Instant Replay Debate: The 5 Minute Home Run

Well Instant Replay, you got one right. Last night, against the Minnesota Twins, Carlos Pena of the Tampa Bay Rays launched a home run that was called on the field as 'fan interference'. The fan interference play was ruled a double, Pena was awarded second base and Eric Hinske would have crossed home plate with Akinori Iwamura moving to third. The 'double' was overturned and Pena was justly rewarded with a home run.

As it stands, Instant Replay has overturned one play, in three reviews. While FOX, TBS, and ESPN would clamor for a .333 hitter despite his other statistics, we all know there is more to a picture of a player then his batting average. That is, instant replay is not 1 for 3, it is, for all intents and purposes, 1 for 1.

However, what has it done to the game?

In the two previous occasions the umpires made the correct call. The first, occurring in Tampa, as Alex Rodriguez's home run was confirmed, and as I mentioned previously, had no real affect on the game.

The second, occurred in Houston, as Instant Replay proved that Hunter Pence's RBI double was called accurately by the umpire crew. Similar to the Rodriguez call, the game was more or less out of reach, and whether Pence was allowed to cross home, or had to stay at second would not have made a big difference. That is, instead of the Astros leading the game 9-2, they would have had an 11-2 lead.

Fan Graphs does an excellent job at plotting win probability at a given point during a specific game. Here is how the game looked without Pence's home run:

If that image is not clear enough, how about this? According to the data provided by Fan Graphs, after Pence's double the Pittsburgh Pirates had a 0.7% chance at winning the game. The next inning, Steven Pearce hit a one out home run for the Pirates increasing their odds of winning by half a percent.

In other words, the two runs that were potentially lost, held little to no value in the big picture.

Each of the previous Replays took a little over 2 minutes and solved nothing. It stalled the game on the field and for no reason.

But finally, Instant Replay does something! Or does it?

After over 4 minutes of replay-which jumped out to the FSN Florida commentators almost immediately-the umpire crew reversed the call, giving Pena a home run. 4 minutes?

In a game that typically takes in the range of 3 hours, 4 minutes isn't a big deal. In a 6-0 game (7-0 after the ruling on the field), 4 minutes can feel like an eternity-probably enough to lose some of your TV audience and consequently advertising revenue-although that could work the other way as well for various reasons.

The Twins-Rays game ended with a score of 11-1, in hindsight, the call was extremely inconsequential. But how did Pena's home run affect the win probability of this game?:

Looks fairly inconsequential, right? Pretty much. Not as terribly un-meaningful as the previous instant, but close. That is, prior to Pena's home run, the Rays had a 96.4% chance at winning the ballgame. After the home run, 99.2%. The double, which would have left a runner on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs, while scoring a run, probably would have placed the win probability over 97%.

In other words, this overturned call eliminated about a 2% chance that the Twins had in winning the game anyways.

Really? That's why we are delaying the game? I cannot wait for Major League managers to figure out how to use Instant Replay as a method for warming up pitchers. That is, keep in mind that foul balls can also be reviewed.

Instant Replay Debate

I truly and honestly do not understand how the committee that decided Adam LaRoche's 'hit' against CC Sabathia on Sunday, August 31st could use 'replays' of the play and save face. Consider that instant replay, according to MLB rules, is intended for 'boundary calls'. Boundary calls, do not include questionable singles.

Thus, the committee members should not have utilized instant replay nor should a committee member be allowed to chime in on the situation if they had seen the play on more then one instance.

According to MLB.com,

According to MLB's statement, "The committee held an extensive and constructive discussion after viewing footage of the play in question and considering the documentation presented by the Brewers. It was the collective decision of the committee that the judgment of the scorer was not 'clearly erroneous,' which is the standard set forth in Official Scoring Rule 10.01(a), and thus did not meet the criteria for League reversal of the call."

So apparently instant replay will be used for boundary calls and potential scoring errors. I know Ques-tec is still set up in a lot of ballparks, is there any need to not reboot that system and eliminate umpires altogether? I hear swimming has a pretty decent invention that could be utilized for plays on the bases.

Instant Replay 0, Brandon and Logic 1

Instant Replay has reared its ugly face into a meaningful game, the results, as anticipated, nothing. Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees hit a 2 run home run off Tampa Bay Rays closer Troy Percival in the 9th inning of a 6-3 Yanks lead. The umpires, who initially called the ball a home run, discovered after over 2 minutes of review that the call would stand due to a lack of conclusive evidence against-something I have always hated during instant replays.

