Replay Is Fine, Everyone
We spend a lot of time fretting about baseball. Baseball games take too long; teams use too many pitchers and make too many visits to the mound. There are too many strikeouts; there aren’t enough balls put in play. These complaints are dressed up in anxiety over the game’s future, but I think the real worry is closer to home. It’s about us. I think what’s really at the center of it is a gnawing concern that these slowdowns will make us want to watch something else entirely, that we might come to find baseball boring.
But there are worse things than being bored. Wednesday night, in the fourth inning of the Dodgers-Rangers game, Adrian Beltre scored on a close play. It appeared that Austin Barnes had tagged him out, but home-plate umpire Sean Barber disagreed. A man in the crowd was inspired to make a face.

Dave Roberts challenged and it went to a replay, which began at 2:02:25. The home broadcast showed some slo-mo.
https://gfycat.com/GloriousDearestClam
The broadcast was confident the replay would go the Dodgers’ way. Enrique Hernandez, whose throw looked like it had nabbed Beltre, seemed confident. Beltre looks pretty out.
But at 2:05:00, the call on the field was upheld. The crowd booed. They’d spent more than two-and-a-half minutes waiting around — only to lose out. It didn’t end up mattering: the Dodgers won in the 11th inning after Hernandez evaded a tag of his own. But for those few minutes in the fourth, Dodger fans were something worse than bored. They were bored and angry. It’s a terrible combination of things to feel, and one that replay seems to inspire often, which is understandable, though I’ll admit it makes me worry about how passionate we are for justice. And so, in all our fretting about the game, I thought I’d check in on replay and see how it is going so far this season.
Baseball Savant maintains a handy replay database, but it doesn’t include 2018 replays yet, so it’s Retrosheet to the rescue. Retrosheet’s data also includes the duration of each replay — an indispensable data point for those concerned with the dull and enraging. They update their data every two weeks; the replays I’m analyzing are through May 31.
Two quick notes. First, the time listed for each replay is from the beginning of the review until New York’s decision is announced. That might seem like an obvious point, but it may, in some cases, undersell the length of the delay on the field. Last year, I wrote about an 18-minute long replay at Dodger Stadium. It was a rules check and the longest replay of 2017. Retrosheet has it taking 8:34. So there’s a bit of squishiness here.
Second, in case you’ve forgotten (and honestly, why would you remember?), before the 2017 season, MLB released new guidance that, with a few exceptions, the Replay Operations Center in New York has two minutes to render a decision on a play. That’s what they’re driving toward. It’s part of keeping us from feeling bored and angry.
Now, some observations.
You might ask, “When is replay most likely to occur?” Maybe you’re naturally curious about things. As you might imagine, challenges become more common the later into a game a team gets.
| Inning | Confirmed | Overturned | Stands | % of Total | Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 19 | 8 | 6.19% | 70.37% |
| 2 | 2 | 22 | 7 | 7.11% | 70.97% |
| 3 | 5 | 23 | 12 | 9.17% | 57.50% |
| 4 | 5 | 21 | 18 | 10.09% | 47.73% |
| 5 | 7 | 29 | 16 | 11.93% | 55.77% |
| 6 | 6 | 30 | 18 | 12.39% | 55.56% |
| 7 | 10 | 22 | 15 | 10.78% | 46.81% |
| 8 | 21 | 20 | 27 | 15.60% | 29.41% |
| 9 | 13 | 25 | 14 | 11.93% | 48.08% |
| 10 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2.52% | 27.27% |
| 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1.15% | 40.00% |
| 12 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0.92% | 75.00% |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.23% | 0.00% |
Through May 31, managers initiated 436 challenges, a full half of which have came between the sixth and ninth innings; indeed, since replay expanded in 2014, close to 49% of the replays in nine inning games have come between the sixth and ninth innings. The eighth inning saw the greatest number of challenges, but also the lowest success rate, among non-extra innings frames. That makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. Late in games, I would imagine, managers are more inclined to challenge borderline calls, both because the stakes are higher and because why the heck not? You can’t take those challenges with you. More borderline calls also means more calls on the field that stand or are confirmed, but why not try? Maybe that runner in scoring position is actually out on the tag!
