MLB teams take scouting to new level, track umps

[BrianC14]

A few unkind statements about some well-known names!

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-scoutingtheumpires

[ukce1861]

Maybe it's just me, but this makes perfect sense. I know as a LL coach, we see more "variation" in our umpires than in the Majors, but I know the tendencies of most of the regular umpires and try to communicate those to the girls. I don't have K/BB ratios or anything, but if I know one guys going to ring them up on a low and outside pitch, I tell them they've got to protect that corner. If I know a guy's going to call them at the chin, with 2 strikes they better be swinging up there. I feel like that's part of a coach's job, adjust to the umpire's zone...

[Umpire in Chief]

I see the value, but I think some of the things the rats were saying about guy's zones is way off, because they are looking at the data and seeing what they want to see. Yes in a 200 pitch game there may have been one straight down the pipe which got balled AND one well off the plate which got called a strike.

So when they say:

Here’s how one team assessed Hunter Wendelstedt: “Inconsistent zone, both in-game and from game-to-game, seemingly losing focus at times by balling pitches over middle and calling strikes on pitches well off plate...”

I take that is saying that his actual strike zone is consistent enough, but his outliers are random. ie. he's consistently consistent with the strike zone. Whereas an umpire who appears to have a big inside corner would be consistently inconsistent and more able for a pitcher to take advantage of the "expanded zone" which is what the coaches are actually looking for.

It sounds like they're looking at the outliers where they can get strikes which my not be textbook strikes for their pitchers to hit and their batters to make sure they protect. Be pure definition those are not the norm and no advantage can be gained by knowing.

I'd contend that if they did some real statistical analysis and looked at the info objectively rather than through their rat eyes they may have a better appreciation of how well the umpires are doing.

[jjb]

In our world of Rec ball, you also have to take the age of the players into consideration. My HS zone has absolutely no similarity to the 9 yr old game I did last night. (Haven't done them in a while - whoa! I was giving them most of the other batters box, couldn't find a strike.)

[DirtyDawg]

I wish the coaches I had would take not of my strike zone. That way their pitcher would quit throwing the ball to that one corner after I have already balled it 200 times.

[JaxRolo]

Maybe it's just me, but this makes perfect sense. I know as a LL coach, we see more "variation" in our umpires than in the Majors, but I know the tendencies of most of the regular umpires and try to communicate those to the girls. I don't have K/BB ratios or anything, but if I know one guys going to ring them up on a low and outside pitch, I tell them they've got to protect that corner. If I know a guy's going to call them at the chin, with 2 strikes they better be swinging up there. I feel like that's part of a coach's job, adjust to the umpire's zone...

Amen to that!

[BrianC14]

Bobby Cox is right. They might get one win per season out of it.

Somehow, I think we was being tongue-in-cheek. :rollinglaugh: