This is one of my favorite pieces from the last year as I learned more from this than expected! An article on the official scorer of the game, this piece looks into some of the subjectivity present in baseball. Sure there are the umps who seem to be the arbiters of the game, but the scorers are like the gatekeepers of stats.
Two questions:
1. With instant replay and so many eyes on the field these days, do you think an official scorer is still necessary? Of course there would be someone collecting balls and strikes and hits, but why put the work on one person?
2. What new piece of baseball information did you learn from this article?
Great responses to the last post. Loved the humor. Well done.
1. I believe an official scorer is still necessary. The use of instant replay slows a game down because the umpires need to head to the television monitor, talk amongst themselves, and then make the call. Baseball is already criticized for being too slow, and if we relied more on instant replay, the game will only get slower. It's human nature for individuals to make mistakes, but official scorers are no slouches: they have lots of practice and have been around baseball for a long time. They know what they're doing, so I think an official scorer is important to the game.
ReplyDelete2. From reading this article, I learned official scorers have 24 hours after a game to change their rulings, and how protests of calls have to be completed within 72 hours. Also, I realized that most calls are changed during the game, instead of after.
1. I think that official scorers are still needed in baseball. Although scorers do have differing opinions from each other, I think it is important to allow a person to interpret the game in the moment instead of video taping the game and assessing it later. Baseball is unique in the fact that there is a scorer. Most other sports depend on instant replay to assess the players, and I think having a scorer is a characteristic that makes baseball what it is.
ReplyDelete2. I learned what a scorer was from this article. I hadn't realized that that was even a job, because I had never thought about differentiating between a hit and an outfielder's error.
1) I agree that an official scorer is still needed in baseball, even if his or her role is diminished. With the advent of game-analyzing technology, a scorer plays less of a role because the call can be reviewed later. The technology is so precise that it can see things a scorer would have no chance of catching. Even with this shift, a scorer is still helpful to have in the moment. The game would be continuously interrupted if teams could challenge calls or anything of the sort, which is where the official scorer comes in handy. Like an umpire, they keep the game going by providing immediate responses.
ReplyDelete2) I learned about what qualifies as an error and that there is no clinical and definitive boundary between that and a hit. Any play requiring more than an ordinary effort by a fielder should be ruled a hit, meaning that an error is a play that was expected to be made.
1. I never thought I'd say it, but perhaps I'm old-fashioned. I think an official scorer is an important part of the game because they keep the game going and allow for immediacy of the game. Part of the fun is watching the runs, hits, and errors change as the game goes on. If it were to be just watching the game and finding out the score later from the re-review of plays, it would change the entire structure of the game. Having this one person allows for the immediacy, but the game review allows for the score to be checked, changed, and made as accurate as possible.
ReplyDelete2. I learned there was an official scorer! I didn't even realize that was a job before. I also realized that the calls could be changed, whereas I thought was was said during the game was just how it worked.
1. An official scorer is necessary for two reasons. The first has already been touched on by other people: the game was meant to be quick, and an official scorer helps that facet. Another more subtle reason is that there needs to be someone who makes the easy calls. If there is an obvious error, there simply isn't any reason to arduously go over the replay to confirm it. It's much better to have someone dedicated to calling the game's easier calls, even if the more controversial ones are subjected to replay.
ReplyDelete2. I learned that the official scorer's calls could be overturned. I had never really heard of this process before reading the article.
1. I don't believe that an official scorer is necessary anymore. With advances in technology, like instant replays, there really is no need for a scorer. The instant replay will show things that the scorer might not have seen. It is a fair way to judge a play. They have instant replays in football and they ensure that the rulings on the field are fair. If we got rid of the official scorers, then I believe that the right to appeal would also have to go. Maybe you can challenge a call only three times, like in football. This would not delay the game too much in my opinion.
ReplyDelete2. I never knew scorer's calls could be changed by the scorer 24 hours after the game. The fact that players could appeal some calls was also new to me.
1. Even though technology has helped advance baseball in a variety of ways, I think that an official scorer is still necessary. As McLemore (the scorer for Houston) states, “there can be angles you need that just don’t show up in the replays.” Instant replays cannot provide all the information needed to make a final call. It seems that the present system is set-up for minimal error including the individual scorer followed by an appeals committee. Although it is a lot of work put in one person, it seems to be a part of the game and baseball culture that should not be altered.
ReplyDelete2. Like Callan, I too didn’t know there was an official scorer. Furthermore, I didn’t even know there was a committee with a very elaborate process on how calls are made and changed.
I too had no idea that there was an appeals process for official scores, and I can't think of any time when a decision was changed after then end of a game.
