Spygate 2: Red Sox Stealing Signs and Relaying Electronically

[Max Power]

I'm playing along with the game (on Tivo).

It's consistently 0.80 to 0.86 seconds from the time Vazquez finishes the sign and Rodriguez starts his windup. About 2 seconds and change for the ball to cross the plate after the sign.

It would be great if someone else can back that up or challenge it. How do you press a button (or 3) and get that info to the hitter in time for the pitch? I'm talking from the dugout and not from a light in centerfield like the O's use.

I don't think they were signaling the signs themselves. Just the code that the Yankees were using for calling pitches with a runner on second. If you can somehow communicate to the runner whatever they're using to mask the signs, he can do the work for the rest of the inning. If the Yankees were picking up on it, then Sanchez was using one of his ten trips to the mound each inning to switch up the signs.

 

[Todd Benzinger]

I would think the MFY secretly taping the Sox better fits the definition of "surreptitiously".

I was a bit confused by reading articles that stated that the use of electronics in the dugout is strictly limited to off-line Ipads to be used to replace paper documents, and also that the Yankees filmed the Sox dugout in order to prove that the Sox were cheating.

Why were the Yanks allowed to spy on the Sox dugout using cameras? Because they were violating the rule only in order to catch cheaters?

 

[nighthob]

I like this line at the bottom of the execrable Heyman piece:

I love the fact that Heyman excoriates the Red Sox for the ubiquity of sign stealing defense in one breath and in the next says that it was OK for the Yankees to use YES cameras to steal signs from the Boston dugout because everyone does it.

 

[burstnbloom]

This is all ridiculous but the thought I keep having when I think about this issue is "do I watch sports because I care about these kinds of things?" It all seems so petty and pointless. What are we doing here?

I am happy that Manfred appears to think this is a waste of time. If this were in the reverse, I would be annoyed that the Red Sox made a big deal of it. Who cares? Play baseball.

 

[bankshot1]

I was a bit confused by reading articles that stated that the use of electronics in the dugout is strictly limited to off-line Ipads to be used to replace paper documents, and also that the Yankees filmed the Sox dugout in order to prove that the Sox were cheating.

Why were the Yanks allowed to spy on the Sox dugout using cameras? Because they were violating the rule only in order to catch cheaters?

Offsetting penalties. Replay the down, or the tapes.

Although its nice to see the MFY gave Eric Mangini a second chance.

 

[BaseballJones]

I like this line at the bottom of the execrable Heyman piece:

In that piece: "Either way, people in MLB are suggesting — and probably rightly so — this isn’t on the level of DeflateGate, where equipment was altered, or SpyGate, where opponents were surreptitiously videotaped by the Patriots."

@#$#*!#@~#@@$!@~~%&*!

And people wonder why Pats fans can't "let it go"???

Why were the Yanks allowed to spy on the Sox dugout using cameras? Because they were violating the rule only in order to catch cheaters?

Kind of like when the Colts illegally tampered with the Patriots' football when they brought it to the sideline and stuck a needle into it to measure air pressure, and nothing happened to them?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Nation is still so mad about the NFL manufactured conspiracy not being true. They railroaded Brady dragged his good name through the mud...and the Pats still won. Why does Heyman have to bring this back up? Call me when the MLB starts resorting to Goodell's tactics.

 

[staz]

80,000. It was 80,000 people who witnessed the secret cheating.

 

[Van Everyman]

From PeteAbe:

Per an MLB source today: “slap on the wrist” is what Red Sox can expect. Team cooperated and issue was short term.

 

[SumnerH]

You'd be fine with Ty Cobb and a bunch of wife beaters etc "as long as they win?"

Don't lump Ty Cobb in with the wife beaters. Al Stump's hatchet job on him (which is the original source of most of the worst anti-Cobb stories) has been largely discredited.

How Ty Cobb was framed as a racist:

Cobb enthusiastically supported the integration of major league baseball when he was asked about Jackie Robinson in 1952...He called Roy Campanella a “great” player, said Willie Mays was “the only player I’d pay money to see” and after Campanella’s crippling car accident, praised Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley for holding a candlelit tribute “for this fine man.”

