would not add more than a few minutes to the length of a game. I think we can all agree that five minutes added to the game's length is a more than adequate consequence to making sure the correct calls are made.

[User Name]

I agree with almost everything you said (specially the soccer sucks part), but i think three challenges for each manager would add more than a few minutes depending on the strange incidents and importance of certain games. They have to make some moves to counteract the added time from replay so they can avoid losing some more of the casual fans. If i recall correctly, they were going to do something regarding mound visits, pitching changes, and time spent between pitches (suck it Beckett).

[Youk Of The Nation]

I agree with almost everything you said (specially the soccer sucks part), but i think three challenges for each manager would add more than a few minutes depending on the strange incidents and importance of certain games. They have to make some moves to counteract the added time from replay so they can avoid losing some more of the casual fans. If i recall correctly, they were going to do something regarding mound visits, pitching changes, and time spent between pitches (suck it Beckett).

 

I am okay with that. If they want to limit mound visits to counteract replays, that sounds fair for everyone. I don't like the idea of limiting pitching changes, though.

 

Also, keep in mind that it's highly unlikely that replay would be used during every game. I think limiting it to three challenges for each manager would probably convince them not to use it every time they feel like something might not have gone their way. Think of how many times a manager comes out to argue during a game. Sometimes whole games go by without it happening.

[User Name]

I am okay with that. If they want to limit mound visits to counteract replays, that sounds fair for everyone. I don't like the idea of limiting pitching changes, though.

 

Also, keep in mind that it's highly unlikely that replay would be used during every game. I think limiting it to three challenges for each manager would probably convince them not to use it every time they feel like something might not have gone their way. Think of how many times a manager comes out to argue during a game. Sometimes whole games go by without it happening.

 

They wouldn't limit the number of pitching changes, but rather the time managers had to complete each one. No more talking to the pitcher to give extra time so that reliever can get loose. Otherwise, i agree.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Ohh, okay, then yeah, that makes sense.

[User Name]

Now that we're talking about the replay thing, i found this about umpire strike zones pretty funny:

 

[Youk Of The Nation]

Guerrero's should have been just the square, with a diagram of a stadium inset.

[User Name]

What's your take on fixing the balls/strikes issue? If it were up to me, i'd have MLB try to enforce consistency from umpires instead of limiting their strike zone "style". The problem with me, as a fan, has never been an umpire's strike zone in itself, but rather when it moves around in-game. Seeing an umpire call a pitch a ball when he called one in the same spot a strike a couple pitches before in that very AB is the pinnacle of aggravation for me.

[Palodios]

I'm all in favor of electronic strike zones. Who does real parity hurt? Besides the umpire union ofcourse...

[Navafan29]

If they add more than one challenge per game, I will flip out. Not a fan of challenges that you get back on overturns either. I don't even mind the game taking longer; that's not the problem. If the # of challenges exceeds the average number of blown calls that drastically change a game (somewhere between 0 and 2) then managers are just going to challenge every time they can; this will ruin all strategy involved in deciding if you want to use a challenge or not, and make the whole system boring. If you get rid of the drama surrounding blown calls, you have to replace it with something to keep the game as good. That something is the strategy behind using challenges. More than 1 or 2 challenges = no strategy = boring. We don't yet know if replay is going to make the game suck, so even if you want more challenges, just keep it to one per game for the first year.

 

On the strike zone subject, they should call the high strike again. The whole point of the strike zone is that it's the area where a batter can realistically get a hit. With the umpires' current incorrect strike zone, there's an area above it where you can hit the ball, but it isn't in the zone. This incorrect strike zone takes the drama out of a fastball being painted at the top of the zone, because the batter could have hit it even if it was high. I like how it's hard to decide whether or not to swing at a high fastball with the actual zone. They should go back to the old zone by continuing the thing where umps are rated based on performance, but make calling the high strike part of this. Umps that successfully call the textbook zone will be allowed to ump important games such as the WS and the all star game. Also, going by the textbook definition will create much more consistency than "the top of the strike zone is roughly a baseball's length lower than the letters. It's kind of right here. You just have to kind of learn where it is."

 

I'm also not in favor of the electronic strike zones mainly because they are quite inaccurate and don't take the batter's height into account. Even if you programmed the strike zone readers to take the height into account, you could never tell where the zone is because everyone has a different posture. According to the textbook, the posture used to figure out a batter's strike zone is the one they have as they prepare for the pitch, right before it is thrown (I think). To make electronic zones law, you would have to actually change the definition of the zone to make the top and bottom a certain percentage of a batter's height. Electronic zones would also just suck the life out of the sport; no more ump noises, just the sound of the ball hitting the glove, lame.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Navafan29

[User Name]

Point 1: So you're saying that we should forget about "fairness" and focus on drama to keep the game interesting? No thanks.

 

Point 2: I agree with a lot of this.

