What is Bucknor doing out there if not seeing if the runner tags the base? I hope he turns it around--maybe the increased scrutiny and accountability will help him? He got knocked out of last night's game after a foul ball at home plate knocked his noggin quite hard.
Carlos Marmol--I remember that guy! Based on my blood pressure readings in the 2010s, I don't think Carlos has standing to tell any umpire they should retire--even the worst ones.
I like where we’re at. It’s like tennis. We still have line judges and chair umps, but the eye in the sky settles disputes.
I still don’t like the Zombie Runner in extras, and think the pitch clock does contribute to arm fatigue and injury, and that pickoffs should be unlimited. I also miss the NL pitchers having to hit, and when their winning the ASG meant they had home field and the AL pitchers would have to hit more…
But the bigger bases. The pitch clock (just give it a few more clicks to let the pitchers’ arms reset). Pitchers having to face three batters. And now the ABS have all been great additions to the game.
In many tennis tournaments the eye in the sky makes all the calls, not line judges. That’s why there are no challenges of line calls. Much better than challenge system .
I.don’t think the pitch clock has been increasing injuries. Injuries are the results of salt, throwing with maximum effort every single pitch.
Regarding pickoffs, I don’t think they should be unlimited. Just like you don’t have unlimited pitches to the plate- 4 balls and you have a walk. I like the same theory being applied to throwing the first. If you can’t get it done on a few throws, then that’s on the pitcher.
Imagine if you were judged that precisely (a millimeter!) and publicly in your job. Sure MLB should do what they can to see umpires' calls are correct. But I wonder who is going to want to be an umpire in the future. Would you want to face public correction and humiliation for the smallest of mistakes in your job?
Looking at the data on the picture, it looks like hitters are having a hard time judging pitches around the knees. It makes sense I guess because those pitchers are further from the eyes. Umpires having a hard time judging inside pitches especially up and in, probably because of being influenced by a batter (over)reacting to the pitch. I think everyone will be learning what balls and strikes are in the new system and I hope that we don't end up with more strikeout and fewer hits.
I think ABS has "expanded" the strikezone in that a ball only needs to touch the zone by a millimeter and it's called a strike in the ABS system. I use quotes because I believe it's calling the rulebook definition of a strike, but I think a LOT more of those pitches were probably called balls in the past. This, to me, is why fielder called challenges are more successful. The pitcher and catcher know that the system zone is slightly larger than what batters are used to.
I don’t have a problem with ABS. My problem with ALL replay systems, in all sports, is the creeping perfectionism. Systems that are begun to correct the egregious errors morph into systems that judge everything to the nanometer. That is why challenges in the NFL take ten minutes. That is why soccer goals are disallowed because the heel of a player’s boot is half an inch beyond an imaginary line.
In think it was Joe who once suggested that all replays be watched in real time. Umpires and referees shouldn’t be held to an impossible standard. If an Ump misses a pitch by an inch, by all means correct the call. If he missed it by a millimeter, he was right.
And I understand the inclination that says if we have the technology to do it right, we’re obligated to do all we can to get the call correct. But then why do we have human beings play the games? The day is not far off when we will create robots who can do what Tarik Skubal does. Do we embrace that technology?
Cricket reacted to the precision of replay being more accurate than the human eye in a way similar to what you suggest. When running between the wickets, a player must ground the bat behind a white line; if the bat is in the air when the bails are struck, the player is out. The bails are now usually wired so that a light goes on when they have been dislodged, which makes it easier for an umpire to see two things at once.
However, the ground on which this occurs is uneven. The bat is made of wood. And human beings have hands and wrists that are not robotic.
Thus, initial use of replay on this situation would show, much similar to how baseball replay can show a tiny gap between a runner's hand and a base, that the bat was in the air by a tiny bit. And the third umpire (the video umpire) would call this out.