Even back in the 1920s, Cobb would befriend Negro League ballplayers such as Detroit Stars infielder Bobby Robinson, who said “there wasn’t a hint of prejudice in Cobb’s attitude.”

One of several blacks employed by Cobb, Alex Rivers, named his son after the ballplayer and said, “I love the man.”

Many of the other stories about him (e.g. spiking opposing players) have been discredited as well. We have had a couple of threads on this, if you want to discuss we can do that over here. reggiecleveland summarizes:

• Cobb was not hated when he played. He was universally respected, countless contemporaries say he played fair, though extremely aggressively. Dozens of players said he never spiked anyone on purpose.
• He was especially close to Joe Jackson, even after Joe was banned, going out of his way to connect with, and possibly give money to Joe when the rest of baseball turned against him. So it is unlikely ghost Joe [in Field of Dreams] would not let Ty play.
• Cobb was in many fights, but there is no evidence any of them were racially motivated. In fact Stump and others have claimed some of his fights were with black people when documents from the time show the fights were with white people. It does seem Cobb was childish and prideful and to blame for many fights. He also tended to kick ass.
• Cobb's father was an outspoken anti segregationist, and what little mention of race relations survives concerning Cobb shows him being enlightened for the time and being heckled because his dad was a "N-lover."
• Fighting was common during the time, even churchboy Christy Matheson went into the stands to fight a fan.
• Cobb was insecure and often got on the bad side of writers by disputing things they wrote about him, many of them inconsequential.

 

[Flunky]

This is a bold move to come on a
Boston radio station and say this Heyman

Why just the Yankees? I mean, they could have been doing it to everyone. Vacate all wins so far.

Only a moron talks about vacating wins in US pro team sports.

 

[joe dokes]

Telling the NYT about the NYY accusations is all just so Randy Levine.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Don't lump Ty Cobb in with the wife beaters. Al Stump's hatchet job on him (which is the original source of most of the worst anti-Cobb stories) has been largely discredited.

How Ty Cobb was framed as a racist:


Many of the other stories about him (e.g. spiking opposing players) have been discredited as well. We have had a couple of threads on this, if you want to discuss we can do that over here. reggiecleveland summarizes:

Just want to echo this. Shocking how one criminally ruthless self promoter (Stump) ruined an Icon's reputation. I will just add that Cobb was not a big boozer, and was careful even skilled at money management that left many of his generation, of hard drinking players and writers resentful. Don't forget Ted Williams own rough ride with writers, one in particular is believed to stem from refusing to drink with a writer, or talk to the writer when the writer was drunk, which was always.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Maybe i haven't read enough of the details on how this was supposed to work .. but, as I understand it it was being used when the Red Sox had a runner on second base - whereupon he would relay the signal from the dugout to the batter?

But this makes no sense .. with a runner on second, the opposition would be changing up the signs. So it was really no different than the runner himself trying to do the sign stealing.

So .. in the one to three seconds available between the catcher giving the sign and delivering the pitch.

- Video guy sees the sign and location and decodes the pitch selection. Never mind that the signs may have switched.

- Video guy texts the dugout with this info

- Trainer guy in the dugout tells a player in the dugout

- Player in the dugout flashes a sign to the base runner

- Base runner relays it to the batter.

This is insane. No wonder the batters can't hit if they were relying on this system.

 

[Byrdbrain]

I think the idea is the video guy gets the sign sequence, for instance it is the third signal the catcher gives. The guy on base can then read the signals and relay information to the batter.
Of course the catcher could then change the sequence and the whole thing would start again.
No matter how quick the people involved are there is no chance they could relay individual pitches to the runner and then the batter.

Seems like lots of trouble for not much gain.
The Sox obviously saw value in it though since they admitted they were doing it.