 

Point 3: I don't think you know what you're talking about. The current "electronic" strike zone being presented is as close to 100% accurate as it could get, regardless of batter height. I don't know how you came up with an idea that states otherwise. I also don't particularly like the idea of taking the strike zone out of the umpire's hands, but they better improve their strike calling.

[mvp 78]

I'm all in favor of electronic strike zones. Who does real parity hurt? Besides the umpire union ofcourse...

 

It doesn't even hurt the union as you'd still need someone to call pitches that hit batters, foul tips, plays at the plate, etc.

[mvp 78]

There are some calibration issues with an electronic k zone, but it'd still be light years better than Angel Hernandez.

[Bellhorn04]

Now that we're talking about the replay thing, i found this about umpire strike zones pretty funny:

 

The one that's missing is the Mo Rivera strike zone. A little roomy on the outside.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm all in favor of electronic strike zones. Who does real parity hurt? Besides the umpire union ofcourse...

 

At one time I was too. But now I think it's too radical of a change.

[a700hitter]

I am sick of replay. Managers should not be able to stall until their replay people give them a thumbs up, thumbs down. If the call on the field is going to be challenged, it should only be in cases where the manager with his naked eye sees it differently. This has become just another delay of the game. There are already too many delays. If the manager doesn't trust his own eyes, screw it, the call should stand. Edited July 9, 2016 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

The only problem is that there would be even more time wasted on replays if they weren't checking video first to see if it's worth challenging.

[a700hitter]

The only problem is that there would be even more time wasted on replays if they weren't checking video first to see if it's worth challenging.

How do you get there? The manager should have 5 -10 seconds to determine whether to challenge. If they can get electronic video help in that time, good for them, but I don't think they can. They would have to rely more on their eyes. Other than that the rules would be the same -- one challenge per team. How would that slow up things? It would also do away with all these challenges where they are splitting hairs on tag plays. Edited July 10, 2016 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

How do you get there? The manager should have 5 -10 seconds to determine whether to challenge. If they can get electronic video help in that time, good for them, but I don't think they can. They would have to rely more on their eyes. Other than that the rules would be the same -- one challenge per team. How would that slow up things? It would also do away with all these challenges where they are splitting hairs on tag plays.

 

My reasoning is this: in 2015 there were less than 1200 challenges initiated by managers out of a possible total of about 4800, so less than 25%. I think that % would be higher if not for all the occasions where the manager checks the video and sees that the call was correct.

 

If managers were utilizing their challenges 75% of the time instead of 25% then obviously the video checks would add to the total length of delays rather than reduce them.

[a700hitter]

My reasoning is this: in 2015 there were less than 1200 challenges initiated by managers out of a possible total of about 4800, so less than 25%. I think that % would be higher if not for all the occasions where the manager checks the video and sees that the call was correct.

 

If managers were utilizing their challenges 75% of the time instead of 25% then obviously the video checks would add to the total length of delays rather than reduce them.

I think that there would be more time saved each game by cutting out all the holdups waiting for the teams decision based on its internal video feed and any challenges based on the manager's naked eye would be more clear cut and thus decided more quickly in NY.

[Kimmi]

I am sick of replay. Managers should not be able to stall until their replay people give them a thumbs up, thumbs down. If the call on the field is going to be challenged, it should only be in cases where the manager with his naked eye sees it differently. This has become just another delay of the game. There are already too many delays. If the manager doesn't trust his own eyes, screw it, the call should stand.

 

I am not a fan of replay and never have been. That said, if they're going to use replay, I think the managers should be given time to check their video feed.

 

On a slightly different note, one of the broadcasters, can't remember who, had a good suggestion on the replay call. If the review team can't make a decision within 45 seconds, the ruling on the field stands.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the replay system is working pretty well myself. It's not perfect by any means and the delays are a pain, but calls are getting fixed, and baseball games are often long and slow anyway.

[a700hitter]

I think the replay system is working pretty well myself. It's not perfect by any means and the delays are a pain, but calls are getting fixed, and baseball games are often long and slow anyway.

I am sick of it.

[Kimmi]

I watched the end of the Cards/Brewers game on Friday night. The Brewers walked off with a run scoring single and a very close play at the plate, which the Cards challenged.

 

Here's the scenario: Batter hits a single to left field. The runner on second scores on a bang-bang play at the plate.

 

The Brewers start celebrating their walk off win.

 

Hold on! Not so fast. Stop the celebration. The runner might be out and we're going to challenge. So the Brewers players are all standing around now, waiting to see if they can indeed celebrate or not.

 

After a couple of minutes, the ruling on the field stands. Proceed with celebration.

 

Talk about taking away from the moment.

 

#DownWithReplay

[Bellhorn04]

I am sick of it.

 

But you'll live with it, because you love the game.

[Bellhorn04]

Sorry you two, replay is here to say.

[Kimmi]

But you'll live with it, because you love the game.

 

Yup. And I'll eventually live with robot umps too.

[Kimmi]

Sorry you two, replay is here to say.

 

I realize that. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Bellhorn04]

I realize that. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

Yes, you have to like it.