Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel
If you find yourself umpiring at the MLB level, consider Mike Port's thoughts regarding QuesTec.
|
Actually, I can consider it now as an example that even at the highest level, an "expected" call is still allowed today. I do not need to be an MLB umpire to use this example to contradict some of your previous assertions in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel
Most MLB guys are ridiculously consistent, QT park or not. The adjustiment you speak of is statistically irrelevant to their scores.
|
Not always true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStrybel
You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately.
|
As I posted above in regards to the death of expected calls, I largely agree with you in that I believe
most "expected" calls have died and that MLB wants the "correct" call made. I would add that the significantly improved quality of instant replay has generated this change, not the death of arrogance or anything else.
The bottom line for me in respect to all of your posts in this thread is this:
If you want to say that there were a lot of arrogant umpires in MLB in the 1990's or earlier, I won't disagree. I think their arrogance (and the arrogance of their leadership) directly contributed to the 1999 labor disaster (from the union's perspective). If you were to argue that their arrogance was as large a reason as any anger they may have had toward MLB for contributing to their refusal to start playoff games on time after the Alomar spitting incident...I'd agree with you. If you were to argue that the arrogance of some crew chiefs was the reason that many of them refused to use a unified 4-man mechanic system in MLB prior to 1999...I'd agree with you. Hell, if you were to argue that the late Eric Gregg showed contemptable arrogance after his 1997 playoff fiasco...I'd agree.
In other words, I am not niave to think or argue that there was no arrogance among MLB (or PBUC) umpires at those times. I think there was arrogance and I think they paid a price for that arrogance in a lot of ways. As an aside, I think they paid a price that was far steeper than they should have had to pay.
However, I will disagree that umpires made the "expected call" part of the game because of arrogance. The expected call did not arise and become part of the game because of the arrogance of a few (or many) umpires or umpiring executives. It became a part of the game because that is how players, coaches and managers wanted the game called (as evidenced by the amount of vitriol that came out of the dugouts when "expected calls" were not made) AND umpires deciding that they wanted quiet games rather than dugouts being burned down every night. This led baseball executives to officially tell umpires to call games this way. I do not see how this is has anything to do with arrogance. I will also disagree with any assertion that asserts that "expected calls" were only made by a "few" umpires during that time in baseball's history. I would assert that "expected calls" were made by the vast majority of umpires at this level, including the best umpires.
Nearly this entire debate, however, is an academic exercise in historical matters. Whichever reason one choses to assert as the cause of the "expected call" being used by umpires, for the most part (but not entirely), the expected call has died in professional baseball. I assert (as stated above) that this is a direct result of instant replay's evolution. I would also argue that the "expected call" is dying in lower levels partly because of instant replay (as it is used in college games), but mostly because whatever happens in MLB usually filters its way down to lower levels.