Spygate 2: Red Sox Stealing Signs and Relaying Electronically
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I think there is some confusion on this point. Interviews on the iPad in the dugout issue reveal that teams are allowed to watch pre-downloaded videos provided by the MLB and don't modify the feeds themselves. I'm not sure if these are some special encrypted or locked versions but from what has been said, I don't think they are "watching the live game in HD."
I think it's the OTT nature of the outrage is what people are blanching at here, not the violation itself. Yet Olney, Herman and all the other Guardians of the Game(TM) are making this out to be an enormous thing.
FWIW, this piece on Sox execs having no comment on this whole thing is pretty hilarious:
http://deadsp.in/1TcW74w
FWIW, this piece on Sox execs having no comment on this whole thing is pretty hilarious:
http://deadsp.in/1TcW74w
Not sure but Cafardo was def. the first to the "TECHNOLOGY IS RUINING THE GAME/HOW DO YOU WORK THIS DAMN REMOTE?" line of thinking. As expected.
Scouts use pencils. You can't steal signs with pencils. (But you could put an eye out).
If that's all they're going to do, then they should just repeal the rule and make it the norm, because that's effectively the same thing.
Well this pretty easy to resolve. We live in age of technology so make it legal to use whatever means available to you to steal signs whether it's cameras or any other electronic device. You can't convince me that teams cannot come up with elaborate signs that constantly change if not inning to inning but even pitch to pitch which would make any type of technology you might be using pretty useless. But they seem to think that they are still in the old school era where men were men with integrity (if that really ever existed). MLB games aren't just games anymore, it's a business where winning is pretty much everything. Now if we were talking about high school or college then that's different. But MLB?
They broke a rule and should get some punishment. It was clearly worse than anything the Patriots ever did, but it's a different sport. The Cards got a $2Million fine and lost two draft picks between 50-100 but what they did was immeasurably worse, so it won't be close to that. Small fine? Brief managerial suspension? Low-level pick? All irrelevant in the long run, of course.
Just equip the mound and the catcher's chest protectors with an Enigma machine. All set.
That is in the dugout, in the clubhouse they can, and do, have multiple people watching live feeds. Part of that is to determine if they should challenge specific plays but but it seems stealing signs is also part of it.
The advantage of this "scheme" is it save the time it takes to go down the tunnel to the dugout.
I mean, the C's were well known in the Boston Garden era for miscellaneous shenanigans with turning off the air conditioning, etc.
But didn't Ra Celtics coach once, during a timeout in a playoff game, sneak over to an opponent's bench to eavesdrop on their timeout convo?
Somehow that's how I remember it, actually seeing him on screen sneaking around to the opponent's side. In my mind it was Red Auerbach, but I was too young to watch him coach, unless it was that 1976 game where Red came and sat behind the bench when Heinsohn was ejected. Or maybe it's when Bill Fitch eavesdropped on a Sixer's timeout from the locker room after being ejected? Those are the references I'm finding...
So, yknow, of course the C's were in there first.
I'm going to repeat myself:
a. Gary Sanchez is so stupid that he can't handle the complexity switch-ups.
b. The Yankees don't seem to understand the age-old responses to sign-stealing
Yes, the Red Sox broke the law. They made transmitting information to the bench faster than yelling down from the runway. They should be appropriately punished for being caught.
a. Gary Sanchez is so stupid that he can't handle the complexity switch-ups.
b. The Yankees don't seem to understand the age-old responses to sign-stealing
Yes, the Red Sox broke the law. They made transmitting information to the bench faster than yelling down from the runway. They should be appropriately punished for being caught.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/07/six-part-theory-on-how-red-sox-actually-stole-the-yankees-signs/
Here's an article in today's NY Post speculating what the scheme was. Breaks it down into six steps. Only step 2 includes illegality, and if I'm understanding this right, the Apple Watch or cell phone was only used in this scenario to get the info from the instant replay guy (sitting in the "bowels" of the stadium) to the dugout. In other words, the Red Sox could have accomplished this same scheme and kept it completely legal if they simply had the instant replay guy close enough to the dugout to yell "Second Set" rather than text it. This is basically a less hysterical version of Spygate then, where the team took a stupidly unnecessary shortcut to get information they could have gotten almost as easily if done within the letter of the law, and where no one outside of Boston will be the least bit interested in understanding that nuance.
