Radio Scouts Podcast Episode 7: Belated Introduction to the Radio Scouts

[P2F]

Buzzsprout

https://www.buzzsprout.com/admin/episodes/828179-episode-7-belated-introduction-to-the-radio-scouts

 

The fellows introduce themselves to the listeners, then chat about the playoffs, whether or not Russell Martin can be the next manager for the Blue Jays and who could otherwise replace John Gibbons, and the possibility of a lifetime contract for Mike Trout and why MLB fails at marketing him to the world.

 

Due to otherwise conflicting schedules, we resorted to recording this episode yesterday afternoon during work hours. Andrew had to jump on a conference call for a while during the recording and I had to leave about halfway through. That being said, we feel it's another quality release and we hope you enjoy!

 

iTunes/Apple Podcasts

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/...t/id1435724258

 

Spotify

Search 'Radio Scouts Podcast' - you'll find it easily.

 

Google Play Music/Podcasts

Search 'Radio Scouts Podcast', just as you can with these other platforms and services.

 

TuneIn Radio

https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--...cast-p1158242/

 

Pocket Casts

https://pca.st/Ul03

 

Player.FM

https://player.fm/series/radio-scouts-podcast

[Dr. Dinger]

I should have done a Things That Piss Me Off rant about people who schedule last minute conference calls when I’m WFH.

[Dr. Dinger]

Also if you have any topic ideas or mailbag questions for next episode, please feel free to post.

[P2F]

[Boxcar]

I've run this by John and Mike to their utter disgust, but I'll throw it to the crowd:

 

Would you like us to invite Todd on for a top 100 Blue Jays prospect special?

[BTS]

I've run this by John and Mike to their utter disgust, but I'll throw it to the crowd:

 

Would you like us to invite Todd on for a top 100 Blue Jays prospect special?

 

I would not listen to this.

[Boxcar]

I would not listen to this.

 

Sour puss that takes things too seriously, not a shocker. I'm sorry we couldn't take time out of your day of watching paint dry to join us on a spectrum of adventure.

[Pendleton]

I've run this by John and Mike to their utter disgust, but I'll throw it to the crowd:

 

Would you like us to invite Todd on for a top 100 Blue Jays prospect special?

 

Wouldn't be informative enough to be worthwhile, or funny enough to be funny. IMO

[BTS]

Sour puss that takes things too seriously, not a shocker. I'm sorry we couldn't take time out of your day of watching paint dry to join us on a spectrum of adventure.

 

Seems like a joke that Todd wouldn't necessarily be in on. If it ended up funny, it would be mean-spirited.

[Deadpool]

I've run this by John and Mike to their utter disgust, but I'll throw it to the crowd:

 

Would you like us to invite Todd on for a top 100 Blue Jays prospect special?

 

Do you not think that Todd would be reluctant to reveal which one of the regulars around here runs that account?

[Boxcar]

Seems like a joke that Todd wouldn't necessarily be in on. If it ended up funny, it would be mean-spirited.

 

To clarify, while he may be autistic (apologies if untrue, just kind of comes off that way) he obviously puts a lot of work into his huge lists. I thought it could be an interesting springboard into some of our lesser known prospects and why he's down on guys like Alford.

 

Not looking to make fun of him or make him the butt of a joke, that's just not a cool thing to do.

 

E: however, obvious at this point that it's an unpopular idea, so that's the end of that.

[Boxcar]

Do you not think that Todd would be reluctant to reveal which one of the regulars around here runs that account?

 

You should know better than anyone that Todd is the genuine thing.

[Pendleton]

To clarify, while he may be autistic (apologies if untrue, just kind of comes off that way) he obviously puts a lot of work into his huge lists. I thought it could be an interesting springboard into some of our lesser known prospects and why he's down on guys like Alford.

 

Not looking to make fun of him or make him the butt of a joke, that's just not a cool thing to do.

 

E: however, obvious at this point that it's an unpopular idea, so that's the end of that.

 

I'll never be convinced the Alford thing was more than him simply having forgotten to list him on his first ranking and shoving him at the end when someone brought it up.

