Alright, so normally I would analyze major league players and their current and future impact on the game. However, as I try to learn more about the game, I like to branch out and look into some other fun aspects, such as prospects. You'll have to bear with me, as this is my first real attempt at sounding smart when discussing prospects, but I figured this would be fun to see and even more fun to write. Without further ado, here we go:
When looking into prospects, I decided to form a large database with grades, velocities, and projections that are taken from many different sources. Obviously I haven't gotten to actually go see these guys in person, and the video I have is limited so don't take everything I say and run off telling people that it is 100% accurate. One of the things I came across was a series of pitchers that are considered to be very highly rated. What I'll do here is introduce the "teams" and then draw comparisons between the three. At the end, you can decide for yourself which group you'd like to see on your team in the future.
Team One: Atlanta Braves
Julio Teheran, RHP
Age: 21
Current Level: AAA
Might as well introduce the nine pitchers featured in this article with the lead horse. By all accounts, Teheran is a stud who projects straight to the top of a competitive Major League rotation. Teheran is solid in his mechanics with no glaring red flags, which helps him control the ball as he repeats his delivery consistently. His command shows flashes of being plus, and is good enough to consistently get MLB hitters out. He features a 3-pitch arsenal led by a devastating changeup that receives plus-plus grades from scouts. With the ability to command his fastball, the pitch becomes extremely effective when Teheran winds up ahead in the count. He will mix in a curveball that receives consistent average/solid grades, though it can flatten out on him at times.
Grades:
Fastball (92-94 MPH): 50/60
Changeup (80-84 MPH): 70/80
Curve (74-76 MPH): 40/50
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 60/70
Command: 40/60
Stats: 70
Ceiling: #1 Starting Pitcher
Arodys Vizcaino, RHP
Age: 21
Current Level: AAA
While not on Teheran's level, Vizcaino brings a lot to love as a pitcher. While not on the level of his better in terms of control of command, Vizcaino has a great feel for his pitches and flashes plus control and solid command through consistent mechanics. He also features a 3-pitch arsenal, but his is headlined by an explosive fastball that sits consistently in the mid-90's and can touch the upper 90's when he rears back. His fastball is matched by a devastating curve that serves as a consistent out pitch. He has a solid change that he uses to keep hitters off balance, though it sits well behind his other two pitches and doesn't figure to ever be a plus pitch.
Grades:
Fastball (94-96 MPH): 60/70
Curve (79-82): 60/70
Change (80-82): 40/40
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 60/60
Command: 30/50
Stats: 65
Ceiling: #3 Starting Pitcher/Reliever
Randall Delgado, RHP
22
Current Level: MLB
While Vizcaino and Delgado are not clones, they are very similar in terms of where scouts grade their pitches and their ceilings. Delgado's effectiveness relies on his ability to command his fastball. When he does, he can shut down a lineup and look like a fringe #2 pitcher. Unlike Vizcaino and Teheran, Delgado lacks a second plus pitch. His curve and changeup are consistently average, and he'll have to rely on control with the pitches in order to make them effective against Major League hitters. Delgado figures to fit right into the middle of the rotation as a powerful innings eater.
Grades:
Fastball (91-93): 60/70
Curve (76-79): 40/50
Change (80-82): 40/40
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 50/60
Command: 40/50
Stats: 50
Ceiling: #3 Starting Pitcher
Overall Trio Analysis:
It is possible that my grades and projections for the Braves are more critical than other people. The source I found most trustworthy and consistent wasn't very high on Delgado or Vizcaino, even though other sites seemed to like them a lot. I like the way that these three work into the future plans of the Braves. With Tommy Hanson locked into the front of the rotation, it is possible that Julio Teheran can lead the staff as the ace with Hanson at #2, Vizcaino at #3, and Delgado as a very strong #4. If Vizcaino doesn't stick to the rotation, you could find him in the bullpen as a setup man to Craig Kimbrel. The thing I like the most about the Braves' trio is the apparent lack of risk. Everyone, it seems, should end up at least as a fringe average starter with little bust potential in the group.
