World Series Game 4 Discussion

[HoustonGM]

My main reply when it comes to this subject is this: Why not?

Because the game should be decided by what the players do, not by bad calls made by umpires that aren't held accountable for the bad calls they make.

I mean seriously, this is hardly a new issue. Umpires have been screwing up calls since before 1871. What makes it such an issue now?

A few things. One, it's more obvious now. Two, it seems (and I can't prove this) that the umpiring is progressively getting worse, and as I said in an above post, I think that's due to the fact that the MLB doesn't hold the umpires accountable. You can be a horrible umpire and keep your job just because you've always been an umpire.

The Umps themselves do try to limit blowing calls. In my mind, as long as their not trying to directly influence games (ie.: gambling, which obviously should be quashed with extreme prejudice), I don't see what the real problem is. Part of the game is the fact that a human being needs to see what you're doing... the players play to that. I don't see any real need to fundamentally change the game in the manner which you guys are advocating for.

I don't think that making accurate calls is fundamentally changing the game.

[OldFatGuy]

My main reply when it comes to this subject is this: Why not?

I mean seriously, this is hardly a new issue. Umpires have been screwing up calls since before 1871. What makes it such an issue now?
The Umps themselves do try to limit blowing calls. In my mind, as long as their not trying to directly influence games (ie.: gambling, which obviously should be quashed with extreme prejudice), I don't see what the real problem is. Part of the game is the fact that a human being needs to see what you're doing... the players play to that. I don't see any real need to fundamentally change the game in the manner which you guys are advocating for.

No, it's not a new issue. That doesn't make it all okay though. Spitballs used to be part of the game, and I'm glad they're gone too. Plus, an umpire with an agenda can intentionally affect the outcome of a game. That is indefensable. With or without an agenda, they have affected outcomes, and it's not in the games best interest.

The NFL, and NHL have already "seen the light" and used technology that wasn't availabe years ago to help get the calls right. MLB should do the same. It's not about tradition or anything else. It's just about getting the calls right. A hundred years ago the game was judged differently (I don't think they had as many umpires working a game).

Things change, technology and knowledge increases, and there's nothing wrong with using whatever means necessary to make the game as pure as possible. Having a player who was obviously out called safe and then score the winning run in the seventh game of the world series might be well within tradition, but it's not in the best interest of the game.

[Alloutwar]

I agree with both of the above. Why make an arbitrary point at which anything beyond is ruining the tradition? In the old days, they had less umpires - certainly not the 6 they have in the playoffs now. If accuracy isn't as important as keeping with tradition, then why not draw the line at not letting the umpire wear contacts? Make them call it as best they can with their natural vision.

In the future, umpires might have an eyepiece that flips down so they can instantly watch the reply on the field and get the call right. I can only see that helping the game, not hurting it. Right now it's an intensely pressure-filled job, where one or two bad calls in a big series and suddenly rumors are spreading that you've been paid off. If that were my job, I'd opt for the replay whenever I was less than sure, and the benefits of a correct call outweighed saving the 12 seconds it would take to review.

[ohms_law]

Let me bring up a couple of counter points in reply:

One, it's more obvious now.

It's really not. It's more immediate now but if you go back and read about, or even better watch old games, then you'll see that things are basically the same as they've always been.

Two, it seems (and I can't prove this) that the umpiring is progressively getting worse, and as I said in an above post, I think that's due to the fact that the MLB doesn't hold the umpires accountable.

I think that the best reply to this is something that I heard yesterday while watching Ken Burns' Baseball. When talking about (Christy Mathewson?) an umpire is quoted as remarking that "his fastball is too fast to see. I have to call balls and strikes based on the batters reaction." (I'll have to go back and find the exact quote...)
The point being, it's always been there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be advocated for here is that calls should be 100% correct always. That there should be no reason and therefore no means to argue a call. That's a humongous, earth shattering change to the game. Deception is a component of baseball, and it always has been. One large side effect of advocating for perfect calls is at least the partial removal of this component of the game, and I don't understand why that would be good.
"Bad" calls should be avoided as much as possible. That I agree with. However, a human being being able to make a call with an unaided eye is an important aspect of the game.

