Any words on the Cubs' win?

[Bob Jersey]

Or on the coming Series between two MLB clubs historically known for futility? (USA Today, f'instance)

Of course, this is bringing back memories... of that leaked photo from NBC's "Revolution" which the commish made them retouch...

The channels we (surreptitiously) got back from cable didn't include FS1, where the matchup ended up due to prior Big 12 football commitments by the big Fox, nor NBCSN who is doing the NASCAR Cup race today...

I'm not expecting anything on Penn State's shocker over Ohio State...

B

[Tom Wolper]

Considering the team the Cubs put together this year and the season they had it would have been a shocker if they did not make it to the Series. Since no playoff games aired on broadcast TV I did not follow the various series closely and it is only the historical aspect of the Series that keeps me from ignoring it altogether.

As for Penn State/Ohio State, I am glad for ABC who saw fit to put it into prime time.

[Joe Hass]

1. Fox had zero intent on airing any of the NLCS on the network. The entire point of airing all the NLCS games on FS1 was to force people to find the channel and give FS1 its first-ever weekly win over ESPN (which it proceeded to run promos about through Games 5 and 6. I'm reasonably sure if it was up to Fox, they'd put at least one World Series game on FS1.

2. One thing Fox did introduce was using side-by-side during the first in-inning pitching change of each game, where they'd put various shots in the top right corner, with the score/inning/bases below it, followed by the incoming pitcher and next batter. It would've worked better for my money if they focused on the pitcher's warm ups, rather than calling various camera angles.

3. I think this was mentioned in another thread, but Fox continues to cut it close with jamming as many spots into that 2:45 as they can. Almost every half inning Buck welcomed people back during or after the pitcher's first pitch. I would be curious if the league office has passed along its concerns.

4. I'm trying my best to get into Joe Buck on baseball, but I was underwhelmed with his work. He seems to force excitement, as if he's overcompensating for all those complains about him not being excited enough. John Smoltz is a decent enough analyst (and after so many years of Tim McCarver, I'd take my three year old working the game).

5. NoTV: I will be at Game 3, having put on my credit card an outrageous amount of money for my single ticket. Given the price difference between the Cleveland and Chicago games (the amount I spent to sit in the last section of the right field upper deck for Game 3 would literally put me behind the plate for Game 1), I will be very interested in hearing how Cubs fans make their appearance known during the first two games.

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[PGage]

Will be great to hear your report on being at Game 3.

I see there is some kind of movement to get Bob Uecker to replace Joe Buck for the WS. While that is more snark than serious, I don wonder if at some point Fox is able to hear the significant dissatisfaction with Buck, and consider turning over its baseball to someone else (I am not a huge fan of Buck on the NFL, but I think he is much more tolerable there).

As our Joe implies, Smoltz is a lot better than McCarver; I think it is not just the contrast with McCarver though - I think Smoltz actually is pretty good. 

[daniel anderson]

I'm old enough to remember when NBC had MLB, and NBC usually went with 1:30 or 2:00 for spots. Often Costas and Kubek or Scully and Garagiola would have maybe a minute or a 1:15 to set up the next inning before play resumed.

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:28:16 AM UTC-4, Joe Hass wrote:

1. Fox had zero intent on airing any of the NLCS on the network. The entire point of airing all the NLCS games on FS1 was to force people to find the channel and give FS1 its first-ever weekly win over ESPN (which it proceeded to run promos about through Games 5 and 6. I'm reasonably sure if it was up to Fox, they'd put at least one World Series game on FS1.

2. One thing Fox did introduce was using side-by-side during the first in-inning pitching change of each game, where they'd put various shots in the top right corner, with the score/inning/bases below it, followed by the incoming pitcher and next batter. It would've worked better for my money if they focused on the pitcher's warm ups, rather than calling various camera angles.

3. I think this was mentioned in another thread, but Fox continues to cut it close with jamming as many spots into that 2:45 as they can. Almost every half inning Buck welcomed people back during or after the pitcher's first pitch. I would be curious if the league office has passed along its concerns.

4. I'm trying my best to get into Joe Buck on baseball, but I was underwhelmed with his work. He seems to force excitement, as if he's overcompensating for all those complains about him not being excited enough. John Smoltz is a decent enough analyst (and after so many years of Tim McCarver, I'd take my three year old working the game).

5. NoTV: I will be at Game 3, having put on my credit card an outrageous amount of money for my single ticket. Given the price difference between the Cleveland and Chicago games (the amount I spent to sit in the last section of the right field upper deck for Game 3 would literally put me behind the plate for Game 1), I will be very interested in hearing how Cubs fans make their appearance known during the first two games.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Bob Jersey <bob.in...@juno.com> wrote:

Or on the coming Series between two MLB clubs historically known for futility? (USA Today, f'instance)

Of course, this is bringing back memories... of that leaked photo from NBC's "Revolution" which the commish made them retouch...

