another one of those "ego, arrogant" etc.

[dumbdumb]

Guess the only people in the world who are egotistical/arrogant etc.etc to the 1 millionth degree are umpires.

Everyone else is a certified/glorified angel.

http://bsndenver.com/alfonzo-marquez-shows-more-need-for-reform-in-dodgers-win-over-rockies/

They have quit showing that statistic in all the articles that use to include how many times the manager made a motion to 'hold on', with a close call,

so they could decide whether to give the headset signal. You know they are not going to do a 'hold on' except for a close call.

Now, many are close, some by inches but a lot of close ones are that last quarter/half a step.

So, out of 100 calls, 22-25 percent were not acted on after dugout review where the manager just said to hold on, but did not ask for the headsets.

There for, out of '100' close calls, 22-25 the umpire admittedly got right and did not need a review (the headsets). The other 75-78 are the ones where it is now 50%/50% or 49%/51% getting right or getting wrong.

So, add that 22-25 back in for the umpires and you are 60-63 for the umpire being correct and the rest, 37-40,  are overturned, for all total calls acted on (hold ons, plus head sets.)

So, out of '125/ close calls,  hold ons plus head set calls, where the percentage would be 49 correct and 51 incorrect, you can add in another 22 to 25 hold on for a total of 71-74 being correct and 51-54 being incorrect.

The umpire makes a call by "what he saw" on the play, not by whether it is 'correct or incorrect'. The umpire can only call the play the way he saw it, not what the play result will be shown to be on instant replay, if you have replay at the level you call. There is no lying to the coach or whatever devious plot everyone thinks the umpire is using. Of course the umpire is going to say he is correct. He is correct with what he saw, not necessarily correct with what replay on the field or later off the field will show the true outcome to be.  This is how it has been from the beginning of time and how it will always be. How are you going to admit to seeing something you did not see. You saw out, although replay later shows safe. You saw safe, although replay later shows out. You called what you saw on the field at the time.  When the players and managers/coaches see the final result on instant replay, there is no need for the umpire to come up and admit they missed the call. Why ram it up the umpires backside to make him admit he missed the call (replay right on the spot like MLB or replay later on some TV or you tube replay) when the whole world can see the final outcome on instant replay. Once again, the umpires original call is what he saw, right or wrong. It is not saying whether he is correct or incorrect, just saying what he saw.

 

[Richvee]

I got through 2 paragraphs and had to stop.

"Another one of the completely illogical and unwritten rules of baseball that is apparently beyond debate and never followed in any kind of consistent manner"

That got the blood heated.

"showcased exactly the kind of behavior that needs to be addressed when it comes to how MLB games are umpired."

That got it a little warmer.

Alfonzo Marquez proved once again that umpire ego is more important than getting the call right and the reason we know this is because the statistics actually back up those doing the arguing, not those doing the ejecting.

And got it boiling. Article over for me.

Know- nothing punk "journalists"....Who, for whatever reason, feel they are authorities on anything...let alone professional umpire qualifications, standards, ejections, etc. make me ill. 

 

[Stk004]

Make balls and strikes reviewable? Calling Jim Joyce an idiot? Smh. 

[Richvee]

Just now, Stk004 said:

Make balls and strikes reviewable? Calling Jim Joyce an idiot? Smh. 

wow.. He said that? Now I'm REALLY glad I stopped reading when I did.

[Lindsay]

16 hours ago, Richvee said:

Alfonzo Marquez proved once again that umpire ego is more important than getting the call right and the reason we know this is because the statistics actually back up those doing the arguing, not those doing the ejecting.

I'm going to assume whoever wrote that sentence hasn't researched ejection statistics, the Pitch f/x system, or Replay Review. Had this person done the proper research before making that claim, he would realize his statement was made in error.

I wrote the following reply in an effort to educate someone who appears not to know of the issues he attempts to discuss.

Quote

Drew, you might want to consult information publicly and readily available from SABR and Close Call Sports regarding replay and ejection information before making claims purporting to reference ejection statistics. For instance, as of last month's sabermetrics update, umpires in 2016 were 62.0% accurate on calls exclusively associated with ejection, which suggests that statistics do not, preponderantly, "actually back up those doing the arguing, not those doing the ejecting."