And speaking of tags, you might also wonder, “What is getting reviewed, and for how long?” The below table shows all 2018 replays by type, along with the average and median duration of the replay in minutes, and the success rate for challenges of each type.
| Type of Replay | Number of Replays | Total Minutes | Average Minutes | Median Minutes | Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tag Play | 197 | 288 | 1.46 | 1.32 | 47.21% |
| Force Play | 174 | 213 | 1.22 | 1.15 | 57.47% |
| Home Run | 35 | 49 | 1.41 | 1.37 | 25.71% |
| Hit by Pitch | 35 | 42 | 1.19 | 1.00 | 40.00% |
| Catch/No Catch | 15 | 23 | 1.51 | 1.47 | 46.67% |
| Fair/Foul (outfield) | 7 | 14 | 1.99 | 1.35 | 42.86% |
| Rules Check | 5 | 9 | 1.76 | 1.98 | 0.00% |
| Stadium Boundary | 4 | 9 | 2.16 | 2.25 | 50.00% |
| Slide Rule | 4 | 5 | 1.17 | 1.20 | 0.00% |
| Runner Placement | 3 | 6 | 1.92 | 1.68 | 66.67% |
| HP Collision | 3 | 4 | 1.41 | 1.35 | 0.00% |
| Fan Interference | 2 | 4 | 1.84 | 1.84 | 50.00% |
| Passing Runners | 2 | 4 | 1.82 | 1.82 | 50.00% |
| Record Keeping | 1 | 1 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 0.00% |
| Touching a Base | 1 | 1 | 1.10 | 1.10 | 0.00% |
| Timing Play | 1 | 1 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.00% |
| Tag-up | 1 | 1 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.00% |
Fans have, for the most part, stayed out of the way. Despite recent dustups, the slide rule that caused so much controversy in years past hasn’t been much of an issue, or at least has merited little investigation. Umpires mostly know what a catch is. Force plays seem a bit trickier, though they didn’t take long on average to sort out. Stadium boundary replays took the longest, both by average and median length in minutes, though there weren’t many of them. With the exception of the boundary plays, replay officials are, on average, adhering to their two-minute guidance. Of the 490 total calls, 377 have been two minutes or under in length.
But I think the most common category of replay underscores the enterprise’s greatest challenge (no pun intended). Now, I haven’t watched all 197 tag replays, but I would hazard a guess that some portion of them — perhaps a significant portion — involve runners coming off a base ever so slightly for just a teeny tiny touch of time. We’ve seen this sort of replay play out, sometimes in big moments of important games, resulting in a guy who would have been safe for the 100 years prior suddenly being out. We can’t exactly blame managers for asking that tags be reviewed; we’ve told them there might be an out hiding in there. And some portion of these allow us to examine swim moves and close plays, and that isn’t a terrible use of time. But we’ve spent some part of 288 minutes peaking under guys’ fingers and toes. Avengers: Infinity Wars, for sake of comparison, was only 160 minutes and involved a bunch more people. I submit that this is when we are at our most bored, and certainly our most angry.
And of course, fans of some teams should be angrier and perhaps more bored than others.
| Challenging Team | Total Challenges | Confirmed | Stands | Overturned | Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 23 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 34.78% |
| Diamondbacks | 19 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 63.16% |
| Twins | 19 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 47.37% |
| Yankees | 19 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 68.42% |
| Mariners | 19 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 36.84% |
| Angels | 18 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 50.00% |
| Cardinals | 18 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 44.44% |
| Blue Jays | 18 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 38.89% |
| Phillies | 17 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 70.59% |
| Pirates | 17 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 41.18% |
| Red Sox | 15 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 46.67% |
| Tigers | 15 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 66.67% |
| Royals | 15 | 0 | 2 | 13 | 86.67% |
| Giants | 15 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 66.67% |
| Rays | 15 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 46.67% |
| Nationals | 15 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 53.33% |
| Cubs | 14 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 57.14% |
| Indians | 14 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 50.00% |
| Marlins | 14 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 50.00% |
| Rangers | 14 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 42.86% |
| Rockies | 13 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 61.54% |
| Athletics | 13 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 46.15% |
| Dodgers | 12 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 41.67% |
| Mets | 12 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 41.67% |
| White Sox | 11 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 54.55% |
| Padres | 11 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 18.18% |
| Brewers | 9 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 33.33% |
| Astros | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 50.00% |
| Orioles | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 28.57% |
| Reds | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 42.86% |
| Grand Total | 436 | 77 | 140 | 219 | 50.23% |
None of these samples are large enough to tell anything definitive, but as an indication of efficacy so far, we can learn a few things. The Royals, Phillies, and Yankees have fared the best in their challenges. The Braves have challenged more times than any other team, but have a middling success rate. They are still doing better than the Padres, who (in admittedly fewer attempts) have a league-worst success rate. The Orioles fare only marginally better.
