CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Premium Article Contractual Matters: O... (07/01)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Changing Speeds: Soft ... (06/23)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Changing Speeds: Free ... (07/08)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Prospectus Hit List: C... (07/01)

July 1, 2010

Changing Speeds

A Better Angle on Replay

by Ken Funck

In the weeks since Jim Joyce’s missed call at first base transformed Armando Galarraga’s rare perfecto into an even more memorable faux-hitter, lots has been said and written about expanding the use of instant replay in baseball. Some have come out against any increased use of technology to correct umpire mistakes, a few with arguments seemingly cribbed from King Ludd, but most with reasonable concerns about game length, undermining authority, and the difficulty of determining where to place runners after an overturned call. Others have supported increased use of replay in various forms, from allowing managers a set number of challenges, to the installation of a replay umpire to intervene when a suspicious call is made. While polls have shown a surprising lack of support among players for replay, a majority of fans seem to like the idea, and Bud Selig has at least tepidly agreed to ask his curiously-constructed “on-field matters” committee to explore the idea.

What I haven’t really seen, however, is much more than a skin-deep look at how replay might actually be expanded, how frequently calls might be reviewed, and what difficulties might ensue from overturning calls. To that end, I decided to park myself in a virtual replay booth for a small set of games to see what might happen if my dreams of expanded replay actually came true, and how well a replay system might stand up to the problems some feel it would introduce.

What follows is a very cursory analysis of one day of games on the MLB schedule (June 22nd), as viewed on MLB.tv’s “condensed game” feature, and full game replays when slo-mo or additional views not shown on the condensed game were needed to rule on a play. While condensed games don’t include every pitch, or even every plate appearance, of a given game, the plays that aren’t included tend to be mundane outs in non-scoring innings. This means the numbers below may possibly undercount the number of plays that need review, but my sense is the difference is small, and this seemed like a reasonably representative starting place for one guy; perhaps we could crowdsource a larger sample in the future.

The Rules: For this experiment, I used the replay proposal that I personally support: an official replay umpire with access to numerous video feeds, with the authority to review any questionable call not related to balls and strikes. If this umpire’s live view of a play shows a reasonable chance that a call was incorrect, he can buzz or call the home plate umpire and request that play be stopped until a quick review can be performed—ideally no more than 30 seconds. To overturn a call, there would need to be what football calls “irrefutable visual evidence” that the call was incorrect. If the play is overturned, the crew chief (with input when necessary from other umps, including the replay ump) decides where to place the batter and/or other runners as necessary, using a few general principles (see Rebuilding The Game State below).

Lacking an actual umpire’s uniform but desiring to look more authoritative, I donned the closest thing I own—a home-made TPB security guard costume—and went to work watching 15 ballgames. I kept track of how many plays looked close enough at live speed to merit a review, and how many I would overturn after reviewing. For my purpose, I applied (and would recommend) a very conservative approach to overturning calls, i.e., only those calls which are quite obviously wrong would be undone.

The Results:

Play Type

Play Subtype

Reviewed

Decided After One Viewing

Overturned

Safe/Out

Bang-bang play at first

16

12

1

 

Fielder pulled off/missed bag

3

3

0

 

Force out

3

1

1

 

Neighborhood” play

1

1

1

 

Tag play on runner

3

3

0

 

Tag play on SB/Pickoff

10

8

2

 

Fly ball caught/trapped

1

1

0

Fair/Foul

Fair/Foul in infield

2

2

0

 

Fair/Foul in outfield

1

1

0

Other

Hit By Pitch

1

1

0

 

Runner Out Of Baseline

1

1

0

Total

 

42

34

5

In the 15 games I watched, there were 42 plays that I felt were close enough to merit a review—thus an average game in this sample sees somewhere in the neighborhood of three plays worthy of review. Of these 42 plays, on 34 occasions I was able to make a decision to affirm or overturn the original call after merely watching the original view at a slower speed. Only eight plays, or about one every two games, required a different view before I could determine whether I should overturn the original call, and only five were actually overturned.