 

[BigPapiMPD34]

Maybe i haven't read enough of the details on how this was supposed to work .. but, as I understand it it was being used when the Red Sox had a runner on second base - whereupon he would relay the signal from the dugout to the batter?

But this makes no sense .. with a runner on second, the opposition would be changing up the signs. So it was really no different than the runner himself trying to do the sign stealing.

So .. in the one to three seconds available between the catcher giving the sign and delivering the pitch.

- Video guy sees the sign and location and decodes the pitch selection. Never mind that the signs may have switched.

- Video guy texts the dugout with this info

- Trainer guy in the dugout tells a player in the dugout

- Player in the dugout flashes a sign to the base runner

- Base runner relays it to the batter.

This is insane. No wonder the batters can't hit if they were relying on this system.

I think it works more like this:

- Upon runner reaching second base and catcher shifting to advanced signs, Video guy watches a few pitches and decodes the signs.

- Video guy texts the dugout with this info

- Trainer guy in the dugout tells a player in the dugout, presumably a bench player who has nothing else to focus on at the time.

- Player in the dugout flashes a sign to the base runner, indicating which pattern of signs the opposing catcher is using (for example, the catcher may be flashing 5 signs, but the real sign is sign #2 of 5.

- Base runner watches catcher flash signs and determines which pitch is coming. He then relays the pitch type to the hitter.

- Catcher notices base runner relaying signs and calls mound visit to change up signs. And the process repeats...

*So really, the only thing the Sox did wrong was to relay this info from the video room (located in the clubhouse) to the dugout via an electronic device. The other option would be to have someone jog down the hallway and tell them. While the news will report this as "Red Sox use Apple Watch to steal signs," its more like "Red Sox communicated signs very quickly using Apple Watch."

Makes me wonder if they have a telephone in the dugout that can call the video room, which would remove the need for the electronic device. The Video guy is able to quickly tell Farrell whether or not to challenge on a play. Does he call the dugout or does someone run to the clubhouse and back? Anyone know how this process works?

 

[Idabomb333]

I can see some impediments to a system that relies on technology for pitch calling. System reliability- how many times do we hear about the comms going out between the QB and the sideline? It seems almost weekly. There are built in redundancies in football as there would be in baseball, but what would be the costs of moving to a new system in baseball i.e. longer games, delays when the comms get wonky. Also, the catcher only has one free hand to free to use a signaling device. He certainly can't speak what the pitch should be with the batter right there. So he'd have to use his throwing hand to signal to hold and use a device, then store that device all while setting up for the pitch. Seems clunky. Especially when you factor in that the pitcher and catcher aren't always 100% on the same page and shake offs happen.

How would the pitcher receive the signal if it's not auditory? Maybe a haptic device that vibrates once for a fastball, twice for a curveball? What happens when a team develops an algorithm that uses a camera trained on the pitcher's feedback device that can tell how many pulses are being signaled?

I think you could make the argument that hand signaling is a technology, and the beauty is in its simplicity. There's a built in layer of obfuscation which should keep the other team guessing, so I believe it's a quite reliable system. Of course when teams start using more advanced technology to steal signs then maybe the old system needs to get updated.

It's an interesting idea, though. I'm sure some smart folks could put together a system that works.

You're making a fundamental assumption here that the catcher sends the signal. That's only currently true because everyone uses visual signs while the batter is looking toward the pitcher. If the pitcher and catcher can use audio, the pitcher could just put his glove up to cover his mouth from lip readers and say, "fastball up and in" or whatever. Then the trick is just making the catcher's earpiece loud enough for the catcher to hear without letting the batter hear.

If people really wanted to get weird with something like this, you could even give another earpiece to the home plate umpire, so they know what kind of movement to watch for. It would be interesting to know whether an umpire with advanced warning does a better job of calling balls and strikes.