Baltimore did initiate the longest challenge of the year, a review of a fair/foul call that lasted 4:32 they ultimately won.
Everyone looked thrilled as they waited.

Just a great day at the office.

We can also see something interesting when we look at the distributions of how long reviews take, grouped by their result.

The graph isolating 2018 is a bit rougher, but retains the same general shape.

From 2014 to -18, a “stands” call took about 40 seconds longer than “confirmed” or “overruled” calls did, which I think shows that replay is generally working how you would want it to when you consider that the standard for overturning calls made on the field is having “clear and convincing evidence” that the call was incorrect. One would hope that if a call were obviously right or obviously wrong, it wouldn’t take very long to reach that conclusion. Absent some bit of striking evidence, best to leave it be.
I think it is worth adding a small bit of perspective to this analysis. We’ve all had the experience of seeing a replay go the “wrong” way. We’ve all felt like our boys have gotten jobbed. We’ve been Wednesday night’s Dodgers’ fans. We begin to question the whole endeavor.
But we might benefit from recalling how frustrating it was, in the era of slo-mo and hi-def, to know that a call on the field was wrong, to be able to see it right there, and then have to watch as a baserunner trudged back to the dugout when he should have been on base, or as a pitcher was left to contend with a runner who should have been erased by a tag. It felt unfair. It felt silly. It felt like an injustice. We’re sometimes bored and angry now, but we were also bored and angry then! And it isn’t costing us that much. The season isn’t done, but so far, 2018 is following a trend of replay times decreasing as the years go on.

These aren’t huge numbers to begin with; I doubt even a close observers could perceive the difference between 2015’s average replay time of 1.85 minutes and 2017’s 1.46. But it isn’t ballooning out the other way, either. Through May 31, MLB was on pace for 1,285 replays, which would be the lowest number since replay was expanded in 2014. That could change, of course, but it hasn’t been so bad so far. It’s an attempt to get things more right more often.
I calculated how much time each team had spent under replay review, including both those reviews they had initiated and those initiated by their opponents or by umpires, and compared that time to their total game minutes in 2018. I’ll spare you another long table, but the team that has spent the most time in replay as a percentage of their total playing time is the Blue Jays at… 0.57%. That’s a little more than 58 minutes across all their games, and theirs is the worst of it.
That isn’t so bad. Replay gets things wrong from time to time; we all have bad days at work, after all, and humans remain fallible, even with slo-mo. But I’m not sure the game is well served by putting too strict a clock on justice. Not even when we’re bored and angry.
Meg is the editor-in-chief of FanGraphs and the co-host of Effectively Wild. Prior to joining FanGraphs, her work appeared at Baseball Prospectus, Lookout Landing, and Just A Bit Outside. You can follow her on Bluesky @megrowler.fangraphs.com.
One change I think that would benefit fans and MLB is to have an official twitter account that, for every replay challenge, posts the screenshot or short clip that convinced the umpires in New York to make the call they did.
Given the amount of challenges we have, and the willingness of young, tech-savvy workers to intern with MLB, I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. It provides a public check on MLB’s rulings while providing fans an explanation.
It isn’t a bad idea. I imagine they don’t because they don’t want to invite protracted arguments with fans. They do have a twitter account for replay (https://twitter.com/MLBReplays) but it doesn’t offer much in the way of explanation. I know they do occasionally come out after the fact and say a replay call was wrong, though. So there must be some watchers watching the watchers as it were.
MLB has a feature that does this on their website under videos. The tag is Definitive Angle and it shows the specific footage that determined the result of every replay challenge
Just no one knows about it
Check it out here:
https://www.mlb.com/video/search?q=definitive+angle
This is important because sometimes the definitive angle does not belong to one broadcast or another of even both.
I’ve argued for the following for a long time:
Replay reviews should be done in “Real Time.” That is, whoever the official is reviewing the play, should only be allowed to see the replay at full speed. No slowing down the motion, no super zooming in.
