Maxbialystock

I agree with all of the following from today's Washington Post, including the fact that he does not recommend robo umps---- Throughout the negotiations of a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and team owners, Major League Baseball resembled someone who, diagnosed with cancer, says: “I want to fight this — but, first, I want a knee replacement.” Misplaced priorities. Baseball’s problems are fascinating because they are the result of everyone acting reasonably on the basis of abundant, accurate information. The players union did what unions are supposed to do: It fought over the distribution of the industry’s revenue. Young players, who are more numerous and productive than ever, lack bargaining leverage (e.g., free agency). So, the union succeeded in tilting the compensation system toward the young (e.g., higher minimum salaries). Now comes the cancer treatment. Games become ever-longer but with fewer balls in play — more than a third of all at-bats result in strikeouts, walks or home runs, which are four seconds of a flying ball followed by the batter’s jog. Longer games with less action is an atrocious recipe for an entertainment business. Players spend much more time with leather on their hands than with wood in their hands, but today’s players’ dazzling athleticism is too infrequently displayed because “analytics” — a.k.a. data; baseball participates in the national plague of linguistic inflation — make too many players’ “tendencies” predictable. Baseball has been overwhelmed by pitchers’ velocity: They throw secondary pitches (not fastballs) 93 mph. Because they expend maximum effort on so many pitches, they take extra recovery time between pitches, and the game congeals. A pitch clock (say, 14 seconds with no runners on base, 19 with runners on) would force pitchers to work faster, relying more on less-strenuous pitches. Some fans will remember when matchups of great starting pitchers — Sandy Koufax against Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson against Tom Seaver — were riveting spectacles. If a pitch clock causes pitchers to economize their energy, we can recapture the magic of two great ones going deep into games. The clock would address baseball’s most infuriating dead time — hitters wandering away from home plate during an at-bat, as though puzzling about Fermat’s Last Theorem. If the batter is not in the batter’s box when the pitch is delivered, it would be called a strike. Pitchers might resent having to pick up the pace, but they will benefit from batters not having time to ponder the next pitch. And if two infielders have to be on either side of second base, all four with their spikes on the infield dirt as the pitch is delivered, there will be a premium placed on fielders with range, rather than on more one-dimensional players whose defensive shortcomings can be disguised by a 23-year-old math major who positions the defense where each batter’s proclivities require, given the pitcher’s “spin rate,” the batter’s “launch angle,” etc. In 2021, there were 1,070 fewer stolen bases than 10 years earlier. Bigger bases (18 square inches rather than 15) would shorten the sprint between bases, increasing the likelihood of action. Think how often instant replays show an attempted stolen base coming up two inches short. If the MLB’s attendance is going to get back to its peak of 80 million fans in 2007, it must restore the energy of the game as it was when arguably the greatest game was played. Game 7 of the 1960 World Series — Pirates 10, Yankees 9, won by Bill Mazeroski’s walk-off home run — was played in 2 hours and 36 minutes, during which there were no strikeouts. In last year’s Series, the shortest game — Astros 7, Braves 2 — was 3 hours and 11 minutes, and there were 23 strikeouts, 45 percent of all the outs. Now MLB must tweak its rules or find a slew of Rod Carews. He wielded a bat with the delicacy of an orchestral conductor’s baton. The first time Tony La Russa managed against Carew, he moved his shortstop up the middle. So, Carew singled through the spot that La Russa’s shortstop had vacated. In Carew’s next at-bat, La Russa, chastened, left the shortstop where he normally played. So, Carew — don’t tug on Superman’s cape — singled through the spot where La Russa had placed the shortstop in Carew’s first at-bat . Carew’s third at-bat: a bunt so perfect he reached base without a throw. Today’s analytics could not have helped opponents cope with Carew. He, however, was a genius. Better to change baseball’s rules than to count on reviving the game with an abundance of genius, which is always scarce.

Thanks to all you Veterans out there.

The width of the strike zone also depends on the trajectory of the baseball as it crosses the plate. Does the back of the plate count equally with the front of the plate? But, to be honest, my real complaint with robo-umps is not so much whether they are more accurate than human umps, because it's easy to concede that they would be. No, my fury is over the very notion of turning over the game of baseball to robots--to get rid of that pernicious human element, which is in fact at the core of every sport. While replays are used in all kinds of sports, they are used to help human officials, and not in the pervasive manner with which robots will take over MLB. You yearn for roboball. I'm fine with baseball, played by humans and umpired by humans.

