How Bad Are the Umps?

[Bellhorn04]

First Talksox thread ever with a lot of wasted pages!

[Spudboy]

First Talksox thread ever with a lot of wasted pages!

 

Indeed.

 

I have been thoroughly engrossed.

[mvp 78]

Robot umps would speed up the game and not affect the people in the stands.

[Kimmi]

Probably until the human element is... eliminated. Muhahaha...

 

Most of the time, you are hilarious.

 

This is not one of those times.

[Bellhorn04]

Another potentially game-changing bad call today. Price struck Gutierrez out in the 4th just before Gutierrez homered.

[mvp 78]

Another potentially game-changing bad call today. Price struck Gutierrez out in the 4th just before Gutierrez homered.

 

Your team won, your complaint is invalid.

[harmony]

Your team won, your complaint is invalid.

I was listening to the Seattle radio broadcast on Saturday and the Mariner broadcasters were noting -- not complaining, but noting -- that the homeplate umpire called balls on two of Adrian Sampson's pitches in the middle of the strike zone. In the sixth inning today, the first two pitches to Jackie Bradley were strikes, according to MLB.com Gameday, but the umpire called each a ball. The calls did not lead to Red Sox runs.

 

Today's umpires probably are no worse at calling balls and strikes than were their predecessors over the past century-plus, but modern technology gives fans more ammunition to complain.

[User Name]

1) Today's umpires are objectively better, albeit still not good enough.

 

2) Asking to use available technology to improve the fairness of the game and the adherence to its governing rules is "complaining"? Ok.

[Maxbialystock]

Robot umps would speed up the game and not affect the people in the stands.

 

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down.

 

You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen.

[Maxbialystock]

Robot umps would speed up the game and not affect the people in the stands.

 

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down.

 

You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen.

 

Your obsession with perfecting the calls of balls and strikes misses the point of what a sport is supposed to be--a human endeavor.

[Bellhorn04]

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down.

 

You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen.

 

Hey, I'm an old guy too, but times change and that's a simple fact. When hitters are looking at video of the opposing pitcher on an Ipad before coming to the plate, when shifts are being deployed based on analyze of hitters' charts, yes, technology has become part of the game. And still the human element remains strong.

 

No sense clinging to something that has so obviously become obsolete.

[User Name]

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down.

 

You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen.

 

You have no idea what other people think. Stop pretending you do. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Stick to your own theories.

[Emp9]

I say lets go with the non-human robot strikezone. But the robot HAS to look like Frank Drebin. That's my only condition.

[sk7326]

Here is what I don't understand about the "part of the enjoyment" argument ...

 

It seems to me that "we like the imperfections" is the same sort of macro hand wave, placing a quaint notion of big picture poetry above a game played by extremely well trained adults, and something which means way too much to a lot of people. Now, while flawed umps might - for some - improve the show (and I acknowledge that is important), it seems unfair to the men on the field who have worked awfully hard at this. When Livan Hernandez struck out McGriff to end a CG in the 1997 NLCS, I remember thinking "it would have been nice if McGriff had a fair shot" when a pitch at this mid-shin was called a strike.

 

Furthermore, as the live tracking on TV continues to proliferate, the yawning gap between visual evidence and what the ump is doing is a real credibility gap. I am impressed by the restraint shown by TV networks - I would have used a laugh track to go with particularly awful calls.

[Slasher9]

i'm pretty sure everyone of us thought of this thread when Price didnt get that 3rd strike call and the next pitch Gonalez wrapped it around pesky pole....

[Bellhorn04]

What keeps striking me as extremely ironic is that Gameday is a promotional service of MLB. And one of the things Gameday does best is show us when the umps have blown a ball-strike call.

[sk7326]

What keeps striking me as extremely ironic is that Gameday is a promotional service of MLB. And one of the things Gameday does best is show us when the umps have blown a ball-strike call.

 

It is - I think you have to thank the SABR movement for much of this ... MLB has been very free with their data. This is the flipside of it.

[Spudboy]

i'm pretty sure everyone of us thought of this thread when Price didnt get that 3rd strike call and the next pitch Gonalez wrapped it around pesky pole....

 

That was a glaring example.

[mvp 78]

What keeps striking me as extremely ironic is that Gameday is a promotional service of MLB. And one of the things Gameday does best is show us when the umps have blown a ball-strike call.

