I'm pretty excited that the Red Sox signed a new deal with Samsung to replace Apple for their sign stealing technology provider. Should be way easier with VR than with a watch face.
The bolded accomplishes what, exactly? And how is that relevant to a scheme to make stealing signs marginally easier, a scheme that is likely similar to schemes in other clubhouses around MLB?I wanted him gone after last year. Anything short of winning the World Series and he should be gone. He's not part of the solution.
Unrelated, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some gut punch trades this offseason too. I could see JBJ, Xander and Pedroia all on the trading block.
Yeah. Some people are acting like this is DV or a murder. Morals and value? A baseball team stole signs. I'd hate to know what they think of jaywalkers.The calls in this thread for firing Farrell over this minutia are almost as hilarious as the allegations themselves. Then again, if anyone involved thought this scheme as reported by the NYT (making a big assumption that the scheme is being correctly reported) would actually have any benefit, then baseball folks are even dumber than we thought.
It's only related in that firing the manager may not be the only substantial change this offseason. I doubt this sign stealing incident is enough by itself to cause Farrell to be let go or to prompt trades, but I could see substantial changes this offseason and this is just one more reason why.The bolded accomplishes what, exactly? And how is that relevant to a scheme to make stealing signs marginally easier, a scheme that is likely similar to schemes in other clubhouses around MLB?
Who said anything about morally bankrupt when it comes to this latest issue?Yeah. Some people are acting like this is DV or a murder. Morals and value? A baseball team stole signs. I'd hate to know what they think of jaywalkers.
I dunno, maybe people really are offended and appalled by these actions. Just seems absurd to me but I guess I'm morally bankrupt.
It's not even the first time this week the Yankees have cried.Let's not forget that Girardi is an asshole. Remember the thing he had with Showalter? Accused the O's 3B coach of stealing signs.
Showalter went off on Girardi, pissed as hell that Joe didn't handle his paranoia like a man, between managers.
This isn't the first time the Yankees have cried.
I guess it's possible I misread your post and you were only objecting to what you bolded and weren't talking specifically about this incident. Other posters seem pretty offended by it though with some people going as far as suggesting the Redsox release/suspend Dustin Pedroia. It's stealing signs.Who said anything about morally bankrupt when it comes to this latest issue?
I'm guessing you are either unaware of the 10-5 rule in MLB or about the value an oft-injured Pedroia has out there.I wanted him gone after last year. Anything short of winning the World Series and he should be gone. He's not part of the solution.
Unrelated, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some gut punch trades this offseason too. I could see JBJ, Xander and Pedroia all on the trading block.
Yankees "Fans" actually interested in September baseball for the first time in 8 years don't even know who Michael Pineda is or what pine tar can be used for. So, fake news.And if Yankee fans want to pretend they never cheat, let's remember that Michael Pineda in front of the whole world had a giant splotch of pine tar on his neck.
We live in Berlin; my wife comes from Prague and is not even remotely interested in baseball. She just texted me at work with "Is it true????". So, no, it's not going away quickly.My thoughts exactly.
I doubt this goes away quickly.
If John Jastremski can deflate 12 footballs precisely to spec and take a leak in 90 seconds then the Sox can steal signs in the clubhouse relay them to the dugout and then signal a player on 2nd in a less than second!!!I'm playing along with the game (on Tivo).
It's consistently 0.80 to 0.86 seconds from the time Vazquez finishes the sign and Rodriguez starts his windup. About 2 seconds and change for the ball to cross the plate after the sign.
It would be great if someone else can back that up or challenge it. How do you press a button (or 3) and get that info to the hitter in time for the pitch? I'm talking from the dugout and not from a light in centerfield like the O's use.
Why the hell would a pitcher need a hearing device!? To cheat how? What is the angle they're going after?Apparently the Yankees also filed a complaint about Doug Fister on Friday night. They thought he was wearing a hearing piece around his ear. Turns out it was just his mouth guard.
Paranoia much?
Yeah. Some people are acting like this is DV or a murder. Morals and value? A baseball team stole signs. I'd hate to know what they think of jaywalkers.
I dunno, maybe people really are offended and appalled by these actions. Just seems absurd to me but I guess I'm morally bankrupt.
Exponent could conduct some tests for the right price.I'm playing along with the game (on Tivo).
It's consistently 0.80 to 0.86 seconds from the time Vazquez finishes the sign and Rodriguez starts his windup. About 2 seconds and change for the ball to cross the plate after the sign.
It would be great if someone else can back that up or challenge it. How do you press a button (or 3) and get that info to the hitter in time for the pitch? I'm talking from the dugout and not from a light in centerfield like the O's use.
Don't forget JFK!Let's face it. Boston has a long, inescapable history of cheating at just about every contest.
This goes far beyond the conniving Red Sox, the Cheatriots, or even Red Auerbach. Boston's fate as a town that celebrates cheaters dates all the way back to a fateful evening when a guy, made famous by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, took his famous Midnight Ride.
If you put the signaling device in the catchers glove--the pitch is determined by which finger he taps inside the glove--it would be invisible to all.I can see some impediments to a system that relies on technology for pitch calling. System reliability- how many times do we hear about the comms going out between the QB and the sideline? It seems almost weekly. There are built in redundancies in football as there would be in baseball, but what would be the costs of moving to a new system in baseball i.e. longer games, delays when the comms get wonky. Also, the catcher only has one free hand to free to use a signaling device. He certainly can't speak what the pitch should be with the batter right there. So he'd have to use his throwing hand to signal to hold and use a device, then store that device all while setting up for the pitch. Seems clunky. Especially when you factor in that the pitcher and catcher aren't always 100% on the same page and shake offs happen.
