How Bad Are the Umps?

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

It sure would have been.

 

Objectively, one has to give the nod to Pedro. Ruth was a prodigious hitter. But my guess is that he never faced anyone close to having Pedro's stuff.

 

Impossible to compare eras.

 

One could make the argument that the Babe faced legal spitballs and whatnot.

 

I do remember reading an article a few years back about some hand/eye coordination tests, etc that they had done with Ruth back in the day. They ran similar tests with current ballplayers and the only one who came close was Pujols. Maybe the same could be said that Pedro never faced someone like Ruth.

 

As I said, impossible to compare eras, but it's fun to think about and debate.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

Id love to see how a group of pitcher the last 20-30 years fair against some of the greatest hitters of an earlier era.

Williams, Ruth, Dimaggio, etc. vs Pedro, R Johnson, Maddox, etc. in their hey day...

 

Agreed.

 

Do you remember the computerized Superfight between Ali and Marciano during the 70's?

[illinoisredsox]

THAT is all I was talking about in reality. We had an honor system, for the lack of a better phrase, as kids when we played sandlot. It was about the PLAYING, not the calling. Only real d***heads called bad pitches good and vice versa. If those guys wouldn't be fair, we had a way to deal with it .... they wouldn't get to play.

 

The umpire SHOULD NOT be calling "his own" strike zone. Many umps are known for their preference, how about just calling the zone we know is in the rule book?

 

Anyway, you put your finger on it. Let the game proceed as the way it is supposed to.

 

In the ideal, so true. However, what the players (hitters and pitchers) want is consistency. The same pitch called the same way from inning 1 to inning 9.

 

They also want consistency from game to game with an umpire. If an ump tends to call a pitch an inch below the knees a strike and does it all the time, the players don't complain very much. They know what to expect and can adapt. It's the guys who are never the same that most have issues with.

[Hitch]

I am amazed how normalized the idea of an umps interpretation of the strike zone being a legit thing ...

 

 

 

Same here. I keep mentioning, but I didn't get into this sport until 3 and a bit years ago. Right at the beginning - the 2nd or 3rd game I watched - I had the game on in the background and was cooking at the same time and Remy said " You're just not going to get that call with this umpire" I looked up at the TV and the tracker showed a pitch that was center right. A little close to the edge but a strike all day long. I had to re-wind back the footage because I couldn't believe what I had just heard/seen.

 

The fact the umpires work off their own interpretation of the strike zone, bewildered me then, and it still does now.

[Slasher9]

the average umpire is wrong on 14% of the pitches and even the best umpire is still missing more than 10% of the calls. Over the course of an entire game that is a LOT of missed calls.

 

According to Fangraphs, the average MLB game this season has 288 pitches. Of those pitches, batters swing 46.7% of the time meaning umpires are responsible for calling ball or strike approximately 154 times a game.

 

Considering 14% of balls and strikes calls are wrong, umpires are wrong 21-22 times per game on average. That's not good. Over the course of a full season, umpires are wrong more than 50,000 times. That's even worse.

 

Now consider that not all pitches are borderline balls and strikes. That means their error rate on close pitches is probably a lot higher than 14%.

 

In theory, Major League Baseball could easily use the K-Zone and PITCHf/x as a way to instantaneously judge pitches and then use the 3-dimensional view for television viewers as needed.

Umpires calling balls and strikes is a part of baseball. But until recently we didn't know just how bad they are at it. Despite recent improvement, umpires are still getting it wrong more than 50,000 times each season. That is too much, it is not going to get better, and there is a way to get the calls right.

 

The time is now to make the change.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-league-baseball-umpires-balls-and-strikes-2015-9

[southpaw777]

Agreed.

 

Do you remember the computerized Superfight between Ali and Marciano during the 70's?

 

I was born in 70. I dont recall that. Might have been too young to remember.

Ill go look it up. Thanks.