Breaking this down by play type, the largest number of plays I reviewed involved batters beating a throw to first base, with only one that seemed clearly (though barely) wrong after a repeat viewing at a slower speed. Determining when the ball is “squeezed” by the first baseman isn’t easy even at slower speeds, and for these plays I found myself more often than not being unsure exactly when that happened. This is where my “conservative” approach had the most impact—unless I was sure the ball had been completely caught, I couldn’t overturn the umpire on the field, who possibly had the benefit of hearing the ball hit the mitt and the runner’s foot hit the bag in making his call. (Even with a conservative approach I would definitely have overturned Joyce and called Jason Donald out.)

The next most frequently reviewed plays were stolen bases and pickoffs. I’ve been critical in the past of umpires calling players out when a throw beats them to a base, regardless of the tag, and the two plays overturned here were exactly that—high tags on players who were safe but called out. It was more difficult, however, to be sure that any players called safe were actually out—replay could show conclusively that a tag was missed or was late, but it was harder to use a two-dimensional replay to be sure exactly when a tag was applied.

I was surprised to see only one “neighborhood” play (where a middle infielder isn’t in contact with second base when performing a force out) worth a review, and only because it was obvious that the shortstop had stepped off the bag to avoid a sliding runner before the ball got to him. One valid criticism of replay is that neighborhood plays are necessary to avoid injuries and perhaps shouldn’t be overturned, but perhaps they’re not as common as we think. Personally I’d rather see this addressed by a rules change which allows force outs when a fielder is within, say, a foot of the bag.

The only other play I thought would be overturned was a force play at second in which a runner pretty clearly slid in ahead of the throw but was called out anyway at the start of a double play. The interesting thing here is that the runner then slid past the bag, and theoretically might have been tagged out had the umpire called him safe—exactly the sort of dilemma an umpiring crew would face after an overturned call.

The Time Factor: What can we make of all this? First of all, to their credit umpires get most calls right, or at least not obviously wrong, on the vast majority of occasions. Most plays don’t require replay—let’s generously say up to five per game do—and the vast majority of those can be adjudicated after a single replay. If a single viewing can be performed in under 30 seconds, and multiple viewings in less than a minute (both of which seem reasonable to me), the average game might take around three minutes longer under this review system, perhaps a little more if there’s a complicated reversal—in my opinion a small price to pay to avoid the possibility that an umpire mistake affects the outcome of a game.

Booth Reviews vs. Manager Challenges: Some have suggested a “manager challenge” system to ensure only a few “important” calls get reviewed to save time, but if the cost of ensuring all close plays are reviewed is only a few minutes, isn’t that a better solution? The drama surrounding Ozzie Guillen charging onto the field and throwing a challenge flag might very well take more time than a full game’s worth of self-initiated booth reviews. Moreover, any out at any point in the game can make the difference between no runs being scored and a crooked number inning, so who’s to say which plays are “important”? Wouldn’t it be better to make sure all plays are called as correctly as possible? Worst of all, a challenge system would become a managerial tactic, and a “challenge” would be an adversarial moment between managers, players and umpires. Self-initiated booth challenges, however, are akin to umpires huddling to get a call right, and would probably cause less friction—consider the difference in how hockey coaches react to non-reviewable penalty calls and reviewable goal/no-goal calls.

Rebuilding The Game State: Another reasonable argument against instant replay is the difficulty in determining where to place runners after a call is overturned. Sure, for some plays this will be difficult, but it’s not unprecedented. For overturned home runs and fan interference, the crew chief is already directed to place runners where he feels they would have ended up had the interference or incorrect home run call not occurred. Rule 7.05(g) details how to place runners when a ball goes out of play or otherwise becomes dead. No one expects umpires to be recruited from the Precrime program, able to foresee exactly how a play would have progressed had a bad call not intervened, but a mixture of common sense and a few basic guidelines should suffice to fairly rebuild the game state. Here are a few possible guidelines:

  1. If a fair ball is called foul in the outfield, the batter and all runners are awarded two bases.

  1. If a fair ball is called foul in the infield, the batter and all runners are awarded one base, unless the umpires feel it likely that a player would have been forced out, in which case the ball remains foul.