The final line of the game, 8-4. A Yankees win. While the Rays managed to tack on an extra run, the Yankees did not send their dominant closer to the bump for the bottom of the 9th. It's safe to say the three run lead would have been safe.

So what did instant replay do? Can proponents of instant replay count this as a victory? Unfortunately, they cannot. While the Yankees were able to save Rivera's arm for a night, at this point in the season, that is the least of the ballclubs worries. Although, I suppose if they go on a seven game win streak where each game is separated by 3 runs or fewer, I will eat my words. But what is the likelihood of that?


As I mentioned previously, if 'technology' is so advanced that fringe calls can be made for home runs and fouls, what is the holdup in adding this to balls and strikes?

Instant Replay Debate Re-Visited

This comes as a reflection to a recent Rosenthal column which sources a 'high-ranking MLB official' whom asserts that "it is 'very' realistic to expect that MLB will introduce replay on boundary calls sometime in August. The reasoning: If MLB can get the proper system in place by then, why wait?"

I have already come out and suggested that I do not believe MLB should implement instant replay, to me, it just opens a can of worms. As I mentioned in a previous article, "Where would it stop and how could one justify using this technology for an occasional instance when there is a multitude of other mistakes made throughout a game?"

With that in mind, according to USA Today, MLB is going forward with instant replay on 'boundary calls'. This, according to the USA Today article would "include whether a home run clears an outfield wall or if a potential home run is fair or foul." Yes, only home runs! Why not make it 'home runs which affect the outcome of the game'?

Tom Verducci discusses the issue as if it is a non-issue. But again, he only discusses home runs. Verducci then refers to the laughable response that those against instant replay are worried about robots taking over the game. To me, it is more about opening up instant replay to issues which matter and occur a lot more frequently. Of course, this issue is ignored by those who feel that upwards of ten calls a year need to be reversed and 1 or 2 of 2430 games be altered by a reversed home run call.

The problem is, people are so enamored with home runs, that they agree with Verducci, and others I have sourced (Rosenthal, Chuck). Simply put, do a search on MLB.com for Instant Replay and as of this afternoon (June 19, 2008) there are already 188 News Reports on this topic for 2008 alone. The majority of which are in favor of instant replay being implemented.

Colorado Rockies, for example, are for instant replay because of a few home run calls from last season. According to the report on MLB.com,

None of the Rockies' players interviewed felt replay was a bad idea. Helton said it would probably be smart to wait until next year, but having it would be better than not. The closest to a dissenting opinion was, well, not that close.

Although admittedly, those interviewed were uncertain if instant replay would reverse each of the calls. Interestingly, these same players do not say anything about the blown call at home in last year's wild card playoff with the Padres. Remember, when Matt Holliday 'touched' the plate? A play that actually had an affect on the outcome of a meaningful game.

Similarly, Michael Cuddyer and the Minnesota Twins support the decision to implement instant replay. Cuddyer's rationale? Personal accolades,

"I would have had 25 homers and 110 RBIs that season," Cuddyer added. "But who is counting?"

Is it safe to say that Cuddyer would be in favor of instant replay being implemented on the approximately 6% of missed strikes or balls from that season? Yes, that would be 150+ instant replays. Would that not make a difference in the outcome of a single game? What about for Cuddyer's personal accolades?

That is to say, Cuddyer is complaining about the result of one call out of 505 balls he put in play. That would make me think it is obvious that he would be pro-instant replay for the 150+ mis-called pitches, right? I suppose it depends whether it was going to have a positive or negative outcome.

Where the story takes an interesting turn is with Mike Jacobs of the Florida Marlins. Jacobs claims that instant replay should be used for what MLB intends to use it for, 'boundary calls'. Laughably, according to Jacobs,

"I don't think they you should do it on plays at the plate, or on the bases. I think there should definitely be a judgment call on that."

Why?

Jacobs, too, had the misfortune of having a would-be homer ruled a double. At Dolphin Stadium on May 7, Jacobs had a long drive to right carom off the railing in right-center.

