Lindsay

Top4, approximately 7:50 into the Condensed Game: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=21115429

Joe's absence sure was felt tonight. The twitterverse cracked jokes that even when he's not working, West manages to screw up ballgames or something to that effect. We're in the middle of appealing the check swing QOC (currently "correct"), but the Phillies' top7 would likely have turned out very differently with U3 in his normal 4-man spot: First Ruiz's foul ball would have been called fair and second Victorino's SB attempt would have been called safe instead of out (Fletcher in C was straightlined on that tag, no question).

Go, Go Gadget Legs.

Something about Campos just rubbed Pittsburgh the wrong way: "We've had disagreements from the beginning of the series," said Clint Hurdle. "It escalated a lot. We felt we weren't getting a fair shake. There were five or six pitches in the first two innings that we disagreed on. That's a lot." Yesterday, the Pirates were planning on filing a formal complaint with MLB regarding Campos. It didn't help that the Pirates think Campos was duped into calling a strikeout against Tabata: Cards catcher Yadier Molina acted like Tabada's two-strike check swing made contact with the ball and Campos bought it, signalling a foul tip: "He got manipulated by a veteran catcher," said Hurdle, "He bought it. I was like, 'C'mon, man. That's not right.'" Bucs plan protest of strike zone

I believe fair/foul is determined by where the fielder is standing when he touches the ball: any drag bunt is foul if you field it from the dugout side of the foul line! :smachhead:

This is one quote to describe the kind of person Harry was. Aug. 29, 1998: After rookie plate umpire Sam Holbrook had tossed out three Cardinals, including Tony La Russa and Mark McGwire, after a simple strike call on McGwire (this was his 70 HR season), fans began littering the field with bottles and other garbage. Harry called in his crew of Rich Rieker, Hunter Wendelstedt and Holbrook to give them a pep talk. "'Listen. I'm going to handle everything else. I need a couple of things ... Rich, Hunter, after every half inning, you're going to meet me right behind second base. No one has that good of an arm. If they want to throw stuff at us, they're not going to reach us beyond second... "'Sammy, I've worked with you all year. You’re one of the better young umpires in the big leagues. I need you to bear down now for the next eight innings and do the job that I’ve seen all year long. Block it out. Every pitch that you call, right or wrong, they’re going to scream at you. Don’t worry, go out there and do the job I know you can.'" Now that's a crew chief.

"Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers" is a strong accusation, and as you yourself have already pointed out, the study's data indicates nothing further than a very weak correlation while—by your own admission—doing nothing to establish causality. It therefore appears quite irresponsible for the authors of this study to have written, "Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers." That's a conclusion of causal discrimination and that is wrong. That's all.

"Our first observation is that pitchers who match the race/ethnicity of the home- plate umpire appear to receive slightly favorable treatment, as indicated by a higher probability that a pitch is called a strike, compared to players who do not match." "From the starting pitcher’s perspective, a racial/ethnic match with the umpire helps his earned runs (fewer), hits (fewer), walks (fewer), and home runs (fewer)." Johan Sulaeman, Christopher Parsons, Michael Yates, and Daniel S. Hamermesh, “Strike Three: Discrimination, Incentives and Evaluationâ€, The American Economic Review Volume 101, Issue 4, June 2011 You tell me how those quotes do not conclude that umpires of the same race aren't prone to favoring a same-race pitcher. When the authors of the study write, "In MLB, as in so many other fields of endeavor, power belongs disproportionately to members of the majority — white — group," with, "Major League Baseball umpires express their racial/ethnic preferences when they evaluate pitchers. Strikes are called less often if the umpire and pitcher do not match race/ethnicity," that conclusion screams discrimination, which is a manifestation of racism. "The type of discrimination that we have demonstrated is disturbing." These quotes are directly from a study you believe does not conclude discrimination based on race.

Well, we all knew that. I meant to highlight that several "academic studies" calling umpires racist were being used as excuses for why a team might have lost a game.

