What If There Was Instant Replay (Part 1)?

OK, I'm going to come right out and admit it. This is a part one that may not have a part two. What I mean is I've decided to take a look at controversial calls in baseball's postseason and discuss what would have happened in various related scenarios had there been a system of expanded instant replay in place in Major League Baseball.

Or, perhaps there won't be a part two until next year. I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

My first example wasn't really all that controversial in retrospect (it was made a moot point by Ryan Raburn's three-run homer that immediately followed), but it brought a manager out of the dugout, and was the subject of a question at the manager's post-game press conference, so that's enough for me.

In the top of the third inning of game two of the ALCS on Monday, a pitch appeared to hit Detroit's Victor Martinez in the foot. Well, at least by his reaction it did. But, it was initially unclear what the call was by home plate umpire Larry Vanover.

Vanover immediately appealed to first base umpire Jim Wolf to see if Martinez had swung at the pitch in question. My initial reaction was he had ruled Martinez was hit by the pitch, but had to determine if he'd swung or not (he hadn't) in order to decide if he should be awarded first base.

In hindsight, though, Vanover apparently did not rule it a hit by pitch. Amidst some confusion, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera came around to score from second as the ball got away from Texas catcher Mike Napoli.

The umpiring crew conferred and the play was ruled a hit by pitch, so Martinez was awarded first base and Cabrera had to return to second. Detroit manager Jim Leyland subsequently argued, and my initial reaction was he had no argument. His player—Martinez—by his body language had indicated the pitch hit him, and that was the ruling on the field. To me, at the time, Leyland was arguing because he decided a different outcome was more favorable to his team.

It wasn't until his post-game press conference that we learned what Leyland was complaining about. His beef, albeit a weak one, was he had never seen umpires confer to determine a hit by pitch. In the past, home plate umpires had always told him they couldn't get help on such a play, that other members of the crew would make the ruling immediately if they saw it.

But, back to the instant replay what-if scenarios. Assuming the initial ruling on the field was the ball had not hit Martinez and, most importantly, the play had not been ruled dead, the outcomes are pretty simple. If replay determines the ruling on the field was correct (i.e. no HBP), then all subsequent action is allowed. Martinez remains at the plate and Cabrera scores from second. If the replay ruling is it was an HBP, then the ruling is exactly what happened in the actual game: Martinez to first, Cabrera remains on second.

Things get complicated if the initial ruling on the field is that the pitch hit the batter. In that case, the play is ruled dead, and this makes it more difficult to correct if it is, in fact, an incorrect ruling. Obviously, if replay subsequently confirms the HBP call, Martinez gets first and Cabrera stays at second. But, if the replay determines the batter wasn't hit by the pitch, the question is what to do with Cabrera.

Assuming the play was ruled dead on the field, Cabrera's advance from second can't be allowed, no matter what the replay determination is. After all, the defense's efforts would have stopped when the ruling on the field was to call the play dead, so there is really no way to decide what would have happened otherwise.

This would be analogous to the fumble/no fumble ruling in football. In the NFL, if the whistle blows the play dead, there is no changing the call.

In our baseball example, however, the call would be changed from a hit by pitch to simply a ball, but the runner would have to stay on second. There's no way around that, in my opinion. I suppose the runner could be awarded a one-base advance in the umpire's judgment, assuming the ball legitimately got away from the catcher, but I think this would open up another can of worms. That is, using instant replay to get one call right, while creating another potentially debatable judgment call for the umpire to make.

While this is not the best example of such a play, it does point to the potential complications created by calls on the field resulting in the play being ruled dead. A foul ball that should have been ruled fair and a home run that shouldn't have been are a couple other examples.

Scenarios created by such situations will have to be worked out in order to make expanded use of instant replay in Major League Baseball an effective solution. I think it can be done, but it's just a little more difficult than most people think.

On a related note, one thing I would like to see is more explanation from the umpiring crew regarding calls requiring interpretations of rules that aren't common knowledge to fans. It's something they do in the NFL and, although I follow football much less than I do baseball, it seems to me NFL officials receive much less criticism than MLB umpires do.

Maybe a better understanding of some of the more controversial calls would help. I'm not suggesting this be done during the games, as in football, but perhaps requiring crew chiefs to explain such calls in post-game press conferences would be beneficial.

World Series or Bust?

This is a (slight) re-write of something I posted last year at about this time. Unfortunately, it's just as apt now as it was then.

Last year at around this time, I got to thinking about what constitutes a successful season for a sports franchise. Not from the perspective of players, coaches and front office personnel of the team, but from the point of view of the fans.

As spectators, what is our primary motivation for watching our favorite sports? I'm sure the answer varies a little from person to person, but I think the common denominator is entertainment. That is, we watch the games because they are enjoyable to us. Does it get any simpler than that?

Taking this a step further, why do we choose to follow a particular team, rather than just let ourselves be entertained by individual games in which we're less personally invested in the outcomes? I would assume the answers to that question vary a little more than the first, but, I think ultimately it boils down to increased entertainment level.

So, my point here is really to ask the question, is the only entertainment value associated with rooting for a specific team to witness them win a championship? If the answer is yes, then it's a pretty said state of affairs, because that means we spend 5-6 months a year worrying about an outcome that most likely will never happen.