Another important component here is that calls, for better or worse, should be made immediately. One thing that you yourselves have brought up is keeping control of the game in the players hands. If the umpires pause to review plays then you're removing some level of control over the game from the players.

Spitballs used to be part of the game, and I'm glad they're gone too.

Spitballs bring up a different component: Safety. The reason that spitballs were outlawed is irrefutable. They were outlawed because they placed players lives in jeopardy.
This isn't a topical argument, in my opinion.

[OldFatGuy]

Spitballs bring up a different component: Safety. The reason that spitballs were outlawed is irrefutable. They were outlawed because they placed players lives in jeopardy.
This isn't a topical argument, in my opinion.

It's absolutely topical, according to your very own arguments that just because something has always been a part of the game, that it shouldn't be removed.

The point being, it's always been there....

Deception is a component of baseball, and it always has been. One large side effect of advocating for perfect calls is at least the partial removal of this component of the game, and I don't understand why that would be good.

And yes, the calls should be as close to 100% right as possible. 100 years ago, the umps stood behind the pitcher and called strikes and balls. They learned it would be better to get behind the plate. Now we may have learned other "new" ways to make calls. I hope you're not advocating for the umps to return behind the pitcher to call balls and strikes just because THAT'S the way it was done for awhile.

The point of the game is to have the PLAYERS play by the rules (such rules may and have changed as well), and the results be determined by those players and those rules. Period. Nothing else. Nothing sinister. Nothing earth shattering. It's a simple objective. If a ball is a strike by the rules, it should be a strike. If a player is tagged out while off the base, he should be out, period. If a human being can make that call as close to 100% as possible, great. Fine. If some other method is needed, that's fine too. Just get the calls right and let the game be decided by the players, and not by bad umpiring, or worse, umpires with an objective.

EDIT: BTW, different topic, but I thought I remember you being an Angels fan. WTF is up with the Angels and the Red Sox in the Postseason? I mean, damn, they OWNED the Red Sox in the regular season. I was so hoping for a freeway series this year, and neither LA team made it. I thought at LEAST they would get past the Red Sox. I think the Red Sox must now be in their heads in the postseason.

[HoustonGM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be advocated for here is that calls should be 100% correct always.

They should be as close too 100% accurate as possible. 100% accuracy is not a realistic option, but the MLB should do everything in it's power to make sure the calls are as accurate as possible, and frankly, they could be a lot more accurate than they are.

That's a humongous, earth shattering change to the game. Deception is a component of baseball, and it always has been. One large side effect of advocating for perfect calls is at least the partial removal of this component of the game, and I don't understand why that would be good.
"Bad" calls should be avoided as much as possible. That I agree with. However, a human being being able to make a call with an unaided eye is an important aspect of the game.

Sorry, I just don't understand this. Deception is part of the game, yes, and it will be regardless of the calls being accurate. Sure, maybe it'd be lessened, but the reason it's good is because...the actual outcome of the play decides the game, instead of fooling umpires. Deception should come into play when you're deceiving the opposing team, not impartial observers whose job is to accurately call the outcomes of plays.

Spitballs bring up a different component: Safety. The reason that spitballs were outlawed is irrefutable. They were outlawed because they placed players lives in jeopardy.
This isn't a topical argument, in my opinion.

I think it's just meant to illustrate that just because something has always been part of the game doesn't mean that the game would be worse off without it. Yes, the reasons are different, but that general point is fair.


Really, I'd settle simply for the MLB monitoring the umpires better and holding them accountable for blatantly wrong calls. There's always going to be incorrect calls, but really, they should be rare and limited to the extremely close plays.