Cricket players, officials and rulemakers, though, reacted entirely different from baseball. Their position was that those tiny gaps were not visible to the naked eye, and a bat that was generally grounded but might have popped up a millimeter at the exact moment the bails were loosened had always been ruled safe in the long history of cricket. So they changed the rules to make it clear that that player was not out. I prefer that interpretation to the idea that a baserunner can be out for something where he would have been called safe until the day replay came in (and can be called out tomorrow when cameras with higher frames per second and smaller pixels are used in the future even if safe today). As Joe points out, the problem replay was intended to solve was "don't be C.B. Bucknor in Milwaukee", not "the nerves of the index finger moved it a millimeter off the bag while the tag was applied."
The 2 methods that I would prefer: 1) a designated amount of time. This was the case for the NFL at first, I think 90 seconds. If you need more time than that, the play is really close so just let it stand. Obviously, sentiment went the other way and in an effort to increase the likelihood of the "correct" call, the review take longer and disrupt the game more. 2) 3 people in the booth, also with a limited amount of time. Majority rules. I actually like this better because it's more likely that the reviewer consensus is correct than the original call on the field. Either way, it's ruled faster. BTW, I really like correcting the clear misses real time without a challenge in football. This would be even easier in baseball due to the time between plays (there is a clock when the catcher throws the ball to the pitcher, but not between plays on the field). The first base call would have been quickly reversed with little fanfare.
Interestingly enough, the game is still exposed to human error. I point to the three swinging strikes that eventually resulted in a walk during last night’s Red Sox/Astros game. None of the umpires noticed the mistake during the game.
The full time robo umps will be here before you know it.
The roboump and challenge system is the best development in baseball since the walk. Pitchframers will lose out. Tall guys like Judge will benefit most. But everyone will get consistency.
I’m not sure that this is the precursor to universal ABS as everyone is saying. Fans do like the human element of the game (and I suspect there will be more of a desire for the human touch as people become more resentful of AI impinging on all aspects of life). As Joe points out, the beauty of the current challenge system is that it allows a corrective to terrible calls while still keeping things human—it’s a human that called it and a human that has to challenge it!
The fact that it has to be the player and that they have to do it immediately is also what makes it much more satisfying than the way basketball does it, for example. In fact, I think basketball should adopt this system. Players have to challenge calls themselves and do so immediately. Also, any empathetic gesture of disagreement triggers a challenge. Don’t like the call? Challenge or be quiet.
My favorite part - and the thing I've been yelling about for years - is that the ABS in a way, is the first thing to actually, really hold umpires accountable, in a very long time. They're essentially being shamed in front of the entire country when they miss calls. I imagine most of them will improve as trauma has a way of focusing you at times ha. It won't help with unhinged powertrips like whatshisname that bodied up Grady Sizemore last year, but it will make guys behind the plate tighten up their game, and I think that can only be good for baseball.
1. I think the umpires are better than the hitters and certainly the pitchers at the instant judgment of balls and strikes. Aren’t pitcher challenges being upheld at less than 30% so far?
2. I am absolutely LOVING the challenge system so far! It is bringing fun and strategy into the game. I saw Jazz Chisholm make a really selfish challenge last night, and I was engaged - both at the obvious strike that he was challenging, but also at the poor decision he made to burn a challenge in the 4th inning, two outs and bases empty. Love it!
I get the sense that Jazz Chisholm is a fan favorite for some people, but I am deeply unimpressed. This anecdote is consistent with what I've seen of him.
Not specific to Jazz, but I would tell my batters -- the ones who have an OPS under 900 -- that they aren't allowed to challenge a call unless it's the third strike with runners on. Save the challenges for the guy who can really hit. I mean, let's say Jazz wins that challenge. It was an 0-2 pitch. Call reversed and now it's 1-2. You know what Jazz's career splits are on 1-2? 182/189/277. Let's say he battles back and gets on base, which has has a 19% chance of doing. Two outs, and the bottom third of the order is coming up. Terrible choice. Not smooth, Jazz.
Were I a manager, I would have very different rules for different batters.
I have an ill-formed thought that I can't fully articulate here. It deserves a closer look.
A few years ago, Michael Lewis (the author of Moneyball) launched the first season of "Against the Rules," an excellent podcast. Season one covered the collapsed support for the very idea of neutral arbiters. There's an ugly tendency to believe that judges who rule against our side are biased. (One can see this plainly from our current White House occupant, but it's not just him.) With that as background, it's interesting to see that fans are celebrating the challenges themselves. I'd be curious to know what Michael Lewis would have to say about it.
