Sam Morley

Aesthetic change is a small part of the objection to it. That the strike zone changes subtly from one ump to the next is a very interesting and dynamic part of baseball. It's interesting as a spectator and as a player. Learning each umpires tendencies and acting to use them to your advantage or being forced to adjust to avoid disadvantage (for both hitters and pitchers) takes skill, intelligence, and experience. The relationship between pitcher, batter, and umpire is integral to the uniqueness of baseball. By replacing human umpires with robot umpires, you are removing a very compelling layer of complexity from the way players prepare for, and adjust in, the game. To refer to umpires, who have been an integral and definitive part of baseball for over 150 years, as "some quirky gimmick based on some antiquated premise" is recklessly inaccurate and so far beyond hyperbole that it's offensive.

My brothers and I played baseball in our country driveway with a tennis ball and a broom handle. We 've all played various versions and forms of the game. MLB is the standard. With every rule change reliant on technology that is introduced to the game by MLB, the less like those beloved childhood versions it becomes.

Segregation is immoral and unjust. Smoking causes cancer. Monuments in the outfield sounds physically dangerous. None of them have anything to do with a fundamental, definitive part of the game. None of them changed the way the game is played. Since basically 1900, there have been very few fundamental changes to the game. Adding cork to the center of the ball in 1910, adding the sac fly in 1931, lowering the mound and shrinking the strike zone in 1969, and adding the DH in the AL in 1973, are, in my opinion, the most significant changes to the game in the 20th century. A person could argue that any of these changes improved the game. Another person could just as easily argue that they did not. I'd say that the cork center was an improvement. The other changes I shrug at. In the past decade, or less, there has been a flurry of significant changes and proposed changes (maybe none that compare in effect to the cork center but they all surpass in significance every other rule change in baseball since 1900). They are: rules about collisions at the plate and catchers blocking the plate, rules about break up slides at second base, the introduction of video review and manager challenges, the proposed pitch clock, and hypothesized computerized strike zones. The changes that involve newly available and developing technology strike at the heart of the fundamental nature of baseball- and of all athletic competition, in my opinion. Baseball should be played, managed, and officiated on the field without artificial/synthetic/technological aids/enhancers. Human beings, wood, leather, resin, pine tar, grass, dirt; no robots, plastic, aluminum, computers, or drugs. I realize that this is my subjective opinion and I respect that other people have a different opinion. I don't think that there is room for subjectivity in the examples of segregation, smoking in the dugout, or even monuments in the outfield. They are all objectively bad. It seems inaccurate and unfair to compare the advocacy for human umpires/resistance of robot umpires to any of those examples.

Add to that list a batter with a reputation for having a good eye shrinking the zone.

I'm with you. When it comes to video review and pitch clock, I'll grumble endlessly but still watch. The day robo strike zone is introduced, I'm out.

I wouldn't couple 'least intrusive' with 'most natural'. It could be done in an un-intrusive way. That doesn't make it natural. It's still an artificial element, and in that regard, I'm resisting it on principle, not necessarily on effect. As to the effect, my prediction is that it will be intrusive to viewing the game, mostly on TV. I think broadcasts will treat it the same way the NFL broadcasts treat the play clock, and the NBA treats the shot clock. It works great for those games because those sports are structurally built around a clock that counts down. A clock that counts down is natural to those games. When I'm watching baseball on TV, I don't want to see a countdown clock blinking red next to the ball-strike-out graphic. I don't want to hear commentators referencing or talking about the clock. I don't want it in the stadiums either, next to the radar gun reading or wherever, so that fans at the game can start countdown chants while a pitcher is getting ready to deliver. I guess, if they give the umps a little pocket stop watch and tell them the time allotments and to enforce them, that seems like a reasonable place to start.

Where is the thread? Polls are bogus. In twenty years "the vast majority of people who watch baseball will be dead and virtually all of them are white"? Bogus. Of professional sports in the U.S., baseball is by far the most racially diverse. The NHL is homogenous, the NBA is homogenous, the NFL is more diverse than those two but less diverse than MLB. The NFL will be dead by 2040... maybe.

