Close Calls at 1B - What Can We Do? If Anything

[johnnyg08]

The current overturn rate on reviewed plays at 1B defined as "close plays at 1B" in MLB is hovering around 72% (151/209) 

It's the highest overturn rate going back 11 years to 2014 (57%)  and it's not really that close. All other years have hovered between 60-65% overturn except 2024 which had an overturn rate of 70% 289/413

So...here's my question...if the best in the world are getting overturned on close plays at 1B that are reviewed nearly 3/4 times, is there anything we can be doing differently in our games knowing that our close plays are probably overturning at least at 72%...assuming we'd be going to review...but we never know of course, because we don't have replay. 

I think the technology has improved too...which is a factor...but an overturn is an overturn regardless. 

So...is it just that those plays are that difficult for the human eye? Could it be that simple? Occam's razor

 

[jimurrayalterego]

44 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The current overturn rate on reviewed plays at 1B defined as "close plays at 1B" in MLB is hovering around 72% (151/209) 

It's the highest overturn rate going back 11 years to 2014 (57%)  and it's not really that close. All other years have hovered between 60-65% overturn except 2024 which had an overturn rate of 70% 289/413

So...here's my question...if the best in the world are getting overturned on close plays at 1B that are reviewed nearly 3/4 times, is there anything we can be doing differently in our games knowing that our close plays are probably overturning at least at 72%...assuming we'd be going to review...but we never know of course, because we don't have replay. 

I think the technology has improved too...which is a factor...but an overturn is an overturn regardless. 

So...is it just that those plays are that difficult for the human eye? Could it be that simple? Occam's razor

 

Give the tie to the runner😊
What are the stats of out overturned to safe?

[grayhawk]

I would guess it has more to do with teams getting better at figuring out what to challenge and what not to challenge than the umpires missing calls at a higher rate.

The main thing for those of us without replay is proper use of eyes. Slow down on bangers, and practice this when the infield warms up. See the ball from the fielder's hand, judge true throw or not, snap eyes to the bag, and then let your eyes travel to F3's glove to watch him pull it out. Do this over and over so you develop muscle memory so when a close play happens, the timing is deliberate and consistent.

[beerguy55]

The analysis is incomplete to really determine the meaning of a 60-65% overturn rate each year - you need to include the number of close plays that weren't challenged at all - those are at least plays where the manager didn't have enough certainty to risk a challenge, if not agreed with the call outright.   Further that that, we would need to review those plays and determine if the calls "would have been" overturned if challenged.

Or, at the very least...if you say 209 close plays at first were reviewed, how many total close plays occurred.  That might help contextualize that number.   Not in determine why it's 72% vs 65%, but to explain why it's close to 3/4 than 1/2.

The other piece of the analysis that would be relevant is breaking the overturned calls down between out vs safe calls made on the field.  That would help identify if there's a gap in how the on-field judgment is made.

Without that information, this data shows a statistical problem - in short, the umps shouldn't be that "bad".  On true banger plays you really should be hovering around 50/50...and for some reason over the past decade 57% overturn has been their BEST year??  The conclusion there would be that umps would be better off randomizing their calls - then they'd only be wrong 50% of the time, not 60, 65, 72%.

If you're not even achieving a coin flip using some kind of trained methodology, then maybe the method is flawed.  

That is, if you do a series of true/false tests, and you keep scoring 30%, you're doing something wrong.

The other valuable piece would be to compare overturn rates at other 50/50 calls...and then look at those 50/50 strike/balls.

I suspect it's back to the age-old method of watching the foot and listening to the glove, and maybe that's not as reliable as we think?  We absolutely know where it fails, and Joyce and Denkinger will tell you all about it...ie. on soft tosses you don't hear the ball hit the glove.   Probably similar problem on any throw against crowd noise.

 

 

[MadMax]

7 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

So...here's my question...if the best in the world are getting overturned on close plays at 1B that are reviewed nearly 3/4 times, is there anything we can be doing differently in our games knowing that our close plays are probably overturning at least at 72%...assuming we'd be going to review...but we never know of course, because we don't have replay. 

Who’s “we” and “our” in this? You simply cannot transpose professional metrics and trends onto the amateur arena. Why? Two glaring factors, and neither of them are the absence (or presence) of replay: 

1. the speeds – batted ball, throwing, and foot-speeds – are so much higher, quantifiably, in the pro game(s) over the amateur game. Only NCAA D-1 comes close, and contributing to that is the use of metal bats. 
2. the increased size of the “pizza box” bases. The Big Leagues wanted more offense; it can’t be said they’ve outright achieved it, but they sure did make close plays even more close… er. 