The channels we (surreptitiously) got back from cable didn't include FS1, where the matchup ended up due to prior Big 12 football commitments by the big Fox, nor NBCSN who is doing the NASCAR Cup race today...

I'm not expecting anything on Penn State's shocker over Ohio State...

B

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

[Bill Partsch]

I remember Buck doing a handful of Cardinals games per season on TV in the years when his national star was rising, probably when Summerall/Madden were still at it. He was really funny (witty, not goofy,) and genuinely enjoyable. He seems to have left most, if not all, of that charm back at Fox Sports Midwest. I'd love to see him cash out of the big gig at Fox and spend the twilight of his career in his dad's shoes as the radio voice of the Cards. Don't expect it, but I think he'd be better off without the yoke of neutrality that he seems to struggle with. 

[Joe Hass]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:55 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

I see there is some kind of movement to get Bob Uecker to replace Joe Buck for the WS. While that is more snark than serious, I don wonder if at some point Fox is able to hear the significant dissatisfaction with Buck, and consider turning over its baseball to someone else (I am not a huge fan of Buck on the NFL, but I think he is much more tolerable there).

It's worth noting that the Cubs took the FS1 audio for a portion of the postgame (during interviews). When either Verducci or Rosenthal threw it back to Buck, they didn't switch off in time, which lead to Buck being heard in Wrigley, and you could very clearly detect the boos from the ballpark in the background while Buck was doing his in-stadium wrap before throwing it to the post-game show.

[PGage]

I don't blame them...but I don't blame him that much either. His anti-Cub bias came honestly, and must be in his genes.

--

[Mark Jeffries]

But you have to remember that there were (and are) the Cub fans who hated Harry Caray with every inch of their bodies as the symbol of the St. Louis Cardinals and in some cases changed their minds when he left a Jerry Reinsdorf-run Sox for the Cubs (and truth be told, there are those who still put Jack Brickhouse above Harry and consider Harry the symbol of the yuppies taking over Wrigley Field).  And I would say that back in the days when the team announcers worked with the network guys for the Series, Harry sounded a little neutered when he couldn't openly root for his Cardinals--a problem that the never-a-homer Sir Vincent of Scully never had.

Mark Jeffries
Saints Spotlight Editor
spotl...@gmail.com

[Karen Owen]

On 10/24/2016 3:00 PM, PGage wrote:

It's worth noting that the Cubs took the FS1 audio for a portion of the postgame (during interviews). When either Verducci or Rosenthal threw it back to Buck, they didn't switch off in time, which lead to Buck being heard in Wrigley, and you could very clearly detect the boos from the ballpark in the background while Buck was doing his in-stadium wrap before throwing it to the post-game show.

--

That was my favorite part of the whole night (other than the awesomeness of the Cubs!). It was a beautiful thing to hear the crowd go from cheering Grampa Rossy as loud as they could then immediately start booing Joe Dodger (as I'm calling him now).

Since the World Series games are supposed to be avaialable through MLB.TV I'm going to try to watch through that on Roku which normally has the option of home/away TV/radio for audio choices and hope that Cubs radio feed will work. 

[Dave Sikula]

This could be a case of "a neutral announcer makes each side think he's rooting against their team," but I have to wonder if PGage and I were listening to the same broadcast. Buck and Fox couldn't have been more in the bag for the Cubs (and especially Javier Baez) if they owned stock in the team.

--Dave Sikula

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 12:00:31 PM UTC-7, PGage wrote:

I don't blame them...but I don't blame him that much either. His anti-Cub bias came honestly, and must be in his genes.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:55 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

I see there is some kind of movement to get Bob Uecker to replace Joe Buck for the WS. While that is more snark than serious, I don wonder if at some point Fox is able to hear the significant dissatisfaction with Buck, and consider turning over its baseball to someone else (I am not a huge fan of Buck on the NFL, but I think he is much more tolerable there).

It's worth noting that the Cubs took the FS1 audio for a portion of the postgame (during interviews). When either Verducci or Rosenthal threw it back to Buck, they didn't switch off in time, which lead to Buck being heard in Wrigley, and you could very clearly detect the boos from the ballpark in the background while Buck was doing his in-stadium wrap before throwing it to the post-game show.

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

[PGage]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

This could be a case of "a neutral announcer makes each side think he's rooting against their team," but I have to wonder if PGage and I were listening to the same broadcast. Buck and Fox couldn't have been more in the bag for the Cubs (and especially Javier Baez) if they owned stock in the team.

Ha! It is always possible that the bias is in the eye of the beholder (I admit to lifelong, intense but mostly good natured hatred of Dodgers). But I do think in this case it is more objective.

My criticism of JB is not so much that he has a rooting interest in one team (although he clearly is a Cardinals fan, which would seem to make him a Cub-hater by nature, and also seems to root for anything involving the Yankees or Red Sox, presumably because it leads to better ratings). But what makes him a poor broadcaster in my mind is he seems to have pre-determined what the main story lines are going to be for a series or game, based it seems on research done by staff, or maybe his production meetings with managers and a few players, and does not allow the game to unfold naturally (and is not informed enough by the full pattern of previous events in the season).