Now it makes sense why Jacobs is on that side of the fence, he has had a call negatively affect him. Did it negatively affect the outcome of the game? In a word, no. The Marlins won the game 6 - 2. In other words, the difference between Jacobs getting the home run call and not getting the home run would have resulted in a single run. Which means the Marlins would have won 7 - 2. So instead of never trailing, the Marlins would have been, well, never trailing.

But according to Jacobs,

"Bottom line is those are tough calls. If they are not sure, they need to check."

Those are the only tough calls? What about plays at first where the ump is to concentrate on the ball, the first basemen's foot, and the foot of the runner. Admittedly, the umpires more often then not get the correct call, but how many times do we see a player throw his helmet in dismay? Now lets check out each one of those with instant replay, because, I mean, 'we have the technology'.

The voice of reason? Charlie Manuel, manager of the Philadelphia Phillies claims that calls should remain a matter of human discretion. Although Manuel does conclude that the bottom line is getting the call right, and who could argue with that?

Rekindle the Instant Replay Controversy

While watching last nights Cleveland - Texas barn burner, the umpires stirred the instant replay controversy once again. In this video clip of Ben Francisco's RBI Double you can see what appears to be the ball going over the yellow line in left field. While watching on STO the commentators certainly did not make it easy to come to ones own decision, but it does appear as though the ball, at the very least, landed on the top of the yellow line.

From MLB.com:

According to the ground rules, the padding atop the outfield rail at Progressive Field is home run territory, but after conferring near third base, the umpires decided the ball didn't hit the top of the yellow padding.

Slow-motion replay, however, showed otherwise.

Thus, the argument for instant replay can again be made. Comically, MLB.com's Gameday shows that the ball (image right) went over the wall in left field. It does not show the ball touching the wall - as is the case with the two blue dots to the right. So if it is so obvious that the call was missed and this has been the case on numerous occasions to this point in the season, what is the hold up?

I am, as previously mentioned, against instant reply. My thinking, is that for every call that it fixes and consequently alter the results of the final score, it will wastefully slow down hundreds of ballgames where the difference between an RBI double and a bases clearing home run will have no factor at the end of the day. Furthermore, consider how many times a ball is put into play in a game? Maybe between 50 and 60 a game? Of that, how many are home runs? On average 1 or 2? The majority of which are no-doubters. But how many close plays at first are there? How many near catches in the outfield that are called as a catch when they are 'snow-coned'?

Lets take this a step further. How often has a 'K Zone' or some other strike zone toll popped up, only to show you that a called strike was way out of the zone? Or how about the other way around? Of 300 or so pitches thrown in a game even at the suggested 94% accuracy the umps are sitting at would leave some 18 pitches called incorrectly. Is it not a fact that pitches, hitters and defenses change their approach for every instant in a count? A 2-1 'called strike' that is actually outside the strike zone has the count sitting at 2-2 instead of 3-1. Now try and tell me that the 6% of time that a missed ball or strike does not have a greater influence on every game then does a blown home run call?

There in lies my problem. Proponents for instant replay scoff at the idea that this would slow play down, asserting that conferences are already slow enough. But if, as Ken Rosenthal suggests, there is the technology for instant replay, how could one justify implementing instant replay for a scenario which rarely occurs and not utilizing it for a scenario which frequently occurs? That said, this now occasional instant replay would evolve into a tool used for 6% of pitches. And then how many close plays at the plate? At first? A catch in the outfield? A pitcher balking? Stealing signs? Where would it stop and how could one justify using this technology for an occasional instance when there is a multitude of other mistakes made throughout a game?

Let's put this another way. Think of how angering it is during football season when an obvious blown call is ruled 'unchallengable' by league rules. Either a 'down by contact' or other. Would this same frustration not exist in baseball games where a ball that would have led to a walk is called a strike and the count is set at 3-2?

I know Chicks dig the Longball but creating a rule which only affects home runs is kind of ridiculous, isn't it?



Update - 05/24/2008 - 10:30 AM EST
Via Baseball Digest Daily:

Rob Dibble and Kevin Kennedy had MLB Executive VP Jimmie Lee Solomon on their XM show, and stated that it could impact the pace of the game and might be used during the Arizona Fall League.

Technorati Profile

The Instant Replay Debate

I offer up a respone to Bill Chuck's recent assertion that it is time for MLB to implement instant replay. Check it out over at Baseball Digest Daily. Feel free to leave comments or questions here or on the BDD board.