A Final Word On The Umpires, Bud Selig And Instant Replay
Angels catcher Mike Napoli applies the tag to Robinson Cano on Tuesday, October 20th.First, there was the honorable commissioner of baseball emphatically stating that he didn't harbor any desire to further implement instant replay. Next came the so-dubbed "Worst Call(s) of All Time," followed by another round of vigorous debate and discussion, Don Denkinger's (!?) unqualified endorsement of full-scale instant replay and now, most recently, renewed opposition by the World Umpires Association. It's a messy issue, it's on baseball's doorstep and unfortunately for the conflict-averse rank and file in the league offices, it's not going away anytime soon.
Lots of excellent thoughts and ideas have been exchanged regarding the underlying problems with the current state of baseball's umpiring (as well as accompanying solutions), many of which merit some degree of consideration and/or make some sense on a practical level; of course, union resistance is typically a difficult beast to tame, but the 1999 mass resignation debacle weakened the umpires' leverage, making this winter's labor showdown all the more interesting now that instant replay has been pushed to the forefront.
One thing I find notable is the popular refrain that the shoddy 2009 post-season umpiring is the "smoking gun," proving beyond any and all doubt that the umpires are progressively growing more incompetent. I don't think it's quite that simple; indeed, some of it may simply be random variation at work. It's the umpires' bad luck that two of the more memorable -- and flagrant -- blown calls in recent memory transpired with the October spotlight pointed directly at them and not during a sparsely watched late-August series in, say, Pittsburgh.
[That isn't to say that we should deflect blame from Phil Cuzzi and Tim McClelland (they've certainly earned it), rather, the point is that their true talent levels as umpires are not materially different during the post-season than they are during the regular season. Or at least, they shouldn't be.]
Drilling down a little further, though, there actually is some basis for the belief that the umpires are getting worse at their jobs. Sandy Alderson, the former CEO of the Padres (2005-2009) and stringent umpire disciplinarian as MLB's executive vice president for baseball operations (1998-2005), long emphasized accuracy -- particularly where ball-strike calls were concerned -- and physical conditioning, sharpening the quality of the umpiring and instilling a culture of accountability.
With Alderson's resignation came an apparent relapse back into old, bad habits, prompting the Braves' Chipper Jones to publicly blast the umpires in September 2007 and producing this quote from an unnamed baseball source: "It hasn't been the same since Alderson left [the commissioner's office] for San Diego. Sandy stayed on top of those [umpires] every day. And it showed." If that element of accountability has gone flying out the window, it must somehow be restored; instant replay might be perceived as a fantastic step in the right direction, but it's not the panacea.
[Here's my quick blueprint for the implementation instant replay, by the way: All fair/foul calls are subject to automatic review by the review booth; ball/strike calls are non-reviewable; all other calls can be challenged only once per team per game. I don't buy the "Instant replay will destroy the pace of the game!" rebuttals from the union when (a) commercial breaks during this post-season have been nearing the four-minute mark and (b) the average instant replay, if done correctly, should require only a 30-50 second stoppage. There are comparatively few close fair/foul calls in the typical nine-inning game, so the game-delay argument is adequately addressed. It's flawed, but it's the utilitarian solution.]
One other thing I found interesting about the entire post-season umpiring situation was the viewpoint expressed by someone -- who it was, I'm not sure -- that the terrible umpiring is actually good for baseball, because it engenders controversy, and controversy in turn supplies additional exposure for the sport. Bad officiating also brought additional exposure to the 2006 NBA Finals above and beyond what could be reasonably expected, but self-destructive exposure in that vein is not what baseball needs.
ESPN.com's Rob Neyer recently opined that Bud Selig is essentially finished with instant replay and will ignore the issue henceforth, with no real progress being made until after his retirement. That may very well end up being the case, but the pertinent question to ask at this point is whether he'll be allowed to ignore it.
11 Comments | in Analysis, Rumors, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (11)
Denkinger. See "Irony".
The point on Alderson reinforces my thought that the problem lies in accountability. The umpires don't appear to be holding themselves nor each other to a high standard. I don't see them working at their craft with intent to be in the best positions to make close calls. That they're essentially mailing it in, in the most critical of series' is disgusting.
Selig. See "Hubris".
Very well written piece JM.