I mean, that's interesting and compelling. It's even more compelling in conjunction with your other post countering my assumption that there has been an increase in pitching changes. I could say that it's only suggestive and not conclusive. Hand selecting one game from each season, even if the author is totally impartial and seeking an objective observation- which I trust he is- is still too small a sample size to really conclude anything authoritatively, right? I don't know, I probably should concede that point. I also don't really care that the games are taking longer, but it's also fine with me if the league wants to try to speed them up, as long as they find a way to do it naturally.

The evolution analogy is interesting. I think there are some very good, natural ways that technology is influencing and changing the game. I would describe these as being akin to the process of evolution. Technology is good in baseball for documentation, analysis, and instruction. Its amazingly enjoyable to watch baseball on television in high definition from multiple perspectives. I love it. It's also great to be able to reference and relive moments in baseball history. Maybe the Twins will never win another world series title, but I can always watch the footage of Kirby's game six walkoff. Computers have enabled staggering amounts of statistical analysis to be consumable and useable. I don't love all of the effects of this analysis on the game (extreme infield shifting, early exits for starting pitchers) but I see these changes as being naturally occurring without artificially manipulating the structure or definitive qualities of the game. For that reason, I accept them; I see them as being, as you have put it, evolutionary. Video technology is also amazing for instruction. For the first time in the history of the game, video analysis of mechanics is verifying the true components of an ideal swing (Ted Williams and rotational theory being validated and the old hands first-downward ax chop being debunked). I could make a case that there was something charming and romantic about the mystery of the swing, of the vying arguments and theories, of the way even people who were so good at doing it didn't really understand what they were doing; and that we are losing something fun in knowing for sure what is exactly the right way to do it is. Video analysis of pitching mechanics is yielding greater understanding of flaws that lead to injury. Again, I think these are some examples of natural changes in the game, changes that can be appropriately described as evolutionary. I'm willing to accept both the things I like and dislike about them, I'm willing to accept evolutionary changes. What I'm less willing to accept, and at some point not at all willing to accept, are artificial, forcefully imposed changes. The type of changes that might be less akin to evolution and more so to genetic modification or genetic engineering. Video reviews/challenges, clocks of any type for any reason, automated strike zones are as to artificial modification and not so much evolution. I've accepted, under protest, video review; I probably will do the same with the proposed clock. I'll be out the day they introduce the automated strike zone. I mean, I guess I'll be investigating what the Saints have to offer a little more seriously. I can't really draw any theoretical connections between the artificial changes and attracting a younger demographic of viewership. Is the idea that younger people are more accustomed to technology and its ubiquitous application and are turned off when it plays a less significant role? Isn't there just as much grounding on which to anticipate a backlash against the pervasiveness of technology? Why shouldn't baseball be looking to capitalize on its natural, organic beauty; to appeal to the person looking for an alternative to the noxious hype of the NBA/NFL; the person who prefers a handful of wild blueberries to a handful of skittles; the person who prefers the subtle imperfections of craftsmanship to the sterility of the mass produced? To the extent that MLB is even competing with the other pro sports leagues, why should it try to be more like them rather than try to set itself apart? To the extent that there is a connection between the artificial changes and attracting a younger audience; why should I defer to their whimsy, to their fickle, impressionable nature? I was their age once; I was once seduced by the hype of NBA Inside Stuff and hi-top sneakers. They will grow up. They will be sick of clocks, buzzers, timeouts to check video, watching people run back and forth, and sick of the latest "Chris Paul is headed back to LA to play the Clippers for the first time since being traded to the Rockets- will the fans boo or applaud him, will his old teammates embrace him or turn a cold shoulder?!" Baseball will be waiting- hopefully it's not all mucked up.

