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 (which will be in effect this year) 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?
Nicely done on week one. Keep up the responses.
I think that the use of one single official scorer is not enough to make those tough decisions. I think there should be a panel of people who would vote on controversial plays, in order to take the pressure off one single person to make very difficult decisions. The idea of having more than one person making these close calls is a much more fair, democratic system that I’m sure would be appreciated by the players. I think that instant replay will have a big impact on the game, especially in the close calls that umpires have to make in live game action. I’m not completely sure the extent to which instant replay will be used, whether it will only be used to aid the official scorers, or if it will become a vital aspect during a game to aid the umpires in making decisions such as judging plays at home or controversial diving catches. It will be interesting to see how the players. coaches, and fans respond to instant replay and the impact it will have on the flow of the game. It is in example of the evolution of the traditional game of baseball into the modern era. From this article, I simply learned of the existence of an official scorer. I never realized there was one person sitting in a char making these major decisions in a ball game. The announcer would always just say, “Oh, that was ruled an error” or, “That was a close play, be they gave him the hit.” However, it’s new knowledge that the ruling of these plays are done by a single person named the official scorer.
ReplyDeleteI think the official scorer will always be necessary in baseball. Although the game is evolving with new technology such as instant replay, this doesn’t mean that we need to get rid of old traditions that are apart of baseball’s history. Since the beginning of baseball it has always consisted of chance and human error. Players have depended on the umpire’s decision to call a play right or wrong. This trust has been embedded in baseball and is a major component in what brings fans closer to the game. When seeing a play we respond by giving our own opinions and thoughts on the umpire or official scorer’s decision. We are also judges in our own right. However our opinion doesn’t matter. High technology represents the opportunity to improve that error. However, we cannot let go of the human interpretation of baseball. If we let go of the official scorer, we will lose the unpredictable feeling that baseball provides. This evolution would cause the game to become stale and predictable and thus not well attended. In regards to having more than one person rule a game. I feel that for many this job is a dream to baseball gurus. This boring and slow work for many would be their highlight of the afternoon and bring them closer to the game.
ReplyDeleteReading Bill Christine’s article caused me to see the importance of the official scorer. They make decisions that can alter baseball history forever. Now I am curious to know how many no hitters are truly real, as well as how many have been lost due to the ruling of an official scorer.
-Luc
Delete1. With instant replay (which will be in effect this year) 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?
ReplyDelete2. What new piece of baseball information did you learn from this article?
I believe that instead of one official scorer, we should create a group of official scorers at each field, three in my opinion so that there will never be a 50-50 split and one side will win. Also, I believe that it should be three people instead of one because then there is more chance that the right choice is chosen and there are more eyes. The instant replay which will be in effect this year will help out a lot but I still think that an official scorer is still necessary. The new piece of baseball information that I learned from this article is that there is only one official scorer and also that they only get paid $150 a game. I think that the league is able to pay for three official scorers for $450 a game without any issues. Overall, I think it is good that there is an official scorer but I think it would be an even better situation if there are more eyes and opinions to decide whether something is a hit or an error, saving any one person from blowing a call that would give someone a perfect game or no hitter.
I think it is difficult to say whether or not an official scorer is still necessary. In my opinion, there should still be someone who keeps track of the important stats but it is a lot of pressure to put on one individual. I know that that is a job I would not like to have. I think having 2-3 people would be more efficient but while also keeping in mind that 2-3 people could create more conflict and debate on the calls. I would assume all of the official scorers are fair and equal, but at the same time, I think it would be more beneficial to have more than one person handling the important job. Yet it would be less beneficial for a group of people to handle it. I believe that somewhere in the middle seems to be the right way to go. While reading the article, I learned what that "ordinary effort" is a baseball term, though broad. I always thought that baseball was a simple and straightforward sport unlike football or lacrosse for instance. However, reading this article furthered my realization that baseball has so many underlying rules, regulations and terms and is complex and complicated. My opinion of baseball keeps changing as the semester goes on.