[southpaw777]

I never watched this. Thanks babe.

https://youtu.be/wDP41oh7nN0

 

I wish they did something like this for baseball

[sk7326]

Same here. I keep mentioning, but I didn't get into this sport until 3 and a bit years ago. Right at the beginning - the 2nd or 3rd game I watched - I had the game on in the background and was cooking at the same time and Remy said " You're just not going to get that call with this umpire" I looked up at the TV and the tracker showed a pitch that was center right. A little close to the edge but a strike all day long. I had to re-wind back the footage because I couldn't believe what I had just heard/seen.

 

The fact the umpires work off their own interpretation of the strike zone, bewildered me then, and it still does now.

 

Now - I am enormously sympathetic to the umps ... and I think others posting here might be too. A home plate ump has to basically react to a hitter swinging while also trying to interpret if a pitch entered the strike zone in any way. (a 3 dimensional question - not simply where it is caught) That they even get it right as often as they do is remarkable. But there is an extremely high error rate - and home plate umps have to use shortcuts which create more noise (like using catcher positioning.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

I never watched this. Thanks babe.

https://youtu.be/wDP41oh7nN0

 

I wish they did something like this for baseball

 

I never saw the alternate ending.

 

Would be cool if they could do that for baseball.

[mvp 78]

the average umpire is wrong on 14% of the pitches and even the best umpire is still missing more than 10% of the calls. Over the course of an entire game that is a LOT of missed calls.

 

According to Fangraphs, the average MLB game this season has 288 pitches. Of those pitches, batters swing 46.7% of the time meaning umpires are responsible for calling ball or strike approximately 154 times a game.

 

Considering 14% of balls and strikes calls are wrong, umpires are wrong 21-22 times per game on average. That's not good. Over the course of a full season, umpires are wrong more than 50,000 times. That's even worse.

 

Now consider that not all pitches are borderline balls and strikes. That means their error rate on close pitches is probably a lot higher than 14%.

 

This just made me so depressed...

[Maxbialystock]

I think this boils down to how much you think a game should be umpired by real people vs. cameras and computers. I like the human dimension even at the cost of bad calls. I also think umpires have improved for two reasons. First and foremost, they are now backed up by the instant replays on almost all calls that are not ball and strikes. Secondly, all umpires are now apparently graded on those occasions when they call balls and strikes and are told where they are wrong and how often. They can only improve under this regimen.

 

If MLB goes with cameras and computers for balls and strikes, it will be the only sport where this is done. In all other sports the calls are made by people backed up by cameras on close calls.

[Spudboy]

Id love to see how a group of pitcher the last 20-30 years fair against some of the greatest hitters of an earlier era.

Williams, Ruth, Dimaggio, etc. vs Pedro, R Johnson, Maddox, etc. in their hey day...

 

That would be wicked cool.

[SinceYaz]

Id love to see how a group of pitcher the last 20-30 years fair against some of the greatest hitters of an earlier era.

Williams, Ruth, Dimaggio, etc. vs Pedro, R Johnson, Maddox, etc. in their hey day...

 

There is a quasi-option. You can get Gehrig & Ruth's 1927 Strat-o-matic cards, which are awesome BTW, and play it against' Pedro's best season(s)....

 

Pedro, RJ and Maddox are all available. Not sure which of the others are... But my best friend had the Old Timer's ... mmm, were they seweeet. That was back in the 60s but the options have only grown since then.

[Spudboy]

Impossible to compare eras.

 

One could make the argument that the Babe faced legal spitballs and whatnot.

 

I do remember reading an article a few years back about some hand/eye coordination tests, etc that they had done with Ruth back in the day. They ran similar tests with current ballplayers and the only one who came close was Pujols. Maybe the same could be said that Pedro never faced someone like Ruth.

 

As I said, impossible to compare eras, but it's fun to think about and debate.

 

I see your points and they are valid. I usually don't try to compare eras. Although right or wrong, I usually assume that today's players are better.

 

Good no-troll post!

[Spudboy]

Same here. I keep mentioning, but I didn't get into this sport until 3 and a bit years ago. Right at the beginning - the 2nd or 3rd game I watched - I had the game on in the background and was cooking at the same time and Remy said " You're just not going to get that call with this umpire" I looked up at the TV and the tracker showed a pitch that was center right. A little close to the edge but a strike all day long. I had to re-wind back the footage because I couldn't believe what I had just heard/seen.