This seems like a hard thing to quantify. Are plate appearances timed? If so, for how long have they been timing them? Has the average length of a plate appearance gone up over time? I assume we don't have that data, so any conclusions we draw about it are based on hunch. I don't really have a sense that individual plate appearances take longer no than they used to. I don't have a problem with MLB instructing umps to take more initiative to move things along. I don't have a problem with it the way it is either though. I would say that the biggest factor in the increase in average game length is due to the increase in pitching changes. This is directly linked to the advent of basically unlimited metrics and data. Managers used to be more prone to letting a guy go, especially a starter. Now they have data that basically tells them when to make a pitching change, and the data is telling them to make more pitching changes. The data is telling them to pull the starter sooner, which leads to the game of bullpen management and more pitching changes.

And I assume that's just MLB. Add MiLB attendance. Add independent league attendance. Baseball is very popular. There's nothing to suggest its in danger of becoming less popular. ESPN and its talking heads are constantly spouting, as though it's casual matter of fact, that baseball is losing popularity with kids while simultaneously saying the opposite about the NBA and basketball. They never, ever site any statistics to support either of these ideas.

I am the stodgy one.

Nobody is saying this in this thread so far, so here it is: A clock in baseball is an abomination. I hate it, on principle whether or not I notice it. (you will notice it because it will be prominently featured in every television broadcast- "look at the clock! there it is! it's counting down! 5 seconds left!"- NFL play clock blinking red on the bottom line). Part of what makes baseball unique is that there is no time. Go to the ballpark, forget about time. I hate that the ballpark experience is being disregarded in favor of the television experience. The television experience is important too, but not at the expense of the ballpark experience. Video review and challenges are also terrible. They are terrible on principle. They are terrible in their effect- they stop the game. The worst part is how managing challenges has become a part of game strategy- what type of plays to challenge, when to challenge, when not to challenge. Plays get challenged in situations where you might as well because there's nothing to lose and maybe you'll get lucky. Plays that should never be challenged are challenged the most because of their reliability of being overturned (players coming off the bag for an indiscernible micro second). I'm surprised they don't challenge double plays to make sure the turn keeps his foot on the bag at the same exact moment he has the ball. Automated strike zones will be an abomination, should they occur. The subjective nature of the strike zone and the manipulation of the umpire by the pitcher, catcher, and hitter is part of the game. It's a great part of the game. That different umpires have different strike zones and that you have to adjust to them is awesome. It's part of what makes the game 'alive', unpredictable, and not boring. In regards to the previous two paragraphs: umps getting calls wrong A doesn't matter and B is part of the drama of the game, both as a fan and as player. It's fun to get pissed at umps. It's a game, it's not important. To the extent that it is contextually important, it comes out in the wash- everybody gets there fair share of blown calls for and against. No matter how it goes down, somebody wins and somebody loses; somebody is happy and somebody is sad. A great thing about baseball was that if you had a bat, a ball, a mitt, and spikes, you could play the same game as the big leaguers. Now if you want to play the same game, you need a bunch of cameras and a stop clock. One thing I don't understand is why serious/real/true fans of baseball are so deferential to the league's initiative of appealing to people who don't like/care about baseball. In the population, there are sports fans and non sports fans. Among sports fans, the NFL is the most popular, and the NBA and MLB are sort of vying for second place. Does that mean, MLB is trying to win over some NBA fans or get some more of those football fans, or get some non sports fans? Is it about getting fans who sort of like baseball to like it more by making more like the sports they like more? Make baseball more like football and basketball so that more fans of football and basketball will like baseball too? Many people don't like baseball because they say it's boring. If someone thinks baseball is boring, it's because they don't understand it. If someone says to me, "No, I understand it, but I just think it's boring." I say, "No, you don't understand it." If someone doesn't understand it, it's almost impossible to explain it to them. It takes time to understand baseball. This, in my opinion, is behind the game's popularity demographics. The commissioner wants to point out that baseball is less popular with kids- less popular with kids than with adults; less popular with kids than the NBA. The NBA loves to talk about how popular it is with younger fans. So what? The kids grow up. When I was thirteen, I loved the NBA too. I had my collection of Shawn Kemp basketball cards, and my rebok kamakazies. It was awesome. Basketball is instant gratification... until you've seen it all. I still watch basketball. It's fine. It's sports. I like sports, but it's boring. It's predictable. Football has a little more room for unpredictability than basketball, but not much (the Vikings-Saints game ending in a touchdown instead of a field goal is a rare example of something unpredictable happening in a football game). The other thing behind the popularity of baseball is its accessibility. Basketball and football are TV broadcast on the free, major networks: FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC. Baseball is not. It wasn't when I was kid, and it still isn't. The NFL and NBA were on every sunday, all day. Baseball was only on cable/satellite. I loved watching baseball as a kid even more than I loved watching football and basketball, but it wasn't accessible to me because my parents weren't about to pay for cable/satellite. I think the commissioner/owners' proposed manipulations of the game have more to do with making its duration more predictable and not so much about making it shorter, with hopes that the increase in predictability will make it friendlier to major network television. For good measure, I also hate the home plate collision rules and the second base break up slide rules. They are sissy. At least the all star game is meaningless again.

