If you’re a baseball fan, you’ve probably heard an announcer say “with two strikes, you have to swing at anything close and protect the plate”. The announcers say this because sometimes the umpire might call the pitch a strike, even though it is actually a ball. Then again, sometimes the umpire calls a pitch a ball when it should have been strike three. The former happened to Andrew McCutchen during Wednesday’s game. McCutchen took strike 3, even though the digital strike zone grid clearly showed that the pitch was a ball. This particular call didn’t determine the game, though it certainly affected the at bat and inning. It probably won’t get a ton of media coverage or cause some huge uproar either.
Earlier in the day, the Padres were playing the Braves. The Padres were up 2 runs with two out in the ninth, while the Braves had two men on and power-hitting Justin Upton up at the plate. After a few pitches, Upton was called out on a pitch that the grid showed was clearly a ball. Game over, rally killed. Again, there probably won’t be a huge uproar about this.
Now these calls clearly affect at bats and even games. Even a pitch earlier in the count can affect an at bat and therefore a game. For example, most pitchers try to get ahead in the count because they’ll have more control of the at bat and more options available to them. When a first pitch that is in the zone is called a ball (or vice-versa), the complexion of the at bat is changed.
So why isn’t there an uproar about these “blown” calls that affect games? The answer is that these types of calls happen all the time. For the most part, players and fans seem to be somewhat content if the umpire has a “consistent” strike zone, even if it is a little too small or large. So if an umpire calls a bad strike, we’re happy if he continually misses that call the same way? I’d generally agree that it’s more fair if an umpire has a consistently wide zone or tight zone, and it’s more predictable for the players if they have an idea what is a strike or ball for a particular umpire on a given day. But why should we be satisfied with that? I think that a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. If a pitch is an inch or two off the plate, it should be called a ball every time, not called a strike one of out ten times in a game or ten out of ten times in a game. This is probably not going to happen, but expanded replay is likely on the way.
MLB VP of Baseball Operations, Joe Torre said that he is hopeful that expanded replay (beyond homerun calls) will be instituted by 2014. One thing that Torre doesn’t want to do is to disrupt the flow of games. Another thing that Torre doesn’t want is replay on strike calls. I’m not saying that MLB umpires are terrible. They’re correct well over 90% of the time. That’s pretty good, but just like an all-star player, we shouldn’t be satisfied with pretty good. Along those lines, why be satisfied with just improving these percentages by using technology for just some of the calls? I want this technology used for everything possible, including calls on balls and strikes.
In regard to fair or foul calls on a ball hit down the line for instance, a quick replay probably wouldn’t disrupt a game any longer than a player getting in the face of an umpire, then the manager coming out of a dugout to yell at an umpire, then the coach and player getting ejected. Certainly video reviews can and have been missed, Travis Snider’s homerun that wasn’t comes to mind. And there’s no saying that a manager or player wouldn’t come out and argue a call that was confirmed or changed upon review. At least we would have more accuracy, if not perfection, and if most of these manger blow-ups were avoided, the flow of the game wouldn’t be interrupted too much more than the current version of the game.
What will bring about a review isn’t so clear. I’d like a coach’s challenge system similar to the NFL or a “guy in the booth” like college football. If the coaches were given a “red flag” and they came out to argue the call, the umpire could say throw your flag or you’re ejected. This system might cut some time out of these sometimes lengthy arguments. A neutral “guy in the booth” could spot any blown calls that he thinks are obvious enough to reverse. This would eliminate strategic challenges, like a manager challenging an obvious correct call to give a reliever more time to warm up.
Torre also mentioned a tag call and said that he looked at it numerous times and was still unable to tell whether the runner was out. Thanks to the NFL, we are familiar with the term “indisputable video evidence”. If the umpires cannot be certain that a call was incorrect, they shouldn’t reverse it. Is this perfect? No. For example, say a second baseman tagged a runner attempting the steal and the runner was called out. The umpires go to review the call and think that the runner was probably safe, but they still aren’t positive about the call. Then the out call stands. So you argue, if they aren’t going to reverse the call on that play, then what’s the point? Armando Galaraga’s (near) perfect game comes to mind. If the umpires could review that call, they would undoubtedly recognize that the runner was out at first, and Galarraga’s name goes down in the history books.
So maybe I have some of you convinced about certain on-field calls or maybe not. But what about balls and strikes? That will certainly affect the flow of the game, you say. That’s why they won’t be reviewed. They’ll be taken out of the hands of the umpires. We have the digital strike zones on most TV broadcasts. Some of these systems show you instantly whether a pitch was in the zone. Give the home plate umpire a handheld device that shows him the count. Or just put it up on the scoreboard since many umpires admit that they use that to keep track of balls and strikes (though they point out that they will correct it if the scoreboard is wrong). I don’t know if this technology exists, but I imagine that it could be created pretty quickly.
I’m not advocating that umpires should be removed from the game. They still make the original calls on the field, but more of their calls can be corrected if need be. Umpires also need to deal with the people on the field, or if the technology fails. The umpires can still determine whether a pitcher intentionally hit a batter, speed up a meeting on the mound, eject players, etc. And if there is a problem with the strike zone technology, they can call balls and strikes until the problem is fixed.
I know that this isn’t necessarily a popular argument, especially among more traditional fans, or “purists”. Arguments against instant replay are that baseball is not a perfect game. (It still wouldn’t be, but it would have improved accuracy on calls.) It’s not part of the tradition of the game. (Neither were pitch counts, sabermetrics or billion dollar TV deals. Things change with new technology, resources and information.) It removes the human element of the game. (Hitters will still battle through long at bats to get a hit; pitchers will still get huge strikeouts with men on base to end the game; baserunners will still run into outs; fielders will continue to make errors. The players are still out there doing these things and that seems pretty human to me.)
I love baseball and part of the reason that I love it is because of the tradition and history involved in the game. However, I also think that information and technology can help to improve the game. Look at all of the data used by teams and how that is resulting in most teams shifting their defense frequently or working on pitching motions to prolong the careers of pitchers. Or look at the sabermetric revolution emphasizing prospects having certain traits rather than “a good face”. One of the bigger trends in baseball is on base percentage and taking walks because a guy getting on base is better than an out and it works up the pitch count for the starter. With this new emphasis on guys taking bad pitches, it just seems wrong to me that on a pitch where the batter has a better eye than the umpire, he is punished with a called strike. If the technology is there to make more correct calls, there is no good reason not to use it. Baseball already has instant replay on homerun calls. If the umpires get this call wrong, the hitter usually ends up on second with a double anyway, we should expand this use of technology to calls that can determine whether guys get or stay on base. This use of technology should be expanded to include everything, if a guy is caught stealing but is actually safe, if a hit is called foul instead of fair, if a ball is trapped instead of caught, and, yes, even balls and strikes.