 

[RoyHR]

Well yes using electronics is wrong and against the rules. OK that is a given. And if it is proven that this did occur then yes they should probably get some sort of fine. But how it all actually worked seems a bit ridiculous. So some guy somewhere monitored and stole the catcher's signs, sent what he saw to a guy's apple phone in the dugout, who then told another player in the dugout, who then sent a signal to a base runner on 2nd base, who then somehow relayed to the hitter what the pitch was going to be? This all just happens in the time that a pitcher got the sign and made the pitch? Please.... And btw whatever signal was being stolen was just as easily seen by the base runner on 2nd base so why the need for this whole elaborate process? Also why didn't they just change up their signals? After all they admitted to knowing or at least thinking that the Red Sox were stealing their signs but just didn't know how? And of course this all happens to come out after they finished playing the Red Sox for year unless they see each other in the playoffs.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Welcome to Sosh, Roy. Read the post 2 above yours for a better explanation of how this may have worked with a few less steps than your analysis.

 

[Todd Benzinger]

If people really wanted to get weird with something like this, you could even give another earpiece to the home plate umpire, so they know what kind of movement to watch for. It would be interesting to know whether an umpire with advanced warning does a better job of calling balls and strikes.

Does baseball actually want to eliminate sign-stealing, though? Giving the offense a boost when a runner's on second leads to more runs & longer rallies--longer games, but less tedium for casual fans.

The ump idea is intriguing, but I think the downside is that you might see even more bad calls, in that the ump would now sometimes know that the pitcher actually screwed up when the result was technically a strike. IE, it might amplify the effect you already see when the pitcher misses the catcher's mitt but stays in the zone. Or maybe not. Maybe worth trying.

 

[ledsox]

Number One: You can't tell me this kind of thing isn't absolutely RAMPANT in MLB. Pedroia's so gullible to think this wouldn't get around the clubhouse in no time? And then, when players are bought and sold, around the league? Of course not, and he's not going to knowingly tarnish his brand to get involved with something way off the reservation. He's a goddamned veteran and veterans pull this shit ALL THE TIME.

Number Two: Fucking. Good. I don't like them getting caught, but I LOVE the Moxie of a club that's always looking for an angle. Whatever. Now they know the limits. But I have zero problem with a little stubble on the whole "America's Most Beloved Ballpark" brand. YUCK.

Number Three: My, what little bitches the New York Yankees have become. If Cashman really thought the act were providing a great deal more advantage than the countless schemes his players are surely involved in, he's calling DD to say "knock it off", not crying a river to the NYT. He's pissed that his catcher doesn't have a clue behind the plate and he's jealous his players didn't come up with the ruse first.

Number Four: Ain't cheatin' = ain't tryin'. Haters gonna hate. Haters also gonna kiss my motherfucking ass. I make passionate love to your hate. Welcome to Massachusetts, BITCH. By the way, get over it: it's fucking baseball, not the shit your local skinheads are teaching to their children.

Number Five: The chicken littles in here already boohooing potential lost draft picks THREE HOURS INTO IT make me ill.

All my thoughts in one perfect post here. Thanks, staz!

 

[dhappy42]

I'm a traditionalist. MLB should go back to the day when batters could ask the pitchers to throw them a high or low pitch. That'd eliminate the need for sign stealing and the consequent moral degradation of America's youth.

 

[RoyHR]

Welcome to Sosh, Roy. Read the post 2 above yours for a better explanation of how this may have worked with a few less steps than your analysis.

My post was made right as the two above me were so I really hadn't seen them when I posted. But I was actually just referencing what I had read from what was reported online especially by the NY reporter which I found overall a bit much. The timing that it would take to do what was suggested just didn't make any sense as being practical. Thus I just believe it was all pretty much just making something out of nothing. Much like spygate back in it's day, it all sounds good and gives haters something to rail about but not really that big of a deal. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm a traditionalist. MLB should go back to the day when batters could ask the pitchers to throw them a high or low pitch. That'd eliminate the need for sign stealing and the consequent moral degradation of America's youth.

I think of myself as a bit of a sports historian and never heard of that one. When was this?

 

[Zedia]

I think of myself as a bit of a sports historian and never heard of that one. When was this?