Point is, amateur baseball cannot assume anything… especially an “overturn rate of 72%(?!?! )”. 

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Probably similar problem on any throw against crowd noise.

I genuinely think there’s more to this than we realize. Stadiums have not necessarily gotten smaller per se, but they’ve gotten more… condensed? Is that something that we can identify as well? 

I actually think that if we (in the amateur game) are going to expand the use of the alt-colored base, that base should have a big ol’ squeaky toy inside it! 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

 

I actually think that if we (in the amateur game) are going to expand the use of the alt-colored base, that base should have a big ol’ squeaky toy inside it! 

The glove needs the squeaky toy. But I do remember an NCAA video of a big dog telling to watch the ball into the glove and listen for the foot. So some might be doing it that way.

[JSam21]

12 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The glove needs the squeaky toy. But I do remember an NCAA video of a big dog telling to watch the ball into the glove and listen for the foot. So some might be doing it that way.

Which video was this? 
 

[beerguy55]

11 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The glove needs the squeaky toy. But I do remember an NCAA video of a big dog telling to watch the ball into the glove and listen for the foot. So some might be doing it that way.

I've wondered about that myself.  Another coach and I went through a bit of an exercise with our players, more for curiosity than anything.  Brought on by a particularly awful umpire we experienced at a tournament who just couldn't get a call at first base right if it was under half a step.  Going back to what I said earlier...if you just flip a coin here, you'll get the call right 50% of the time (sample sizes aside) - if your method and effort are falling short of randomness, you're doing something wrong.  This ump was truly in the 10-20% range.

The other coach's statement to me was (and I was skeptical) that you didn't even need to see the play to get that call right.

We created plays at first and had coaches and players be the umpire - and they would close their eyes/look towards the outfield and make the call.  All they could do was listen for BOTH the foot and the glove.  And they're surprisingly accurate.  In fact. they were more accurate than the traditional method (as non-experienced umpires).  More surprising...most could accurately make the call at first, from the third base coach's box - just by differentiating between the two sounds.

Don't get me wrong...it's not practical for many other reasons, including whether or not the foot actually hit the bag or the ground, was the ball caught...short hops in the dirt...etc, etc.

But it tells me that our eyes may be tricking us here...or we sometimes get confused processing the two pieces of information...or something else. So we may be better off looking at glove and listening to the foot...or we may be better off listening for both...or better off watching both (pro umpires, and a lot of amateur umpires) are very good at seeing that a tag on the foot does or doesn't beat the hand on the bag six feet away from the tag.

While also accepting the possibility that the method in use is the best of all.

I just go back to the coin flip - if stats bear out that we're not outperforming a coin flip, we're doing something wrong.

 

[maven]

21 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I would guess it has more to do with teams getting better at figuring out what to challenge and what not to challenge than the umpires missing calls at a higher rate.

I agree that this hypothesis likely explains the higher rate of overturns. Teams are (a) preserving their challenges for more important plays (at 3B or HP) by (b) avoiding challenging 1B calls unless they're nearly certain that the 1B umpire missed the call (75–100% subjective confidence). If we inferred that umpires are getting worse at 1B calls because the overturn percentage has risen, we could be guilty of selection bias.

The frequency for last year is listed (289 overturned out of 413 challenges), and this year's data is on track to match it. The lower percentages in previous years don't have the frequencies listed: are they lower because there were fewer overturns or because there were more challenges (or both)? That would have some bearing on the adequacy of grayhawk's hypothesis.

Because replay has no role in amateur baseball, I'd say that this information can be safely ignored. Close plays are close. Get better at proper use of the eyes and consistency—but that imperative applies across the board, and is not related to the overturn rate in pro baseball.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

Which video was this? 
 

I think I saw it on an Arbiter video back when NCAA was on Arbiter. But a guy named David Uyl espoused it in a Referee article back in 2013.

Edited to add; I also mentioned seeing this in the 2018 Online clinic:

"Online Clinic

Jimurray replied to Umpire in Chief's topic in Collegiate

In Mechanics, Timing slide 35 the second speaker mentions watching the ball into the glove at 1B. I read the throw and then watch the bag, then coming back to the glove for secure posesssion. Is watching the ball into the glove an alternate method?

 January 10, 2018"

[JSam21]

30 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I think I saw it on an Arbiter video back when NCAA was on Arbiter. But a guy named David Uyl espoused it in a Referee article back in 2013.

