MLB Ejections 121-122: James Hoye (3-4; Punto, Melvin)

[Lindsay]

HP Umpire James Hoye ejected Oakland Athletics 2B Nick Punto and Manager Bob Melvin for arguing a strike three call to end the top of the 9th inning of the Athletics-Mariners game. With two out and one on, Athletics batter Punto took a 3-2 fastball from Mariners pitcher Fernando Rodney for a called...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[grayhawk]

It was high. Suck it A's.

[dumbdumb]

HP Umpire James Hoye ejected Oakland Athletics 2B Nick Punto and Manager Bob Melvin for arguing a strike three call to end the top of the 9th inning of the Athletics-Mariners game. With two out and one on, Athletics batter Punto took a 3-2 fastball from Mariners pitcher Fernando Rodney for a called...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

@Gil

 

Per brooks pitch/fx

Why is this (#6) not a strike???

You see it, you call it, you explain it.

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=407845&game=gid_2014_07_11_oakmlb_seamlb_1&batterX=63&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3&league=mlb&cache=1.gif

 

 

After this #4 pitch that Punto grounded out on in the 5th, after watching pitch #1, and  #2 go by, I am pretty sure he has no clue of the strike zone anyway, to try and evaluate an umpires strike zone in the 9th inning.

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=433587&game=gid_2014_07_11_oakmlb_seamlb_1&batterX=31&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3&league=mlb&cache=1.gif

 

oh my and look at #1 and #2 in the 7th that he let go by to swing at #3, at least #3 was better than #4 in the 5th

 

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=433587&game=gid_2014_07_11_oakmlb_seamlb_1&batterX=48&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3&league=mlb&cache=1.gif

 

Please start giving the box graph and the source when ejections due to pitches are involved. Also, since many at your sight are on the inside so to speak, and I am pretty sure you are one of those also, who thouroughly know the "Zone evaluator" system, please let us know when a pitch that would show a strike when you give the box from whatever source you are using, would be different than the Zone evaluator.

So a balled pitch that just just misses the pitch/fx box would count as a strike in "Zone evaluator" system, and a pitch called a strike that just ticks the pitch/fx box would count as a ball in the Zone evaluator system. That way we can see if the umpire is correct using  Zone evaluator even though we may see just the opposite with the pitch/fx box or whatever source you are using.

 

Come on you can give that box (scale it down a bit from the size above) and the source of that box.

[Dannytheman]

I have it high also. But it ain't my call! 

 

PU probably had to pee!

[Lindsay]

@dumbdumb, the PFX plot you are looking at is a non-normalized zone for the "leave average" batter, with a sz_top (strike zone's upper limit/line) of about 3.4 feet. Punto, meanwhile, is shorter and the technology puts Punto's sz_top for pitch #6 at 3.170. Assuming a one-inch margin-of-error for pitch collection data, a pitch could theoretically have a maximum height of 3.253 feet and still hit the top of the strike zone.

 

Pitch #6 has a recorded height (pz) of 3.267, which is greater than the margin-of-error height of 3.253 and certainly greater than the sz_top value of 3.170; thus, height of ball > top of strike zone :: the strike call is incorrect.

 

I call this the pitch f/x height conundrum and diagramed this confusing contradiction during a 2012 ejection that also featured it, Ejection 148: Tony Randazzo (2). What you'll see there is the pitch f/x plot not taking into account the actual strike zone for B1 and, as a result, portray a pitch as a strike when it was really a ball. 2012-148 Randazzo 2 also has variables of a late time out request and the batter standing up, so just refer to the annotated PFX plot for illustration of the conundrum.

 

The precise reason we went away from posting the pfx graphic was misconceptions about the strike zone, including this height conundrum.

[JHSump]

Hmmmm....Most of you seem so sure this was a ball.

 

But I think it can be argued that it was legitimately called a strike. For one thing, it may depend on how he was calling those throughout the game. And, if you watch closely Punto squats as the ball passes the plate, giving the impression the pitch was higher than it was. Watch where the catcher receives the pitch, then look at Punto's stance before he squatted down as the pitch passed him.

 

Too close to take, at the least.

[GoodOldGus]

I've really hated the phrase "take the bat out of the hitter's hands".....it's always rubbed me the wrong way.  

[Thunderheads]

Hmmmm....Most of you seem so sure this was a ball.

 

But I think it can be argued that it was legitimately called a strike. For one thing, it may depend on how he was calling those throughout the game. And, if you watch closely Punto squats as the ball passes the plate, giving the impression the pitch was higher than it was. Watch where the catcher receives the pitch, then look at Punto's stance before he squatted down as the pitch passed him.

 

Too close to take, at the least.

THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Good call JHSump

[JaxRolo]

Even with the squat it looked high. But close enough! Swing the bat!