Play it Again, Bud

Well, this was hardly surprising given Bud Selig's m.o. (ignore a problem until it's a crisis and then overreact accordingly), and now it's official:

Three series are scheduled to start Thursday, with Philadelphia at the Chicago Cubs, Minnesota at Oakland and Texas at the Los Angeles Angels. For other games, replays will be available to umpires starting Friday.

For now, video will be used only on so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs.

Fair enough; I'm all for anything to help get the calls correct. But Bud Selig is concerned about a slippery slope:

Selig, who opposed replay in the past, said he won't allow its use to expand to additional types of calls.

"My opposition to unlimited instant replay is still very much in play," Selig said. "I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now doing things the way we did it."

All well and good, Bud...except that's just not true. The game today is rather changed from its early days. We have free agency, the DH, the Wild Card, interleague play, curve balls, and so on. Even if that weren't the case, resisting change for the sake of change is ignorant. If more instant replay can make the game better, then why not? If you resist change without consideration because of some bizarre slavery to "tradition," then all that makes you is a Luddite.

In Defense of Marquis

Sorry for the lack of posts; sometimes my real job messes with my life.

Before the season started, I predicted problems in a few spots for the Cubs. For the most part, the problems haven't cropped up, though at least in the case of Theriot, I still think I'll end up being right eventually.

One thing I was pretty adamant about was that Marquis needed to go. I was certain Lieber would be a better choice, or, failing Lieber, perhaps Marshall or Gallagher. (Of course, I still thought Rich Hill would return to form. Oops.)

So here we are in late August, and Marquis is still there, and despite the outcome of yesterday's game, I have to say...I was wrong. Look, he's not Rich Harden or Carlos Zambrano, but that's fine. Nobody has an ace in the 5th slot of the rotation. Generally teams expect their fifth starter to not suck and hopefully keep things under control enough to make the games winnable.

Using that yardstick, Marquis is doing fine. So far this year he's thrown a little over 134 innings, giving up 141 hits and 71 runs, walking 52 and striking out 71. The K/9 and K/BB ratios aren't good at all, of course, but he's giving up a BABIP of .288, which is pretty sustainable. His ERA+ is 94, so he's basically slightly below-average.

I'm guessing a lot of teams would really like to have that kind of production at the back of the rotation.

Sabathia v. Harden

There's all kinds of talk about CC Sabathia: what a tremendous pickup he was, how he should merit MVP consideration, etc.

Almost ignored, meanwhile, is Rich Harden and what he's done for the Cubs.

Don't get me wrong; Sabathia has been brilliant. Since becoming a Brewer, he's pitched 73 innings and given up 60 hits and 52 earned runs, posting an ERA+ of 270 and a WHIP of 1.027.

Meanwhile, all Rich Harden has done is pitch 42 innings, giving up 26 hits and 7 (count 'em!) earned runs, and posting an ERA+ of 300 and a WHIP of 0.952. The innings difference boils down to the Cubs trying to take care of Harden's arm/health, whereas Ned Yost seems determined to get as much out of Sabathia's arm as he can.

I know how good a pitcher Sabathia is. I'm just suggesting that as good as he's been since the trade, Harden's been better.

(And no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with my Cub bias...)

Everybody Made Nice

After some dramatics between the umpires and MLB, there is now an agreement between the two for instant replay:

The deal was signed by lawyers for the commissioner's office and the World Umpires Association one day after a WUA spokesman went public with complaints over negotiations.

After haggling over final details, the sides exchanged proposals Tuesday night.

"We reached an agreement. Final decision with respect to moving ahead has not been made yet, but we have an agreement with the umpires," said Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president of labor relations.

Hooray for negotiations. Amazing how things seemed so far apart during Mike and Mike this morning but are all nicey-nice now. Maybe Selig told the umpires that if they didn't agree, Mongo would travel from city to city, drink beer, and incoherently call out the umps repeatedly.

Oh, Those Wacky Umps

I'd been trying to think of something clever or insightful to say about the MLB umpires' decision to boycott a conference call with Major League Baseball regarding instant replay, but so far...nada.

Of course, Shysterball does a better job than I would've, so let's just go with that.

Soto for MVP? Really?

Peter Gammons thinks so. (Normally subscription required, though right now it's available to everyone.) Or at least...that's his hook.

Naturally my knee-jerk reaction was that Gammo had finally lost his marbles.
Sure, Soto's having a great year, and I don't think Rookie of the Year is out of reach, but MVP?

Of course, Gammons doesn't really think Soto's the MVP. His points:

• Soto is one of the best offensive catchers in the league
• Soto handles the pitching staff very well (and it's one heck of a staff)
• His defense is good enough
• Catchers are inherently more valuable if they can also provide real offense

I don't disagree with most of his points, although I'm not sure there's any evidence that "handling a pitching staff" is actually a skill, or has any measurable effect. I know pitchers think so, but that doesn't mean anything: just because you play the game doesn't mean you truly understand how it works. (See Morgan, Joe.)

Soto's pretty important to the Cubs, don't get me wrong. He's having a hell of a year, and I expect that he'll have many more. For a team that's spent a long time rolling out a number of real stiffs behind home plate, I'm thrilled beyond words.

But MVP? No.

Baseball and Instant Replay

The Commish suggests that instant replay is coming, quite probably before the season ends. That would fit his pattern:

1. Observe a problem that is slowly getting attention
2. Downplay it and/or ignore it until it erupts into a major controversy
3. Perform a knee-jerk reaction and act as rapidly as possible, without worrying about whether the approach makes sense

I do think it's a bit weird to implement in August/September; common sense says the pre-season is the place to work out the kinks in a system like this. Having said that, I've seen all kinds of resistance to the idea of instant replay in baseball, and I gotta say...I don't get it.

Risking straw-man accusations, let's take a look at some of the arguments against:

It removes the human element. I hear this one all the time, and it's by far the silliest. First of all, isn't the real human element that of, ya know, the ballplayers? They can still make mistakes; just wait until some idiot tries to slide into first base. Second of all, is preserving umpire error really a "human element" that we're going to miss? Call me after your team gets jobbed by some blind ump.

It will slow the game down. Well, sure...if it's done badly. There's no reason it has to, though; just put some rules around when it's used, what can trigger it, how long the review can take, and so on. Above all, borrow one rule from the NFL: unless there is clear evidence on the replay that the call is wrong, don't overturn it.

The ol' slippery slope. In other words, we let them use it for home run calls now, and soon it will get used for everything. Well, that's fine with me, within reason. I don't think you can easily use it for, say, fair/foul line drives: if the initial call is foul and the batter returns to the box, how could you then decide what base he should be awarded? Where it can be used, though, it should be, and yes if there's a technological way to call balls and strikes, bring it on!

A saying I've heard regarding the NFL is that the best officials are the ones you never notice. The implicit meaning there is if the officials get everything correct, they're doing their jobs and you don't notice them; you only notice when they blow a call. The NFL has long taken this far more seriously than baseball: officials are rigorously graded and the top officials are the ones chosen for the postseason. Well, the best umpires are the ones I don't notice: the ones who call balls and strikes properly and consistently, who notice whether the pivot man actually touches second base, and so on.

I want the rules of the game enforced consistently and properly. Those who don't...well, I just don't understand your thinking at all.