Edited to add; I also mentioned seeing this in the 2018 Online clinic:

"Online Clinic

Jimurray replied to Umpire in Chief's topic in Collegiate

In Mechanics, Timing slide 35 the second speaker mentions watching the ball into the glove at 1B. I read the throw and then watch the bag, then coming back to the glove for secure posesssion. Is watching the ball into the glove an alternate method?

 January 10, 2018"

That is literally the first time I have ever heard anyone talk about looking at the catch and listening for the foot.  Everyone is teaching, eyes to the base, listen for the catch, bring eyes back to the glove to determine firm and secure possession and voluntary release at the college level for plays at first base. 

[dumbdumb]

me thinks, that in the beginning they were keeping 'hold' scores and with 'hold but no cigar/challenges added in' the umpires were between 72 to 75 percent correct, but they quit adding the hold score very quickly.

also me thinks that the replay room does not listen for the ball hitting the back of the glove which produces the sound, they go by ball within the glove=it is in the glove the exact second when there is no snow cone of the ball showing outside the glove, but yet just that instance, when within the glove but before hitting the leather back of the pocket for the sound to be produced and they go with within the glove and the foot hitting. and maybe when that cleat just touches the base at that very first physics produced contact, it has not produced that thump sound that one is listening for.

and, when all the teams started hiring people for just the purpose of telling the skipper to challenge or not, have gotten much better/analytics on predicting analytically, with a little gibs gut thrown in,  when the challenge would result in a 'stands call' versus a confirm or overturn. plus now everything/analytics has a statistic attached and made up for everything, and people still trying to come up with everything under the sun to analyze, maybe some good and some not so good.

some managers went lefty lefty towards the end with pitcher hitter no matter what the stats said even though particular righty on the staff had a better percentage of getting that lefty out. also earl weaver did not believe in possibly giving up an out with a steal, he wanted all outs to be decided with the bat, not the speed, until recently with a new bigger bases and the chance of success went up on a steal and it seems like thats what the analytics said (ie moneyball, and why do we like walks, because that player gets on base, we dont care if he isn'tt an olympic sprinter, he cannot score at all from the dugout. 

and i hate to lose more than i love to win, and there is a difference.

but i say no matter the analytics, some are better than others no matter what. and you will never get the very best unless everyone in the world is challenging you for that job you are challenging for, doctors and lawyers and accountants, analytics people, ceo's, vp's, ditch diggers, volleyball stars, former players and managers, trainers, etc, etc.

so, you guys pretty much covered all the angles with your above posts.

 

 

[jimurrayalterego]

11 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

 

also me thinks that the replay room does not listen for the ball hitting the back of the glove which produces the sound, they go by ball within the glove=it is in the glove the exact second when there is no snow cone of the ball showing outside the glove, but yet just that instance, when within the glove but before hitting the leather back of the pocket for the sound to be produced and they go with within the glove and the foot hitting. and maybe when that cleat just touches the base at that very first physics produced contact, it has not produced that thump sound that one is listening for.

 

 

 

 

So at levels with replay we have to adopt that "look the ball into the glove". 🙂

[Velho]

10 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

when within the glove but before hitting the leather back of the pocket for the sound to be produced and they go with within the glove and the foot hitting.

Based on language used by MLB it's when ball touches glove

https://x.com/MLBReplays/status/1942798347406078365

[The Man in Blue]

@Velho … interior of the glove, not just touching glove. I would hope the intent of that is secured inside, not just caressing the inside of the fingers as it goes in, but hey, if they is a way to be vague and screw up the wording, baseball will find a way.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

@Velho … interior of the glove, not just touching glove. I would hope the intent of that is secured inside, not just caressing the inside of the fingers as it goes in, but hey, if they is a way to be vague and screw up the wording, baseball will find a way.

From watching the result of the replays (of which the above isn't a good example to compare with the foot hitting the base) it's when the glove flexes from the ball hitting it - almost always in the back of the pocket.  Security is implied from the call on the field, i.e. in and out of the glove would have been safed and not challenged. 

[Recontra]

Rec’d this photo this morning showing one of the better umpires I occasionally get to work with taking a whacker at 1st yesterday, lasar focused on the bag. Love the athletic-set stance, too. I started doing that this season and am never going back to Hands-on-Knees set at least in A and C. Still not sure about B—been doing both of late. Can’t figure out which I prefer to work quick pick-offs. 

