MLB Should Fight Technology with Technology
Earlier in the week, it came out that the Red Sox had been using an Apple Watch in their dugout to relay information about the Yankees’ signs from their video replay staff. While sign stealing isn’t illegal, the use of electronic communication in the dugout definitely is, and for violating that rule, MLB will now have to punish the organization in some way. And if they want to use this punishment as a deterrent to keep other teams from following in Boston’s footsteps, they’ll have to go beyond a slap on the wrist.
But realistically, given where technology currently is, trying to use punishments as deterrents could easily turn into a game of whack-a-mole. As Jeff Passan notes, every team does stuff like this, but they just hide it better.
Boston’s greatest crime was the obviousness with which it employed the scheme. Generally speaking, according to sources, if someone on a team’s video staff cracks an opponent’s signals, they are run from the video room to an intermediary in the dugout and forwarded to players on the field. The Red Sox’s crime, according to sources, was sending the decoded material via Wi-Fi rather than vocal cords.
This was particularly stupid because while no rule outlaws sign stealing, the no-technology-in-the-dugout statute is well-known. Nonetheless, sources familiar with the investigation do not expect the penalties on the Red Sox to be harsh. The suggestion they will vacate victories against the Yankees is nonsensical, and the likelihood MLB will dock them draft picks is minimal. The most likely upshot is a fine for the organization, with possible suspensions for those involved in the actual scheme, according to sources.
Video replay isn’t going anywhere. Communications devices are only going to get easier to hide, and if teams think they can get a significant advantage by relaying signs in real-time, they’re going to keep doing it. And unfortunately for everyone involved, the best counter to sign stealing is for the pitcher and catcher to just chat on the mound more often. No one should want more mound visits, so this is a path MLB should want to avoid.
So, instead of placing stricter limits on the use of wearable technology, perhaps the best counter to this development is to fight technology with technology. One of our commenters put this pretty succinctly yesterday.
In today’s world of wearables, the pitcher and catcher don’t really need signs at all. Give the pitcher an embedded microphone on his glove — one that is only sensitive enough to capture words spoken when he holds it near his face, thus allowing pitchers some microphone-free time when they want to be off the record — and the catcher an ear piece to hear what the pitcher says. The pitcher can then tell the catcher what he wants to throw, and the catcher can shake him off until they settle on a pitch and location. With no more signs to be stolen, the problem goes away.
Now, this would be a pretty substantial change to the game, and I’m sure there would be some initial resistance to having the pitcher be the one to initiate the call, instead of shaking off the catcher’s calls. With a batter standing close to the catcher, it would be more difficult to give the catcher the microphone, since the opposing batter might just overhear the call. But since the pitcher is the one who has final say on what gets thrown anyway, having him be the one to dictate the original signal might be a bit of a time-saver, which MLB is always looking for.
Of course, some pitchers almost never shake their catchers off, and perhaps it would be too drastic a change for those who are used to just following their backstop’s orders to be the one making the decision. If the pitchers now have to think about what they want to throw, rather than just confirm the catcher’s request, maybe it would actually slow things down as they process their options.
If switching to pitchers calling the pitches was a bridge too far, there are still technology options that could make signs obsolete. Perhaps the catcher and pitcher get modified Apple Watches, since MLB and Apple like their official partnerships, where the catcher simply tapped on a modified user interface to indicate to the pitcher what he wants next. Sure, it wouldn’t be as fun to watch pitchers and catchers staring down at small screens on their wrist as they negotiate pitch calls, but it would likely take less time than the current way of doing things.
Those are just two ideas. Given more time and access to a host of developers, I’m sure even more elegant solutions could be conceived.
Trying to put limits on technology’s uses will inevitably lead to teams finding new ways to get around whatever rules MLB drafts. If they really want to eliminate teams using current technology to try to poach each other’s signs, then the best path might be to use technology to eliminate the need for signs to begin with.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Just give catchers the mic and make batters wear noise cancelling headphones.
Minor issue is that the batter would have to remember to look back at the ump every time since he can’t hear called strikes.
Or if Dave Cameron is on the mound. Don’t blink for fastball. Blink for…oh wait. Damnit
Tech won’t solve much. MLB will just hack it to support their own self-interest–money–and then lie about it.
Who needs tech when you can just hire ‘The Man in White’?
I don’ think the mic in the glove is the solution. I am not an audio guy, but I think directional mics would pick that up pretty easily. You also touch on the point that the pitcher is not the one calling pitches. They either come from the dugout or the catcher at all levels. Unfortunately, pitchers just aren’t fit to call their own pitches. Pitchers generally do not have the best understanding of hitters. There certainly are exceptions, but there is a good reason that managers are rarely pitchers and they are often catchers.