I had a feeling I read this in Bill James, and sure enough, it's in the Abstract. Though I'm not sure if this just means the batter was defining his strike zone?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Ok .. it makes sense if it was the Indicator that was being relayed. Still, as sign stealing has been going on for 100 years there are many well practiced deterrents. The old fashioned fastball in the ribs works pretty well.

It's pretty obvious the MFY have known about this for sometime .. and very probably were taking advantage of it. They only bothered whining to MLB because they don't play Boston anymore.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

Pete Abraham‏Verified account @PeteAbe 1h1 hour ago
A disdainful Pedroia noted the Yankees accused Doug Fister of wearing an earpiece. It was his mouthguard.

 

[moondog80]

Pete Abraham‏Verified account @PeteAbe 1h1 hour ago
A disdainful Pedroia noted the Yankees accused Doug Fister of wearing an earpiece. It was his mouthguard.

To be fair when they showed a shot of him in the dugout I thought it was some sort of hearing aid too.

 

[Ed Hillel]

The Boston Red Sox have presented to the commissioner's office what they say is video evidence of the YES Network maintaining a fixed camera on bench coach Gary DiSarcina during a recent game at Yankee Stadium, a source tells ESPN's Buster Olney.

That particular camera shot was one of those that the Red Sox received in their video room feed, and according to a source, they were so concerned about it -- and about whether it was being used to steal signs from DiSarcina -- that they had their bench coach alter his position in the dugout.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/20608951/boston-red-sox-say-video-evidence-yanks-using-yes-camera-steal-signs

 

[geoduck no quahog]

The ancient remedy for sign-stealing was, I thought, to use various indicators before each call - so a catcher could switch things up in the middle of an at-bat if necessary...and that indicators were somewhat complex. Show a curveball outside to the guy on 2nd base (per the previous indicator) - but you're really calling for a fastball up and in. End of problem.

 

[dhappy42]

I think of myself as a bit of a sports historian and never heard of that one. When was this?

Early mid 19th century. And I was kidding.

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

I think of myself as a bit of a sports historian and never heard of that one. When was this?

Was the rule from first formal rules through 1886 (and the first Spalding rule book)...
Ended in 1887.

 

[Plympton91]

There's sure a lot of whataboutism going on in this thread. .

The Red Sox blatantly broke a very clearly defined rule that exists to protect the integrity of the game. That game includes players using their own guile and baseball IQ to steal signs in a cat and mouse with the other team trying to mask them. But allowing the use of HD TV with close up cameras and on demand slow motion plus rewind/replay to aid that sign stealing can't become the norm anymore than robot pitchers.

Anyone involved on the Red Sox side should be suspended in the same way as if they broke another key rule. To me it is akin to the suspension Pineda received for using pine tar, or that a batter would get fornusing a corked bat.

Do the crime, do the time.

 

[BigPapiMPD34]

There's sure a lot of whataboutism going on in this thread. .

The Red Sox blatantly broke a very clearly defined rule that exists to protect the integrity of the game. That game includes players using their own guile and baseball IQ to steal signs in a cat and mouse with the other team trying to mask them. But allowing the use of HD TV with close up cameras and on demand slow motion plus rewind/replay to aid that sign stealing can't become the norm anymore than robot pitchers.

Anyone involved on the Red Sox side should be suspended in the same way as if they broke another key rule. To me it is akin to the suspension Pineda received for using pine tar, or that a batter would get fornusing a corked bat.

Do the crime, do the time.

Is it really against the rules to watch the game on an HD TV in the clubhouse though? I would imagine most teams do that. From what I understand, the rule that was broken is having an electronic device in the dugout. In terms of suspensions, are you going to suspend every single position player on the team? Because this appears to have been a team approach, not just 2 or 3 players.

 

[Sox Puppet]

For no particular reason, I just remembered this meme from during the Deflategate fiasco that I thought was pretty clever:

We just need the Celtics to do something ridiculous now to complete the Boston voyeur's trifecta. Like hiding a camera in the Cavs' locker room to capture LeBron at halftime as he repaints a new hairline with shoe polish.

