Umpire Reviews

[phumbeutel33]

Does anyone know of any location where I can get a thorough review of each umpire's tendencies behind the plate, strike zone, consistency, etc.? Thanks in advance.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
Does anyone know of any location where I can get a thorough review of each umpire's tendencies behind the plate, strike zone, consistency, etc.? Thanks in advance.

Sure, you can have mine.

I have a big strike zone, and I am really consistent.

Your welcome.

[phumbeutel33]

Great site. Glad I joined to ask a question. Class acts on here, I see. I think I'll cancel now. Idiot.

[kcs_hiker]

come on.. it's kind of a dumb question... every umpire is going to call the strike zone defined by the rules as consistently as possible. Any judgement anybody else makes on how succesful they are at doing it is just that.. a judgement call.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
Great site. Glad I joined to ask a question. Class acts on here, I see. I think I'll cancel now. Idiot.

I have found that when I ask ambiguios questions, I get ambiguios answers.

What umpires our you talking about?

Are we supposed to read your mind?

So before you go and get all skittzy fritz on us, maybe you should think about what your asking.

[piaa_ump]

If its MLB he is looking for, I think you should look at the Vegas Sports books...they used to have a resource that tracked stats based on Home plate umpire.......strictly for betting purposes......

Cant imagine anyone getting rich betting on baseball from who is behind the plate.....

[mattmets]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
Great site. Glad I joined to ask a question. Class acts on here, I see. I think I'll cancel now. Idiot.

Adios.

[mcrowder]

Damn I'm going to miss him.

[phumbeutel33]

What follows is a little lesson in baseball:

Anyone watching the White Sox game? Well, top of the second, 2nd out is SO on a pitch clearly out of the strikezone. Batter (Veritek? Can't recall.) barks at umpire. Piazza, doing color announcing, says "They all knew it coming in. Hirschbeck has a wide zone." This is after first inning commentary on the strikezone where it was said "well, it's consistent, but the strikezone is wide. Hirschbeck wants them up there swinging the bat."

Okay, with a known wide zone, it's a big factor. When batters are forced to swing at things merely close, perhaps 4 inches above the 'true zone', four below, four outside and four inside, you see a lot of ground balls, a lot of questionable SO's, a lot of flies that wouldn't otherwise occur.

In other words, it can contribute to lower scores and poorer offensive numbers.

So after an inning and a half, the commentary has already twice talked about the fact that the home plate umpire's strikezone is known in the league, is exceptionally wide, and will be a factor in the game. But I guess all of you know more than Mike Piazza, a catcher, dealing with the umpires, for what, 15 years now? Or perhaps Piazza, like me, is just an idiot. What fool thinks umpires have tendencies, that umpires call games certain ways, and that, god forbid, they can be quantified and contribute to the outcome of a game?? Fools, we are!!!

As an earlier post said, yes, knowing the umpire is for betting. It is one factor. Not the end all and be all factor, but a factor. There is no factor that is the only factor to consider when betting baseball. There are probably 10 crucial ones, and knowledge of all of them leads to an educated bet. Knowing the umpire is one of them.

No guarantees, though, of course. Clement comes out, hits the first two batters, can't get anywhere around the strike zone, and therefore the umpire becomes moot. Hey, it happens, and that's why they play. Anything can happen.

No, you will not get rich on betting on umpires, but it is important, especially if betting overs and unders. Wide strike zones generally bring about low scores. Tight zones, especially with a team like Boston that is known for patience at the plate, play into a higher score for a hitting team like Boston. Wide zones detract.

As far as what umpires I'm curious about and reading my mind, I don't know how that was so ambiguous. If you had an answer or a site to point me to, I imagine they'd review all the MLB umpires. I can find all the playoff umpires from there. I would think a site that reviews umpires would review all of them.

But your real answer was: You don't know.

Another post that says it's a dumb question because "every umpire is going to call the strike zone defined by the rules as consistently as possible." Well...I guess I'd have to say that that's not only a dumb reply, but...well, I won't go further. I suggest watching a little more baseball. The umpires have as distinctive a strike zone as batters have stances. Yes, they keep within the "theory" of the rules, but if you think their zone is defined by the rules and consistent with the rules, you do not follow the nuances of the game. And the nuances of the game are what make the game.

At any rate, I appreciate the hostility and arrogance to my very simple, very innocuous, very politely asked question. I thought I even said "thank you in advance", and was greeted with innane, insulting, and ridiculous commentary.

So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!