How would the pitcher receive the signal if it's not auditory? Maybe a haptic device that vibrates once for a fastball, twice for a curveball? What happens when a team develops an algorithm that uses a camera trained on the pitcher's feedback device that can tell how many pulses are being signaled?
I think you could make the argument that hand signaling is a technology, and the beauty is in its simplicity. There's a built in layer of obfuscation which should keep the other team guessing, so I believe it's a quite reliable system. Of course when teams start using more advanced technology to steal signs then maybe the old system needs to get updated.
It's an interesting idea, though. I'm sure some smart folks could put together a system that works.
Yanks trying to rattle the Sox. Just another nail in Manager John's coffin. Henry must be beside himself.
NY mediots are bigger pom pom wavers than even their counterparts in small cities like Indianapolis. I expect that stuff out of those yokels but you'd think big market "journalists" would be a little more objective. I guess not.This is a bold move to come on a
Boston radio station and say this Heyman
Did Heyman ever suggest that the Yankees should vacate every win they had with ARod on the field? Of course he didn't and he knows that his suggestion is moronic, but it is getting him headlines.This is a bold move to come on a
Boston radio station and say this Heyman
I don't think anyone is arguing that electronics should be allowed in the dugouts, or that using electronics to aid sign stealing is a good thing. We're just saying that while a violation, it's a minor one, and should be treated as such as opposed to the crime against humanity that Heyman and some posters in this very thread are suggesting. Nor should it have any impact on the "likability" factor of this team (another silly meme).It's not stealing signs. Teams have been doing that since basically the first sign was signed (is that a word?).
While you can make a case that conveying those signs electronically to the dugout is a rounding error, the counterpoint is that it brings sign stealing to the next level by allowing real-time steal signing. This impacts things like pitch selection, hit/runs, etc.
If i had to vote I'd definitely vote in favor of not allowing electronics in baseball dugouts. Or at the very least connected electronics.
Maybe to tell him how much a pitch missed by on balls, or let him know spin and break so he can make a correction (hand grip, release etc). Might be done between innings rather than on the moundWhy the hell would a pitcher need a hearing device!? To cheat how? What is the angle they're going after?
"Hey, watch out, this guy might swing."
How do we know its a live stream. Could it be a previous game downloaded so players can study hitters/pitchers?I don't think this has been posted yet...
The Yankees... CLEARLY... watching a live stream of their game in the dugout literally 2 months ago. So yea, fuck them, they come off extremely petty in all of this.
The fact that this is a New England team is the problem - not the way they cheated. The Buc's entire roster could be networked cyborgs and nobody would care. The Cardinals could stage an armed takeover of the Brewers' training facility, and it would get crickets. Its about the teams involved.We live in Berlin; my wife comes from Prague and is not even remotely interested in baseball. She just texted me at work with "Is it true????". So, no, it's not going away quickly.
For whatever reason, stories about teams cheating in certain ways have an unshakable grip on the public imagination, whereas a story about one team hacking another's database gets no traction at all. Plus the words 'Red Sox', 'Yankees', and 'Apple Watch' make the story accessible to the wider public who normally wouldn't care.
Heyman is such a Yankee homeboy, it is ridiculous.NY mediots are bigger pom pom wavers than even their counterparts in small cities like Indianapolis. I expect that stuff out of those yokels but you'd think big market "journalists" would be a little more objective. I guess not.
Ah, would that the Sox were actually the Pats or Warriors of baseball, where they could thrash teams just by virtue of being that much better than everyone else, and then claim they were doing it cos someone had said or done something that pissed them off.Now seal the deal like the Pats.
[Correction: Story originally stated that the Patriots videotaped opponents’ practices. The story has been amended to account for that error]
Although, he still cannot get his facts right:I like this line at the bottom of the execrable Heyman piece:
As BB himself said, the cameraman was openly walking the sideline in front of 60,000 people. Opposing coaches would sometimes make gestures at the Pats cameras. Not sure that fits the traditional English definition of "surreptitiously".Either way, people in MLB are suggesting — and probably rightly so — this isn’t on the level of DeflateGate, where equipment was altered, or SpyGate, where opponents were surreptitiously videotaped by the Patriots.
I would think the MFY secretly taping the Sox better fits the definition of "surreptitiously".Although, he still cannot get his facts right:
As BB himself said, the cameraman was openly walking the sideline in front of 60,000 people. Opposing coaches would sometimes make gestures at the Pats cameras. Not sure that fits the traditional English definition of surreptitiously".
Maybe. I'm not sure sensitive electronics in a piece of equipment that takes repeated blunt impacts would work all that great though.If you put the signaling device in the catchers glove--the pitch is determined by which finger he taps inside the glove--it would be invisible to all.
The signal could go to a device in the pitchers glove that creates a response to a corresponding finger. It could be so subtle as to not to give any indication outside of the glove.
Toucher and Rich pointed out the error to him during their interview this morning. He freely admitted to having done no research on the subject and that his knowledge of anything NFL is not good.Although, he still cannot get his facts right:
As BB himself said, the cameraman was openly walking the sideline in front of 60,000 people. Opposing coaches would sometimes make gestures at the Pats cameras. Not sure that fits the traditional English definition of "surreptitiously".