Team Two: Arizona Diamondbacks
Trevor Bauer, RHP
Age: 21
Current Level: AAA
Bauer jolted his way up draft boards last June and wound up in the desert as a result. A teammate of G. Cole at UCLA, Bauer impresses scouts with his remarkable versatility and knowledge on the mound. He is a quick learner that uses a 5-pitch arsenal when on the mound: fastball, 12-6 curve, slider, splitter, and a changeup that fades away from his pitching hand. Bauer is not a guy who relies on velocity with his fastball as he'll sit consistently in the low-90's. When he spots his fastball, he is extremely hard to beat as every pitch in his arsenal becomes a legitimate strikeout pitch. Bauer doesn't have one pitch that leaves scouts with weak knees, but the sum of the parts allows him to blow scouts away, as every pitch projects as average or better. Bauer has the potential to be a number one, but because of the system he may end up as the #2.
Grades:
Fastball (92-93): 60/60
12-6 Curve (78-80): 60/70
Slider (83-85): 40/40
Splitter (86-88): 40/50
Change (81-83): 50/60
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 50/60
Command: 30/40
Stats: N/A
Ceiling: #1 Starting Pitcher
Archie Bradley, RHP
Age: 19
Current Level: A
My admiration for Bradley may be unmatched in the minors right now. At 19 years old, I think it is easy to call him one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. He features an explosive mid-90's fastball that scouts drool over, and his curveball is frequently considered a future out pitch. While his changeup lags behind his other two pitches, it projects as an average offering at the Major League level. The thing that gets me most about Bradley is how consistent he is in his delivery. A smooth flow allows him to rip his arm through with ease as he delivers to the plate. His control is not yet sharp, and he definitely doesn't have true command of his pitches yet. However, he's got plenty of time to develop around a fastball that some scouts believe can be a true 80-grade pitch in the future.
Grades:
Fastball (93-95): 70/80
Curve (80-83): 50/60
Change (82-85): 30/40
Mechanics: 70/70
Control: 40/50
Command: 30/40
Stats: N/A
Ceiling: #1 Starting Pitcher
Tyler Skaggs, LHP
Age: 20
Current Level: AA
Skaggs definitely doesn't have the upside of the first two pitchers discussed here, but he is a prized asset because of the low risk that comes with him. He relies on good control, consistent mechanics, and a true 12-6 hammer to get guys out. He won't necessarily be a high strikeout guy, but he can avoid giving up hard contact. He can eat a large number of innings and it is unlikely that you will see him on the DL many times over his career, which makes him a great option in the middle of the rotation.
Fastball (90-92): 40/50
12-6 Curve (76-79): 60/70
Change (79-81): 30/40
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 50/60
Command: 40/50
Stats: 65
Ceiling: #2/#3 Starting Pitcher
Overall Trio Analysis:
It is very hard to not enjoy what the Diamondbacks have brewing here. Bauer and Bradley have serious ceilings, and both could wind up as top 15-20 pitchers in the game at some point in their careers. Skaggs doesn't have that same flare, but he is a consistent presence who will be a true workhorse. The risk is higher here than with Atlanta, but part of that is due to this trio having much less experience as a group. Overall, I think this is the best 3-headed pitching monster to come through in a while. Also, if you are wondering, I do indeed like Bradley better than Bauer. Call me crazy, but that's just how I am.
Team Three: Seattle Mariners
Taijuan Walker, RHP
Age: 19
Current Level: AA
In terms of pure ceiling, it is impossible not to love Walker. His stuff flashes as straight filth in some of his starts, and when he gets a better feel for his 3-pitch combo he will turn into something special. He throws a mid-90's fastball with 80-grade projectability, according to several scouts. His curve is behind his heater, but it projects as a plus-plus hammer that can make hitters look down-right foolish. His changeup is still a well below-average pitch, but with some work it could end up as an above-average offering. One thing many scouts love about Walker are his consistent mechanics. He repeats his delivery very well and appears to be extremely comfortable on the mound. This leads many to project him for plus-plus control and plus command. It is arguable that Walker has the ceiling of a top 10 pitcher in baseball.
