How Bad Are the Umps?

[SinceYaz]

I'm normally fairly level-headed as far as matters beyond my control. But I am incensed at the terrible home plate umpiring, the last two games in Toronto being the worst in memory. It has been bad but these games were horrible.

 

If both sides are getting the same bad calls, some might think that makes it even. I beg to differ. If you have pitchers that are ground ball reliant, you cannot expect them to throw higher and higher in the strike zone and still play their game. Exit efficiency, enter the advantage for the other team.

 

Last night the ump was really unusual. Most of the time they eliminate one part of the zone, say the bottom. Last night they took away all the edges. I don't mean the ones on the black, I mean a full two balls deep all the way around. No edges, only a postage stamp zone.... ridiculous.

 

Today, the calls were so bad that even the Red Sox pitching coach was going nuts. It wasn't even consistent, except for BAD. Balls were called high and low, inside and out ...Porcello had the ball low but in the strike zone. No sir, all balls. Kimbrell at the end had to throw down the pipe line ... Taz is always bad in Toronto but make him pitch high and "whoop, there it is!"

 

There has to be something done. I know these clowns are supposed to be held accountable somehow but this is nuts. We have little league umps that do better. And most do it for free (at least in PA, in NY one can get paid.).

 

This thread may not last long, and I did look for a place to put it without starting another spurious thread. But I am crazy mad about this stuff.

 

I know, the crazy is on me. But dadgummit, this is ridiculous!

 

Today's loss is on the umps. Last night, pretty close to the same thing ... Donaldson was a monster but he got batters practice pitching for goodness sake.

 

To answer my own question, the umps are REALLY, REALLY bad. Embarrassingly bad.

Edited May 28, 2016 by SinceYaz
corrected grammar

[Hitch]

This is only my 4th year of following the sport, but the level of umpiring seems to have dipped quite dramatically this year. It's been awful. for all teams.

[moonslav59]

I'm the same. I hardly ever argue about umpiring, but this is absurd.

 

It's time for automated balls and strike calls.

 

[FredLynn]

I counted five extra outs the umpires gave the Blue Jays; there may have been more. It was without a doubt one of the worst officiated games in any sport that I have ever seen.

[SinceYaz]

I'm the same. I hardly ever argue about umpiring, but this is absurd.

 

It's time for automated balls and strike calls.

 

 

I actually like the strike zone gizmo that they use on TOs games, it shows the front and the side of the zone. One gets both where the ball ends up and the flight through the zone. If a ball tumbles through the zone, it shows where it enters and leaves. It's so much better than the frontal appearance on MLB or any other team production that I have seen. I admit, that is limited, but it seems to cover all the angles.

[SinceYaz]

I counted five extra outs the umpires gave the Blue Jays; there may have been more. It was without a doubt one of the worst officiated games in any sport that I have ever seen.

 

I think you are easily being conservative. I saw that many and had to step away for a bit because I was so mad. I can't imagine that the ump was all of a sudden consistently good the inning plus I was away... he was no better when I came back. Not counting the early innings, he gave Donaldson, Martin, and Saunders each at least one if not two more pitches - balls that were clearly strikes. Two should have been third strikes.

 

Last night JKelly was madly mumbling to himself as he walked off the mound because clear strikes were called balls. Then damage was done.

 

I protest both of these games.

 

Not that it matters. My wife smiles wanly and walks off. My cats are fully attentive, but that's cuz they think a snack is in the offing.

 

And MLB could give a rat's ass ... which might be what my cats are waiting for.

 

HEY BASEBALL BIG WIGS, DO SOMETHING, PLEASE!

[Jasonbay44]

I'm usually not one to blame the umps/refs for a loss, and I didn't even see the game today, but umpires in general I feel like have been absolutely awful this year in general. I'm not sure how the use of instant replay has made them worse somehow, but that's what it feels like.

