Cliff Lee to Rangers: That’s Not Right

Yesterday, Cliff Lee was traded from the struggling Seattle Mariners to the surging, first place Texas Rangers.  The Rangers exchanged prospects and 1st baseman Justin Smoak for Lee and reliever Mark Lowe.  Sounds pretty cut and dry, doesn’t it?  However, the Texas Rangers are currently being run by the league.  The club declared bankruptcy recently, and as a result Major League Baseball has taken over the ownership duties for the club.  This normally severly inhibits an organization’s ability to make big free agent transactions, because the club is already in debt and is being monitored by Major League Baseball.  The Rangers have been fortunate enough to play well with the players it has had, without the club making any big free agent transactions.  However, the trade for Cliff Lee is a trade that should never have happened, and is unfair to the other potential Cliff Lee suitors.

In this deal, the Rangers will have to pick up about $2 million of Lee’s remaining salary.  It is difficult for me to understand how an organization can bring in Lee and pay an extra $2 million when it has already declared bankruptcy and is under the jurisdiction of Major League Baseball.  How could the MLB do this?  How can the MLB rightfully allow the Rangers to make such a deal when the club is already so far in debt?  I find it completely unfair to the rest of Major League Baseball, and if I were Bud Selig, I would send a message to the rest of Major League Baseball that declaring bankruptcy is not a postion in which an organization wants to be, or a position in which an organization can thrive.  Think about the precedent that is being sent.  While no one wants to declare bankruptcy, in terms of baseball status, it isn’t a bad thing at this point.  Even in its bankrupt state, the Rangers have no problem signing an elite pitcher, and have no problem paying half of his remaining salary. 

If a club declares bankruptcy, it should no longer have full control of its personnel decisions, and should not be able to take on extra salary.  It isn’t fair to teams that actually have the money to make the deal.  For example, both the  New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies had expressed interest in acquiring Cliff Lee.  These teams are 2nd and 3rd in the NL East, respectively.   Both teams were looking for a top of the rotation type starter to give themselves a spark in the 2nd half of the season and to catch the surging Braves.  However, because the Rangers were able to acquire Lee and pick up a portion of his salary even while in bankruptcy, neither of these teams could pick up Lee.  This could have a large impact on the tight NL East race.  It is the same situation that exists in the AL East and the AL Central, among other divisions, and it isn’t right.

Dallas Braden Throws Perfect Game

After a short hiatus due to my final exams, I will now continue my daily sports blog.

_________________________________________________________________________

Yesterday, journeyman pitcher and Oakland Athletics starter Dallas Braden threw only the 19th perfect game in baseball history against the Tampa Bay Rays.  To throw a perfect game, a pitcher must not allow a baserunner and record 27 consecutive outs in a complete game effort.  Braden completed this rare feat on Mother’s Day, which is special to Dallas considering his mother died of skin cancer when he was in high school, and he was raised by his grandmother since then.  Braden was able to celebrate with his grandmother, who has meant so much to him and his career, on the field after the game.

This perfect game comes less than 2 weeks after Dallas Braden and Alex Rodriguez had a verbal fight after A-Rod as a baserunner ran directly over the pitcher’s mound on his way back to first base in a game that Braden started.  After this action by Rodriguez, Braden repeatedly yelled, “Get off my mound!”  After the game, A-Rod retorted that Braden “just told me to get off his mound. I was a little surprised. I’d never quite heard that. Especially from a guy that has a handful of wins in his career … I thought it was pretty funny actually.”  A-Rod, isn’t it pretty funny that Braden has now done something that is more rare than you will ever do in your career, other than of course being one of the most overpaid athletes in sports.

Dallas Braden is now the second pitcher in Athletics history to pitch a perfect game (Catfish Hunter was the first).  The Athletics are one of the oldest franchises in Major League Baseball.  Braden becomes the second pitcher in less than a season to throw a perfect game.  Mark Buerhle threw a perfect game last season to beat the same Tampa Bay Rays against whom Braden threw a perfect game yesterday.

Why Instant Replay in the MLB is NOT the Solution

Yesterday, I blogged about how the instant replay debate in Major League Baseball gained strength, and why instant replay would be beneficial for the MLB.  However, although instant replay is the popular choice of fans, and there appear to be advantages to instituting instant replay, in my opinion it would be extremely difficult and not fair to institute instant replay in a very large capacity.

Instant replay works so well in football because plays end.  There is a definitive start and a definitive end to the plays, and then there is time between the start of the next play.  In baseball, however, the ball is almost always in play, unless time is called by a manager, player, or umpire.  So even as an event occurs on the field, the play doesn’t end, like it does in football.  This difference is difficult to visualize without a concrete example.

In football, if a player fumbles the ball, and everyone jumps on top of the ball, the play is over.  Therefore, a referee can review the play to see if the runner’s knee was on the ground before the ball came out.  In this way, instant replay works extremely well in football.

In baseball, however, if a line drive is hit to the 3rd baseman, and he catches the ball close to the ground, the umpire on the field will call the batter out.  What if there was a runner on first?  This runner would attempt to return to first before the 3rd baseman could throw back to 1st.  Let’s say that the runner on 1st is thrown out at first.  What would happen next?  The offensive team would want the play to be reviewed, but this would open up more questions than there originally were.  Let’s say that it was decided after review that the ball was not caught but instead was shorthopped by the 3rd baseman.  What would happen?  We would have no way to know what the 3rd baseman would have done if the umpire had no called it a catch.  Would he have thrown to second in the effort to either turn two or get the lead runner? Would there be time for a double play? Or would he simply throw to 1st in the effort to get the safe out?  The point is that there is no way to know what would have occurred after this call, and therefore instant replay in this situation causes more questions than answers.  In this situations, instant replay would not be beneficial for baseball.

There are other situations in which instant replay would not work in Major League Baseball.  For example, if on a potential tag play with the bases loaded, it is called a shorthop on a shallow fly ball, the runner is forced to scamper home because it is a force play.  Let’s say that he is thrown out on this play.  If, after review, it is determined that the ball was caught, then the runner would not have needed to run home, for it would no longer be a force with the batter being called out.  Would the runner have still gone home if it was called a catch, or would he have stayed at third because of the shallowness of the pop fly?  There is no way to know, and that decision should not be made for the runner, as the runner had no ability to make such a decision.  Therefore, the institution of instant replay in this scenario would also not be beneficial for baseball.

One more example to drive the point home.  9th inning, tie game, runners are on 1st and 3rd, with one out.  The middle infield is playing halfway to allow for both a double play to be turned or to be able to throw home to get the lead runner.  A shot is hit up the middle, and the shortstop tosses to the 2nd baseman, but it is not a very good toss.  It appears to be close as to whether or not the 2nd baseman is pulled off the bag, but the umpire calls the runner out.  As a result, the 2nd baseman throws to 1st to complete the double play.  What if this play was reviewed and it showed clearly that the 2nd baseman was off 2nd when he caught the ball, too far off to even give the benefit of the doubt?  Well, if the runner was called safe at 2nd on the play, the 2nd baseman would have done one of two things.  He would have either tried to retouch 2nd before throwing to first, as it was a hard hit ball, or he would have thrown home to stop the potential game winning run.  The 2nd baseman did not do either of these things, however, because the runner was called out at 2nd originally.  Therefore, is it really fair or pragmatic to theorize or debate what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the correct call was made originally?  Absolutely not.  It isn’t fair to either team, because the players were simply reacting on the spot to the calls that were made on the field, and it is impossible to try to recreate these situations with a call on the field changed.

These are only a few of many examples of how instant replay would not work in baseball.  It has been shown in sports such as football, tennis, hockey, and basketball that instant replay can work in terms of catches, fumbles, and more in football, in or out in tennis, goals or no goals in hockey, and if the shot beat the buzzer in basketball.  However, instant replay works in these cases because these plays have a definitive end after the event being reviewed occurred.  In baseball, this is just not the case and as a result replay can ONLY be implemented in the very limited form that it is now.  Home runs and boundary calls are the extent to which replay should be implemented, because in these cases, there is a stoppage to the play to the point where no more actions can occur until the ball is put back into play.

********************************************************************

Final Example that I thought would be beneficial after I published the entry:

Runners on 1st and 3rd, 2 outs in the inning.  The runner takes tries to steal 2nd and gets thrown out and the inning is over, but replay review shows he was safe.  In this case one cannot say whether or not the second baseman would have thrown home to stop the runner at 3rd from scoring if the call on the field was safe.  One also cannot say whether or not the runner woulda been out at home if the 2nd baseman would have thrown home.  Therefore, one cannot try to recreate situations on the field with any effectiveness.

The fact is, the situation i described above doesn’t END when the umpire makes the call, and thereby the player has some reaction to the call made on the field.  After the call is made on the field, the situation cannot be recreated and the players’ potential decisions based on a reviewed call cannot be guessed.  This is one more of the many examples of why instant replay in baseball should not be expanded past its current role.

The Cause and Benefits of the MLB Instant Replay Debate

Instant Replay.  Major League Baseball.  These two phrases have never been linked throughout the history of baseball.  Even as instant replay was implemented in other sports, such as football, basketball, hockey, and tennis, the issue was simply disregarded by baseball officials.  Instant replay became the elephant in the room; the issue no one would address but everyone knew was there.  In 2008, replay was primitively instituted in the MLB.  Umpires could only review boundary calls: fair or foul with regards to a home run, and whether a potential home run ball cleared the fence.  In reality this tool was almost never used.  This was the extent of the replay system, and Commissioner Bud Selig maintained that instant replay would not be further instituted.  Most fans accepted this statement.  However, this attitude changed during the 2009 MLB Postseason.  The issue of instant replay became the focus of attention in early October 2009, as a large scale debate among fans, announcers, players, and managers erupted.

So why did instant replay become a popular topic?  What changed that caused the sudden uproar?  The increased attention on the subject stems from the rapid increase in television broadcasting and filming technology.  Television networks now have the ability to broadcast baseball games through crystal clear HD cameras, providing fans with a unique viewing experience.  Fans can watch games on television almost as clearly as people who attend the games can.  Fans can also see every close call in slow motion replay, and have the unique ability to see each call much more clearly than the umpires can.  Therefore, the improved technologies of television networks such as FOX and TBS, coupled with the fan’s ability to see missed calls clearly, have directly led to the large scale debate about instant replay.

Another cause for the popular debate that erupted over instant replay during the 2009 Playoffs is the fact that many fans watch the playoff games.  Each playoff game is nationally televised, and as a result the television networks have much more viewership than during the regular season.  The regular season, which is 162 games long, spans nearly six months.  Many fans do not pay close attention to the regular season because of its length.  In addition, each team has its own local network, and only a few games each week are nationally televised during the regular season.  However, the postseason lasts for approximately one month, and is much more exciting and intense than the regular season.  For these reasons, many fans who did not watch much regular season play watch the entire postseason.  Baseball television ratings spike during the playoffs.  Therefore, the advanced technology that displays the flaws of umpires is magnified in the postseason due to the increased viewership.  Every baseball fan, from casual to dedicated, sees every bad call umpires make on national television during the playoffs.   

In order to not sidestep the issue, it is also important to realize that umpires are, to an extent, responsible for the demand for instant replay.  As an umpire, I can say that while umpiring is a difficult job, it is not impossible.  In order to be successful as an umpire, it is important to know the rules of baseball thoroughly, to put oneself in proper position to make the calls, and then to execute the correct call.  Major League umpires know all the rules; that is not the problem.  However, the umpiring crew expands from four members in the regular season to six members in the postseason.  This produces a crammed feeling in the field of play, and can confuse umpires as to specifically which call is their responsibility.  For six months umpires have worked together on a four man crew, so it is no surprise that suddenly changing to a six man crew for the postseason would be confusing.  This change in operation is a possible reason why umpires are sometimes out of position when making calls and do not execute them correctly during the playoffs.  Although the new HD camera technology and increased fan viewership are both important reasons why a call for instant replay has arisen, the simple fact is that there would be no lobbying for instant replay if umpires were performing to their capabilities during the playoff games.

Now that the causes of the demand for replay have been identified, what are the possible consequences of the increased debate over instant replay in Major League Baseball?  Could a change be produced?  One consequence of the debate will most likely be that the Commissioner and other baseball officials will find some system to make the fans happier.  Baseball is a business that thrives upon its fans.  Fans fill the 50,000 seat stadiums 81 times a year, buy the merchandise from the MLB, and serve as the nourishment to keep the sport alive.  If the fans are not happy with the current product, it will be changed.  In the economic climate that exists today, teams are having enough trouble filling their stadiums with fans.  Now many fans are disgruntled with the fact that umpires are compromising the integrity of Major League Baseball by making the wrong calls.  Commissioner Bud Selig will need to change something to reverse this negative trend.  He can not continue to remain silent on this issue, as the stakeholders in the MLB, the fans, will begin to abandon the sport if they are not satisfied with the product.  Therefore, a possible consequence of the fans’ call for instant replay will be that Commissioner Bud Selig will attempt to institute a system that permits instant replay on questionable calls. 

Given the possible consequences from the instant replay debate, should instant replay be incorporated into Major League Baseball?  If so, what type of system would be instituted?  It seems that because of the possible negative consequences that may arise from the poor performance of umpires, an instant replay system needs to be implemented.  Coupled with the fact that most other major sports have instituted instant replay with much success, baseball needs to take the step to keep up with the technology utilized by sports such as football, basketball, hockey, and tennis.

However, baseball needs to be extremely careful about how it institutes an instant replay system.  A Major League Baseball game averages just over three hours.  The length of these games is one of the biggest complaints voiced by fans.  Therefore, the replay system needs to be effective in that it allows the umpires the means to make the correct call in close situations.  It also needs to provide umpires with an efficient, quick way to complete the call so as to not substantially increase the length of games.

The easiest, most efficient way to solve this problem is to allow managers to “challenge” any call other than the strikes and balls.  Each manager would only be delegated 2 challenges per game, as coaches are in football.  The umpires themselves would not make the call, because it would take too long for them to find the camera, make a definitive decision, and then restart the game.  Instead, each umpiring crew would include a person seated in the press box with access to a television monitor.  This official would have full control over the decisions on challenged calls.  The umpire-in-chief on the field would communicate with the replay official in the press box, and thereby these calls would be made within a minute, and rarely more than two or three minutes.  This system provides a quick, efficient, and effective way to institute instant replay without radically changing the game of baseball.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I take the opposing stance and argue why further implementation of instant replay in the MLB would not be beneficial.