Grades:
Fastball (94-96): 70/80
12-6 Curve (80-82): 50/70
Change (84-86): 30/50
Mechanics: 70/70
Control: 40/70
Command: 30/60
Stats: 60
Ceiling: #1 Starting Pitcher
Danny Hultzen, LHP
Age: 22
Current Level: AA
I was actually once told by a scout that Hultzen was one of the easiest arms to project out of college. This is understandable as he is an extremely polished pitcher that features multiple above-average offerings, consistent mechanics, and an excellent feel for all of his pitches. His best pitch is his changeup, which sits in the low-80's and has excellent deception. He controls his fastball and slider well, which allows him to get ahead in the count and rack up a few strikeouts now and then. With his ability to keep his composure on the mound, he projects as a good #3 with the potential to be a competitive #2. The risk with Hultzen is very low, so it is not surprising that the Mariners took him as high as they did last June.
Grades:
Fastball (90-92): 50/60
Change (80-82): 60/70
Slider (83-86): 40/50
Mechanics: 70/70
Control: 30/50
Command: 30/40
Stats: N/A
Ceiling: #2 SP
James Paxton, LHP
Age: 23
Current Level: AA
Paxton is a very interesting prospect in that he is a bit older than most AA pitchers but has a very high ceiling. The sources I drew from graded his fastball and curve as plus pitches with great plus-plus potential. His change didn't get the same praise, but when I read that a pitcher might have two 80 grade pitches (I initially thought that was generous), I get interested. He doesn't have the same control or command of Walker and Hultzen, which keeps him out of the "true ace" discussion. It is more realistic that Paxton's stuff sits where it currently is and he winds up as a fringe #2 starter with a possible bright future out in the bullpen. Either way, the potential is there for greatness. You never know what you might get to see.
Grades:
Fastball (94-96): 60/80
Curve (78-81): 60/80
Change (80-82): 40/50
Mechanics: 60/60
Control: 30/50
Command: 30/40
Stats: 50
Ceiling: #2/Closer
Overall Trio Analysis:
The Mariners come with a lot of upside, but not quite as much as Arizona's trio. However, I think they are safer than Arizona's trio and have more upside than Atlanta's does. I would not be too mad if someone said they thought the Mariners had the best pitching in the minors (at least at the top), but the Mariners also might not see these guys regularly until late 2013 or early 2014, while Atlanta will likely have all three of their pitchers as regulars by June of next season. The projectability is there and the ceiling is there, but this trio requires the most patience. If they pan out, watch out for a dirty Seattle rotation with these three sitting behind King Felix.
Conclusion:
It is hard to find a lot wrong with the nine pitchers mentioned here. One of the common themes is the consistency in mechanics that you find among these guys. There aren't a lot of red flags flying around, and it's hard to jump to the conclusion that one of them will wind up in the bullpen because of a glaring hole in their approach to pitching. With young pitchers, I believe that one of the major keys is consistency and making sure the individual is comfortable. All of this switching back and forth between the rotation and the bullpen for young pitchers bothers me, and I think any pitcher who projects as a starter should be given the opportunity to start if he wants it. Overall, I would take:
1. Arizona Diamondbacks
2. Seattle Mariners
3. Atlanta Braves
Who would you go with?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Umpires: Is "The Human Element" Worth It?
I usually try to stay out of discussions about umpires. They are just like any of us: they are human. This means that, as all other humans, these guys aren't perfect. They are as prone to mistakes as anyone, but because of the position of their job within society, they are held to a higher standard than everyone else by baseball fans and the media. However, let's be real: these guys are asked to perform a duty where billions of dollars are involved. They are making personal judgment calls based on a complex rule book in a game where millionaires are playing for billionaires against the millionaires of other billionaires. Are these the kind of decisions to be left up to beings as imperfect as humans? Well, I think the question is a little bit more complex than that, so let's take a look.
First, let's start off with where sports are at in terms of how they let their officials make decisions. The NFL has expanded replay to all scoring plays and uses a challenge-based system where coaches can get non-scoring plays reviewed. The NBA uses a minimalist system where only specific calls are reviewable, and the NHL reviews any questionable play involving a goal-scoring effort. For the longest time, professional soccer has vehemently been against the use of replay, although even FIFA is realizing that its officials aren't perfect and some calls could be reviewed in the future. Heck, even college sports that don't have as many resources as professional sports (while they still produce money out the ass) use review systems in football and basketball. So where does baseball stand? Well, right now it's just at home run "boundary" calls. Even though it's one of the oldest American sports and has existed as a professional league since the late 19th Century, baseball didn't get any kind of review system until this past decade. For well over one hundred years, all calls were made at the discretion of the umpire, which led to (as expected) several noticeable botched calls (Derek Jeter says a big "thank you" and Armando Galarraga says "no comment").