So, my charge is that his bias is rooted in this narrow, prefabricated storyline that he has adopted (whether pro or con any particular team). He will move off of that if events require it, but he is slow to do so, and the storyline biases for a long time how he talks about the game, and what he focuses on. 

[Dave Sikula]

I think we - and all right-thinking people -  can agree that Buck is awful and does not deserve the prime spot among network baseball announcers. Combined with Smoltz, he's barely tolerable, but with McCarver, it was sheer torture.

--Dave Sikula

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:00 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ha! It is always possible that the bias is in the eye of the beholder (I admit to lifelong, intense but mostly good natured hatred of Dodgers). But I do think in this case it is more objective.

My criticism of JB is not so much that he has a rooting interest in one team (although he clearly is a Cardinals fan, which would seem to make him a Cub-hater by nature, and also seems to root for anything involving the Yankees or Red Sox, presumably because it leads to better ratings). But what makes him a poor broadcaster in my mind is he seems to have pre-determined what the main story lines are going to be for a series or game, based it seems on research done by staff, or maybe his production meetings with managers and a few players, and does not allow the game to unfold naturally (and is not informed enough by the full pattern of previous events in the season).

So, my charge is that his bias is rooted in this narrow, prefabricated storyline that he has adopted (whether pro or con any particular team). He will move off of that if events require it, but he is slow to do so, and the storyline biases for a long time how he talks about the game, and what he focuses on.

I was trying to think of how to express my opinion of Buck and I think you hit it right on the head.

I remember the last game of one World Series, maybe last year maybe before, where it was the ninth inning, the losing team had two outs and the batter had two strikes on him. As the pitcher went into his windup Buck started into his Series-long narrative in a breathless way and continued through the pitch which went for strike three. I couldn't understand why he wouldn't just shut up and let the natural suspense of the situation take the lead.

[Adam Bowie]

For what it's worth, as we go into the start of Game 4 (airing at gone 1am local time in the UK), we get the international feed which features Buck Martinez and Matt Vasgersian. They seem perfectly fine, but I'm probably not the best qualified person to determine that.

I've never quite understood the reason for a specific feed for the World Series, when BT Sport, the channel that airs MLB in the UK, regularly rebroadcasts whichever US network (or local sportsnet) that broadcasts it in the US, with the sole exception of the World Series. 

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

tvornottv-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Wolper]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

For what it's worth, as we go into the start of Game 4 (airing at gone 1am local time in the UK), we get the international feed which features Buck Martinez and Matt Vasgersian. They seem perfectly fine, but I'm probably not the best qualified person to determine that.

I've never quite understood the reason for a specific feed for the World Series, when BT Sport, the channel that airs MLB in the UK, regularly rebroadcasts whichever US network (or local sportsnet) that broadcasts it in the US, with the sole exception of the World Series.

Vasgersian does San Diego Padres games and he also does play-by-play for FOX when they air Saturday afternoon/evening games. So he is a pro and knows what he's doing. The thing I will always remember him for is doing play-by-play for the XFL in its only season in 2000.

[Bob Jersey]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 8:11:44 PM UTC-4, Adam Bowie wrote:

For what it's worth, as we go into the start of Game 4 (airing at gone 1am local time in the UK), we get the international feed which features Buck Martinez and Matt Vasgersian. They seem perfectly fine, but I'm probably not the best qualified person to determine that.

I've never quite understood the reason for a specific feed for the World Series, when BT Sport, the channel that airs MLB in the UK, regularly rebroadcasts whichever US network (or local sportsnet) that broadcasts it in the US, with the sole exception of the World Series. 

Part of the reason was possibly revealed last year, when a power glitch brought Fox to its technical knees and nearly forced Matty and company onto the stateside net... Adam, so you're saying that JB featured in at least some of these BT Sport retrans?

B
 

[M-D November]

No "nearly" about it...the MLB Network international crew called at least one inning last year when FOX's truck lost power. We were free from Joe Buck for an all too brief time. It was magnificent while it lasted.

[Adam Bowie]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Bob Jersey <bob.in...@juno.com> wrote:

 Adam, so you're saying that JB featured in at least some of these BT Sport retrans?

To be perfectly honest, I'm a very part-time baseball viewer, and certainly don't know one commentator from another. (I think this is simply a factor of me not being American. But it does always sound like there's a certain tone of voice expected from a US sports presenter, and to my ears that makes everyone sound very much alike.)

For the World Series we do get a specific international feed which for years the MLB has made available to its overseas markets. I guess because they know that some people might only watch the World Series. In years gone by, only a very limited number of MLB games were broadcast in the UK, with the World Series alone getting full coverage. In some previous years I've noticed that they made more effort to explain rulings and so on, but I've not noticed it as much this year. But then I tend to bail by about the third innings because, well, it's very late...

