Tommy Pham has hits in his last two games, raising his Grapefruit League line to .105/.227/.105 in 22 PA. But there was also this, published on SNY’s Twitter feed:

SNY is owned by the Mets, so why would they show something this bad from one of their players? Turns out it’s not owned by the Mets. Instead, it’s majority owned by Sterling Entertainment Enterprises, LLC. It was not part of the sale when Steve Cohen purchased the club several years back. SNY has been a cash cow for Fred Wilpon but its contract to broadcast Mets’ games runs out in 2026 and it’s no slam dunk that it will retain those rights in 2027 and beyond. Cohen might want to start his own network. Or he might put the broadcast rights up to an open bid.

While it’s a solid source of information, few have accused SNY of being as willing to criticize as it has been to praise. Hey, Pravda didn’t exactly hold Russia’s feet to the fire during the Cold War. Nor have certain partisan organizations in this country in the 21st Century done this, either.

It’s good to be positive, which is why my online viewing includes SNY at least once a day. It just jumps out at you when a network known for positivity goes against type.

7 comments on “Wednesday catch-all thread (3/8/23)

  • Mike Colbert

    Last week Denis wrote an excellent article on the recent changes to the game. His last point was that the use of replay has been a terrific addition to the game. I do not wholeheartedly agree and think its use should be minimized to home run calls and egregiously blown calls only. I don’t like that the teams can use video to decide whether or not to challenge calls and would like challenges to be based on “naked eye” only. I say this for several reasons.

    First and foremost I am uncomfortable with a non player (the team’s video review guy) having a direct impact on the outcome of a game. This worked in the Mets favor last season as our guy was the best in the league (over 80% if memory serves) but that may not always be the case, and I don’t believe teams should gain a direct advantage due to disparity of off field talent.

    The second and probably most obvious reason is that a naked eye rule would reduce the number of challenges on extremely close calls, which despite the league’s best efforts still take too long. Not sure the percent of these type calls that are overturned but I don’t think it’s worth the time it takes to get them right, if they get them right at all.

    Lastly, like it or not the umps are an important part of the game and deserve a certain level of respect for doing a very difficult job. Plus they are human beings, just like the players, mangers, coaches and fans. However, right now everyone else holds a giant hammer in the form of video review. I think a naked eye rule might just legislate a little tolerance for being human back into was has always been a very human game.

    I would put a 5-7 second time limit on the ability to challenge. I expect I’m in the minority with this view but would love to hear from everyone.

    • Brian Joura

      I think umpires today are better than they’ve ever been. Just watch some of those Tom Glavine games when he’d get strike calls on balls way off the plate if you need any proof. There’s no way Glavine gets those calls if he pitches today.

      However, a lot of what we ask umpires to do is simply beyond human capability. And to me the answer isn’t to shrug our shoulders and pat them on the back – it’s to replace them with automated reviews whenever possible. There’s a lot we can debate about the best ways to handle reviews. But, to me, the first step is coming to agreement that we need an automated strike zone – and other machine-generated calls – ASAP.

      • T.J.

        Glavine got those calls for years against the Mets, then stopped getting them when he pitched for the Mets. My recollection is that ballpark strike zone technology was first used right around the time that the Mets signed Glavine. Typical Mets…

        I am a supporter of the immediate implementation of the automated strike zone. There’s really no reason not to do it that makes any sense. The home plate ump can overrule obvious technology gaffes as have been shown from time to time in minor league games.

        I have never understood why the NFL and/or MLB didn’t adjust their replay reviews to make them happen quickly. The fix is really simple…it was explained that replay was implemented to eliminate the big umpire/referee mistake. This can be done in 20 seconds or less by virtually anyone at home, so the leagues should be able to do it too. It looks like the NFL has done this to some degree with its “expedited” review. If a replay official doesn’t see clear evidence of overturn quickly…20 seconds max…the call stands, move on.

        While I’m on the soap box, I never understood why MLB never fixed the clown show known as the home team’s official scorer. Now, with replay, and focus on reducing the timespan of games, perhaps Manfred can dip into the billions of TV revenue and assign a league officer to each game as replay official/official scorer. This person would be gatekeeper of reviews to quickly communicate to home plate up without that on field, walk to the side, headset nonsense. This person would also do the official scoring, eliminating or at least reducing the “homer” everything is a hit at the expense of the pitcher scoring.

        That’s all I have to say about that.

    • Metsense

      Baseball needs an automatic strike zone and other machine-generated calls. Until then, I would rather have the “naked eye” with a seven second limit on the ability to challenge but without the availability of video for the dugout personnel. I would go further and ban access to any video or computer during the game.
      In the future , when the technology is there, with automatic strike zones and other machine generated calls in place, then any player who kicks dirt on the machines should be immediately ejected from the game!

    • Hobie

      Some form of replay correction is probably necessary—and I like the 5-7 second idea.
      What bothers me the most is replacing the original with a secondary, much more subjective, one determining what would have happened if the corrrct call had been made in the first place.
      I’m still ticked at the review of the play that broke Tejada’s leg. The assumption was Utley would have gone back to the bag if no out call had been made. Tejada was lying there with the ball (in pain) no assumption he would have tagged him if no out call had been made?

  • Mike W

    I don’t like the idea of all if this automated video stuff, but in the other hand I would rather have calls that are right and fair.

    For too many years especially in the old days, umps had different stike zones. And as it was mentioned, Glavine threw balls that were balls that were called stikes.

    I get close calls, but how many times have you ever yelled at the TV because the ump made a terrible call.

    So, as much as a traditionalist I am, let’s get with the 21st century and get the automated ump in here asap.

  • Denis Engel

    Unlike the NFL where the officials run the game, MLB games are still determined by the players on the field. The more the league can do to get it right, the better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here