So baseball has dipped into replay a little bit, but why has it taken so long? Personally I believe is that baseball and its commissioner want to hold on to traditionalist roots as American sports continue their phenomenal growth that they've been going through in the past couple of decades. As more TV contracts and 200 million dollar contracts are handed out, fans are becoming more focused on the commercialization and competitive nature of sport rather than the traditional view of the game that involves playing "for the love of the game." However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Leagues are booming, ratings for sports like the NFL and UFC are insane, and owners are enjoying some great times even though the current US economy isn't the greatest. MLB is at a point where it has a decision to make: go with a deeper review system or stick to what's worked for over a hundred years. Well, there's a lot that goes into that.
Firstly, let's consider the ability to run such a system. In case you aren't aware, baseball has undergone a statistical boom in the last 15 years that has been *completely* driven by technology. Technology has helped advanced scouting to the point where it is possible to know the specific details of every pitch in every situation. For a while that was done by humans at a computer. Now, however, we've got technology that can capture pitch location, velocity, and break *instantaneously*. No buttons need to be pushed, no thinking needs to be done. In a matter of microseconds, this technology can tell you exactly where a pitch is and whether it was a strike or a ball. Yeah, the technology can even change the strike zone's height based on the height and stance of the batter coming up to bat! Now, I'll be the first to say that PitchFX isn't 100% accurate, because it can sometimes struggle with pitch types and has the occasional glitch where it misses a pitch. However, the location of the pitch (which is undoubtedly what is most important to critics of umpires) is almost always dead on. Knowing what we have for technology, let's consider a few different arguments:
1) "A replay system/robot calling strikes would take too long"
*instantaneously*...These calls wouldn't take any time. We've got the ability for a pitch to be called a ball or strike in an instant, and I honestly don't see a reason why people would complain about a 45 second review when some Yankee-Red Sox games are already running 4+ hours (and most games can get done under 3). What are you going to do with that 45 seconds of your life? Breathe a couple times? Pass some gas? Maybe pick your nose? I mean, think about how little time 45 seconds really is.
2) "It takes the human element out of the game"
No. Nobody that wants a replay system should want umpires completely out of the picture. If anything, the ball/strike calls from PitchFX would be there to overturn an umpire's call in a challenge-based review system. And let's be real, parts of the game just depend on umpires being on the field. A lot of base running decisions are made based on knowledge of whether the ball was caught or not. Players need to know the result of that kind of play instantly. Plus, umpires are there to enforce rules that don't involve replays as well. Technology wouldn't replace umpires. All it would do is help them do their job at a 100% efficient pace (how cool would it be if you had a backup system that let you do your job perfectly EVERY SINGLE TIME?). Sure as heck takes off a lot of the pressure from everyone, because you know that, in the end, the call is going to be right.
3) "Players determine the outcome of the game, not the umpires"
Armando Galarraga would now like to comment (okay, I can't actually speak for him, but you catch my drift). Ask Jim Joyce if Galarraga should have done something differently to get his perfect game. Wait, in case you actually might do it, you should know that he's apologized a million times and felt terrible about taking away a perfect game from a pitcher that had definitely pitched well enough to earn it. Ask the Baltimore Orioles (the 1996 ones) if a poor call didn't determine the outcome of a game (or a series, for that matter). A longtime phrase in baseball (and all sports) is that, "It's a game of inches." In fact, it is! Tag calls, fair/foul calls, boundary calls, and ball/strike calls are ALL decided (often if you watch enough baseball) by a matter of inches. All of us can think of games our teams have won or lost because the ball*just barely* went the way that was favorable for our team. We can also all think of games where our team has been on the poor end of a bad call that was also decided by a matter of inches. Heck, sometimes calls are blown that aren't matters of inches. Just check out this picture of a call missed in yesterday's Dodgers/Rockies game (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-worst-call-of-the-year/). An umpire will be the first to tell you that he missed the call and would go back to get it right. An umpire wants to do his job as well as a player wants to do his, so why not help everyone?
4) "If you put in a replay system, how are you going to run it? It's too complex."