  1. When a trapped ball is erroneously ruled a catch in the outfield, the batter and each runner will be awarded one base if the fielder is moving towards the infield, otherwise two bases.

  1. When a trapped ball is erroneously ruled a catch in the infield, the batter and each runner will be awarded one base unless the umpires feel likely that a player would have subsequently been forced out, in which case the play remains a catch.

This is just food for thought—these suggestions wouldn’t be perfect, but they would be better than doing nothing. The point is these aren’t intractable problems, and since fans are used to seeing ground-rule doubles that keep fast runners on first from scoring, and consider them the same sort of “bad break” as a bad-hop single, rules of this sort shouldn’t be hard to accept.

None of this is meant as a comprehensive replay proposal, nor as a comprehensive study of the impact of replay that MLB itself could and should undertake. However, after spending a single virtual day in the replay booth, I’m more convinced than ever that a replay system could be implemented that judiciously corrects flagrant mistakes, without significantly lengthening games or undermining umpire authority. Umpiring mistakes are unavoidable, understandable, and rare, but anything that can be done to help reduce the chance that a mistake helps decide an important game is worth looking at seriously.

Ken Funck is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Ken's other articles. You can contact Ken by clicking here

31 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

iddscoper

Great work, Ken. I look forward to seeing more on this subject in the future. I would also point out that it's possible that your estimate of 3 minutes per game added because of replay may actually be on the high side. If a booth umpire can quickly reverse a call that would have otherwise lead to a lengthy argument between the field ump and a manager, it would probably *save* time. I would say the same on home run calls - a booth umpire can make the correct determination a lot more quickly than all 4 field umps who currently have to leave the field to find a replay room.

Jul 01, 2010 06:43 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

Personally, I agree with you. Also, I'd say the majority of reviews could be done in fifteen seconds -- think of the time it takes you to rewind a DVR and play something forward in slo-mo. These delays may occur at less-than-optimal times (say, reviewing a tag on a pick-off play, where you'll need to make the pitcher wait before throwing another pitch). But most occur at times when there is a natural pause in the game, i.e., immediately after a play is completed, so I think the actual time increase will be somewhat less.

Jul 01, 2010 09:03 AM
 
WaldoInSC

Moreover, there is an argument opportunity savings that probably eradicates the entire time cost of the review. Lou Pinella can't kick dirt and throw a base in under three minutes.

Jul 01, 2010 18:45 PM
rating: 0
 
Mike W
(830)

Nice experiment. The time-to-review factor is probably decisive in getting MLB on board, and once implemented, making it palatable to the fans and media, so kudos for paying close attention to that.

I wonder if your approach to overturning calls was perhaps too conservative. In particular, only two overturned tag plays seems low. I typically see a couple per night watching the MLB package for an hour or two, and maintain that this is (apart from the obvious issue of ball-strike calls which is outside the purview of instant replay) by far the most troublesome set of umpire calls, whether on a SB attempt, or a play at the plate or at 3rd.

Jul 01, 2010 07:21 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

I expected to see more of those overturned as well, and perhaps a larger sample would show that result. The problem I found was that it's really difficult to know for sure exactly when the tag is applied, so only those plays where it was clear the tag was nowhere near the player when his foot or hand hit the bag wound up being overturned. There were several others where the tag -might- have been late, but I couldn't be sure when the tag was applied. Did I suspect those tags were late? Sure. Would I bet my life on it? No.

Jul 01, 2010 09:09 AM
 
Dr. Dave

Good stuff, Ken, but I too am curious about the "irrefutable evidence" standard. Why adopt it? I hate that standard in football, for a variety of reasons (some of which have to do with the interaction with "limited challenges available").

