Boston Red Sox Used Apple Watches to Steal Signs Against Yankees | Hacker News Reader

Boston Red Sox Used Apple Watches to Steal Signs Against Yankees

nytimes.com

186 pointscoloneltcb73 comments

A couple of things about sign stealing, from someone who is not an expert, but has watched a great deal of baseball:

1) The signs are usually not complex, you can easily read them yourself when you see them on TV. One finger might mean a fastball, two fingers some kind of breaking ball, three fingers might be the pitcher's least favorite pitch. Often, the sign is accompanied by a second sign indicating where the catcher wants it. So one finger followed by a hand lifting up-up, means he wants a high fastball. The players will know what the signs mean after one batter at most.

2) The only time the batting team can actually see the signs is when there's a runner on second. In this case, frequently, the catcher will go to the mound and he and the pitcher will come up with some simple obfuscation. Normally this looks like 3-4 signs indicated in quick succession. I assume they've agreed that number 3 is the meaningful one or something.

3) The communication doesn't have to be perfect. In a lot of cases, a batter is waiting for a specific pitch. It would be enough to signal "Yeah, it's gonna be a fastball outside".

The article suggests that a specific camera crew was the original source of the signs, but it's not clear how that worked. It happened in Boston, so perhaps the camera was manned by local people who turned out to be red sox fans. If such a person was watching a continuous feed, and a specific redsox player asked to be alerted when a high fastball was coming, the apple watch would seem to be a practical solution.

Do batters bat better with a runner on second?

Actually the relative performance for all the different base combinations would be pretty interesting to know. Only eight possibilities!

Depends on the batter. There's a stat for batting average with runners in scoring positions (at least one runner on at least second base).

It has a lot of factors though like the batter's own psychology, the pitcher having to pitch from the stretch (an abbreviated motion to defend against base stealing when there are >0 runners on base), etc.

Baseball stats by the actual teams to get an edge is the most advanced in all of sports. The internal stats of the teams likely have much more sohpicticated numbers that control for a lot more variables.

Some batters do, yes. That's less to do with stealing signs though, and more to do with the strategic effect the runner has on the infield (and centerfield, actually). If the bases are empty, the whole defense can focus on getting the batter out. If there's a man on second, especially if there's less than two outs, it's much more important to keep the man on second from scoring.

When a runner is on second the catcher will give several signs in a row and it is up to the pitcher to decode it. Sometimes the first sign indicates the "real" sign in the series, most of time time the pitcher just knows "sign N is always the real one" or something like that.

Baseball statisticians—sabermetricians, as they're known—consider there to be 24 possibilities depending upon runners occupying bases and the number of outs. You can see prior data here for what is called the run-expectancy matrix of these 24 base/out states:

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

I'm not a huge baseball fan, but the thing about baseball that does intrigue me is the amount and depth of data captured, and all the neato things you can do with that. Someone with the right data set can absolutely answer your question, as well as come up with all sorts of other interesting correlations to predict games. It's really fascinating.

Video replay operators, not a camera crew. Replay operators are usually in a separate room with access to all cameras and ability to scroll and zoom. Replays now often use 8K source video and zoom to crop 720p native images from that so tons of resolution to zoom in on. Ref: https://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/11/02/five-keys-to-fox-spor...

RE: Your #1:

There's usually an "activator" sign, whereas after the activator sign is given, any proceeding valid "signs" are considered to be the _actual_ sign given.

That sounds about right. I've spent more time than I care to admit trying to decode baseball signs. To me it has always looked like signs from the dugout are far more complex, but catchers' signs not so much.

I've also seen signs where the first sign is which sign will be the real one; e.g. 2 1 2 3 Is the #2 pitch.

I've also seen a modification on that where the number of strikes/balls/whatever is added to the first one, so one example would be 2 strikes, 2 1 2 1 3 2 would be the #3 pitch.

That last one is easy to mess up, so might only be used for fast baserunners (A runner might want to steal 3rd on a changeup or curveball - both pitches that are likely to end up close to the ground- , but will not want to try on a high fastball), as the simplest use of sign stealing is for taking 3rd base.

I work in IT for an MLB club, each team has a video coordinator who has to basically watch the game from the stadium feed and chart each pitch etc. That was the guy texting to the Apple watch device.

