The elephant in the room - Umpires

[mnfireman]

I'm sorry if this may be against forum rules but I feel it needs to said.

 

After watching many baseball games this year (not just Twins) I have come to the conclusion that major league umpires are terrible. I understand its a thankless job and nobody is volunteering to it, but come on, let's get some guys that know what the hell they are doing. Buckner was terrible last night (and tonight too) and I have seen other games where the strike zone moves from batter to batter, even pitch to pitch. This is unacceptable.

 

This and the fact the base umpires seem disinterested because they know that replay will "fix" any mistakes make watching some games unbearable. How about taking a little pride in your chosen profession and giving a $#!&. 

 

I have coached and umpired at many youth levels and I know I have made mistakes, but these guys are well paid professionals. I understand that they "are human like the rest of us", but if my job performance were this bad, I would be looking for a new job.

 

Hold these guys accountable, instill some professionalism and most of all, take a little pride in your performance.

 

 

[ashbury]

Some tiny percentage of reviewable plays get overturned, so the base umpires must be doing OK.

[USAFChief]

I thought tonight's HP umpire was fantastic.

[drjim]

One of my jobs requires watching lots of different games very closely and logging each pitch/play - I would say umps are generally pretty solid. While some bang bang plays do get missed and usually overturned, there just aren't that many egregious missed calls, maybe one per 10 games.

 

Home plate umps are actually OK too, better than I would have expected. I would guess no more than 5 calls a game max make me do a double take, and a lot of games I don't even notice.

 

Same national guys (ahem Keith Law) go way overboard and there is much public scrutiny for the occasional dust up, but so many games go along perfectly fine. Ump shows suck but it's a long season with a lot of games and it really is a small minority of umps who engage in that nonsense. And what the hell, it breaks up the monotony a little bit.

[USAFChief]

In the larger sense, some umps are better than others of course, but overall MLB umpires are pretty darn good. Easily the best of the major sports.

 

NFL officiating, for example, is orders of magnitude worse than MLB. And for Pete's sake, NBA officiating is horrific.

[mnfireman]

Reviewed plays are overturned 49.63 % of the time (532 of 1072 challenges).

[mnfireman]

The NFL officials make the "safe" call knowing that a challenge can be initiated. NBA officials give "star" treatment when in doubt.

[Minniman]

 

The NFL officials make the "safe" call knowing that a challenge can be initiated. NBA officials give "star" treatment when in doubt.

 

Twins vs Yankees in the post season.

 

Strike zones and even foul lines get moved.

[USAFChief]

Reviewed plays are overturned 49.63 % of the time (532 of 1072 challenges).

Which sounds to me like MLB umpires do a damn fine job.

 

Very few plays are reviewed, and half of those are overturned.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think umps are too easy a target and are unfairly blamed for losses by far too many fans.

 

And MLB probably has the best refs/umps of the four major sports.

 

Yeah, not all umps are awesome and sometimes they get something so completely wrong you can't believe it happened but I rarely see an ump unfairly call a game. If they squeeze one pitcher, they generally squeeze the other just as hard (though it may impact one style of pitching more than another).

 

I don't see the point in getting too upset about it. It's the nature of sports and you're going to win some bad calls and lose some others. As long as attempts are made to keep everyone honest and accurate, I can get over the occasional screw up.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Which sounds to me like MLB umpires do a damn fine job.

 

Very few plays are reviewed, and half of those are overturned.

It's kind of amazing when only half the calls are overturned and the team gets to do a quick video review of the play before calling the challenge. That speaks volumes about the quality of umpiring in MLB.

[Secondary User]

With all due respect to the discussion, this graph sums up all you need to know on umpires

 

http://i.imgur.com/O3SUhTg.png

 

Yankess @ Braves, 8/30

(Link to the fangraphs GameGraphs page if you want)

 

Like DrJim, I work in a job where I log each play/pitch and I had the misfortune of drawing this game umpired by Ed Hickox.  Red circles out of the box (strikes called on pitches out of the zone) and black circles inside the box (balls called on pitches in the zone) are mistakes.  The couple balls directly in the middle of the zone are mistakes (PitchF/X treats balls in the dirt funny).

