All Systems Go For Instant Replay On Day One
We didn’t learn a lot about Major League Baseball yesterday, because we couldn’t possibly have. Though it’s fun to get some actual data going on the 2014 season, the first “real” inputs we’ve seen in many months, you hardly need me to tell you that one game is nothing near a substantial sample size. Mike Trout crushed a homer, but that doesn’t make him any greater than we already thought he was. Francisco Liriano struck out 10 over six scoreless innings, but that doesn’t mean that all the concerns we had about him being productive for two seasons in a row for once are out the window. Other than the injury issues — Bobby Parnell, Wilson Ramos, Jose Reyes — we aren’t a lot more informed about baseball than we were yesterday.
That’s probably still true about instant replay, because the five calls we saw on Opening Day mean that we still haven’t seen 25 teams use the option, and will represent a very tiny part of the full amount of replays we’ll see this year. Over time, we might be able to learn a bit about which umpires get overturned the most and which managers and teams are the best at knowing when to call for it. On April 1, we don’t know that. But since this is something brand new, and this is the first we’re seeing of it in action, it’s worth exploring — if not to judge the calls, then at least to see how the still-new process worked in its first day.
Inning: Top 5th
Situation: 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd
Call: Jeff Samardzija ruled out on back end of 1-5-4 (Neil Walker covering first base) DP
Outcome: Stands
WPA: -.142
Time from end of play to decision: 02:27
Time from challenge to decision: 01:44
The first replay of the day backed up the umpire, ruling Samardzija out on a very close play in a big situation — the game was scoreless, and the Cubs had only managed to get a runner to second base twice up to that point. If Samardzija had been safe, then Chicago has Emilio Bonifacio, who had singled twice already, coming up with two runners on. With a WPA of -.142, the play ended up being tied for the third-biggest WPA swing of the day, behind only Neil Walker’s walk-off homer (obviously) and Bonifacio getting thrown out at home in the eighth inning, although the umpire was correct here.
Despite losing the call, Samardzija praised the process:
“(The umpires) did a nice job,” Samardzija said. “It went quick and we didn’t have to sit around.”
Manager Rick Renteria was less impressed:
“I’m trying to figure out what clear and convincing evidence is supposed to be,” Cubs manager Rick Renteria said. “So it’s a work in progress. They have a lot of people looking at those videos in New York.”
Renteria said that after the game, of course, and if he didn’t seem very thrilled by the first day of the replay, it might be partially because his team was involved in a second replay, and, well:
Inning: Top 10th
Situation: 1 out, runner on 1st
Call: Bonifacio ruled safe on a pickoff from Bryan Morris
Outcome: Overruled
WPA: -.092
Time from end of play to decision: 02:35
Time from challenge to decision: 02:10
With the speedy Bonifacio on first and Junior Lake at the plate, Clint Hurdle came out to challenge a call that looked pretty clearly incorrect on the replay, and he won. In a scoreless 10th inning game, the difference between one out/one on and two outs/none on are pretty big, and what are you saving it for at that point anyway? Lake ended up striking out, depriving Starlin Castro of the chance to hit; Walker ended the game in the first plate appearance of the bottom of the tenth.
Though the play seemed clear on replay, it’s obviously not quite so easy to tell from the dugout, and Hurdle came out to discuss it before knowing for sure he’d want it looked at again:
Hurdle said he was on his way onto the field when the Pirates staffer tasked with advising the dugout whether or not to challenge a call passed word that Bonifacio was out.
“I do know that there’s no need to go busting out of the dugout right away,” he said. “You give it some time, your guy’s on it, working on it.”
That’s going to be an ongoing theme, I think, watching the manager come out to make small talk while waiting for the go-ahead from his video guys upstairs.
Inning: Bottom 6th
Situation: 0 out, bases empty
Call: Ryan Braun ruled safe on a 5-3 grounder
Outcome: Overruled
WPA: -.012
Time from end of play to decision: 01:50
Time from challenge to decision: 01:06
Fredi Gonzalez came out on the field to discuss it with the umpire, all the while waiting for bench coach Carlos Tosca to give him the signal.
So, Carlos, what’s it going to be?
Well, then. (Although as the Braves announcers noted, they weren’t sure at first if this meant “the call was bad,” or “don’t initiate the replay, Fredi.” I look forward to the first time a manager chooses not to challenge a clearly-winnable play because of a miscommunication from the bench.) This one was pretty straight-forward, really. Multiple replays showed that Braun was out, and since it was leading off an inning in a game where his team had the lead, this didn’t shift the WPA all that much, though it was an incorrect call that got set straight.
“I had a pretty good idea I was out,” Braun said. “For all of us, we just hope they get it right, and they did get it right. Whether we’re on the good end or bad end, I think as players all we can hope for is that they’re able to get it right.”