I think ultimately, ideally, recognizing nuance is important in responding to conflict between people. I think the trouble with a nuanced approach to how we respond to sexual harassment, at this point in time, is whether or not entrusted officials and institutions are capable of using a nuanced approach honestly. I don't think history is in their favor, and I think there is a likelihood of continued indifference under the shelter of nuance and subjectivity. I think that for a period of time, an aggressive, heavy handed approach is necessary just to get us back to the point of having the luxury of considering nuance. The analogy of bullying at schools is interesting. I think behavioral issues with children should be handled with understanding. It's hard to compare behavioral issues and consequences for children with those of adults. Adults are held to a different standard of behavioral expectations. Here's an analogy that speaks to my point, I think. In this analogy, the principle of states' rights is as to the ideal of the nuanced approach. They are as to each other in that I would say they are both very good ideals. States and smaller levels of government are ideally free to govern and legislate as they see best for their specific regional/community needs/issues. Freedom and autonomy are better than their opposite and it makes clear sense that those who best know the needs of their community are those who live in it. An honest nuanced approach is similar in that it allows for more flexibility/freedom in how to achieve resolution, and it makes sense its capacity to be balanced and fair to both sides of a conflict. But for decades, the principle of states' rights was used to allow southern states and communities to maintain segregation of schools along racial demographic lines (among many other grievous institutions of Jim Crow). It took the full force of the federal government to end official school segregation, and in many instances it took the military presence of the national guard escorting children to their new schools. This analogy is not about saying institutional racism is as to institutional indifference to sexual harassment/violence nor is it about saying x degree of racism is as to x degree of sexism, though I think it could be extended to do those things. It could even be extended to recognize the call for nuance/understanding/patience by southern apologists in the face of unfettered injustice. What it is about, or what it leads me to say is that if the federal government had not so strongly intervened (with legislation, executive order, court order, and military force) southern schools would still be officially segregated today. I will extend the analogy by observing that the extent to which schools across the nation are still hobbled by segregation, due to sinister districting and busing policy tricks, is relative to a dearth of relentlessness by society in the pursuit of rightness. I mean, we should be even more aggressive. To apply it back to the topic at hand, I think it will take relentlessness and doggedness- on behalf of everyone who cares- to root out and confront sexism imbedded in its more nuanced, subtle, and 'gray' manifestations (as it will with racism). I think this includes both official and unofficial confrontations. Dealing with and confronting bad behavior, subtle or overt, willful or ignorant, usually takes some courage. If you decide to do it, there's some amount of getting mentally 'pumped' before diving in. It seems like being calm, measured, and understanding in such instances is probably best most of the time, but for those who do not achieve it, it's their behavior for which leniency and understanding are called. To boil all this down, concisely, I think that the major risk of approaching confrontation of sexual harassment/violence (officially and/or unofficially) with sensitivity to nuance is an overall failure to reduce incidence of sexual harassment/violence. Maybe you don't see this risk, or don't perceive it to be as great as I do. What do you think the risk of approaching confrontation of sexual harassment/violence with little sensitivity to nuance is?