 

Sure, this was a 20-6 laugher, but the zone was a joke from the first pitch.  You literally saw the evolution of pitchers realizing he was calling pitches 4-6 inches in the right handed batters box a strike, and the pitching just migrated out there.  The strike zone is what it is for a reason, and if you start expanding (or even sliding) the zone even to lesser degrees, pitcher gets a massive advantage.  Now Atlanta's pitching staff is absolute garbage, and this game was out of hand, but this is not an isolated incident.  This type of stuff happens all the time.  Pull up any game graphs page and you will find 10-20 pitches in every game that are called incorrectly at least.

 

Again, as another poster here, I umpire as well.  I understand that calling balls and strikes is very difficult.  But this isn't little league.  These are supposedly the best umpires in the world.  Expecting more from them is not unrealistic

[Secondary User]

And to highlight the point, Melvin Upton just got called out on strikes with two outs in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game against a team in the Texas Rangers who are in a playoff race on a pitch that was outside the strike zone.

[Thegrin]

We have the technology. Let technology call the balls and strikes. Better for the players. Better for the game.  

[Craig Arko]

Remove the human elements from the sport one by one and you might as well be sitting in front of a game console. No thanks.

[HitInAPinch]

If you're demanding perfection from umpires, players, owners, coaches, etc., there is a plethora of baseball video games available.

 

I love the human element.  I love the Monday morning quarterback-type discussions, the beauty of a nicely executed double play, a brush-back pitch and the memories of Earl Weaver and Billy Martin running out of the dugout to argue with umpires.  That's why we play the games. 

[gocgo]

 

I think umps are too easy a target and are unfairly blamed for losses by far too many fans.

And MLB probably has the best refs/umps of the four major sports.

Yeah, not all umps are awesome and sometimes they get something so completely wrong you can't believe it happened but I rarely see an ump unfairly call a game. If they squeeze one pitcher, they generally squeeze the other just as hard (though it may impact one style of pitching more than another).

I don't see the point in getting too upset about it. It's the nature of sports and you're going to win some bad calls and lose some others. As long as attempts are made to keep everyone honest and accurate, I can get over the occasional screw up.

We've won the last two games and I don't think any Twins fan thought Bucknor did a good job.  Also, yelling at a player isn't professional. 

[h2oface]

 

It's kind of amazing when only half the calls are overturned and the team gets to do a quick video review of the play before calling the challenge. That speaks volumes about the quality of umpiring in MLB.

As long as the reviewing "umpires" know the original call while they review the play, the decisions will be skewed. Like "code blue" standing up for their own, the review process, I believe, would come out a lot differently if it was an unbiased and blind review. Knowing the call on the field and being on the "same team" as the umpires is biased, and similar to Roger Goodell handling the appeal of the decision he made.

[h2oface]

 

Remove the human elements from the sport one by one and you might as well be sitting in front of a game console. No thanks.

I contend that umpires are the "inhuman" element of the game, and rob the human element, the players, of the rightful event that actually happened. The players never deserve to be robbed, especially if we have tools to prevent that. Calling balls and strikes has always been a guess (especially the outside and low pitches as the umpire looks over the inside shoulder of the catcher - the angle is just too severe for anything but a guess). It doesn't have to be anymore. It would only make the game better, and not cheat the pitchers or the batters, if the strike zone was always what the rules call for, instead of some "inhuman imposter" making the zone up day to day with their best guess that is just not good enough. The graph a few posts back is pretty telling.

[drjim]

 

As long as the reviewing "umpires" know the original call while they review the play, the decisions will be skewed. Like "code blue" standing up for their own, the review process, I believe, would come out a lot differently if it was an unbiased and blind review. Knowing the call on the field and being on the "same team" as the umpires is biased, and similar to Roger Goodell handling the appeal of the decision he made.

