Well said. And exactly right. This episode puts a fine point on the multiple level and complex decision making involved, and why knee jerk reactions to coaching decisions are usually quite misguided. Not that I am immune from same.
Levangie saw Machado stealing signs
- Thread starter AB in DC
- Start date
Good point, and I recall Vazquez going out to the mound one other AB and Price looking annoyed that Vaz would come out and mess with his rhythm. As Vaz was heading back to the plate, you could see Price saying "Let's go" twice. Dana may know Price likes to be left alone and didn't want to mess with him after getting a strikeout.
Holy god at the suggestions for earpieces, remotes and microphones.
This has happened for the history of the game, at all levels. Levangie should have a backup plan if he notices it and doesn’t want to disrupt the pitcher. Give the two a signal to change signs. This should be part of pregame planning, you don’t need a guy with binoculars or even a guy smart about it on second, if you don’t change them up, it is easily picked up in video review.
This has happened for the history of the game, at all levels. Levangie should have a backup plan if he notices it and doesn’t want to disrupt the pitcher. Give the two a signal to change signs. This should be part of pregame planning, you don’t need a guy with binoculars or even a guy smart about it on second, if you don’t change them up, it is easily picked up in video review.
I've always had the sense that stealing signs is part of the game, but retaliation/deterrence is also part of the game. Like, "you can do that if you want, but if you do, we'll knock you on your ass. No hard feelings." So it's not breaking the unwritten rules in the sense of being considered bad form, the way showboating is, but it's not just accepted, either.
EDIT: Or, what jm said.
Hand signals (and the possibility of signals being stolen) has been a part of football forever too. That didn't stop them from implementing technology on both sides of the ball to ease communication.
To me, the notion of ear pieces and other technology is less about sign security and more about pace of play. So much time is wasted giving signs, especially as they get more elaborate in order to counteract theft. If the tech is there, tradition be damned.
Yeah I hate all the asinine pace of play rule suggestions (we have a member suggesting moving the rubber back two feet elsewhere on the site) but the wireless communication to just eliminate hand signs and their attendant paranoia is an easy step that changes nothing and eliminates a big time drag in games with more eyes on them. I like the earpiece/ beep idea; it could be really simple. No grinding things to a halt with men on base, no obsessive catcher mound visits to get on the same page and make sure everyone knows the new signs, etc.
Haha, don't you mean Google assistant?! I'll thank you to maintain the corporate synergy sir.
I'm always impressed that these athletes can, in the middle of the tensest moments, execute sign masking with all the complexity involved. It's part of what makes baseball great.
I've read that the simple solution to sign stealing is to make it look like a breaking ball low and away but throw a fastball up and in.
I've read that the simple solution to sign stealing is to make it look like a breaking ball low and away but throw a fastball up and in.
It's part of the brilliance of the game, all they manage with a calm demeanor, which is of course the product of doing things over and over a million times. Great baseball is the culmination of so much hard work. I can forgive almost anything happening out there because of how amazing it is that these guys have put themselves into this position to begin with.
I am just surprised changing the signs requires a mound visit. Can’t the bench just signal to Vazquez to switch?
I think it’s wonderful part of the game personally. Against the Astros at one point Vazquez stood up with Barnes pitching having called a curveball because he wanted the Astros baserunner to signal high fastball, batter swung and missed at a low curve, and I like to think it was because of this.
I think it’s wonderful part of the game personally. Against the Astros at one point Vazquez stood up with Barnes pitching having called a curveball because he wanted the Astros baserunner to signal high fastball, batter swung and missed at a low curve, and I like to think it was because of this.
A football playbook has what, around 100 plays in the book? It’s a little more difficult to change those hand signals every week or mid stream than changing the three pitches a guy throws and the location. This isn’t hard. Do better prep.
Pace of play, I’m really kind of laughing at the complaints and the asinine ideas at this point - shorten the game to seven innings; go to 3 balls and 2 strikes; pitch clocks; the batter can’t step out; limit mound visits; give the pitcher and catcher a Vulcan mind meld or a remote control; etc. It sucks the games end late but it is what it is. As someone said earlier, if you keep changing shit it’s not the baseball we grew up with anymore.
The vulcan mind meld remote control is the idea I've been pushing for. In all seriousness, something like this needs to happen (Some form of wireless transmitter). Yes it eliminates sign stealing but it should unquestionably shorten the length of the game. It's the path of least resistance.
Best pace of play solution is RBI Baseball on Playstation.
- Gets the kids involved
- Costs less than a ticket
- Solves the player salary issue
- Gets the kids involved
- Costs less than a ticket
- Solves the player salary issue
So...how exactly does this work? Pitches called from dugout? Catcher has a remote of some sort he needs to take out and out back? What if it goes down and they don’t have hand signals set up?
How much time is this really saving? What’s the % if we cross reference those that want review but also shorter games? I’d bet it’s high.
