Replay Challenges in MLB (Split from May 25 IGT)

[Edgy MD]

I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional.



Your purpose has always been above all else to touch the bag before the throw. In order to gain that achievement, you're frequently willing to slide in a manner that risks you not maintaining contact. I got caught in a rundown between third and home once and I felt like the kind of the world when I slid back into third and eluded the tag with a hook slide. I then felt like the douchiest of douchebags when I couldn't create enough slowing friction and maintain a strong enough kung-fu grip in order hold on to the bag and my awesome hook slide took me a few inches past the bag, and Scott Pastor tagged me out and there was no disputing he had me.



Getting in there was half the battle, and I was so desperate to do that, that I sacrificed my capacities for the second half of the battle — hanging in there. I lost. I didn't intend to do that, but I risked it, and I lost. Pastor and catcher Danny LaJoie won. I took my team out of a bases-loaded, no-out situation. To his credit, Danny gave me no shit on Monday day at school.



Similarly, there's an advantage to a popup slide. You place yourself instantly in a position to see if the ball trickles away and to take off it does. Going for that advantage came with a risk if your bounce up becomes too buoyant, as it does.



Frankly, I have a problem with the fact that the rule book has been re-written a couple of times now to deal with situations when the Mets got caught with their pants down. When they seemingly got caught without a starter in the 2006 post season because they burned a starter in a game that was rained out, MLB changed an age-old — and good — rule that forbade teams making roster changes in the middle of a playoff series. That stunk, and now it's abused all the time. Meanwhile, the rule didn't need to be changed. The Mets just needed to overcome the situation — which, excitingly they actually did that year when Oliver Perez stepped into the breach.



Similarly, the takedown of Ruben Tejada by Chase Utley created all sorts of new sliding rules that we still are trying to consistently interpret.



The third one I'm thinking of, I think, is the 10-Day IL — largely triggered (unless I'm misremembering) by the Mets' inability to manage the 15-day window.



The Mets found themselves in an embarrassing situation last week. But the rule don't need to be more granularly written to protect them? I mean, when has this ever happened before, twice in one game, even in the age of replay review. What they need to do is slide better than other teams, just like they need to hit and run and throw and pitch and catch better than other teams.



I don't want the rule book re-written because Jay Bruce had trouble beating the shift or because Jonathan Villar had trouble holding on to the bag. I want Bruce and Villar to up their game. And sliding is totally part of the game. It's a defining and beautiful part of the game. And guys who do it badly shouldn't be protected from their failures by a rule change. They should be out.



At least, they should be out more frequently than guys who do it well.

[seawolf17]

There's a world of difference between "oversliding the bag and getting tagged out" and "your torso loses contact with the base for a millisecond but you're still on the base."

[Edgy MD]

I don't think so. It's only a matter of degrees. I gave up a degree of control in order to beat a throw and I paid the price, so did Villar. deGrom gave up a degree of control in order to gain an advantage in potentially advancing further. Burned.



The safest way to beat a tag is frequently to slide in like a demon, contorting your limbs and torso to avoid the tag but find the base, not worrying a whit about whether you can maintain possession of that base until you've initially made contact.



The safest way to maintain control of the bag is to jog in and come to a stop, not worry a whit about a tag coming in and getting you.



You've got to both get in there and stay safe after, and maybe even get an advantage toward continuing on after you get in there if the opportunity arises, and the way to do all of this is to find the best compromise between those two extremes. Commit too much to reaching the bag and you risk losing it. Commit too much to maintaining it and your risk never gaining it in the first place.



That's baseball. And you want to play it better than the other team. For one day, at least in that category, the Mets did not. Thankfully, they won anyway. Next time, if they do it better and do it right, it may win them a game.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm sure that a guy who drops a pop fly had no intent to drop it either. Still an error, still a runner on base. This is a very silly argument. Play the game right.

But what does this example have to do with cheating? The "guy" that accidentally dropped the pop fly in your example wasn't cheating, either.



I agree that this is a very silly argument. But you're all mixed up as to who's being silly here.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Guest

[dinosaur jesus]

The Mets didn't get caught with their pants down when Utley broke Tejada's leg. The new rules came about because MLB was embarrassed that its old rules, under which Utley should have been ejected, weren't being enforced. That wasn't the Mets' fault, any more than MLB overthinking how to keep catchers from getting run over was Buster Posey and the Giants' fault.



MFS62 mentioned Bill Klem. I bet Klem made a ton of bad calls, and I'm glad there are probably a lot fewer umpiring mistakes than there used to be. But I'm sympathetic to the idea of someone like Klem who makes the decision, it's done (though you can bitch about it if it makes you feel better), and let's get on with it. But we'll never be there again.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional.

Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating".

[Edgy MD]

dinosaur jesus wrote: The Mets didn't get caught with their pants down when Utley broke Tejada's leg. The new rules came about because MLB was embarrassed that its old rules, under which Utley should have been ejected, weren't being enforced. That wasn't the Mets' fault, any more than MLB overthinking how to keep catchers from getting run over was Buster Posey and the Giants' fault. MFS62 mentioned Bill Klem. I bet Klem made a ton of bad calls, and I'm glad there are probably a lot fewer umpiring mistakes than there used to be. But I'm sympathetic to the idea of someone like Klem who makes the decision, it's done (though you can bitch about it if it makes you feel better), and let's get on with it. But we'll never be there again.

They didn't need to change the rules to protect Tejada. They needed to enforce the rules they had, which is what they need to do here.



And yes, entering the World Series with Wilmer Torres as your starting shortstop and a guy who had never played a single day in the Majors as his backup sure seemed like getting caught with their pants down, but I understand the distinction.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: They didn't need to change the rules to protect Tejada. They needed to enforce the rules they had, which is what they need to do here.

I agree with this. This is exactly what I wrote when we discussed that play in 2015.



Also, I think those deGrom and Villar out calls are very rare, even with the use of replay challenges. If those calls had become very frequent with the use of replay review, then maybe I'd be on board with a rule change. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating".

Because, and going back to your hook slide at third memory, it's not necessarily about the intent to briefly come off the base. Cheating is about the intent to deceive the umpire or an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking a rule.



A sliding baserunner who comes off second base because he suddenly, as the tag play is unfolding, decides to try for third base, but is tagged out as soon as he comes off second base isn't, on these facts alone, cheating, even though he came off second base intentionally.

[roger_that]

It's not cheating to get tagged out for losing contact. You're right about that. That's just baseball.



It is cheating to insist that you were safe when the umpire calls you out for what he saw with his own eyes, whether on replay or in real time. The correct move there is to say "Damn, I thought I might've gotten away with breaking contact, wasn't even sure I had, but you got me. Good call."

[batmagadanleadoff]

It is cheating to insist that you were safe when the umpire calls you out for what he saw with his own eyes, whether on replay or in real time. The correct move there is to say "Damn, I thought I might've gotten away with breaking contact, wasn't even sure I had, but you got me. Good call."

Just because the ump saw it with his own eyes doesn't necessarily make the call correct.



I think that the baserunner would have to be 100%:certain that he was out to be accused of cheating for nevertheless arguing the out call. And even then, I'm not sure it would be cheating because arguing with the ump is essentially symbolic; the player should have no expectation of persuading the ump to change his call. (But, see, shoe,-polish incident, 1969 WS).



And if the player has a good faith belief that he's safe, then he's not cheating for arguing the call.

[roger_that]

But you could argue (and I think you are) that every player always has "a good faith" belief that it's possible he's misremembering losing contact with the base. In reality we know that most runners arguing they were safe know perfectly well they were out, and are lying about what they know to be true, which I call cheating. You don't.



In any case, I give it no credence at all. They're out, I'm glad they were called out correctly, let's get on with the game. Get your ass off the field, crybaby.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=66041 time=1622466050 user_id=128]
In reality we know that most runners arguing they were safe know perfectly well they were out, and are lying about what they know to be true....

[Edgy MD]

Well, deGrom sure knew he was out. But what is and isn't cheating vs. a guy who sincerely thinks he's safe is another issue.



They may be trying to get away with deceit or they may be merely trying to get away with risk, but the issue before us is safe vs. out, regardless of motive.

[dinosaur jesus]

Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature?



That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with.

[Edgy MD]

My experience is that runners mostly know whether they're safe or out, probably more than anybody else on the field.

[dinosaur jesus]

They probably do. But how often do they argue about it when they're clearly wrong?

[roger_that]

dinosaur jesus wrote: . You going to make a rule against human nature? .

Exactly. I want a law against human nature that wastes my time and everyone else's while you bitch and whine and pout that you screwed up but it's someone else's fault WAHWAHWAHWAH!!! Shaddup you mouth and GTFO the field! Precisely.

[roger_that]

Oh, forgot to add: "you cheating SOB"

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with.

Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call.



Corking the bat -- now that's cheating!

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with. Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call. Corking the bat -- now that's cheating!

I think a player has to violate a rule to have cheated. There's no rule against arguing a tag play, although there probably are limits. Likewise, pitch-framing is legal, even though the catcher is intentionally trying to deceive the home plate umpire by making a ball look like a strike to the ump. There's nothing illegal about the way a catcher catches a pitch very near to the edge of home plate to make it appear as if it were a strike even though that pitch never crossed home plate.