I contend the answer, in fact, is no. We root for a specific team because it provides us with added entertainment value, and that value is measured on a spectrum, rather than being an absolute either/or proposition. That is, the more successful our team's season, the more entertainment value they've provided us with. If they kept us believing they had a chance to win a championship for over six months—and survived only a few weeks less than the most successful teams in the league—then they did a very good job of entertaining us.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not saying I'll ever take consolation in a season that simply exceeds expectations, especially when it comes to the Yankees. In fact, it could be argued that, since the Yankees can never truly exceed expectations—although this year might be the exception—that a little entertainment value is foregone just being a fan of theirs. But, that's a discussion for another day.

What I am saying is I'm not going to let myself get sucked into that 29-losers-and-only-one-winner mentality. I enjoyed my team's success for much of the season, despite being disappointed in its final outcome. In the end, though, it provided me with a great deal of entertainment, and—with all due respect—that's probably more than the fans of about 18 of Major League Baseball's 30 teams can say.

BBA Awards: Part 1

The Baseball Bloggers Alliance has their own set of year-end awards that its members vote on, and are asked to do so in a blog post. Each of these awards is appropriately named after one of baseball's all-time greats. This being my first year in the organization, it will be my first time casting votes for the following awards:

• Connie Mack Award (Manager of the Year)
• Willie Mays Award (Rookie of the Year)
• Goose Gossage Award (Reliever of the Year)

Connie Mack Award - AL

1. Joe Maddon, Tampa Bay Rays
2. Joe Girardi, New York Yankees
3. Jim Leyland, Detroit Tigers

I'll start with the Connie Mack Award because, to me, this one is fairly easy, at least to the extent that I view such an award. When thinking about this honor, I tend to favor the managers whose teams outperformed expectations. That's really all we have to go on, in my opinion, and the two teams that most exceeded expectations were the Tampa Bay Rays and Arizona Diamondbacks.

It's not that no one predicted the Rays to make the playoffs, but not many people gave them a chance this year, especially after losing Carl Crawford, Rafael Soriano and Carlos Peña to free agency. But, what was even more impressive was how they did it, by erasing a huge wild card deficit and overtaking the Boston Red Sox on the last day of the season. To me, there's no question that Joe Maddon is the American League's top manager this year.

Connie Mack Award - NL

1. Kirk Gibson, Arizona Diamondbacks
2. Ron Roenicke, Milwaukee Brewers
3. Tony LaRussa, St. Louis Cardinals
   

It may actually be true that no one picked the Diamondbacks to reach the playoffs, and for that reason, Kirk Gibson is the clear choice for best National League skipper.

Other worthy candidates include the New York Yankees' Joe Girardi, for guiding a team considered to have highly suspect starting pitching to the best record in the American League; the Detroit Tigers' Jim Leyland, for managing a team that few expected would win 95 games; the Milwaukee Brewers' Ron Roenicke, for leading the brew crew to their first playoff appearance in almost 30 years; and Tony LaRussa, because his team pulled off almost as impressive a comeback as the Rays, and they did it without the ace of their pitching staff, Adam Wainwright.

Willie Mays Award - AL

1. Alexi Ogando, Texas Rangers
2. Michael Pineda, Seattle Mariners
3. Ivan Nova, New York Yankees

There were a lot of solid rookie performers in the American League this year, but no one who really stood out. I'm surprised that very little has been said about Ogando's chances, but he gets my vote over a couple other young starting pitchers.

Willie Mays Award - NL

1. Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves
2. Vance Worley, Philadelphia Phillies
3. Danny Espinosa, Washington Nationals

Everyone loves to downplay the importance of relief pitchers, but a rookie taking over a pretty high pressure situation, and handling it as well as Kimbrel did, is fairly impressive to me. He was one of the best in the National League at his role, so he gets my vote as the top first-year player in the league.

Goose Gossage Award - AL

1. Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees
2. Jose Valverde, Detroit Tigers
3. David Robertson, New York Yankees

If saves are an over-rated statistic, then blown saves are even more so. Valverde was 49-for-49 in save opportunities, but he also lost four games. His four losses were all tie games in which he failed to pitch the one scoreless inning he was asked to. This is basically the equivalent of blowing a one-run lead, so Valverde's lack of blown saves is at least a little misleading. So, let's face it, Mariano Rivera may have blown five saves, and lost two, but he was clearly better this year. I'm favoring closers for this award, but rounding out the top three is Yankees setup man David Robertson, who deserves some recognition for the fantastic year he had.

Goose Gossage Award - NL

1. John Axford, Milwaukee Brewers
2. Joel Hanrahan, Pittsburgh Pirates
3. Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves

Although I downplayed the blown save statistic in explaining my pick for the AL's best reliever—but, seriously, that was to argue Mariano Rivera over Jose Valverde—I'm going to use it to help me decide between three excellent National League closers. All else being fairly equal, Axford converted 46-of-48, Hanrahan 40-of-44, and Kimbrel 46-of-54.

What Have You Done For Me Lately (Part 2)?

I don't have much more to say today than this.

Well, I want to, at least.

Who Am I? (Father & Son Edition)

As father and son tandems go, we were hardly the Griffeys, but we both played over 10 years in the majors, so that's something to be proud of.

Father accumulated over 2000 hits and 50 wins above replacement (WAR) in his career. Son was a first-round draft pick (#3 overall), but never lived up to expectations, although he did show a few sustained flashes of his five-tool ability.

Continue reading, and maybe take a crack at guessing the answer, over on Pickin' Splinters.