 

True fans only watch the game in the ballpark eating Cracker Jack or while listening on the radio.

[Maxbialystock]

Hey, I'm an old guy too, but times change and that's a simple fact. When hitters are looking at video of the opposing pitcher on an Ipad before coming to the plate, when shifts are being deployed based on analyze of hitters' charts, yes, technology has become part of the game. And still the human element remains strong.

 

No sense clinging to something that has so obviously become obsolete.

 

Good point. But umpires also have the benefit of technology, I'm sure, by getting regular reports on their performance, especially behind the plate. My guess is that replays of their calls are a frequent thing after spring training games and a regular thing during the regular season. You think human umpires are obsolete, but I don't. And, by the way, Lou Boudreau, manager of the Cleveland Guardians, was the one who first used a big shift--against Ted Williams back in the 1950's. Computers have refined our ability to analyze hitting patterns, but the basic idea is 60 or more years old. And let's not forget that bold shifts incur risks. One is that a bunt to the other side is almost a sure hit if executed properly. Another, as Bogaerts demonstrated, is that the shift makes it a whole lot easier for a man on first to avoid an out at second and to get to 3B. As for looking at an IPAD, that's not much different from good scouting reports which go way, way back.

[Bellhorn04]

So what exactly is the great appeal of 13% human error on balls and strikes, other than it's what you're used to? I think once it's gone no one will miss it.

[Maxbialystock]

You have no idea what other people think. Stop pretending you do. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Stick to your own theories.

 

Are you saying you don't care about the balls and strikes? That bad calls don't bother you a lot? That they haven't driven you to argue that umpires should not call them? I agree "obsess" is a strong word, but mvp78 has in fact said he has stopped watching games when he thinks the ball and strike calls are particularly bad. I call that obsessive.

[Maxbialystock]

Here is what I don't understand about the "part of the enjoyment" argument ...

 

It seems to me that "we like the imperfections" is the same sort of macro hand wave, placing a quaint notion of big picture poetry above a game played by extremely well trained adults, and something which means way too much to a lot of people. Now, while flawed umps might - for some - improve the show (and I acknowledge that is important), it seems unfair to the men on the field who have worked awfully hard at this. When Livan Hernandez struck out McGriff to end a CG in the 1997 NLCS, I remember thinking "it would have been nice if McGriff had a fair shot" when a pitch at this mid-shin was called a strike.

 

Furthermore, as the live tracking on TV continues to proliferate, the yawning gap between visual evidence and what the ump is doing is a real credibility gap. I am impressed by the restraint shown by TV networks - I would have used a laugh track to go with particularly awful calls.

 

I'm not sure I meant to say we like imperfections, rather we tolerate them because we like umpires making the calls. which has been the case for over 150 years. We like the human element of umpires because sports and athletics are very human endeavors. If your "credibility gap" is so real, why isn't there a visible movement to change how balls and strikes are called? Where is the public outcry? Why isn't the Commissioner of MLB on the spot to "fix the umpire problem?" I personally don't think umpires are all that flawed, and I have seen lots of players challenge calls that were in fact correct.

[sk7326]

I'm not sure I meant to say we like imperfections, rather we tolerate them because we like umpires making the calls. which has been the case for over 150 years. We like the human element of umpires because sports and athletics are very human endeavors. If your "credibility gap" is so real, why isn't there a visible movement to change how balls and strikes are called? Where is the public outcry? Why isn't the Commissioner of MLB on the spot to "fix the umpire problem?" I personally don't think umpires are all that flawed, and I have seen lots of players challenge calls that were in fact correct.

 

Ah, the appeal to the mob. There are lots of problems which are not popular causes - so that does not address the issue one way or the other. The umps are the best at what they do. The subtask that is calling balls and strikes - a crucial but hardly only thing an umpire does, they are destined to do it poorly. I, as a civilian am destined to do it worse. We know Pitch F/X does it better. I don't mind umpires making calls - but that the umpires do it is not an important driver to baseball being what it is. Sports are very human endeavors, and that is why 2004's Game 4 would not have been the same with the PapiBot 3000 hitting that homerun. The homerun would not have lost much of anything if the ump at the plate was sent the ball-strike signal automatically.