Playing ain't the same as watching officials on TV, which I've been doing since 1953 with the Celtics. When you used your analogy to basketball, you specified the ball going through the hoop, which anyone can see easily. The replays are used to determine whether the ball was unfairly prevented from going in or aided in going in. Also to confirm that the ball left the shooter's hand before the shot clock or game clock expired. But the point I keep making and you keep ignoring is that those replays are to aid the human officials. You want to get the middle man out of there so that you the viewer don't have to be outraged repeatedly during games because the human umpire ain't in concert with that made-up rectangle (and none of us currently know by whom or how it is created) on our TV screens.

One last time. The rectangle on your screen cannot be seen by the human eye and by that I mean by any of the eyes on the field of play. It is a fabrication based on the different sizes and postures of the players and a rough definition provided in the MLB rule book. That rectangle on your screen will give the appearance but not the actuality of being able to call balls and strikes to the nearest millimeter, which is an absurd standard. If robo-umps are used, MLB will become the only sport in the world officiated by cameras and computers and not by humans. There's a reason why our TV's acquired the nickname of idiot boxes.

What you don't know about basketball could fill volumes. Basketball referees miss calls in every game, especially in the NBA, but also in Div I basketball. Those missed calls are tolerated because officiating basketball is very difficult: once the ball is in play, all ten players are usually in motion and you can't just follow the ball and/or the player in possession of it. The easiest call is on made baskets. Div I does a much better job calling travelling, which is actually tolerated by the refs in the NBA, sometimes to ridiculous lengths.

It won't speed things up by much because far and away the biggest game delays are the gyrations of the pitcher and hitter between pitches, each trying to upset the timing of the other. So disruptions will continue unabated. As for the "bad calls," I consider griping about them laughable when I look at how pitchers sometimes can't throw strikes to save their lives or simply aim at the center of the zone hoping for the best. At the same time hitters often just look at strikes in the middle of the zone and on the same at bat swing like the dickens at pitches well outside the zone. Just throwing strikes is extremely hard to do--let alone hit the corners--and on top of that pitchers have to impart spin, etc. Pitching is nowhere near as precise as your insistence on robo-umps suggests it is. Same goes for a batter seeing balls and strikes accurately when a pitch is coming in at 75-100 mph with a variety of spins and angles. On top of that, the hardest thing for a hitter isn't recognizing a ball or strike, but trying to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely.

What's incorrect? The notion that advocates of robo-umps seek perfection in all calls by umpires?

Baseball is a sport and 150 years old at that. It's been tweaked over the years, but fans of 150 years ago would still recognize the game played today because it's timeless, and part of that timelessness is that it's still played and umpired by human beings, as indeed are all other sports played around the world. No umpire or referee in any sport anywhere in the world is going to make perfect decisions all the time, so why in the wide, wide world of sports are you demanding such perfection in the call of balls and strikes as measured, I hasten to add, by a rectangle which is itself an approximation of the strike zone?

Really? I hope you are right because, if you are, that's a huge relief.

Me too. Unless the Sox are playing the Braves, Orioles, or Nats, in which case I listen to the WEEI guys.

Baseball has never been based on umpires always getting it right because that is an unrealistic, impossible standard. Baseball has always depended on umpires to make timely, authoritative calls. As for pitchers getting a strike called on a pitch outside the strike zone and then exploiting it, more power to them. It takes excellent command to do that. My only complaint is not with the umpire but with the fact that Sox pitchers seldom seem able to pull that trick off. As for Sox hitters getting screwed by the sneaky opposing pitcher aided and abetted by that mean umpire, I offer in rebuttal defense exhibit A--JDM, the Sox hitter who finds sliders low and away both irresistable and unhittable.

Very good point. I well remember the many articles he wrote about how useless umpires were because, well, they couldn't tell a ball from a strike.

Actually, I was outraged, but decided that the replays prevented managers from going into lengthy tirades. Plus now I think there are limits on how many replays can be requested. In any case, they do help speed up the game. Of course, the kabuki dance by every batter and almost every pitcher then slows the game back down again. Those replays, I hasten to add, are a far cry from what the advocates of robo-umps are clamoring for. They simply don't want human umpires because baseball in their eyes is fundamentally about achieving perfection.

Americans have embraced baseball with fallible umpires for 150 years. Now, because of that rectangle on your TV screen which none of players can see, you want to get the umpires out of the business of umpiring. You don't think strategy meetings about how home plate umpires call balls and strikes haven't been going on for at least 100 years?