Can you clarify what you're saying in this post? It sounds like you're saying that one sexual assault is not enough to warrant serious consequences.

I might agree with this, specifically with the disappointment in official measures to affect large scale change. Although, I think it's complicated to measure the effects of official approaches collectively over time on the way society at large perceives the issue. How do we know whether or not official punitive measures in cases of sexual harassment, collectively, over time, have contributed to our general awareness of the problem, and to the preemptive correction of behavior by many? I would say that it is also possible that official ineffectiveness may be due to a lack of strength on the part of society and its institutions in regards to the problem of sexual harassment. And that as awareness of it and intolerance for it increase, generally, the strength of those punitive actions will increase and their effects will be more powerful. On a smaller scale, I dispute the notion that official, punitive actions against actors of sexual harassment does not solve problems. If you are a person responsible for the maintenance of a professional and safe work environment and the actions of someone under your supervision are detrimental to that by way of sexual harassment, then you have a problem. Removing that person, by firing them, solves that problem. You might be passing that problem on to someone else, but you've served the environment for which you're responsible. The way I see it, contributing to solving the larger problem of sexual harassment is a secondary responsibility of official punitive actions. It's secondary to the responsibility of ending the endurance of those immediately affected by the harassment. I say that the manner in which (and the extent to which) official approaches, punitive approaches, are ineffective is in failure of execution. I think, ideally, a combination of punitive action and restorative action is best. The punitive action is for the immediate well being of the acute victim(s), and for that of potential victims- for society in general, and it is for justice. The restorative action is for the hopeful education and growth of the perpetrator, to the benefit of society. I think we have to accomplish the primary responsibility before moving on to focus on the secondary.

Yes. And if they choose not to get up to speed on their own, the consequences they experience, as a result for not, can do it for them. And for this person who hypothetically toes the line between complimenting and harassing, I think 'awkward' is too lenient a characterization.

Cat calling is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment while in uniform, from the dugout, toward another employee is not "a little out of line", it's bad. Grown? Grown from sexual harassment to sexual assault? Different cultures etc.? Please, explain. Maybe you missed Trevor Plouffe's immediate vote of support and belief in Ms. Bissen's account. These peripheral accounts and anecdotes may not amount to anything criminal, but they do build the case that Sano is a jerk and a creep and isn't deserving of anyone's sympathy or understanding now that he's also accused of sexual assault. As a whole, each of these accounts lend credibility to the others. Ms. Bissen's account, obviously stands on its own as credible. The account from Chattanooga, is much less credible on its own and could easily be speculatively attributed to racism, or any number of things, but it becomes more believable when paired with Ms. Bissen's reported experience.

In terms of reality, I think this is spot on. Most of my posts, in this thread and in others, on the topic, have been grounded less in reality more in idealism. The ideal is such that one day, people's distaste for the behavior Sano is accused of is so overwhelming that his value to any pro sports organization be zero. I don't know of any other way for me to strive for the ideal but than to express my own distaste when the opportunity arises, as well as to confront indifference when I perceive it.

If you review my posts, you will find that I never asked for an article to be excluded, nor did I call for an article's relocation. I expressed disappointment in the judgment exercised by the author and site administrators in regards to the timing of the article's publication, not its content. I don't think that amounts to censorship advocacy. If you perceive a contradiction in something I've said, I'd prefer that you ask for clarification rather than inaccurately paraphrase me to the strength of your own point. Nothing about the direction of the thread is explicitly stated in the article. The disclaimer is half way down the first page of comments and it is not only not explicit, it's actually metaphorical. Explicit would have been: "When you read this article and comment in the thread that follows, please only consider, and/or comment about, Miguel Sano as a baseball player and not as a purveyor of sexual harassment/violence." as opposed to, "please view this article through a lens." I'm a little confused about the last sentence in your post, and to what it is referring. I didn't ask why the article was written. Did you think I did? I did ask a question at the end of my last post, "Why make this choice?" It was in reference to the author's statement about choosing to view athletes apart from their humanity. To that, there has yet to be any answer- and I certainly don't feel entitled to one. I still think it's a question worth asking.