For the rest of the year, BT Sport gets straight US network or sportsnet retransmissions, be they Fox, TBS, ESPN, or very frequently, those local sports networks. Those weekday afternoon games that handily start at around 6pm UK time, so are decent enough post-work sports fare if there's no football (soccer) on the box, always tend to be from some local Fox sportsnet somewhere.

The only thing I'd say about the international feed is that it's fairly devoid of graphical add-ons - no live PitchTrax or similar (Although like Hawkeye used widely in tennis, I remain a little dubious about the accuracy of such technology. Notably, after a call has been determined by Hawkeye in tennis, you will never see a super-slomo replay that might suggest another call was correct).

Adam

[Tom Wolper]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I'm a very part-time baseball viewer, and certainly don't know one commentator from another. (I think this is simply a factor of me not being American. But it does always sound like there's a certain tone of voice expected from a US sports presenter, and to my ears that makes everyone sound very much alike.)

It's either an artifact from when games were broadcast on radio only or it's because the training ground for play-by-play announcers is radio. That certain delivery and tone is probably something major league level teams and networks look for, possibly unconsciously.

The only thing I'd say about the international feed is that it's fairly devoid of graphical add-ons - no live PitchTrax or similar (Although like Hawkeye used widely in tennis, I remain a little dubious about the accuracy of such technology. Notably, after a call has been determined by Hawkeye in tennis, you will never see a super-slomo replay that might suggest another call was correct).

It's well known that each umpire has his own strike zone and ball/strike calls can be very subjective. Some people call for an electronic strike zone so calls can be consistent and accurate while others want to preserve the human aspect of the game. As a result the PitchTrax could show that a called strike was clearly out of the strike zone, or vice versa, and the TV announcer won't call attention to it. If he says anything, it will be that the pitcher has to learn this ump's strike zone.

I assume all umpires do off season training where they see the PitchTrax and their calls to serve as feedback and a way to improve their calls.

[David Lynch]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I'm a very part-time baseball viewer, and certainly don't know one commentator from another. (I think this is simply a factor of me not being American. But it does always sound like there's a certain tone of voice expected from a US sports presenter, and to my ears that makes everyone sound very much alike.) 

 

I feel much the same way about the English commentators doing soccer games. I've never been able to differentiate between the English Premier League pool announcers that NBC uses when Arlo White isn't doing a game (other than noticing that one of them has a Glasgow accent,) although I can usually manage to tell who's who among the freelancers ESPN would draft during a World Cup by the time the knock-out stages arrived.

 

--

David J. Lynch
djl...@gmail.com

[Joe Hass]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Tom Wolper <two...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's well known that each umpire has his own strike zone and ball/strike calls can be very subjective. Some people call for an electronic strike zone so calls can be consistent and accurate while others want to preserve the human aspect of the game. As a result the PitchTrax could show that a called strike was clearly out of the strike zone, or vice versa, and the TV announcer won't call attention to it. If he says anything, it will be that the pitcher has to learn this ump's strike zone.

This is one of my biggest gripes of national baseball broadcasters: no one will outright say that an umpire has botched a strike/ball call. One thing that's worth noting is that we've done a full rotation of the umpires, meaning Larry Vanover will be behind the plate tonight. He called Game 1, and to say he had a horrible night is an understatement. Fox repeatedly showed called strikes clearly outside the zone, which he proceeded to seemingly make up with a strike call for a ball that was four ball widths outside. And yet Buck and Smoltz refused to outright say that these calls were bad, preferring to dance around the issue. It's not like these are amateurs. You'd point out bad calls otherwise from other umpires. Admit they kicked a few pitches.

[Bill Partsch]

On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Tom Wolper <two...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's well known that each umpire has his own strike zone and ball/strike calls can be very subjective. Some people call for an electronic strike zone so calls can be consistent and accurate while others want to preserve the human aspect of the game. As a result the PitchTrax could show that a called strike was clearly out of the strike zone, or vice versa, and the TV announcer won't call attention to it. If he says anything, it will be that the pitcher has to learn this ump's strike zone.

This is one of my biggest gripes of national baseball broadcasters: no one will outright say that an umpire has botched a strike/ball call.

[snip]

Admit they kicked a few pitches.

From recent experience with Cardinals broadcasts, it would appear local announcers have no such compunction, especially on the radio. Lead Cards' announcer John Rooney has gotten to the point where he's blasé about it much of the time. "Belt-high pitch right over the heart of the plate, called a ball," is a typical Rooney call--not an after-the-fact commentary, but the actual call--delivered in the same tone used for a routine grounder to short ending a three-up, three-down inning. I'm pretty sure his partners, Mike Shannon at home and Rick Horton on the road, are similarly inclined to kvetch about umpire malfeasance. Dan MacLaughlin on TV will point it out, too, but less demonstratively, unless an umpire is having a Larry Vanover kind of night. 

(Rooney is even prone to lambasting the NY replay crew if he disagrees with a ruling. He also loves to point out when a brand new ball is fouled onto the field, where it must be retrieved by a ball boy, "That ball is on its way to the authenticator. That's a GAME -USED BALL!")

[Bill Partsch]

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:
>
> But then I tend to bail by about the third innings because, well, it's very late...

Innings. Let's hear it for cricket, baby! Wherein pitchers are bowlers, batters are batsmen, games are matches, foul territory is non-existent, and the wall is about four inches high--except four inches is ten centimeters.

[Jim Ellwanger]

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Bill Partsch <billp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Adam Bowie <ad...@adambowie.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> But then I tend to bail by about the third innings because, well, it's very late...
>

> Innings. Let's hear it for cricket, baby! Wherein pitchers are bowlers, batters are batsmen...

A few years ago, I started noticing baseball announcers saying "hit batsman" instead of "hit batter." Turns out the phrase "hit batsman" is actually used a few times in the official MLB rules -- although "hit batter" is also used, seemingly interchangeably.

PDF link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2016/official_baseball_rules.pdf

--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv>

[Kevin M.]

More than any other reason, I'm happy the Cubs won because of Bob Newhart. His Twitter feed the past couple weeks has been adorable, and the photo of he and Rickles the other night was priceless. 

https://www.twitter.com/BobNewhart/status/793663612640374784

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

Last night was maybe the worst strike zone in the history of baseball, at least given the high profile of the game. At least it was pretty equally bad for both teams, but it was embarrassing. I don't know that I agree that the national broadcasters never draw attention to it - I think they do, though perhaps less directly than local guys do. One reason is that there has been some pushback from umpires that the technology is either inaccurate (less true these days I think) or unfair, in that it does not take into account how the pitch appears to the umpire. As the cliche goes, the real criticism is when the umpire is inconsistent - last night we not only saw clear strikes being called balls, be we saw the same borderline pitch being called ball or strike, sometimes in the same inning.

I am totally against going to any kind of electronic strike zone however - just as I remain strongly opposed to instant replay in baseball (at least in its current form). A ball or strike should always be understood as existing in the eye of the human behind the plate, not in some absolute, hypothetical eye of God (or a computer). Human beings throw the pitch; they catch the pitch; they try to hit the pitch. Evaluation of the pitch must always remain at that human level. Yes, that means there will always be error and inconsistency - that is humanity, and that is the charm and magic of baseball.

--

[Dave Sikula]

Boy, I couldn't disagree more. If the strike zone were not specifically defined in the rule book, I might agree with you, but there are defined parameters that are thrown out given the whims and vagueries of every individual umpire. If we need technology to overcome that, so be it. I also think the replay is the best thing to happen to the game in decades.

Screw the "human factor;" I'd rather get the call right.

--Dave Sikula

[PGage]

You are right, we could not disagree more. I think the argument that all that matters is "getting the call right" is the lie at the core of much that is wrong with so many of our institutions, particularly sports, and especially baseball. Yes, the strike zone is defined in the rule book, but it is defined in relative terms (in terms of the body of the batter). By "definition", the strike zone - the spatial location in which a pitched ball might be called a strike, is different for every batter. By long tradition, if not black letter law, that relative strike zone has also always been relative to the position of the umpire - particularly his eyes - to the plate. Baseball was better for my money back in the day when the leagues differed in how the umpires wore their chest protector, resulting in significant differences in how they perceived the strike zone.

I say screw the fiction of an "absolute" strike zone, and insidious fiction that the reality created by computers is somehow more real, and more accurate, than the reality experienced by human beings. Within the confined of any particular game, a strike is precisely and exactly what is called a strike by the umpire, and nothing more. And even when the Giants benefit from a replay, I would much rather sacrifice the increase in so-called "accuracy" for the finality of the umpire's call at each base on each play. For me there is, literally, nothing worse for the game than this sequence, which we now get two to five times per game: 

"The batter is out at first...for now...lets see if they are going to challenge...the manager is signaling he wants the umpire to wait while his coaches check the replay....yes, he is going to challenge......<4 minutes waiting for New York>....no, the batter is safe [even though a third of the time the audience at home is left thinking the replay showed the batter was actually out]. Yay!?

[Bill Partsch]

When the English Premier League decided to implement a "review" system to ensure correct goal/no-goal calls, it solicited bids with one requirement being that the system had to be capable of communicating the correct ruling to an official's wristwatch (or similar device) within one second. Surely, they could build sensors into balls, gloves, bases, shoes, base lines, etc. to make confirming or overturning outs (esp. at first and force-outs), foul balls and home runs take a mere second or two, right? They can still leave it up to managers to challenge before the system delivers its verdict.

[JW]

> By long tradition, if not black letter law, that relative strike zone has also

> always been relative to the position of the umpire...

"By long tradition," games ended when the sun went down, each league had its own umpiring staff, etc. Time marches on, and traditions change. Some of us may rue the addition of lights at Wrigley, but nobody worth listening to is calling for a re-institution of the pre-1947 color line.

Officiating, in all sports, is evolving from the days when the only people who saw a play were at the game, and they only saw it once. Now, everybody in the stands and at home can see the play multiple times. In that situation, it's silly to make the officials the only people who aren't allowed to look at, or benefit from, a replay.

That said, calls exist on an axis from obviously right (most) to obviously wrong. It makes sense to fix the wrong ones. The problem is that we're also going to look at close calls in the process, and reasonable people can differ about those, especially when wearing homer glasses.

> Last night was maybe the worst strike zone in the history of baseball... it was embarrassing.

If the automated system they use to help evaluate umpires can call balls and strikes consistently correctly, baseball should use it. (There's an umpires' union to deal with before it can happen, so it will be a while.) If they can avoid "embarrassment," that's a good thing.

[PGage]

My argument is not that the strike zone should be called by humans because it has been the long tradition, simply that my support for a human strike zone is consistent with the long tradition of baseball, and not some idiosyncratic preference of mine. Some traditions are good, some are not.

The real problem with the use of replay to correct calls on the field is that it artificially creates a non-human scale and imposes it on the game. The question of what constitutes a catch in the NFL has become absurd (and I think the NFL has become aware of this). When they have to slow down to a frame by frame advance and get down to are any electrons in the ball overlapping with microns of a strike zone defined from a POV that neither the pitcher, the batter or the umpire could possibly have had when the pitch was actually thrown, we have lost contact with the game as it is experienced in real life.

My solution, which I have advocated here (and many other places in my life) for a couple of years is to ban super slow motion from use in correcting calls. I don't have any objection to using replay to correct obvious mistakes (there have been a few, but only a few, real boners in MLB post-season history). Mistakes that can be easily seen on real-speed, and maybe even regular slow motion, mistakes that a large majority of professional officials would have corrected in real time if they had the opportunity, can and should be easily and quickly corrected, and there would not be very many of these. Mistakes that require super slo motion and non-human scale precision are not really "mistakes" - they are part of the zone of uncertainty in which we all life our real lives. I don't want televised sports to create and perpetuate the myth that we can expect error-free zones in which to live our lives.

I was able to come to terms with the horror of the 2000 election when I realized that, even if Al Gore did win Florida (I think he probably did), the result either way was inside the margin of error, not of the polls, but of the actual election. Human beings simply can not conduct an election involving millions of people over more than 50,000 square miles with 100% accuracy. Most of the time, the difference in recorded votes is greater than this inherent human error; but once in a while the the recorded vote is closer than the human error rate, and when that happens, it is meaningless to ask who *really* got more votes, Gore or Bush? That is a political version of the scholastic question asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Presumably the eye of God is able to see the actual number of votes cast for each side, and maybe there is some noumenal world in which that means something. But in the phenomenal world in which human beings live and hold elections and play baseball games, that 100% accurate count does not exist.

And, just to justify this conversation for those who think it has gone hopelessly off topic: This is a problem that as has been noted by others here is created largely by the transition of professional sports from a live, in-person event to a televised event. I don't object to many of the changes in these games that have been required for that transition, but I do think we have to be vigilant to make sure that we don't sacrifice the essence of the sport to make for good TV. I suppose we could pass a rule that once a team fall behind my more than 4 runs every run it scores will be multiplied by two. That would save TV baseball from boring wipeouts, but it would so fundamentally change the game that it would not be worth it.

[Bob Jersey]

PGage, to JW, in part:

My solution, which I have advocated here (and many other places in my life) for a couple of years is to ban super slow motion from use in correcting calls. I don't have any objection to using replay to correct obvious mistakes (there have been a few, but only a few, real boners in MLB post-season history). Mistakes that can be easily seen on real-speed, and maybe even regular slow motion, mistakes that a large majority of professional officials would have corrected in real time if they had the opportunity, can and should be easily and quickly corrected, and there would not be very many of these. Mistakes that require super slo motion and non-human scale precision are not really "mistakes" - they are part of the zone of uncertainty in which we all life our real lives. I don't want televised sports to create and perpetuate the myth that we can expect error-free zones in which to live our lives.[snip]

Thank you. I don't recall anyone remembering any recent playoff game or series for super-slo-mo. If they had, competing media would be (begging the rightsholder to allow) showing the same replay(s) on their air.

And, just to justify this conversation for those who think it has gone hopelessly off topic: This is a problem that as has been noted by others here is created largely by the transition of professional sports from a live, in-person event to a televised event. I don't object to many of the changes in these games that have been required for that transition, but I do think we have to be vigilant to make sure that we don't sacrifice the essence of the sport to make for good TV. I suppose we could pass a rule that once a team fall behind my more than 4 runs every run it scores will be multiplied by two. That would save TV baseball from boring wipeouts, but it would so fundamentally change the game that it would not be worth it.

You'll see a return to games being suspended when significant weather intervenes first.

B

[Dave Sikula]

By your logic, if a game has an egregiously blown call, such as Denkinger's in the '87 Series or Jim Joyce's brain fart in Gallaraga's perfect game, the only people who shouldn't know how bad the call was are the 40,000 people in the stadium. Everyone else will see it on television and be screaming at their screens.

As I said, getting the call correct is far more important to me than salving the feelings of umpires (who are already far too tetchy) or maintaining mistakes in the name of "well, they're only human." The technology exists, it works, and should be used.

But I can see we're not going to convince each other ...

--Dave Sikula

[PGage]

Perhaps we will not change each any minds, but we can at least get the arguments clear. By my logic, both of the blown calls you cite *would* have been overturned, as regular slow motion replay (even regular speed replay) clearly shows what the right call should have been. In the case of Denkinger, you can hear the TV analyst say almost immediately that from the naked eye it was obvious the runner was safe.

I have not argued that replay should be avoided to spare the feelings of umpires, nor have I used the "their only human" defense. What I have argued is that games are played on a human level - at speeds, and with margins of error, that human beings can perceive and understand as play unfolds. It is at that human level that the game should officiated. Technology now allows the game to be officiated at a non-human level, where time is slowed down, and margins are so small they could not possibly influence real time decisions by players or officials. This is what I object to.

Denkinger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWjPlA8TEvo

Joyce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlDTBDJbNE4

--Dave Sikula

[JW]

> Technology now allows the game to be
> officiated at a non-human level, where
> time is slowed down, and margins are
> so small they could not possibly influence
> real time decisions by players or officials.

There's a huge difference between players and officials. Nobody is paying/tuning in to watch the officials officiate. We're watching players perform extraordinary athletic feats to the best of their abilities, and we expect the officials to adjudicate those plays correctly. And once they're allowed to use replay to correct missed calls, it's arbitrary to say that only certain replays can be used. I assume the one Fox replay during the World Series where we saw one shoe hit first base before the other was super slo-mo, but it was crystal clear. Should the umpires stick with an incorrect call when everyone else can see what the right call is? (And yes, there are calls where no replay will help.)

> ...Most of the time, the difference in recorded votes is greater

> than this inherent human error; but once in a while the the recorded vote
> is closer than the human error rate, and when that happens, it is

> meaningless to ask who *really* got more votes, Gore or Bush? ...

I disagree. Strongly.

(As with officiating, we'll assume that the elections process is honest for the purpose of this discussion.)

In 2000 Florida, we saw confusing butterfly ballots and problems with chads. On the other hand, I used the same sort of voting machine I'd been using for decades, where it was clear whose lever I was pulling, and where the count was mechanical. With the current computer interfaces, it's obvious who you're voting for, and the counting is straightforward. So getting those results and adding them together is a simple enough process, whether we're talking about the race for president or dogcatcher. If there's any cloud of uncertainty, it's not because of the technology.

[Joe Hass]

Sidebar: after a couple of ties in swimming at the Summer Olympics, the question was raised whether it was worth expanding the official time to include thousands of a second (.001). And the short answer was that the physical nature of a swimming pool precluded that level of precision: a pool could shrink or expand enough that it was possible that the length between two lanes would vary to a point where .001 second fell within the margin of error allowed.

[PGage]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, JW <redb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Technology now allows the game to be
> officiated at a non-human level, where
> time is slowed down, and margins are
> so small they could not possibly influence
> real time decisions by players or officials.

There's a huge difference between players and officials. Nobody is paying/tuning in to watch the officials officiate. We're watching players perform extraordinary athletic feats to the best of their abilities, and we expect the officials to adjudicate those plays correctly. And once they're allowed to use replay to correct missed calls, it's arbitrary to say that only certain replays can be used. I assume the one Fox replay during the World Series where we saw one shoe hit first base before the other was super slo-mo, but it was crystal clear. Should the umpires stick with an incorrect call when everyone else can see what the right call is? (And yes, there are calls where no replay will help.)

Let me try it this way (and I very much appreciate the example from Joe about the swimming pool, which is directly to my point): Imagine a game in which points were scored for getting a blue ball in a goal, but not other colors. All of the players and officials are color blind, but the TV audience is not. In the game 99% of the balls are blue or red, but 1% are green, so occasionally a team is "incorrectly" given points for scoring a green ball. In such a scenario, would it really make sense to change the scoring based on how a non-color blind viewer in New York saw it on an instant replay? In some artificial, absolute sense, it would be "correct", but it would not be correct in the actual universe in which both the players and officials operate.

I don't mind if obvious mistakes are corrected with replay; but it has become obvious to me that it is difficult if not impossible to keep this at a common-sense level. If a play at first is so close that no human on the field, even if they had the exact optimum perspective, could perceive in real time whether the ball or runner arrived first, then what that must mean is that the play was too close for any further review, and the official's call on the field should stand.

The fetish about "getting it right" is I think obviously limited, and the major sports are getting that. The very fact that challenges are limited illustrates the fact - it assumes that some incorrect calls are tolerable, and leave up to the manager/coach the decision of which perceived mistakes to tolerate and which not. The cost is in lengthening the game, and increasing uncertainty on the field. Even MLB knows they do not want a world in which we constantly hear: "Strike Two! Or so it appears, it was close, so let's wait 45 seconds while the boys in New York get out the electron microscope to see if any micron of the ball broke the various strike zone planes!"

The current system already places limits on the use of replay (in all sports) that accept that some "objectively incorrect" calls will stand. My proposal simply would ensure that challenges were aimed at correcting gross and obvious mistakes (that any good official would like to see corrected) and not waste a lot of time litigating differing perceptions and definitions of reality that are below the threshold of everyday experience.

[PGage]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, JW <redb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...Most of the time, the difference in recorded votes is greater

> than this inherent human error; but once in a while the the recorded vote
> is closer than the human error rate, and when that happens, it is
> meaningless to ask who *really* got more votes, Gore or Bush? ...

I disagree. Strongly.

(As with officiating, we'll assume that the elections process is honest for the purpose of this discussion.)

In 2000 Florida, we saw confusing butterfly ballots and problems with chads. On the other hand, I used the same sort of voting machine I'd been using for decades, where it was clear whose lever I was pulling, and where the count was mechanical. With the current computer interfaces, it's obvious who you're voting for, and the counting is straightforward. So getting those results and adding them together is a simple enough process, whether we're talking about the race for president or dogcatcher. If there's any cloud of uncertainty, it's not because of the technology.

So, my point is not that it is impossible to hold honest or accurate elections - just that it is impossible to get an accurate count of every actual vote cast among tens of millions, particularly when these are cast in so many different counties and precincts under so many different rules.  If the eye of God knows that Gore actually received 2,912,253 votes in Florida in 2000 and Bush *only* 2,912,252, it would not be reasonable or even possible to expect that so many flawed humans could detect such a small difference - invariably, no matter how many recounts we did, there would be some error. If the final count gives Bush 2,912,790, that 538 vote difference is reasonably part of the inevitable messiness of human experience. Now in this case, there are procedures for doing recounts, and they were triggered. They were not fully completed, and I do think that was a mistake - but the "umpires" on the field - the Supreme Court - made a call, and as flawed as I might think it was, I accept it. I don't accept it just because I am a good American and respect the highest court in the land, but because watching that play out it became clear to me that even if a full and complete recount put Gore ahead by 500 votes, I could not in good conscience honestly claim that it was the 100% accurate result. That race was closer than the human capacity for accurately counting that many ballots. The winner basically was the one who belonged to the party that had won the previous state Governor's election. Trust me, I doubt anyone on this list wanted Al Gore to win that election more than I did, or is more critical of the bogus legal reasoning used in the majority SCOTUS decision, which was a scandal. But I admit that I would not trust myself to recount (or even supervise a recount) of the 6 million ballots and come up with a result that I could honestly claim was more accurate than anyone else's. Having it decided by whoever won the last Governor's election is probably not the worst solution. We have to accept that there are limits to the accuracy of our perception.

[JW]

> All of the players and officials are color blind, but the TV
> audience is not. In the game 99% of the balls are blue or red, but 1% are
> green, so occasionally a team is "incorrectly" given points for scoring a
> green ball. In such a scenario, would it really make sense to change the
> scoring based on how a non-color blind viewer in New York saw it on an
> instant replay?

In the spirit of the question, once the participants realize that some of the balls are green ("That's why there's a section about green balls in the rule book,") they can change the green balls to blue (or red, if they prefer), adopt a rule that treats green balls like blue for the purpose of scoring (which seems to be the status quo), and/or change the color or striping of the green balls so participants can distinguish them. What the league doesn't want is a championship that's decided when a green ball is incorrectly considered the winning score, everybody but the participants knows it immediately, and fans of the losing team go on forever about how they were cheated, or start watching bowling instead.

Generally, we agree on more than we disagree about. My point is that as technology marches on, and as it's available to everyone else, it should be available to officials, too. You're right about how nobody wants to wait 45 seconds for a pitch to be called electronically, but if it can be done in a second, and it's more accurate than home plate umpires, there's an obvious place for the technology. If it's capable of making real distinctions that human officials can't, that's a feature, not a bug.

[PGage]

In your last paragraph I agree with everything but the last sentence, which I strongly disagree with, but I suppose we can leave it there. I do think though that we are beginning to see, and will see more in the near future, pro leagues  tweaking their replay rules so that less time is spent on super close calls, and most replays are used to correct obvious mistakes. The wording of the rule in MLB this year is clearly intended to achieve this.

--