[Navafan29]

Okay, here's something that I always wonder about, that nobody ever takes into consideration when talking about automated strike zones: According to the rule book, the top and bottom of the strike zone are set to be at the height of the correct parts of the body (the knees for the bottom, and whatever the technical part for the top is that keeps changing every year). However, the height of these body parts depends on how much the batter is crouching down. The rulebook says that the top and bottom of the zone are defined according to the batter's stance as they prepare to take the pitch. Granted, I think umpires picture the batter in a default stance and don't adjust the zone for this rule all the time... But if there were automated strike zones, we couldn't adjust the top and bottom of the zone for the batter's stance, and wouldn't this unfairly penalize guys who crouch down low, according to what the rule is supposed to be? Also, humans generally have very similar bone and limb length ratios, but not everyone's knees & torso are going to be the exact same shape and as high up on their height as everyone else's knees & torso. An automated strike zone would have to use a formula to determine where the top and bottom of one's strike zone is, based on their height and the "expected percentage of the height of the default batting stance" that the top and bottom are at. People are trying to be more correct with the automated strike zone, but it would make the strike zone technically inaccurate by a slight amount for most players, especially players with a batting stance that isn't exactly the default stance, and players who don't have perfect human limb ratios. This would bug the heck out of me. If we're going to get rid of most in-game side drama and all entertaining managerial arguments by having an automated strike zone, then we better get the automated zone 100.0% correct, or it won't be worth what it takes away from the game. Edited May 29, 2016 by Navafan29

[yankonyankee]

Like the weather, umps can be bad. Even when the weather is good, it isn't 'cooperating.' Why do people say this like they have an entitled view of reality, like the world is there to serve them. Umps aren't cooperating either, even when their zone is benefiting your guy. And if they are cooperating, he's probably betting on the game, grounds for firing. It also represents an investment opportunity for the casual fan, especially if you're a down on your luck type who happens to have an uncle who is an mlb ump.

 

Umps have a lot of power. They're like gods. A good person to pray to before a game. maybe send some gifts. If both teams did this, it would increase the rivalry. We'd see more fracases like that between TO and Texas. Who wasn't entertained by that?

 

I don't want to see automated zones, suck the life right out of the game. Who wants to see a manager argue balls and strikes with a computer? You'd always lose. Blow it up, it wouldn't change the next ball or strike call. But a human is corruptible, open to influence. So why don't umps get suspended or fined for a bad game? Short of settling the differences on the field in a drop down WWE steel cage, (people aren't ready for that yet, least of all the umps, who are blind and obese), what's stopping the commish from handing down suspensions on a weekly basis after a thorough review of the last week's shift? Could even post a state of the league address on youtube or mlb.com.

 

Another problem right now is managers don't have enough power. managers need a union - they get suspended all of the time (Gibbons had a worse last week than the drug dealing truant at the local high school), and fans blame them for almost every loss.

 

most losses are a result of a multitude of causes. There are a few times when it's glaringly obvious it's one man's fault. Even the sun had a part to play in the ball bouncing off Canseco's head resulting in a homer. Also the pitch selection, the pitch, and the hitter obligingly hitting the ball. But most losses can be summed up as a result of a lot of things '$%#@ing up.' Plenty of blame to go around. No need to be stingy.

 

But if they ever settled matters on the field, Farrell would garner a lot of sympathy as a a cancer survivor, besides which, umps would be very reluctant to beat on a man in remission - there would be an uproar. It all would work in Farrell's favor, I imagine. That being said, I like what Girardi brings to the table. He looks like he could still catch a game. Umps - watch out.

[User Name]

Okay, here's something that I always wonder about, that nobody ever takes into consideration when talking about automated strike zones: According to the rule book, the top and bottom of the strike zone are set to be at the height of the correct parts of the body (the knees for the bottom, and whatever the technical part for the top is that keeps changing every year). However, the height of these body parts depends on how much the batter is crouching down. The rulebook says that the top and bottom of the zone are defined according to the batter's stance as they prepare to take the pitch. Granted, I think umpires picture the batter in a default stance and don't adjust the zone for this rule all the time... But if there were automated strike zones, we couldn't adjust the top and bottom of the zone for the batter's stance, and wouldn't this unfairly penalize guys who crouch down low, according to what the rule is supposed to be? Also, humans generally have very similar bone and limb length ratios, but not everyone's knees & torso are going to be the exact same shape and as high up on their height as everyone else's knees & torso. An automated strike zone would have to use a formula to determine where the top and bottom of one's strike zone is, based on their height and the "expected percentage of the height of the default batting stance" that the top and bottom are at. People are trying to be more correct with the automated strike zone, but it would make the strike zone technically inaccurate by a slight amount for most players, especially players with a batting stance that isn't exactly the default stance, and players who don't have perfect human limb ratios. This would bug the heck out of me. If we're going to get rid of most in-game side drama and all entertaining managerial arguments by having an automated strike zone, then we better get the automated zone 100.0% correct, or it won't be worth what it takes away from the game.

