Jump to content

beerguy55

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

beerguy55 last won the day on February 16

beerguy55 had the most liked content!

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

beerguy55's Achievements

1.6k

Reputation

6

Community Answers

  1. There's no real advantage, let alone an unfair one - B/R had every opportunity to touch the base both before and after Time was granted (which was requested by the offense, btw - for whatever weight one might give that). As you said, the B/R can correct his error during a dead ball, and in the OP did so, before the appeal was made. This is not preventative umpiring - this is assisting the player and it should be avoided...in principle, it's no different than telling the defense to appeal the missed base. Preventative umpiring would be overruling the PU's granting of time...and if feasible, doing it as discretely/proactively as possible without giving anything away....ideally before he actually says the word. Perhaps trying to get in a loud and assertive "no, play on" before the PU has a chance to respond?? But I think worst case is a "not yet" after PU says Time...and you might give away the reasoning to a savvy coach, depending on how insistent you have to be to either the PU, or the OC, but c'est la vie...at least you've administered the rules/situation properly.
  2. The rules imply your players must be bi-pedal. The batter's box and catcher's box rules require having "both" feet in (otherwise they'd say "all" feet). I think an ostrich would look pretty cool back there.
  3. Here's the TLDR version... If you have a pitch that is at the same specific grid point 1000 times for each catcher...across dozens of different plate umpires, and potentially a dozen pitchers; and catcher X gets 725 strike calls, and catcher Y gets 400, that's not an issue of any one umpire, or group of umpires, missing a call....that's an issue in how the catcher is presenting/selling/receiving the pitch. Either the catcher is getting strikes that should be balls...or getting balls that should be strikes...or at the very least, is influencing the direction of a borderline pitch that should be called a strike/ball (theoretically) 50% of the time.
  4. It's a correlative exercise...much like you can analyze an umpire's score against the strike zone (accuracy) and their own effective zone (consistency)...if you look at one game you might not have all context (maybe you have a really good/bad framing catcher)...but if you take those scores across all games you get a pretty good measure....now, you take that same mapping across all catchers, and try to make it independent of pitcher or umpire. Even if you determine that all pitches in the "shadow zone" are Schrondinger's Strike, and may be factually a ball or factually a strike, you can still see how the exact same pitch in the exact same location can be rule a strike more with some catchers than others. You take a measure of all pitches on the border of the strike zone (in this case, low), and you can see patterns in how all catchers receive pitches in the same location, independent of umpires, and (usually) independent of pitchers - you're looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of pitches for each zone...and then you can see which ones are called balls and strikes, for all catchers, across all locations/pitchers/umpires. At that point, your catcher is either getting a strike that should have been a ball...or getting a ball that should have been a strike. It doesn't really matter which is right at that point. If you have a pitch that is at the same specific grid point 1000 times...potentially for 120+ different plate umpires, and potentially a dozen pitchers for each catcher... for two different catchers, and catcher x gets 700 strike calls, and catcher Y gets 450, that's not an issue of any one umpire, or group of umpires, missing a call....that's an issue in how the catcher is presenting the pitch to all of the umpires. And it doesn't matter what they should have been called. And from there, the patterns become apparent...some catchers are better/worse than other catchers at framing/receiving...and as such, cost/gain their pitcher strikes, regardless of umpire, or umpire quality. You could even do the same statistical analysis of all catchers receiving in front of the same umpire...you might get a finding of either more strikes, or more balls, as a general finding for that umpire, which might go to how much framing influences that umpire, but even with the "smartest" umpires, you should/will see a difference among catchers who are more, or less, successful. The leg drop issue specifically is about low strikes in general. It makes framing those low strikes easier. And pitchers like to stay at the bottom of the zone, or below the zone if they can get some free strikes. Those are harder pitches to turn into hits...and especially home runs. I'm not sure if this will be location blocked - it's a Sportsnet Canada video showing the difference between Alejandro Kirk and Danny Jansen, and seeing several low (probable) balls called strikes for Kirk, and low (probable) strikes called balls for Jansen - across multiple pitchers and umpires. These corroborate the stats shown above. Analyzing different stances between two Blue Jays’ catchers behind the plate (sportsnet.ca)