One of the many reasons electronic Replay Review of balls and strikes is not permitted concerns the technology's shortcomings, which have been documented by sabermatricians and technical analysts. Sometimes, the error is quite obvious (attached image), but other times it is less so. Most notably this season, for instance, Pitch f/x erred during a Yankees ejection on August 30. In real-time, the umpire's strike call appeared incorrect. After a post-game adjustment to correct the problem, however, the strike call was determined to be proper.

 

PitchInfo & Brooks, for instance, purport to account for calibration error, but this calculation can only be made post-game (and, as illustrated by the aforementioned Yankees balls/strikes ejections, even Brooks is susceptible to error if the data itself is inaccurate). It is statistically irresponsible, and equally improbable, to attempt to apply this in real-time, which leaves the technology subject to a healthy dose of error—such as calibration, measurement, capture, fitting or modeling, 2D Zone, pitch classification, and operator errors—that prevents reliable real-time application.

As a proponent of and writer with a self-described healthy obsession with fact-based debate, referencing those facts and statistics might prove beneficial in placating that desire.

[grayhawk]

Wow.  It's been a while since I have seen someone get so completely undressed.  Excellent work Gil.

[GPblue]

Any response to this yet Gil?

[Lindsay]

Nothing from the author yet. Here's the DISQUS page for that conversation: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/bsndenver/alfonzo_marquez_shows_more_need_for_reform_in_dodgers_win_over_rockies/#comment-2919427721

[LittleBlue]

Gil's response was far and away the better read. Then again people who know nothing about the umpiring business or profession do not want to hear the facts that umpires are good at the jobs they do. They want it to be like old times where they could yell "kill the umpire" and be done with it. The truth that umpires are generally good at what they do and get the majority of the calls right likely does not sit well with those who enjoy hating on them. It's for that reason that they shut out facts like those that Gil presented and rely on the old opinions that umpires are blind and vindictive people who have egos the size of Texas. As for those of us who are informed and have some (and in some cases extensive) experience in the world of umpiring, we will continue to rely on the facts so that we may have informed opinions and be able to talk about umpires and the profession rationally.

[Richvee]

Great retort, Gil. I also love @dumbdumb angle about the "hold on let me see the video before we decide to challenge" stats. Any time the team goes to the video phone to check and see if they want to challenge, means it was a real close call. The statement made by so many.."Umpires are missing more than half the close calls is utter hogwash. 

[dumbdumb]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Great retort, Gil. I also love @dumbdumb angle about the "hold on let me see the video before we decide to challenge" stats. Any time the team goes to the video phone to check and see if they want to challenge, means it was a real close call. The statement made by so many.."Umpires are missing more than half the close calls is utter hogwash. 

hot off the press for you Richvee.

Enjoy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/hbo-throws-strike-baseball-tradition-real-sports-look-umpires-compare-computers/

[Mister B]

How does he know there wasn't one blown call, he couldn't even see the strike zone. 

My issue is that the strike zone is a 3-dimensional space, that changes for every batter. And every pitch does not travel in a straight line. Until we can solve for all of that, we haven't solved anything. 

The unknown that the umpire brings another factor to the game that also makes it less boring. You can figure out pitchers, then you figure out pitcher and catcher combos, now add in the umpire and it's much more difficult. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

hot off the press for you Richvee.

Enjoy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/hbo-throws-strike-baseball-tradition-real-sports-look-umpires-compare-computers/

[Stk004]

3 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

hot off the press for you Richvee.

Enjoy.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/hbo-throws-strike-baseball-tradition-real-sports-look-umpires-compare-computers/

I refuse to watch either video. I refuse. 

[GPblue]

I will watch the Real Sports episode.....because I like Real Sports.  

I might lose my dinner watching it though........I know we have HOKP, but what do you call on both knees position directly behind the catcher?  The Adult Entertainment slot?

[MooseLoop]

I like the guy measuring the distance to the rubber starting from the front of the plate, rather than the point.  Epitomizes their blithe belief in the accuracy of technology.

[Mister B]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 

[UmpJeff]

As I've believed, and will always believe, the managers should have to make their decision to challenge IMMEDIATELY without the use of video replay.  They (managers) should have to base their decision to challenge, or not to challenge, on what they see.  Just as the umpires base their calls on what they see.  Period.