Keep in mind, for those doubting the efficacy, its not necessary to know what exact pitch is coming (Fastball, curve, slider, change up,etc).

Just knowing whether it is a fastball or an off speed is enough, at which point, it simply becomes a matter of transmitting a binary signal.

Transmitting the sign, could be as easy as sending a 1 or 2, then the dugout simply yelling, "Let's go so-so" for offspeed, or "C'mon #12" for fastball.

Most major league pitchers not named, Kershaw, Felix, Max, etc, only have 2 ++ pitches,

So what is being 'stolen' is something that largely comes down to a 50% probability in most situations?

Is there a history of 'stealing signs' in baseball? ...Since it could be communicated almost as effectively offline as by a smartwatch.

Also, how accurate can the team read the other team's signs from the dugout? Is it a high probability the information between sent to the players is accurate?

>So what is being 'stolen' is something that largely comes down to a 50% probability in most situations?

Yes, but that 50% probability makes a huge difference. .300 is considered a fantastic batting average to have. .400 makes you a legend. The former means that a great batter can hit the ball in pay and not get out before they reach first 30% of their at bats.

So even improving your batting average by .05, i.e. have 5% more of your at bats result in hits, makes a huge difference to both your team and your career.

And as far as that 50% probability goes, it tells the batter a huge amount. A typical fastball comes in in the high 90s mph, an offspeed in the 80s. So even just knowing whether it's an offspeed or fastball ensures you won't swing too late or too early.

>Is there a history of 'stealing signs' in baseball? ...Since it could be communicated almost as effectively offline as by a smartwatch.

Yes. First it's worth noting that stealing signs without technological aid is legal. The issue here is that the Red Sox were using an Apple Watch to aid them.

By far the most common and traditional method of stealing signs is using a runner on second. If a batter reaches second base, he has a clear line of sight to the batter and catcher. The catcher is the one making the signs to the pitcher, and by observing the catcher, the runner on second can relay those signs to the batter thereby improving the batter's chances of getting on base.

The obvious issue here is that if you cannot use electronics to assist you, then your chances of stealing signs is limited. The runner on second is about your only chance of being able to do so.

>Also, how accurate can the team read the other team's signs from the dugout?

Not very. If you watch a typical at bat, pay attention to the catcher. He holds his hand between his legs, right in front of his crotch. His signs makes him look like he's scratching his crotch. Because of how close his hand is to his body, the fact that his legs are always extended on either side of his hands, and that the dugouts are on either side off the field, the dugout's view of the catcher's hands are obscured so they can't see his signs. Goes back to my above statement of the time proven method of stealing signs with a runner on second.

>Is it a high probability the information between sent to the players is accurate?

Depends on their pre-game preparations and adjustments. What often happens is catchers mask their signals. A simple example of this would be the catcher and pitchers plan beforehand to send four signals, and the second signal is their real one. Obviously it's more complex than this in real life, but the point is there are safeguards against stealing signals. If you have figured out their code then you have a very good chance of predicting pitches. If not, then the signs you steal probably won't be any better than guessing.

Yeah. Seems to me that the fact that an Apple Watch was used is just a detail. They could have easily used any other means of sending the signal. The watch was just convenient.

It's part of the game, as is beaning batters to fix it. The Baseball Codes is a remarkably good book about it all. I'm not a baseball guy but I think the white sox were caught back in the day with a groundskeeper in the scoreboard with binoculars flashing a light to indicate the pitch.

I'm lead to believe there are more dimensions than just pitch speed, which is a gigantic aid. Most pitchers only have a couple pitches and placement is big too, you can put a fastball inside to back the hitter off and then have a better outside strike zone. Possibly combined with the catcher talking some trash to the hitter. It's an emotional game

Another way of phrasing that is: 1 bit of information. In a very competitive sport.

And yes, there is a long history of this, as the article makes clear; and, as the article also makes clear, rules specifically limit the methods by which such information can be acquired and transmitted, which using an Apple Watch violates. Kind of like how part of the strategy of bridge is efficient use of a well-defined and restricted information channel, and using other methods to transmit the same information is considered cheating.

So what is being 'stolen' is something that largely comes down to a 50% probability in most situations?

