How Bad Are the Umps?

[User Name]

But the umpires don't have control over fines. They can, however, eject managers and players at their discretion.

[SinceYaz]

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.

 

Having a troubled pitching staff in no way is helped by poor umpiring. When pitch after pitch is called a ball when they are clearly strikes, how can that be helpful? It isn't the umpire's job to be helpful but they aren't supposed to create more problems. I don't really care if you think that is silly but anytime batters are given more opportunities to hit it creates problems. Porcello throws to the lower end of the strike zone as a natural part of his game. When those pitches are called balls it forces him to throw higher and much more into the batter's hot zones. If you cannot see that, I have nothing more to say. The might before Kelly had to throw into a strike zone that was so small that when I use the understanding of Teddy Ballgame's old strike zone all the advantage goes to the batter. You cannot go wide or inside. You cannot go high or low - or they are balls. Silly me.

 

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.

 

I beg to differ. They are not getting universally better and better. Especially the last two games. The TOOLS for measuring them are getting better but the application of those tools are not reaching everyone. I accept that I don't watch other games, I hardly have time to watch an entire game at any given moment. I had this weekend off, so I saw every pitch - except when I stepped away in disgust. I was hardly the only one making statements about the calls made.

 

 

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.

 

 

I am all in favor of the pitchers and umpires, recognizing the skill necessary for each. While I am always for the Red Sox, I am not asking for special favors. I am asking for the codified understanding of neutral and fair. When you give the batter extra strikes, which in baseball means balls. They favor the "opposing" hitter.

 

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.

 

If they cannot handle the "risk" of being behind the plate, find a job as a matre'd or a donut baker (I am not knocking either of them. I was a celebrated baker for half a decade.) If the job is too tough, especially in the first quarter of the long season, find another gig. They weren't drafted or conscripted.

 

 

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.

 

Who forgets this? But if one cannot take those built in obstacles, don't penalize the other participants because one isn't capable. Edited May 29, 2016 by SinceYaz

[SinceYaz]

But the umpires don't have control over fines. They can, however, eject managers and players at their discretion.

 

True. I wasn't thinking of only the immediate. Very true.

[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.

 

Have you ever seen Billy Martin v. umpire? Hehehe

[SinceYaz]

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.

 

I didn't map the pitches, Halifax. I suppose I should do that before I open my mo .... type.

[Michfan]

I hear all of you on bad ump's. They are at all levels. They think they are the game and they are going to call it their way and you can go eff off.

The players have a bat, use it. If you stand there and wait for your pitch to maximize your potential against one of those clowns, they'll get you and feel good about it.

[SinceYaz]

I hear all of you on bad ump's. They are at all levels. They think they are the game and they are going to call it their way and you can go eff off.

The players have a bat, use it. If you stand there and wait for your pitch to maximize your potential against one of those clowns, they'll get you and feel good about it.

 

In the end you are right. As YY said earlier, there are lots of variables. That is one reason the game is so hard. Batting cages are great fun but they aren't the whole game. I am amazed that pros can catch a pitcher tipping his pitches and tag the guy. When it rains, the hard thrower and the knuckleballer each have issues ... and on and on.

 

The ump takes away a person's assurance things will go the way they are supposed to if he isn't consistent. If they are, then all is balanced and somewhat fair....

 

But again, I rarely make this an issue. It is just that it was so bad. I have made issue before, even when we won. But not to this extent.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

Ever notice that there's rarely complaining about the umps after a win?

[SoxHop]

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.

 

Yea, I remember them talking about that too. It's like the width of baseball if I remember correctly. That is significant.

[harmony]

MLB umpires are no worse than they've been for more than a century.

It's the new technology -- pitch tracking and video play reviews -- that has given fans more information than they've ever had before.

Instead of moving on from questionable calls, fans now have new ammunition to stew in their frustration.

Automated strike zones may offer one answer but I doubt baseball will ever eliminate the element of human error.

And as one poster noted, fans rarely complain about umpiring following a win.

[Maxbialystock]

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).

 

Perhaps. Until it happens, I'm a helluva lot more sympathetic to them than to typical whining fans who think the world is unjust because their team just lost 3 in a row.

[Maxbialystock]

Who forgets this? But if one cannot take those built in obstacles, don't penalize the other participants because one isn't capable.

 

Your cry for justice is, I'm afraid, just plain old whining. We have lousy pitchers who can't or won't (some are afraid of it---see Buchholz) hit the strike zone. Just look our presumptive ace, Price, today, May 29. He has two walks and it's talking him 45 pitches to get through the first two innings. The homeplate umpire aren't penalizing our guys. They are doing it to themselves.

[User Name]

So you are complaining about whining by whining? WHINECEPTION!

[southpaw777]

Ive complained plenty about umpiring after a win and ive seen plenty others do it too.

Funny the only two posters who mention that are a Mariners fan and a MFY fan...