Last night's tag of Rollins is an example of an incorrect call that should never happen. Longoria's glove CLEARLY was placed squarely on the runner's ass while the runner's hand was a good foot or two from the base, and the umpire was on top of the play and had a clear line of sight. The only explanation for making the wrong call in that situation is incompetence. It wasn't an iffy call where the speed of the game hampered the split-second judgment of the umpire. It was a clear-cut out. There's been a few such plays in this World Series, which is a few too many. Major League Baseball should make it's best effort to use it's best umpires in the World Series, and it should scrutinize the ability of the umpires much more than it already does.

As I understand it, the MLB does perform some level of review of the umpires, but, there's a couple issues with how they do it. First, the results aren't public. Second, nothing comes of the reviews. They're purely procedural. Umpires in baseball have what amounts to tenure, and as long as they don't break the rules (accepting bribes, fixing games, etc.), they'll continue umping at the major league level, even if they repeatedly make poor calls.

Umpires have no accountability, and I think that should change.

[kenny1234]

As I understand it, the MLB does perform some level of review of the umpires, but, there's a couple issues with how they do it. First, the results aren't public. Second, nothing comes of the reviews. They're purely procedural. Umpires in baseball have what amounts to tenure, and as long as they don't break the rules (accepting bribes, fixing games, etc.), they'll continue umping at the major league level, even if they repeatedly make poor calls.
Umpires have no accountability, and I think that should change.

I agree that umpires should be held accountable - the only public accountability in the system at the moment is the decision over who umpires in the playoffs. One reason to give the umpires 'tenure' is to protect the integrity of the game. Yes, ideally umpires should be accountable - but to who. Should Bud Selig have the right to fire an umpire that he judges incompetent? I like the idea of a system where the government essentially give up the right to assess the judges. It has drawbacks but it generally works.

On the original topic. There are three factors that are important in calling balls and strikes (or other calls). Accuracy, consistency and the immediacy of the call. Accuracy and consistency are probably better with a computer. If the technology can match the speed of a human umpire then there might be a case for going to automated umpires - though I don't see the need.

[OldFatGuy]

On the original topic. There are three factors that are important in calling balls and strikes (or other calls). Accuracy, consistency and the immediacy of the call. Accuracy and consistency are probably better with a computer. If the technology can match the speed of a human umpire then there might be a case for going to automated umpires - though I don't see the need.

I agree with the point about speed. I don't want MLB games to be interrupted every inning and 10-15 minutes taken up either. But, if you have an umpire in the booth, wired up with the crew chief or home plate umpire on the field, there's no reason why it can't be done in limited cases and speedily. And in the case of balls and strikes, I'm not there yet either. Not because of speed though. I think that could be instantaneous with a wired ump in the booth. I'm just not sure the "K-zone" type technology is actually proven to be correct yet. Especially considering there is technically a different strike zone for every batter, and I'm not sure K-Zone incorporates that as of yet.

[HoustonGM]

I agree that umpires should be held accountable - the only public accountability in the system at the moment is the decision over who umpires in the playoffs.

It's not a public system. There is a system that MLB uses to judge umpires, and only the upper half of the umpires are eligible to ump in the postseason. Rob Neyer just wrote a blog entry on ESPN Insider about that very issue. The problem is that for one, as I said above, the results aren't public. For two, the umpires that have scored very low on player surveys have scored high on the MLB reviews (as evidenced by them umpiring in the playoffs). Rob Neyer goes into more detail with it, but it's an Insider-only blog entry.

There should be more transparency.

One reason to give the umpires 'tenure' is to protect the integrity of the game.

Protecting the integrity of the game is a reason to get rid of incompetent umpires, not to keep them.

Yes, ideally umpires should be accountable - but to who. Should Bud Selig have the right to fire an umpire that he judges incompetent?

Bud Selig himself shouldn't have the power, but there certainly should be a committee that reviews the umpires and institutes perhaps suspensions for umpires that show a repeated propensity to blow calls, with more severe punishments for continued blown calls, like perhaps demotion to the minor leagues, and eventually yes, firing them.