The National Football League has a fantastic review system. Others may disagree, but I love the system that the NFL uses. Coaches get two chances to challenge calls. If they're wrong even once, then they lose the ability to challenge calls and have to deal with the consequences (after all, you complained to the refs in those cases and they were right). However, if you correct two of their mistakes, you get to do it a third time! Also, they review every single scoring play, and in the final two minutes all close plays are reviewed by officials. You could do the same thing in baseball. Rather than running out of the dugout and yelling obscenities at umpires and getting thrown out of the game, managers could toss out a red flag and calmly challenge the play. Sure, you lose a bit of entertainment value in the case that guys like Sweet Lou can't kick around some dirt in Aquafina commercials, but your manager gets to stay in the dugout and the call is going to be correct.
I really get tired of this debate, because I am sympathetic to umpires but grow frustrated with their mistakes at the same time. I wish technology wasn't necessary in the game of baseball. I wish every single call was correct. However, let's not intentionally sit under a rock on this issue. Nobody is perfect, and umpires fall under the umbrella of "nobody." We are unreasonable to expect them to get more than 98% of calls right (I mean, let's not forget the immense number of calls that are right that nobody ever complains about). Forgiveness is a fine thing, but imagine if you could live in an environment where you never had to forgive anyone and nobody ever had to forgive you. Doesn't that sound amazing? Well, it's time to realize that this is possible in baseball. We can get every call right in every situation. We can make it so the phrase "Players determine the outcome of the game, not the umpires" is actually true. I think that is what everyone wants. There's no need to live in a system with 1900's technology when we have 2012 technology. Teams are getting smarter and using this stuff to beef up their operations, improve marketing, and make strides as organizations.
So should we keep umpires as they currently exist, or should we give them the resources to make every call correctly? I'll bite my tongue for now and let you decide.
First, let's start off with where sports are at in terms of how they let their officials make decisions. The NFL has expanded replay to all scoring plays and uses a challenge-based system where coaches can get non-scoring plays reviewed. The NBA uses a minimalist system where only specific calls are reviewable, and the NHL reviews any questionable play involving a goal-scoring effort. For the longest time, professional soccer has vehemently been against the use of replay, although even FIFA is realizing that its officials aren't perfect and some calls could be reviewed in the future. Heck, even college sports that don't have as many resources as professional sports (while they still produce money out the ass) use review systems in football and basketball. So where does baseball stand? Well, right now it's just at home run "boundary" calls. Even though it's one of the oldest American sports and has existed as a professional league since the late 19th Century, baseball didn't get any kind of review system until this past decade. For well over one hundred years, all calls were made at the discretion of the umpire, which led to (as expected) several noticeable botched calls (Derek Jeter says a big "thank you" and Armando Galarraga says "no comment").
So baseball has dipped into replay a little bit, but why has it taken so long? Personally I believe is that baseball and its commissioner want to hold on to traditionalist roots as American sports continue their phenomenal growth that they've been going through in the past couple of decades. As more TV contracts and 200 million dollar contracts are handed out, fans are becoming more focused on the commercialization and competitive nature of sport rather than the traditional view of the game that involves playing "for the love of the game." However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Leagues are booming, ratings for sports like the NFL and UFC are insane, and owners are enjoying some great times even though the current US economy isn't the greatest. MLB is at a point where it has a decision to make: go with a deeper review system or stick to what's worked for over a hundred years. Well, there's a lot that goes into that.
Firstly, let's consider the ability to run such a system. In case you aren't aware, baseball has undergone a statistical boom in the last 15 years that has been *completely* driven by technology. Technology has helped advanced scouting to the point where it is possible to know the specific details of every pitch in every situation. For a while that was done by humans at a computer. Now, however, we've got technology that can capture pitch location, velocity, and break *instantaneously*. No buttons need to be pushed, no thinking needs to be done. In a matter of microseconds, this technology can tell you exactly where a pitch is and whether it was a strike or a ball. Yeah, the technology can even change the strike zone's height based on the height and stance of the batter coming up to bat! Now, I'll be the first to say that PitchFX isn't 100% accurate, because it can sometimes struggle with pitch types and has the occasional glitch where it misses a pitch. However, the location of the pitch (which is undoubtedly what is most important to critics of umpires) is almost always dead on. Knowing what we have for technology, let's consider a few different arguments:
1) "A replay system/robot calling strikes would take too long"
*instantaneously*...These calls wouldn't take any time. We've got the ability for a pitch to be called a ball or strike in an instant, and I honestly don't see a reason why people would complain about a 45 second review when some Yankee-Red Sox games are already running 4+ hours (and most games can get done under 3). What are you going to do with that 45 seconds of your life? Breathe a couple times? Pass some gas? Maybe pick your nose? I mean, think about how little time 45 seconds really is.
