Readers’ Research: Which are Longer – Replays or Arguments
Posted by Raphy on October 8, 2010
The recent slew of missed calls has reopened the instant replay debate among baseball fans. One of the arguments against replay is that it would lengthen baseball games beyond their already lengthy times. However, I have a very difficult time believing this. Most close calls are followed by a discussion between a manager and the umpire. Sometimes these arguments last a long time and even involve both managers. I would think that if it was applied correctly, replay would eliminate the need for these time consuming breaks in play and would thereby shorten the length of baseball games.
However, I have no data on the matter. Does anyone know how long the typical replay review takes vs. the typical manager-umpire conversation/argument/grudgematch?
October 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I don't have any data, but I disagree, I think that replays will take longer than arguments. Just look at how long home run replays have taken. When it was first introduced everyone said it won't add much time, that the review won't take more than a minute. I don't think I've ever seen a review take less than a minute. You've got to count the time for the umps to gather and decide whether to do a review, then the time for them to walk off the field, view the replay, come back on the field, and make their call. I can't remember which game it was, I seem to remember a Nationals game from last year where a review took 9 minutes. And when managers know that replay is an option they're going to come out and argue to have plays reviewed all of the time.
I think the idea of having another umpire up in the booth waiting to review calls would help a little, but it's still going to take too long.
While us die hard fans would much rather wait a little to have umps review calls, to your casual fans who already think that baseball is way too long having the replay won't matter.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Arguments are more entertaining.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Arguments are way more entertaining.
"And when managers know that replay is an option they're going to come out and argue to have plays reviewed all of the time."
They really already do this, because every time there's an argued call it seems the manager wants the ump to ask for help. It's worth noting that the umpire is under no obligation to do so, and presumably under expanded review rules he'd be under no obligation to ask for a video review.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
The replay system is new and hasn't been optimized. When they move to more review there will be a booth official to speed up the process. I don't really think there is a useful debate about whether to use replay in the first place, or whether to expand it. You take advantage of available technology to give more integrity to the officiating and quality of play. That nebulous "human element" argument goes nowhere with me.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
baseball is in a hole here with umps in the hall of fame. people probably already think they are in there for doing nothing, but with replay they will be in there even more so for doing nothing. maybe they should just dispense with rating umps and just say, if you last for 30 years in the league you get in the hall? the hall of fame explicitly forbids automatic qualifying but it looks like they'll have to adopt it for umps.
October 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
No need to dispense with rating umps. Here's my grade for all of them for 2010: F-
Shouldn't be hard to improve on that in 2011, but these MLB umps, they never stop surprising you!
October 8th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Great question and I'd like to see data. OTOH, knowing the answer would probably not affect anyone's opinion on whether replay is a good thing (least of all MLB's).
@3: I agree that replays are boring, but are arguments really that entertaining? If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. If human error is supposed to be part of the game, then managers need to grow up, accept the umpire's decision, and go back to baseball.
October 8th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I think the agruments are entertaining. I think most fans do, too. That's why the crowd goes nuts every time a manger goes at it with an ump. These may add time to the game but its not the same as a bunch guys just standing around wating for a decision.
I think there is a need to get things right (the human element should be provided by the players and managers). I just don't want to see it come to everytime there is a close play, we wait for two minutes to see whether the guy is safe or out.
So I think I'd rather see some sort of challenge system . . . Maybe with an argument first, just for old time's sake.
October 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I think one of the reasons that Bobby Cox will be missed is because of all of those ejections. Certain other managers (Earl Weaver comes to mind) are not only known for their success but also their ability to fire up both the players and the fans in the stands (both the favorable ones at home and the unfavorable ones on the road) when they perceive that something is not right.
October 8th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Honestly, I don't find the arguments entertaining. Well, on a highlight reel, maybe. But during the game? No. I find this another case of where Selig and his cronies claim "we have the best interests of baseball at heart" while watching the product circle the drain. Every time there is a bad call that could be corrected with a two minute look at the replay, it simply gives more fodder for anyone who is a marginal baseball fan to not care. Of course, under Bud that seems to be the goal.
October 9th, 2010 at 1:41 am
Informative writeup.. I really love coming to your site because you usually write excellent posts about computers and new technology. Great work once again. I think I shall subscribe to this feed. I plan to add this website to my favorites list.Thank you PS: I can't live without sports cars in the next few years.
October 9th, 2010 at 3:16 am
Here's what I think should be done:
No replay-review system. Instead, grade all umpires (and legitimately and actually grade them, unlike the nonsense they call grading today). Balls and strikes will be graded by computer, the field calls by a committee appointed by the MLBPA, owners, umpires' union, Congress, whoever. The better umps get promoted, and work the Series and All-Star game. The poor umps get fired, or possibly relegated to the California Penal League.
Missed calls are part of the game, for better or for worse, and there will always be missed calls, even with replay.
October 9th, 2010 at 3:18 am
I should add, I suppose that when I say that field calls will be graded, I mean based on replays. Just after the fact. I don't want to see calls being overturned.
October 9th, 2010 at 3:41 am
"I don't have any data, but I disagree, I think that replays will take longer than arguments. Just look at how long home run replays have taken."