I agree with the point about speed. I don't want MLB games to be interrupted every inning and 10-15 minutes taken up either. But, if you have an umpire in the booth, wired up with the crew chief or home plate umpire on the field, there's no reason why it can't be done in limited cases and speedily. And in the case of balls and strikes, I'm not there yet either. Not because of speed though. I think that could be instantaneous with a wired ump in the booth. I'm just not sure the "K-zone" type technology is actually proven to be correct yet. Especially considering there is technically a different strike zone for every batter, and I'm not sure K-Zone incorporates that as of yet

Yeah, agreed.

[ohms_law]

It's absolutely topical

It's not. Spitball use involves the health and welfare of the players, which puts it in a completely different space. There are plenty of other rule examples that don't involve player injuries, so use one of those. This is an obvious attempt to bludgeon the argument in another direction, but I'm not going to go there beyond saying that you're wrong.

The only explanation for making the wrong call in that situation is incompetence.

It's not. You and I have the benefit of watching the play while sitting comfortably on our couch, and then of course we have the opportunity to see the replay from 5000 different angles.
The players and the umpire are there, and the umpire is required to make a call right then. That's the way that it should be.

and the results be determined by those players and those rules.

As interpreted by an Umpire. The Umpires are in the rules as well, you know...

100% accuracy is not a realistic option

Ah, but it is. Easily.
That's the logical conclusion to what you're advocating, as well. There's really no half way with things like this...
Multiple high speed cameras already are tracking every pitch and every play in baseball for PitchFX, GameDay, and Baseball Info Solutions. The systems that would be required to make 100% accurate calls are already installed league wide as of this year.

Deception should come into play when you're deceiving the opposing team

If you're trying to be deceptive when you know that you're going to be out or whatever, then the Umpire becomes the real opponent. That's a component of tactics... which could easily be completely removed. What I'm asking is: Should it? You're indicating that it should, but I disagree.
Some Catchers are really good at boxing the strike zone for their pitchers. Even when the pitcher throws a ball, their sometimes able to pull it in and make it appear as a strike. That's a skill... should that really be removed? It's been a component of the game forever, and in my view making any skill irrelevant (aside from safety issues, as mentioned above) is generally bad.

First, the results aren't public.

Good. That's for the Umpires...
I don't want my job reviews public, and I'm sure none of you do either. We don't go into publicizing punitive actions that occur around here...

Second, nothing comes of the reviews.

How do you know?

Anyway, this:

Especially considering there is technically a different strike zone for every batter, and I'm not sure K-Zone incorporates that as of yet.

Really hits to the heart of the matter, for me. Not just for strike zones, but for everything.
Look, I'm an electronics tech. I deal with technology every day. Technology and computing is a wonderful thing, but there's a reason that people always need to be behind it. Technological solutions are perfect for repetitive, predictable tasks. Anything that involves human movements (which are by our very nature inherently unpredictable) will be imperfect. There's just no way around that... That being true, the confidence in and intimidation of such a system will cause it to be respected and unquestioned for a while. However, after a period of time the participants will find the imperfections and take advantage of them... as, interestingly enough, currently occurs with players and umpires. The main difference being that while umpires can recognize and adjust their own foibles, a computer system cant.

PS:

EDIT: BTW, different topic, but I thought I remember you being an Angels fan. WTF is up with the Angels and the Red Sox in the Postseason? I mean, damn, they OWNED the Red Sox in the regular season. I was so hoping for a freeway series this year, and neither LA team made it. I thought at LEAST they would get past the Red Sox. I think the Red Sox must now be in their heads in the postseason.

It's the playoffs...
*shrug*

[ohms_law]

True... but people have yet to be able to explain themselves to a great enough extent for anyone to be able to write a program to correctly ape one. There are groups working on it though.


