Hacker News Reader

Comment by harryh | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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...

> 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.

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.

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).

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com