Once you've decided to review, why not let the guy with the best view (the review official) use his best judgment to make the call? This becomes especially important once the field umpires get used to the system, and start making the overturnable call, instead of the one they think really happened, any time it's close. If you impose an asymmetric standard of evidence, you end up biasing the eventual calls.

Example: ground ball sliced past the first base bag into the corner, with runners on base. If I'm the first base umpire, and I know review is possible, I call that ball fair EVERY TIME, and let the play finish. If the review guy eventually comes back and says "foul ball", there's probably no harm done; everyone goes back to where they were. But if I call it foul, the play is dead and we have a mess figuring out who would be where.

If you have an "irrefutable visual evidence" standard, you have now biased the eventual decision in favor of a call that the on-field official may not have thought was correct even at the time. That's a Bad Thing.

Jul 01, 2010 11:18 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

Great points, doc. I guess I went with the "irrefutable visual evidence" standard because I'm not necessarily convinced that the replay official always has the best view. One example is the first base umpire hearing the ball hit the mitt, which may be better than seeing it on replay if it's really close. Even harder for me was seeing a 2-D image of a mitt in front of a runner's leg on a tag play and trying to discern when the tag actually occurred. You maybe can get a few different angles on that play, but putting them together to compare when the tag happened and when the player touched the bag is difficult. If the umpire's in position, he has a live 3-D view of the play, which may be better (albeit at high speed, which is why those are hard calls for umpires to make).

Your other point, which 2White also touches on below, is very true: if the standard that needs to be met to overturn a call is very high, and umpires are constantly ruling close plays fair not foul because they're easier to overturn, that would be bad. So I guess those two things go hand-in-hand: a lower overturn standard is applied if umpires are instructed (or tend) to make calls based on how easy it is to overturn the call; a higher overturn standard is applied if umpires are instructed (or tend) to make calls as best they see them. I'd prefer the latter because I want umpires on the field to give their honest impression of the play since there might not be a better replay view, but I can see the value of the former in terms of simplifying how to set the game after an overrule.

Jul 01, 2010 11:55 AM
 
jtjk

Regarding umpire motivation and potential bias: You'd have to think replay, once instituted, would quickly become a gauge by which umpire performance is measured. "Blown calls" would now become a hard, measurable statistic easily attached to each umpire's name. They would want to avoid racking up those blown calls and therefore strive to make the most accurate calls possible.

Jul 01, 2010 19:32 PM
rating: 0
 
R.A.Wagman

Not really. A replay is just a way of saying the call was too close to tell, intrinsically. The initial "blown call" is not blown - it is merely a first iteration of a decision making process that would only take seconds to achieve.

Jul 01, 2010 20:05 PM
rating: 1
 
Matt Kory

To BP readers yes, but I fear that subtly may be lost on sports radio callers and many columnists.

Jul 01, 2010 21:45 PM
rating: 0
 
Matthew Avery

Nicely done.

Given that managers come out to argue now with no prospect of a call being overturned, I've got to figure they'd come out and argue to get a booth review even if they didn't have an "official" channel like a flag. Given this, I say why not just give 'em the flag?

Jul 01, 2010 07:54 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

Valid point. But I think if anything looking remotely questionable is reviewed (and that's the standard I followed), managers won't have as much to argue. They shouldn't ever have to come out and argue to get a replay -- there should be a replay on any play they might consider arguing, and a replay on others they might not consider arguing. IMHO, doing this won't take any more (or much more) time than a challenge system, and will get more plays right.

Jul 01, 2010 09:14 AM
 
alangreene

Thank you for putting this out there. It seems like everyone who opposes replay at all always creates a straw man by making replay the most cumbersome system ever (basically, mimicking the NFL instead of college football) so that they can say "It will take forever."

Heck, if Jon Garland is pitching, you can do the replay before he ever steps on the rubber for his next pitch.