[Bellhorn04]

Ah, the appeal to the mob. There are lots of problems which are not popular causes - so that does not address the issue one way or the other. The umps are the best at what they do. The subtask that is calling balls and strikes - a crucial but hardly only thing an umpire does, they are destined to do it poorly. I, as a civilian am destined to do it worse. We know Pitch F/X does it better. I don't mind umpires making calls - but that the umpires do it is not an important driver to baseball being what it is. Sports are very human endeavors, and that is why 2004's Game 4 would not have been the same with the PapiBot 3000 hitting that homerun. The homerun would not have lost much of anything if the ump at the plate was sent the ball-strike signal automatically.

 

You are really killing it in this thread.

[Maxbialystock]

Ah, the appeal to the mob. There are lots of problems which are not popular causes - so that does not address the issue one way or the other. The umps are the best at what they do. The subtask that is calling balls and strikes - a crucial but hardly only thing an umpire does, they are destined to do it poorly. I, as a civilian am destined to do it worse. We know Pitch F/X does it better. I don't mind umpires making calls - but that the umpires do it is not an important driver to baseball being what it is. Sports are very human endeavors, and that is why 2004's Game 4 would not have been the same with the PapiBot 3000 hitting that homerun. The homerun would not have lost much of anything if the ump at the plate was sent the ball-strike signal automatically.

 

It's not a popular cause because it's really not a problem except on this thread. I have yet to ask a baseball fan who says not having umpires calling balls and strikes is a good idea. Why do that see this? Because it would change the fundamental nature of the game. You cite game 4 of the 2004 ALCS and Ortiz's dinger, but I would go back to that same game and that 9th inning stolen base and the umpire right there on the spot calling our guy safe. Umpires are part of the game even when they make mistakes. You guys want to get rid of them, and you are wrong. I know you all say they can stick around and maybe sweep homeplate or call plays at the plate or whatever, but taking them out of calling balls and strikes essentially neuters them because balls and strikes are central to the game of baseball.

[User Name]

You know what changes the fundamental nature of the game? Not being able to enforce the rulebook. Helping umpires do a better job does not change the fundamental nature of the game in any shape or form. That is made up hoopla.

[mvp 78]

You know what changes the fundamental nature of the game?

 

Allowing the players to have long hair and beards. Outrageous!

[Maxbialystock]

You know what changes the fundamental nature of the game? Not being able to enforce the rulebook. Helping umpires do a better job does not change the fundamental nature of the game in any shape or form. That is made up hoopla.

 

Helping them is one thing. They already get lots of feedback on every call they make. What you guys want to do is relegate them to the outhouse. And how can you be so certain that umpires are ignoring the rule book just because you don't like their calls? They all know where the strike zone is even though the strike zone in my opinion is ill-defined because it changes for each player. We think the bottom of the zone is the knee, but what part of the knee? And where is the top of the zone? Armpits? And how do we know those computerized images are adjusted precisely to every player's size and stance?

[sk7326]

It's not a popular cause because it's really not a problem except on this thread. I have yet to ask a baseball fan who says not having umpires calling balls and strikes is a good idea. Why do that see this? Because it would change the fundamental nature of the game. You cite game 4 of the 2004 ALCS and Ortiz's dinger, but I would go back to that same game and that 9th inning stolen base and the umpire right there on the spot calling our guy safe. Umpires are part of the game even when they make mistakes. You guys want to get rid of them, and you are wrong. I know you all say they can stick around and maybe sweep homeplate or call plays at the plate or whatever, but taking them out of calling balls and strikes essentially neuters them because balls and strikes are central to the game of baseball.

 

The strawman is strong in this one. The Roberts steal was exciting - and it was a call at 2nd base which the human ump is best equipped to do in 2016 with 2016 tools. There are all sorts of those calls each game - and the umps do a marvelous job with it. Ball and strikes - the umps cannot do it well. Every game, there are pitches right down the middle called balls, and pitches at the shoetops called strikes. The umps try, but they have to use lazy crutches, like relying on the catcher's position, to even get it to "consistently wrong". Giving them some meaningful help in the 12.5% of their job (since an ump works the plate 25% of the time) part of their job that is the most difficult and most frequently botched. I see you are making a bit of a slippery slope argument - where does this end? And this is true - since if technology allowed plays at the plate to be called correctly then hey, whaddya know. But that stuff is cost prohibitive, and has not been proven. The Pitch F/X technology is actually far enough along to use in real life.