Inning: Top 10th
Situation: 2 out, bases empty
Call: Danny Espinosa ruled out on a 5-3 grounder
Outcome: Stands
WPA: .000
Time from end of play to decision: 02:25
Time from challenge to decision: 01:47
Here’s what we learn from this one: Not all replays are going to be exciting! Ian Desmond had already put the Nats ahead 6-5 with a sacrifice fly in the 10th, then after Adam LaRoche walked, Anthony Rendon crushed a John Lannan pitch into the stands to make it a 9-5 lead. Up by four, with no one on base, this play meant almost nothing to the outcome of the game, hence the .000 WPA. From an entertainment view, it wasn’t even a very clear replay, since it sure looked like Lucas Duda got the tag on, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt. This might have been confirmed because it was right; it might have been because they couldn’t prove conclusively that it wasn’t.
Reportedly, CitiField didn’t even inform the fans that there was a review going on, while the other parks all showed the replay, as they are now allowed to do. If there was anything notable about this one, it was Washington manager Matt Williams — in his managerial debut — introducing the x-factor of what instant replays mean to sportsmanship:
“We hadn’t used it until that point. It makes you feel a little funny because you don’t want to rub it in when you’ve just gone ahead. But we have to do that for our club in case we have another opportunity to get another guy to the plate.”
Just what everyone was hoping for: unwritten rules in instant replay.
Inning: Top 6th
Situation: 0 out, runners on 1st and 3rd
Call: Michael Brantley ruled out at the plate
Outcome: Stands
WPA: -.116
Time from end of play to decision: 03:02
Time from challenge to decision: 01:10
After Asdrubal Cabrera lined a ball off of pitcher Sonny Gray, who then picked it up to throw home, this one got interesting. As you can see above, there’s absolutely no question that John Jaso got the tag down on Brantley, and it was called as such. But that’s not what Terry Francona was challenging; instead, he was going after this winter’s other big new rule, the one preventing catchers from blocking the plate.
In the meantime, Gray was throwing warm-up pitches to test his leg, while Francona was conferring with the umpires. In the end, it wasn’t Francona who called for the replay at all, since managers can’t challenge this type of play, but umpire Mike Winters:
“With the new rule,” Winters told a pool reporter, “I just wanted to confirm what I saw on the field that the catcher did not block the plate unnecessarily. … He was in fair territory. He gave the runner plenty of plate to go to, and so I just wanted to be sure.”
Jaso was in fair territory, but this is easily going to be a subjective rule that’s going to be a source of controversy. Did he really give Brantley a path to score? Did the slight movement of his left leg constitute an unfair placement? That’s getting away from one rule change and into another, but replay alone isn’t going to allow an umpire to judge intent.
Unsurprisingly, Brantley wasn’t pleased:
“I did not have a lane,” Brantley said. “As you could see, I slid into both of his legs with my shins. It’s a tough call. There’s a gray area in there, but at the same time, hopefully next time we’ll get that call.”
In a scoreless game, this ended up being a big play, because only three other events on the evening — two coming when the A’s loaded the bases with zero outs in the 8th — had a higher WPA, though the Indians would end up winning 2-0.
* * *
So what did we learn? Again, nothing conclusive, not on five plays from one day. The average from the initiation of the challenge to the umpire signaling one way or another was one minute and 35 seconds, which doesn’t seem unreasonable. Of the five plays, two were reversed. That’s great in the sense that two mistakes were corrected, and about right with the numbers MLB released last week, saying that 377 calls in the 2013 season would have been reversed — over a 180-day season, that’s 2.09 per day. Three of these five came in extra innings, which makes a certain amount of sense, since those plays would seem to have a higher impact on the outcome of a game (though not always, as the Espinosa play showed), but likely a higher percentage than we’ll see over the full year.
It’s not going to be a perfect process, and it shouldn’t be expected to be. But on day one, it fixed two mistakes. Maybe the next fixed mistake is the one that doesn’t cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game, or doesn’t help give the Indians a win that may have cost Texas a playoff berth. For now, with what little we’ve seen of it, baseball is now two mistakes lighter. It’s hard to be unhappy with that.
Mike Petriello used to write here, and now he does not. Find him at @mike_petriello or MLB.com.
Watching Chris Johnson play 3B everyday is going to be the death of me.
He kinda looked like Braun did back when he came up as a 3B. Yikes.
“That’s going to be an ongoing theme, I think, watching the manager come out to make small talk while waiting for the go-ahead from his video guys upstairs.”
Yeah, this is what I’m most worried—actually, maybe just curious—about. It seems kind of silly to have the manager come out and do a pantomime of an argument while really just waiting for his video guys to take a look. Might it be a little more efficient if a manager with a challenge in his pocket were allowed to call a time-out of some defined period of time from the dugout while he waits for the guys upstairs to pass the word? I doubt you would need to even limit the number of times in an inning this time-out could be called; not enough close plays to matter.
I really wish there’d just be a 5th umpire to make these decisions. No reason to have the manager involved. The challenge system is pretty silly.
As it is, the team employee effectively acts as a 5th umpire and then once a challenge is issued, the MLB people then have to look at it. Might as well have the same people doing it from the beginning.
Fully agreed, but I don’t think they will dump the challenge system this year, so I’d like to see it streamlined a bit if possible. Long-term, I think umpire-initiated review (with occasional prompting from managers) without limits on the number of plays in a game that can be reviewed is the right system.
