How Bad Are the Umps?

[Spudboy]

Also, it's not meaningful to say that the best hitters fail 7 times out of 10. The best hitters in history have actually only failed 6 times out of 10, if you consider getting on base a success, which you should. Furthermore, the odds are stacked to a ridiculous degree against the hitter. He not only has to beat the pitcher but 8 fielders. That is a lopsided contest.

 

Bell you clearly do not have an understanding of the game!!!!

[Maxbialystock]

Yeah. I don't know the game at all.

 

The new additions are such a treat to have aboard. I wonder if that guy even thought of posting without insulting me.

 

 

Alas, I am a dope who does not understand how baseball works, and I deserve to be ridiculed because everyone knows how difficult I am to get along with on this site.

 

You're right. My introductory paragraph was over the top and unfair. It was not intended to call you a dope, but I apologize nevertheless. I should have said something like, "your points disagree with what I understand to be the fundamental nature of baseball."

[User Name]

Way better actually.

[Maxbialystock]

I just don't see how an imperfect strike zone is an appeal to anyone, especially in terms of entertainment value. We're definitely never going to agree on this point.

 

An imperfect strike zone has existed in baseball at every level for maybe 140 years, as has the right of managers and players and fans to disagree with calls by umpires. I like it that way because I think it's part of the experience and appeal of the game. If balls and strikes are called automatically, umpires will be marginalized if not eliminated, and I think that would be a real loss.

[Spudboy]

You're right. My introductory paragraph was over the top and unfair. It was not intended to call you a dope, but I apologize nevertheless. I should have said something like, "your points disagree with what I understand to be the fundamental nature of baseball."

 

I can accept that.

[sk7326]

If all we care about is 'getting it right', then we may as well not even have managers or third base coaches. I know the technology doesn't exist yet, but let's replace the third base coach with a robot that will always know precisely whether to wave the runner home or not. Let's replace the manager with a computer that will always know exactly what pitch to call, when to remove a pitcher, etc.

 

Heck, let's replace the players with robots while we're at it. To heck with the errors and the mental mistakes that they make. Wouldn't it be more exciting to watch robots play every game to perfection? Might as well just play a simulated season on MLB The Show.

 

I know that's stating the extreme, but the point is, I enjoy the human element that the umpires bring to the game. I am willing to forego perfection in calling balls and strikes to keep that aspect of the game. I like that pitch framing is a skill. I like that sometimes a pitch is so good that the umpire is fooled. I like when a pitcher will continue to throw a pitch an inch off the plate because he knows he's going to get that call, and the batter has to adjust. I like to see a player like Youkilis still fuming in the dugout 3 innings later for being called out on a strike that he disagreed with.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference. One that does not make one illogical, FTR.

 

One is playing the game - the other is rules enforcement and basic fairness.

[sk7326]

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.

 

And they are needed for judgment where the judgment is the best tool that exists. Calling balls and strikes is not one of those places.

[sk7326]

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.

 

Especially when you consider how much the pitch outcome changes the expectations of a given at-bat.

[sk7326]

^ 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.

 

In the South, it's stale hot dogs and boiled peanuts

[sk7326]

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.

 

This makes sense - the issue (I think) is whether those tolerances are attainable by humans who have to watch the flight of the ball and pay attention to what the hitter is doing simultaneously. The umps already make enough mistakes when they are judging it based on where the pitch is caught. What is not appreciated is that the strike zone is in reality a 3-dimensional problem. The catcher catching the pitch 2 inches off the plate theoretically not an issue if the ball actually tailed in such a way that it touched the "strike zone box". But for a human ump to be able to do that to even a 95% overall accuracy level is likely impossible.

 

I am not trying to displace umpires - or to remove an umpire from home plate. My goal here is taking what the home plate umpire has to deal with, and giving him help with the part which is hardest to do - and leads to the most bellyaching. I am for an objective rule being called correctly (the strike zone is not mythical - the rule book covers it) and for reducing umpshows (which the ball and strikes thing causes more than any other).

[sk7326]

An imperfect strike zone has existed in baseball at every level for maybe 140 years, as has the right of managers and players and fans to disagree with calls by umpires. I like it that way because I think it's part of the experience and appeal of the game. If balls and strikes are called automatically, umpires will be marginalized if not eliminated, and I think that would be a real loss.

 

And non-integration did for almost the length of the Red Sox curse ... evolution is okay.

 

How would umpires get eliminated? Who calls check swings? Who calls plays at the plate? How do you hear foul tips? (you could put sensors in the bats - but that is probably prohibitively expensive given the rate of wood bats being destroyed)

[a700hitter]

And non-integration did for almost the length of the Red Sox curse ... evolution is okay.

What? LOL!! I am not sure what this means.

[User Name]

This makes sense - the issue (I think) is whether those tolerances are attainable by humans who have to watch the flight of the ball and pay attention to what the hitter is doing simultaneously. The umps already make enough mistakes when they are judging it based on where the pitch is caught. What is not appreciated is that the strike zone is in reality a 3-dimensional problem. The catcher catching the pitch 2 inches off the plate theoretically not an issue if the ball actually tailed in such a way that it touched the "strike zone box". But for a human ump to be able to do that to even a 95% overall accuracy level is likely impossible.

 

I am not trying to displace umpires - or to remove an umpire from home plate. My goal here is taking what the home plate umpire has to deal with, and giving him help with the part which is hardest to do - and leads to the most bellyaching. I am for an objective rule being called correctly (the strike zone is not mythical - the rule book covers it) and for reducing umpshows (which the ball and strikes thing causes more than any other).

 

It's like you're me, but less of an *******.

[sk7326]

What? LOL!! I am not sure what this means.

