ANAHEIM, Calif. — The human element in baseball is that Jorge Posada is a bad baserunner, not that Tim McClelland will get a call wrong at whatever base Posada might show up at.
That there are ways to get a higher frequency of calls correct, and people are resisting it on the basis of liking the “human element” or calling themselves traditionalists, is ludicrous.
Traditionalists have hated the wild card, interleague play, later start times and the DH, to name just a few current realities. I cannot plainly state that any of those improve the sport. But adding technology to assist — or replace — the umpires would. How could it be bad to get more calls correct?
I have heard how the flow of the game would be disrupted if there were replay challenges in games. I actually think it would be enhanced. It would be quicker to review a play on video than to have overweight, middle-aged managers waddle out to argue for several minutes.
I guess the traditionalists will miss Lou Piniella acting like a screaming, dirt-kicking jackass. But that seems a meager price to pay for getting more calls right.
Make these rules: If a manager leaves his dugout to argue, the call automatically will not be reviewed and the manager receives an automatic five-game suspension. Instead, if a manager feels there is an incorrect call, he hits a buzzer that alerts the crew chief and central baseball.
If you saw MLB’s homer review operations in Chelsea, you would think NASA and be overwhelmed. Every replay from every feed is available there. There is no reason an official cannot be put on review for every game and quickly alert the umpires about a call.
Give the managers two challenges a game and make these the events that can be challenged: safe/out, fair/foul, catch/trap, leave a base early, and homer or not.
By the way, this is not happening. Bud Selig is as strong an opponent to instant replay as exists in the game. Yet, I have heard he is frustrated and embarrassed by all the blatant miscalls this postseason, specifically the ALCS Game 4 follies. Selig plans a review of umpiring protocol after the World Series.
But there is still that World Series to play. And Selig might have to more seriously consider replay if the trends of this postseason continue, because can you imagine if a champion is crowned on the basis of more bad calls? What will everyone think of the “human element” then?
Consider recent play-in games. In 2007, the Rockies advanced and the Padres didn’t, though Matt Holliday still has not crossed home plate with the winning run. This year, the Twins advanced, in part, because Randy Marsh did not see Brandon Inge get hit with a pitch. In both instances, instant replay would have corrected the call in seconds.
Heck, I think the ball-strike authority should be given to a computer, too. If a computer is making line calls in tennis matches, why can’t it call balls and strikes in baseball? Are we this against a uniformed strike zone? Do we really like having Dale Scott’s strike zone and Phil Cuzzi’s?
Sure there would be kinks. Lasers would have to be used to adjust the zone to individual hitters and overruled plays would force umps to determine where to station runners. But umps already do some of this on, say, ground-rule doubles. We need to remove the blatant wrong calls and guesswork, both of which are being exposed more than ever by high-def and super slo-mos.
There also is plenty that needs improvement on the human side of umpiring. There are, for example, too many former umps serving as supervisors rating friends and too little oversight by MLB in the training and punishment of umps. If a Yankee or Angel had a performance like Tim McClelland in ALCS Game 4, there would be repercussions.
The repercussion for McClelland is that he will umpire second base tonight. Somebody should hit a buzzer and review that.
joel.sherman@nypost.com