The umpires should really be able to control this situation. If the first words out of the umpire’s mouth are “Would you like to use your challenge now?”, the pantomime can’t last very long. But right now it seems like they’re indulging the managers, so perhaps that is what they’ve been instructed to do.
I don’t want the managers to have to make the challenge/no-challenge decision without benefit of input from someone who’s looked at the video, though. So rushing them into making the choice with incomplete information sounds like a bad option even if it would speed things up. I just think it’s silly that the only way to stop action long enough to figure out whether to challenge is to go out onto the field and fake an argument.
You’d definitely have to limit it. Can you imagine how many timeouts the Yankees and Red Sox would call if they met up in an ALCS? Those games would be 6 hours long…
Or you know, just let them have a monitor there so there doesn’t need to be a guy elsewhere telling them to challenge.
Wouldn’t that lead to sign-stealing galore?
Yes, if we’re going to figure out the ‘costs’ of challenge based instant replay, we have to add in the time wasted when managers come out to ‘small talk’, then don’t challenge after being told not to.
Bonafacio claims he was never tagged on the arm, only on the face. His hand is on the bag at that point. He was safe.
Sharks foot is clearly on the base as the ball is in the mitt. Ball has to beat the runner. He was safe But its the cubs, so nobody gives a hoot. Good thing it wasn’t the cardinals, probably be a congressional inquiry today.
You know the article has GIFs, right?
Bonifacio sure as hell looks out with the shoulder tag, regardless of what he claims. With Samardzija, I think I agree with you, but I’d like to see a freeze frame.
Re: Bonafacio’s claims
Did you take a look at the gif included above?
Or perhaps I’m misreading and this is a tryout for getting hired as a Cubs announcer.
You can’t tell from that angle if he tagged him on the shoulder. Instant replay for instant replay!
Maybe you can’t, but I’m pretty comfortable saying he did tag him on the shoulder after watching the gif several times.
Gotta agree with Anon21, you can see the jersey move where the glove makes contact…
The GIF for the footrace isn’t clear enough to call. He looks probably out, but not conclusively.
Watch Bonafacio’s sleeve bunch up when the glove touches it. No doubt about that one.
It’s possible that Bonifacio didn’t feel the tag on his sleeve (no nerves in the sleeve), so he thought he only got tagged on the head.
Tie doesn’t go to the runner sir (that’s an old myth). The runner has to beat the throw
He did if you use freeze frame from one of the camera angles.
It’s because it ended the inning and I’m not sure anyone at Citi Field was paying attention when Williams came out. I assumed he was just alerting the ump to a roster change until I saw the umpires conferring with a bunch of headsets.
But they did then announce it over the PA.
The big thing about the home plate play is Brantley’s path to the plate. He started in foul territory, then ran into fair territory to home. If he runs in a straight line from his starting spot, he has a lane to the plate. Runners have to stay in foul territory running to first, so why not have the same rule for the third base line?
That’s not a bad idea. From the gif (I haven’t seen the whole replay) it sure seems like catchers are still going to be able to block the plate. I doubt any runners get away with running into the catcher. What happens if you plow over a catcher who is blocking the plate? I assume that is auto-safe, and if they don’t call plate blocking, we’re still going to see those plays.
Catchers are allowed to block the plate after they catch the ball, even under the new rules. They can not block it before they have the ball though
The question is what is really “blocking the plate” before they receive the ball? If you catch the ball before the runner gets there, were you blocking the plate? If not, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to not block the plate. You either catch the ball before the runner gets there and you get the out, or the runner slides into you and he is automatically safe; but if you had not blocked the plate, he’d have been safe anyway. You’re just forcing guys to slide into catchers. For the runners, if the catcher is standing there, you might as well clock him. If he doesn’t have the ball, you’re safe. If he gets the ball before you get there, and you slide, you’re virtually certain to be out anyway.
I should add that I could be off on some aspects of the rules. I would like to know if I am.
Man, it’s the old “what does the thumbs down mean” confusion again. Tell you what, my practice eventually became to just always kill the guy, just to err on the side of surety. I guess what I’m saying is I’d like to see more swords involved here.
My solution is this. Stop managers from ever coming onto the field to argue or discuss calls with umpires. It’s a bloody waste of time and always has been. It adds nothing to the game.
Can you imagine seeing an NHL coach out on the ice complaining about an offside call?
If they can’t come on the field, they can’t stall until there video boy gets a look. That said I know this will never happen, so I like the 5th umpire suggestion above
“Jeff Samardzija ruled out on back end of 1-5-4”
Unfortunately, the umps got it wrong on replay too. He was clearly safe if you slow down the replay. Either the umps in NY did not get all the camera angles or they are unable to do slow motion, I dunno, but that’s just nuts that they still get it wrong.
From other angles during the game, the heel of his foot came down SHORT of the bag, by the time the front of his foot touched the bag the ball looked to be in the glove. The angle on this site isn’t the best one of that play.