Jul 01, 2010 09:21 AM
rating: 0
 
2White

Great work. One quick comment: if a replay system is implemented, on close fair/foul calls, umpires should be instructed to rule the ball fair unless it's overwhelmingly clear that it's foul. It be far easier to re-set the game conditions when an umpire errs and calls a foul ball to be fair than vice-versa. This rule/principle would be akin to how NFL officials err on the side of calling something a fumble rather than a dead ball.

Jul 01, 2010 10:14 AM
rating: 0
 
newsense

"When a trapped ball is erroneously ruled a catch in the infield, the batter and each runner will be awarded one base unless the umpires feel likely that a player would have subsequently been forced out, in which case the play remains a catch."

This is the equivalent of forcing the lead runner, a likely outcome if runners hold in anticipation of a catch, even if the umpire on the field had correctly called it a trap. The overruled play should not remain a catch, however, because this means any runner "doubled-up" would still be out despite the trap.

Jul 01, 2010 10:26 AM
rating: 1
 
RedsManRick

I think the time issue is a red herring. Yes, it needs to be addressed and I think you've done it well. But even if there was certainty of replay adding no more than 3 minutes per game on average, I don't think opinions would change much.

The concern from the players is having their fate decided by somebody who they can't look in the eye and a significant amount of empathy for a guy who is expected to be perfect but is still human. In an odd way, umpires being wrong on occasion reinforces the idea that the game is decided by imperfect people doing their best on the field of play.

The concern from the umpire is that replay suggests they aren't doing their best or that they aren't the best at what they do. Umpires are people and people have egos. And the more you have invested in something, the greater pride you take in your ability to do it well. Replay seems like an insult.

From a change management perspective, I think you most need to deal with these hurdles, the latter in particular.

Jul 01, 2010 10:46 AM
rating: 0
 
KevinS
(961)

Strawman? Anyone watch the O's-Red Sox game Saturday evening? Notice how long it took to overrule the call that turned Jake Fox's double into a HR?

It was an easy call. It was obvious to most watching and EVERYONE on replay that it was a HR. It still took a long time for the umps to review it. The announcers (Gary Thorne, Mike Flanagan) made a comment at the 5-minute mark....that they were still waiting for the umps.

Five minutes for an obvious call? How long for a really close one?

Until you want to go totally hi-tech with every pitch (strike or ball), than I don't want to selectively look at a few close calls. Baseball is an imperfect game that will never be perfect until the humans are out of it. Then it will be perfect, but not fun.

As long as umps are calling them as they see it- it is a fair game. I am happy with it just the way it is. Bad calls are just another variable, like weather, field conditions, etc... that both teams have to deal with.

Jul 04, 2010 16:20 PM
rating: 0
 
bravejason

Great article and I generally like your replay proposal except that I have some heartburn with your second guideline: "2.If a fair ball is called foul in the infield, the batter and all runners are awarded one base, unless the umpires feel it likely that a player would have been forced out, in which case the ball remains foul."

Let me get this straight, if in the opinion of the umpire the everybody would have been safe, then the batter gets to go to first and all runners gain a base. But if in the opinion of the umpire somebody would have been forced out, then the incorrect call stands, all the runners return to their bases, and the the batter gets to bat again even though had the play been called correctly, somebody would be cooling his jets in the dugout after being forced out.

I don't understand the logic. The offense has everything to gain and nothing lose. Either everyone gains a base or the batter gets another chance. The defense which in the opinion of the umpire had an out, loses that out and has to give the offense another chance.

A better guideline would be "...unless the umpires feel it likely that a player would have been forced out, the offensive player who, in the opinion of the umpires, would most likely have been forced out is called out by force and all other runners, including the batter-runner, if applicable, are awarded one base." This way, the defense keeps its out. Depending on which player the umpire calls out, the offense can lose as much a run (e.g. bases loaded, runner on 3rd called out), but it seems more fair than giving the offense an extra out.

