Who writes the first "think about the children" article?
From PeteAbe:
Per an MLB source today: “slap on the wrist” is what Red Sox can expect. Team cooperated and issue was short term.
Who writes the first "think about the children" article?
From PeteAbe:
Per an MLB source today: “slap on the wrist” is what Red Sox can expect. Team cooperated and issue was short term.
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."Watching hi def video already is the norm, every team does it.
The Sox did break a rule and that was in the use of the Apple Watch to relay the information seen with the video to the dugout. That certainly saves some seconds from having a lackey(a lackey not the Lackey) relay the information to the dugout which is the standard practice.
MLB doesn't seem to think it is a big deal and word is the Sox will be fined but no one will be suspended and no draft picks will be removed.
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.Who writes the first "think about the children" article?
Scouts use pencils. You can't steal signs with pencils. (But you could put an eye out).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.
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.Watching hi def video already is the norm, every team does it.
The Sox did break a rule and that was in the use of the Apple Watch to relay the information seen with the video to the dugout. That certainly saves some seconds from having a lackey(a lackey not the Lackey) relay the information to the dugout which is the standard practice.
MLB doesn't seem to think it is a big deal and word is the Sox will be fined but no one will be suspended and no draft picks will be removed.
Just equip the mound and the catcher's chest protectors with an Enigma machine. All set.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?
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.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."
We just need the Celtics to do something ridiculous now to complete the Boston voyeur's trifecta. Like hiding a camera in the Cavs' locker room to capture LeBron at halftime as he repaints a new hairline with shoe polish.
I mean, the C's were well known in the Boston Garden era for miscellaneous shenanigans with turning off the air conditioning, etc.Well, trading Thomas did ruffle quite a few feathers and the whole deal turned into a kerfuffle of its own, so I think they have played their part.
Eyes now turn to Causeway Street to see if the Bruins keep the theme going. The Pastrnak deal situation has a lot of blow-up potential, so stay tuned there.
Early mid 19th century. And I was kidding.
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.Was the rule from first formal rules through 1886 (and the first Spalding rule book)...
Ended in 1887.
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.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.
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: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.
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.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."
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.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.
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.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)
You can get it from the batting splits on baseball-reference.com.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?
Except I don't think one can extrapolate much from 139 plate appearances (minuscule sample size alert applies).That bases loaded OPS doesn't surprise me. If they were league average we wouldn't be worried about the playoffs
There is some value in getting calls right. Actually, it's kind of the point of the whole enterprise.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.
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 gamesExcept 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.
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.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
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.There is some value in getting calls right. Actually, it's kind of the point of the whole enterprise.
The Red Sox are hitting .259 with a .325 OBP and .406 slugging mark when no runner is on second. With runners on second base this year, the team is hitting .259 with a .360 OBP and .408 slugging mark. The team’s strikeout rate has gone down slightly, from 19.3 to 18.9 percent, with runners on second, with the walk rate jumping from 8.0 to 10.1 percent.
And walk rate would be expected to rise given the open baseAlex Speier looks at how well the Sox may have done this year by stealing signs
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.In other words, no meaningful difference. Next....
Random statistical noise remains the most likely explanation until proven otherwise.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.
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?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.
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.Random statistical noise remains the most likely explanation until proven otherwise.
That gets two thumbs (and one middle finger) up, awesome.
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.The Cardinals repeatedly hacked the Astros computers. The punishment was $2M fine and two draft picks (#56 & #75)
Did I miss St. Louis getting hammered in the press for this?
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."Yankees and Red Sox fined