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?
Keep up the good work!
Even with all the advances in instant replay over the years, an official scorer is still necessary. Calls can be overturned by the replay committee, but scorers can also change their mind on their rulings. Seeing as though the fear of wrong decisions is the main reason to abolish the scorers, it seems as if many opposed to the scorers are uninformed of this. 24 hours is a long time; long enough to watch highlights, or review the game in order to re-watch any questionable decisions he/she may have made. Plus, it is not a matter of one or another. For years the two have coexisted and baseball has not had too many issues with their relationship, so why change it. Why try to fix something that isn’t broken. Besides, if someone is counting pitches, why not let someone else in the stadium count hits, errors, walks, etc. The idea of getting rid of a scorer is just unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAs for learning something new, I did not know that scorers had 24 hours to change their mind about a ruling they made.
-Connor Roach
In my opinion, an official scorer is necessary, even in baseball's age of instant replay. An official scorer plays an important role in making important decisions that make baseball unique. They are especially necessary when deciding upon situations such as ruling a hit versus an error and even the nature of the rule is very subjective. Ivy McLemore, a scorer, says “We’re told that ordinary effort applies to a player with average major league ability, but exactly what is that?” In the event of a close play or a blown call, the decision made by an official scorer can be appealed and possible reversed. Yet a scorer's job is still necessary. If all scoring became the responsibility of the review committee, the committee would not be able to focus on the more controversial calls made. The present system is the most efficient and thorough. Official scorers keep the integrity within baseball.
ReplyDeleteI learned about the complexities of the review process regarding appeals and rebuttals, as well realizing the power a scorer withholds.
While I think only having one person score a game is a little crooked I think the system is a pretty good one. Cameras (at this point in time) cannot make calls, and with a multitude of people comes problems. Although democracy is a great system, it is not a very efficient one. It would take a lot of time to consult even five people on every play of a game and I believe it would be a bit harder to appeal a decision made by five people than by one. Using one person is much less money and time consuming and the appeals process deals with possible mistakes. I would however have two separate scorers like they do in (highschool) basketball. They could check each others books at the end and replay any disputed plays. Otherwise i think the system is perfectly fine. It doesn't change the overall wins and loses of each team and I have never heard any headlines about a "Scoring Scandal: The Black Box (It's a play on the 'Black Sox', Who's cooking the books now...".
ReplyDeleteI never really thought about who scored the pro games. My mom (or the team mom/dad) always scored my baseball games so I guess somewhere in my head I just assumed the Pro-Team-Mom scored the game and brought the team snacks. I had also never heard of an appeal to scoring (which makes sense saying I thought my mom scored pro baseball games).
-Feel the Wood, Be the Wood, B-Wood.
P.S. "bb-woodubs-roadtrip" is from Bryce (my twin) and I's freshman roadtrip project.
DeleteAlthough instant replay can be employed on larger, more controversial plays, an official scorekeeper is still necessary to determine hits, errors, and record the entire game. I think the reason there is only one designated scorer is to maintain the objectivity of taking down stats. Despite this, there appears to be some grey area about the job of scorers. The ambiguity surrounding the term “ordinary effort” as required to define a hit, adds to the confusion about the role of the scorer. It is true however, that like the umpires, and examiners of instant replay, scorers have unique knowledge about baseball and try their best to decide the more accurate ruling. We have to keep in mind that the common thread between all these three types of people is that they are all human, and have the inevitable potential for making the wrong call at some point in their careers. Before reading this article, I was unaware that scorers could still change their records the day after. This sort of reexamining of the evidence is reminiscent of the modern day live reviews of plays and the potential to overturn a ruling with video proof.
ReplyDeleteAlly
I think that an official scorekeeper for each game is definitely still necessary, largely because they are part of an established system that functions effectively, albeit with a controversy here or there. To remove them from the game would mean that all responsibility for calls that could go either way would fall on the single committee that handles the appeals. With all the games that happen on a nightly basis, that committee would get overwhelmed. Having one person handle the scorekeeping for one game helps keep the process efficient, and so the stats are uploaded right after the play has finished. If people are unhappy with the call, then they can appeal. Video review is one of the better things to happen to sports in recent years, but it's far from omniscient. They serve to overturn bad calls based on a more complete view, and that works perfectly as it is. No need to fix what isn't broken.