 

This is nonsense. If they are overturning ~50% of reviews they don't have a problem reversing them.

 

They give preference to the call made on the field and need clear evidence to overturn a call. Very reasonable standard.

[Minniman]

 

With all due respect to the discussion, this graph sums up all you need to know on umpires

 

http://i.imgur.com/O3SUhTg.png

 

Yankess @ Braves, 8/30

(Link to the fangraphs GameGraphs page if you want)

 

Like DrJim, I work in a job where I log each play/pitch and I had the misfortune of drawing this game umpired by Ed Hickox.  Red circles out of the box (strikes called on pitches out of the zone) and black circles inside the box (balls called on pitches in the zone) are mistakes.  The couple balls directly in the middle of the zone are mistakes (PitchF/X treats balls in the dirt funny).

 

Sure, this was a 20-6 laugher, but the zone was a joke from the first pitch.  You literally saw the evolution of pitchers realizing he was calling pitches 4-6 inches in the right handed batters box a strike, and the pitching just migrated out there.  The strike zone is what it is for a reason, and if you start expanding (or even sliding) the zone even to lesser degrees, pitcher gets a massive advantage.  Now Atlanta's pitching staff is absolute garbage, and this game was out of hand, but this is not an isolated incident.  This type of stuff happens all the time.  Pull up any game graphs page and you will find 10-20 pitches in every game that are called incorrectly at least.

 

Again, as another poster here, I umpire as well.  I understand that calling balls and strikes is very difficult.  But this isn't little league.  These are supposedly the best umpires in the world.  Expecting more from them is not unrealistic

 

Many of those called strikes outside the box were made by Julio Teheran to Yankees batters after much of the damage was already done. Basically, the ump was saying, "If it is close, you better swing." It is also likely that the catcher was framing the box outside of the plate for that pitcher.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is nonsense. If they are overturning ~50% of reviews they don't have a problem reversing them.

 

They give preference to the call made on the field and need clear evidence to overturn a call. Very reasonable standard.

I'd call it the "only reasonable standard". Nothing else makes sense.

[spinowner]

 

As long as the reviewing "umpires" know the original call while they review the play, the decisions will be skewed. Like "code blue" standing up for their own, the review process, I believe, would come out a lot differently if it was an unbiased and blind review. Knowing the call on the field and being on the "same team" as the umpires is biased, and similar to Roger Goodell handling the appeal of the decision he made.

 

This is nonsense. If they are overturning ~50% of reviews they don't have a problem reversing them.

 

They give preference to the call made on the field and need clear evidence to overturn a call. Very reasonable standard.

But the reviewers don't need to know the original call to say whether it's too close to tell. They can issue a ruling of safe, out, or inconclusive. If they rule the replay is inconclusive then the call on the field stands. Using the standard of clear evidence to overturn makes the ruling much more subjective on the part of the reviewer. Exactly how clear does the evidence have to be to overturn?

[h2oface]

 

Many of those called strikes outside the box were made by Julio Teheran to Yankees batters after much of the damage was already done. Basically, the ump was saying, "If it is close, you better swing." It is also likely that the catcher was framing the box outside of the plate for that pitcher.

 

Basically, the ump was saying, "If it is close, you better swing."

 

Is that in the rules of baseball? For the umpire to make up his own rules as the game goes on? That can be spun to be acceptable? To ignore the zone and just call it a strike when it hits the catchers glove where the catcher put it outside the zone? The balls called in the middle of the zone are truly disturbing. The arrogance of an umpire to change the rules on purpose, perhaps because the game is perceived to be out of hand or that he is hungry or just wants the game to end quicker - if that is what they are actually saying - "If it is close, you better swing" - is part of the big problem that is is now possible to fix. There used to be no option but to let someone (an umpire) guess, like who crossed the finish line first in the hundred yard dash, and who won the 50 meter freestyle..... the guy in lane 6 or lane 2. But when tools and tech were readily available to make the calls correct, it was embraced. The athletes were not robbed or gifted anymore by a guess. That is very human. To try to improve the great game we play without changing it. To compete by the same rules, and not ones that change daily due to attitude or ineptitude by a guesser. To get the call right, and have the correct winner within the rules we are all competing under. 