Jul 01, 2010 10:51 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

I guess what I was doing with that particular example was applying this maxim: never assume a fielding play will result in an out, however likely it may seem. Outs are the game's strongest currency, and I felt uncomfortable calling anyone out unless they are actually, in real life, put out. That's just me, though; like I said, those were just food for thought, and I'm certainly open to other, likely better, ideas.

MLB, though, will need to give umpires fairly detailed guidelines, and take the time to explain why they've decided what they've decided, if they expand replay. Umps will need more direction than the "just leave it up to the crew chief" rule that currently is in play for HR replays.

Jul 01, 2010 12:40 PM
 
Mike Fast

Nice work, Ken. I enjoyed the article. I always like when someone gets his hands dirty by watching game video and shares the results.

Jul 01, 2010 11:48 AM
rating: 0
 
macolyte

The big problem with all of this - "If the play is overturned, the crew chief (with input when necessary from other umps, including the replay ump) decides where to place the batter and/or other runners as necessary..." - is that it isn't baseball. APBA, perhaps. Strat. Baseball, as played live, on a field. No, it is not.

Is it unfortunate that umpires' blown calls will live on and on and on in replay? Sure. So are players' and managers' mistakes endlessly viewed and reviewed and debated. These proposals take a beautiful, fluid game and turn it into a Halloween costume. I seem to be the only one, but I sincerely hope nothing resembling this ever comes to pass.

Jul 01, 2010 13:38 PM
rating: -2
 
trueblue
(127)

Great article, Ken. It seems to me that you've hit on two of the main topics on my mind when it comes to the replay debate.

First, I agree with your views that it should be performed by an off-field official (like in college football or the NHL). To me, much of the delay most folks complain about is that the officials take several moments to decide they need a replay, go into a dugout, look at the tape, decide what to do, then emerge back on the field. Having the process take place by an off-field official would not only expedite this, but it would also make the review more independent so that umpires are less likely to defend a call they messed up.

Second, I strongly oppose the idea of having a "challenge" system, for some of the reasons you mention. All too often in the NFL, we hear commentators commend a coach's decision to throw a red flag for tactical reasons, not because a call was actually bad/good. Also, what happens once a manager uses all his challenges? Suppose Jim Leyland ran out of challenges before the Jim Joyce call happened? Folks would still be outraged that bad calls would stand just because an arbitrary number of challenges ran out.

Jul 01, 2010 13:44 PM
rating: 0
 
Llarry

One more thing that I've heard discussed, which, if done right helps the process and brings the umpires on board: The replay ump is the fifth member of the crew and rotates through the field positions. The Union gets a bunch more jobs, and their performance is being reviewed by their peers. Now sure, the replay umps could clam up and never overturn anything, but if it's administered properly and reviewed after the fact, it should be okay. The key is making sure the umpires buy into the idea that overturned calls are not a hammer to be used against them. Get them on board and you take out the desire to "defend" calls.

Rotating through as a fifth "base" gives each guy what should be an easier day (at least physically, getting to sit down), probably between the home plate and 1st base days. Video review and on-field calls are not necessarily the same exact skill set, but given the choice, I'm fine with having someone experienced in the on-field view making the judgments.

Jul 01, 2010 14:39 PM
rating: 1
 
Tank
(989)

I agree that it could easily be managed that the umps get on board with it.

Personally, I like the idea of ump initiated replays per judgement, and then manager initiated replays numbering no more than two per game. With the managers, if their first challenge doesn't result in an overturn, they lose their second challenge. In such a case, it wouldn't be administered frivolously, until perhaps the end of the game.

But this is the best and most cogent article I've read on the subject, and I hope it gets some circulation.

Jul 01, 2010 16:43 PM
rating: 0
 
TucsonTumbleweed

Great start to an important study. Good comments. But what I like even more is that Ken responded quickly to the comments!

Jul 01, 2010 14:58 PM
rating: 1
 
Matt Kory

Agreed. Thanks, Ken, for the great article and the quick replies.