 

Of course you could. There is technology that handles that measurement for gameday, and it's been available for years. What are you even talking about?

[mvp 78]

Robot umps now.

[SinceYaz]

I'm usually not one to blame the umps/refs for a loss, and I didn't even see the game today, but umpires in general I feel like have been absolutely awful this year in general. I'm not sure how the use of instant replay has made them worse somehow, but that's what it feels like.

 

JBay,

 

I have never been willing to blame the umps as a rule. I can recall different incidents in my own life that cost a game or whatever. I am also for the human element. But the product isn't up to snuff right now.

 

I think you know me enough that I don't really complain about much except those people, especially Red Sox fans that always complain about things Red Sox. But this issue, which seemed bad last season, is out of control. It may be the five weeks I had to stay with my leg up and had opportunity to watch games almost every day. If that's the case, this has been out of control for a long time.

 

I repeat things too often, so I won't restate my opinion of the last two games. I am also sure that it happens to other teams. I do care about that, as it deals with the game itself. I do not care nearly as much that it happens TO them as it does to the Red Sox.

[SinceYaz]

Okay, here's something that I always wonder about, that nobody ever takes into consideration when talking about automated strike zones: According to the rule book, the top and bottom of the strike zone are set to be at the height of the correct parts of the body (the knees for the bottom, and whatever the technical part for the top is that keeps changing every year). However, the height of these body parts depends on how much the batter is crouching down. The rulebook says that the top and bottom of the zone are defined according to the batter's stance as they prepare to take the pitch. Granted, I think umpires picture the batter in a default stance and don't adjust the zone for this rule all the time... But if there were automated strike zones, we couldn't adjust the top and bottom of the zone for the batter's stance, and wouldn't this unfairly penalize guys who crouch down low, according to what the rule is supposed to be? Also, humans generally have very similar bone and limb length ratios, but not everyone's knees & torso are going to be the exact same shape and as high up on their height as everyone else's knees & torso. An automated strike zone would have to use a formula to determine where the top and bottom of one's strike zone is, based on their height and the "expected percentage of the height of the default batting stance" that the top and bottom are at. People are trying to be more correct with the automated strike zone, but it would make the strike zone technically inaccurate by a slight amount for most players, especially players with a batting stance that isn't exactly the default stance, and players who don't have perfect human limb ratios. This would bug the heck out of me. If we're going to get rid of most in-game side drama and all entertaining managerial arguments by having an automated strike zone, then we better get the automated zone 100.0% correct, or it won't be worth what it takes away from the game.

 

I am confident that there would be ways to place the individual players measurements into the program. We know how to thread a needle 200 million miles away from our gravitational pull, all the while including the new gravitational influences of the planets, large space objects, and land on the spot we want on Mars. I think the logistics/IT/whatever is easily applied to human bodies.

 

I am also confident we will have to have human back up for all the glitches that will arise as things always do. So the human element will still be there.

[SinceYaz]

Like the weather, umps can be bad. Even when the weather is good, it isn't 'cooperating.' Why do people say this like they have an entitled view of reality, like the world is there to serve them. Umps aren't cooperating either, even when their zone is benefiting your guy. And if they are cooperating, he's probably betting on the game, grounds for firing. It also represents an investment opportunity for the casual fan, especially if you're a down on your luck type who happens to have an uncle who is an mlb ump.

 

Umps have a lot of power. They're like gods. A good person to pray to before a game. maybe send some gifts. If both teams did this, it would increase the rivalry. We'd see more fracases like that between TO and Texas. Who wasn't entertained by that?

 

I don't want to see automated zones, suck the life right out of the game. Who wants to see a manager argue balls and strikes with a computer? You'd always lose. Blow it up, it wouldn't change the next ball or strike call. But a human is corruptible, open to influence. So why don't umps get suspended or fined for a bad game? Short of settling the differences on the field in a drop down WWE steel cage, (people aren't ready for that yet, least of all the umps, who are blind and obese), what's stopping the commish from handing down suspensions on a weekly basis after a thorough review of the last week's shift? Could even post a state of the league address on youtube or mlb.com.

 

Another problem right now is managers don't have enough power. managers need a union - they get suspended all of the time (Gibbons had a worse last week than the drug dealing truant at the local high school), and fans blame them for almost every loss.

 

most losses are a result of a multitude of causes. There are a few times when it's glaringly obvious it's one man's fault. Even the sun had a part to play in the ball bouncing off Canseco's head resulting in a homer. Also the pitch selection, the pitch, and the hitter obligingly hitting the ball. But most losses can be summed up as a result of a lot of things '$%#@ing up.' Plenty of blame to go around. No need to be stingy.