In writing my JEAPU article, I did a bit of research on the various "racist umpire" studies from 07, 10, and some others: most all of them were done by economics folks, namely because those people work with all-else-equal numbers while a sociology professor is more likely to incorporate external factors into their datasets, which would ultimately render the finding of "one pitch per game" statistically insignificant and basically meaningless. In fact, I have researched this arena before, as I distinctly recall writing another UEFL piece in the past about yet another one of these poorly executed studies. As UIC Warren noted, these stories crop up on a fairly regular basis—and in sports other than baseball, too (NBA)—and rarely provide significant evidence to support their claim. They're generally meant to provide excuses as to why a team may have lost a particular game... not kidding...

http://rivals.yahoo....rn=ncaaf-wp8455 It's an interesting legal issue. Certainly, the intruder's actions prevented or hindered the officials from doing their jobs, indirectly resulting in a fight as LJ was distracted by the intruder during a series of taunting and fighting words being exchanged between the two teams. Had a player been injured during the melee, this would have been very interesting, opening the door for potential litigation against the only person to be charged with a crime as a result of the incident.

I don't believe they brought the infrared camera out in Game 2 at all

This just in from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named regarding R3 Kinsler hit by a foul ball.

I think we have our pick from Layne's called strike on Berkman that Buck mischaracterized as a foul tip (pitch f/x confirms the strike call was correct) and the Beltre trap in the first inning, which Buck called live as a catch, wondering why Beltre threw to first base to record the out. Of course, they show the replay and Beltre fields the liner, looks back at Kulpa to see "safe," and throws to first for the out. Buck views the replay and admits it was a trap, then proceeds to accuse the umpires of blowing the call... Kulpa ruled no catch...

There was a conclusive change of direction upon the ball hitting the foot at 1:15. This is while the ball is still traveling downward, before contacting the ground.

If it's manufactured controversy you're looking for, let's wait until Texas finds this video floating around the internet: St. Louis hometown umpire Kulpa in World Series, Interview. Conspiracy. Clearly.

Yes, it tracks start_speed, end_speed, sz_top (instantaneous midpoint), sz_bot (instantaneous knee-hollow), pfx_x (horizontal movement), pfx_z (vertical movement), px (plot's x coordinate), pz (plot's y coordinate), xo (initial x), yo (usually 50), zo (initial y), vxo/vyo/vzo (initial velocity x, y, and z), ax/ay/az (initial acceleration x, y, z), break_y (max. "bend"), break_angle (the angle the pitch crosses the front edge of HP with), break_length (distance bw release point and pz), type_confidence (algorithmic most probable pitch type), release point, speed, rotation, spin, norm_ht (calculated y var for normalized ht plot). So even with just that one data point on the front edge plot, you can use the others to calculate a pitch's most probable trajectory into the catcher's glove, and determine the likelihood of a pitch entering the strike zone.