[mvp 78]

Perhaps. Until it happens, I'm a helluva lot more sympathetic to them than to typical whining fans who think the world is unjust because their team just lost 3 in a row.

 

I complain about umps whether the Sox are winning or not. It has nothing to do with a losing streak.

[Maxbialystock]

You guys haven't lived long enough. The umpires today are way better than in the past--even though I entirely agree they don't always get the balls and strikes right. I say again, getting balls and strikes right over 200 times per game ain't that easy to do. Only a few do it consistently well. While I too will occasionally get torqued about a specific call or two, especially when they go against the Sox, I know the other team also gets screwed now and then.

 

An entire thread about how the refs are screwing our guys to me is pointless. Our pitchers are subpar, pure and simple.

 

Anybody watch Uehara today? Did you notice, as I did, he threw a whole lot more breaking balls, especially his splitter, than he did the other night when he gave up that go ahead dinger? Buchholz, on the other hand, surprised me by looking pretty good. He didn't have command of all his pitches, but still threw well enough to get a clean inning despite the single to left.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Maxbialystock

[SinceYaz]

Ever notice that there's rarely complaining about the umps after a win?

 

 

Then you weren't paying attention .....

[User Name]

A clean inning is, by definition, an inning without baserunners. So Buch threw a scoreless inning, but it wasn't clean.

[SinceYaz]

Your cry for justice is, I'm afraid, just plain old whining. We have lousy pitchers who can't or won't (some are afraid of it---see Buchholz) hit the strike zone. Just look our presumptive ace, Price, today, May 29. He has two walks and it's talking him 45 pitches to get through the first two innings. The homeplate umpire aren't penalizing our guys. They are doing it to themselves.

 

Max,

 

I'm the guy that didn't whine through two seasons of last place.

 

I know bad pitching when I see it. It is the birthright of life long Red Sox fans to be plagued by poor pitching, with rare exceptions.

 

I don't know how you miss the issue that if the ump takes away the area that a pitcher normally needs to be successful it alters the plan and likely the success of that pitcher, that game.

 

I've been associated with the game since 1962. I'm still no expert. But I have played enough, watched enough, listened and learned enough to have a valid opinion. I'll borrow a line from a non-baseball player, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.' But then again, maybe Harry S. did play when he was younger. I mean, if the ump is no good, get out of the biz. There ARE lots of good ones. I draw your attention to the prefacing paragraphs that I don't feel this way most of the time. That would validate the good work of the umps most of the time.

[mvp 78]

I guess I just haven't lived long enough to fully form opinions of my own.

[User Name]

We need Max to guide us sheeple broski.

[SinceYaz]

I complain about umps whether the Sox are winning or not. It has nothing to do with a losing streak.

 

Spot on.

[FredLynn]

You guys haven't lived long enough. The umpires today are way better than in the past--even though I entirely agree they don't always get the balls and strikes right. I say again, getting balls and strikes right over 200 times per game ain't that easy to do. Only a few do it consistently well. While I too will occasionally get torqued about a specific call or two, especially when they go against the Sox, I know the other team also gets screwed now and then.

 

An entire thread about how the refs are screwing our guys to me is pointless. Our pitchers are subpar, pure and simple.

 

Anybody watch Uehara today? Did you notice, as I did, he threw a whole lot more breaking balls, especially his splitter, than he did the other night when he gave up that go ahead dinger? Buchholz, on the other hand, surprised me by looking pretty good. He didn't have command of all his pitches, but still threw well enough to get a clean inning despite the single to left.

 

First, they are called umpires in baseball. Second, they were horrible yesterday. I don't expect them to get every borderline pitch right, but the obvious ones: they should be able to handle that. Yesterday during the Jays' three run inning v Porcello, Porcello threw a pitch that was right down the middle that was called a ball. I can't remember who it was to, but I remember if it had been called properly it would have been strike three and the Jays likely would not have scored three runs. On another call, Pedroia's foot was ruled off the bag when replays clearly showed it was on the bag, and a force play out should have been called. The umpires played too large a role in the outcome of yesterday's game. I counted five extra outs they awarded the Blue Jays; there may have been more. They umpires were HORRIBLE yesterday. They are not always that bad, but they were yesterday.

[Navafan29]

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.

 

I don't think Gameday and ESPN's zones etc. are 100% accurate, due to the reasons I mentioned. Having sensors on the players' clothing is an interesting idea. Though the sensors would only be accurate if players tightened their pants in the same very specific way. And if their shirts had the sensors, the sensors would get ruffled around and shift from the correct position, unless we mandate tight spandex sensor uniforms for all teams. I'm not sure you could get the sensors to be in the exact right spot.

 

The technology does exist to make automatic ball & strike calls that are much more accurate than umpires, there's no doubt about it. But I want 100% perfection, or no sensors at all.