 

But if they ever settled matters on the field, Farrell would garner a lot of sympathy as a a cancer survivor, besides which, umps would be very reluctant to beat on a man in remission - there would be an uproar. It all would work in Farrell's favor, I imagine. That being said, I like what Girardi brings to the table. He looks like he could still catch a game. Umps - watch out.

 

 

Interesting read:

 

1) Of course there are many different influences on the game. But the influence of an umpire is pitch to pitch. Most of the time, over the last 60 years, I rarely make an issue of the ump. I may not like a pitch or two, but the bad call used to be a rarity. It is much more likely today that it is a commonality. Not acceptable.

 

2) If a ref or ump is on the take, we are in another sphere of conversation.

 

3) If you notice most of the other threads are about all those other reasons we might win or lose. I have a great faith that there are plenty of voices saying ... heck I read plenty already that this was on Farrell because of his way of using the pen. I agree to a point, NEVER USE TAZ in the Roger's Center. I said that in the game thread. This is about the thing that the umps do ... or don't.

[TedWilliams101]

I never want to see an automate strike zone, but I agree the umps have been abysmal this year and something needs to be done. Perhaps the league should come down tougher on the umps, perhaps they could add a replay ump to each game that has an ear in the homeplate ump and can instantly relay whether a pitch was a ball or strike if the homeplate ump isn't quite sure/etc. Something needs to be done. As much as I like the history of umps with their 'own' strikezone and taking 'law' into their own hands and "getting" hitters, as Remy has even discussed, it's getting ridiculous in the game today. The umps are there to call the correct, fair game. Not to take matters in their own hands or put their own spin on the game.

[SoxHop]

Of course you could. There is technology that handles that measurement for gameday, and it's been available for years. What are you even talking about?

 

I forget where I heard this but it is true, the ups are all measure by their consistency against a true strike zone called by computers. Their accuracy is known and they are graded and rated and promoted or demoted on it. Their ability is measured in percentage which is always in the high %90 percent or they are gone.

 

Which all strikes me odd because I think the majority of them suck......

[User Name]

I am confident that there would be ways to place the individual players measurements into the program. We know how to thread a needle 200 million miles away from our gravitational pull, all the while including the new gravitational influences of the planets, large space objects, and land on the spot we want on Mars. I think the logistics/IT/whatever is easily applied to human bodies.

 

I am also confident we will have to have human back up for all the glitches that will arise as things always do. So the human element will still be there.

 

It's not that "there would be ways". There already are ways, and MLB is using them right now with their Gameday and umpire grading systems.

[User Name]

I forget where I heard this but it is true, the ups are all measure by their consistency against a true strike zone called by computers. Their accuracy is known and they are graded and rated and promoted or demoted on it. Their ability is measured in percentage which is always in the high %90 percent or they are gone.

 

Which all strikes me odd because I think the majority of them suck......

 

That's because theyre given a gray area "leeway" in what's called a "borderline strike". Check out a gameday game one of these days, and you'll see this gray area in all its majesty. It's pretty significant.

[TedWilliams101]

That's because theyre given a gray area "leeway" in what's called a "borderline strike". Check out a gameday game one of these days, and you'll see this gray area in all its majesty. It's pretty significant.

 

It's a big part of the game that I don't want to see disappear. It's like ball spots in the NFL. There's always going to be a human element and this "grey" area. Sometimes you benefit, sometimes you don't. But just like the a 3rd and 1 in the NFL, a good team doesn't leave it to chance. You get 2 yards on a 3rd and 1 and there's no worries about getting a "bad spot". You swing at anything close with 2 strikes likewise. Sure, it can change an at-bat here earlier in the count, but it's a 27 out game, with 162 games in a season, and 5 and 7 game playoff series. 1 s***** at-bat or game shouldn't sink a team. Officiating can ruin a game, but is never an excuse for ruining a season or series. Automation is not the answer.

[Dojji]

Of course you could. There is technology that handles that measurement for gameday, and it's been available for years. What are you even talking about?

 

And even if you couldn't... putting electronic markers on a player's uniform, one at the letters, one at the knees, is something that could have done 40 years ago. With modern motion capture that probably isn't even necessary.

