One American League player, when discussing the use of replay for fair-foul calls, said that the bottom line for players and fans "is to get the game called right".
But an ESPN confidential poll of 100 major leaguers shows that an overwhelming majority of players do not care about making sure the game is officiated as accurately as possible.
Only 36% believed replay should be used on fair/foul calls and 22% would like to see replay on base calls. (I'm curious how many players now approve of reviewing questionable/possible home runs. I'll bet the number of positive votes has increased since replay was introduced.)
I was surprised to see that only 12 of the 100 players thought Jim Joyce's incorrect call at first base, which denied Detroit's Armando Galarraga a perfect game on June 2, should have been overturned.
7 comments:
I read that article the other day and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the majority of players would not want to ensure that calls are made correctly. Do they prefer to argue in vain to the men in blue?
However, I'm not surprised by the last statement. I still cannot wrap myself around the idea of changing that call, as incorrect as it was (and I willingly admit that it was incorrect - you'd have to be blind not to realize that).
I was surprised to see that only 12 of the 100 players thought Jim Joyce's incorrect call at first base, which denied Detroit's Armando Galarraga a perfect game on June 2, should have been overturned.
I'm not surprised by this in the least. I'm not surprised by any of it, actually.
Because once we start having robot umps, we'll soon have robot players. And then nothing will stand between us and a robot apocalypse. Or something.
Maybe they just don't want the game slowed down by constant replays? Of course there'd be ways to mitigate that with war rooms and ump earpieces, but that's not the system they're used to now with home run calls.
My thought is the umpires aren't the only ones who want the games to not go on forever, and I would think that sure, it sucks when a bad call affects you negatively, but there's just as much a chance that a bad call will affect you positively.
So uh, just as long as the umpires' shitty calls are consistent, I guess?
Or! And here's a WILD concept for you... The players truly do not care one way or the other. The majority are just there to play baseball and make tons of money.
Because once we start having robot umps, we'll soon have robot players. And then nothing will stand between us and a robot apocalypse. Or something.
You sound like you've been reading the "Surviving Grady" blog. LOL
I'm with the players on this one. I just hate the idea off introducing replay. The human element is one of the things that seperate baseball from most other sports. I teach my little leaguers that it won't always be the right call, but you live with it and hope the next one goes your way. Very rarely will one bad call have the huge impact that it had in the case of Joyce's call. But if it does, move on.
I also think it would hurt the sport's popularity. The most common complaint about baseball that I hear is that it moves too slow. I of course disagree, strongly, and believe these comments come from folks who just don't get it, but anything that slows the game down would probably result in losing some borderline fans. I think losing fans is bad - serious fans or not
It's possible to make replay work if they can turn around and respond to a challenge quickly. Plus, it should be like what they have in football where you get two challenges and only certain calls may be challenged.
One baseball analyst suggested having the crew chief wear an ear piece and have a "fifth umpire" in a booth already reviewing each play before the challenge is made. That would probably be preferred as opposed to the entire crew scamper down the dugout steps and back into the clubhouse.
I'm not as worried about the "casual fan" losing interest if it means getting the call right.
Post a Comment