People like to say this, and cite statistics and measurements for it, but it's true: hitting a ball thrown by a major-league-caliber pitcher is one of the most difficult feats in sports.

For a good major-league-caliber fastball, the total time available, from when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand to when it's past the batter and no longer possible to hit, can be around 400ms. And even for well-trained professional hitters, the time necessary to make a decision and swing the bat far enough around to make contact is around 300ms.

That means a major-league hitter has essentially 100 milliseconds, after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand, in which to decide what to do. This means it's not possible to spend time watching how the ball moves; if you do that, it will already be past you by the time you make a decision.

So major-league hitters rely on a combination of whatever information they can get in that 100ms of observation on each pitch, plus whatever they saw just before (pitchers try their best to be consistent no matter what pitch they throw, but there can be visible differences in arm angle and grip which provide extra information), plus known patterns both of pitchers in general and of the specific pitcher they're facing.

And even with all that, the best hitter of all time -- Ty Cobb -- had a lifetime batting average of .366. A batting average of .400 or better in a single season hasn't happened in over seventy years.

So yes, any extra information is a big deal. Just knowing what type of pitch is about to be thrown is a huge advantage to the batter, because it provides so much more time to think about what to do and act on the decision.

As to your other questions: "stealing" signs is perfectly legal and has a long history in baseball, but as the article notes the rules forbid the use of technology to assist in it. The batting team generally can only do it when there's a runner on second base (able to look directly at the catcher and see the signs), and teams always switch their system of signs in that situation to try to make it more difficult.

> Just knowing whether it is a fastball or an off speed is enough

Except if it's Mariano Rivera, in which case it's only one pitch: a filthy mid-90s cutter. The batter knows it's coming and is largely powerless to do anything about it (i.e. more broken bats than home runs were the outcome of hitting against him).

For starting pitchers, however, yes, quite useful for batters to have an idea of the speed of the pitch -- hard enough to hit a major league fastball, much less a splitter, slider, changeup, curveball, etc. on any given pitch.

Yeah, back when Mo was pitching, this app would be pretty pointless.

Mariano Rivera was a once in a generation pitcher though. So his example doesn't move the needle much in the big picture, in terms of the usefulness of stealing signs.

Fun fact: while home runs are obviously the eye catcher...he's broken more bats than even given up runs

Pedro had 4 good pitches. I remember reading an article debating which pitcher had the single best season in baseball and Pedro was on there twice: 1999 and 2000.

It's hard to follow what the Red Sox were actually doing but it sounds like the actual sign stealing was being done with cameras. They were just using Apple Watches to receive messages (probably just plain on SMS or iMessage?) in the dugout. If I've understood correctly it sounds like the "electronic devices" part of the story is kind of peripheral.

I think it matters because electronic devices are explicitly banned. Sign stealing itself is okay so long as you don't use binoculars, electronic devices, etc.

I guess I don't understand the chain of events then. Do you feel like you do?

Catcher makes a sign -> ????? -> info is relayed to the batter.

What's happening in ???? exactly and where does the Apple Watch come into play?

Opposing player on Second base could see the sign from the catcher and then sign his own back to dugout or player.

Player batting can see his own dugout or his own third base/first base manager and easily receive a signal from them.

As is now all major broadcasts easily show the catcher's sign and it can easily be decoded back to his pitches. Without the use of cheating you could only really get the signs today by having a player of your own on second base.

Which is why signs are obfuscated whenever a runner is on second base.

In this specific case, it sounds like:

Catcher makes a sign -> someone watching video electrically relays sign to dugout (in this case the athletic trainer who was receiving the info using Apple watch) -> info is relayed to an injured player on the bench (probably verbally) -> info is relayed to an outfielder (I guess who is a runner?) -> outfielder/runner relays information to batter with yet another set of signs.

Oh and all this was apparently going on without the knowledge of the manager or front office.

You don't need to use an Apple Watch when a runner is on second- they can see the signs directly from the catcher, that's why catchers put down multiple signs with a runner on second. When there's no baserunners or baserunners on first or third then the catcher typically uses just the standard signs and only one. It sounds to me like the sign stealing was going on when the "standard" signs were being used, I agree the article is confusing as to what is going on exactly. SMS doesn't sound fast enough for this purpose either.

