Shocking but not Shocking

Tommy Lasorda and Earl Weaver were about as famous for their umpire arguing skills as they were for their managerial skills. Both had wonderful tantrums when they felt the umpire made the wrong call. And yet, each are on polar opposites when it comes to Instant Replay in baseball. Lasorda is all old school and wants the human element kept in. Weaver said the technology needs to be used to get it right. All of this, of course, comes from a recent study that found that twenty percent of close calls in games made by the umpires were wrong calls. The study is shocking, but for anyone who watches a lot of games, not shocking at all.

We can certainly see the evidence with our eyes when we watch the television. Just last night in the ESPN Sunday Game of the Week, Jose Reyes was called out at second and the replay clearly showed Reyes to be safe. The Fan watched the Yankees and the Red Sox yesterday and there were two blown calls in those games. You can cry, "human element," all you want, but this Fan seems to be squarely in line with most fans when it comes to having baseball officiated well. The post season last year was abominable when it came to bad calls. It was embarrassing. That's not a human element. That's a crying shame.

There are only two ways you can fix it when one out of every five calls is blown by the umpires. You either get better umpires or you move to technology. Getting better umpires is a problem. First, you have a union to deal with. Second, these guys are already supposed to be the best. Ideally, you would have to look at the selection process and figure out if you have a problem there. You have to weed out those umpires that are consistently poor in their decision making. You have to look at the training that is preparing umpires for their profession. All of that takes time and energy and a will to make it happen. All of that is problematic. After all, humans are involved with natural territorial feelings. Plus, humans are prone to always take the easy way out.

So if the second option is problematic, technology is your only way out. Nobody wants longer games. But you could shorten games with just a few simple rule changes (limit catchers going to the mound, limit time outs called by the batter when there is a runner on second, limit pitching changes in an inning, for just a few). That would take some time that could be used up for replay. The study linked above shows that there are about 1.3 close calls per game. So you are basically adding up to two chances in a game to review a call. That's not a lot and shouldn't take up a lot of time. And it is worth it if it means a correct call.

There is no question for this old school Fan that replay is the way to go.  Perfect it in Triple A if you have to first. Those calls in the Twins - Yankees series last fall were terrible and it took away from what the Yankees were to go on and accomplish because the calls tarnished some of the results. Jeter's famous home run in 1996 had a similar effect. Calls need to be right and if 20% of all close calls are blown and the human element can't do better than that, then another option has to be in place. It is too bad that we can't go back in time and review all those calls say twenty years ago to see if umpiring is worse now than it was then. This Fan would bet that that it is worse now than it has ever been.

In the linked piece that started this post, a telling short interview was given by Doug Harvey, a famous retired umpire who suggested with irony that we replace umpires with robots. He, of course, was defending the current system. But this Fan would be happier with robots  than with today's umpires. The Fan would love it if all balls and strikes were handled by technology. The Fan can't stand bad strike zones. It drives this old writer crazy. Well, you can't give a robot any way to tell if a runner is safe or out on a base. There just doesn't seem to be any way to do that. But that being the case, replay will give you the option of looking at the play again and getting it correct.

The bottom line is that we want ball players to decide the fate of the games and their own statistics, not an umpire.

It's a Free Country For Crying Out Loud

Perhaps you heard about the Wednesday night game between the Angels and the Red Sox at Fenway Park? If not, you can catch up here. It seems that the umpires for that game are talking to the league about verbal abuse they received from the Angels' coaches after the game concerning the Nick Green at bat. Looking at the replay (and according to K-zone), it does appear that the Angels' closer, Fuentes, struck Nick Green out twice but the umps saw it differently and allowed Green to walk, forcing the tying run home. The Red Sox soon after won the game.

As sure as shooting, you can expect Mike Scioscia (the hardest name in the majors to spell) and his coaches to get some kind of fine for giving the umpires a bit of lip after the game. Fenway Park is one of those old stadiums where the umpires have to go through the dugout to get to their dressing room. In this case, it's the visitor's dugout and the umps had to go through a hopping mad bunch of Angels. According to the linked story, the umpires have complained to the league about the incident.

Excuse the Fan for his ignorance, but if you don't do your job correctly, that's the way it goes. The Fan doesn't understand this "sanctity of the umpire" crap where the umpires are supposed to be treated like some sanguine figures of virtue. Heck, a lot rides on some of these games and if the umpires become part of the game's story instead of the players, then they should expect to get some grief. The Fan watches a lot of games and despite more observation than ever, the strike zone is still a joke. The inside corner is rarely called and yet anything within six inches of the outside corner is always a strike. High strikes are inconsistently called and home plate umpires routinely call a batter out for a checked swing without getting help from the first or third base umpires. The home plate umpire has the worst vantage point for checked swings.

