Isn't the issue with reviewing any kind of foul ball call that, once the ump calls it foul, the play is dead? As soon as the ump rules a ball was foul or foul tipped, everyone (in theory) stops moving. So even if the ump blew the call, you can't go back and overturn it because you can't rerun the play. It sucks, but it's a bell that can't be unsung. You don't have that problem with when the question is whether a batter was hit by a pitch or not.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by watching the Blue Jays bullpen, dragging themselves through Twitter threads at dawn looking for an angry fix... (notwithstanding you of course Stoeten ❤️)
I'm so done with the "Charlie discourse" at the this point... Colour me extremely skeptical of throwing the second Latino manager in club history (very long overdue and underrepresented) under the bus because the moronic white-dude-dominated emotionally-infantile Twitter groupthink has decided he isn't intelligent and they don't like his emotions. Cry me a fucking river. I'm no expert in this area and certainly some criticism of Montoyo is legitimate but the absence of race from discussions about Montoyo's reception in the fanbase is notable and suspect (especially in what I suspect is among the least Latinx markets in the sport).
1. It is the humane and reasonable thing to do not to scream at an umpire who got hit in the head by Aroldis Chapman's fastball (the racial dynamics of the Twitter mob on this play also give me pause).
2. This bullpen would make any manager look bad.
3. Why does it matter if he says they're having fun? At particular moments it seems like they aren't, but on the whole they remain pretty jovial and I don't really think that's a bad thing. If that means he's not the right guy for the market, maybe they should look in the mirror. Should the team be depressed, constantly angry? That seems unreasonable. He certainly has expressed frustration.
4. Save the Stripling incident (no big deal) the squad has been extremely drama free and he deserves at least a little credit for that.
This exact question (did the bat hit the ball) comes up all the time in cricket, and they do something I'm surprised MLB doesn't do, and that I've never heard baseball fans talk about (perhaps merely through my ignorance).
Cricket pitches have a mic near the wicket, and if the question comes up, they play the mic audio and waveform alongside the slomo of the batter. There will be a distinct jump in the waveform as the bat and ball pass each other if they did, in fact, touch. Very easy to tell, and it doesn't rely on seeing a blurry smudge make a miniscule change in trajectory, which is hard to tell.
Maybe it just doesn't come up enough in baseball for anyone to care about solving this problem, or maybe just nobody has thought of it? Maybe there's not a lot of crossover between cricket and baseball workers (seems very likely lol) so the idea hasn't cross-pollinated?
Anyway, yes, should be reviewable, and with a good audio feed, should take about 5 seconds to do the review.
That's amazing. I've always been told that cricket has been ahead of the curve on replay stuff and using technology like that, so that tracks! Though, like most baseball fans, I must admit my understanding of cricket is very minimal. This is exactly the kind of stuff Theo Epstein, in his new role in the commissioner's office, should be looking into. Tennis makes great use of technology in ways that could benefit baseball too. You'll hear Mark Shapiro talk about learning from teams in other sports, including ones beyond North America. Seems obvious to explore what works elsewhere, but that doesn't "feel" very MLB to me. Would love to see it change.
It's called the 'Snickometer' on cricket broadcasts with a 'snick' being the ball hitting the bat. Not sure how many instances it would be used in baseball though. The Gurriel incident was pretty unusual.
Isn't the issue with reviewing any kind of foul ball call that, once the ump calls it foul, the play is dead? As soon as the ump rules a ball was foul or foul tipped, everyone (in theory) stops moving. So even if the ump blew the call, you can't go back and overturn it because you can't rerun the play. It sucks, but it's a bell that can't be unsung. You don't have that problem with when the question is whether a batter was hit by a pitch or not.
Well that's simply an excellent point.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by watching the Blue Jays bullpen, dragging themselves through Twitter threads at dawn looking for an angry fix... (notwithstanding you of course Stoeten ❤️)
I'm so done with the "Charlie discourse" at the this point... Colour me extremely skeptical of throwing the second Latino manager in club history (very long overdue and underrepresented) under the bus because the moronic white-dude-dominated emotionally-infantile Twitter groupthink has decided he isn't intelligent and they don't like his emotions. Cry me a fucking river. I'm no expert in this area and certainly some criticism of Montoyo is legitimate but the absence of race from discussions about Montoyo's reception in the fanbase is notable and suspect (especially in what I suspect is among the least Latinx markets in the sport).
1. It is the humane and reasonable thing to do not to scream at an umpire who got hit in the head by Aroldis Chapman's fastball (the racial dynamics of the Twitter mob on this play also give me pause).
2. This bullpen would make any manager look bad.
3. Why does it matter if he says they're having fun? At particular moments it seems like they aren't, but on the whole they remain pretty jovial and I don't really think that's a bad thing. If that means he's not the right guy for the market, maybe they should look in the mirror. Should the team be depressed, constantly angry? That seems unreasonable. He certainly has expressed frustration.
4. Save the Stripling incident (no big deal) the squad has been extremely drama free and he deserves at least a little credit for that.
re: The Gurriel call
This exact question (did the bat hit the ball) comes up all the time in cricket, and they do something I'm surprised MLB doesn't do, and that I've never heard baseball fans talk about (perhaps merely through my ignorance).
Cricket pitches have a mic near the wicket, and if the question comes up, they play the mic audio and waveform alongside the slomo of the batter. There will be a distinct jump in the waveform as the bat and ball pass each other if they did, in fact, touch. Very easy to tell, and it doesn't rely on seeing a blurry smudge make a miniscule change in trajectory, which is hard to tell.
Maybe it just doesn't come up enough in baseball for anyone to care about solving this problem, or maybe just nobody has thought of it? Maybe there's not a lot of crossover between cricket and baseball workers (seems very likely lol) so the idea hasn't cross-pollinated?
Anyway, yes, should be reviewable, and with a good audio feed, should take about 5 seconds to do the review.
That's amazing. I've always been told that cricket has been ahead of the curve on replay stuff and using technology like that, so that tracks! Though, like most baseball fans, I must admit my understanding of cricket is very minimal. This is exactly the kind of stuff Theo Epstein, in his new role in the commissioner's office, should be looking into. Tennis makes great use of technology in ways that could benefit baseball too. You'll hear Mark Shapiro talk about learning from teams in other sports, including ones beyond North America. Seems obvious to explore what works elsewhere, but that doesn't "feel" very MLB to me. Would love to see it change.
It's called the 'Snickometer' on cricket broadcasts with a 'snick' being the ball hitting the bat. Not sure how many instances it would be used in baseball though. The Gurriel incident was pretty unusual.