The basic premise is that pitch f/x is accurate to within one-half inch, per their CEO. As we're all aware of, the 2D plot generated is normalized pitch location as the ball crosses the front edge of home plate, and doesn't take into account the depth and shape of the strike zone. The plot, by virtue of normalization, does consider instantaneous batter stance as the pitch is captured. Per practicality, the generated plot does not take into consideration pitch count, pitch type, break, target accuracy, etc. In terms of a "rules book strike zone," the generated plot is the closest you'll get to an accurate location as it relates to balls/strikes when the pitch is at the front of home plate. As such, any plotted pitch that is captured within the rules book strike zone (px: -.953, .953, norm_ht: -1.000, 1.000) as it crosses the front edge of home plate must, by rule, be a strike. Any called strike within the rules book strike zone is "correct," while any ball within the rules book strike zone is "incorrect." Any called strike outside of the rules book strike zone may be incorrect, while any ball outside the rules book strike zone is "correct." Margin of error allows for |.953|+ 0.4165, which is ordinarily capitulated to (0.900, 1.000). Vertical margin of error is variable and calculated for each pitch. Therefore, a plot which shows an umpire missing a number of pitches located within the strike zone and outside of the margin of error (noted as an incorrect ball call) is accurate. A plot which shows an umpire missing a number of strikes outside of the strike zone and outside of the margin of error (incorrect called strike) may be accurate. Nelson's plot (Game 5 ALCS): pfx (54-56 Called Strikes, 93-93 Balls = 98.7%) Nelson's two missed pitches were both fastballs, both off the RH batter's side of home plate, and both with a measured break toward the outside (such that the pitches would not have tailed back into the zone past the front edge of home plate). They both were outside the margin of error, and conclusively (100%) categorized as "incorrect called strike." A performance two pitches short of a perfect game is outstanding. Used here, pitch f/x is valuable, objective, and most importantly, accurate. Pitch f/x can be an umpire's harshest critic, and when that toughest of judges has only two incorrect calls out of 149, it's a good day. On the other hand, as pitch f/x is an umpire's harshest critic, it will give performances a <90.0% rating from time to time. Welke (Game 1 ALCS): pfx (50-53 Called Strikes, 87-102 Balls = <90.0%) By rule, math, and science alone, all 15 ball calls were incorrect. Two of the three called strikes were incorrect. The third is borderline. However, pitch f/x doesn't take into account the aforementioned variables, as well as heat mapping. Heat mapping shows an umpire's tendencies in ruling balls and strikes by pitch location, and is unsupported by the rules. For instance, if heat mapping were to be applied to Welke's plot, though he would still be 50-53 in called strikes, he would be 96-102 in balls for 94.2% overall. His ZE percentage might even have come out to around 94%. Again, heat mapping deviates from the rules. Nelson's two pitch short of a perfect game plot does not. It is an incredible accomplishment for an umpire call a 100% rules book strike zone, missing only two pitches. Whereas Welke's plot needs manipulation to bring him up to 94.2%, Nelson's needs no work at all to show his near-perfect performance. That in itself is worth noting.

- Why not AZ? It stands to reason that PBUC prefers their umpires and schools to be consistently accredited and licensed, and Florida is the national leader in accrediting non-traditional educational institutions such as an Umpire School. Florida's Commission for Independent Education regulates, among other things, nondegree-granting, nontraditional educational institutions. All three Florida Umpire Schools have been accredited by the CIE. It stands as an insurance measure for both umpire students and the three schools, in that CIE, by virtue of its licensure of PBUC/JEAPU/WUS, protects students from unfair business practices, while the schools are protected from certain limited liability issues. Arizona on the other hand grants licenses via the State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. AZ's Vocational Program License doesn't offer the same benefits as Florida's version of accreditation nor does it require the same standards for licensure. Again, PBUC could place a school in Arizona, but that would create disparity and an inconsistency in licensing standards. I see they've taken over the old Dodgertown at Vero Beach... but decided not to replace the mural which Klemm is standing in front of.

I have a feeling we won't have this announcement until after tomorrow night's games (at least the AZ-MIL game). I would think MLB is grooming Jim Wolf for an eventual World Series, so they are giving him a LCS assignment. I think MLB is waiting to see if his brother will be in the NLCS before finalizing the crews.

Thanks all. MLB fined LaRussa for his tirade, and LaRussa in turn admitted he "went over the line" in a pre-game press conference.

MLB assigned the crew chiefs for Game 3 of their respective series. We'll see if this experiment pays off...

I disagree. The media has recently started "catching on" to brushing the plate. By and large, they seem to think brushing the plate is unnecessary, we do it just "for show." They applaud when an umpire brushes the plate to give a catcher more time to recover from a foul ball, but they criticize an umpire who brushes the plate and then has a tough conversation with a catcher or batter. In lay-minds, brushing the plate is a crutch umpires use to accomplish an underlying mission, which in this case, would be to discipline the catcher. According to the pseudo-fan, brushing the plate is never done solely for the purpose of removing dirt. Again, it's all about perception. If Martin is baiting Schrieber (which I contend in the article I posted above), Schrieber has to resist the temptation to fall for the bait by stepping out in front of Martin, even to "brush the plate." In keeping with perception and appearances, Schrieber should take the higher road, let Martin drop into his crouch, and talk from there. Get the batter to back out/etc. to give some time to finish up with Martin. If he's getting run, do it quietly so the catcher is the one who loses his mind and has decorum-breaking reaction. Then the ejection is justified in the minds of observers.

It's been out since 4:08pm ET? I'm good! Blogger has me posting the list for the UEFL at 3:46pm ET.