Showing posts with label Jayson Stark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jayson Stark. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2008

Replay in Baseball: Get Your Head Out Your Arse and Use It



On ESPN Jayson Stark is having a chat about whether replay should be used in baseball. To summarize the argument for replay: those in favor of replay would basically like to get calls right. I don’t see any merit in getting calls wrong, so unless there’s a compelling reason not to get the calls right I say use replay.

The arguments against replay are many, but basically well… dumb. One argument is it will slow down the game. People argue that baseball is already a slow game, we can’t be going over to a replay booth to check every close call. That’s a valid, but again stupid argument. Why? Well for two reasons really…

1) no one is arguing we should replay every play. Balls and strikes will always be the umpire’s discretion. Certainly one could argue a system like ques tec or k zone would do a better job, but no one is arguing for it to be used for anything other than an evaluative tool. Some people would argue replay should be used for all close safe-out calls, but I won’t even argue for that. I’m simply arguing that on easy to review calls like whether a ball was fair or foul and whether a ball was trapped or not we can go to an upstairs umpire who probably won’t need more than one look at the play and can radio down with his decision.

2) In addition to it not being used on every play it will not in any significant way slow down the game. What happens when there’s a close play like a fair or foul home run? Often times the umpires will gather together discuss it and may or may not reverse the decision. Based on whether they reverse the decision or not one of the managers will come out there and discuss/yell about it. Let’s say the umpires discuss the call for 1 ½ minutes and then the manager comes out for another 2-5 minutes, that’s somewhere between 3 ½ - 6 ½ minutes for a close call. Instead of that couldn’t we just review the play for 2-3 minutes tops. We could probably have a good 3-4 replays per game in the same time span as one challenged call.

The other argument against replay is it takes out the “human element” of the game. I for one don’t even really know what that means, or why it’s so sacred, but I understand that it’s important for the purists. Again I’ll make a similar argument that there’s still a significant portion of calls (like balls and strikes) that will never be up for replay. So even with the most liberal use of replay there will still be the human element.

But again I question what’s so sacred about the human element? Baseball like every other sport needs to progress over time. They used to have storm drains in centerfield that severely affected the careers of players like Mickey Mantle who got caught up in them and got injured. New technology came along and they no longer need to put storm drains on the field, is anyone upset about that? Let’s go back in time further; they used to wear no gloves at all or if they wore gloves it was barely larger than their hands. Now outfielders wear gloves large enough for a small baby to sleep in. Again, where’s the complaining about that?

Technology is not a bad thing and it’s time for baseball to give it a shot. Lets try it out see where it works and were it doesn’t. I think most people would argue inter-league play and the wild card have been good for baseball and I think they’ll realize if replay is instituted it’s good for the game too.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Can We Get Rid of Batting Average?

Now I know the traditionalists among us (read those over the age over 45) will object, but I propose getting rid of batting average. In fantasy baseball and especially in real life. What prompts this… is it the books I’ve read on sabermetrics, or some profound breakthrough I’ve had? Nope, it’s just a stupid statement about Brad Lidge by Jayson Stark. He says in 2005 Lidge was considered the best closer in baseball and in 2007 he was a bust, but his stats aren’t all that different. He cites opponents batting average which was higher in 2005 than 2007. That’s great, but all that shows is that the stat itself it means nothing.

Here are Lidge’s stats for 2005 and 2007.

ERA

SV

BLSV

K/9

K/BB

AVG

OBP

SLG

OPS

HR

2005

2.29

42

4

13.12

4.48

.223

.293

.323

.612

5

2007

3.36

19

8

11.82

2.93

.219

.312

.409

.716

9

You’ll notice the only stat that was better for Lidge in 2005 was avg. and if we can all agree average is all but meaningless it’ll be easy to tell why Lidge was considered a bust in 2007. He struck out less people, he allowed more base runners, and he allowed a greater percentage of bases on those base hits. Now would he have been considered as big of a bust if his 2006 season wasn’t so awful (to the tune of an over 5 era)? Maybe not. However it’s clear that blowing 8 saves in 27 opportunities, almost 1/3 of your saves, is not good. Neither were any of his other stats compared to his 2005 season.

Lidge is just one case study on the pitching side of how little batting average matters. I could go on about how OBP and slugging are such better measures for hitters as well, but I think we’ve all heard those arguments. So isn’t it time we all agreed to get rid of batting average. After all we’ve got computers nowadays computing the other stats doesn’t need to be done with an abacus.