How bout the "I just didn't see it" on the no call double out at third base
easy call yet they assume the call Instead of making a real call
I am sick of average. So to should baseball be
Why put a limit on the number of challenged calls. If the umpires blow two calls in a game, what's the benefit of accepting the second one with a grain of salt? "Well we got the first call reversed, I guess it's ok that this one goes against us, even though it was clearly a game winning double in bottom of the 9th." You realize you're barely smarter than Selig with that logic.
Take your head out of the NFL, where there is fear that coaches would abuse the challenge system for timeouts.
It seems to me that they could use instant replay for any/every play where there's an argument. How hard would it be for a replay ump to review a bang-bang play at first base while Lou Pinella is kicking the dirt and throwing his hat? At the very least shouldn't they have an ump (with someone who's got an 80 grade video editing tool) at the rest of these playoff games. They wouldn't have an effect on the game, but for each game they could test different plans for how much time they really take.
For game 1 of the world series, they could just time it like a challenge system. Let's say Jimmy Rollins is called out at first basek, but Davey Lopes (Phils' 1B coach) is adamant that Rollins was safe. If Charlie Manuel comes out to argue, they assume that he'd challenge that call and would initiate a "booth review." Time it out, and I'll bet you wouldn't be losing any time like that.
They could try it out Joey's way during game two to see if that makes a difference, and then I'm sure they've got several other methods they could time.
The other thing they could try would be to set up technology with a radio tag in each ball (or something like that) and sensors down the foul line that will tell you definitively whether or not the ball was fair or foul. As far as modifying the ball goes, that wouldn't appreciably affect the way the ball comes off the bat. On the other hand getting the technology to show whether or not the ball was fair or foul to be accurate down to the millimeter is a little more complicated, but with all the crazy things we can do now, I don't see that as a deal breaker. I've been advocating a solution like this with the endzone in football for a while now.
Perhaps you review all fair/foul calls and give the manager 2 challenges a game. If he's right on the first two, he get's another one.
It's October 23rd..Baseball season should have been over two weeks ago and we haven't even gotten to the World Serious yet. . Maybe if the season was played in a normal length of time in normal freaking weather instead of this made for TV, long drawn out, freeze your butt off marathon it's turned into, attention spans may improve a tad.
One thing about Ranger fans is that they almost all prefer football to baseball, so they think that the solutions to all the MLB's problems can be solved by copying the NFL model. Case in point: Dave H, just stick with the NFL where your logic may actually make some sense.
I agree with you for the most part, exception being that there should be no restriction on challenges. If you want to complain about wasting time and the games getting too long then lets eliminate the useless arguments that ensue currently when a bad call is made which won't be overturned anyway. These managers sometimes argue for 2,3,5 minutes or more ranting about what they perceive as a bad call. If managers had the ability to challenge then the Crew Chief has the booth replay and in most cases less than a minute later you have a ruling. It shouldn't be that difficult and in many cases would cut the time the arguements take to a minimum, thus providing more time for additional useless commercials.
Oh and as it stands now, NO arguing balls or strikes, doesn't need to happen. What should happen there is after the game, in review, if a call is blatently bad then the umpire gets a fine for each bad pitch called. This would force the umpires to be more accurate and accountable.
Dean -- I have no problem with you, but please don't assume that just because I mention football in reference to one post that I prefer football to baseball. Football is in a tie for fourth with hockey behind baseball (1) and basketball (2). Did I ever say I had all the answers? I don't necessarily think that copying the NFL's method is the right way to go. All I did was throw out some suggestions. I don't believe I indicated any preference for any method of solving our little instant replay problem (aside from improving technology). While I may personally think that we shouldn't limit the number of replays or "challenges," I'm trying to find an idea that has some sort of compromise in it.
Ranger_Rick -- I definitely agree with you on what seem to be your main points: no limit on number of reviewed plays (1) and balls and strikes should be regulated by post-game accountability not in-game argument or review (2). I think that I've been a little long-winded/scatterbrained today and didn't make myself clear so I'll say that again: I agree with Ranger_Rick.
I love Ranger baseball, but I hate the Cowboys and could care less about pro football in general, to be honest. I actually get secretly happy inside when the Cowboys lose, if only because so many people in the DFW area just go totally loopy about it. I know that's wrong, but I confess it's the truth. :)