2) "It takes the human element out of the game"
No. Nobody that wants a replay system should want umpires completely out of the picture. If anything, the ball/strike calls from PitchFX would be there to overturn an umpire's call in a challenge-based review system. And let's be real, parts of the game just depend on umpires being on the field. A lot of base running decisions are made based on knowledge of whether the ball was caught or not. Players need to know the result of that kind of play instantly. Plus, umpires are there to enforce rules that don't involve replays as well. Technology wouldn't replace umpires. All it would do is help them do their job at a 100% efficient pace (how cool would it be if you had a backup system that let you do your job perfectly EVERY SINGLE TIME?). Sure as heck takes off a lot of the pressure from everyone, because you know that, in the end, the call is going to be right.
3) "Players determine the outcome of the game, not the umpires"
Armando Galarraga would now like to comment (okay, I can't actually speak for him, but you catch my drift). Ask Jim Joyce if Galarraga should have done something differently to get his perfect game. Wait, in case you actually might do it, you should know that he's apologized a million times and felt terrible about taking away a perfect game from a pitcher that had definitely pitched well enough to earn it. Ask the Baltimore Orioles (the 1996 ones) if a poor call didn't determine the outcome of a game (or a series, for that matter). A longtime phrase in baseball (and all sports) is that, "It's a game of inches." In fact, it is! Tag calls, fair/foul calls, boundary calls, and ball/strike calls are ALL decided (often if you watch enough baseball) by a matter of inches. All of us can think of games our teams have won or lost because the ball*just barely* went the way that was favorable for our team. We can also all think of games where our team has been on the poor end of a bad call that was also decided by a matter of inches. Heck, sometimes calls are blown that aren't matters of inches. Just check out this picture of a call missed in yesterday's Dodgers/Rockies game (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-worst-call-of-the-year/). An umpire will be the first to tell you that he missed the call and would go back to get it right. An umpire wants to do his job as well as a player wants to do his, so why not help everyone?
4) "If you put in a replay system, how are you going to run it? It's too complex."
The National Football League has a fantastic review system. Others may disagree, but I love the system that the NFL uses. Coaches get two chances to challenge calls. If they're wrong even once, then they lose the ability to challenge calls and have to deal with the consequences (after all, you complained to the refs in those cases and they were right). However, if you correct two of their mistakes, you get to do it a third time! Also, they review every single scoring play, and in the final two minutes all close plays are reviewed by officials. You could do the same thing in baseball. Rather than running out of the dugout and yelling obscenities at umpires and getting thrown out of the game, managers could toss out a red flag and calmly challenge the play. Sure, you lose a bit of entertainment value in the case that guys like Sweet Lou can't kick around some dirt in Aquafina commercials, but your manager gets to stay in the dugout and the call is going to be correct.
I really get tired of this debate, because I am sympathetic to umpires but grow frustrated with their mistakes at the same time. I wish technology wasn't necessary in the game of baseball. I wish every single call was correct. However, let's not intentionally sit under a rock on this issue. Nobody is perfect, and umpires fall under the umbrella of "nobody." We are unreasonable to expect them to get more than 98% of calls right (I mean, let's not forget the immense number of calls that are right that nobody ever complains about). Forgiveness is a fine thing, but imagine if you could live in an environment where you never had to forgive anyone and nobody ever had to forgive you. Doesn't that sound amazing? Well, it's time to realize that this is possible in baseball. We can get every call right in every situation. We can make it so the phrase "Players determine the outcome of the game, not the umpires" is actually true. I think that is what everyone wants. There's no need to live in a system with 1900's technology when we have 2012 technology. Teams are getting smarter and using this stuff to beef up their operations, improve marketing, and make strides as organizations.
So should we keep umpires as they currently exist, or should we give them the resources to make every call correctly? I'll bite my tongue for now and let you decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)