ReplyDeleteAs far as new things learned are concerned, I did not realize that baseball had a committee that was dedicated to reviewing calls that really did not have a huge impact on the game itself.
-Sam
Joseph kakkis
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are many modern changes to the game of baseball, I believe a scorer is still necessary because there needs to be subjectivity in a game played by humans. It's the errors/hits made during a game that have us talking after the game. Controversy drives the passion for baseball. A scorer is a root of this great part of all this. I love to debate whether a call is a hit or an error. And, at the end of the day, one has to accept it and move on. In this way, a scorer teaches us a life lesson. One really best thing I didn't know was that there was an appeals process by both the scorer and a committee. They should have used it for Armando Galarragga's potential perfect game in 2009.
As technology further integrates itself into the game of baseball, the use of instant replay and camera technologies seem like the logical replacement for an official scorer, yet the game would be losing a certain tradition that holds tremendous value. An official scorer has a tremendous amount of responsibility when recording the events of a game and that is why many may think that devices such as instant replay is a good replacement. Though having one official to record the plays will restrict the amount of opinions on each play which can lead to better accuracy. That being said the official has to consistently make good calls in order for them to be reliable. I also believe that an official scorer allows for calls to be discussed rather than proven by video. A lot of the entertainment from baseball comes from the discussions you have with the fan sitting next to you and video confirmation for plans would take some of that fun away. Before reading this article I didn't know much about the responsibilities of an official scorer but after reading it I have come to the conclusion that they play an essential role in the game and that not having them takes part of the games tradition away from it.
ReplyDeleteBaseball is constantly developing and changing as a sport, but there are is a large part that remains the same. Traditions that are deeply engrained in baseball culture allow fans to become attached and dedicated to something greater than themselves. While players are becoming more and more talented and the game continues to grow in level of play, technology is developing as well. With the technologic developments that can always lead to the correct call, it is hard to argue that an official scorer is necessary. However, an official scorer is a part of the culture of the game and I believe should remain a part of the game. Something I learned about baseball is the ongoing discussions and arguments regarding changing the game, as well as the politics involved in the sport.
ReplyDelete-Chloë
I believe that an official scorer is still necessary to the game of baseball. The fact of the matter is, baseball still played by people, not machines. I think that replacing the official scorer with a combination of video monitors and cameras would not only take away from the legacy of the game, but from the excitement of it as well. While video review has been proven to be beneficial throughout professional sports, as a fan, I really enjoy the controversy that surrounds a questionable scoring decision. It is much more enjoyable to place blame on an actual person than simply a group of monitoring devices. In truth, it is relatively rare that one ruling drastically affects the outcome of a game- I do not believe it is necessary to eradicate the scorer simply due to the possibility of human error.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised at how few appeals led to overturned calls. One would think that if a disputed ruling were worthy of an appeal, it would lead to a likely overturn.
Griff
I'm all for integrating technology into our lives, but I make a critical distinction between integration and domination. Instant replay is great, but I believe an official scorer is still necessary in baseball. I see instant replay as more of a supplement to the scoring process, and I definitely don't think that technology should replace human scoring. Also, the concept of tradition is super relevant here. Baseball has been a total constant throughout American history, with the game managing to stay relatively the same over so many years. Why should the practice of using a scorer be any different? Taking away the scorer's job could totally undermine the integrity/tradition of baseball. It could be seen as a giveaway to technology, and I'm not sure that is something the greater fan base would appreciate. This article shows how much of a safety net there is for scorers - not only do they have the ability to change their rulings, but the committee can also go in and review the calls, something I wasn't previously aware of. I also didn't know about that teams could appeal, which is super interesting and, if anything, makes the scoring process as it stands look even better.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs technology becomes more integrated into sports I think that it’s important to use it only as a supplement to humans. I personally find it important to keep an official scorer, not necessarily because they can do a better job than technology because they can’t but because that’s how it’s always been. Although scorers make mistakes, that’s a big part of sports. Removing scorers from the game would not only make it seem like there is no margin for error in sports, but also that we should transition all of our sports to be dependent on technology, something I think should be avoided. Sports are what we use to escape technology: when we were younger and our parents didn’t want us to watch any more TV we went outside and played sports. For this reason as well I think we should avoid integrating too much technology into our sports and remember to keep our sports as pure human as possible. I thought it was interesting however, to learn to 12 out of 58 contested calls last season were overturned after the committee watched videos of the plays. That’s not the margin of error though, it’s just the percentage of wrong calls made out of the plays that someone saw fit to object to the calling.