Yes, I read the explanation as well as the disclaimer. Whether or not they were necessary, they were informative, which I think was the point. I know about the other threads. I know this thread isn't one of them, and I don't think the aim of my comments is to redirect it to be (or maybe it is, in part). Do you think my comments have been inappropriate? Most important to me in my response to you is to clarify that I do not think the article nor the comment thread accompanying it should be censored. Even while my post expressed affirmation for anti-censorship, you have interpreted that expression to be at odds with other sentiments in my posts. I did not mean to be contradictory, and I state now that I think the article and the thread should stand. I find the timing of the publishing of the article to be insensitive, disrespectful, and irrelevant, but I do not think that now that it exists it should be censored. I think that the timing of the publishing of the article reflects badly on TwinsDaily. With hindsight, I wish that the author and/or the site administrators had exercised better/different judgement about where to present/store the content. My insight into how TD choses articles for publication is limited. My personal experience is that on occasion, a blog entry I have written has been selected for publication on the front page as an article. Each of these instances has occurred without notice, and in some cases, the administrators even made minor editions. My point is this: the content that the administrators choose for article publication is chosen at their discretion. All of the blog content on this site is not chosen for publication as an article. I would assume that not all of the content authored with intent for publication as an article is chosen for publication as an article. I don't think that those choices amount to censorship. I don't think they would have in this case, specifically. In his brief disclaimer in the comment thread, the author asks the readers to view the article through a lens aside from the reports about Sano's behavior. I question how realistic this request is, and I would point out, that besides me, many other commenters in the thread have chosen to disregard it in their attempts to revaluate Sano as a trade candidate specifically in light of the reports. In his response to me, the author stated his choice to view the athlete objectively, apart from his/her humanity. In general, in instances of violence/harassment against women in particular, and in the specific case of Miguel Sano, I challenge this choice. Why make this choice?

Meet me in the 5%

I think people who have "long since separated human actions from athletes and celebrities" ought to reconsider that position, particularly in instances of violence/harassment against women and children. In the time since the reports of Sano's behavior, the attention paid to him on this site has focused on those reports. I would characterize the conversations as: tense, emotional, angry, and desperate, but still thoughtful, and productive. It has been an appropriate response. The effect of this article and its place on the front page of TwinsDaily, and the comment thread that follows, is a redirection of the attention being paid to Sano. It redirects from issues that are uncomfortable and painful but extremely important to issues that are benign and fun but relatively unimportant (in a parallel universe, I might even debate their contextual importance). If that isn't "watering things down" I don't know what is. The sense I have of the administrators and participants, generally, of TwinsDaily, is that they do care very much about the issues surrounding, and the particular case of, Miguel Sano's reported behavior. Still, there may be some who do not. (To be clear, I don't get the sense that you are among them). In the name of anti-censorship, there is probably a place on this site for current conversations about Miguel Sano's trade value, weight issues, and BABIP. I don't think that place is a front page article. As a man, I have the luxury of engaging in and disconnecting from thought/conversation/etc about these issues at my convenience. I think, for women, this is probably a luxury not so easy to come by. If I imagine myself as a woman viewing this article and the following comment thread, maybe I am disappointed, but probably I am thinking. "oh well, I guess it's back to business as usual for the boys."

Last week, prior to "Sano's news", this was a fine article. Published yesterday, it strikes me as tone deaf and smacks of indifference. I trust this wasn't the author's intent; nevertheless, it is the case. I don't know whose decision it was to publish this article in the wake of the reports against Sano, but it is an embarrassing one for Twins Daily.

Yes, it does suck.