ReplyDeleteGrace Donahoe:
ReplyDeleteIn the time that we have spent studying the early days of baseball, we have learned that it was thought to be the national game because it is a microcosm of American ideals. If this is true, scoring should not fall to just one person, but a group of people. As a matter of efficiency and tie-breaking, I think that there should be three people. Any more and there could be long disputes. Any less and nobody would settle the disagreements with a deciding vote. This is similar to the piece we read that discussed the time when there was only one umpire in the Negro Leagues. The umpire could not have eyes everywhere, so calls were less accurate. Now, with multiple umpires, calls are more accurate, because there are more eyes on the action. If the home plate umpire is not sure whether a batter checked his swing, he can ask the ump on first base. A system with multiple scorers could be a lot like this, bringing more accuracy from multiple views of the play. In reading this article, I was surprised by the salary of the scorer. I was interested enough to look up how much umpires get paid, and read that it was upwards of $120,000 for umpires just starting out, and around $300,000 a season for the most senior umps. This salary includes spring training, and the regular and postseason. I was surprised how much more umpires get paid when the job of the scorer is also making calls crucial to the game.
It’s difficult for me to think about baseball as a game with instant replays. I have become accustomed to the immediacy of the calls and to leaving game decisions up to the umpires. Although instant playbacks will ensure more “fairness” in each game, I don’t believe that this iconic part of the game needs to change. Looking over replays will simply use up unnecessary time. I feel a bit different about official scorekeepers, primarily because only one person holds this position at each game. Similar to how umpires are able to discuss certain calls, I believe scorekeepers should have the ability to debate in order to come to a fair verdict about a play. Hiring two additional people would make it more difficult for personal bias towards a team to influence the way an individual record statistics. It could also lead to less controversy directed towards one person if the general public believes they have made a bad call. After learning that scorekeepers currently have 24 hours to establish an official ruling, I began to wonder why so much time was needed to decide on seemingly straightforward plays. Together, three people would likely be able to work at a faster pace and contribute the immediacy that is expected in a major league game.
ReplyDeleteI think that in baseball there will always be a need for an official scorer. Maybe not in the same respect as today, but some sort of official voice will always be a necessity. Unlike football, baseball doesn’t have the luxury of or the rules built in to accommodate instant replays. Also unlike football, the umpires on the field in baseball are not the ones making every call, and are not in charge of deciding what qualifies as a hit, error, or the like. Without an official scorer there could be even more potential for botched calls or errors in scorekeeping. With a scorer there is validity to the calls, especially with the appeals process, although I think, like many of my classmates have said, that a single scorer is not the most ideal set up. Even having two more scorers (to prevent the chance of a tie in the voting), the reliability of the scoring process would increase. In that way, the burden of the call would not rest solely on the shoulders of one person and the chances of human error would decrease.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I didn’t know about baseball before reading this article was that calls could be appealed. When watching a baseball game, either on TV or in the stadium, it always seems like the calls are one and done. It never occurred to me that calls in baseball could be changed like they are in football. In fact, one of the things I liked about baseball was that everything happened in real time and couldn’t be changed.
Like many, I think that there should be more than just one person in charge of the stats for a game because baseball is not a simple game to call. There are many opinionated calls and choices that go into the game such as balls and strikes for the umpires and in the case of Allan Spear, whether it was an error or a double. Multiple people should be chosen to join their opinions together and get a majority vote on the calls that go on the stat sheets. I think with the new technology that is being and has been created is a benefit for the game of baseball but I also think baseball should stick to its tradition and keep the jobs that have always been around. Rather than looking at something on a screen you can touch and feel and see the pen marks that were written in 1990 or 2020. It becomes a piece of physical 3-D history that means much more than an electronic copy of numbers and words. One thing I learned from the article was that I never knew that if a player commits an error, the hitter does not get the amount of bases ran to, as exampled in the article. The player would only get the amount of bases that he would get if the player didn't commit the error.
ReplyDeleteThe article offers a unique perspective that I, even as an avid baseball fan and reader, have had very little exposure to. One interviewee from the article, Ron Roth, mentioned how the idea of "homerism" doesn't actually impact scorers' decisions, but such an idea is essentially impossible. There are many plays in baseball that are so close to that very fine line of hit vs. error that it is often up to the judgement of the official scorer (as confirmed when the article references how often times they disagree with each other.) These types of plays are what baseball so special as there is judgement and there is still a personality to the game. But along with these plays come mistakes from umpires and scorers, and often times, whether consciously or unconsciously, scorers will be partial one way or the other. That is why I am so personally split on the use of video technology in baseball, and the idea that managers get "challenges." I believe whole heartedly in the integrity and identity of baseball and how that is rooted in the relationship between fans, umpires, and player, but simultaneously if instances such as the Imperfect Game can happen, I think it's necessary. Something I learned from this article is how little scorers are paid and that they are civilians.
ReplyDeletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JmpkHmNrW4E/UGb5lMEPMZI/AAAAAAAAAIY/WSL3i-QnWgw/s1600/june-2-2010-armando-galarraga-the-imperfect-game.jpg
So honestly what I think is that an official scorer is not and would not be necessary. I think that it is a job that is simple enough for the umpires to handle as well, though I do not know how easily current umpires will be able to adjust to the use of instant replay. I know some umps are very old school and might want to keep the game the way that it is, but the fact of the matter is that as our technological world evolves, so do things like baseball, that need to stay at the innovative rate of technology in order to survive. I think that baseball will be the last mainstream sport to adopt the instant replay yet I still think that it is long overdue. After reading this, I honestly learned a portions of baseball scoring that I had actually never heard of. To think that a call can be changed or appealed days after a game really surprises me, and makes me wish calls more crucial calls are made by umpires on the field instead of a scorer in an office in the stadium. I learned that some want to keep the game old school and some believes it needs innovations, and how possible these two ideas can at some point coalesce in the future.
ReplyDeleteSandy Schenker
ReplyDeleteI still believe that an official scorer is not necessary but useful, and a part of the game. They make many calls each game, and only a few calls each year will be reversed. This is also an important part of the game, but not an absolutely vital part, which makes it so it is easier on everyone to hear the call announced immediately, and very rarely learning it was changed later that week. I also believe that the official scorers do rule for the home side a lot, even though they say they don't, which I actually like. It is not going to decide wins from losses, so I personally like the official scorer helping my players stats. Overall, it is a nice thing to have an official scorer in the game, and with very little downside, I believe that official scorers should be kept in the game. The thing that I learned for the first time is that official scorers can change their calls later in the same game, and even twice in the same game. I knew that the committee could change the ruling later, but I did not realize that the official scorer could change their previous call in the same 24 hours.
In my opinion, I think that the official score keeper is no longer necessary, with the addition of instant replay that will be in action next year. With instant replay, the score keeper is questioned after every play. What's the point of having a score keeper if his call can be overturned and will be overturned? Although baseball players and fans aren't used to technology changing the game because they've been so used to umpires calling the game, they will have to get used to it. With the addition of the instant replay, I think that stats should be kept like they are in basketball, with one person recording one kind of stat. The main thing that I learned about baseball in reading this article is that the score keepers get paid so little to be putting themselves at so much risk by the angry fans who might question their calls and get angry for changing the course of history, in terms of no hitters or the difference between hits and errors.
ReplyDeleteI think even with reply an official scorer will still be necessary. Their authority will still be essentially, if not every play uses instant replay. Without the official score keeper the game would no longer have as much credit and we would no longer focus too much on the replay than the actual game. Before reading this article I didn't know much about the appeal process. Since I have never heard an announcement after a game saying that the score keeper was wrong, I didn't realize it was a factor in the game at tall. I was shocked that teams weren't notified of play changes even if they didn't effect the outcome of the score. I feel like this is definitely the main reason why the replay is so necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think an official scorer is an essential part of the game the way it is today and the new replay rule should not interfere with that. In a game such as baseball where the result of a play is all in the eye of the beholder and there are so many factors at play it makes sense to have one neutral pair of eyes on the game that can make a decision for better or for worse. 150 dollars a game is an extremely small price to pay for the league in the grand scheme of things and there is no reason that the official score keeper should be removed. I learned that there was an appeals committee for these rulings which seems pretty ridiculous but not very surprising.
ReplyDeleteI think an official scorer will still be necessary because of the small things they do such as counting balls and strikes, but also because they usually get most of their calls right. I think that the official replay will help when calls might not look very obvious or there is some questioning whether a call is right or not, but overall I think that a scorer gets most their calls right and that they would still be very useful in a game. One new thingI learned was that there is a scorer in baseball. I there were people that made those kind of calls but I never knew what they were called and how many people did it.
ReplyDeleteWes (via Mary)
ReplyDeleteI never knew there were such things as official scorers. I always assumed it was a panel of people sitting around watching games and passing judgements collectively. It never occurred to me that one person is busy recording the stats for each game. Having not known they exist, I feel like they are no longer needed. Television coverage and instant replays are getting so good and thorough that it seems old fashioned to have a single person making judgements with the naked eye. It would make more sense to compile a panel and give them access to instant replays to make their decisions
I am not sure an official scorer will still be necessary with instant replay in effect. I think that the way of knowing for sure what happened on the field is covered by the use of instant replay. There will always be human error in official scorers that will continue to invoke backlash from the players and teams if their calls are incorrect. I didn't even know what an official scorer was, let alone that they still had one.
ReplyDelete