How Bad Are the Umps?

[mvp 78]

fair enough.

 

which #2 type starter are you looking to trade him for?

you would prefer brock holt to play 2b for the remainder of this season?

 

Holt would be a fine replacement for now. They would need to also find a corner OF to platoon with Young, but that's much easier than finding a #2.

 

You'd want to find a guy like Pomeranz. If the Pads offered Pomeranz, Jon Jay and Brad Hand, I'd have to think about it.

[mvp 78]

As sk7326 has stated so well on this thread, they can't get better because it's an impossible task to call balls and strikes accurately.

 

It IS an impossible task. The umps are in a tough situation. To ease their problems, let's allow the home plate ump to call hit batters, check swings and plays at the plate. A robot can call the balls and strikes.

[Emp9]

I keep reading several websites besides Cot's (including MLBTR, whose reports conflict) saying it's a limited no-trade that's going to get run over by 10-5 rights later in the year.

 

I always figured it to be true because of the last place finishes, the need for SP-ing, Mookie being jettisoned to the OF even though he was a 2B. So they had a replacement. At one point it made some sense to consider a trade. Not anymore obviously. Pedroia's deal was not a typical deal to begin with, given his age, a bit banged-up, and it was around the same time as Cano's rumored FA asking price (if I remember correctly). My guess is that some writers overlooked it and & assumed it was more of the usual, typical extension. I am also to guess that we're the handful of ppl on the planet to give a s*** about such things. Lol

[S5Dewey]

As sk7326 has stated so well on this thread, they can't get better because it's an impossible task to call balls and strikes accurately.

 

I'm not looking for perfection here. As you pointed out, perfection can't be achieved. All I'm saying is to identify the worst ones, make them realize they're the worst ones, and give them some incentive to improve. If they choose not to improve - or they're unable to improve - do what any business should do. Give them a management job!

[mvp 78]

I'd be happy to let them manage the robot ump.

[S5Dewey]

The more I think about this, the more doable it is. We already have the technology to identify balls and strikes. A higher percentage of "right" calls should be the goal. Not perfection, but a higher percentage.

 

We also now have replay, so bring that into the equation also. Chart what percentage of each umpire's calls are overturned after review.

 

Combine the two with some kind of a weighting system and, Voila! We have a ranking system!

[sk7326]

I'm not looking for perfection here. As you pointed out, perfection can't be achieved. All I'm saying is to identify the worst ones, make them realize they're the worst ones, and give them some incentive to improve. If they choose not to improve - or they're unable to improve - do what any business should do. Give them a management job!

 

This is all good - but again, that fangraphs piece noted that the data has plateaued. There is a distinct possibility that 14% or so is the human limit on this - just like how the human body places a cap that prevents us from finding a pitcher who throws 110 mph. When you are talking about a difference in error rate between 14% and

[illinoisredsox]

This is all good - but again, that fangraphs piece noted that the data has plateaued. There is a distinct possibility that 14% or so is the human limit on this - just like how the human body places a cap that prevents us from finding a pitcher who throws 110 mph. When you are talking about a difference in error rate between 14% and

 

Sidd Finch would like a word with you.

[Dojji]

The human body can throw something over 110 MPH, but not from a pitcher's stance. You kind of need to get a running start to get much beyond 100, even if your arm is golden.

[S5Dewey]

This is all good - but again, that fangraphs piece noted that the data has plateaued. There is a distinct possibility that 14% or so is the human limit on this - just like how the human body places a cap that prevents us from finding a pitcher who throws 110 mph. When you are talking about a difference in error rate between 14% and

 

I hear you, but I can't believe that all umpires are created equal. Isn't that fangraphs thing an average of all umpires? Some are better than 14% and some are worse?

[S5Dewey]

Sidd Finch would like a word with you.