 

When someone talks about the 140 years of baseball tradition ... it is fun to note that there were 71 years of national league baseball (a bit less than the 88 year Sox curse) before integration. It's okay to try to make things better. Obviously the level of social justice is not comparable.

[Maxbialystock]

And non-integration did for almost the length of the Red Sox curse ... evolution is okay.

 

How would umpires get eliminated? Who calls check swings? Who calls plays at the plate? How do you hear foul tips? (you could put sensors in the bats - but that is probably prohibitively expensive given the rate of wood bats being destroyed)

 

I said marginalized if not eliminated and I still think that. Calling balls and strikes is central to the game of baseball.

[sk7326]

I said marginalized if not eliminated and I still think that. Calling balls and strikes is central to the game of baseball.

 

The existence of the rule is ...

[Bellhorn04]

Calling balls and strikes is central to the game of baseball.

 

No more central than safe-out calls, which are now subject to review.

[User Name]

I said marginalized if not eliminated and I still think that. Calling balls and strikes correctly is central to the game of baseball.

 

Indeed, as per the rulebook. What can be more important than correctly following the rules of the game.

[mvp 78]

Indeed, as per the rulebook. What can be more important than correctly following the rules of the game.

 

Making sure that you follow the unwritten rules as well.

[Thunder]

I find myself agreeing a little bit with both sides here. I said it earlier that as a traditionalist, and an umpire myself, I don't want to see drastic changes to the roles of the umpires. But, I'm starting to realize that umpires CAN control how good they are. There were two things that happened to me last week, one behind the plate and one at second base, that made me think that the best umpires are mentally tough and can make the crucial decisions, and also the correct decisions, on the fly. I kind of froze, and wish I had the calls back. It's hard to be completely neutral, completely accurate, AND completely fair. The mental side of umpiring is what causes these guys to make mistakes. I froze on an infield fly that ended up being dropped by the shortstop, and then I narrowed my strike zone just a little to allow one team to tie it up, even though they lost anyway in extra innings. The umpires that cannot control the mental aspect of what it takes to be an MLB umpire have to be weeded out. If and when they are, the overall performance of umpires will drastically improve.

[Kimmi]

I just don't see how an imperfect strike zone is an appeal to anyone, especially in terms of entertainment value. We're definitely never going to agree on this point.

 

It's not that an imperfect strike zone appeals to me. I just don't like the idea of the game becoming automated or dehumanized in any way. If my choices are to have technology call the game with 99% accuracy or have humans call the game with 86% accuracy, I'm going with the latter.

 

As I've said before, I think baseball, with all of its quirks, is a beautiful and great game the way it is. Leave it alone.

[Kimmi]

No more central than safe-out calls, which are now subject to review.

 

And if it were up to me, those calls would not be subject to review either.

[Kimmi]

And they are needed for judgment where the judgment is the best tool that exists. Calling balls and strikes is not one of those places.

 

Eventually, technology could exist to make judgment calls obsolete. Where is it going to end?

[Kimmi]

And for those hung up on the 86% accuracy rate, most of those missed calls are borderline calls to begin with. If a catcher or pitcher can "fool" an umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, then more power to him.

[sk7326]

What I find interesting about the debate is a level of willing flat-eartherism at work. It is rare that there is a clear, mature technology that beats the humans (without causing crippling mass unemployment or whatever) that is voluntarily set aside. Certainly in the longer run - having good pitch F/X technology in the hands of viewers and not the umpires provides a major, major credibility gap.

 

The call which comes up most frequently is the one they have proven they simply cannot do.

[sk7326]

Eventually, technology could exist to make judgment calls obsolete. Where is it going to end?

 

There are enough judgment calls out there - and the strike zone is objective, not a blank canvas for Joe West's artistic sensibility.

[sk7326]

And for those hung up on the 86% accuracy rate, most of those missed calls are borderline calls to begin with. If a catcher or pitcher can "fool" an umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, then more power to him.

 

A lot are. A lot are also pitches right down the middle which the ump misses because the catcher was positioned outside and the pitcher missed over the plate. A lot are balls called above the belt which are statutorily strikes ... or strikes at the knees which are more or less made up at random.

[Kimmi]

What I find interesting about the debate is a level of willing flat-eartherism at work. It is rare that there is a clear, mature technology that beats the humans (without causing crippling mass unemployment or whatever) that is voluntarily set aside. Certainly in the longer run - having good pitch F/X technology in the hands of viewers and not the umpires provides a major, major credibility gap.

 

The call which comes up most frequently is the one they have proven they simply cannot do.

 

Flat-eartherism is not a fair label. If I were arguing that the technology would not be more accurate than humans, then that would be one thing. How can you tell me that my preference to have humans calling balls and strikes is wrong?

 

IMO, increasing the accuracy of balls/strikes while dehumanizing the game, and it would dehumanize the game to an extent, would take some of the enjoyment out of the game. You feel otherwise, and I respect that. Do not disrespect my preference because it differs from yours.

[Bellhorn04]

And for those hung up on the 86% accuracy rate, most of those missed calls are borderline calls to begin with. If a catcher or pitcher can "fool" an umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, then more power to him.

 

But in the JBJ at-bat that I posted the GameDay screen freeze of, there were two pitches clearly well outside the strike zone that were both called strikes. Not borderline at all. Those are the ones that are really aggravating.

[User Name]

And for those hung up on the 86% accuracy rate, most of those missed calls are borderline calls to begin with. If a catcher or pitcher can "fool" an umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, then more power to him.

 

That is incorrect. The analysis uses pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone system which, as presented before on this very thread, gives umpires a significant leeway (about the size of the baseball) to all quadrants of the strike zone. The actual reason for most of the missed calls is a bunch of umpires having strike zones that are different than the one presented by the official rulebook.