In the case of Wednesday's game, the checked swing call was made by the first base umpire and it was borderline. If Green had connected with the ball, it would have gone a ways. But it didn't look like he broke his wrists. The bat stayed parallel to the pitcher. Who knows. But that last ball was a strike at the knees and the Angels have a legitimate beef there.

The MLB, like the NFL, routinely delivers fines to its players and coaches who question the umps and referees (respectively). This irks the Fan to no end. The Fan's father fought for this country's first amendment rights to free speech and how dare these leagues outlaw it! That's un-American for Pete's sake. If these guys don't get the calls correctly, they shouldn't be called out on it? When they are, they go crying to the league? Pity the poor helpless schlep that makes great money to call the games if someone dares to question his accuracy in doing so.

The bottom line here is that the Angels won the game and the umpires took it away from them. The Angels have a right to be upset about it. They didn't physically attack the umpires. They didn't block their path. They just gave them a piece of their minds about the calls. Get over it.

Fuentes, for his part, will certainly be fined because he later stated that umpires have trouble throwing up their right hands in Fenway and "other places." Yankee Stadium can be inferred in there. Fuentes further stated that other pitchers have told him the same thing. Should he be fined for stating his opinion? Not in this writer's mind. He could very well be right. Boston and New York have voracious fans and their voracity might make it subconsciously harder for an umpire to pull a trigger on a called last strike. Fuentes has a right to make this point. Any fine would subjugate this right and the Fan has a problem with that. Instead of fining a player in such a case, the league should thank him and start an investigation. But we wouldn't want to have that happen because it would be admitting that umpires are fallible. Well, they are, folks. That's just the way it is.

Umpires In Trouble for Replay?

Perhaps you have read this story about the umpires in the Philadelphia/Tampa Bay game on Wednesday night using replay to figure out if there was fan interference on a double hit by Pat Burrell. The umpires for the game, led by Gary Cedarstrom (the crew chief), were rebuked by the league for an improper replay. Only disputed homers are supposed to be reviewed by replay.

Cedarstrom apologized for the confusion. Despite the apology, Cedarstrom is a new Fan hero. This observer thinks replay should be expanded as much as possible and the Fan says, "Three Cheers!" to Cedarstrom for his audacity to want to get a call correct. Heaven knows, we wouldn't want the correct call to happen, would we?

There are so many decent applications for the use of replay. Cedarstrom's decision is one of them. The trap call is another one. Did the outfielder trap it or did he catch it? Don't know for sure? Call it safe and look at the replay.

There are many more. But the point here is that the league is afraid of messing too much with tradition and the old way of doing things. To which, the Fan humbly says, "Bah Humbug!" Us old timers will deal with it if it doesn't mean fifteen minute delays. The point is to get the call correct.

So here's to you, Mr. Cedarstrom. The Fan raises a Cherry Coke in your honor.

New Way to Evaluate Umpire Strike Zones

In what is a positive step for MLB, there is a new way to evaluate the balls and strikes calls of major league umpires. The previous method was not employed in all ball parks and had some issues. The first issue was that it interpreted home plate as a rectangle, which misses some of the nuances of a five sided plate. For example, a curve could miss the front of the plate and cut across the back portion of it. The ump could correctly call that a strike, but would be judged wrong by the system.

Naturally, the umpires aren't too happy about the whole thing. Nobody likes to have someone looking over their shoulders as they do their jobs. That's understandable. But when the technology is there to improve the game and make it as standardized as possible, MLB has to take that opportunity. Let's face it, fans that watch the game see most of the game from behind the pitcher and to see the inconsistencies of umpires around the league drives fans nuts.

The umpires have three things going against them in their angst. First, there is a perception that the umpires are arrogant and think they are as important as the game and players themselves. Second, most fans think umpires have a great job and get paid really well for what amounts to nine months of work. Finally, umpires are found all over the minor leagues and in colleges and high schools around the country. If these guys aren't happy with their jobs, then there are thousands who could take their place.

Anyone who has watched games over the last ten years knows that the strike zone has been a joke. Most pitches above the belt are considered high by major league umps. Tom Glavine and others made a career of moving the strike zone two or three inches off the outside corner. Anything that improves the calling of the zone by umpires is a great thing.

Umpires may not be happy, but they should just accept this because there is no turning back. The technology is in place and there will be oversight. From the Fan's perspective, it's about time.