Rougned Odor Slides Around Instant Replay
In the latest example of how playoff baseball is less predictable than a deer by a roadway, the Rangers just won two games in Toronto, with Ross Ohlendorf slamming the door, and with Rougned Odor’s baserunning arguably occupying center stage. In a game that sent 109 men to the plate, it wouldn’t be fair to suggest it all came down to one or two events, but there’s one event and one event only that’ll be dominating the conversation until Game 3. If you watched, you know what it is. If you didn’t watch, you probably still know what it is, because umpiring controversies have a way of getting around.
With two down in the top of the 14th, Odor slapped an infield single. That put the go-ahead run on first base, and then Odor advanced to second on a subsequent single. Odor actually rounded second aggressively, thinking about getting to third, but then he decided to return. Yet, cleverly, Jose Bautista threw behind him. There was a tag attempt, and, immediately, the play became everything.
In real time, it’s not too remarkable — it just looks like a smart play that very nearly worked.
But then the umpires proceeded to an instant-replay review, and as we got to see the play in slow motion, we all realized Odor might well have been out. It’s not that Odor didn’t beat the tag from Troy Tulowitzki; it’s that Odor’s foot could’ve come off, with Tulowitzki’s glove holding on his shin.
The crowd responded favorably to the review. It responded favorably not just because it meant there was some question, but because the crowd got to watch the replays on the scoreboard, and those replays made an out look highly likely. I think, increasingly, the crowd assumed an out call. It was a wonderful pendulum swing: a base hit turning into an inning-ending out, even though nothing looked strange in the moment. It seemed like a gift, a very minor miracle. Here’s the best I could time a screenshot:
The glove is on the leg. The cleat, at least, isn’t firmly on the base. Because of the angle, we can’t conclusively say whether there was space between Odor and the bag. It seems probable there was.
After the review, the crew chief signaled safe. Odor was alive on second, the Rangers alive in the 14th, and shortly thereafter Odor would score the go-ahead and eventual winning run. For good measure, the Rangers added a run of insurance. Then came Ohlendorf, then came preparation for a long flight to Texas.
It’s not the call that blew the game. True, after the call, the Rangers scored and won. But, at the time, the game was tied. There was no guarantee the Jays would score before the Rangers would. And in terms of win expectancy, the difference between Odor being safe and out was worth 11% to Toronto. Hanser Alberto’s single was worth 37%. Delino DeShields‘ single was worth another 8%. Even when Odor was called safe, the Jays still had an easy route out of the inning. They just needed to not let him score. He scored, and the Rangers scored twice after the first two batters made outs.
So you don’t want to exaggerate the significance of the play, but at the same time, you have to realize that with another call, the Rangers don’t have any chance to score, at least not until the Jays make three more outs. Now, I know some people don’t love the idea of these plays being reviewed in the first place. In the live game chat, several people expressed negativity that technicalities like this could potentially erase runners from the bases. It would presumably be a violation of the spirit of the thing for a runner to be called out because he came off for a fraction of a second with the glove still in contact. While I sympathize with those who find the review process to be slow and interruptive, it’s also a matter of enforcing the rules and deciding where you’re going to draw the lines. If a player comes off a base for a full second, and he’s tagged, he’s obviously out. If he comes off a base for half of a second, he’s obviously out. So, where’s the line? As far as I’m concerned, the line ought to be zero seconds. If we have a rule, and if we have the technology, we might as well use the technology to enforce the rule. Even if it seems like splitting hairs, the whole idea of replay review is to improve upon the capabilities of the human eye. It’s to make potentially clear what isn’t clear at full speed.
As for this play itself: it doesn’t seem like you can know anything for a fact. What the umpires seemingly didn’t have was a clear angle showing Tulowitzki’s glove on Odor’s leg, with space visible between Odor’s cleat and the base. That would be conclusive, but this review asked the umpires instead to infer. They had to figure out what the other side of the base looked like, based on the action of Odor’s lower leg when he slid. My guess is they couldn’t rule out the possibility that Odor had a spike on the base. So they stuck with the original call, not seeing enough evidence to go the other way. Me, I think there’s enough evidence, and I also think that, had Odor been originally called out on the field, the umpires would’ve stuck with that after review. I think they just wound up in that horrible gray area, and then psychology kicked in. Odor was probably out, but the original call is powerful. In theory, at least in my ideal world, replay reviews should result in calls based on the preponderance of the evidence. In reality, it seems like that’s not what we see.