Replays are intended to correct egregious umpire errors only. The human element should always be kept. If an umpire made an obvious error … real time instant replay will solve that. If a player barely stepped off a base, or a glove just scraped a players uniform – those shouldn’t be corrected with replay.
Real time instant replay will also dramatically reduce the time needed to review a play. An official upstairs, or at a central location will be shown the play in full speed once, maybe twice – and then he has to make a quick call … safe or out – if it is an easy call to overturn.
This suggestion keeps the human element intact, allows bad errors to be overturn, and speeds up the process too.
You already have a real time decision, defeats the entire purpose of replay.
Also, why would you want the replay official to make a split judgement without considering all of the information available? You are already stopping the game, ignoring slow mo excludes information that every fan has.
I don’t think I agree with the premise that replay is only intended to correct egregious errors. There’s a difference between “clear and convincing evidence” and an “egregious error”.
I also don’t understand the desire for a “human element” in umpire calls. The human element of baseball is watching humans do things with baseballs that normal humans can’t. Not seeing umpires make mistakes.
But replay does not eliminate inaccurate calls (see Wednesday’s Dodger game), it merely reduces their frequency to some degree. The cost is a lot of waiting around (plus the unintended consequence of fishing for outs).
I could support a version of replay that is initiated by a player on the field, and if the call is upheld, that player is ejected from the game. That would preserve replay for the egregiously wrong calls, and prevent its use for fishing expeditions.
This is quite possibly the worst replay idea I’ve ever heard. What happens when the reviewer messes up and reverses a good call? All this does is add a second layer of uncertainty. If you actually like the uncertainty, just get rid of replay.
I like the idea, but I think “real time” should mean that the replay official gets until the next play starts to do whatever he or she needs to do. If there is an obvious and egregious missed call, they get however long that lasts until the pitcher throws the next pitch (say 30-60 seconds) to signal the ump that a play is overturned. If that’s not enough time, then it isn’t obvious enough.
Yeah, I think we’ve gotten used to it now. Sometimes the delay stretches long and you always wonder “what the hell do they need to keep looking at”. They could potentially set something like a 90 second hard cutoff, since after that point, that’s after the bulk of the “confirmed” or “overturned” calls lie, and where the “stands” calls actually take the lead. But that’s a minor issue that only saves you 30s some of the time, not big in the grand scheme of things. And I’d still love them to revise the “foot came off the bag for a fraction of a second” type of ruling, but anything they changed it to would certainly cause even more confusion.
I thought Dave’s suggestion from 2016 of a safe zone above the base was a pretty good way to address the foot off the bag stuff, which I agree is maddening https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/its-time-to-change-the-slide-rule/
Me too, especially since I brought it up in 2015 !!
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/terrance-gore-and-fixing-baseballs-broken-replay-system/
My problem with the replay system isn’t so much the time taken, it’s the inconsistent results.
Last night there was a HBP situation where it was clear that the ball never hit the batter. It may have grazed the knob of his bat but whether it did nor not, it would have been a strike since the pitch was caught. The batter stated that he didn’t think it hit him and everyone except the umpire seemed to agree. Somehow the review didn’t find the video to be conclusive or whatever so the HBP stood. The play in question is in this article: https://www.mlb.com/news/tyson-ross-records-quality-start-in-atlanta/c-281288850
As a Padres fan (the team with the lowest success rate in the above article), this has been infuriating. There have been several calls this season that are clear to everyone but the umpire who made the call and the review office. I’m all for taking the time needed to get the call right, but when they have a chance to review the play and still get it wrong the system is failing.
My thoughts on the time situation: Add one more umpire to each travelling crew who will sit in a video room and watch the game. For obvious calls, he’d probably have a decision before the umpires on the field put on the headset. If he can’t make a clear call, then send it off to the MLB office.
Next, give the Crew Chief an earpiece & mic with a direct connection to the ump in the booth. He can be in contact with the booth ump immediately and then before the manager elects to review the play he might have the decision ready. This would also make the umpires’ decision to review a play quicker as well.
Yes, this. Except not “send it off to the MLB office.” If they don’t see something obvious enough to overturn before the next play, it doesn’t get overturned.