Jul 01, 2010 17:36 PM
rating: 0
 
Doc6666

Out of curiosity, of the 5 that would have been overturned, were these from different crews?

Jul 01, 2010 17:21 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Ken Funck
BP staff

Yep, 5 overturns from 5 different crews.

Jul 01, 2010 17:49 PM
 
AdamSt

Thanks for this article. I'm really surprised on just 1 in 12 over turned on bang-bang plays at first. My take is umpires get about 45-60% right. They're certainly nowhere near 90%. Do you recall if there were playing you would have reversed with a less restrictive standard?

What would you do on a play like today's Reds game where they scored the winning run with Jay Bruce breaking up a double play while clearing going at the SS and having no chance to touch second base?

FYI, couldn't get a good look, but the play that ended the same game looked like a umpire missing a bang-bang call at 1B on Colvin. What d'ya think?

Jul 01, 2010 22:28 PM
rating: 0
 
KevinS
(961)

Wow- you have such little respect for the professional umpires that they only get 45-60% correct?

I didn't see the play you are referring to, but it sounds like a simple judgement call where the ump didnt see it your way. If you think there are problems with umpiring now on blow calls.....imagine the can of worms that will be opened if we start reviewing judgement calls. I thought it was only fair/foul, bang-bang out/safe calls that the IR proponents were after.

If we start reviewing judgement calls- might as well fire the umps, set-up a rules committee in each stadium press box....and have 8 hour games.

Jul 04, 2010 16:32 PM
rating: 0
 
flakes98

Ran across a great Jim Joyce quote after the game:

"Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger."

Sadly, not only was it not about his reaction to seeing the replay after refusing to change the call, it apparently was made by some other poseur with the same name; looks like some sort of umpire wannabe and Icelandic food critic:

http://walrusattack.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/gazing-up-into-the-darkness-i-saw-myself-as-a-creature-driven-and-derided-by-vanity-and-my-eyes-burned-with-anguish-and-anger/

Jul 23, 2010 00:59 AM
rating: 0
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Premium Article Contractual Matters: O... (07/01)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Changing Speeds: Soft ... (06/23)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Changing Speeds: Free ... (07/08)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Prospectus Hit List: C... (07/01)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Every Team's Moneyball: Cincinnati Reds: Go ...
Every Team's Moneyball: Chicago White Sox: T...
Premium Article Some Projection Left: The Moran Mystery
Notes from the Field: Seven Days and 32 Pros...
Spring Training Notebook: Cactus League
Premium Article Rubbing Mud: The Demise of the Two-Out Rally
Some Projection Left: Matuella has Tommy Joh...

MORE FROM JULY 1, 2010
Premium Article Future Shock: Top 11 Prospects Still in the ...
Premium Article Prospectus Hit List: Comebacks and Comedowns
Premium Article Contractual Matters: Optional Waivers
Premium Article Top 10 Week: College World Series Players

MORE BY KEN FUNCK
2010-07-22 - Changing Speeds: Cold Fusion
2010-07-15 - Changing Speeds: Business Casual
2010-07-08 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: Free Agent Midterms
2010-07-01 - Changing Speeds: A Better Angle on Replay
2010-06-23 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: Soft in the Middle
2010-06-09 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: No Contact Allowed Redux
2010-06-03 - Changing Speeds: Support Your Local Umpire
More...

MORE CHANGING SPEEDS
2010-07-22 - Changing Speeds: Cold Fusion
2010-07-15 - Changing Speeds: Business Casual
2010-07-08 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: Free Agent Midterms
2010-07-01 - Changing Speeds: A Better Angle on Replay
2010-06-23 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: Soft in the Middle
2010-06-09 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: No Contact Allowed Redux
2010-06-03 - Changing Speeds: Support Your Local Umpire
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2011-04-05 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: The More Things Change...
2010-07-29 - Premium Article Changing Speeds: Forty-two Things I Think, P...