[USAFChief]

As was explained, the balls called in the middle of the zone represent balls in the dirt, which the system has trouble recognizing.

 

And as has been discussed elsewhere, the box in that pic does not represent "the strike zone." The top and bottom of the strike zone aren't fixed, nor is the strike zone two dimensional.

 

And that's not even considering whether we take on faith that the pitchf/x dot shown is indeed accurate.

 

I like the fact baseball today can be roughly compared to baseball 100 years ago. The pitcher/ hitter dynamic is central to baseball. I'm opposed to needless radical changes to that dynamic.

[biggentleben]

 

And as has been discussed elsewhere, the box in that pic does not represent "the strike zone." The top and bottom of the strike zone aren't fixed, nor is the strike zone two dimensional.

 

This is the biggest issue right now with those in the "robot umpire" crowd, and those who design the pitch recognition systems will acknowledge the issue as well.

 

When a 5'6 (very generously) Jose Altuve has a larger strike zone than a 5'9 Chuck Knoblauch, that tells you that you just can't punch in a guy's height dimension and expect to automatically know the strike zone. Add in that not every player is standing exactly 60'6 away from the pitching rubber due to shifting within the batter's box, and you have some very slight shifts that could mean a world of difference in balls and strikes.

 

The other issue with the software right now is the general disagreement about when a strike needs to be a strike. Is it at the front of the plate? the middle? maybe at the catcher's glove? For those of us watching on TV, many times, the ball isn't for sure through the zone until it's in the catcher's mitt. For those at the plate, it's a strike if it's starting across the plate as such. For the computer systems...well, they're just not sure. So a big looping curve that enters the plate a hair high and is caught by the catcher a hair under the strike zone has traversed the strike zone in its path over home plate, but is that ball a strike or a ball, because at two of the commonly referenced points of travel, it was a ball, and the computer system really cannot guess - it has to be certain.

[Minniman]

 

Basically, the ump was saying, "If it is close, you better swing."

 

Is that in the rules of baseball? For the umpire to make up his own rules as the game goes on? That can be spun to be acceptable?

 

It was the same zone for the Yankees pitchers earlier. That edge was already being called a strike, so taking pitches later in a blowout isn't a good idea.

 

To ignore the zone and just call it a strike when it hits the catchers glove where the catcher put it outside the zone?

 

The catcher actually moves his body to set the frame. The umpire cannot look down at the plate while the pitch comes in, so that affects his reference slightly.

 

We are talking a human eye watching a 80-90 mph pitch coming in on an arc into an estimated three dimensional area that changes with each player or stance.

 

MLB players used to protect the plate with close pitches deep into the count. Has that changed?

 

 

[DaveW]

One of my jobs requires watching lots of different games very closely and logging each pitch/play - I would say umps are generally pretty solid. While some bang bang plays do get missed and usually overturned, there just aren't that many egregious missed calls, maybe one per 10 games.

 

Home plate umps are actually OK too, better than I would have expected. I would guess no more than 5 calls a game max make me do a double take, and a lot of games I don't even notice.

 

Same national guys (ahem Keith Law) go way overboard and there is much public scrutiny for the occasional dust up, but so many games go along perfectly fine. Ump shows suck but it's a long season with a lot of games and it really is a small minority of umps who engage in that nonsense. And what the hell, it breaks up the monotony a little bit.

do you happen to work for sportsradar or stats?

[drjim]

 

do you happen to work for sportsradar or stats?

 

Sportsradar

[Thegrin]

It is not a technological problem to have a 3 dimensional strike zone.  It is not a problem to adjust the height of the strike zone for each player. They could set the strike zone's for the players in Spring Training.  Its run by a computer for God's sake.