What about a system where the catcher calls all balls and strikes but HE can be challenged? And if he has a certain number overturned maybe (3 or 4) then every overturned call after that the batter is automatically awarded first base? This combines Joe’s idea of players calling their own game, Joe’s love of the intentional walk, and the catchers’ success rate on close calls which is higher than the umps!
so far I love the challenge system and I think it will be talked about less as the season moves along. Right now it's new and teams are figuring it out.
I hope mlb sticks with the challenge system for a while.
I don't think any league is full time ABS, so until we see that in the minors, I'm not sure mlb will adopt it outright.
I listen mostly Jays games and watch a few highlights and video as they become available on mLB app or online and last night I saw Okamoto, who is off to a nice start, use up the last ABS challenge on a good strike call and then an inning or so later challenge a call at 3rd that he also lost. Maybe they weren't so bad as it was at medium to high leverage situations.
I think teams are letting players take the initiative and perhaps with Okamoto giving him some freedom to adjust to a new league and system. Eventually, teams should get smarter and we'll see less challenges on the 50/50 couple millimitre calls.
The biggest benefit to me is getting rid of those egregious calls, especially in high leverage.
I also hate pitch framing, so reducing framing effects is great.
Was there really an uproar over the pitch clock once it started? There was a lot of uproar beforehand, but it seemed to me that it became organic to the game very quickly and didn’t cause nearly this amount of interest once it started.
Without a specific example, I feel like I recall a few times where the runner tried to hit the front edge of first and came up short or the foot slid right over the top but never made contact.
When talking about horrible calls, I've seen what I believe was a college softball game where there was a dribbler and the pitcher never actually threw the ball and the runner was still call out. There's another one where the throw clearly gets away from the second basemen and the umpire still called the runner out...can't recall teams or anything, but I know there are some egregiously bad calls, this is just another example.
What is Bucknor doing out there if not seeing if the runner tags the base? I hope he turns it around--maybe the increased scrutiny and accountability will help him? He got knocked out of last night's game after a foul ball at home plate knocked his noggin quite hard.
Carlos Marmol--I remember that guy! Based on my blood pressure readings in the 2010s, I don't think Carlos has standing to tell any umpire they should retire--even the worst ones.
I like where we’re at. It’s like tennis. We still have line judges and chair umps, but the eye in the sky settles disputes.
I still don’t like the Zombie Runner in extras, and think the pitch clock does contribute to arm fatigue and injury, and that pickoffs should be unlimited. I also miss the NL pitchers having to hit, and when their winning the ASG meant they had home field and the AL pitchers would have to hit more…
But the bigger bases. The pitch clock (just give it a few more clicks to let the pitchers’ arms reset). Pitchers having to face three batters. And now the ABS have all been great additions to the game.
In many tennis tournaments the eye in the sky makes all the calls, not line judges. That’s why there are no challenges of line calls. Much better than challenge system .
I.don’t think the pitch clock has been increasing injuries. Injuries are the results of salt, throwing with maximum effort every single pitch.
Regarding pickoffs, I don’t think they should be unlimited. Just like you don’t have unlimited pitches to the plate- 4 balls and you have a walk. I like the same theory being applied to throwing the first. If you can’t get it done on a few throws, then that’s on the pitcher.
Imagine if you were judged that precisely (a millimeter!) and publicly in your job. Sure MLB should do what they can to see umpires' calls are correct. But I wonder who is going to want to be an umpire in the future. Would you want to face public correction and humiliation for the smallest of mistakes in your job?
No, I think umpires of the future will do other umpire things instead of calling balls and strikes. The job description will just be different.
Looking at the data on the picture, it looks like hitters are having a hard time judging pitches around the knees. It makes sense I guess because those pitchers are further from the eyes. Umpires having a hard time judging inside pitches especially up and in, probably because of being influenced by a batter (over)reacting to the pitch. I think everyone will be learning what balls and strikes are in the new system and I hope that we don't end up with more strikeout and fewer hits.
