134 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

If the "pet calls" are being enforced according to the rules, then they need to be called. Call the game according to the rules. That's it's. That's the job. You don't make up other rules and you don't selectively ignore rules.

 

Im for calling the game according to the rules. Start with the strike zone. 
 

[russsnyder]

There are way too many rules in baseball. Way too many judgement calls. Shouldn’t be this complicated.

Well, it's a beautiful game IMO and I don't think there are too many rules.

The ultimate judgement call are balls and strikes and there is a strong movement towards robotic umps.

As tough as I am on umpires, my preference is to not have robotic umps. There's something to adapting to an umps strike zone during the game. It's obviously the toughest part of an umpires job.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I hear ya. For me, robot umps can’t come soon enough. The strike zone should be the strike zone. And adapting is one thing, and I do understand what you’re saying, there’s an art to that, but too many umpires are all over the place. You can’t adapt to chaos.

[russsnyder]

I hear ya. For me, robot umps can’t come soon enough. The strike zone should be the strike zone. And adapting is one thing, and I do understand what you’re saying, there’s an art to that, but too many umpires are all over the place. You can’t adapt to chaos.

If it comes, and it looks like it will, I'll get used to it pretty quickly. (I'll always watch baseball and football.) I think holding poor umpires accountable ( like Angel Hernandez) would would be better than electronic umps. However, there's no stopping progress.

[russsnyder]

If the "pet calls" are being enforced according to the rules, then they need to be called. Call the game according to the rules. That's it's. That's the job. You don't make up other rules and you don't selectively ignore rules.

BTW, I apologize for getting a bit short with you last night over the Vavra call

I would have messaged you, but my box is full and I am running errands.

Agree to disagree and all that.

[russsnyder]

The Vavra situation was technically called correctly, but only because the case could be made he was impeding the arrival of the ball while he was out of the baseline. Vavra would’ve been more obviously out had he hit a dribbler up the first baseline and the catcher/pitcher had to throw around him while he was running to the L of the baseline. What’s odd is Vavra bats lefty and he was still outside the baseline. That’s usually a righty’s problem, no?

I think staying inside the runner's lane is more related to a base runner's instincts than what what side they hit from. I think most base runners are going to drift to the back end of the bag (which is on the foul line) the closer they get to the bag. In most cases, except when the first baseman comes off the bag, it's not an issue. I think the only way to avoid this completely would be to put a safety base in foul territory. ( Which I really don't think is necessary, but maybe it would help.)

[Pedro Cerrano]

I’m actually someone who prefers the human element of the game. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it hurts. But prolly generally evens out over time. Makes the game more interesting.

[jamesdean]

What irritates me about plate umpires in general is that they all have their own interpretations of what the strikezone is when it should be one, finite parameter and called within what the rules say it is. Count me as one who is looking forward to robotic implementation.

[Mackus]

What irritates me about plate umpires in general is that they all have their own interpretations of what the strikezone is when it should be one, finite parameter and called within what the rules say it is. Count me as one who is looking forward to robotic implementation.

Agree that each ump has a slightly different strike zone, but I would guess that this is not due to them thinking there should be a different zone as much as their individual views (literally views..line of sight) of the strike zone. Some guys see inside corner better, some low, some high, etc.

The end result is the same, though. And I agree with the conclusion that roboumps will be a welcome advancement.

[Mike in STL]

Well, it's a beautiful game IMO and I don't think there are too many rules.

The ultimate judgement call are balls and strikes and there is a strong movement towards robotic umps.

As tough as I am on umpires, my preference is to not have robotic umps. There's something to adapting to an umps strike zone during the game. It's obviously the toughest part of an umpires job.

You can’t adapt when the zone is completely different one pitch to the next.

They have all the technology for anyone in the world following the game on tv, or an app or a computer to know if a pitch is a ball or strike, except the guy who makes the call. Not to use it, while it also in no way slows down the game like replay is just dumb.

Since umpires don’t care to get better at this aspect of the job anyway, screw em. Don’t need em to continue to do it.

[russsnyder]

You can’t adapt when the zone is completely different one pitch to the next.

They have all the technology for anyone in the world following the game on tv, or an app or a computer to know if a pitch is a ball or strike, except the guy who makes the call. Not to use it, while it also in no way slows down the game like replay is just dumb.

Since umpires don’t care to get better at this aspect of the job anyway, screw em. Don’t need em to continue to do it.

I think most umpires at the MLB level are fairly consistent. There are some exceptions, however, the electronic umps are coming. I think it will make the game a bit less interesting. Just like I think the widespread use of replay has made the game less interesting (and slower) to watch. All this said, I guess the Varva play fell into the non-reviewable area?

[hallas]

You can’t adapt when the zone is completely different one pitch to the next.

They have all the technology for anyone in the world following the game on tv, or an app or a computer to know if a pitch is a ball or strike, except the guy who makes the call. Not to use it, while it also in no way slows down the game like replay is just dumb.

Since umpires don’t care to get better at this aspect of the job anyway, screw em. Don’t need em to continue to do it.

Most umpires are pretty consistent. The top 10 umpires for balls/strikes are north of 95% in both accuracy by pitch f/x and in consistency. I'm sure robo umps can do better but most umps are pretty good most of the time.

I also strongly suspect that if you were to incorporate robots to enforce the official definition of the strike zone you'd get some weird looking calls and we would end up having to moderate some of the extreme cases. For example a ball that grazes the top of the zone near the back of home plate, or grazes the bottom of the zone near the front of home plate, is going to look really off and unhittable in many cases. We could fix this by telling the robots to only call a strike if the ball's trajectory through the strike zone covers at least a certain distance from front to back.

Keep in mind that pitch fx isn't 100% representative of the zone because the zone is 3 dimensional.

[fishteacher]

The rule just says "interferes with the fielder taking the throw". I don't know how it's advised to umps to call it, but I think you could stretch the meaning to include the throw being errant because it's trying to avoid the runner and thus the fielder can't field it. If the umps are taught specifically to not interpret it that way, which sounds like you're reading may be the case, then it'd still be open to the judgement of what throws are plausibly fieldable and what aren't.

All of it is avoided if the runner just runs in the right spot.

Jesus Christ, you just have to have the last word…lol

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Bad judgement calls happen, even at the highest levels with incredibly well-trained umps. Things happen fast. Be in position and do the best you can. When you only have two or one ump, being in position can be tough or even impossible (tag up / leave early plays are the clearest example).

Not knowing the rules and basically making up your own or not enforcing the ones that exist is a bigger problem. If an ump is calling a runner out for "not turning right" after 1B and being in fair territory, that ump doesn't know the rules. Similarly so if that ump doesn't call a guy out who turns into foul, jukes towards second and then gets tagged. Getting infield fly rule wrong is one that always annoyed me, too, that should be easy. Not knowing where to place runners after a ball thrown out of play. Anytime a coach said "base you're going to plus one" I knew I was gonna have a problem. What's weird is the guys that don't know the rules are the ones that tended to argue the most. Double down on their ignorance rather than simply admit they don't know.

Did you ump?

[Mackus]

Did you ump?

Yeah, but just little league when I was young, nothing serious like HS or above or really getting into it like some others here (I think tennOsfan does a lot).