How Bad Are the Umps?

[Slasher9]

[illinoisredsox]

All I'll say is the guy behind the plate last night was excellent. Nice and consistent the entire game, which is all the players ask for. Sure, he appeared to miss a few pitches, but the "misses" were always borderline on the black type pitches. No down the middle balls or strikes on pitches 4 inches out of the zone.

[Thunder]

All I'll say is the guy behind the plate last night was excellent. Nice and consistent the entire game, which is all the players ask for. Sure, he appeared to miss a few pitches, but the "misses" were always borderline on the black type pitches. No down the middle balls or strikes on pitches 4 inches out of the zone.

 

And from what I saw, he was consistent. If an ump's zone is bad but he's consistent, I'm okay with that.

[Kimmi]

Here is a graph showing the improvement in umpires since Pitch/FX was installed.

 

 

http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/davislopez-features-umpires-1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

[mvp 78]

87% accuracy!!!! Hoo boy!

[Spudboy]

I've been on the fence.

 

On one hand I feel much like Kimmi about it On the other hand I believe that if you can take a large chunk of subjectivity out of the game it should be done. As long as the technology is sound and well maintained.

 

I'd like to know more about the mechanics of the system before I endorse the idea fully.

[User Name]

87% accuracy!!!! Hoo boy!

 

87% accuracy means that on every pitch during a game defining situation, there's a 13% chance the umpire will get the call incorrect. Unacceptable if you ask me.

[Bellhorn04]

I wasn't awake to see it, but based on what I've read, Bradley's AB in the 9th last night was a good argument for the automated strike zone.

[Slasher9]

robo strike zone now!

[mvp 78]

robo strike zone now!

 

Your complaints aren't valid because your team lost, apparently.

[Slasher9]

Your complaints aren't valid because your team lost, apparently.

lol. i would prefer it cost my team 4 wins over the course of a season if the strikezone could be made uniform and 99% accurate. because in the end i will know my team lost because of performance not human error.

[mvp 78]

lol. i would prefer it cost my team 4 wins over the course of a season if the strikezone could be made uniform and 99% accurate. because in the end i will know my team lost because of performance not human error.

 

^ Typical tv viewer perspective. I believe the only way to truly watch baseball is to be sitting at a game (not behind the godforsaken net), eating stale peanuts and boiled hot dogs.

[User Name]

Improvements to the game suck!

[Slasher9]

^ Typical tv viewer perspective. I believe the only way to truly watch baseball is to be sitting at a game (not behind the godforsaken net), eating stale peanuts and boiled hot dogs.

 

i know. unfortunately i chose to live 6 hour drive away from the Fens so i only get the Fenway Frank 1 or 2x a season......

[Spudboy]

I wasn't awake to see it, but based on what I've read, Bradley's AB in the 9th last night was a good argument for the automated strike zone.

 

Two pitches clearly outside called strikes.

[mvp 78]

Spud, it's just the wonderful quirkiness of the game! Enjoy it!

[Spudboy]

lol

[SoxnCycles]

If there's a way to assist the umps in getting more calls right, I'm all for it.

But, totally automated pitch calling would suck.

Bad umpiring isn't enough to make me stop watching the game, and for all the hand-wringing about how bad it is, I doubt anyone else is ready to stop either.

 

I'd have to seriously consider it, if pitch calling were completely automated.

[mvp 78]

I turn games off when the umpiring is particularly rough. I don't find the product enjoyable when I have to stress over the strike zone.

 

If Angel Hernandez is behind the plate, I find something else to do.

[User Name]

I have turned games off due to s***** umpiring several times.

[S5Dewey]

iMHO we don't need automated ball and strike calling. I agree that would take away from the character of the game. If what I hear and read is true MLB is half right in what they're doing. They're using the "K-Zone" as a tool to critique umpires after games. They now need to expand that to being sure that all umpires are improving in their ball/strike calls and if they're unwilling or unable to improve they should be out of baseball.

 

I would never advocate for 100% accuracy. That just isn't going to happen and would be unfair to the umps. I would advocate for an annual review mandating 100% accuracy on all pitches 3" or more outside the strike zone, 95% accuracy on pitches 2'-3' outside the zone, 90% accuracy for pitches 1"-2" outside the zone, and 85% accuracy for pitches 1" or less outside the zone. Any umpire who can't meet those standards should receive remedial training on the first offense and should be replaced if he doesn't meet those standards during the season after the remedial training.

 

I cannot imagine being in a job where I could tell my boss that it's ok that I only make the right decision 86% of the time because I have so many decisions to make.

[SoxnCycles]

iMHO we don't need automated ball and strike calling. I agree that would take away from the character of the game. If what I hear and read is true MLB is half right in what they're doing. They're using the "K-Zone" as a tool to critique umpires after games. They now need to expand that to being sure that all umpires are improving in their ball/strike calls and if they're unwilling or unable to improve they should be out of baseball.

 

I would never advocate for 100% accuracy. That just isn't going to happen and would be unfair to the umps. I would advocate for an annual review mandating 100% accuracy on all pitches 3" or more outside the strike zone, 95% accuracy on pitches 2'-3' outside the zone, 90% accuracy for pitches 1"-2" outside the zone, and 85% accuracy for pitches 1" or less outside the zone. Any umpire who can't meet those standards should receive remedial training on the first offense and should be replaced if he doesn't meet those standards during the season after the remedial training.

 

I cannot imagine being in a job where I could tell my boss that it's ok that I only make the right decision 86% of the time because I have so many decisions to make.

 

That's reasonable.

[mvp 78]

iMHO we don't need automated ball and strike calling. I agree that would take away from the character of the game. If what I hear and read is true MLB is half right in what they're doing. They're using the "K-Zone" as a tool to critique umpires after games. They now need to expand that to being sure that all umpires are improving in their ball/strike calls and if they're unwilling or unable to improve they should be out of baseball.

 

I would never advocate for 100% accuracy. That just isn't going to happen and would be unfair to the umps. I would advocate for an annual review mandating 100% accuracy on all pitches 3" or more outside the strike zone, 95% accuracy on pitches 2'-3' outside the zone, 90% accuracy for pitches 1"-2" outside the zone, and 85% accuracy for pitches 1" or less outside the zone. Any umpire who can't meet those standards should receive remedial training on the first offense and should be replaced if he doesn't meet those standards during the season after the remedial training.

 

I cannot imagine being in a job where I could tell my boss that it's ok that I only make the right decision 86% of the time because I have so many decisions to make.

 

The umpires union isn't very strong. I'm sure MLB has enough leverage to get something like that to work. However, that wouldn't happen until 1/1/20 at the earliest, which is when the current union contract ends.

[User Name]

Just give them hardware (glasses) that creates an artificial strike zone so they can superimpose the pitch in real time. "We can fix him, we have the technology!"

[mvp 78]

Just give them hardware (glasses) that creates an artificial strike zone so they can superimpose the pitch in real time. "We can fix him, we have the technology!"

 

And what happens when s/he takes a foul ball off the mask? How many glasses need to be retained onsite?

[Hitch]

And I hate to tell you, but until umpires (and score keepers) are done away with completely, there will always be judgment calls. On virtually every play.

 

Well yes we will always have variables but getting actual strikes right should be something they get right at the very least.

[User Name]

And what happens when s/he takes a foul ball off the mask? How many glasses need to be retained onsite?

 

How many balls do they retain onsite? I think that'd be the least difficult issue to handle.

[Youk Of The Nation]

And what happens when s/he takes a foul ball off the mask? How many glasses need to be retained onsite?

 

Two or three. I don't think foul balls off of the mask hard enough to break the glasses (especially if they are made with stuff like that in mind) happen often enough that having even just one backup would be an issue.

[Hitch]

I wasn't awake to see it, but based on what I've read, Bradley's AB in the 9th last night was a good argument for the automated strike zone.

 

Not just Bradley's. Hanley took to laughing on two separate occasions at how bad the calls were on him. Some of them weren't even close last night.

[SoxnCycles]

Two or three. I don't think foul balls off of the mask hard enough to break the glasses (especially if they are made with stuff like that in mind) happen often enough that having even just one backup would be an issue.

 

I'd be more concerned with what kind of damage glasses of some type would do to an ump's face when jammed by a foul ball, but that's just me.

Just ask Mike DiMuro how hard a foul ball hits.