I think ABS has "expanded" the strikezone in that a ball only needs to touch the zone by a millimeter and it's called a strike in the ABS system. I use quotes because I believe it's calling the rulebook definition of a strike, but I think a LOT more of those pitches were probably called balls in the past. This, to me, is why fielder called challenges are more successful. The pitcher and catcher know that the system zone is slightly larger than what batters are used to.
I don’t have a problem with ABS. My problem with ALL replay systems, in all sports, is the creeping perfectionism. Systems that are begun to correct the egregious errors morph into systems that judge everything to the nanometer. That is why challenges in the NFL take ten minutes. That is why soccer goals are disallowed because the heel of a player’s boot is half an inch beyond an imaginary line.
In think it was Joe who once suggested that all replays be watched in real time. Umpires and referees shouldn’t be held to an impossible standard. If an Ump misses a pitch by an inch, by all means correct the call. If he missed it by a millimeter, he was right.
And I understand the inclination that says if we have the technology to do it right, we’re obligated to do all we can to get the call correct. But then why do we have human beings play the games? The day is not far off when we will create robots who can do what Tarik Skubal does. Do we embrace that technology?
Cricket reacted to the precision of replay being more accurate than the human eye in a way similar to what you suggest. When running between the wickets, a player must ground the bat behind a white line; if the bat is in the air when the bails are struck, the player is out. The bails are now usually wired so that a light goes on when they have been dislodged, which makes it easier for an umpire to see two things at once.
However, the ground on which this occurs is uneven. The bat is made of wood. And human beings have hands and wrists that are not robotic.
Thus, initial use of replay on this situation would show, much similar to how baseball replay can show a tiny gap between a runner's hand and a base, that the bat was in the air by a tiny bit. And the third umpire (the video umpire) would call this out.
Cricket players, officials and rulemakers, though, reacted entirely different from baseball. Their position was that those tiny gaps were not visible to the naked eye, and a bat that was generally grounded but might have popped up a millimeter at the exact moment the bails were loosened had always been ruled safe in the long history of cricket. So they changed the rules to make it clear that that player was not out. I prefer that interpretation to the idea that a baserunner can be out for something where he would have been called safe until the day replay came in (and can be called out tomorrow when cameras with higher frames per second and smaller pixels are used in the future even if safe today). As Joe points out, the problem replay was intended to solve was "don't be C.B. Bucknor in Milwaukee", not "the nerves of the index finger moved it a millimeter off the bag while the tag was applied."
The 2 methods that I would prefer: 1) a designated amount of time. This was the case for the NFL at first, I think 90 seconds. If you need more time than that, the play is really close so just let it stand. Obviously, sentiment went the other way and in an effort to increase the likelihood of the "correct" call, the review take longer and disrupt the game more. 2) 3 people in the booth, also with a limited amount of time. Majority rules. I actually like this better because it's more likely that the reviewer consensus is correct than the original call on the field. Either way, it's ruled faster. BTW, I really like correcting the clear misses real time without a challenge in football. This would be even easier in baseball due to the time between plays (there is a clock when the catcher throws the ball to the pitcher, but not between plays on the field). The first base call would have been quickly reversed with little fanfare.
Interestingly enough, the game is still exposed to human error. I point to the three swinging strikes that eventually resulted in a walk during last night’s Red Sox/Astros game. None of the umpires noticed the mistake during the game.
The full time robo umps will be here before you know it.
Or, as a Sox fan, “dislike”. 🙄
The roboump and challenge system is the best development in baseball since the walk. Pitchframers will lose out. Tall guys like Judge will benefit most. But everyone will get consistency.
I’m not sure that this is the precursor to universal ABS as everyone is saying. Fans do like the human element of the game (and I suspect there will be more of a desire for the human touch as people become more resentful of AI impinging on all aspects of life). As Joe points out, the beauty of the current challenge system is that it allows a corrective to terrible calls while still keeping things human—it’s a human that called it and a human that has to challenge it!
The fact that it has to be the player and that they have to do it immediately is also what makes it much more satisfying than the way basketball does it, for example. In fact, I think basketball should adopt this system. Players have to challenge calls themselves and do so immediately. Also, any empathetic gesture of disagreement triggers a challenge. Don’t like the call? Challenge or be quiet.