 

The fact the umpires work off their own interpretation of the strike zone, bewildered me then, and it still does now.

 

There is a bunch to learn about the game. Even at my age I get a thrill out of learning new things about baseball.

 

Where are you located? England? Did you join here when Henry bought into football?

[sk7326]

I think this boils down to how much you think a game should be umpired by real people vs. cameras and computers. I like the human dimension even at the cost of bad calls. I also think umpires have improved for two reasons. First and foremost, they are now backed up by the instant replays on almost all calls that are not ball and strikes. Secondly, all umpires are now apparently graded on those occasions when they call balls and strikes and are told where they are wrong and how often. They can only improve under this regimen.

 

If MLB goes with cameras and computers for balls and strikes, it will be the only sport where this is done. In all other sports the calls are made by people backed up by cameras on close calls.

 

I disagree. For me the calculation is much simpler.

 

1. Is the technology there in a relatively mature form? Yes.

2. Is the miss rate of a home plate umpire on called pitches unacceptable? Yes.

3. Do teams create strategies to exploit #2? Yes

4. Is there a known definition for the strike zone? Yes

 

Other sports create logistical nightmares. You can't automatically track holding - the technology is not there and the data would be extremely messy. It's why the NFL largely only calls particularly problematic examples. The NBA can't automate every legal/illegal pick call. (which they tend to ignore anyway) Hockey with its various flavours of contact is self evident. The ball-strike call is very simple to automate comparatively.

 

Other sports have judgment calls, and some crews are more whistle happy than other - but the reffing jobs in other sports HAVE to be done manually because the technology is not there.

[CliffKlowers]

The best use of technology in any sport that I watch is in tennis. No more John McEnroe types shouting to the judge " Are you serious?" Of course that technology only looks at chalk lines and baseball is much more complicated.

[Maxbialystock]

I disagree. For me the calculation is much simpler.

 

1. Is the technology there in a relatively mature form? Yes.

2. Is the miss rate of a home plate umpire on called pitches unacceptable? Yes.

3. Do teams create strategies to exploit #2? Yes

4. Is there a known definition for the strike zone? Yes

 

Other sports create logistical nightmares. You can't automatically track holding - the technology is not there and the data would be extremely messy. It's why the NFL largely only calls particularly problematic examples. The NBA can't automate every legal/illegal pick call. (which they tend to ignore anyway) Hockey with its various flavours of contact is self evident. The ball-strike call is very simple to automate comparatively.

 

Other sports have judgment calls, and some crews are more whistle happy than other - but the reffing jobs in other sports HAVE to be done manually because the technology is not there.

 

Agree on 1, but question 2 because I'm not so sure what acceptable is. If it is unacceptable, why don't I read stories about its unacceptability from those many, many sportswriters and the commentators on radio and TV. What strategy to exploit 3? As for 4, no question the strike zone is well defined in the rule book even though matching the rule book to reality is complicated by the human dimension, the size and posture of the batter.

 

I would further remind you that this thread began because the OP was convinced our pitchers--not Toronto's--were screwed by the umps in Toronto. I continue to believe that the real problem is with our pitchers and not the umpires.

 

But most of all, I think automated calls on balls and strikes will change the character of the game of baseball and not for the better. The human dimension is everything in sports, and umpires and referees are very much a part of that human dimension.

[sk7326]

Agree on 1, but question 2 because I'm not so sure what acceptable is. If it is unacceptable, why don't I read stories about its unacceptability from those many, many sportswriters and the commentators on radio and TV. What strategy to exploit 3? As for 4, no question the strike zone is well defined in the rule book even though matching the rule book to reality is complicated by the human dimension, the size and posture of the batter.

 

I would further remind you that this thread began because the OP was convinced our pitchers--not Toronto's--were screwed by the umps in Toronto. I continue to believe that the real problem is with our pitchers and not the umpires.

 

But most of all, I think automated calls on balls and strikes will change the character of the game of baseball and not for the better. The human dimension is everything in sports, and umpires and referees are very much a part of that human dimension.

 

There is data that places the floor at 1 out of 7 ... and given the huge impact that can have on ABs (an expected batting avg from a 1-1 count is .282, from 0-2, it's .094), that is a lot of fundamentally altered at-bats. Now I'd like zero errors - duh - but you'd like to at least get a couple of sigmas out of a decent process.

 

The entire discipline of pitch framing is built on inducing positive mistakes and eliminating negative ones - but it is built on umpires inability to do this job. Now I acknowledge your appeal to authority here (how come nobody is complaining?), but that is because the umpires behaviors and corner cutting in this area is normalized. People are sympathetic (like I am) - and know it is an impossible job, so the complaints are limited. However, that it is an impossible - and truly important - job that the umpires should not have to do it. There are plenty of difficult calls that they get right all the time.

 

This not a call to eliminate umpires - which your post seems to imply - this is a call to make their job easier and to improve the job function. It would also help to reduce the arguments - and thus reduce the number of incidents of umpires going after players. (which is unconscionable, and another practice that is tolerated too easily)

[sk7326]

The best use of technology in any sport that I watch is in tennis. No more John McEnroe types shouting to the judge " Are you serious?" Of course that technology only looks at chalk lines and baseball is much more complicated.

 

Yes ... but the strike zone is one of the less complicated places where this sort of thing can work

[FredLynn]

Yes ... but the strike zone is one of the less complicated places where this sort of thing can work

 

It would also speed up the game somewhat. No more arguing balls and strikes or sulking by stepping out of the box.

[Bellhorn04]

A sports radio guy in Toronto named Bob McCown, who is one of the smarter sports personalities, has been campaigning for automated balls and strikes for years. He asks why they couldn't at least test it out in minor league games or something like that.

[mvp 78]

It would also speed up the game somewhat. No more arguing balls and strikes or sulking by stepping out of the box.

 

Bring Carl Everett out of retirement just to headbut a robot ump!!!

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe there would still be a real guy behind the plate with a handheld device or a watch receiving the data. He could even do all the umpiring signals, punch guys out, the works.

[TheBabeStrikesBack]

I see your points and they are valid. I usually don't try to compare eras. Although right or wrong, I usually assume that today's players are better.

 

Good no-troll post!

 

But if a superior athlete from yesteryear, ala a Ruth or a Mays, had the advantage of today's nutrition/training, do you think they would still not have excelled against today's players?

 

I mean, Ruth ate hotdogs, popcorn and drank beer between innings (ok, maybe a little folklore) but you get my point.

 

I think the guys that excelled against their contemporaries would have done so in any era.

 

But that's just my opinion.

[Spudboy]

But if a superior athlete from yesteryear, ala a Ruth or a Mays, had the advantage of today's nutrition/training, do you think they would still not have excelled against today's players?

 

I mean, Ruth ate hotdogs, popcorn and drank beer between innings (ok, maybe a little folklore) but you get my point.

 

I think the guys that excelled against their contemporaries would have done so in any era.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

You could be right. I never thought about the old guys using contemporary training techniques and nutrition.

 

You could be wrong as well.

 

As I said, I don't dig on comparing eras.

[SinceYaz]

You could be right. I never thought about the old guys using contemporary training techniques and nutrition.

 

You could be wrong as well.

 

As I said, I don't dig on comparing eras.

 

I remember Harmon Killebrew talking about this "training" issue. Big guys like him often were "farm strong" or some such phrase

[Thunder]

A sports radio guy in Toronto named Bob McCown, who is one of the smarter sports personalities, has been campaigning for automated balls and strikes for years. He asks why they couldn't at least test it out in minor league games or something like that.

 

If that happens, I will never watch baseball again.

[sk7326]

If that happens, I will never watch baseball again.

 

Wait ... you don't want umps to have access to same stuff you and I do when following a game online?

[Slasher9]

http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4336461/20130605_hcs_sy4_008.0.jpg