Thread: Article: Are We Ever Biased Towards Umpire Bias?

Regarding umpires & how they react to certain pitchers, I've wondered about certain pitches. Say a guy has a curveball that starts in the one but darts out of it late. If that pitcher can't get that pitch called a strike, that might be a significant handicap. Or if it is, he could be nearly unhittable.

Here's another question: should the zone be different for right-handed & left-handed batters? Must it be symmetrical?

Ahhh, sports officiating. One of my favorite topics to banter about. Piling on the umpire is one of the easiest things in the world to do. In my opinion, blaming an umpire for costing you a game is the world's biggest "Loser's Lament." I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of the loudest umpire critics are those who have never been behind the plate.

I would submit that the vast majority of umpire critics have never been behind the plate in a competetive game.

Originally Posted by John Bonnes

Here's another question: should the zone be different for right-handed & left-handed batters? Must it be symmetrical?

If the strike zone varied side-to-side, that implies that home plate no longer defines the zone... that seems like a pretty huge change.

Originally Posted by John Bonnes

Here's another question: should the zone be different for right-handed & left-handed batters? Must it be symmetrical?

There is a definition of the zone in the MLB rulebook
It does not say that the zone should be different for lefties or righties. my answer is no

Originally Posted by @_2244

I would submit that the vast majority of umpire critics have never been behind the plate in a competetive game.

---True, but so what? That's true of pretty much everything, isn't it? The vast majority people who criticize politicians have never served in office - does that mean they don't have a right to speak their disagreement? Can you not say the food at a restaurant stinks if you've never been a chef?

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

---True, but so what? That's true of pretty much everything, isn't it? The vast majority people who criticize politicians have never served in office - does that mean they don't have a right to speak their disagreement? Can you not say the food at a restaurant stinks if you've never been a chef?

Your comparisons aren't quite valid. Umpires make judgment calls that spectators can witness, oftentimes with the assistance of instant replay. Fans are informed and know the rules of baseball but they've never been in the pressure situation of having to make a split second decision based on something they've seen in real time.

If you were to eat at a restaurant then read a food critic's review of the same food prepared by the same chef your comparison would be legit. Or if you read the same position papers and listened to the same speeches from colleagues that a politician does and still criticize their votes in Congress you might have a comparison.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Your comparisons aren't quite valid. Umpires make judgment calls that spectators can witness, oftentimes with the assistance of instant replay. Fans are informed and know the rules of baseball but they've never been in the pressure situation of having to make a split second decision based on something they've seen in real time.

If you were to eat at a restaurant then read a food critic's review of the same food prepared by the same chef your comparison would be legit. Or if you read the same position papers and listened to the same speeches from colleagues that a politician does and still criticize their votes in Congress you might have a comparison.

---Even if you accept those distinctions as meaningful, I still don't see how it supports the ultimate conclusion that only people who have umpired themselves are entitled to have an opinion about umpiring.


But I do think it's cute that you believe that politicians actually read position papers and listen to speeches from their colleagues before deciding how to vote on something.

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

But I do think it's cute that you believe that politicians actually read position papers and listen to speeches from their colleagues before deciding how to vote on something.

Real men don't use the word 'cute'.

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

---Even if you accept those distinctions as meaningful, I still don't see how it supports the ultimate conclusion that only people who have umpired themselves are entitled to have an opinion about umpiring.

Sure they can have an opinion. Would be nice if it was an informed opinion...