MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

[jen]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I'm not crazy about challenge-based systems in general, but I guess it's better than nothing. And did they say why they exempt the neighborhood play? There seem to be some obvious blown calls there.

Because right now, they feel it helps fewer middle infielders get hurt in collisons, and they don't want to stop that. I guess that makes sense, considering the home plate collision thing.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I'm not crazy about challenge-based systems in general, but I guess it's better than nothing. And did they say why they exempt the neighborhood play? There seem to be some obvious blown calls there.

Many had safety concerns for middle infielders being wiped out by hard-charging runners if the phantom force was subject to review.

 

[jmh]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

OK, fair enough. I suppose that's a valid concern, though I'm still not entirely sure I agree with the conclusion they reached.

 

[lugnut92]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Are balls and strikes up for challenge? I assume fair/foul, trapped balls, and tags are the main plays that would get challenged.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Are balls and strikes up for challenge? I assume fair/foul, trapped balls, and tags are the main plays that would get challenged.

MLB.Com has a bit more info.

"Approximately 90 percent of all plays will be subject to review, including calls involving home runs, ground-rule doubles, fan interference, boundary calls, force plays, tag plays, fair-foul and trap plays in the outfield, hit by pitches, timing plays, touching bases, passing runners and any dispute involving ball-strike counts, outs, score or substitutions. All other plays, including obstruction and force plays at second base, will not be reviewable."

Article

 

[lugnut92]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

But the actual ball-strike call won't be. Okay.

 

[jen]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

MLB.Com has a bit more info.

"Approximately 90 percent of all plays will be subject to review, including calls involving home runs, ground-rule doubles, fan interference, boundary calls, force plays, tag plays, fair-foul and trap plays in the outfield, hit by pitches, timing plays, touching bases, passing runners and any dispute involving ball-strike counts, outs, score or substitutions. All other plays, including obstruction and force plays at second base, will not be reviewable."

Article

I'm interested in how they're going to direct umpires to make calls (like erring towards a fair call instead of foul) and where they place runners in reversal situations.

Also, I'm a little surprised about the in-park replay, but I guess it makes the umpires more accountable.

 

[jen]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

The Cubs new (first) mascot is T.C. Bear as a, well cub.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-mascot-clark-20140113,0,7590774.story

I think Clark is a clever name for him. But I bet he will be savagely abused by the fans. At least he's not a person-mascot. Those are creepy. Almost as creepy as the Texas horse.

 

[RaceBoarder]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I'm interested in how they're going to direct umpires to make calls (like erring towards a fair call instead of foul) and where they place runners in reversal situations.

Also, I'm a little surprised about the in-park replay, but I guess it makes the umpires more accountable.

What I want to know is how they will be placing runners on a trap play.... No matter the call, one side is put at a distinct disadvantage once we overturn the call...

 

[aparch]

I think Clark is a clever name for him. But I bet he will be savagely abused by the fans.

Not a reader of Deadspin, are you? The comments have been brutal.

Hilarious, but brutal.

 

[joecct]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

I'm interested in how they're going to direct umpires to make calls (like erring towards a fair call instead of foul) and where they place runners in reversal situations.

Also, I'm a little surprised about the in-park replay, but I guess it makes the umpires more accountable.

Well there are 2 scenarios
(1) 2 out. Ellsbury on 1st. Jeter hits one to LF. Nava goes back and lunges for the ball and appears to catch it. Ump rules out. Girardi throws flag. Replay shows that the ball hit Nava's glove, then the wall, then back into Nava's glove. Jeter is safe (where?) and where do you put Ellsbury? Substitute a slow runner for Ellsbury and where do you put him?

(2) 0 out. Ellsbury on 1st. Soft liner to right. Victarino dives for the ball and umpire calls safe. Ellbury to 3rd. Jeter on 1st. Victarino throws ball to 1st. Farrell throws flag. Replay rules a good catch. Is Ellsbury doubled off 1st? Put back to 1st? What if there was a runner on 3rd? Do you allow him to score?

