Big Brother

Recently my older brother sent me a link to a New York Times Op-Ed piece that contained two separate arguments. The first argument, by John Rosenthal, stated that instant replay should be expanded to more on-the-field calls. The second part was written by Kirk Victor and proclaimed that umpires need more accountability, and therefore should have reviews of their performance made public. Both articles were short, to-the-point, and obviously based upon opinion as they were in the Op-Ed section. Today, I will examine these crucial arguments, in addition to throwing my hat into the conversation taking place about expanding the Wild Card playoff system. A lot of what I write will be opinionated, so if you don't agree, please feel free to comment.

Let's take the first issue raised by Mr. Rosenthal, which states that "Baseball should install an additional umpire in the broadcast booth, one with the authority and respect of his colleagues to use instant replay to review (and overturn) calls." He goes on to say, "The process would take far less time than an umpire meeting, and it would greatly reduce the number of bad calls." The author lays down parameters by saying the only calls the booth official could influence are "calls on catches, tags and safe or out plays." He claims this would go faster than the current system of umpires getting together to make the call. Rosenthal seems somewhat enraged by the Armando Gallaraga missed perfect game as he makes mention of it twice in his article. While I agree that what happened to Gallaraga was a travesty, these claims by Rosenthal are unfounded.

Quite frankly, I think Mr. Rosenthal is denying reality. He states this instant replay process would take much less time than an umpire meeting. Yet I am constantly watching baseball, and rarely (perhaps once a game) do I see umpires meeting on a bad call, let alone it taking more than two to three minutes. The umpires have even made it a point of late to cut short manager arguments once a controversial call is made. There is no doubt that there are still incidents where a bad call and the subsequent tirades by managers slows the game somewhat, but it is so infrequent that it often times livens up the crowd, especially if the end result is a manager being thrown from a game. This is a characteristic of baseball that separates it from other sports that use instant replay.

Instant replay in other sports, specifically football, often slows that game to a crawl. The rules are specific, and while it is rare, the potential is there for the head coaches to impact the game with complaint 6 times. Each time the official has to meet with the coach and discover the complaint, then watch what is supposed to be no more than 60 seconds of video (but which often times is two to three minutes), then discuss the final call, make the call, and adjust the ruling on the field. This process at best takes four minutes and at worst possibly 10. I have seen, quite often, crowds boo in frustration before a ruling is even made because the officials and coaches are taking too much time away from the game itself. And this is supposed to help the methodical pace of baseball?

Rosenthal's other point that this process would reduce the number of bad calls is also unfounded, because there has been no specific study done to show how instant replay has benefited or hurt other sports. Many football coaches have of late called for a removal of the instant replay system because it fails to properly remedy the situation. And ultimately, there are going to be complaints from the side that doesn't win, and there always will be a losing party. In the current baseball system, it is simplified. The umpires are the final authority, human error and all. They make a call, meet if necessary if it seems as though a mistake could have been made, and whatever they agree on as they saw it from multiple angles is the call. Game on. The only reason instant replay has even entered the picture is because homerun calls take place far away from the view of umpires, and the many configurations of fields today with their yellow lines, padded walls, and railings make it difficult for officials to see where a ball landed or bounced off of. It's for boundary calls only. As far as baseball is concerned, instant replay should stay there, and end there.

The other article in this Op-Ed piece called for more accountability for the umpires. He states, "At the heart of the problem is this: umpires are rarely held accountable for their poor calls." Tell that to Jim Joyce. Now this is not a factual statement, but baseball umpires are probably one of the most hated figures in all of sports, and that is due in large part to the human element. Where other sports are being taken over by instant replay and other technologies, in baseball the man behind the mask is the law. This allows people to point more blame at the individual himself, then perhaps at a flawed technology or a bad camera angle would. To make any work review public who simply incite commentators, sports writers and the common fan into a foaming frenzy. Let's not forget, Mr. Joyce actually received death threats for his bad call that kept Gallaraga from his perfect game.