 

Now I have to wonder how many posters here will 'get' that reference. :-)

[Dojji]

You have it right Dewey. And the thing is that when a game typically involves over 150 pitches per team, that means that an umpire is usually going to make 15% of 300 mistakes on the ball-strike calls alone, that means that in any given game it is normal to expect a *GOOD* umpire to screw up 45 times per game. A bad one will screw up even more often.

[Dojji]

Now I have to wonder how many posters here will 'get' that reference. :-)

 

I'll admit that I had to look it up.

[Maxbialystock]

The thing I don't understand is that while I'm hearing that the umpires are critiqued frequently they don't seem to be getting any better! That tells me that regardless of what they're being told they're not going to change. A business person would say that this is no longer a training issue, it's a personnel issue. When MLB gets serious about improving the umpiring they'll be somehow penalizing the worst of the umpires.

 

My suggestion (FWIW) would be public ridicule to start with. Develop a rating system and publish a weekly report of where each umpire falls on the rating chart. If these guys have any pride in their work they'll improve. If they don't improve they get moved to Step II, some kind of a penalty.

 

Your suggestion is impractical because MLB will never agree to it because the umpires won't. My guess,only that, is the MLB will also not want to automate calls on balls and strikes for the same reason.

 

I personally think umpires have improved in all respects. While I agree balls and strikes and still called incorrectly, I'm less sure of the 14% number because I believe in that grey area where a pitch can be called a ball or a strike without blaming the umpire for a mistake. If we accept that grey area of, say, 1-2 inches, my guess is the percentage of missed calls goes below 10%.

 

But even if it doesn't, I don't accept the notion that missed calls change the outcome of many games. Good pitchers can adapt to whatever the umpire is calling, and bad pitchers can't. Let's not forget that this thread began with the assumption that Sox pitchers would be beneficiaries of more strikes called--a more liberal (or more accurate, take your pick) strike zone. I personally think the Sox pitchers would not benefit as much as opposing pitchers who actually have good location and good action on the ball. Most of our guys can't throw a decent changeup. Most of our guys can't throw a breaking ball that goes anywhere near a corner--it's either way out of the strike zone or dead center. Most of our guys over-rely on the fast ball, the only pitch they can locate, so they need an umpire who will call strikes on pitches that are close.

 

Me, I'm an advocate of a liberal strike zone because I think walks are not good for the game. This is especially true in this era when commentators and others are saying that only worthwhile measure of hitting effectiveness is OBP, on base percentage, which causes batters to wait the pitcher out. I even find myself sometimes thinking that our hitters need to build up the pitch count of the other team's starter. But in fact it's a better game when hitters are more aggressive, which is true, surprisingly, of most our hitters right now. The problem, however, is that most hitters think it is their right and almost their obligation to disagree when a strike is called anywhere near the periphery of the strike zone. Pitchers and catchers,on the other hand, are discouraged from doing the reverse--complaining when a "good" pitch is called a ball. On top of that, I don't think MLB will ever do something that adversely affects hitting and scoring. My guess is MLB headquarters doesn't mind squeezing pitchers.

[S5Dewey]

Of course I know this is all a pipe dream but at least it's MY pipe dream. As someone pointed out earlier, Joe West and his union would never allow it. I was in a labor union for all of my working life and I know the good and the bad they can do.

[S5Dewey]

Your suggestion is impractical because MLB will never agree to it because the umpires won't.

 

Sure, but the fact that it's impractical doesn't make it a bad idea. I see a lot of impractical ideas posted here, mostly trade ideas, but they still show up here!

[illinoisredsox]

Your suggestion is impractical because MLB will never agree to it because the umpires won't. My guess,only that, is the MLB will also not want to automate calls on balls and strikes for the same reason.

 

I personally think umpires have improved in all respects. While I agree balls and strikes and still called incorrectly, I'm less sure of the 14% number because I believe in that grey area where a pitch can be called a ball or a strike without blaming the umpire for a mistake. If we accept that grey area of, say, 1-2 inches, my guess is the percentage of missed calls goes below 10%.

 

But even if it doesn't, I don't accept the notion that missed calls change the outcome of many games. Good pitchers can adapt to whatever the umpire is calling, and bad pitchers can't. Let's not forget that this thread began with the assumption that Sox pitchers would be beneficiaries of more strikes called--a more liberal (or more accurate, take your pick) strike zone. I personally think the Sox pitchers would not benefit as much as opposing pitchers who actually have good location and good action on the ball. Most of our guys can't throw a decent changeup. Most of our guys can't throw a breaking ball that goes anywhere near a corner--it's either way out of the strike zone or dead center. Most of our guys over-rely on the fast ball, the only pitch they can locate, so they need an umpire who will call strikes on pitches that are close.

 

Me, I'm an advocate of a liberal strike zone because I think walks are not good for the game. This is especially true in this era when commentators and others are saying that only worthwhile measure of hitting effectiveness is OBP, on base percentage, which causes batters to wait the pitcher out. I even find myself sometimes thinking that our hitters need to build up the pitch count of the other team's starter. But in fact it's a better game when hitters are more aggressive, which is true, surprisingly, of most our hitters right now. The problem, however, is that most hitters think it is their right and almost their obligation to disagree when a strike is called anywhere near the periphery of the strike zone. Pitchers and catchers,on the other hand, are discouraged from doing the reverse--complaining when a "good" pitch is called a ball. On top of that, I don't think MLB will ever do something that adversely affects hitting and scoring. My guess is MLB headquarters doesn't mind squeezing pitchers.

 

Actually, catchers (as catchers) disagree all the time. But they do it in facing the pitcher and "discuss" it in such a way that most fans never realize it. The ump isn't being "shown up" and so the discussion is allowed. I'm sure there are a few guys (umps) who don't allow any such discussion, but I imagine those names get passed around the catching fraternity pretty quickly.

 

Conversely, you seldom see catchers (as hitters) say anything to an ump. They simply file the pitch away for discussion when their guy is on the mound.

[Maxbialystock]

Holt would be a fine replacement for now. They would need to also find a corner OF to platoon with Young, but that's much easier than finding a #2.

 

You'd want to find a guy like Pomeranz. If the Pads offered Pomeranz, Jon Jay and Brad Hand, I'd have to think about it.

 

For the record, I would not object to trading Pedroia for a #2 starter, which right now is a compelling need. I do not, however, think Holt would be "fine" at 2B or anywhere near as good as Pedroia in the field or at bat. Think about the simple fact that Holt has mostly played LF and has been platooned with Young at that. Can you see platooning a secondbaseman?

 

Because I don't think a good starter is available in return for Pedroia, I am a strong believer in not trading him. Right now it's the lineup that is winning games. Heck, to date it's maybe close to the best lineup the Sox have ever had (I have no proof of this assertion). And I think Pedroia is a key part of the lineup and the infield defense--like Derek Jeter was for the Yankees only a better fielder.

[Dojji]

He said that Holt would be a fine replacement. "replacement" doesn't mean "as good as the other guy" it means "occupying a position without hurting the team." Which Holt can do at second base and has done in the past when Pedroia had one of his inevitable injuries.

 

I think that the idea is that down the road Moncada is our heir apparent at 2b, with Holt and Hernandez filling in the gap in the meantime.

[Maxbialystock]

Actually, catchers (as catchers) disagree all the time. But they do it in facing the pitcher and "discuss" it in such a way that most fans never realize it. The ump isn't being "shown up" and so the discussion is allowed. I'm sure there are a few guys (umps) who don't allow any such discussion, but I imagine those names get passed around the catching fraternity pretty quickly.

 

Conversely, you seldom see catchers (as hitters) say anything to an ump. They simply file the pitch away for discussion when their guy is on the mound.