Baseball used to be pretty much objective. Safe/out. Foul/Fair. Now you've added a degree of subjectivity that's not been there before that may vary from crew to crew. It's a great idea in theory, but, IMO, it's going to be a disaster in implementation.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Well there are 2 scenarios
(1) 2 out. Ellsbury on 1st. Jeter hits one to LF. Nava goes back and lunges for the ball and appears to catch it. Ump rules out. Girardi throws flag. Replay shows that the ball hit Nava's glove, then the wall, then back into Nava's glove. Jeter is safe (where?) and where do you put Ellsbury? Substitute a slow runner for Ellsbury and where do you put him?

(2) 0 out. Ellsbury on 1st. Soft liner to right. Victarino dives for the ball and umpire calls safe. Ellbury to 3rd. Jeter on 1st. Victarino throws ball to 1st. Farrell throws flag. Replay rules a good catch. Is Ellsbury doubled off 1st? Put back to 1st? What if there was a runner on 3rd? Do you allow him to score?

Baseball used to be pretty much objective. Safe/out. Foul/Fair. Now you've added a degree of subjectivity that's not been there before that may vary from crew to crew. It's a great idea in theory, but, IMO, it's going to be a disaster in implementation.

Easy:

1) Ellsbury on 2nd.
2) Not doubled off. Ellsbury back to first. 1 out.

 

[RaceBoarder]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Easy:

1) Ellsbury on 2nd.

If that was called correctly, Ellsbury could have kept chugging around 2nd and went to 3rd... Specifically if there is any hesitation/bobble by the defensive player during the play... Why penalize the offense in the reversal? It's not cut/dry as it seems...

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

If that was called correctly, Ellsbury could have kept chugging around 2nd and went to 3rd... Specifically if there is any hesitation/bobble by the defensive player during the play... Why penalize the offense in the reversal? It's not cut/dry as it seems...

But, you can't assume he'd get more than one base...just like you can't assume a double play.

 

[joecct]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

There's 2 outs guys. He's running on the hit. And Jacoby is fast enough to go all the way to home depending where it was hit in the ballpark.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

There's 2 outs guys. He's running on the hit. And Jacoby is fast enough to go all the way to home depending where it was hit in the ballpark.

But, David Ortiz isn't. Rules in sports have never, and will never, take into account who the player is.

 

[RaceBoarder]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

But, David Ortiz isn't. Rules in sports have never, and will never, take into account who the player is.

Actually, you just need to look at the rule for placing runners for an Obstruction call for an example of taking into account who was running... The rule states that the umpires should place the runner where they feel he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred. For that Ortiz vs Ellsbury can make a difference in that situation... How is this a different situation? The umpires have to rule what would have happened if they ruled however they did...

 

[French Rage]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

If that was called correctly, Ellsbury could have kept chugging around 2nd and went to 3rd... Specifically if there is any hesitation/bobble by the defensive player during the play... Why penalize the offense in the reversal? It's not cut/dry as it seems...

Or you could not overturn the call at all and the hitter in incorrectly out and the hitting team is even worse off. So it's not perfect, but it's closer to correct than what it was.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

Actually, you just need to look at the rule for placing runners for an Obstruction call for an example of taking into account who was running... The rule states that the umpires should place the runner where they feel he would have reached had the obstruction not occurred. For that Ortiz vs Ellsbury can make a difference in that situation... How is this a different situation? The umpires have to rule what would have happened if they ruled however they did...

Is there a situation where they have given a runner more than the next base? If there is, I can't recall one (there may be one, I don't watch a lot of baseball these days). All runners should be treated equally (even though we all know they are not all equal) for a consistent enforcement of the rules. Let's say there's two outs and there's a blooper to left. Originally called out. Overturned. Maybe the left fielder throws Ellsbury out at 3rd had it been called correctly, maybe he doesn't. I don't like the idea of placing runners where the umpire "feels" they would be. Make the ruling as black and white as you can.

 

[Priceless]

Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!

If that was called correctly, Ellsbury could have kept chugging around 2nd and went to 3rd... Specifically if there is any hesitation/bobble by the defensive player during the play... Why penalize the offense in the reversal? It's not cut/dry as it seems...

Or Ellsbury could have pulled a hammy between second and third and been tagged out.