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

We just need the Celtics to do something ridiculous now to complete the Boston voyeur's trifecta. Like hiding a camera in the Cavs' locker room to capture LeBron at halftime as he repaints a new hairline with shoe polish.

Well, trading Thomas did ruffle quite a few feathers and the whole deal turned into a kerfuffle of its own, so I think they have played their part.

Eyes now turn to Causeway Street to see if the Bruins keep the theme going. The Pastrnak deal situation has a lot of blow-up potential, so stay tuned there.

 

[dhappy42]

There's sure a lot of whataboutism going on in this thread. .

The Red Sox blatantly broke a very clearly defined rule that exists to protect the integrity of the game. That game includes players using their own guile and baseball IQ to steal signs in a cat and mouse with the other team trying to mask them. But allowing the use of HD TV with close up cameras and on demand slow motion plus rewind/replay to aid that sign stealing can't become the norm anymore than robot pitchers.

Anyone involved on the Red Sox side should be suspended in the same way as if they broke another key rule. To me it is akin to the suspension Pineda received for using pine tar, or that a batter would get fornusing a corked bat.

Do the crime, do the time.

Who broke the rule? The assistant trainer. Whaddaya gonna do? Fire or suspend him?

 

[Van Everyman]

Whether or not you think this is serious or business as usual, the "There Will Be Blood"/pearl clutching going on in Cafardo's latest is priceless:

Teams want Red Sox severely punished for stealing signs


There’s a lot of chatter in baseball about the Red Sox stealing signs. And it isn’t flattering.

Not that they’re alone, but they’re alone in how they did it: by using an Apple Watch.

“There are 29 other teams very interested to see what happens to the Red Sox,” said one American League general manager. “This needs to be dealt with sternly by the commissioner’s office. If it isn’t, the Red Sox got away with one.”

Colleague Peter Abraham quoted one major league source as saying the Red Sox will not get a severe penalty. If that’s the case, it won’t go over too big around baseball.

“If that happens it’s a joke,” said another AL executive. “I don’t know how many wins their actions gave them or cost other teams, but it’s something.”

My favorite parts:

One game being focused on is the Sox’ 12-10 walkoff win over the Indians on Aug. 1, a victory that put the Red Sox in first place. Chris Sale allowed seven runs in five innings in that game. The Red Sox came back, but according to one AL source, there was plenty of evidence that Sox hitters knew what pitches were coming from a talented Indians bullpen that night. The Sox touched up Bryan Shaw, Andrew Miller, and Cody Allen for seven runs.

According to a major league source, the Indians knew something was going on but it was tough to keep up, thinking the Red Sox’ system was “elaborate.”

“There was something going on because in some of the games they’ve won they’ve been going through other teams’ bullpens — teams that have pretty good bullpens,” said one AL executive.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/09/06/teams-want-red-sox-severely-punished-for-stealing-signs/or1oPBCNkigfbTQRxhR4lN/story.html

So...

1) The Red Sox beat us this season
2) They cheated against the Yankees
3) Ergo, we would've won those games if they hadn't cheated.

This is more like Spygate/Deflategate than many care to admit. But not in the way that people think.

 

[DJnVa]

“There was something going on because in some of the games they’ve won they’ve been going through other teams’ bullpens — teams that have pretty good bullpens,” said one AL executive.

That's not proof you insufferable tool.

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

One note about the Red Sox 12-10 victory vs Cleveland on 8/1 that isnt mentioned in the article. The Indians put Andrew Miller on the DL the following day with a knee injury. Did it occur to that anonymous AL executive that Miller being hurt may have played a part in the Red Sox comeback, and not sign stealing?

 

[SouthernBoSox]

One note about the Red Sox 12-10 victory vs Cleveland on 8/1 that is mentioned in the article. The Indians put Andrew Miller on the DL the following day with a knee injury. Did it occur to that anonymous AL executive that Miller being hurt may have played a part in the Red Sox comeback, and not sign stealing?

Our bullpen, which actually I think had a better ERA than the Indians at the time, got rocked as well. So did the Indians cheat too?

The Indians have hit Chris Sale all year. He's a pretty good pitcher. They must be doing something.

And to add on the Indians game. The only reason the game ended the way it did was because Mitch Moreland reached on a fucking strike out. The Cody Allen couldn't find the zone and laid in an absolute meatball on 3-1. This causation, it's just dumb.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

what a bunch of sour grapes from Mr. unnamed AL source. which chump is whispering into Nick's ear this time?

 

[Byrdbrain]

There's sure a lot of whataboutism going on in this thread. .

The Red Sox blatantly broke a very clearly defined rule that exists to protect the integrity of the game. That game includes players using their own guile and baseball IQ to steal signs in a cat and mouse with the other team trying to mask them. But allowing the use of HD TV with close up cameras and on demand slow motion plus rewind/replay to aid that sign stealing can't become the norm anymore than robot pitchers.

Anyone involved on the Red Sox side should be suspended in the same way as if they broke another key rule. To me it is akin to the suspension Pineda received for using pine tar, or that a batter would get fornusing a corked bat.

Do the crime, do the time.

Watching hi def video already is the norm, every team does it.
The Sox did break a rule and that was in the use of the Apple Watch to relay the information seen with the video to the dugout. That certainly saves some seconds from having a lackey(a lackey not the Lackey) relay the information to the dugout which is the standard practice.
MLB doesn't seem to think it is a big deal and word is the Sox will be fined but no one will be suspended and no draft picks will be removed.

 

[judyb]

So, could someone explain to me how stealing signs helps them get all the BBs, HBPs, ROEs, PBs, WPs, IFHs, and bloops that should have been caught they need to beat great relievers, but it doesn't help them get hits w/RISP against mediocre and crappy starters?

 

[Flunky]

So...

1) The Red Sox beat us this season
2) They cheated against the Yankees
3) Ergo, we would've won those games if they hadn't cheated.

This is more like Spygate/Deflategate than many care to admit. But not in the way that people think.

Albert Belle's corked bat has it's own Wikipedia page.

 

[joe dokes]

Sox prepare to take field vs. NYY:

 

[pedro1918]

Inspired by this incident, Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post has a story about the history of cheating that includes this whopper of a mistake:

On the list of iconic baseball moments, Bobby Thomson’s shot heard round the world — the home run that beat the mighty Dodgers to end the 1951 World Series — lingers near the top even as the decades roll by.

Oops! "The Giants win the...World Series? The Giants win the...World Series?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/09/06/a-brief-history-of-rule-bending-in-baseball-which-has-always-been-just-part-of-the-game/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-newsage/in-the-news&utm_term=.8e06a9e7566a#comments

 

[joe dokes]

Inspired by this incident, Chelsea Janes of the Washington Post has a story about the history of cheating that includes this whopper of a mistake:



Oops! "The Giants win the...World Series? The Giants win the...World Series?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/09/06/a-brief-history-of-rule-bending-in-baseball-which-has-always-been-just-part-of-the-game/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-newsage/in-the-news&utm_term=.8e06a9e7566a#comments

Jeez. That's pretty awful.

Seriously, though, P91 is right. Its a pretty clear rules violation.
OTOH--As Gaylord Perry said (more or less), "it doesn't matter of you're cheating as long as the other team thinks you are."

 

[lexrageorge]

Nicky's channeling the faux outrage of an anonymous GM would be humorous had he not missed the mark so badly on that Cleveland game.

To P91's point, I don't think anyone is saying what the Sox did is not or shouldn't be a rules violation. Just the severity; it should be obvious that the violation is truly minor.

 

[drbretto]

It's a clear rule violation and the Sox are going to be rightfully mocked about it like the picture above. The lack of severity just means it will/should blow over eventually.

The writers going overboard about it make me ill. It's not a good look, but it's not anywhere near the existential crisis they're making it out to be. And they're just doing it because they see an opportunity to fan the flames of drama. Drama drama drama.