I'll pick on you even though I know you speak with and for a bunch of folks First, you are completely wrong that we don't watch the umpires perform. Of course we do, and we sure as heck don't want them to be invisible. This is true not only for baseball, but for almost any sport you name. Umpires/referees are a very visible and necessary part of any contested sport. They make important, timely, authoritative decisions, and, best of all, we can see them and even find fault with them. You are also wrong about the undue focus on balls and strikes being the result of idiot umpires. The simple fact is that balls and strikes--that is, two guys basically playing catch with nothing else going on--consume over half of every freaking MLB game. Take, for example, the final 3 games of the ALCS, which averaged 3:41 in length and, including both teams, 279 pitches thrown per game. Of that 3 hours and 41 minutes average length per game, we can assume 17 half inning timeouts, each lasting 2 minutes and 45 seconds--for a total of 47 minutes. Throw in maybe 15 min per game for resolution of contested calls, 10 minutes of real action resulting from batted balls, and 20 minutes for those relief pitchers--not all--called in during an inning, to warm up. That leaves, as I said, over two freaking hours of pitch and catch and nothing else. Indeed, all but 10 minutes of every MLB game is either pitch and catch or timeouts for mid-inning timeouts, timeouts for replays, timeouts for relief pitchers to warm up, or time for players and/or managers to gripe about something. I do recognize of course that real fans are usually completely absorbed by the battle between hitter and pitcher. This is especially true of the TV audience, especially now that we have that lovely rectangle and all manner of computer analysis on a hitter's strike zone strengths and weaknesses, what pitches are being used and how well, the velocity of both pitches and batted balls, etc. And, of course, the accuracy of the ball and strike calls by the home plate umpire. Indeed, the genius of that rectangle is that it gives us and the announcers something more to ponder and argue about during that inordinate amount of time during which we are simply watching pitch and catch. It's great TV. Yet you and others want to eliminate those imperfections with a puritanical zeal our ancestors (in Massachusetts, anyway) would have applauded, but which I would argue make the game that much more interesting. Let me be clear: I don't expect or even want perfect umpiring. I also don't want terrible umpires, but believe those are rare in MLB. I also don't mind the idea of improving umpires just as players can be improved by using technology to provide feedback. Plus I think umpires should be evaluated regularly and the evaluations acted upon. I also am not buying the fairness argument. That is, you cannot convince me that games are being won and lost--other than on rare occasions--by the calls of the umpires. And that absolutely applies to the events of the ALCS, which is what started this thread. The Sox did not lose to the Astros because of that one call everyone is exercised over. They lost because the Astros pitchers--with the exact same set of home plate umpires as the Sox pitchers and hitters faced--were simply better than the Sox pitchers--and by a big margin. But don't believe me. Read the sports news and get back to me when you find any commentator anywhere who says the Sox got screwed and lost game 4 of the ALCS because Eovaldi really did strike that guy out.

To Cora's credit, he went with long relievers--Valdez, Whitlock, and Houck--before the postseason. Your fundamental point, however, is correct. Forget starters and relievers. Think longers, shorters, and bridgers.

Good summary, right down the line.

Thanks, moonslav. Clearly Old Red has no response to it. Indeed he's now changed subjects to talking about 1967 as though it had some relevance to the job Cora did this year.

The younger ones will and have.

FWIW, I'm in favor of umpire accountability, including review of game tapes, height and weight standards, annual physicals, eye tests, you name it.

Exactly. This clamoring for robo-umps is a classic example of perceived deprivation. Once that rectangle, created in what manner and by whom we have absolutely no idea, but we can be sure it isn't nearly as perfect as it seems to be, showed up on our screens, there came a cry to make the game conform to the rectangle. Umpires are part of the game as they should be and as they are in every other sport, even golf, where players sometimes call fouls on themselves.

The strike zone is real, I agree, but also an approximation. You guys treat that rectangle as extremely accurate because it has that skinny line, but in fact it's made up by some guy (or gal) back in the studio who is approximating height, stance, etc.

Actually, no. I'm just pissed that all you proponents think it's real and precise and tantamount to the holy grail. My fundamental objection is that I want real umpires, humans, calling the games as they always have with authority, alacrity, attention to detail, and a real zest for the game. You guys want to get rid of them, and I think they are a crucial part of the game. They are even good TV. What you want may well be more accurate, but it will also be as soulless and as sterile as the moon. There are zero sports where you can't see human referees, umpires, whatever.

What uproar? I've read or heard about none of it. Baseball is both a human event/competition and good TV. Umpires, precisely because they are human and visible and even, heaven forbid, capable of errors, are good TV. Robo-umps are horrible TV. They provide absolutely no fodder for the announcers or us fans. Thus my picture of what you seem to yearn for: a playing field, players, and no umpires; instead, a computerized voice announcing, "ball, strike, safe, out, fair, foul, infield fly rule, ground-rule double, etc." You may want this brave new world, but I sure don't.