[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/malliabu]

https://youtu.be/Xwr1cUOYdz8

[u/Ok_Branch6621]

It didn't almost rob Volpe of a HR - it wasn't going out. All it did was get the spectator kicked out. Nothing else changed.

[u/ThePlagueofCustom → u/Ok_Branch6621]

Yes, which is what he says in the video.

[u/seagrams7up → u/ThePlagueofCustom]

It's Reddit. Nobody watches videos or reads articles.

[u/LovingAbsurdist → u/ThePlagueofCustom]

The clickbait thumbnail seems to imply otherwise

[u/exjr_ → u/LovingAbsurdist]

Just so you know, this video has multiple titles and thumnails. The one OP got (and used to post here), and "Manager is confused about this playoff replay review, a breakdown" (the thumbnail for this one has the Rays' manager and an ump)

They are obviously testing to see which one would yield more clicks. It sucks, but this is what YouTube promotes. Which title sounds more controversial (and thus appealing) to a casual watcher even if it is a rhetorical? The one I got, or the one OP got?

YT are now even testing out a feature for A/B on actual videos. If we both click into a video, you may see a different video than I did. This video goes over it

[u/ThePlagueofCustom → u/LovingAbsurdist]

That’s the thing about reading and watching things, you can find out what they say instead of being immediately outraged. And, we know what happened, the series is over, the Yankees did not tie this game on an Anthony Volpe home run.

[u/jebuizy → u/ThePlagueofCustom]

I actually disagree. Clickbait titles are exactly meant to mislead you and absolutely should not be ignored and forgiven even if the actual content ends up accurate. It's bad to do that, and indicts the whole project. The title and thumbnail ARE outrageous on their own terms, and actually even worse because we know the author knows better.

We know what happened, we are in the baseball sub, no shit, but some rando on YouTube may not.

[u/scrodytheroadie → u/jebuizy]

Normally I’d agree, but I don’t think that’s the case here. The thumbnail presents a question and the video answers that question. Yes, it’s designed to drive traffic, but it also comes across as more of a thesis than a statement.

[u/ThePlagueofCustom → u/jebuizy]

I mean “Fan robs a home run?” is not the worst thing I’ve ever seen, a rhetorical question answered plainly and immediately after the event occurs in the video, as a matter of fact you could interpret it as a rhetorical question leaning toward the answer of “no, the umps got this right” which is in fact what happened — and again, we know what happened. I guess he could have titled it “Volpe - Fan Interference on called home run video.” If you’re watching this video, it’s a safe assumption that you have some awareness of what happened, i.e. there’s no controversy about this call and the consensus belief is it is correct. The title wasn’t “Umps rob Volpe of home run?” I don’t know if it’s a big deal if some rando comes across a 13 min baseball youtuber’s breakdown, I sincerely doubt non-baseball fans are watching that regardless.

“Roof robs Padres of home run?” Is that a clickbait title? Because that was an out, clearly and succinctly according to the ground rules and call. I wouldn’t say that would be a hypothetically misleading title.

I get what you’re saying, and while I could say, “this is the world we live in you might as well argue with the tide” - I think this is not particularly egregious.

As an aside, if you watch the video, the slow motion replay, it looks a little closer than I thought at first glance.

[u/scrodytheroadie → u/LovingAbsurdist]

Question marks, what do they mean???

[u/RedAlkaline → u/Ok_Branch6621]

I think it's referring to the fan "stealing" a home run, as in robbing it from the field of play

[u/AbraxasWasADragon → u/Ok_Branch6621]

He might coulda been on third