Armando Galarraga is going to have more than 15 minutes of fame.
As opposed to, say, Charles Robertson or Len Barker, who have faded despite a day of perfection, Galarraga’s imperfect game is going to resonate through time. That is partly because of the bizarre nature in which the game ended in this media age (poor Charlie Robertson did not have wall-to-wall video coverage back in 1922).
But Galarraga also is going to be remembered as a key figure in ushering in a greater use of instant replay to the game. Commissioner Bud Selig, long an adversary of replay, is now tip-toeing in that direction. No one should be surprised to see replay used, by the latest, the beginning of next season. Probable areas for replay, beyond the current home run challenge, will be fair or foul calls down the line and non-tag plays at the bases, such as the bang-bang situation that Jim Joyce got wrong Wednesday night to deprive Galarraga of the perfect game.
That is a good start. But it does not go far enough.
The technology exists to do better in the on-field legislating of the game. Errors by the players are inherent in the game. But if it could be improved upon, would anyone really miss mistakes by umpires?
Laser technology exists now in every park to track each pitch, and there is no reason that it cannot be used to call balls and strikes. A red (ball) or green (strike) could flash quicker than Tim McClelland can lift his arm while at the same time a computer generates a voice call of ball or strike. There is no reason lasers cannot be used to judge the borders of each player’s strike zone. It would be more consistent than a human — often a 50ish-plus-year-old human — trying to track a high-speed orb moving in different directions.
Before you pooh-pooh it, let me offer a story:
Two decades ago, a baseball man with whom I was close to told me, “You know if you want to fix a baseball game, you don’t need the players, you just need the home-plate ump. And you don’t need something dramatic. You simply need to change five borderline 1-1 pitches in the direction you are betting. No one would have any idea.”
At the time I thought it a rather paranoid, farfetched concept. But as statistical analysis has become more advanced, I realize now how right this person was.
When a 1-1 pitch is called a ball, the cumulative 2010 result for all AL hitters when the count moves to 2-1 is to bat .328 with a .529 slugging percentage. And when the 1-1 pitch is a strike, the cumulative result for all AL hitters is to bat .159 with a .225 slugging percentage. In other words, the difference between a 2-1 count and a 1-2 count is the difference between turning every AL hitter into either Matt Holliday or what Frank Catalanotto was when he was released by the Mets.
Games and seasons are covertly — and regularly — impacted on that call. I had a long-time hitting coach tell me recently he has his better hitters complain to the umps about those key pitches, hoping to influence umps to turn around counts later in the game. A computer could not be coerced in such a way. The fear of betting scandals and/or favoritism and/or exhaustion leading to missed calls and/or human error disappears.
Why would we not want that? Because we like a middle-aged man in a mask and chest protector too much?
And why stop there?
I have seen MLB’s Advanced Media (MLBAM) in Chelsea. It is a nerve center in which every feed from every game is on screen. Think NASA command HQ, but only for baseball. It is from here that the high-def, super slo-mo and enlarged feeds are assembled when a homer is in dispute.
The home run challenges have gone rather flawlessly, with
28 corrected calls in 89 challenges since the advent on Aug. 28, 2008. Is anyone upset that 28 calls were corrected? So now it is time to go further. Give each manager two challenges a game. The manager would have a dugout buzzer that would alert the on-field umps and MLBAM he is challenging a call (any call other than a ball/strike decision). The crew chief would have an earpiece that puts him in direct contact with MLBAM.
We are not firing umpires here. Quite the opposite. There will be an umpire or retired ump in front of each screen. A tech will cue up the proper replays, the ump in front of the screen will look for indisputable proof and relay the result to his on-field brethren and boom, quickly, the right call can be made.
You are worried about pace of game. Fine. That is why umps are not leaving the field as they do on homer challenges. That is why computers are calling balls and strikes — to stop time-consuming bickering with the home-plate ump. That is why we will adopt a rule that if a manager leaves the bench to argue any call it is an automatic 20-game suspension. If you have a problem with a call, hit the buzzer. That is why we limit challenges to two a game. My hunch is most games would go without a challenge and in almost all cases a manager would keep a second challenge in his pocket for potential game-deciding, late-game plays that mostly would never come.
That is why the Commissioner should combine another problem area he is looking into — too many mound visits — with this legislation and rule that catchers no longer could visit the mound ever (work out your signs before the game or between innings — you’re professionals) and that each team is limited to two mound visits by the pitching coach or manager without changing the pitcher per game. You do all of that, you will speed the pace of the game up in general and, certainly, provide comfortable time to get the calls right with greater use of technology.
If you are worried what happens on continuous-motion plays that have to be changed, I would point out that umps rule what to do with runners on ground-rule doubles all the time; and almost always go to the most conservative decision to, say, put a runner that started at first on third, even if it is rather obvious that the runner would have scored. So do the same here, most conservative decision for runners on base.
Isn’t that a worthwhile trade-off to getting a much higher percentage of calls correct?
joel.sherman@nypost.com