[TheHurl]

finally got around to listening. Solid show, I like the talking through the closing song to bring it out.

 

I'd like to add on to Andrew's suggestion of throwing a flag to challenge a play. But add in a football type penalty for a missed flag. Like say it counts as a mound visit, which might make you have to change your pitcher.

[P2F]

We are now on YouTube.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqtyuA4Rm18IJKtlCtnQwkw

[Abomination]

finally got around to listening. Solid show, I like the talking through the closing song to bring it out.

 

I'd like to add on to Andrew's suggestion of throwing a flag to challenge a play. But add in a football type penalty for a missed flag. Like say it counts as a mound visit, which might make you have to change your pitcher.

 

That's interesting, but realistically probably isn't very punishing most of the time. Most teams never come close to using all their mound visits anyway, so it would just be a situation of once in a while forcing a pitcher change based on random timing. A lot more interesting could be something like if the defensive team challenges a play and loses the challenge, the offense gets to add a base runner on 1st (pushing the other runners up a base if appropriate). If the offensive team challenges and loses the challenge, the defense either gets to subtract a base runner or is awarded an extra out.

[John_Havok]

That's interesting, but realistically probably isn't very punishing most of the time. Most teams never come close to using all their mound visits anyway, so it would just be a situation of once in a while forcing a pitcher change based on random timing. A lot more interesting could be something like if the defensive team challenges a play and loses the challenge, the offense gets to add a base runner on 1st (pushing the other runners up a base if appropriate). If the offensive team challenges and loses the challenge, the defense either gets to subtract a base runner or is awarded an extra out.

 

Seems way to punishing or rewarding imo. It would greatly deter challenges which is not what should be fixed. The amount of challenges is fine, the length of time getting them done is the challenge.

 

However, one point I forgot to touch in in the podcast was that I think the perception of challenges taking so long to get done is just a symptom of the pace of play in general. Speed up the pitchers and get rid of all the truly unneccesary downtime and then the 1 or 2 challenges per game wouldnt be seen as such a waste of time

[Abomination]

Seems way to punishing or rewarding imo. It would greatly deter challenges which is not what should be fixed. The amount of challenges is fine, the length of time getting them done is the challenge.

 

However, one point I forgot to touch in in the podcast was that I think the perception of challenges taking so long to get done is just a symptom of the pace of play in general. Speed up the pitchers and get rid of all the truly unneccesary downtime and then the 1 or 2 challenges per game wouldnt be seen as such a waste of time

 

I disagree, I think the challenges should be deterred unless it's something clear cut. The intent is really to reverse an obvious bad call, not whether a base runner for example came off the base for a fraction of an instant that no one could detect without slow motion replays. Managers are challenging tossups because it's often more valuable to take a shot than it is to worry about burning a challenge that might not be needed again. Those are what need to be eliminated, and penalizing them will ensure that only the clear cut mistakes are challenged.

[TheHurl]

I disagree, I think the challenges should be deterred unless it's something clear cut. The intent is really to reverse an obvious bad call, not whether a base runner for example came off the base for a fraction of an instant that no one could detect without slow motion replays. Managers are challenging tossups because it's often more valuable to take a shot than it is to worry about burning a challenge that might not be needed again. Those are what need to be eliminated, and penalizing them will ensure that only the clear cut mistakes are challenged.

 

I don't think you want to change the way a game is played. Remember that MLB is actually the rulebook owner for the entire sport of baseball (which is partially why the slide rules were a good and necessary thing) and the mandate is to improve baseball across the world. New ways of having baserunners and/or outs seems too extreme and confusing. I do think that MLB will have to come up with ways to punish offenders soon as the shot clock will eventually become a thing.

[Abomination]

I don't think you want to change the way a game is played. Remember that MLB is actually the rulebook owner for the entire sport of baseball (which is partially why the slide rules were a good and necessary thing) and the mandate is to improve baseball across the world. New ways of having baserunners and/or outs seems too extreme and confusing. I do think that MLB will have to come up with ways to punish offenders soon as the shot clock will eventually become a thing.