 

A good point. They do disagree, but discreetly. Hitters, on the other hand, are more than happy to make their displeasure known although some, like Bogaerts, seem to do it in a very polite manner. Plus there is only one catcher, but there are 9 batters in the lineup.

[mvp 78]

He said that Holt would be a fine replacement. "replacement" doesn't mean "as good as the other guy" it means "occupying a position without hurting the team." Which Holt can do at second base and has done in the past when Pedroia had one of his inevitable injuries.

 

I think that the idea is that down the road Moncada is our heir apparent at 2b, with Holt and Hernandez filling in the gap in the meantime.

 

And people are already worried about being able to afford Xander, Mookie and JBJ. Clearing off some Pedroia salary would help in that regard.

[Maxbialystock]

He said that Holt would be a fine replacement. "replacement" doesn't mean "as good as the other guy" it means "occupying a position without hurting the team." Which Holt can do at second base and has done in the past when Pedroia had one of his inevitable injuries.

 

I think that the idea is that down the road Moncada is our heir apparent at 2b, with Holt and Hernandez filling in the gap in the meantime.

 

When Moncada is close, I'm fine with trading Pedroia. But right now this team, right now, is winning--leading the AL East--after two losing seasons. And Pedroia is one of the reasons why. Holt isn't. Also, if you are so confident that Pedroia will go on the DL again--maybe for the rest of the season--don't you think other teams have the same thought?

 

Do you remember Iglesias in 2013, the absolutely brilliant defensive SS who some claimed could singlehandedly lower the team ERA by a run a game? There are still guys who say we shouldn't have traded him. Detroit got him and one assumes still love him at SS. At 26 he should give them a lot of good years. Do you remember who we got for Iglesias? Jake Peavy. My guess is that we might get another Jake Peavy for Pedroia. And, unlike 2013, we don't have two good back-ups (Drew and Bogaerts).

[Dojji]

Pedroia is much much better established as a top value player than Iglesias was

[Maxbialystock]

Pedroia is much much better established as a top value player than Iglesias was

 

Undeniably. But his shelf life is much shorter and, one presumes from those advocating his departure, is injury prone. Also, Iglesias was already well established as a terrific defensive SS. The question was whether he could hit. Most people think that the two positions where you can give up some hitting to get better defense are SS and C.

[User Name]

Your suggestion is impractical because MLB will never agree to it because the umpires won't. My guess,only that, is the MLB will also not want to automate calls on balls and strikes for the same reason.

 

I personally think umpires have improved in all respects. While I agree balls and strikes and still called incorrectly, I'm less sure of the 14% number because I believe in that grey area where a pitch can be called a ball or a strike without blaming the umpire for a mistake. If we accept that grey area of, say, 1-2 inches, my guess is the percentage of missed calls goes below 10%.

 

But even if it doesn't, I don't accept the notion that missed calls change the outcome of many games. Good pitchers can adapt to whatever the umpire is calling, and bad pitchers can't. Let's not forget that this thread began with the assumption that Sox pitchers would be beneficiaries of more strikes called--a more liberal (or more accurate, take your pick) strike zone. I personally think the Sox pitchers would not benefit as much as opposing pitchers who actually have good location and good action on the ball. Most of our guys can't throw a decent changeup. Most of our guys can't throw a breaking ball that goes anywhere near a corner--it's either way out of the strike zone or dead center. Most of our guys over-rely on the fast ball, the only pitch they can locate, so they need an umpire who will call strikes on pitches that are close.

 

Me, I'm an advocate of a liberal strike zone because I think walks are not good for the game. This is especially true in this era when commentators and others are saying that only worthwhile measure of hitting effectiveness is OBP, on base percentage, which causes batters to wait the pitcher out. I even find myself sometimes thinking that our hitters need to build up the pitch count of the other team's starter. But in fact it's a better game when hitters are more aggressive, which is true, surprisingly, of most our hitters right now. The problem, however, is that most hitters think it is their right and almost their obligation to disagree when a strike is called anywhere near the periphery of the strike zone. Pitchers and catchers,on the other hand, are discouraged from doing the reverse--complaining when a "good" pitch is called a ball. On top of that, I don't think MLB will ever do something that adversely affects hitting and scoring. My guess is MLB headquarters doesn't mind squeezing pitchers.

 

How about you stop assuming and research the actual data? The pitch/fx tool includes the famous "grey area" about the size of a baseball all around the strike zone. So no, said "grey area" would not bring the strike zone mistakes under 10%. What would do that is if umpires actually stuck to the rulebook, instead of having personalized strike zones like Angel Hernandez.

 

Also, a couple years ago, replay was a "pipe dream" that "MLB would never go for" because the "umpires would never allow it". MLB can implement whatever rules it wants, and unlike the players, the umpires' union is not powerful enough to do anything to stop it. If it were, we would not have instant replay.

[Maxbialystock]

Is it relevant to this discussion to point out that Kelly has been sent back to Pawtucket? The OP opined that Kelly got screwed by the umps, which he (the OP) found infuriating. Apparently, the Sox front office thinks the real problem wasn't with the ump but with the pitcher.

 

I say again, umpires do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. They also, sadly, can't keep bad pitchers from getting torched. I remain unconvinced that, had all balls and strikes been called perfectly--by a machine or otherwise--last night, Kelly would have done any better. I am of course no expert, but one has to assume that the manager, pitching coach, and FO are.

[Bellhorn04]

He said that Holt would be a fine replacement. "replacement" doesn't mean "as good as the other guy" it means "occupying a position without hurting the team." Which Holt can do at second base and has done in the past when Pedroia had one of his inevitable injuries.

 

1. Holt replacing Pedroia would cost the team 2-3 wins. That hurts.

2. Holt is the one who is injured. And he's never played more than 129 games and people are always pointing out how his offense falls off a cliff when he plays too much. Holding him up as a solid replacement for Pedroia is bordering on the absurd.

[mvp 78]

Is it relevant to this discussion to point out that Kelly has been sent back to Pawtucket? The OP opined that Kelly got screwed by the umps, which he (the OP) found infuriating. Apparently, the Sox front office thinks the real problem wasn't with the ump but with the pitcher.

 

I say again, umpires do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. They also, sadly, can't keep bad pitchers from getting torched. I remain unconvinced that, had all balls and strikes been called perfectly--by a machine or otherwise--last night, Kelly would have done any better. I am of course no expert, but one has to assume that the manager, pitching coach, and FO are.

 

He would not have performed any better with a robot, that is true. However, my personal enjoyment would increase immeasurably if I no longer had to worry about what the strike zone would look like from game to game. There are a few egregious calls every game that really take me out of the moment.

[User Name]

Also, saying the Red Sox are overly aggressive is bunk. They rank 12th and 9th in Pitches per plate appearance and base on balls respectively, with mere percentage points separating them and the 6th/5th ranked teams respectively. Part of the reason the Sox are so productive on offense is that they grind pitchers to dust both with hits, and with patience and walks. And that's with Mookie (who has improved tremendously), Vasquez and Hanley being three of the most impatient hitters in the Majors through mid-May.

[User Name]

Is it relevant to this discussion to point out that Kelly has been sent back to Pawtucket? The OP opined that Kelly got screwed by the umps, which he (the OP) found infuriating. Apparently, the Sox front office thinks the real problem wasn't with the ump but with the pitcher.

 

I say again, umpires do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. They also, sadly, can't keep bad pitchers from getting torched. I remain unconvinced that, had all balls and strikes been called perfectly--by a machine or otherwise--last night, Kelly would have done any better. I am of course no expert, but one has to assume that the manager, pitching coach, and FO are.

 

This isn't the point, you're creating a strawman to suit your argument. The point is that umpires are terrible and the technology exists to improve what is pretty much an impossible job, full stop. That's what's being discussed here.