|
It is evident to me that Alderson believes that by requiring umpires to better call the strike zone as it is defined by the rules it will result in less pitches and shorter game times. We all know the MLB strike zone has not been called "per the book" for years. Now, is Alderson wrong for wanting the officials and pressuring them to call the zone per the book? It certainly is within his authority and responsibilities of his position, is it not? Certainly what he requests is different than what has been occurring and what people have grown accustomed to. Yet, does that make him wrong?
This is obviously more a power struggle between MLB management and the umpire's union. The umpires don't like being dictated to by management and are seeking any angle to win. Pitch count has nothing DIRECTLY to do with whether a pitch is in or out of the zone. Since it was raised as an issue, it is easy for the union to attack. So, by addressing pitch count as a standard, Alderson is wrong.
Now, if MLB were to use an electronic machine to evaluate the strike zones actually called by an official in comparison to the actual strike zone defined, AND if the results were to be considered as an evaluation of each umpire's capability and affect his opportunity to call MLB-----do you think the umpires would then call the zone per the book? I do.
If it is part of their evaluation, and if it means whether they keep their job or (if not yet in MLB) whether they get a job, the umpires will be far more willing to accept the desires of management. MLB CAN find good, qualified umps willing to call the zone by the book (if that's what they want), but they will certainly go through some immediate union headaches in achieving what they desire.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|