In his article, Victor writes "After every game, Major League Baseball provides each umpire with an analysis of his performance, including which calls he got right and which ones he got wrong." He states this system doesn't work because it gives the umpires no incentive to improve. Does he suggest an incentive to improve would be to not receive death threats? If an umpire has a great review, how many nice letters from fans do you think he'll receive? Probably not many and likely zero. If he has a bad review, particularly during a playoff game, how many psychotics do you think will send that man a death threat or a hate letter? Probably lots more. The fact is, people take their sports too seriously. They 'bleed' the team colors, and start fights over who has the better star player. Do we really need to point out to the fan-base and say 'Hey, that's the guy, let's go get him because he made a mistake!' A man died in Latin America over a soccer game because of this kind of behavior.

Perhaps more actual incentives could be used to help support the umpire reviews. Maybe if Major League Baseball gave bonuses to umpires that got a certain percentage of calls right. Fines probably wouldn't work as well, because countless sociological studies have proven that incentives work much better than punishment. Umpires wouldn't have to think twice about trying to make the right call for money or not, because they wouldn't find out if it was correct or not until after the game anyway. So Victor makes a decent point about how to try and improve the accountability of umpires. He just goes about trying to solve it in a very ridiculous way.

The third and final issue that is currently being discussed in many baseball circles is the potential to expand the playoffs. The Wild Card playoff system started in 1994 but due to the players' strike that cut the season short, wasn't actually implemented until 1995. The expansion was necessary because MLB grew in size, and was reorganized into three divisions per league. Three playoff teams per league would have been uneven, so a Wild Card playoff team was added. It made everything nice and level and has given us some incredible baseball moments in the past 15 years. The new rule would be quite different however.

As stated in an article by Overthemonster.com, "this would entail adding a second wild card team to each league, and having the two wild cards play a best-of-three series for the playoff spot. The division winners would all get a short first round bye." I highly recommend looking at the full article here http://www.overthemonster.com/2010/11/16/1817522/should-the-mlb-expand-the-playoffs-the-argument-for-a-second-wild-card. A lot of people seem to be in favor of this, mainly because it opens the door to the playoffs for teams that reside in more competitive divisions. In past years, a second or third place team in a great division may have missed out on the playoffs, while a mediocre team cruised to a division win simply because they play with weaker teams. But this fails to account for the fact that, for the most part, there is parity in baseball. Certain teams will always have more money to spend, but division powers shift and reassemble all the time. In a matter of two or three year one division can go from being everyone's punching bag, to being the dominant division for playoff contenders. Just look at the San Diego Padres of this year. This solution is a temporary fix for teams that complain that they were good, just not good enough to make it in. And it instead presents the major probably of adding a bye into the baseball schedule, something that has never been done before.

Now if this three game series happened immediately following the season, and if perhaps the regular season was compacted with more double-headers, then perhaps this system would work. However, you and I both know that this won't happen because advertisement and money drive the sports world. This new series will take place a couple of days after the regular season, so Nike and Coke, and others can probably spend money, and the division winners will have to sit, losing precious momentum from the end of the season. Players already complain about how much time it take to play in October, with days off before the regular season to the playoffs and days off between series. Hell, even travel days aren't absolutely necessary. Why there is a constant push to have the playoffs invade November makes no sense to me. This system will be great for somebody's pocket, and we may even get some great baseball out of it, but in the end, I think it will hurt the final product, which is the game itself. But when it comes to money and the playoffs, maybe the game doesn't matter as much anymore. Afterall, two great teams made it to the World Series this year, but because the teams didn't have flashy big payrolls and huge names for advertisers to sell, the ratings suffered.

I know I'm a little old-fashioned when it comes to some things in baseball, but I truly believe these three ideas really represent something hurtful to the game. Progress and change are wonderful things, but too often people want change to suit their own means. In my humble opinion, none of these potentialities would benefit the game of baseball in much of a way, but all three could possibly hurt it. That is what I worry about. The game is so great as it is, and if we recklessly add and subtract elements, without proper review and patience, then we might end up killing what we love. I know baseball will survive, and maybe these rules will come into effect and be great for the league. If that is the case, then I will be the first to say I was wrong. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the ones in power decide.