The challenge system

How about this. Save one challenge for the 9th inning of a close game regardless (unless it is an inning changer and that bad of a call)

The first challenge shouldn't be used until the 6th inning at earliest.

And Altuve should NEVER be able to call a challenge.

 

Yankees put a huge emphasis on it during spring training and now are apparently really good at it. Meanwhile we are really bad at it. Seems like we have zero strategy.

 

They really should give 3 challenges. It doesn’t take that long anyway.

 

Why not one per inning?

 

I like it, it's very quick and doesn't slow the pace down at all....it will take a while to get everyone comfortable with it

 

Even better

 

I would guess that Judge and Stanton are two hitters who will benefit a lot from ABS challenges bc of low strike calls against them that get overturned. I’m not sure what the Yankees did to prepare, but I’d offer that as a reason why they’d benefit significantly.

Also, as a general point, I suspect teams have or will develop books on umpires. For example, CB bucknor is one you challenge from pitch 1 because he is so bad. There will be obvious misses all game long.

On the other end of the spectrum, Umpires who have history of good performance, it’s probably best to wait till later in the game or high leverage situations.

 

I’m speaking to the fact Boone obsessed over it and they had daily meetings about it during spring training. Not sure what Espada was doing but we’ve already had way too many instances of stupid challenges including a pitcher doing one.

 

I'd guess the best strategy is that when the ump misses an obvious call, use the challenge. Saving them for optimal times seems like it will cost a lot of missed calls.

Overall, I dislike the challenge system as there should be zero strategy to how balls and strikes are called, other than pitches in the zone should be called strikes and pitches out of the zone should be called balls.

 

You've only got a couple of *failed* challenges. If you keep winning them, you've got an unlimited number and teams should absolutely take advantage of that. The issue is that the players just need to get to used to knowing when they are right and that just takes time.

 

I agree it seems like we could have been better prepared to take advantage of the ABS system. I'm pretty impressed by how little it has slowed the game down and it will be excellent in bringing to light the umpires that are really bad at calling balls/strikes.

In a sport that is so data driven, it's really pretty silly to enter this season without a very specific strategy. Football evolved very slowly with strategy for when and where to go for it on 4th down. I expect baseball to move much quicker with strategies for stuff like this. But in general I think our players haven't been great at it so far, which is at least in part on our coaches and preparing everyone.

 

For great starters like Crochet, maybe use the challenges solely on them. Because that's where competitive advantage is needed the most. Then take your chances on lesser relievers after. Make them throw an couple extra pitches too, every little bit of wear & distraction helps lol

 

As someone who just flipped the game on today briefly so this isn't about today, generally, great staters like Crochet are going to give umps fewer pitches to screw up on, and the ones they do will be tough to tell.

Maybe 0-2 with 2 outs no one on with Jake Meyers behind you, don't challenge a close pitch. Other than that, if the hitters have a good idea a pitch is a ball (typically, hitters get upset way more often than they should), they should call for a challenge. I'd expect hitters will be right less than 60% of the time unless teams really clamp down on who can call for a challenge. Catchers other than Diaz I expect will be better than the hitters and pitchers. They have the best view, and for the most part have to be able to keep emotions in check as they deal with umpires and pitchers a lot.

Edit: I should say great starters give few easy to tell opportunities relative to the number of strikes.

 

Trying to time challenges based on theory seems like a fool's errand - you'll end up not challenging pitches you should and then wasting challenges when you shouldn't. Just challenge blatant pitches in non-crucial situations and questionable pitches in critical situations.

 

I'd say this is almost exaclty wrong. The difference across major league baseball between hitting in a 1-2 count v a 2-1 count is the difference between the career ops of Martin Maldonado and Yordan Alvarez. Guy on 2nd with 1 out that's a huge leverage call- if you think it's a ball when it got called a strike challenge it. There's a very real chance you will not get a higher leverage moment where you need a challenge more than that.

 

This basically. Maybe limit the ability of certain hitters to use them (the Senguns of the baseball world should not challenge unless blatant). Let the catcher and not the pitcher challenge except for pitchers with a really good idea of the zone.

I absolutely hate that there is discussion on strategy of challenges.

 

I assume (hope?) this is just a one or two year transition process until ABS is just used exclusively? I suspect they just want to slowly introduce it to avoid too many change at once, but hopefully this goes away soon.

 

I'm just spit-balling throwing in any extra ideas, since it's a new thing to MLB and nobody has a "book" yet to the approach.

Yes the most standard, sensible approach is challenges only for crucial spots. No challenges until after 6th/7th inning. Maybe add in particular ball-strike counts. (Like no catcher challenges on the first pitch). Everything else is explorations & thought exercises to think it through for amusement while it lasts