Technological advancements are constantly introduced to our lives, and it is as if we want these advances in every aspect of our lives, including sports, baseball, in particular. However, by replacing the official scorer of the game with camera related technologies, such as instant replay, may reduce the amount of overturned calls, it creates a game and atmosphere that relies solely on technology - something that is traditionally wrong. Traditionally, sports were people’s way to escape from technology, and by switching the system the human aspect of the game is thrown away. There is no room for conversation and the ability to ask questions among coaches and umps. Additionally, the amount of time involved in trying to reach a consensus among the people viewing the replays would take too long. With the current system, if people do not agree with the official scorers decision, they can appeal (something I did not know until this article) which is more efficient and easier. After the appeal, may the people resort to technology, but not during the game.
ReplyDeleteSamantha
I believe that a scorer of the game is definitely still necessary. Even though their may be a general, unspoken understanding of what happened during a play amongst fans and players, it is still necessary to have a scorer in order to confirm what is perhaps left unvocalized. However, this is rarely the case, as scorers often have to deal with plays that aren’t clear. In this case it is even more necessary to have a scorer who will deliver a definitive ruling on a play, so that there is closure and the game may continue in an orderly fashion. I don’t, however, like the action of appealing a call. I believe that the official scorer should make one, definitive call that is final. Otherwise, the scorer might become too swayed by the outcome of the game and other plays, hindering their ability to make a clean call. In my opinion, appealing adds too much chance for subjectivity to a position that is meant to be objective.
ReplyDeleteAs for something new, almost all of this is new to me. I have always been curious about the method of official scoring, so this was an enlightening read.
-Duncan
Before reading this article, I didn’t know the role of an official scorer existed. In fact, I hadn’t really thought of the systems in place to record plays beyond an umpire calling strikes and balls. While an official scorer may not be completely necessary with instant replay and the ability to review calls after a game, I consider myself to be a sentimentalist; I cringe at the thought of changing the game (especially with the current discussion of time limits!). My hesitancy to get rid of official scorers is perpetuated because of their cost effectiveness. It only costs MLB $150 per game, which is almost nothing for them for a service that caters to the most dedicated fans. Official scorers are most important to the few fans that take the time to take score real time at home or at the games; it costs MLB very little to keep these most dedicated fans happy. To me, honoring such fans, considering how low the cost is, seems like a no-brainer.
ReplyDeleteAlthough umpires may not be a necessary part of baseball nowadays, they have played a pivotal role in its history. The scorer in baseball has played a crucial role that in baseball, causing controversy that has become a part of baseball. Leaving all of the important calls needed in a game to technology takes the excitement out of the game and will ruin the tradition that baseball has created in American history. Baseball has been something that has been engrained in Americans lives and making a change like this would ruin its importance and tradition. Before reading this I had no idea that appeals had been around for so long in baseball. 8-10 years sounds like an long time considering this issue is being discussed in recent years. In my opinion, an official scorer is still a very important position in baseball.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don’t think that the role of the scorer is anywhere near as crucial as it used to be, it is still an important part of the experience of the game. To me, baseball is a tradition sport, and although I believe that constantly using video footage to analyze plays would help improve scoring, by bringing more technology to the game we loose part of what makes baseball so special. Although using video footage is more accurate in determining plays, because they can be appealed I don’t think it is necessary to use in every play, and should be saved for when the scorer is uncertain or potentially wrong about what happened. I was surprised to hear that scorers only make $150 a game because (especially pre-video) I would consider scoring one of the most important jobs in baseball and that seems really low to me.
ReplyDelete-Katarina
I believed that while there is merit in getting rid of the score keeper it would be a lot more hassle in trying to get multiple people to agree on a call when there is the chance of a call going either way. The main argument is because of the possibility of incorrect calls, however as the article stated the score keeper has the ability to change his call multiple times within 24 hours after the play was made. In this time he would have time to review the film himself and if people still had a problem with his call they could appeal the call. While scorers might not be the most glorified aspect of the game they are truly one of the most important parts of the games because they do have athority over a player's stats. Before I read this article I did not even know there was a appeal process for the call a scorer makes or that he had 24 hours to review his call. I just assumed that what he originally put down was all that mattered.
ReplyDelete