You and everyone else is biased on this one because of the way Flowers reacted. Just looking at the replay, it looks like the ball is very close to hitting his pinky finger (I agree it probably didn’t). Are the replay officials supposed to look at Flowers’ conversation with the umpire? I’d say no. I’d say that jumping up and down and flailing like a moron because you were “hit” should not be rewarded so thus when someone doesn’t do that, you should still review with the same standard.
I do think this was a close call because it seems doubtful that the ball hit him, but it’s not extremely clear cut absent the evidence Flowers provided himself. Whatever standard is used, there are always going to be calls that are near the standard, and arguments over whether there is enough evidence. This was clearly in that zone of calls that no one would say it is more likely that he was hit than not hit, but as an admitted very biased Braves fan, I talked myself into believing that maybe his pinky came up just a bit and the ball ever so slightly grazed it. My guess is NY saw the same thing and they ignored the parol evidence.
And the call tonight that went for the Padres was at least as likely to be wrong.
my issue with replay is not the time it takes. my issue is that even after it’s reviewed, i’m still so often disagreeing with a call that now feels entirely arbitrary.
“So often” is still a lot less than it would be without replay.
Thank you for the informative analysis! One thing I do not understand, though, is the reason for concluding that replay is fine, which seems to be based on the observation that “We’re sometimes bored and angry now, but we were also bored and angry then! ” when comparing the current era to the pre-replay one.
1. Why were we bored before, when there were no minutes-long delays?
2. If we’re still angry after close calls even with replay (this happens in a significant fraction of upheld calls), then what are we buying with our minutes-long delays?
Yes. We were often angry before, but it also created a lot of engagement that built generations of fan arguments (Jeffry Maier, the ARod slap, Denkinger, etc.).
While it’s not good for there to be missed calls, at least that created emotional responses in people. Now we are angry slightly less often but bored far more. That’s not a good thing.
Just look at the Royals’ sparkling results! They may need to hold some seminars. The Padres’ coaching staff would be the first to sign up, it appears.
Suggestion: If the booth can’t figure it out in 90 seconds, the play stands.
The same people with replay hangups will always be angry about it, but at least they won’t be able to add ” … and it took so long” to their list of grievances.
They should also tie in the booth views to the stadium jumbotrons. Why have people in the stadium should be wishing they were watching at home instead.
The best argument I can think of against replay is that there is no finality to plays when they happen. You score the winning run, and you cheer like mad. But then you you cheer hesitatingly, wondering if the play will be reviewed and maybe overturned. The excitement is diminished. It’s far better to cheer a run scoring as it happens then to cheer an umpire making a hand signal 2 minutes after it happens.
Cheering a call you spend the rest of your life knowing was wrong is no bargain.
I don’t think replay is perfect, but it certainly eats up less time than Earl Weaver-style arguments and tantrums.
Though that was entertaining as all hell to watch. Sweet Lou’s blowups were fun too
I couldn’t disagree more. Replay is terrible. Baseball is entertainment, not the justice system where correct by the letter of the law is the most important thing. 2 minutes of replay to see if someone’s foot bounced off the bag for a frame of video is bad for the game. 30 seconds of that is bad for the game. I’m not against replay to correct clear and apparent wrongs. I am against breaking the flow of the game to change the practical nature of rules that were written long ago and has been played this way (to great success as a form of entertainment) for generations. If you want things to be so precise, put microchips in the ball, gloves, and cleats and eliminate the tomfoolery where someone in New York watches TV for 3 minutes and can still get it wrong.
It was probably only ok for generations that were only listening on RADIO, or were sitting several hundred feet away from the action pre-Jumbotron, or had standard-def/black-and-white TV sets with maybe two camera angles from the TV broadcast. Most bad calls weren’t OBVIOUS like they are today. Heck, why don’t we go back to those old oven-mitt gloves too, since those were ok for generations as well. Let’s bring back obstructed view seating, since that was fine for generations who had to sit behind support poles too. ALso, they didn’t have batting helmets for a long time too, let’s do away with those too while we’re at it.
Replay is not fine.
It’s an anal retentive blot on a game that was never intended to be this specific and it allows for replays on way too many types of plays.
And I was a big proponent of replay when it was implemented but it simply doesn’t feel right to me
“Record keeping”? What? Did they review a scorer’s decision, or how an ump marked something in his little notebook?