 

I guess maybe if MLB were to find a way to review all plays in near real time, the challenges wouldn't even be necessary. Maybe they can use AI examining all the video angles on close plays to get a determination in seconds, then relay to the umps if there's a change. I agree adding or subtracting base runners isn't ideal, but if challenges are only made on clear cut bad calls then it should really also be irrelevant. Also, it shouldn't affect the rest of the sport since most leagues don't have the replay capability. Dunno, just thinking about it off the top of my head. Counting it as a mound visit probably isn't punishing at all in 90% of the cases.

 

If you really want to mix things up, you could make it that if you challenge and fail, the other team can make one of your players not in the game ineligible to enter. Obviously I doubt anyone would ever vote for that change, but not facing that elite closer sitting in the bullpen as punishment would spice things up a bit. There'd also be a bunch of ticked off closers.

 

More realistically, maybe the manager gets tossed if they unsuccessfully challenge.

[Boxcar]

I guess maybe if MLB were to find a way to review all plays in near real time, the challenges wouldn't even be necessary. Maybe they can use AI examining all the video angles on close plays to get a determination in seconds, then relay to the umps if there's a change. I agree adding or subtracting base runners isn't ideal, but if challenges are only made on clear cut bad calls then it should really also be irrelevant. Also, it shouldn't affect the rest of the sport since most leagues don't have the replay capability. Dunno, just thinking about it off the top of my head. Counting it as a mound visit probably isn't punishing at all in 90% of the cases.

 

If you really want to mix things up, you could make it that if you challenge and fail, the other team can make one of your players not in the game ineligible to enter. Obviously I doubt anyone would ever vote for that change, but not facing that elite closer sitting in the bullpen as punishment would spice things up a bit. There'd also be a bunch of ticked off closers.

 

More realistically, maybe the manager gets tossed if they unsuccessfully challenge.

 

The priority should be getting plays right. What you seem to be advocating for is essentially going back to the days before replay whereby it's so heavily disincentivized that no one will feel the challenge is worth it.

[Abomination]

The priority should be getting plays right. What you seem to be advocating for is essentially going back to the days before replay whereby it's so heavily disincentivized that no one will feel the challenge is worth it.

 

No it isn't, it's just eliminating the hail mary type challenges we're getting a lot of. The, I'll challenge because it's a big play and hope they see something in slow motion to warrant overturning it even though they probably won't type challenges. The emphasis imo should be on calls where the umpire simply, clearly blew the call rather than ones where it only becomes (possibly) visible in ultra slow motion with 50 different angles. There is still a human element to the game.

 

Now if you can bring in a system that will detect issues in almost real time without the challenges, I'd be all for that. Same with robo umps for balls and strikes. Delaying the game after every close play while your video room looks at everything with a fine tooth comb, and challenging plays where you don't know if it's a mistake or not because there's an outside chance it gets overturned just causes the game to drag on with very little or no real benefit. That's just my opinion.

[John_Havok]

No it isn't, it's just eliminating the hail mary type challenges we're getting a lot of. The, I'll challenge because it's a big play and hope they see something in slow motion to warrant overturning it even though they probably won't type challenges. The emphasis imo should be on calls where the umpire simply, clearly blew the call rather than ones where it only becomes (possibly) visible in ultra slow motion with 50 different angles. There is still a human element to the game.

 

Now if you can bring in a system that will detect issues in almost real time without the challenges, I'd be all for that. Same with robo umps for balls and strikes. Delaying the game after every close play while your video room looks at everything with a fine tooth comb, and challenging plays where you don't know if it's a mistake or not because there's an outside chance it gets overturned just causes the game to drag on with very little or no real benefit. That's just my opinion.

 

Sound slide you want the calls right, as long as it's fast, and if that can't happen, then challenges shouldn't really be a thing.

 

I'm kind of in the same boat. I don't think managers should be responsible for questioning whether the call is right or not. Use tech to get the calls right in the first place. But until then, the challenge system is the best they have so make it faster.

 

I agree with other suggestions that there should be no consultation with a teams own video review, you either challenge in real time or don't based on what you, your players or your on field coaches see, and you get 10 seconds to throw that flag.

 

Pitch clock for pitchers is absolutely essential too imo.