ReplyDeleteI worry about the legitimacy of such a process. The official scorer is necessary for statistics followed by fans and by other clubs, but the time when a single decision really matters is when some achievement or streak is on the line, such as a no-hitter, a perfect game or a player's hitting streak. But in these most significant calls, I think the committee would be hard-pressed to actually reverse any decision. The article mentioned the awkwardness of announcing a no-hitter after the game ended, but taking one away from a pitcher would be even worse. For this reason I'm not sure the appeals process is necessary, but an official scorer definiteley is.
1. Like I talked about in my last common, the thing I love most about baseball in that it's one of the last sports these days still routed in honor and not on technology. I think the position of the official scorer is a traditional part of the game that shouldn't simply be changed because we can now watch the play over again.
ReplyDelete2. I always knew that there was an official scorer but I guess I didn't realize before how that persons decisions on a play or a hit can change a players statistics. I mean the power of making a player seem great or impressive to the outside world through stats such as ERA's and batting averages are literally all up to them.
1. I have trouble seeing the difference between an official scorer and "someone [who collects] balls and strikes and hits." If someone is doing the latter, then one is basically doing the most important part of being an official scorer: determining whether it's a hit or an error. So yes, in baseball, an official scorer of some type is definitely necessary. Should it be digitalized/computerized? No, a computer can't analyze an effort a player makes. Should there be instant replay to help scorers decide calls? Yes and I'm fairly sure that is already utilized. Continuing with theme from my last post, I think that the position of "Official Scorer," is part of what makes Baseball distinctly American. An ordinary baseball fanatic and fellow American, who doesn't necessarily have to have MLB experience, is judging the players on their effort and ultimately determine their success, or failure, in terms of statistics. Yes, official scorers are necessary; nothing can replace a human perspective when analyzing effort.
ReplyDelete2. I learned that the difference between an error and a hit is determined by whether a player goes beyond an "ordinary effort" or not. Definitely will change the way I watch games and view close calls between what could have been an error or a hit.
1. With the technology available today, there is certainly less emphasis on the importance of official scorers. Not only are all the questionable calls made by official scorers easily contested and overturned, the opinion of official scorers today does not really matter that much. With the availability of online replay and even instant replay on TV, those watching the game can easily make their own judgments about anything and everything an official scorer does, making them obsolete in their judgments and outdated. The official scorer can make whatever call they want up in the booth, but it really doesn’t matter what they write down, even if it does get marked down as that official, because people are always going to stick with what they believe and disregard any official call. And now that their calls can be overturned by players and the MLB, it seems like the official scorer has become nothing more than a formality.
ReplyDelete2. I learned that calls made by the official scorer can be overturned.
1. I think an official scorer is still a necessary aspect of baseball. Sure, with instant replays the right call could probably be made most of the time, but what about those grey areas that border between a hit and an error? When the call on a play can go either way, its part of baseball to let a human hand either make the right or wrong decision. The beauty of baseball is that it is full of human error and unpredictability. The official scorer follows in the vein of the way the game was supposed to be played.
ReplyDelete2. I learned all about the appeal process for changing a call and that the scorer is only alerted if his decision if overturned.
1. Although the scorer’s decisions can be appealed, the scorer offers flow to the game. I personally would not watch a baseball game if the umpires had to constantly check with each other for a call. The fact that there is only one official scorer makes up for the tempo that baseball lacks compared to other sports (sorry Mary).
ReplyDelete2. I learned that what defines a hit is ordinary effort. I thought it was simple: if you swing to hit the ball and miss it, then it’s an out. I feel like giving someone the job to decide if a hitter displayed ordinary effort can sway games a lot.
1. I think that official scorers are still necessary, but their job should be changed so it can be easier. I think that there should be more than one official scorer and after a close play, they should be shown an instant reply from different angles. Therefore, you could get more than one perspective and it saves calls from prolonged controversy. Each person has their own opinion on a play, but with more than one official scorer and with a multi-angled immediate reply, more calls are likely to be scored correctly. It would help the statistical side of the game to be called more fair and it would help the flow of the game to be smoother.
ReplyDelete2. I learned that an official scorer can change a call throughout a game, which is very interesting because at one moment, you could think that you are throwing a no hitter, and then at another moment later in the game, your no hitter could be taken away by a play innings ago. This is very controversial, and unfair to a player being put in a situation like this that could ultimately mess with their approach to the game.
1. I think that the role of the "official scorer" is still entirely necessary to the game. As you said, someone would have to record stats of the game (hits, strikes, balls, errors etc.), and one person remains objective about controversial calls better than a group can. Sure a large group could work together to count how many pitches the pitcher throws but when it comes down to it, a group of people is going to have too many conflicting viewpoints and even ambitions to make a call on a play that could give a pitcher something like a no hitter or take one away. It would be better to find one person with a good eye for the game, who will be able to remain objective about the calls (no affiliation to the teams playing etc.).
ReplyDelete2. I learned that stats of a game can change up to 12 hours after the game has ended. A player could theoretically be awarded a no hitter or a perfect game, or have one revoked, after the game is over.