Philadelphia Phillies v Atlanta Braves

MLB is not entitled to instantaneous benefit of the doubt on the replay challenge system

37 Comments

My ire at the challenge system announced yesterday is not based on the presumption that it will be an utter failure. I must, and hereby do, acknowledge that, yes, some calls that were bad will be fixed as a result of a challenge system. And I will grant that that’s better than nothing.

Nor do I think that my preferred system would be perfect. No system will be. So let us dispose with the notion that I’m yelling about the perfect being the enemy of the good here. I’m not doing that at all. My issue, as I explained yesterday, is partially philosophical and partially practical.

The philosophical: making a challenge system is an abdication of baseball’s responsibility to get calls right by putting the onus on a manager to challenge or not. Taking what should be a given in baseball — the right calls being made at maximal levels — and turning it into a choice. Adding a strategic element to it. Saying — as some definitely will when it inevitably happens — that it was the manager’s fault a bad call wasn’t overturned rather than the ump’s. Once you make that choice you’ve changed the conversation about bad calls, and I find that troubling.

Practically I have problems in that, while MLB and its surrogates have argued that other systems weren’t practical and that a challenge system is the best, they’ve not explained why the challenge system isn’t subject to the same problems as others or why it’s better in any actual way.

Jeff Passan’s column today is in that vein. It basically says “a challenge system isn’t perfect, but it’s good and good is better than nothing and don’t think that the people who came up with it haven’t thought of everything first.”

To sit there and blame those at MLB for this is wrong-headed. The game itself is to blame. It is not altogether receptive to replay … Of course Tony La Russa, John Schuerholz and Joe Torre, the influential members of the league’s Executive Council who helped shape the final plan, would like broader replay in a vacuum. Even Bud Selig, a longtime replay opponent, wants more than this. Anybody who thinks a group of smart men is sitting in a room and conspiring to come up with ways not to get calls right should check out the window, because those black helicopters are mighty close.

Well, of course they thought of things. They are smart people. But if they have reasoned this out so well, why did the announcement yesterday not explain these pros and cons? Instead of explaining why a fifth umpire scenario is unworkable, why were we condescended to with “it’ll be unique and charming” and “this will empower managers” when (a) it won’t be unique and charming; and (b) managers hate it. Why was there no explanation as to how a challenge system will present shorter delays and stoppages in play than an alternative? As it is now, the one thing that stops a game dead cold in its tracks is a manager walking on to the field, for any reason. This system demands that that happen, as often as eight more times a game if managers use all of their challenges.

Which isn’t to say the assumption is wrong. It’s to say that the men who brought us “this time it counts” to the All-Star Game should not, as a matter of course, get the benefit of the doubt when changes are brought to the game. They should not be allowed to simply pat us on the head and say our concerns aren’t warranted because smart men like Tony La Russa — who came up with over-specialized bullpens and loudly promoted the “unwritten rules” —  thought everything through.

La Russa is a genius and a Hall of Fame manager. Bud Selig has a track record of bringing in change that many opposed but which ended up working just fine.  But neither of them are infallible.  They should be required to explain to us why alternatives — including some which are used in other sports leagues — aren’t ideal. Explain to us why this system — which is more radical in nature than those alternatives in terms of whose responsibility it now is to get calls right — is the best.

Until it can do that and can do it satisfactorily, I don’t think accusing those of us unhappy with the system as proposed as conspiracy theorists and hysterics is all that reasonable.

Angel Pagan body-slammed a fan on the field

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SEPTEMBER 13: Angel Pagan #16 of the San Francisco Giants argues with umpire Jerry Meals #41 after a called third strike during the first inning against the San Diego Padres at AT&T Park on September 13, 2016 in San Francisco, California.  (Photo by Jason O. Watson/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

Don’t interrupt Angel Pagan in the middle of a wild card race. Better yet, don’t interrupt him at all.

A fan learned that the hard way during Friday’s Giants-Dodgers game. In the fourth inning, a group of fans ran onto the field with white flowers in their hands, presumably to hand to Giants players. According to eyewitness accounts, one player was reprimanded by San Francisco starter Madison Bumgarner, while Buster Posey fended off another.

Angel Pagan, however, took more extreme and inventive measures.

On-field security started closing in on the fan as he approached Pagan, but didn’t appear to pick up the pace until the outfielder dropped him on the field.

Vin Scully, who was wrapping up the third-to-last game of his career, provided play-by-play of the incident.

A couple of kids, trying to steal a moment, slow down the game, running on the field and just taking a big moment on the big stage. They’ve got one of them in right field, and the other one is nailed down by Pagan in left field. And the crowd loved that! They went up to do something with Angel Pagan, but [Pagan] grabbed him and slammed him to the ground, and they’re taking him off the field. […] Doesn’t that bring you back to the ’60s, and the flower children? Oh what, you don’t remember the ’60s? Okay.

The next time you want to send a message to a player, maybe try a tweet (throw in a flower emoji or two if you feel so inclined). Just don’t make a showy display of affection in the middle of a game. It’s bound to go badly, at least where Angel Pagan is concerned.

The Rangers have home-field advantage through postseason

ARLINGTON, TX - SEPTEMBER 30:  Yu Darvish #11 of the Texas Rangers throws against the Tampa Bay Rays in the first inning at Globe Life Park in Arlington on September 30, 2016 in Arlington, Texas.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Leave a comment

Thanks to Yu Darvish, the Rangers will enter the postseason as the No. 1 seed in the American League.

Darvish was outstanding on Friday night, pegging the Rays with a 3-1 loss on three hits, a run, and 12 strikeouts over six innings. It was the crown jewel of performances for the right-hander, who is carrying a 3.53 ERA and 2.3 fWARP in his first season since undergoing Tommy John surgery in 2015.

The Rangers, who have gone 1-5 on days when they’ve offered Darvish fewer than four runs of support, eked out a two-run lead against Tampa Bay starter Matt Andriese. Adrian Beltre roped an RBI single in the first inning, followed by a pair of solo shots from Carlos Beltran and Rougned Odor in the third and sixth innings.

With the win, the Rangers clinched home-field advantage through the World Series, thanks to a 4-2 win in the All-Star Game back in July. Getting to the World Series will present another challenge entirely, though Darvish figures to stay in the mix with Cole Hamels as the Rangers build toward the Division Series on Thursday. If they advance against the wild card winner in the ALDS, they’ll face either the Indians or the Red Sox in the Championship Series.