1 in 5 wrong? Really?

[BSUmp16]

I agree with Tim C (who agrees with JM):

"The NTSB and the NBA did studies that document that the human mind cannot comprehend activites that occur within .03th of a second of each other."

The notion of a "tie" comes when the human brain (which, despite what some coaches will tell you includes the umpire's brain) cannot physiologically determine which event occured first and which came second.

While I agree that the statistics used in the report are all goofed up, the underlying data shows that on average there are 1.3 calls per game that are too close for the human brain to distinguish which event came first (runner at bag) and which came second (ball at bag). Of those 1.3 plays 14% are found to be too close for determination EVEN USING SLOW MOTION REPLAY. Those plays are what I (and I think most people) would call "ties". Based on the data, those plays will occur, on average, once every 6 games! That's a lot of "too close to call" plays over a season, so its not just theoretical.

There are no tie CALLS in baseball; there are tie PLAYS. Simply repeating the old "There are no ties in Baseball" does nothing to address the real issue.

And I am not being "creative, arbitrary, or subjective". I'm applying OBR Rule 6.05(j) (applicable to runners going into first base) which states: “A batter is out when - after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged BEFORE he touches first base.” BY RULE, ties (i.e., those plays that the human brain cannot make a determination as to which event happened first) go to the runner.

You may disagree, but simply saying "BS" is not really a legitimate response.

P.S. My "Pause... Read... React." comment was meant metaphorically - a reference to the fact that MByron had not apparently "read" my comment before he "reacted" to it.

[LMan]

There are no ties in baseball.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by LMan

There are no ties in baseball.

Not since Connie Mack wore one, at least.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not since Connie Mack wore one, at least.

Ah, there was a snappy dresser.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

And I am not being "creative, arbitrary, or subjective". I'm applying OBR Rule 6.05(j) (applicable to runners going into first base) which states: “A batter is out when - after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged BEFORE he touches first base.” BY RULE, ties (i.e., those plays that the human brain cannot make a determination as to which event happened first) go to the runner.

That's not what you said before. You said that it was up to each umpire how to call "ties." Now you want to go by rule, which is a significant improvement.

Unfortunately, you've selected the wrong rule. You're evidently unaware that umpires ignore that clause of 6.05 and instead enforce the standard of 7.01 at all bases: "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."

As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

[umpjim]

Didn't MLB change the wording of 6.05j this year so the runner or the base has to be tagged before he touches. This makes it the same as 7.08e regarding a forced runner. Both imply a that a tie goes to the runner on a force or play at 1B and the change of 6.05 is noteworthy.

[BSUmp16]

I, too, thought the rule had been changed so that both sections were consistent, but I can't verify that and the current OBR at the MLB website does not reflect a change. But thanks for recognizing the point

Look, I'm aware of the differences between 6.05 and 7.08e as they currently (?) read - 6.05j applies to runners going into 1st and 7.08e applies to runners going into the other bases. 7.08e states that "Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base", which is the opposite of 6.05j. I know that. And if UmpJim is correct, I agree it is a significant change.

Even if the two rules still are inconsistent, it doesn't change the basic question. If, under 7.08e, you can't say that the runner touched the base before he was was put out (i.e., before the ball arrived at the base), because the human brain can't physiologically make that determination (see reference to NTSB above), under 7.08e you call him out ("too close to call = out"). Under 6.05j "too close to call" = safe. Now you can ignore the rule (6.05j), as some say they do, but that seems to be a funny position to take for a guy (*cough* mbyron *cough*) who complains that MY position is "arbitrary" or "subjective". Unless you have a consistent approach to those plays, you're the one who will be making calls arbitrarily.

This is what drives fans and sports announcers crazy. On plays that are too close to call sometimes the runner will be out and sometimes he'll be safe - no consistency, which then prompts more agitation for instant replay - which I think will ruin the game.

If you want to avoid continual outbursts about the need for instant replay, one way (not the only way) to do it is to develop a consistent approach to calling those type of plays (which do happen with some frequency - see data cited above) which approach is also consistent with the published rules. Saying "there are no ties in baseball" is just putting your head in the sand and feeding the demand for more and more instant replay.

My final 2 cents. Take your best shot.

[rookieblue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

There you have it. As succinctly as possible. Almost passes the five-word test! And without consulting Hegel or Einstein, either! Kudos to mbyron for his brevity and UmpJM for his erudition.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I believe I said LESS than 5%. I believe .5% is LESS than 5%.

I didn't have the time to spend much time on this this morning. I have a life. Nevertheless, I was correct in my spur of the moment statement.

WOW!



Thanks for one of the biggest laughs you've ever given us!

[UmpJM]

Michael,

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's awfully highbrow for an umpire site, John. Next we'll have some yahoo debating the Copenhagen interpretation on here!

Why thank you. I think...

As always, I blame the Jesuits.

Since you brought it up, I actually believe all umpires should be given an overview of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I certainly find it useful in umpiring - but don't worry, I'm not going to try to convince anyone else.

Originally Posted by mbyron

...
As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

I would agree with that statement.

But, I would also say that the throw must beat the runner for him to be out. (Despite the new wording in 6.05.)

The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided.

JM

[umpjim]

I think the new wording in 6.05j agrees with what you are saying.

But it's a confusing world out there now.

I recently had a safe on a steal of 3B (Indy league fill in) where the high throw beat R2 but the tag was late and R2's arm had the bag before the tag hit R2's hip. I got to talk to the manager. My seasoned partner advises after the game that when the throw beats the runner it's an out. Well you still gotta make a tag. In that venue,throw beats runner equals out, in MLB with video. tag has to get runner.



Like UmpJM said: " The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided"

[LMan]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Like UmpJM said: " The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided"

Unless you are in Bristol, CT

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

As always, I blame the Jesuits.

The Jesuits taught you Hegel? I guess they'll stoop to anything to avoid teaching that fat, old Dominican...

[BaBa Booey]

Let's not forget that this "data" came from a 2 week sample. Any statistician / econometrician worth their salt will tell you that in the course of an entire baseball season, a 2 week sample is hardly representative of the product as a whole. If you remember, the big reason they have replay now is because in the span of a week there were 3 or 4 missed HR calls, so everyone was up in arms, but then you didn't see another for the next 3 months. In the long run, it all averages out.

Aslo, great points about what ESPN determined was too close or not close enough to count, etc. It's a bunch of nonsense just like the players ranking the umpires.

[LMan]

But...after the story, ESPN asked Joe Morgan (aka former umpire) for his opinion on the results. If that's not credibility, I don't know what is.