[User Name]

I don't think Gameday and ESPN's zones etc. are 100% accurate, due to the reasons I mentioned. Having sensors on the players' clothing is an interesting idea. Though the sensors would only be accurate if players tightened their pants in the same very specific way. And if their shirts had the sensors, the sensors would get ruffled around and shift from the correct position, unless we mandate tight spandex sensor uniforms for all teams. I'm not sure you could get the sensors to be in the exact right spot.

 

The technology does exist to make automatic ball & strike calls that are much more accurate than umpires, there's no doubt about it. But I want 100% perfection, or no sensors at all.

 

The technology had a asking for 100% accuracy, when said percentage is impossible, but whose application would immensely improve on the s*** show the umpires are throwing out there.

 

Now, let me clarify that I'm not advocating for eliminating home plate umpires or automating balls and strikes, but for the love of God, do a semblance of research before spouting such nonsense. The system to call balls and strikes automatically is there, and it's goddamn near perfect. Do some research.

[Navafan29]

The technology had a asking for 100% accuracy, when said percentage is impossible, but whose application would immensely improve on the s*** show the umpires are throwing out there.

 

Now, let me clarify that I'm not advocating for eliminating home plate umpires or automating balls and strikes, but for the love of God, do a semblance of research before spouting such nonsense. The system to call balls and strikes automatically is there, and it's goddamn near perfect. Do some research.

 

I can see that you have a different, more logical and aggressive personality on the internet than you probably do in real life. If this was real life, you'd probably act more like like "Hey, you're another baseball fan who shares my interest. I don't agree with you on this topic, but at least you aren't ignorant of baseball like most people are." I wish I could have a human conversation with people on the internet sometime. Topics on a casual Red Sox forum where there's no rules and people have inappropriate avatars should not be treated like an MLB press conference. The things we say here probably aren't going to determine whether or not there are automated strike zones. MLB is not some presidential election where you can convince people to vote a certain way.

 

The way that post credibility works is: doing research is optional, but if you do provide sources etc., then it makes one's post more credible. When I make posts that don't contain much research, I know that it doesn't have sources etc. to back it up, but I'm not trying to make my post on the same credibility level as a sports writer's. It's self evident that these posts of mine are not backed by much besides well thought out logic, and it doesn't have to be pointed out that I didn't do much research, because that's self-evident, and I'm not trying to be 10/10 credibility. However, even posts without much research can make interesting points that add color to a discussion. You know how the more people you have in a room, the more likely you are to come up with good ideas? Well, if we limited discussion to only professionally written papers, then less people would be motivated to post, and less ideas would be discovered, making discussions less complete.

 

I'll let you guys know if I find data on human calf-length-to-height ratios etc., and how much variation there is among humans, which would provide insight into my idea that Gameday, ESPN etc. automated strike zones are not completely accurate due to human body ratios being different, and MLB players' stances being different. Though most people don't have the "100% accurate or we shouldn't have sensors" opinion that I have, so I'm not sure there'd be much of a point in me providing this research.

[User Name]

I'm way worse in real life. In real life, I may have smacked you with a printout of pitch f/x's proprietary error margin calculation. You don't have to look for anything. The error matrix and the calculations are freely available online, and justifying not looking this up beforehand by focusing on me "being aggressive" instead of admitting that you have no idea of how this system works is classic immature behavior. Even worse, the whole "doing research is optional" point you're bringing brought a bloody tear to my eye. This internet forum is a lot like freedom of speech: You're welcome to spout nonsense, others are welcome to call you out on spouting nonsense. That's how forums work.

[User Name]

(To clarify: I am being hyperbolic in the above post, to avoid hurt feelings)

[Navafan29]

That's how forums work.

 

I don't agree with the mainstream opinion that anonymous, internet, and message board communication should have different etiquette than real life communication. I agree that your view of how interaction fundamentally should be is more mainstream than my view. I don't think that people are "welcome" (as you say) to share their opinions without much research if the mainstream internet culture reacts like it usually does. If I wanted to, I could have a pretty good shot at logically proving why your reaction to my post is unfair, by showing how you simplify my points to make them seem dumber, and then give an emotional reaction to it, to make for snappy presentation. But If I got into that, I would be hypocritically going against my own etiquette, because I don't believe that the degree of logical nitpicking I'd have to get into is healthy for people to spend time on.

[Spudboy]

First, they are called umpires in baseball. Second, they were horrible yesterday. I don't expect them to get every borderline pitch right, but the obvious ones: they should be able to handle that. Yesterday during the Jays' three run inning v Porcello, Porcello threw a pitch that was right down the middle that was called a ball. I can't remember who it was to, but I remember if it had been called properly it would have been strike three and the Jays likely would not have scored three runs. On another call, Pedroia's foot was ruled off the bag when replays clearly showed it was on the bag, and a force play out should have been called. The umpires played too large a role in the outcome of yesterday's game. I counted five extra outs they awarded the Blue Jays; there may have been more. They umpires were HORRIBLE yesterday. They are not always that bad, but they were yesterday.

 

That would be Joey Batts, I believe. Not sure though as I am old with a failing memory.