As far as the iWatch suggestion, I don’t understand how that would speed things up at all. A sign is a sign. Getting the signs doesn’t take time – agreeing takes time and that wouldn’t change. There would be all kind of malfunctions, just like in football which would be intolerable. Can you imagine the beating that the piece of equipment would take? We are talking about catchers and they get beat up back there. I also don’t understand how this would inherently be secure.
I know it is a tough pill to swallow for many people, but technology is not always the answer. Sometimes less is more. Trading one problem for another Apple-branded problem isn’t a win for anyone except Apple. Signs will always be stolen and it will always be talked about more in the media than by the players.
All good points, though I still think that it could be done.
As far as the pitchers calling their own game, that’s a change to the game itself rather than just a change in communication method. Chris Sale, for example, says he never shakes off a sign and never even pays attention to batters’ tendencies.
As far as the time factor, technology wouldn’t eliminate the negotiations between pitcher and catcher. But it would eliminate mound visits to go over or change the signs. Mound visits are something MLB is trying to cut down anyway.
Would it really be that hard to come up with something durable enough for a catcher to wear? All you really need is 4 or 5 little buttons and some kind of wireless transmission system. Put it on his throwing hand (which he usually hides behind his back for safety anyway). And if it somehow gets ruined by a foul ball, there’s no reason he can’t run to the dugout to get a new one.
Hacking is an interesting issue. The current cat-and-mouse game of sign-stealing is created by the fact you have a stadium full of people, the players, and the coaching staff staring at *clearly visible* signs while simultaneously thinking about what pitch is going to be thrown next; naturally, your brain can’t help but to try to figure out the signs. Hacking would be a much more of an egregious and unnatural form of cheating. If a team actually hacked into the other team’s wifi/bluetooth signal, wouldn’t such a breach be detectable?
There would be more than 3 or 4 buttons, which is what makes this a completely unrealistic piece of equipment. There might be 3/4 pitch buttons, but location would also have to be in there – at this point it needs a big enough touchscreen to relay that information as well. There would also be pick-off buttons etc. It is very much an outsider view that there is only a few things happening from the catcher. I am not pointing at you, but the general discussion. Honestly, most of this didn’t even occur to me until I responded to your reply – which I enjoyed.
As far as durability, we like to pretend that things are a lot more durable than they are. In football the headsets (well-established) technology malfunction more often than they should. Everything malfunctions more than it should! These are the same forces in play that cause concussions and major injuries with all kinds of bulky protective equipment. Likely, the wi-fi signal would be the problem and we all know how reliable wireless signals are – especially with tens of thousands of devices in the vicinity. When I look at it like that, I think it actually sounds like a bad idea.
As far as the cyber-security, breaches aren’t necessarily detectable. In fact, there is no reason to assume that it would be detectable at all. If there was a breach it would be worse than sign-stealing as you would know exactly what was coming with 100% certainty.
The x-factor with sign stealing is that you don’t know what is coming with 100% certainty. I don’t think fans get that. I have played in games where a coach has the signs and has offered them to me. I never want them – I think most people don’t. If the coach is wrong, then I have no chance. If you are expecting a curve and you get a fastball, then you are toast. Game over. More often than not, sign-stealing is just a convenient excuse for a loss or a clickbaity headline. If the signs were digital, then a stolen sign would be 100% certain to happen and that would be a real problem for the defense. It is just not the issue that a lot of people think it is. Kenley Jansen is going to throw his FB on the next pitch he throws and it will be located right down the middle – it doesn’t really matter much to the hitters.
P.S. Run Ronnie Run
Y’all are brutalizing me!
Exactly, with the added caveat that some of the malfunctions would be due to MLB trying to rig things.
Abandon all faith in MLB corporate, ye downthumbers.
I don’t think that pitchers are inherently incapable of calling their own game; they just haven’t been conditioned to do so. It would take time to change the conditioning of course, but it could be done.
And I would argue that catchers often become managers because they have dealt with the whole game: hitting, injuries, ‘managing’ pitchers, strategy. No where else on the field has the same perspective, and it’s especially difficult for pitchers to have that whole perspective since they never dealt with the failure that’s unavoidable. While much of the game has moved to being more digital and objective, that seems to have reduced the strategic role of the manager and instead made the communication and personal interaction issues of his job more important.
I disagree with you here about pitchers, not really on the catchers – it all fits my argument pretty well. Catchers have no choice but to understand everything, including how to pitch to hitters. I don’t think most pitchers are fit to call the game. It is tough to explain, but I can try…
Even if a pitcher were fit to call a game he would not be better than a catcher. A pitcher may pitch 200 innings in a year, but a catcher catches 500+ innings from a variety of pitchers. That is just a better resume. Additionally, catchers don’t have any illusions of grandeur. Pitchers have their egos too wrapped up in things to see things clearly. They always overestimate themselves – they have to! As soon as emotions enter the equation, their judgment is clouded.
More importantly, pitchers don’t understand hitting or hitters very well. They think that they are out there making everything happen, when in fact that is not accurate at all. They are at the center of everything, but they don’t make anything happen by themselves. The perfect pitch can get hit out of the stadium. An absolute meatball could be taken or swung at for strike three. Pitchers think that pitching is more important than it is. There, I said it and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but that last sentence captures it for me. Personally, I cringe when I hear a pitcher talking about baseball. Over-analyzing every pitch and giving other pitchers way too much credit. Obviously, I am conjuring up images of John Smoltz here. In the baseball coaching world, you have coaches and then you have pitching coaches. Coaches are generally pretty interchangeable except for pitching coaches – they have their own world and it doesn’t have a lot to do with anything else that happens on the field. I don’t like the idea of pitchers making decisions as all they necessarily understand is themselves. I say that, but then you have a guy like, Trevor Bauer, who is his own worst enemy. He thinks he understands things really well, but he clearly doesn’t understand what he needs to understand. That kind of character is pretty common among pitchers. Can you imagine how poorly an RP would understand the big picture? Ironically, most of them throw 75% FB with a secondary offering for the other 25% which is a really easy mix to call.
All great points. I don’t know if I have much to add, just love the discussion and want to participate.
A catcher can make his pitcher look great. A catcher can make his pitcher look terrible. Or he can have a minimal impact or minimal detriment. But I don’t know that a catcher is often a neutral factor to the pitcher though.
The catcher has a better view of the batter – meaning reaction/footwork/hip load/intent/thoughts – of the hitter. The pitcher can and certainly does identify things from his position as well. But not as much or as often as the catcher.
One thing that would be lost, that at least for me would be irreplaceable would be a fake shake off. When I caught I heavily used fake shake offs, primarily in middle to late innings when ahead in a 2-strike count, but to an extent across all counts and innings. Not for base runners, but for batters. Hard to stay unpredictable when he hasn’t shaken you off for 5 innings and 1 or 2 pitches are clearly working better than the other couple pitches. Even at a semi-pro level ‘multiple times through the lineup’ is a real thing. Catchers have a big part in that. There was also pickoffs mentioned, and of course pitchouts go hand-in-hand with that, as do step offs and resets.
I am a biased opinion trying my level best not to be. As an explanation and example, I still catch probably 40 games a year between a summer league, tournament teams, etc. a couple Octobers ago I caught a AAA arm from MIL in a tourney game. He only played for 1 of our 6 games, so he hadn’t seen me catch, knew nothing about me and had the more credible resume. Aside from telling me his pitches, he asked for MY signs. It was my game to call, every facet, and it wasn’t even questioned or as much as a passing thought. This year I’ve played with a rookie ball arm from the Rays and he was wicked but knew it so a more challenging teammate – same thing – catchers game. So I don’t feel I’m coming from an overly dated or unrealistic point of view. I KNOW some big hits and losses were my fault. Calling the wrong pitch, wrong time, wrong location, getting cute, stubbornly trying to pitch backward or try to outsmart the hitter when I shouldn’t have. But after about 25 years of calling games, I have gotten so much better, and I though I still make mistakes I KNOW many important moments and games turned out well because of the game I called.
That said, I did play one season with my manager calling the game. It sucked but it didn’t ruin the game or immediately render our team hopeless or anything.
Anywho. Good stuff!
Fighting technology with technology
Over something that broke us apart
But at least I was hidein’ & tryin’ Diana
To keep it from breakin’ us apart
Mind blown.
Yes please.
Now that you mention it, why not have the pitching coach with the mic, and the pitcher and catcher just have ear pieces. Just like the NFL. A pitcher can still shake off a sign if he doesn’t like it, and pitching coach goes to the next idea. Lot faster still than running through signs especially when men are on base.
Yeah perhaps this is a more refined version of the proposal.
I guess I’d need to know the disparity between % of games called entirely by catchers and % of games called by pitching coaches.
I like this idea… Even if the catcher still wants to call the pitches, let him. And when a guy is on second, the pitching coach can quickly change the indicator or sequence or whatever to change the signs without a mound visit. Also, the runner on second would not know when the signs were being changed so he’d be more reluctant to try and steal the signs.
Because pitching coaches are not pitch-callers. They are not better-suited to the task than catchers. Catchers see things in the hitter that you can’t see from the dugout. Probably more importantly, catchers know the current zone and how the pitchers stuff is currently working.
What are we talking about in terms of total time wasted on sign-based mound meetings? 1 to 2 minutes? I would take the under on that. The big conversations are not the shake-offs, they are the “hey man, we are not on the same page here” discussions, which will always be an issue. Half the time, it is just an important pitch and they want to discuss it rather than exchange glances.
Or the catcher who isn’t currently playing, if you’re devoted to catchers doing it.
The importance of “the catcher doing it” is that the catcher *is* playing, haha.
Pitch Security: Thank you for calling Pitch Security. Your call is very important to us. First, please tell me what kind pitches you throw.
Max Scherzer: I throw all the pitches.
Pitch Security: Thank you. For fastball-away, press 1. For fastball-in, press 2. To waste a fastball-up, press 3. To buzz the tower, press 4. For Curveball-away, press 5…
Maybe MLB could form a partnership with Facebook so that they could use Facebook’s new brain reading technology to let pitchers and catchers send each other little FB messages through thought. I’m only kind of kidding. techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/facebook-brain-interface/
Assuming either end of the battery needs a microphone might be a mistake, too. Having the catcher actually speak into a mic is a very hard sell. Give the catcher an input device with maybe 5 buttons though, and the barrier is a lot easier to overcome. The pitcher has an earpiece that hears the outputs, such as “1, 2, 3, 4, 5”. If a pitcher has more variations on his pitches than those 5, they can use a series of buttons, and also use a series of buttons to indicate location, or whatever else. “1,1” is a glove-side fastball. “2,5” is a curveball in the dirt, etc. Very simple, minimal impact on the visual aspect of the game, practically impossible to steal the signs.
Just a thought – mental telepathy
Was that a pun?
Dave, it’s always nice when you give commenters their due. Booj, take a bow.
As the game gets more micromanaged, at some point managers will be calling each pitch like in college. Might as well just give him the mic with the catcher and pitcher just being lap dogs.
How much say does the coaching have in pitch decisions? If they have any, my first thought was give the catcher and the pitcher an in-ear earbud of some kind and have the coaches dictate what pitches to throw. However, as I typed this, your argument of fighting technology with technology (which I think is more forward thinking than what the MLB is capable of) would come into play here. Almost certainly technology exists to intercept these kind of communications. Now we’re getting into some CIA shit and it’s getting extra weird.
You could also let the catcher have the mic, and have coded messages so the batter doesn’t overhear what pitch he’s calling.
IF (a BIG IF, for some of the good points made above) a Mic is used at all, the Catcher should have it, for the reasons presented nicely by those with playing experience. The Catcher has the best seat in the house, knows the hitters, and the ump’s strike zone (at least until the perfection of UmpBot 3000). Let the Catchers and Pitching Coaches for each team develop their own codes — and much like a Quarterback does he can rattle off a quick sequence of seeming non sequiturs (much quicker than the NFL clock though– and here we are looking again at the inevitable pitch clock) until the pitcher gives the nod and throws the agreed pitch. Change up the codes frequently, like changing your passwords regularly. This sort of coded communication is already a fundamental part of the Game, just usually used by managers and base coaches to signal hitters and runners.
With many of the masks the catchers use now, I don’t think keeping the batter from hearing the pitch call would be that hard. The catcher could whisper for additional protection.
The microphone and earpiece could use a private frequency which could change at predetermined times (I am assuming that the radio bands for this could be found somewhere on the spectrum). Finally, the catcher’s calls could be encrypted and decrypted by the receiver. Voice encryption has been around for decades. The encryption key could be changed as often as desired, preferably by a simple button that the catcher could push which would send the new key to the pitchers earpiece.
Alternatively, instead of an earpiece, the pitcher’s rubber could be replaced by a high definition screen, and he could just look down for the information.
Even if the pitcher/catcher watches were a good idea (and I agree with most of the objections voiced here), I’m not crazy about introducing more and more technology that distances MLB (and maybe the upper Minor Leagues) from Little League and the lower Minors. I understand the importance of replay (although hasn’t this made umping a minor league game more important than umping a MLB game?), but the more we add to MLB, the more dissimilar the games there become from games played at a lower level.
It’s not such an adjustment for things like replay, where it doesn’t affect the players so much, bus this would be a big difference.
I do not agree that the solution is to fight technology with more technology. There *is* a minimum cerebral requirement for being a professional athlete, and if teams figure out ways to change indicators or signals on the fly then they shouldn’t be playing professional sports.
If your standard NFL team makes its players learn crap like “flip right double-X jet 36 counter naked wagglet seven X quarter,” I’m sure baseball managers could create some frickin lingo for a slider in the dirt.
They could set up the “which pitch to throw” app just like Tinder – both the pitcher and the catcher have to swipe right on a pitch for it to be chosen.
Or is it swipe left? 😀