[In baseball everyone is giving everyone else signs the whole game, it's how everyone communicates with each other to execute plays. Players need to know what other players are going to do to be able to work as a team. ]

> info is relayed to an outfielder using another set of signs (say touch the nose if fastball, touch cap if breaking ball, etc), outfielder relays information to batter with yet another set of signs.

Slight nitpick; the players in the field at a given time aren't on the same team as the batter, so the outfielders relaying signs to the batter doesn't make sense. However, Holt and Young are not starters for the Red Sox, so it's more like that one of them formed the part of the chain in between the trainer and the batter rather than an injured player and a fielder.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted that it didn't make sense so I edited it. I don't know why NY Times are referring to people on the bench and/or baserunners as "outfilders," it's ridiculously confusing to figure out what's exactly going on the way they explained it. I think the author must not be very familiar with baseball.

When talking about outfielder, the article was talking about a player who was passed info from a trainer while they were on the bench. His position was just mentioned for information.

That's what got me - I wouldn't call Brock Holt an outfielder, I would call him a utility man. He plays both infield and outfield regularly and has made starts at every position besides pitcher and catcher.

Had to read half the article (that lead with "sign stealing is normal?") until it came to "electronics are forbidden".

Wouldn't have been too hard to insert that fact in the beginning, this is not a novel of suspense and mystery...

Right. The mention of the Apple Watch was a little disingenuous. The sign-stealing could have just as easily been performed with any number of smart watches or even just a cell phone.

Not really disingenuous when the point was he was looking at his "watch" and then calling plays. Looking at your phone every time would be an obvious tell.

Cell phones are banned in the dugout during a game in MLB

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/19/mlb-okays-apple-wa...

>While there is no official rule against electronic devices, then-MLB operations chief Sandy Alderson effectively laid down the law with a memo distributed in 2000:

>Please be reminded that the use of electronic equipment during a game is restricted. No club shall use electronic equipment, including walkie-talkies and cellular telephones, to communicate to or with any on-field personnel, including those, in the dugout, bullpen, field and-during the game-the clubhouse. Such equipment may not be used for the purpose of stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a club an advantage.

The Apple Watch, in particular, has been a Yankees bugaboo for awhile. There was a minor kerfuffle around Ned Yost wearing an Apple Watch in 2015 for the All Star game, building on Yankee complaints against Cleveland [0] Presumably Joe Torre had approved their return ...

[0] http://www.kctv5.com/story/29888526/kansas-city-company-repl...

SMS or iMessage is probably too slow, trainers were probably using physical cues (like if I touch my cap it's a slider) to relay messages.

Maybe it was: if I touch my Apple watch it's a slider, if I touch my Android watch it's a fast ball. The article seemed fairly confident they were using the Apple watch for something.

No... from the article "The commissioner’s office then confronted the Red Sox, who admitted that their trainers had received signals from video replay personnel and then relayed that information to some players — an operation that had been in place for at least several weeks."

The video replay personnel are sending messages, via Apple watch to the trainers.

Ah I see, I'm referring to the message transaction from trainer to player.

The most effective (and hard to spot) way IMO would be some sort of custom app that would do different wrist tap patterns. The players on the field wouldn't need to look at the watch at all.

I don’t think the camera room were relaying the signs, but rather what the signs meant. So that when a base runner was at 2nd they’d understand the signs they were seeing.

> the "electronic devices" part of the story is kind of peripheral.

It's actually critical. Sign stealing is not illegal, although frowned upon. However, FTA:

>Binoculars and electronic devices are prohibited to communicate about signs.

You probably misread, the camera was allegedly used by the Yankees. That was the complaint filed in response by the Red Sox.

I think they both used camera's. For the Red Sox to get signs without someone on second, they would need a camera. If they only got them when a man was on second, they wouldn't need an Apple watch (man on second can signal to batter themselves).

It's 2017. If on-field only electronic communication systems were legal in baseball, why couldn't pitchers and catchers have some sort of encrypted "Google Glass"-like head-mounted display and chording glove-button system?

If it were legal to do so, they would. But they'd be much more likely to just set up an audio system.

Given the Red Sox lost 3 out of 4 in that series, the Yankees should just given them a video feed next time.

i'd be surprised if this scheme was actually successful.

its very difficult to relay signs from the dugout to the batter in the few seconds between when the sign is given and when the pitch is thrown.

base runners on second base have always been able to see the signs between pitcher and catcher and relay the information to the batter. To counter this catchers use a complex combination of signs that change inning to inning, sometimes batter to batter.