The problem with that is EVERY play in basketball (or football) has a penalty if you call the game strictly.
The NBA has solved this problem by not calling traveling. :)
My favorite part - and the thing I've been yelling about for years - is that the ABS in a way, is the first thing to actually, really hold umpires accountable, in a very long time. They're essentially being shamed in front of the entire country when they miss calls. I imagine most of them will improve as trauma has a way of focusing you at times ha. It won't help with unhinged powertrips like whatshisname that bodied up Grady Sizemore last year, but it will make guys behind the plate tighten up their game, and I think that can only be good for baseball.
Two comments:
1. I think the umpires are better than the hitters and certainly the pitchers at the instant judgment of balls and strikes. Aren’t pitcher challenges being upheld at less than 30% so far?
2. I am absolutely LOVING the challenge system so far! It is bringing fun and strategy into the game. I saw Jazz Chisholm make a really selfish challenge last night, and I was engaged - both at the obvious strike that he was challenging, but also at the poor decision he made to burn a challenge in the 4th inning, two outs and bases empty. Love it!
I get the sense that Jazz Chisholm is a fan favorite for some people, but I am deeply unimpressed. This anecdote is consistent with what I've seen of him.
Not specific to Jazz, but I would tell my batters -- the ones who have an OPS under 900 -- that they aren't allowed to challenge a call unless it's the third strike with runners on. Save the challenges for the guy who can really hit. I mean, let's say Jazz wins that challenge. It was an 0-2 pitch. Call reversed and now it's 1-2. You know what Jazz's career splits are on 1-2? 182/189/277. Let's say he battles back and gets on base, which has has a 19% chance of doing. Two outs, and the bottom third of the order is coming up. Terrible choice. Not smooth, Jazz.
Were I a manager, I would have very different rules for different batters.
I have an ill-formed thought that I can't fully articulate here. It deserves a closer look.
A few years ago, Michael Lewis (the author of Moneyball) launched the first season of "Against the Rules," an excellent podcast. Season one covered the collapsed support for the very idea of neutral arbiters. There's an ugly tendency to believe that judges who rule against our side are biased. (One can see this plainly from our current White House occupant, but it's not just him.) With that as background, it's interesting to see that fans are celebrating the challenges themselves. I'd be curious to know what Michael Lewis would have to say about it.
What about a system where the catcher calls all balls and strikes but HE can be challenged? And if he has a certain number overturned maybe (3 or 4) then every overturned call after that the batter is automatically awarded first base? This combines Joe’s idea of players calling their own game, Joe’s love of the intentional walk, and the catchers’ success rate on close calls which is higher than the umps!
so far I love the challenge system and I think it will be talked about less as the season moves along. Right now it's new and teams are figuring it out.
I hope mlb sticks with the challenge system for a while.
I don't think any league is full time ABS, so until we see that in the minors, I'm not sure mlb will adopt it outright.
I listen mostly Jays games and watch a few highlights and video as they become available on mLB app or online and last night I saw Okamoto, who is off to a nice start, use up the last ABS challenge on a good strike call and then an inning or so later challenge a call at 3rd that he also lost. Maybe they weren't so bad as it was at medium to high leverage situations.
I think teams are letting players take the initiative and perhaps with Okamoto giving him some freedom to adjust to a new league and system. Eventually, teams should get smarter and we'll see less challenges on the 50/50 couple millimitre calls.
The biggest benefit to me is getting rid of those egregious calls, especially in high leverage.
I also hate pitch framing, so reducing framing effects is great.
YES! Just like the pitch clock, the uproar will die down soon.
Was there really an uproar over the pitch clock once it started? There was a lot of uproar beforehand, but it seemed to me that it became organic to the game very quickly and didn’t cause nearly this amount of interest once it started.
Without a specific example, I feel like I recall a few times where the runner tried to hit the front edge of first and came up short or the foot slid right over the top but never made contact.
When talking about horrible calls, I've seen what I believe was a college softball game where there was a dribbler and the pitcher never actually threw the ball and the runner was still call out. There's another one where the throw clearly gets away from the second basemen and the umpire still called the runner out...can't recall teams or anything, but I know there are some egregiously bad calls, this is just another example.