links for 2007-10-14


  1. Anthony L.

    October 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Couldn’t they implement the instant reply thing easiest by giving each a certain number of uses per game (like timeouts in every other sport)? Say like only one or two per team per game and say it’s better then none at all.

  2. David

    October 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    I’d say 3 just because baseball is a game of threes but yea…exactly what I was thinking.

    On one hand Umps blowing calls have been a part of the game forever, but then again baseball does change with the times and teams should have a few chances a game just incase they think they are cheated…

    It might add what? If teams are given 3 a game maybe 5-10 minutes?

    Also their prob would be a strategy developed for that…

  3. David

    October 14, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Also kind of sad to hear about the former 5-tooled Encarnacion

    Brings back memories

    Devi Cruiz, Damion Easley, Shane Halter, Tony Clark, Robert Fick, Bobby Higginson, Dean Palmer

    Steve Sparks, Jeff Weaver, Jose Lima, CJ Nitkowski, Nate Cornejo, Danny Patterson, Matt Anderson and Todd Jones…

    Ah those were the days…that you could find a SEAT for CHEAP!!!

  4. Vince in MN

    October 14, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Here’s what you do on the instant replay thing:

    Each team gets 3 per game, just like in football.
    To request a replay, the manager throws a red flag out on the field, just like in football.
    If the challenge is upheld, the call is reversed, just like in football.
    If the challenge fails, the team is charged a timeout, just like in football.


  5. ron

    October 14, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Instant replay sucks. The missed calls even up in the end.

  6. Kyle J

    October 15, 2007 at 8:37 am

    Instant replay will never happen in baseball (thankfully). It’s the most traditionalist of the major sports–among players, managers, media, fans, etc. I just can’t imagine a game being stopped while an umpire walks over to a TV monitor to watch the play again.

    Plus, the electronic ball/strike system has shown that baseball umpires are pretty darn good.

  7. Don

    October 15, 2007 at 9:52 am

    “I just can’t imagine a game being stopped while an umpire walks over to a TV monitor to watch the play again.”

    Well, you can definitely imagine having a manager go out and yell at an umpire for five minutes while you watch the broadcasters show the replay 12 times in slow motion and see the ump got it wrong or right. Except at the end of the argument, the wrong call (almost) always stands.

    I can see it happening for sure on questioned home run calls – fair or foul, whether it hit above the homerun line in some parks – as a test drive, then implemented later on calls on the basepaths. I’d say give the manager 2 challenges and if he’s wrong on the first he forfeits the second. Or make plays reviewable on an umpire’s discretion – like if he’s out there getting yelled at by a manager and another ump says, hey let’s check it out I think you made the wrong call. There’s got to be a way to make it work well.

    Plus I don’t really buy the umps-blow-calls-it’s-part-of-the-tradition-of-the-game arguments. It’s not like guys in the 1890s considered whether to have instant replay and rejected the idea; this is the first time it’s been a cheap and realistic option.

  8. Tbone

    October 15, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Please – no instant replays. I’m always amazed at how the umps almost always get the calls right. Instant replay makes the game longer and takes away some of the fun.

  9. Ryan S

    October 15, 2007 at 11:22 am

    If they go to any sort of instant replay, they’re going to need to be EXTREMELY careful how they implement it. Personally I think it ought to be reserved for things like fair/foul on HRs. Out/safe on the bases is really dicey, because what do you do about the time honored tradition on double plays of the 2B/SS just being “in the area” of the bag?

    I say keep it limited and let it be initiated by the umpires, not the teams.

  10. Kyle J

    October 15, 2007 at 11:22 am

    It’s not the time delay part of it that would bother me. It’s the idealistic notion that baseball games happen in a bubble that extends only to the boundaries of the field. Of all the major sports, what occurs on a baseball field is still the closest to what how the sport was played 75 years ago. An umpired putting his head under a hood to watch a play from five different angles just seems like to large a break from tradition.

    Of course, I think instant replay has gone too far in the other sports, too. (The microanalysis that occurs in the NFL is quite astounding at this point. Did the receiver get two feet in? At what precise moment did he gain control of the ball? Did the ball shift in his hands when he hit the ground?) So I guess I’m bound to be against it when it comes to my favorite sport.

  11. Mike R

    October 15, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    The Padres-Rockies play in game is all I needed to see to reaffirm that MLB needs instant replay. A missed HR, a questionable touch of home plate. It won’t take that long. Put a 1 minute clock on the ump, let the crew chief look at a monitor that is located where the grounds crew comes out from behind home plate and then let him make the call.

    Lou Piniella tantrums would slow the game down longer.

    And I hate that it’s “a tradition rich sport” and that the “umps almost always get it right.” Why not help them to get it right all of the time? MLB has shown they have the stones to use technology to second guess umps with the Questec, why not use it for replays on HR’s, plays at 1B?

    I’d much rather wait 90 seconds and have the call be right then wait 2 minutes for an argument between manager-umpire and not have anything resolved.

  12. David

    October 15, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    Good points Mike R

    I think it is an inveibility, just will it come sooner (within the next five years) or later?

  13. Ryan

    October 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    I think the yellow line system needs to be improved. The ballparks can still be ‘quirky’, but there needs to be regulation prohibiting having fences, posts, etc. right above the line. Just a simple change like this to make it possible to tell what is/isn’t a homer would eliminate about half of the need for a replay system, and I don’t think that a simple wall with a yellow line on top of it free from other design elements is a whole lot to ask.

  14. ron

    November 18, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Do we need to use every option available? Maybe in heart surgery but not in baseball. It’s part of the ebb and flow of the game. Let’s not ruin a game played on dirt and grass with special cameras and laser lights. We have enough of that kind of stuff in our life already.

  15. BobS.

    November 19, 2007 at 8:29 am

    Screw tradition.We have the technology to correct errors of judgement by umpires that television audiences have been privy to for dozens of years.Outcomes of games shouldn’t be affected by safe runners called out or foul balls called fair when there’s such a simple solution available,and I feel pretty confident writing that even the most die-hard traditionalists here wouldn’t be so sanguine if the Tigers were on the butt end of an obvious mistake in an important game.Even implemented poorly(which can also be corrected as the system develops),it’s better than having an obvious blown call determine a World Series winner.
    By the way,ron,1938 called.It’s not only troubled by it’s favorite players betraying their teams by signing free agent contracts with the competition,it’s having a little problem with all the black and Latino players sharing clubhouses with white guys.
    Ah,the good old days.