Entertainment desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 29

MLB replay review

In Major League Baseball, what is the average number of times per game that a call is reversed upon video review? Loraof (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Post surveyed 1300 video recalls. There were 643 reversals which worked out as 49.2%. It depends on which umpire is calling the games with some umpires having high levels of call reversals and some having low rates with the reversal rate varying between 92% and 23%. (Denver Post) Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the OP's question is not quite the answer you gave, although it might be what they're really asking. The article indicates that the total reviews for 2015 were about 1,300. That's only about half of the total games played. Every team but two played 162 games in 2015, the remaining two played 161. That's 2,429 sets of games, if my arithmetic is correct. That would mean that about 53 percent of the games had a replay. If 49 percent of calls were overturned, that would mean that about 25 percent of the games had a replay overturned. In short, the literal answer to the OP's question is about once very four games, or .25 per game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! Bugs’ interpretation of my question is correct. So, given that every bad call gets overturned (with the rare exception like Joe Girardi failing to challenge the foul tip call), there’s one bad call every four games. I’d say that shows the umps are doing a great job! Loraof (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If balls and strikes were reviewable, it would be exponentially higher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Has anyone done an analysis of what fraction of taken pitches are called correctly? (Maybe we should limit it to pitches that KZone measured to be within a certain distance of the nearest edge of the zone, so we exclude the ones that are easy to call.) Loraof (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain MLB does this, but I don't know if the results are made public. One interesting thing about watching the World Series, with all the bells and whistles of TV coverage, is how often the umps get the balls and strikes right, including on calls that the players yelp about. I've never seen any stats, though, it's just a general impression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Bill Klem famously said "It ain't nothing till I call it"... --Jayron 32 12:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We see this exemplified when batters think it's ball four and start trotting to first, and the umpire cries "Strike!" That happened with Bregman on Saturday. He trudged back to the batter's box, and hit the next pitch for a home run! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Next Gen TV"

This has been in the news a little recently, and maybe much more so in future, but there isn't a Wikipedia article on it, as far as I can tell (not listed at Next_Generation or Nextgen_(disambiguation)). The Advanced television article seems to be about something different... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do they mean 4K resolution internet-connected smart TVs, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's a new broadcast standard, as far as I can tell, but apparently with some Internet integration as well (see official page at http://www.nab.org/innovation/nextGenTV.asp ). I was hoping there would be a Wikipedia article so that my relative ignorance could be enlightened... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems rather vague on the specs, like no listing of the screen resolutions, frame rates, color palettes, and compression methods supported. If that's really all they have as a proposal, it doesn't seem like enough to base a Wikipedia article on. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the FCC endorses it as an official U.S. standard (which it's now considering preliminary steps toward doing), then at that point it will be absolutely necessary to have a Wikipedia article on it. Getting a start on such an article now would mean that Wikipedia could help readers understand the various discussions and debates before it's finally adopted or not adopted as a standard. I know I sure need help

-- AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the NAB link provided, the first link on the right shows that this is also known as the ATSC 3.0 standard. Our article is at ATSC 3.0. Nanonic (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If ATSC 3.0 is known as "Next Gen TV" in the marketing and political spheres, then at least the ATSC 3.0 and Nextgen_(disambiguation) pages need to be updated to reflect this... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the following, it is: Kelcee Griffis. "FCC To Vote On Rolling Out Next-Gen TV Broadcasts". www.law360.com. Portfolio Media. Retrieved 30 October 2017. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:70D9:EEEB:8B68:4665 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel competent to edit the "ATSC 3.0" article itself, but I created some redirects which should help future searchers. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]