MLB Ejection 085 - Chris Conroy (1; Andrew McCutchen)

[Lindsay]

HP Umpire Chris Conroy ejected Pirates CF Andrew McCutchen for arguing a strike three call in the bottom of the 7th inning of the Dodgers-Pirates game. With two out and none on, McCutchen took a 2-2 fastball from Dodgers pitcher Casey Fien for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was...

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

View the full article

[Thunderheads]

"ball,.... that's down"

[grayhawk]

3 things:

1.  Are we sure that's down? I think I'm being generous to McCutchen with the line, but I also can't see where the plate starts.
2.  With 2 strikes, it would be best to swing at this pitch regardless.
3.  McCutchen isn't even looking at the ball, so how would he know?

 

[grayhawk]

By the way, while this pitch may have been down (Pitch f/x says it was, so I concede that point), McCutchen was wrong on pitch #3.  That one was correctly called a strike.

[Thunderheads]

16 hours ago, grayhawk said:

By the way, while this pitch may have been down (Pitch f/x says it was, so I concede that point), McCutchen was wrong on pitch #3.  That one was correctly called a strike.

To your points, regardless of your concession to number 1.

1) I'm just not sure why you'd even question it to begin with?  You're a good umpire Steve, ....you saw the pitch, ...what was your first reaction?  I guarantee you it was ..."ohhh that looked low" ....I guarantee it was.

2)  Swing at this pitch regardless?  This isn't high-school.  Most of these guys (most) of Cutch's caliber know the zone pretty darn well.  I bet you 8 or 9 times out of 10, that's a ball on most pro fields.  Was it close, sure, but it's a ball.

3) Wasn't looking at the ball?   He figured it was low out in front, where he's looking ....... he knew

Again .... was it egregious .....hell no ..... but this is the Show and it doesn't take much for a strike 3 that misses to aggravate   Albeit, McCutchen I don't think has ever been ejected.

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

To your points, regardless of your concession to number 1.

1) I'm just not sure why you'd even question it to begin with?  You're a good umpire Steve, ....you saw the pitch, ...what was your first reaction?  I guarantee you it was ..."ohhh that looked low" ....I guarantee it was.

2)  Swing at this pitch regardless?  This isn't high-school.  Most of these guys (most) of Cutch's caliber know the zone pretty darn well.  I bet you 8 or 9 times out of 10, that's a ball on most pro fields.  Was it close, sure, but it's a ball.

3) Wasn't looking at the ball?   He figured it was low out in front, where he's looking ....... he knew

Again .... was it egregious .....hell no ..... but this is the Show and it doesn't take much for a strike 3 that misses to aggravate   Albeit, McCutchen I don't think has ever been ejected.

Here's the thing.  McCutchen was mostly upset because he thought 2 pitches were missed in that at-bat.  McCutchen was dead wrong on this point.  The last pitch missed by what?  A half inch?  Yes, some pitches are just too close to take with 2 strikes.

[JHSump]

Umm, never mind what Pitch f/x says, that looks like a strike in the view from the side. Some part of the ball is above the hollow of the knee -- both knees. See the ESPN vid (http://m.mlb.com/video/v862869283/ladpit-mccutchen-tossed-after-strikeout-in-7th). And the plate must be somewhere between McCutchen's front knee and back knee. Or perhaps he was deep in the box (he certainly wasn't up in the front of the box; again see the ESPN vid after the call); if he was deep in the box that doesn't help his case.

It's too bad he reacted that way. He must have been having a bad game/day/week/whatever. We're all human.

BTW, on point (3) of @grayhawk, ("McCutchen isn't even looking at the ball, so how would he know"): at best, hitters follow the ball with their eyes up to a few feet in front of the plate (especially 96mph pitches). After that it's nearly physiologically impossible to follow the ball further as it passes you, as a batter. Even when swinging and successfully hitting the ball, their eyes are looking out front at the last spot to which they were able to track. Sure, as a batter you can swing your head around as the ball passes, but it doesn't help in seeing anything useful. Batters who do that on pitches they take (e.g., Pete Rose), are just telling everyone they are "giving it their all." They made up their minds to take the pitch earlier in its flight. It's like when a player dives after a ball they know will be completely out of their reach, even with the dive.

It's easier for an umpire to track the ball, with the eyes, all the way to the glove, of course, since the ball never passes the umpire. But even then, it's not easy during those last few feet. In my experience, for fast pitches on the outside part of the plate or off the plate, that last bit of tracking is tough. For me it requires a quick snap of the eyes to the glove, missing the last foot or more of flight and instead focusing on the catch itself.