Not sure. Batters already look back to the dugout sometimes in order to know if they want a bunt, squeeze play, hit and run, etc. That doesn't take more than 3-5 seconds. If they already coordinate some kind of sign between the trainer (in question) and a player, then it shouldn't take any more time.

The catcher throws the sign after the batter has taken his stance. No more looking at the dugout.

3 seconds is more than enough time for the pitcher to realize the batter isn't paying attention and throw a strike. Batters will look of course, but they step out of the batters box (or otherwise - I don't know all the rules) to indicate that a pitch cannot be thrown now.

Once the batter is ready to receive a pitch the catcher can signal a new pitch.

I don’t think the camera room were relaying the signs, but rather what the signs meant. So that when a base runner was at 2nd they’d understand the signs they were seeing.

Is this YC-able? Is there a pending RFS? Neural network/machine learning for major sports leagues and subsequent advantages? The market is huge, guys. Just think of all the cross-platform potential between all major sports.

In other news, here's some stats[0]:

Red Sox with a runner on second at Fenway: 273/373/417

Red Sox with a runner on second at Fenway, April thru July: 269/370/380 (94 for 352)

Red Sox with a runner on second at Fenway, August: 292/392/557 (31 for 106)

Red Sox with a runner on second at Fenway vs the Yankees, April/July: 056/103/056 (2 for 36)

Red Sox with a runner on second at Fenway vs the Yankees, August: 375/448/625 (9 for 24)

The August series is the series in question.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/6yaos8/boston_red...

Not disputing that the cheating was happening, but sample size for August is smaller, not to mention that hitters in general do better during than the summer months than April/May.

Good time to remind people about the previously false accusations from the Yankees on the Blue Jays sign stealing using a "Man in White" sitting the outfield with binoculars.

The interesting part here is that the Yankees alleged the "Man in White" was positioned right above the pitcher's head in the outfield seats so that the batter did not have to move his head in order to see the signal.

I can't imagine the logistics and speed required to relay a signal from the outfield -> dugout -> batter in a reasonable amount of time to be able to hit.

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/6837424/baseball-tor...

The Red Sox have admitted to the wrongdoing. This is not crying wolf. They are guilty.

It's always baffled me that the pitcher doesn't get to decide what pitch to throw.

The pitcher does get to choose what to throw. The catcher signs, then the pitcher either shakes his head "no" or winds up for the pitch. If "no", the catcher chooses another pitch until they agree.

Exactly - this way they both know what's going to happen. If the pitcher indicated somehow, the batter could see the sign.

The pitcher has final say, but a good battery (pitcher-catcher combo) is especially valuable because it lets the pitcher focus on throwing his pitches (and tracking runners as needed) instead of also involving him in the batter-pitcher mind games. Smart catchers are very under-rated by most casual fans, and can tell you why they called every single pitch in every single at-bat in a ball game (which will run well over a hundred pitches a game).

Don't think meat, just throw!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBUS3vQtDCA

The pitcher absolutely does get to decide what pitch to throw. If the pitcher does not like what the catcher puts down he just shakes his head and the catcher puts down a different sign. Repeat until the pitcher is happy.

The big reason why pitchers don't signal to the catcher is because pitcher and catcher must both know what pitch is being thrown beforehand and the batter can see the pitcher but not the catcher, so it's 1000% easier to keep the pitch secret when the catcher calls the pitches.

However, the catcher calling the pitches is beneficial because it allows the pitcher to better concentrate on the act of pitching.

Someone finally found a killer app for the Apple Watch!

How did they ensure the sign interpretation was correct? Seems like the information/disinformation problem in espionage.

You get immediate feedback when the pitch is thrown, which is prior to the next time you need to interpret the signs.

What is it with Boston sport teams and their penchant for stealing signs. First it was the Patriots with recording signs from their opponents defensive coaches and now it's the Red Sox stealing signs.

The Sox didn't have many choices - you can't deflate a baseball.

True, but you can cork a bat.

Being a fan of Boston sports must be tiring. Defending the indefensible year after year can't be fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com