Here's an article in today's NY Post speculating what the scheme was. Breaks it down into six steps. Only step 2 includes illegality, and if I'm understanding this right, the Apple Watch or cell phone was only used in this scenario to get the info from the instant replay guy (sitting in the "bowels" of the stadium) to the dugout. In other words, the Red Sox could have accomplished this same scheme and kept it completely legal if they simply had the instant replay guy close enough to the dugout to yell "Second Set" rather than text it. This is basically a less hysterical version of Spygate then, where the team took a stupidly unnecessary shortcut to get information they could have gotten almost as easily if done within the letter of the law, and where no one outside of Boston will be the least bit interested in understanding that nuance.
Thanks guys. Maybe I'd heard of that batter pitch location calling thing years ago, but forgot it. Problem with being old enough to remember stuff is you begin to forget them. I think Yogi missed that one.
True, but isn't the communication between manager and replay guy fairly heavily regulated by MLB? I thought that the whole reason why the replay guy isn't sitting near the dugout was to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I couldn't find anything on replay guy location requirements, but there is this from the MLB replay rules, which encapsulates the spirit of regulating communication between dugout personnel and replay guy:
"The dugout phone will be connected to the video review location. If the dugout phone does not work at any point during the game, upon notifying the home plate Umpire, the Manager shall be permitted to communicate with his Club's video review location via walkie-talkie. On-field personnel in the dugout may not discuss any issue with individuals in their video review room using the dugout phone other than whether to challenge a play subject to video Replay Review."
The intent of this clearly seems to be to prevent communication between the video review guy and the dugout, so in that sense they broke the spirit of the rule. But is the trainer considered "on-field personnel?" So maybe they did not technically break the rule (which they really didn't under the language because they were not using the dugout phone to communicate)? But it's curious that the replay rules refers to "on-field personnel" in the dugout, rather than a blanket reference to anyone in the dugout.
Trainers are one type of personnel, the others being players, managers, and coaches, that are allowed in the dugout during the game. I would say that surely makes them on-field personnel.
They broke a rule, this parsing is ridiculous. They admitted it. The only thing to parse is whether this is a small deal or a medium deal, since it’s not a big deal.
They broke a rule, this parsing is ridiculous. They admitted it. The only thing to parse is whether this is a small deal or a medium deal, since it’s not a big deal.
This is definitely it, the best article I've seen so far. Pretty much exactly what I posted last night too, except I didn't realize Pedroia would literally yell out code words to the base runners. I just assumed he would simply hold up fingers or something visual.
Overall, there ends up being two rules broken:
1) using an electronic device in the dugout
2) communicating with the video replay guy for purposes other than requesting an umpire review (this also explains why the video guy texted the dugout instead of calling the dugout phone, which would have set off a red flag)
On a side note, it would be interesting to compare the Red Sox batting stats with runner on second, relative to all other situations, vs. every other MLB team. That might give us a clue as to whether this really made any kind of difference. Any data heads want to take that on?
The fact that the Sox video replay guy is a former minor league catcher certainly makes this whole thing more interesting. Who better to quickly figure out signals than a former catcher.
Uncannymanny is also correct they broke a rule and they admitted to breaking that rule of that there is no doubt.
Uncannymanny is also correct they broke a rule and they admitted to breaking that rule of that there is no doubt.
The video review guy probably ends up taking the fall here - he had to know that what he was doing was outside the purview of his job, and against the rules of what he was allowed to communicate with the dugout. He may get fired, or at least reassigned to a different job, maybe depending on whether or not he was put up to it by the players.
You can get it from the batting splits on baseball-reference.com.
For 2017, Red Sox OPS (OPS+) in the following situations:
Man on 2nd base only: 0.774 (106)
Men on 1st and 2nd: 0.704 (93)
Men on 2nd and 3rd: 1.059 (158, but this situation is only 141 plate appearances).
Bases loaded: 0.613 (62 in 139 plate appearances)
Overall: 0.738 (97)
Compared to the Yankees and Cleveland (taking 2 examples):
Man on 2nd base only: 0.772 (104); 0.663 (76)
Men on 1st and 2nd: 0.794 (117); 0.768 (109)
Men on 2nd and 3rd: 0.684 (67); 0.726 (76)
Bases loaded: 0.801 (103); 0.777 (102)
Overall OPS: 0.775 (106); 0.786 (109)
Basically, as expected, nothing to see here.