Yeah, but only cause the format is bad. The umpires have to leave and go check the replay. I think most people want an actual replay umpire that's already in a booth. That wouldn't take long at all.
Hell, people watching on TV usually see if the call is correct within seconds.
October 9th, 2010 at 3:42 am
@9
Bobby Cox is an overrated manager and wife beater.
October 9th, 2010 at 7:58 am
I think the whole premise of this post is funny because who says managers aren't going to argue the replay results? So now you've got the replay delay, and the pre and quite possibly post-replay arguing....
You could just have a booth guy call every play from his omniscient little perch in the sky and not need a single damn ump on the field (Seriously, I've never got the argument to add a booth umpire while at the same time still needing any officiators on the field of play). There may never be another incorrect call ever, but that just ain't baseball to me..... the game needs its Don Denkingers and Jim Joyces....
October 9th, 2010 at 8:21 am
We'd still see arguments, particularly on balls and strikes since that's an area where replay likely wouldn't be a realistic option without disrupting the pace of the game, and we'd see arguments when a manager either just wants to vent or give his players time to cool down.
Just consider how quickly we can get a conclusive view on most plays on TV? Really, one of the reasons umps are under so much criticism at the moment is because it IS typically so quick and easy to see that they're wrong.
And we have the technology for a replay crew to be more efficient than on the broadcast. A replay crew in a booth wouldn't need to wait for an appeal to start reviewing a play, but rather they'd be able to review every close play immediately. You'd have the replay crew in radio contact with the field umps, and you could even add a one minute time limit or something to the replay and rule that any plays that take longer than that will stand.
As a test, it would be interesting to track the replays on a broadcast. The time it takes for the fans to make a clear determination at home via replay would constitute a maximum for the expected time of a trained replay crew. In reality, it would often take less time, because the replay crew doesn't need to work it into their narrative, and of course they could be given the technology to freeze the replay at any given point and sync multiple camera angles on different displays to get a clear view of most plays quickly.
The pace of the game need not be an issue with a well-implemented replay system, and you could put rules in place to ensure that it isn't. There's really only two arguments against replay:
- The aesthetic argument: Umpire error is part of the game, and replay would take away that traditional element.
- The monetary argument: It would be an additional cost to add and maintain the technology to properly do replay, and it would cost money to pay the crew in charge of running it.
If you're of the first mind, that's fine, but you shouldn't be too critical of an umpire's mistakes when he's denied the tools to maximize his accuracy, especially when your criticism is based entirely on your own use of the tools that could so easily correct so many of those errors. The second issue is quite likely the one that MLB is struggling with, and they feed us the delay-of-game rhetoric so as not to appear cheap.
October 9th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Judging from the first 18 comments, the answer to the original question is, no.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:52 am
I remember Andy defending Jim Joyce like a hawk during the 'perfect game' debate.
In one word, Umpires belong to the same world with horse and buggy. The current ones might stay there but there is no reason to train them any more.
Arguments won't work since one million people watch HDTV and know how bad umpires are.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:53 am
ES Says:
October 9th, 2010 at 7:58 am
>There may never be another incorrect call ever, but that just ain't baseball to me..... the game needs its Don Denkingers and Jim Joyces....
The younger generations need Denkingers and Joyces like they need a new pair of horns at their hips.
The days for umpires are past, like spitball and negro leagues.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
This doesn't really answer the question, but when it's comes to getting instant replay "right" this is what I'd do...
First of all, no replay at all unless the play is challenged by the manager.
If the replay overtunrs the call, no harm no foul.
If the call stands? Manager's ejected. (Same rule for whomever takes his place.)
Argumetns ARE more entertaining, but come on... Have you EVER seen a Judgement Call - even one that's Offerman - Knoublach - phantom tag bad) - get changed because the opposing manager is screaming and yelling? (Esp in a reg season game?)
And while I wouldn't like to see balls and stikes being challenegd, that may as well be automated now anyway. That way eitehr every pitcher gets the same Zone as the Maddux's of the world, or there will just be that many more homer's hit. (Hopefully they go with the bigger zone.)
October 11th, 2010 at 12:44 am
I don't like replays, umps are humans. Besides, what we would argue about during the cold months in the pub over our beers?
October 11th, 2010 at 1:08 am
You seem to miss the point entirely.
The whole debate stands because umpires can do whatever they want but suffer no consequences at all if their call is bad.
If managers are going to be ejected if the call was right, umpires should be penalized in the same kind if the call was wrong.
Namely, if the call was wrong, the umpire will NOT BE PAID for that day's game.
If a postseason call was wrong, the umpire's monthly salary will be forfeit since postseason games have higher stakes. Same rule applies for special situations, like perfect games.
And the three-strike out rule should be applied to umpires.
The long term goal should be phasing out umpires, who belong to the 19th century anyways.
>Fourfriends Says:
October 10th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
First of all, no replay at all unless the play is challenged by the manager.
If the replay overtunrs the call, no harm no foul.
If the call stands? Manager's ejected. (Same rule for whomever takes his place.)