[Maxbialystock]

The OP is silliness personified. The simple fact is that we have a lousy pitching staff. I think it is possible that in these last two games in Toronto when we lost late and despite scoring first 5 runs and the 9 that the Jays are reading our signs. However, I also think that Uehara threw too many "fast" balls (that top out at 86-88 mph) and not enough splitters. Kimbrel has blazing speed but can also be predictable--but the case for the Jays reading our signs is stronger there.

 

The reality--and the reason why I call the OP silly--is that umpiring keeps getting better and better thanks to the multiple camera replays and the semi-official use of automated strike zones. I say semi-official because the umps still make the calls on balls and strikes and only get feedback later, which is a whole helluva lot better than before those automated strike zones.

 

A further thought is that I think the hitting lobby continues to be far more powerful than the pitching lobby. You can see this in every game when almost every batter is more than willing to complain about a call, but rare is the pitcher or catcher who will do so.

 

To be honest, my sympathies tend to be in favor of pitchers and umpires. Pitchers because they have to throw that ball very hard--in the case of starters, 100 times or more a game--with a variety of speeds and spins while still hitting an incredibly small target 66 feet away. They throw so hard they put their arms and shoulders at risk, but they are still nothing if they don't have control.

 

The home plate umpires, on the other hand, put themselves at risk by just standing behind the catcher. On top of that, they have to make literally hundreds of calls, every one of which is being tracked by special cameras and computers. Did anyone every wonder (as I have) why MLB doesn't simply pick the best home plate umpires, pay them more, and keep them behind the plate? My guess it's because home plate is just too tough a job night after night for the incredibly long MLB season. So the job rotates among the four-man umpire squad.

 

And don't forget that the umpire's view is inevitably and slightly blocked by the catcher, usually on low pitches and outside pitches. The other issue is that a breaking ball might or might not have passed thru the plane of the strike zone even though it began and ended outside it.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[yankonyankee]

Interesting read:

 

1) Of course there are many different influences on the game. But the influence of an umpire is pitch to pitch. Most of the time, over the last 60 years, I rarely make an issue of the ump. I may not like a pitch or two, but the bad call used to be a rarity. It is much more likely today that it is a commonality. Not acceptable.

 

2) If a ref or ump is on the take, we are in another sphere of conversation.

 

3) If you notice most of the other threads are about all those other reasons we might win or lose. I have a great faith that there are plenty of voices saying ... heck I read plenty already that this was on Farrell because of his way of using the pen. I agree to a point, NEVER USE TAZ in the Roger's Center. I said that in the game thread. This is about the thing that the umps do ... or don't.

 

my aim was to entertain. You make many sensible points. Thanks for the kind words. Never use Taz in the Roger's Centre would make a great T-shirt.

[Slasher9]

I'm still not sure wHere I stand on robot umps but I will say this: the MLB umpires are doing their job like they want robot umps.....

[mvp 78]

Max, your whole post points to the reasoning that the homeplate ump should be a robot (concussion risk, blocked views, k zone already monitored by computers).

[Bellhorn04]

What were the most egregious missed strike calls yesterday? I've been going through some Jays AB's on GameDay and I haven't seen anything really bad yet.

[jad]

How does not having the dumb-ass manager having the chance to argue balls-and-strikes with the ump take away anything from the game. The staged and theatrical managerial tirades face-to-face with the ump are embarrassing. It's not allowed in any other sport. The problem with baseball is that there is no way to penalize this behavior except with an ejection.

[User Name]

Max, your whole post points to the reasoning that the homeplate ump should be a robot (concussion risk, blocked views, k zone already monitored by computers).

 

Oy vey.

[SinceYaz]

It's not that "there would be ways". There already are ways, and MLB is using them right now with their Gameday and umpire grading systems.

 

I know that MLB is using a form of it already. I often follow/use it. That is part of the way that I know it's not just my eyesight involved. I was speaking in a parabolic fashion to the other poster.

[SinceYaz]

my aim was to entertain. You make many sensible points. Thanks for the kind words. Never use Taz in the Roger's Centre would make a great T-shirt.

 

You succeeded. I almost didn't respond because it was tongue in cheek enough to stand on its own. I thought perhaps you desired a response so I .... ok , I'll shut up now.

[SinceYaz]

How does not having the dumb-ass manager having the chance to argue balls-and-strikes with the ump take away anything from the game. The staged and theatrical managerial tirades face-to-face with the ump are embarrassing. It's not allowed in any other sport. The problem with baseball is that there is no way to penalize this behavior except with an ejection.[/QUOTE]

 

There are fines.