[BrainFreeze]

On 7/8/2025 at 3:26 PM, beerguy55 said:

I suspect it's back to the age-old method of watching the foot and listening to the glove, and maybe that's not as reliable as we think?  We absolutely know where it fails, and Joyce and Denkinger will tell you all about it...ie. on soft tosses you don't hear the ball hit the glove.   Probably similar problem on any throw against crowd noise.

 

 

I grit my teeth every time Jim Joyce gets mentioned in the same conversation as replays.  Gallaraga did *not* catch that ball cleanly.  IF there had been replay at the time, the only way that call gets overturned is if Rob Manfred is in the replay room.  Although Bud Selig probably cared less about the integrity of the game than Manfred, which is saying a lot.

Deckinger on the other hand.... wtf was he doing on that play?  I watched that game on my dorm room tv which was a 10" B&W and *I* could see it...

[Velho]

22 hours ago, BrainFreeze said:

Gallaraga did *not* catch that ball cleanly.

So folks don't have to hunt for it

Full speed https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx_MqwZcUpoHFflzHGEw-mVW--r4i6wkp-

Slowed down https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxZdD2XgSm_umyNjon6KCefWU7TylEiWl1?si=j3MnOM3z7PG0aIsX

[Recontra]

Thanks for those links! Never saw that actual play before. For me, that’s the toughest play in any game to umpire, that and a one hopper whacker to the bag with three sounds and a blur of footsteps. I had 3-4 this season, wasn’t ever 100% on any of them, and just consider myself lucky as hell that my partner each time said post game that it looked like I got it right, . . . that and no skipper came out to give me a piece of his mind. 
 

What the hell did I just see and hear??!! Video and audio intracranial replay . . . followed by a very emphatic and loud signaling mechanic that looks a hell of a lot more confident than the dude in blue/black/beige actually making it, and then confidently jogging out to short right to finish the sale. 
 

Yikes!!

[dumbdumb]

On 7/18/2025 at 4:16 PM, BrainFreeze said:

I grit my teeth every time Jim Joyce gets mentioned in the same conversation as replays.  Gallaraga did *not* catch that ball cleanly.  IF there had been replay at the time, the only way that call gets overturned is if Rob Manfred is in the replay room.  Although Bud Selig probably cared less about the integrity of the game than Manfred, which is saying a lot.

Deckinger on the other hand.... wtf was he doing on that play?  I watched that game on my dorm room tv which was a 10" B&W and *I* could see it...

2 people on here agreed with your assessment of the 6-2-2010 situation back in the day of @Velho 2 videos. dont know if the link of the past ue topic dragged in or not from the professional section during that time.

 

[Velho]

On 7/20/2025 at 6:13 AM, dumbdumb said:

2 people on here agreed with your assessment of the 6-2-2010 situation back in the day of @Velho 2 videos. dont know if the link of the past ue topic dragged in or not from the professional section during that time.

Interesting read of that in the moment thread, especially in light of how Replay is now.

On 7/20/2025 at 6:13 AM, dumbdumb said:

  On 7/18/2025 at 1:16 PM, BrainFreeze said:

I grit my teeth every time Jim Joyce gets mentioned in the same conversation as replays.  Gallaraga did *not* catch that ball cleanly.  IF there had been replay at the time, the only way that call gets overturned is if Rob Manfred is in the replay room.

Honestly, I had never seen the reclutch of the ball on that play and don't recall seeing a conversation of it since I joined UE.

 

[beerguy55]

On 7/18/2025 at 2:16 PM, BrainFreeze said:

I grit my teeth every time Jim Joyce gets mentioned in the same conversation as replays.  Gallaraga did *not* catch that ball cleanly. 

Grit your teeth all you want...he caught the ball and even Joyce agreed.  The double clutch is irrelevant...it was not an establishment of control, it was a re-assertion of control.   Regardless, Joyce's safe call had nothing to do with the double clutch (something he'd have never seen nor heard)...he made the call because he believed the runner beat the throw.

 

On 7/18/2025 at 2:16 PM, BrainFreeze said:

Deckinger on the other hand.... wtf was he doing on that play?  I watched that game on my dorm room tv which was a 10" B&W and *I* could see it...

The original point is this call is so hard to make because the umpire can't hear the ball hit the glove on those soft tosses, and that is why the Joyce and Denkinger calls are similar.  To your point on Denkinger...you could SEE he was out in real time just fine, and if he had been watching the glove and the bag, like we do when we watch TV, he'd have likely made the right call.

Time and time again we see umpires, correctly, to a ridiculous level of accuracy, determine whether or not the tag on the foot beat the hand touching the base seven+ feet away.