I don’t really think baseball umpires like to make decisions based on inferences. Last night, I watched hockey refs change a call after review, based on an inference. You’d think the behavior would be the same. I guess this is just anecdotal.
And this is a nice reminder of how narratives can mislead. It’s a reminder that baseball games can come down to the littlest things, and, while the Rangers just went into hostile territory and took two games from the favorite, that doesn’t have to mean anything deep about the Rangers, and it doesn’t have to mean anything deep about the Blue Jays, because in the 14th inning, this happened:
…mere minutes after this happened:
The character of a team isn’t dependent upon an instant-replay review that almost couldn’t be closer. The character of a team isn’t dependent upon a proven slugger missing a walk-off home run by maybe two feet. The Rangers won the game, and deserved to do so. The Blue Jays could’ve won the game, and would’ve deserved to do so. The playoffs aren’t any more fair than anything else. It’s your fault if you expect them to be what they aren’t.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
“In theory, replay reviews should result in calls based on the preponderance of the evidence.”
In the NFL, at least, that’s not how it works. An original call is reversed only if there is beyond reasonable doubt evidence. Whether this is the way it ought to be is certainly up to debate, but it’s not a bad rule, IMO.
The NFL is a joke. The refs toss flags for holding after a RB breaks through a hole, call defensive holding once a QB leaves the pocket, and call interference penalties yards away from pass plays after the ball is in the air. Maybe there’s too much going on to accurately call a game, but if that’s the case, then what’s the point ?
When you say that “In theory, replay reviews should result in calls based on the preponderance of the evidence,” what level of theory are you talking about? Because my understanding is that, according to the actual rules, the umpires are only supposed to overturn the call on the field if there is “clear and convincing evidence.” I think there’s a decent argument that this wasn’t clear and convincing evidence; arguably one could interpret the word “clear” as ruling out purely inferential decisions like you describe.*
So if you’re arguing that the clear and convincing standard is a bad one, and that MLB ought to adopt preponderance-of-the-evidence review, that’s totally fair, but if the claim is that reviews are already supposed to go by the preponderance in theory, I don’t think that’s true.
*The phrase “clear and convincing evidence” is, of course, borrowed from the courts of law, and like most legal standards of proof or review, it’s not very well-defined. Really we know only that it is meaningfully more strict than a preponderance standard, but meaningfully less strict than a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Also the law student in me always really wants to see some umpires citing actual federal case-law or whatever about the meaning of “clear and convincing evidence,” heh.
Yeah, that was unclear, so I made a little edit. It’s *my* ideal, or at least I think it is. (I could be convinced otherwise.)
I don’t think the umpires really did anything wrong, procedurally. It’s just, even with the replay, the Jays can’t come away satisfied that the thing that happened definitely got ruled right.
Yeah, that’s sort of what I figured.
Also for what it’s worth my own opinion was that he did stay on the bag. More broadly these kinds of plays trouble me a lot, not so much because of the whole “this has been a safe call for a hundred years” kind of thing (although I do think there’s something to that) but rather because, you can’t be allowed to push a player off the base, right? Like, if a runner were just standing on second base and the shortstop came over and shoved him off it, and then tagged him… that’s not a valid out, right? So why should it be okay when someone pushes at a runner’s leg with their glove, pushing it one inch off?
You can’t be serious. Open your eyes and simply look at the replay above. The glove doesn’t even come close to making contact with the runners leg until AFTER the foot comes off of the bag.
The biggest problem with instant replay reviews is that we’re led to believe that it’s purpose (especially in the NFL) is to “get the call right,” when in fact it is to “get the right call.”
Pro sports are a multi-billion dollar industry. Where there is money there is corruption. The simple fact is, is that the NFL has just as many “pre-determined outcomes” as Big Time Wrestling. The only difference between the two is that football is played in larger arenas before larger crowds.
Officiating in both the NFL and MLB gets worse with each passing year and yet the league’s and the fans allow the charade to continue. Shame on both.
I don’t understand how in a playoff game there are not more angles. If there are how come we can’t see what MLB review umps see? Also, why don’t we know who makes the call, why the cloak of anonymity?. This all leads me to question the integrity of the game. We all understand how such calls are missed in real time (no slow motion replay, only 1 angle for ump in real time), but when they miss with Hi-Def slo motion replay on large screens, under a cloak of anonymity and lack of transparency, one can not forgive or forget.
Also, I get the international feed, and they did not show this angle, and also another angle that was available to US viewers in the KC game. Why are they limiting this for international viewers?
There is an angle down the 3rd base line that gives a better view of the foot and the bag; not sure why it’s not included:
http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v520880083/textor-gm2-odor-slides-back-into-second-safely/?game_pk=446241
From this angle it looks like the foot stays in contact with the far side of the bag.
Screenshot:
http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/odor.png
Mostly I’m just glad my favorite team wasn’t involved
I was listening to the Rangers’ radio broadcast. They are usually perfectly willing to state when they think the Rangers will lose a review (they’ve been surprised a few times when they won – other evidence of balance, they agreed that the strike three call was a gift), and they seemed perplexed that this was being reviewed or questioned. They must have had this angle to see.
Thats a worse angle. They should have had an angle from the CF camera that would have been more conclusive
How is a single screenshot more convincing than a seconds long video ? Maybe he never lost contact with the bag, but y’alls saying he CLEARLY stayed in contact with the bag are lying to yourselves. And going to a screenshot as evidence is no help.
My biggest problem with replay is that they use TV images for rules enforcement. TV does not use cameras intended for rules enforcement. They use them for entertainment purposes. If cameras were to be placed for rule enforcement, there’d be 10 times the number of cameras than we now have. TV should not be allowed to umpire the games. But, using TV for replays, means that they are being used to umpire the games. MLB, and other sports using replays, should come up with their own set of cameras with the intent to enforce rules, not to entertain viewers. Different intent, different outcome.
Baseball’s gonna turn into a bit of an asswhipping if everyone gets all butthurt over a guy’s foot moving a cunthair off the bag on an otherwise unremarkable play. This is all replay’s fault. Replay sucks a lot. Especially when we have to spend 10 minutes during the game waiting for the replay to be confirmed.
You wanna talk grey area? What happens when the players catch on to this and start pushing arms/legs/feet/hands off the bag themselves? Can. Open. Worms. Everywhere.
Baseball will turn into no vhipping as if all in all butthurt foot piece runners cunthair bag, if not trivial. This is a court error. Replay large crowds. Especially when we spent 10 minutes in the game, waiting for the scene to confirm. Think gray area? What will happen when the players were brought up and push
Yes, clear and convincing probably isn’t quite the same as beyond reasonable doubt. But close, I think. Preponderance is > 50%, beyond reasonable doubt I suppose is > 99%. Clear and convincing I would think must be at least > 90%.
By the way, do I have too much faith in technology, or could these close calls be made with certainty with electronic sensors in the bases and the player’s gloves?
Hahahaha, I wish those were the percentages people in the law associated with these standards. When the sort of people who think they’re just reducible to numerical probability thresholds (many don’t; I’m one of them) give numbers, they usually say something like 67% for clear-and-convincing, or maybe 75% or 80%, and then maybe 95% for beyond a reasonable doubt. Those people seem awfully willing to convict people who are as likely to be innocent as a 30-home run guy is to go deep in any given at-bat.
Ah, the world famous Rashomon play. You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.
I have to think the umps were paid off by gamblers with the Jays being heavy favs in both games. We have the technology – especially stop having the human call balls and strikes. The tech should just be programmed: “If 50% of the baseball is within the 3d volume of the strike at any point during the pitch it is a called strike”.
Baseball is already so random that playoffs are pretty much a coin-flip. Adding idiotic calls by umpires just makes it seem fixed.
it looks very possible to me that the foot is sliding along the base, not coming off it.
it’s not just possible, it’s definitely what’s happening. just because the foot moves doesn’t mean it’s coming off the base. he’s pressing the foot into the bag and it’s sliding along the back edge, out of view.
it looks like it comes off because of the way the foot moves. first he goes into the corner of the bag with the middle of the sole of his foot, flat. then the heel pulls backwards as he kind of crawls around the corner of the bag with his toe. that backwards movement of the heel is what makes it look like he’s coming off the bag. but he’s not. the toe is still pressed firmly into the back of the bag.
in that freeze frame, his toe is – to me – definitely still in contact with the back of the bag.
if you doubt any of this, watch the movement of his foot in the gif again. watch the toe, not the heel.
So, this is a bit of a weird opinion, but I think he was tagged while his foot was off the bag, but he still should have been ruled safe.
This is because this sort of play is not normally called an out at all levels of baseball (as far as I know anyway) the umpires are not taught to look for it, nor are players taught to watch out for it/change their slides based on it. There are basically two ways to be out when sliding into a base, 1) you get tagged before you reach the base or 2) you over slide and come off the base. Bouncing off the base is not an option, there’s no way an umpire sees that, it was too quick, and it’s not something they are taught to look for really. Aside from that, it’s a bit of a player health issue as you’d definitely get more injuries from sliding into the base if you suddenly tell everyone that even the slightest bounce off could mean you’re out. Anyway, I think that a playoff game is not the place to be saying that this bouncing off thing is a legit way to get an out. (especially when the evidence is not as clear and convincing as it might be).
And I just looked at the 3rd base angle that gragh mentioned above, and it’s definitely much, much less convincing from that angle. The base is angled differently than what you’d expect from the things above and I think because the bag is actually closer to the runner near the runner’s toe, the toe can stay connected while the back of the foot comes off. This is definitely another issue with replay, 2d data creates optical illusions…
Here’s the link if you don’t want to find it in gragh’s post: http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/63817564/v520880083/textor-gm2-odor-slides-back-into-second-safely/?game_pk=446241
I’m not sure it’s the case here, but I also think many times a defender’s glove is actually pushing the runner’s leg OFF the case. And when those get reviewed, they are, in my experience, always called out. I don’t understand why, though. There is a rule that a fielder can’t push a runner off the base.
I agree with you, though, that this is an absolute technicality that does not at all comport with the rules of baseball.
We need more of a strict liability rule for situations like this. It’s impossible that there’s literally zero effect.
Thanks for not showing the definitive replay angle, Click Baiter. This is going to be such a beating that the national media has to take this one play and *only* discuss it when there were 14 innings of incredible playoff baseball played by two awesome teams to discuss. But no, we have to only see coverage of one single play. You’re better than this, media! Well, maybe not.
Did you just call Jeff Sullivan a click baiter? LoL! Love when the randoms show up at Fangraphs.
It doesn’t matter that my foot came off the bag and they botched the replay. What matters is we’re going home up 2-0!
“The character of a team isn’t dependent upon a proven slugger missing a walk-off home run by maybe two feet.”
Come on, if you’re going to write on a website that’s foundation is accuracy and objectiveness, it was not two feet away from a home run.
Odor on the bases was a huge part of this game. His slide to score earlier in the game was pretty unusual as well.
There is one angle from 3rd base, that CLEARLY shows that his foot kind of bounced off the bag while Tulo has the glove on his shin. It was only a splitsecond though and none of the other angles showed it. With the game of baseball and most replays centering around being safe or not, I think each base should at least have 4 angles, one from each side of the bag.
I actually think some wiggle room to overslide or pop an inch off the bag ought to be ok, but since it’s easier to judge on/off rather than one inch vs two, I think this is the way it has to be.
1) Having replay is still a hundred times better than no replay. This particular call was close and not seen from the best possible angle, but for every one of these potentially blown replay calls, there are five to ten actually blown calls that are fortunately overturned.
2) The coverage of the replay timeout is awful. There is a five minute or so interval while the umps sit around waiting for the booth. The network ought to be spending 90% of that time going from angle to angle frame by frame.
Instead, they toss up a couple of replays in regular slo-mo, and worst of all, they spend 75% of the time showing shots of both managers and the dude standing on the bag. Who cares ! Just show the replays !
Who cares about Odor’s expression, or Bannister’s expression ? Or the umps sitting around with their headphones on. Show the replay as slow as possible from all possible angles until the umps take the headphones off.
Go to commercial. Make some money.
i assume the problem with that is that they’re never sure how long the delay is going to last
Safe !
Since electrons cannot touch Rougned Odor never really touches the base
From the clip it does seem that Odor is out, but on the other hand the screenshot is completely unconvincing, and if there isn’t a decisive picture of a particular instant when the tag is on while there’s no contact with the base, they can’t change the call on the field.
A sad day for purists when we have to look for instant replay to decide plays at second base. Thanks for ruining the game just a little bit more!
To me it’s inconclusive. Blue Jays fans won’t agree with this, but I am glad Odor was called safe because in the spirit of the thing, he beat the play. It’s possible he was technically out when his foot came off the bag, but he had already beat the throw. By rights, he should have been safe, and if he had been called out for some micro-bounce it would have been a weird replay-only technicality outside of the spirit of the game.
RE: ” I am glad Odor was called safe because in the spirit of the thing, he beat the play.”
Precisely. Even though Odor was clearly safe–his foot was sliding across the edge of the bag, not off of it–your point is actually an even more important bag in the larger scheme of things. He beat the throw and should have been safe no matter what. To quibble about micro-bounces only makes the game worse in the long run.
You guys probably have it right. It’s the flipside of the neighborhood call for DPs. At first I thought how do you work it into the rule book, but they can just use whatever obtuse language they use to justify the neighborhood play and they are all set.
It helps in 2 ways. Encourages more aggressive baserunning and also reduces the chance of injury via awkward slide. They should give umps authority over this call in exchange for letting a machine call balls and strikes.
I watched the original play as it unfolded, it looked to me Odor was safe. Very typical ‘bang-bang’ play.
How precise are we going to get with this? I found it annoying. Is this how we want to spend our time? Taking 5 minutes to try and figure out if a guy’s foot came such a small amount off the bag? Yeeesh. And I am in favor of replay and in favor of reviewing if a players foot came off the bag… But there is a point where everyone needs to chill out and this went well beyond that for me.
You’re not alone. I heard a suggested rule: if a guy is on the base and you tag him, he remains safe unless he over slides or very clearly comes off on his own. No reason a play like this should ever be an out.
Exactly.
Although I basically agree with you, what does “very clearly” actually mean ?
(For the record I never wanted replay.)
I’m not sure why we need replay, if we’re going to call things by the “spirit” of things.
I feel like you need to choose. Do you want precision, or do you want sloppy? It’s weird to want both things, you know, whenever one is more convenient.
I agree that Odor’s cleats appear to stay in contact with the side of the bag. I do worry about replay being used for plays like this as the player clearly looked safe in real-time and I hope that replay in baseball does not evolve into micromanagement of the game (as it sometimes does in the NFL). This is coming from a lifelong baseball fan.
If you reverse this (I would have said confirmed) you’re butchering how baseball has quietly been played for decades. If your foot/hand is in good control of the bag and a guy has his glove on you, you should essentially be auto-safe for plays like this. I imagine guys are already learning how to casually push guys off the base for a microsecond. Not saying that happened here.
This is nonsense. Overturning the call requires (and I’m quoting the MLB itself here) “clear and convincing evidence.” Fact: There wasn’t any.
The replay officials therefore did the correct thing. There is no problem, no controversy, and no certainly appeal.
This should never even have been brought up.
I tend to agree. I think he was out, but I haven’t seen anything that would let me overturn if I were one of the umps.
I wish they’d give the umps microphones so they could explain to the crowd why there is a review, and the ability to say a call is overturned, stands, or is confirmed.
This call stands. It’s probably wrong, but the standard is not preponderance of the evidence, it’s clear and convincing, and I’m not actually convinced that I’m right here.
Agreed.
If you are touching the base, you are safe, however, if you are not touching the base, then you are out.
What about the ‘neighborhood play’ ? Same deal ?
You have to be careful here and add the question into the equation “could the fielders tag have assisted the runners foot to lose contact with the bag” . If the answer is yes, or possibly, the runner should be ruled safe. Otherwise, fielders will start using excessive force on their tags, and their will be brawls on the field because of it.
As a Jays fan I’d like to say Odor really stinks from my perspective.