How much time is this really saving? What’s the % if we cross reference those that want review but also shorter games? I’d bet it’s high.
The ostensible idea is to eliminate the constant paranoia and drag hand signs present. I don't care a whit about pace of play and think the game is fine, but people are so obsessed with it I'd prefer a solution like that, which doesn't materially mess with fundamental rules of the game to save 15 mins somewhere.
I have no idea how it would work, but that obviously does not mean it couldn't. If you wanted to do it, someone could find a solid solution. Then it eliminates all the cat-and-mouse stealing and re-programming signals, mound visits, cross-ups. Why would you not have hand signals set up as a backup?
It isn't just the time saved of giving and receiving signs. The butterfly effect of both teams reacting to and concerning themselves with their own and the other teams' signs creates an unnecessary drag mid-inning where there's not a great reason for it. Won't do a bunch but neither will all the ideas that move bases around and limit player changes and garbage ideas like that.
Last edited:
I get the idea, I assure you, I just think that’s part of the game. I don’t understand why paranoia and subterfuge (in this sense) is a bad thing. The game has survived well over 100 years with guys stealing signs, it wouldn’t save 15 minutes and frankly if that amount of time is the difference in one watching, well, I’m not sure what to say; they’re prob not a baseball fan all that much.
Someone could figure it out and someone here might make a reasonable solution as to how it would work, I just havent seen one yet and will be skeptical until I do. Yes, they could have backup hand signals set up, but what happens when it’s the bottom of the ninth, guy gets to second and the system goes down, only they’re out of mound visits? Now we need another set of signs and are wasting time prepping for all the possibilities.
I agree I’d rather see something like that if I had to choose between the suggestions made to change the fundamental rules, like you said; I just don’t see all that much change needed in on field time management. Frankly I’d rather see them sell ads on the jerseys and cut back on ads.
But I have some clouds to help at before game time.
It already isn't the baseball we grew up with. The baseball we grew up with didn't have 3.5-4 hour games as the norm. The baseball we grew up with didn't have HD video and digital storage so that teams could pore over pictures of signals in order to decipher them more or less in real time.
In one of the threads on here today (might have been this one), it was pointed out that Game 6 of the 1975 World Series started at 8pm, just like games do now. Ended just after midnight like many games now do. Only difference was they played 12 innings that night. There's been one extra inning game this post-season...it took over five hours and only three runs were scored (compared to 13 in 1975). Why is the game taking longer now than it used to? Why is that something that we just have to live with?
I don't much care either but of all the proposals this eliminates part of a game that has no value to the viewer or the game whatsoever. It is time wasted by an antiquated process, as opposed to time taken by things that happen in the game of baseball. This was my only point. It is tedium. People bitching about pitching changes are the ones that might not be such big baseball fans.
None of these are reasons not to do it. The first doesn't make sense--they do it in football, they could obviously figure out a common sense process. The second is a far-flung hypothetical which, sure, if all that came to pass it would slow things down on that day.
Compare commercial time and relief pitching changes on those two eras. See what you find. That’s how the game evolved. Why is it something needs to be fixed?
You're not experiencing cat-and-mouse though. I mean, you enjoy guys standing on the mound talking through their gloves? Ok.
Anyway, agree to disagree. Not seeing too many good reasons not to do it.
Anyway, agree to disagree. Not seeing too many good reasons not to do it.
I enjoy anything that breeds tension; I don't particularly enjoy watching guys talk trough their gloves, but I also don't notice it happen enough to have it bother me. I'd trade that a few times so I get a little more tension built going through signs in a big moment, at least more so than I'd enjoy watching a catcher tap an apple watch or pull a remote four times as the pitchers shrugs him off (or has game calling taken out of his hands because pitches are called from the dugout by coaches that have iPads in their hands).
Agree to agree to disagree. I'm willing to be swayed with a viable method someone comes up with and it's not like I'd stop watching; I'm just tired of the half cocked ideas to find a solution to a problem I don't think exists (pace of play) and am not a big fan of some of the changes they've already made while ignoring simpler ones. I also don't see how this materially improves that.
Like I said, old man, clouds, lawns, etc etc. I'm just saying I don't find it tedious enough for a solution for pace of play reasons and to avoid "cheating" is bullshit, do better (not that you're making that claim yourself).
I'll be all for wireless communication as long as the batter has to step into a cone of silence when the catcher is speaking to the pitcher.
Pitcher only needs a simple clicker. Maybe with two sounds. 1, 2, 3 clicks for fastball, curve, slider (whatever they choose). And beeps for location (number of beeps for high middle low, long and short for inside/outside).
Catcher needs two buttons. No talking, very simple in terms of information theory.
I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t happen. I’m actually fine with the mound visits and the possible signal stealing. I’d prefer they do picture in picture during those interludes (ad on small screen) rather than a full break.
The Redsox are Apple users. Didn’t you read the articles last year about the Iwatches.