That bases loaded OPS doesn't surprise me. If they were league average we wouldn't be worried about the playoffs
Except I don't think one can extrapolate much from 139 plate appearances (minuscule sample size alert applies).
The Sox have a 0.781 OPS with runners in scoring position, which is slightly better than league average.
Not related, but top of my wish list for rule changes is to eliminate all video replay personnel. Why is technology allowed there only, but not elsewhere? 20 seconds max to decide whether to challenge, with no assistance. Would be less clear when to challenge, and perhaps give advantage to a better coaching staff. Would require manager to learn which of his players to trust. And we would be spared watching Farrell holding up his hand while DiSarcina and video staff member decide on whether to challenge.
There is some value in getting calls right. Actually, it's kind of the point of the whole enterprise.
They are a first place team. I'd expect their OPS with runners in scoring position to be above average. If they had ten (to pick a number) more hits this year with the bases loaded they'd have likely won 3-4 more games
I was listening to the idiots on MLB tonight driving home.
Chief Idiot (you know who) actually thought they were using the Apple Watch as a computer to figure out the sign sequences. That was his problem, "Humans should have to decipher signs, not Apple Watches..."
Holy shit.
Chief Idiot (you know who) actually thought they were using the Apple Watch as a computer to figure out the sign sequences. That was his problem, "Humans should have to decipher signs, not Apple Watches..."
Holy shit.
So far, the Sox have zero HR's with the bases loaded. The only other MLB team without a grand slam this season is, surprisingly, the Rockies. Last year, the Sox hit 6 grand slams in 167 plate apperances. If they had hit half that number this season (which is the same number of slams they've given up this year), their OPS with the bases loaded would jump from 0.613 to 0.737.
My guess is that when a team hits a grand slam, their win probability is reasonably high, based on the fact that teams score an average of 4.7 runs a game this season. So, you're guess that they are costing themselves 3 or 4 games is likely correct.
While this is true, the value in replay to me is eliminating the obviously wrong calls. Umpires will blow calls from time to time and replay can correct this without someone watching a couple of instant replays before determining whether to challenge. A player or manager sees a blown call in real time and they challenge immediately.
I have no interest in the game being held up waiting for some hidden slomotion replay expert to see whether a baserunners hand is touching or minutely beside the base on an extremely close play.
They should eliminate the silly challenge process and just put a fifth umpire upstairs (or wherever - even in the league office is ok) who can signal the crew chief to wait while he (or she) takes a second look at calls that look questionable.
A 325 OBP rising to a 360 OBP on a 25% increase in walk rate might be incredibly meaningful. But, we need to see those numbers for other teams to know for sure, Alex.
Random statistical noise remains the most likely explanation until proven otherwise.
After watching the idiots twist themselves in knots trying to explain how the Patriots could have used video of opposing signals in that very same game, and even more so, after watching idiots try to explain how much of an advantage the Patriots would have gained by having "deflated" footballs, this surprises you how?
Yep. Just look at the specific splits. With just a man on 2nd, they are hitting .259 / .370 / .415. Ok, that is better than bases empty (.257 / .327 / .401) and just a man on 1st (.255 / .312 / .406), so you might think something is up. But with men on 1st and 2nd, they are hitting .232 / .315 / .390. So the cheating works when they have just a man on 2nd, or 2nd and 3rd, or the bases loaded... but not when they just have 1st and 2nd? Ok.
How much of that .370 OBP is IBBs, because the Red Sox have 42 of those, 12 more than any other AL team?
It was a pretty big story but this is Red Sox / Yankees. I'm sure it will fade into the abyss soon but the Red Sox continue to make headlines for non baseball related issues and the media has their teeth sunk in. Between Price, the banner, the cheating, the racism controversy, and the "we miss papi" comments, it's easy for the media to latch on and just wait for the next one.
This is an amazing outcome befitting the seriousness of the offense. The only way it could be better would be if it were donated to combat ISIS or to refugee relief, with a statement from the commissioner that said "This isn't ISIS."
Last edited: