How Bad Are the Umps?

[FredLynn]

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.

 

Our offense is absurdly efficient right now, but our SP is four deep. When (not if) one of those four gets injured its three deep. Buchholz and Kelly don't even register as ML starting pitchers any more. As of this morning our SP ERA is tied for 11th in the league. That is the obvious need on this team. We NEED another very good SP so that we are likely to remain four deep well into the season. To obtain such a player its going to be painful, no doubt. We will likely need to sacrifice some of that offense to repair the pitching. Unfortunately, while Cherington left the franchise with many good position player prospects, there seems to be no one anywhere near ready to step up and help the Red Sox pitching situation. In a word, Cherington left the minor league pitching in shambles.

 

Dustin Pedroia as of this morning has an OPS that is 55 points higher than his career average; he will soon be 33; and he tends to be injury prone. I love Pedroia as a player, but this is a business. If trading him with some prospects can deliver us a very good starting pitcher, then I am all for it. Its either Pedroia or some other good player on the current 25 man roster.... or Moncada plus Benintendi....or more. Its not going to be a painless process. I just hope our GM is up to the task.

[S5Dewey]

 

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.

 

I'm not at all sure I buy this. Taking a strike away from a batter by calling a ball a strike has a lot more bearing on the game than calling a strike a ball. A batter isn't out until he gets three strikes. If an umpire gives him a fourth strike by calling a strike a ball he's helping him get on base much more than if he takes 1/3 of an AB away from him by calling a ball a strike. [i know. Shake your head and read it again. ] It doesn't all come out even.

 

Look, Im the first to admit that Kelly stunk the place up last night, but at the same time I saw two instances where a 3rd strike was called a ball and the batter later got a hit. And in both situations runs were produced. IIRC two in one situation and one in the other. And beyond that I don't remember what happened - but the O's effectively got four outs in their half of the inning.

 

You simply cannot give a batter four strikes or a team four outs in an inning - expecially a big inning - and expect to win.

[User Name]

Our offense is absurdly efficient right now, but our SP is four deep. When (not if) one of those four gets injured its three deep. Buchholz and Kelly don't even register as ML starting pitchers any more. As of this morning our SP ERA is tied for 11th in the league. That is the obvious need on this team. We NEED another very good SP so that we are likely to remain four deep well into the season. To obtain such a player its going to be painful, no doubt. We will likely need to sacrifice some of that offense to repair the pitching. Unfortunately, while Cherington left the franchise with many good position player prospects, there seems to be no one anywhere near ready to step up and help the Red Sox pitching situation. In a word, Cherington left the minor league pitching in shambles.

 

Dustin Pedroia as of this morning has an OPS that is 55 points higher than his career average; he will soon be 33; and he tends to be injury prone. I love Pedroia as a player, but this is a business. If trading him with some prospects can deliver us a very good starting pitcher, then I am all for it. Its either Pedroia or some other good player on the current 25 man roster.... or Moncada plus Benintendi....or more. Its not going to be a painless process. I just hope our GM is up to the task.

 

DD's track record indicates that prospects are going to be used to fortify the pitching, not established players.

[Spudboy]

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.

 

My 24 year old Son came to visit the old man last night. He arrived just as Shaw was stepping into the box for what I believe was his last AB.

 

My Son is hardly a big fan of baseball but he does at least know the basics about the game.

 

Shaw went down on a called third strike that was wide by about the diameter of the ball.

 

My Son said" What the f*** was that? That was not a strike. Where is he going? Can't they do something about that?"

 

Bad called strikes f***-up the game for everyone.

[User Name]

"We can fix it. We have the technology".

[Slasher9]

this is an interesting read:

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mlb-robot-umpires-instant-replay-managers-arguing-balls-strikes-future-082715

[Slasher9]

and another:

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/strike-zone-umpires-automation-automatic-computer-hal-questec-091214

 

This is no small thing. An inch in the strike zone, Bill James wrote, is worth 30 feet in the outfield. The de facto strike zone is, along with higher velocity, the key factor in today's stagnant, strikeout-laden version of baseball. Wide strikes and low strikes are changing the game, unbalancing it, with very little end in sight.