  5. There's quite a bit of data on catcher framing - Strikes Gained is the stat you want to look into. And other sites are simply summarizing how borderline pitches end up as either balls or strikes based on the catcher's actions....umpire independent. Statcast Catcher Framing Leaderboard | baseballsavant.com (mlb.com) Zone 18 in particular...the best catchers are approaching two thirds in getting the strike call on low pitches...the worst approach one third. Then it's a matter of seeing which one of these catchers use the knee drop technique. Lots of these guys are doing it even with runners on base (much to the chagrin of those who value blocking pitches over stealing a few strikes)
  6. So, if DC appeals during the dead ball before BR returns to first it's definitely an out. I can't fathom why he waited until BR returned to first base to talk to you about. That's his error. You were right to rule the runner safe at the time of appeal. I also wonder if (ticky tack as it may be) you have BR "overrunning" first and not immediately returning to the base, which would be your call to make without requiring an appeal. The hypothetical pinch runner replaces the runner in all aspects, doesn't he? I'd say if the pinch runner touches first after the original runner misses it, even during a dead ball, you have a correction of the error, I think. eg. BR is rounding third, on a homerun award...he trips, misses third as he falls, and breaks his leg. The pinch runner comes in, touches third, completes the award...this would be allowed, I think. Yes, but what's the remedy...you going to yell "no, time is not granted!" after your partner already called it...if that doesn't telegraph the reasoning you'll have a hard time explaining to your partner without giving up the goods. Not to mention calling "Time" might be a bell that can't be unrung. How do you signal to your partner proactively this weird scenario?
  7. This - it's all for the benefit of selling to the umpire. 🙃 It will be irrelevant in MLB by 2025 I suspect.
  8. Well, if they faint they won't be able to throw for a while.
  9. This is so important, and I wish it would be communicated more at all levels - you almost need a one day seminar...Why Does This Rule Exist? Umpires, coaches, players and parents may attend. This was the crux of the George Brett pine tar protest. AL president had to clarify that the intent of the rule was to reduce costs, not to address some competitive advantage (there was none) to having too much pine tar on the bat. A bit "cute" in retrospect now that 40 years later a MLB baseball almost never sees a second batter, let alone a second inning.
  10. It's amazing how much they can accomplish when they focus on it. We had a rec league game where the ump didn't show up, but we found one volunteer willing to do it (OK, gun to my head I would have, but I was away coach and this is home's responsibility) - he's a fine ump as far as us volunteers go, he'd done it many times, but this time wasn't expecting it, so not only did either team have any real equipment for him (there was a spare catcher's mask) - he was wearing shorts and sandals. At our plate meeting he pulled in both catchers and pitchers and said to all of us "if a single ball hits me I walk" - he was, I believe, the safest umpire I've ever experienced...not a whiff of a WP or PB all game....and somehow not even a foul ball hit him.
  11. Are there seams on your arm...that's always a fun conversation topic too. I can't wait to see that wonderful shade of yellow that follows the purple.
  12. It's like trying to bluff the SH*#tiest poker player in the world. Just....don't.
  13. I didn't care what the count was...I had two rules for my pitchers. 1. Not down the middle 2. Close enough to the plate to make the batter think about it. And I'd let number 1 slide in certain situations. But nothing drove me more nuts than a pitch that a batter never had to worry about. At least make it look like it could be a strike.
  14. Since you are only out by judgment* I've always assumed the rules give the benefit of the doubt to the runner who either does not know (or is not sure of) the umpire's judgment, or for those cases where maybe an umpire changes his mind about said judgment. If the runner has simply continued running the bases then things are easy to correct...he keeps his base if he wasn't out and he just leaves the field if he was. But if he were to leave the field, that's a bell that can't be unrung. The rules, particularly abandonment, incentivize the "retired" runners to stay on and around the bases. This leaves the defense in a conundrum from time to time, especially if they are left guessing to whether or not the out they believe/"know" has been completed has been judged the same by the umpire. So, even on a very loudly declared IFF, a B/R can still run...even though they have no reason to run - they're either out or it's foul....unless the umpire(s) determine it wasn't catchable with "ordinary effort" and change their mind....... *I'm open to being corrected here, but I can't think of a situation where umpire judgment is not involved in calling a player out, even indirectly (ie. by rule you're out if the batted ball is caught...if the umpire judges it was caught)
×
×
  • Create New...