One of the points here is that for me personally... baseball is kind of an escape from technology to a certain extent. Some people leave their cell phones behind (or at least turn them off) and run off to some cabin in the woods. Me, I turn on baseball.
Obviously, the tech is there these days (and I definitely enjoy things such as PitchFX and GameDay), but it's in the background. It's easily ignored if I want to ignore it, but there if I want it. To me, that's the perfect sort of situation.
Besides, by implementing something tech wise for umpiring we'd be susceptible to "equipment delays". God forbid, even hacking... Obviously MLB (more likely MLBAM) would spend a ton of time and money on such systems, but their still computer systems. Nothing is perfect, and no computer system in the world can be completely secure. Just ask DOD about computer security.


My main point: If it ain't broke, don't **** with it.
I hear what you guys are saying, but seriously... this stuff just isn't at all new. It's actually much better now then it has been at some points in the past. Ideally we shouldn't notice the Umpires at all, and that should be the ultimate goal. What's being asked for here isn't a path to that, it'll actually lead to people doing nothing but paying attention to the "umpiring". Plus everything else.

[HoustonGM]

As interpreted by an Umpire. The Umpires are in the rules as well, you know...

There are rules that aren't up for interpretation. When a player is tagged by a fielder 2 feet from a base, he's out, end of story.

The systems that would be required to make 100% accurate calls are already installed league wide as of this year.

Are they 100% accurate? I'd say no. Damn close, but I don't think it's possible to get completely accurate calls with no mistakes whatsoever. But, I suppose that's semantics.

If you're trying to be deceptive when you know that you're going to be out or whatever, then the Umpire becomes the real opponent. That's a component of tactics... which could easily be completely removed. What I'm asking is: Should it? You're indicating that it should, but I disagree.

I don't think players should be playing against umpires. They should be playing against the other team.

Some Catchers are really good at boxing the strike zone for their pitchers. Even when the pitcher throws a ball, their sometimes able to pull it in and make it appear as a strike. That's a skill... should that really be removed? It's been a component of the game forever, and in my view making any skill irrelevant (aside from safety issues, as mentioned above) is generally bad.

Well, not to get technical or anything, but the studies that have looked into catchers and framing skills have seen no indication in the stats that certain catchers get more called strikes than others, which would indicate that if the skill does exist, it's undetectable, which brings up this point. If a skill is so small that it is undetectable, it is really worth "saving", when the other option is to get more accurate calls?

How do you know?

Nothing more than perhaps a slap on the wrist and a warning saying, "Do better." And I know this because umpires don't lose their jobs for making routine bad calls.

Anyway, this:

Really hits to the heart of the matter, for me. Not just for strike zones, but for everything.
Look, I'm an electronics tech. I deal with technology every day. Technology and computing is a wonderful thing, but there's a reason that people always need to be behind it. Technological solutions are perfect for repetitive, predictable tasks. Anything that involves human movements (which are by our very nature inherently unpredictable) will be imperfect. There's just no way around that... That being true, the confidence in and intimidation of such a system will cause it to be respected and unquestioned for a while. However, after a period of time the participants will find the imperfections and take advantage of them... as, interestingly enough, currently occurs with players and umpires. The main difference being that while umpires can recognize and adjust their own foibles, a computer system cant.

Note that I haven't even been advocating really for a full technological umpiring system. I'm fine with instant replay for home run calls and that's it (for now, at least). I just want umpires to be held accountable for their calls.

[ohms_law]

And I know this because umpires don't lose their jobs for making routine bad calls.

So, the only acceptable course of action is to fire them? That seems rather harsh...

[HoustonGM]

So, the only acceptable course of action is to fire them? That seems rather harsh...

I said this above:

Bud Selig himself shouldn't have the power, but there certainly should be a committee that reviews the umpires and institutes perhaps suspensions for umpires that show a repeated propensity to blow calls, with more severe punishments for continued blown calls, like perhaps demotion to the minor leagues, and eventually yes, firing them.

If you continually make incorrect calls, for whatever reason, you shouldn't be umpiring in the MLB.

[BINGLEBOP]

Then at the same time, if they fired/demoted an umpire, they could promote the one(s) from the minor leagues that had the lowest percentage of missed/blown calls.