 

The framing data is the way out of this mess. It demonstrates clearly that umpires are not calling balls and strikes according to the rules of the game, but rather based on the crutch of catcher actions. This isn't out of laziness, out of a character flaw, out of a desire to bend the rules, but a concession to what has been true for decades: that human eyes cannot possibly track a baseball and render a decision on its position pursuant to the letter of Rule 2.00. Until recently, there wasn't much that could be done. Now, with PitchF/X in place, indicting umpires every single day, we have both the data to make the case and the technology to do something better. An automated strike zone will be more fair to all the players, while putting an end to a condition in which virtually invisible movements are as valuable as the acrobatics of a Gold Glove shortstop.

 

Commissioner Manfred, here's your first task: put automated ball-and-strike calling in place in time for the 2016 season.

[sk7326]

Rare is the ump who ruins games intentionally--ditto airing personal grievances against players. Those days are gone.

 

I note too that you still want to fire Farrell and trade Pedroia. Somehow those two assertions make me think I'm the right side of this discussion.

 

Follow the #umpshow hashtag on ye olde twitter and you'll see some doozys. Umps go after players all ... the ... time.

[mvp 78]

My 24 year old Son came to visit the old man last night. He arrived just as Shaw was stepping into the box for what I believe was his last AB.

 

My Son is hardly a big fan of baseball but he does at least know the basics about the game.

 

Shaw went down on a called third strike that was wide by about the diameter of the ball.

 

My Son said" What the f*** was that? That was not a strike. Where is he going? Can't they do something about that?"

 

Bad called strikes f***-up the game for everyone.

 

Incessant whistles are why I can't watch the NBA anymore. Some NFL games are absolutely brutal to watch with the flags thrown. Unfortunately, the MLB umps are almost as bad in terms of making it about themselves.

[Maxbialystock]

I'm not at all sure I buy this. Taking a strike away from a batter by calling a ball a strike has a lot more bearing on the game than calling a strike a ball. A batter isn't out until he gets three strikes. If an umpire gives him a fourth strike by calling a strike a ball he's helping him get on base much more than if he takes 1/3 of an AB away from him by calling a ball a strike. [i know. Shake your head and read it again. ] It doesn't all come out even.

 

Look, Im the first to admit that Kelly stunk the place up last night, but at the same time I saw two instances where a 3rd strike was called a ball and the batter later got a hit. And in both situations runs were produced. IIRC two in one situation and one in the other. And beyond that I don't remember what happened - but the O's effectively got four outs in their half of the inning.

 

You simply cannot give a batter four strikes or a team four outs in an inning - expecially a big inning - and expect to win.

 

I'm not saying it comes out even for any particular at bat. Heck, no. Pitchers and hitters both can get bad calls that dramatically affect an at bat. What I'm saying is that over the long haul it does all even out. Good pitchers persevere/adapt and so do good hitters. Good teams--like ours, with great hitting and marginal pitching--win and bad teams lose regardless of missed calls by the homeplate umpires.

[Maxbialystock]

Incessant whistles are why I can't watch the NBA anymore. Some NFL games are absolutely brutal to watch with the flags thrown. Unfortunately, the MLB umps are almost as bad in terms of making it about themselves.

 

I vastly prefer college basketball for reasons you state. I too hate too many flags in the NFL but tolerate them. What I can't stand is the ridiculous number of timeouts. I like to channel surf and am pretty sure that at least half the time when I go to an NFL game they are in a commercial.

 

I honestly don't think today's umpires are prone to make the games about themselves--mostly because of the replays, which take the wind out of the sails of both umpires and managers. Gone are the days when a manager's first instinct was to charge out onto the field. Now he waits for his guys in the back room to tell him if he has a gripe and even then all he does is ask for a replay.

[Kimmi]

Will emotions not surface in tense games with an automated strike zone?

 

Of course they will. But I also enjoy the emotions that surface with the umpires.

[Kimmi]

Here's the question:

 

Should the team who plays better win?

 

Yes? Then automate strikezones.

No? Then keep umpire calls.

 

Seems simple to me.

 

The team who plays better often does not win, and that has nothing to do with the umpires.

[Kimmi]

Such a traditionalist.

 

LOL I am far more a traditionalist in many ways than people think I am.

 

In terms of the way the game is played on the field, I like it just the way it is and am opposed to making changes to it. I very likely would have been against the lowering of the pitcher's mound and the introduction of the DH had I been around when those changes were made.

 

I did not like it when they got rid of the "fake to third, throw to first" play, as trivial as that might seem, and I am also opposed to the idea of not making a pitcher throw 4 balls if a manager calls for an intentional walk, to name a couple of examples.

 

Baseball is a beautiful game. Leave it the way it is.

[Bellhorn04]

The team who plays better often does not win, and that has nothing to do with the umpires.

 

The luck factor is significant, obviously. But that doesn't really address what Palodios is saying.

[Kimmi]

The luck factor is significant, obviously. But that doesn't really address what Palodios is saying.

 

Fair enough. Umpires making incorrect calls, ie human error, is part of the game for me. It's part of the sport. Just my personal preference.

[Bellhorn04]

Personally I get a good feeling when they overturn a bad call. As sick as it might sound, I even appreciated it the other night when the Yankees had a call at first base overturned in their favor. Because the replay clearly showed the Jays runner was out.

[Bellhorn04]

Fair enough. Umpires making incorrect calls, ie human error, is part of the game for me. It's part of the sport. Just my personal preference.

 

I understand your point of view.

[Kimmi]

Here is the thing - the strike zone is defined clearly. This is not a basketball foul - where some contact is allowable - it is a three dimensional box that the ball has to touch on its path. It's not umpire's choice. Now the umpires can't do this job well ... with all of the improvement, we are at a 14% error rate which would be scandalous for almost any other process. (and no call in sports gets made more frequently each game). Automating called balls and strikes does not eliminate the umpire, nor does it eliminate his job at judging swinging strikes. It helps him with the hardest part of his job. It is one thing for the sport to decide that the umps judgment cannot be argued with - but it is less okay to do that and then prevent the umpire from doing the job more accurately.

 

I like the sport's randomness - the homerun in Camden that is a single at Fenway- the way an 83-79 team can win a World Series on 3 good weeks of baseball. Random application of rules and random stipulations based on specific umpires is professional wrestling. (which I love too, but I keep separate from my baseball)

 

In terms of the strike zone being clearly defined, IMO, it goes back to holding umpires more accountable. If they were held to a certain, higher standard, the error rate would improve. No, it's never going to be as good as a it would be with a computerized zone, but I'm okay with that.

[Kimmi]

Personally I get a good feeling when they overturn a bad call. As sick as it might sound, I even appreciated it the other night when the Yankees had a call at first base overturned in their favor. Because the replay clearly showed the Jays runner was out.

 

And I understand your point of view as well. Believe me, I don't like having an incorrect call go against the Sox. The game that we lost against the Yankees on that "spite" strike call against Ortiz ate me up.

[mvp 78]

Of course they will. But I also enjoy the emotions that surface with the umpires.

 

I hate it.

[S5Dewey]

I'm not saying it comes out even for any particular at bat. Heck, no. Pitchers and hitters both can get bad calls that dramatically affect an at bat. What I'm saying is that over the long haul it does all even out. Good pitchers persevere/adapt and so do good hitters. Good teams--like ours, with great hitting and marginal pitching--win and bad teams lose regardless of missed calls by the homeplate umpires.

 

Bill James was talking about one-run games some time ago and he said that most one-run games are decided by luck. 6" here, a ball near the line there, or a bad call can make a difference in the outcome of a one-run game. He also said that in the long run those one-run games will even out. If a team wins an inordinate number of one run games in one season they'll lose an inordinate number the next year. Baltimore proved that over a two year span, BTW. As an aside, I've always wondered how he happened upon that. Was he researching one-run games, or was he researching something else and this jumped out at him? Who knows? Anyway.....

 

This is fine over the run of a couple of seasons and frankly luck has a lot to do with winning games. However, when division races and playoff spots are decided by one game over the run of a season I want each of those games to be officiated as closely to perfect as possible. I don't necessarily stand behind the idea of calling balls and strikes technologically but I do want to see improvement in the way games are called and that's something I'm not seeing.

[67RedSox]

Good for you.

[Maxbialystock]

Bill James was talking about one-run games some time ago and he said that most one-run games are decided by luck. 6" here, a ball near the line there, or a bad call can make a difference in the outcome of a one-run game. He also said that in the long run those one-run games will even out. If a team wins an inordinate number of one run games in one season they'll lose an inordinate number the next year. Baltimore proved that over a two year span, BTW. As an aside, I've always wondered how he happened upon that. Was he researching one-run games, or was he researching something else and this jumped out at him? Who knows? Anyway.....

 

This is fine over the run of a couple of seasons and frankly luck has a lot to do with winning games. However, when division races and playoff spots are decided by one game over the run of a season I want each of those games to be officiated as closely to perfect as possible. I don't necessarily stand behind the idea of calling balls and strikes technologically but I do want to see improvement in the way games are called and that's something I'm not seeing.

 

So let me ask you and the other advocates for a pure strike zone. If one were rigorously enforced--probably by technology--would you be in favor of it if it meant the Sox would lose more games than they would under the current system? I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone advocating better ball/strike calls wants that because they believe it will help the Red Sox pitching.

[User Name]

Yes, I'll take my baseball with a side of fairness. And no, you don't think for anyone other than yourself. Your "sneaking suspicions" are part of a strawman to justify the unjustifiable. The pitching is not sucking because of the umpires. The pitching is sucking because the rotation lacks depth and quality.

[mvp 78]

Yes, the Sox pitchers would have to adjust.

[SinceYaz]

Personally I get a good feeling when they overturn a bad call. As sick as it might sound, I even appreciated it the other night when the Yankees had a call at first base overturned in their favor. Because the replay clearly showed the Jays runner was out.

 

I also feel that way.

 

It is a matter of things being fair. Someone might say life ain't fair but that isn't the point. The point is everyone has a right to have a base performance to work or play FROM. Talent, luck, weather, atomic warfare, zombie apocalypses, are all other factors. But when Mark Belanger and Boog Powell stand in the box, they should be focusing on the guy 60' 6" ahead, not 4' 6" behind him.

 

The unique moment for me was when I was at Yanqui Stadium a couple summers ago and the umps changed the call in consecutive innings. The first went our way and I was rejoicing. The second went their way and several of the Yanqui fans around me said, "Fair's fair" or "Now we're even." .... btw, we were all having a blast. My wife was afraid I might offend too many of them, but it was pretty much a good natured give and take.

[S5Dewey]

So let me ask you and the other advocates for a pure strike zone. If one were rigorously enforced--probably by technology--would you be in favor of it if it meant the Sox would lose more games than they would under the current system? I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone advocating better ball/strike calls wants that because they believe it will help the Red Sox pitching.

 

Of course! While I agree that seeing the Sox pitchers get "robbed" raises my ire more than seeing one of our hitters get the benefit of a strike called a ball, the important thing is that the game be marshaled by the rules. Heck, I even realize that an electronic system would take away one of the advantages we have over other teams - Vaz's ability to "frame" pitches. And I'd like to see it anyway.

 

However.... don't lose sight of the fact that I'm not an advocate of B & S being called electronically. What I want is an electronic system used to improve the umpiring and letting the umps stay out there.

[User Name]

They have the technology to give the umpires a more accurate field of view and improve their correct call percentage. No need to get rid of them.

[southpaw777]

So let me ask you and the other advocates for a pure strike zone. If one were rigorously enforced--probably by technology--would you be in favor of it if it meant the Sox would lose more games than they would under the current system? I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone advocating better ball/strike calls wants that because they believe it will help the Red Sox pitching.

 

Its not going to specifically help one team...it will have the same zone for EVERY team.

Yea, the Sox have had a LOT of bad umpiring this year, thats inarguable. I just want the same strike zone so every pitcher and batter knows what a strike is...

Its also very true to this day that umpires make personal calls...They are human, and human nature is what it is...

You dont think Hanley standing at the plate for 10 seconds after a bad call wont get him another outside strike called on him? If not, them i dont know what else to say.

Some umpires are very sensitive and take s*** personally...instead of letting these men compete at the highest level they are too quick to jump back at a player...When competing at this level you have to expect higher emotions for these guys...some umpires forget that.