[Rich Ives]

You didn't specify which umpires you were asking about and you think it's our problem?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
What follows is a little lesson in baseball:

Anyone watching the White Sox game? Well, top of the second, 2nd out is SO on a pitch clearly out of the strikezone. Batter (Veritek? Can't recall.) barks at umpire. Piazza, doing color announcing, says "They all knew it coming in. Hirschbeck has a wide zone." This is after first inning commentary on the strikezone where it was said "well, it's consistent, but the strikezone is wide. Hirschbeck wants them up there swinging the bat."

Okay, with a known wide zone, it's a big factor. When batters are forced to swing at things merely close, perhaps 4 inches above the 'true zone', four below, four outside and four inside, you see a lot of ground balls, a lot of questionable SO's, a lot of flies that wouldn't otherwise occur.

In other words, it can contribute to lower scores and poorer offensive numbers.

So after an inning and a half, the commentary has already twice talked about the fact that the home plate umpire's strikezone is known in the league, is exceptionally wide, and will be a factor in the game. But I guess all of you know more than Mike Piazza, a catcher, dealing with the umpires, for what, 15 years now? Or perhaps Piazza, like me, is just an idiot. What fool thinks umpires have tendencies, that umpires call games certain ways, and that, god forbid, they can be quantified and contribute to the outcome of a game?? Fools, we are!!!

As an earlier post said, yes, knowing the umpire is for betting. It is one factor. Not the end all and be all factor, but a factor. There is no factor that is the only factor to consider when betting baseball. There are probably 10 crucial ones, and knowledge of all of them leads to an educated bet. Knowing the umpire is one of them.

No guarantees, though, of course. Clement comes out, hits the first two batters, can't get anywhere around the strike zone, and therefore the umpire becomes moot. Hey, it happens, and that's why they play. Anything can happen.

No, you will not get rich on betting on umpires, but it is important, especially if betting overs and unders. Wide strike zones generally bring about low scores. Tight zones, especially with a team like Boston that is known for patience at the plate, play into a higher score for a hitting team like Boston. Wide zones detract.

As far as what umpires I'm curious about and reading my mind, I don't know how that was so ambiguous. If you had an answer or a site to point me to, I imagine they'd review all the MLB umpires. I can find all the playoff umpires from there. I would think a site that reviews umpires would review all of them.

But your real answer was: You don't know.

Another post that says it's a dumb question because "every umpire is going to call the strike zone defined by the rules as consistently as possible." Well...I guess I'd have to say that that's not only a dumb reply, but...well, I won't go further. I suggest watching a little more baseball. The umpires have as distinctive a strike zone as batters have stances. Yes, they keep within the "theory" of the rules, but if you think their zone is defined by the rules and consistent with the rules, you do not follow the nuances of the game. And the nuances of the game are what make the game.

At any rate, I appreciate the hostility and arrogance to my very simple, very innocuous, very politely asked question. I thought I even said "thank you in advance", and was greeted with innane, insulting, and ridiculous commentary.

So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!

See Here Carl......

ANOTHER SATISFIED CUSTOMER.

Don't worry though, I'm already committed to the multi-year plan. It just might be me and you shortly.

I wonder if he happen to read T's article.

Oh, excuse me phumblelia33, that is Mr. Forum Dork to you.

[mrm21711]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33

So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!

Since you started the thread, are you included in your insult?

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
What follows is a little lesson in baseball:

Anyone watching the White Sox game? Well, top of the second, 2nd out is SO on a pitch clearly out of the strikezone. Batter (Veritek? Can't recall.) barks at umpire. Piazza, doing color announcing, says "They all knew it coming in. Hirschbeck has a wide zone." This is after first inning commentary on the strikezone where it was said "well, it's consistent, but the strikezone is wide. Hirschbeck wants them up there swinging the bat."
ANd your point is what? If the players know....

In other words, it can contribute to lower scores and poorer offensive numbers.

So after an inning and a half, the commentary has already twice talked about the fact that the home plate umpire's strikezone is known in the league, is exceptionally wide, and will be a factor in the game. But I guess all of you know more than Mike Piazza, a catcher, dealing with the umpires, for what, 15 years now? Or perhaps Piazza, like me, is just an idiot. What fool thinks umpires have tendencies, that umpires call games certain ways, and that, god forbid, they can be quantified and contribute to the outcome of a game?? Fools, we are!!!

( Nobody said umpires don't have tendencies.)

As an earlier post said, yes, knowing the umpire is for betting. It is one factor. Not the end all and be all factor, but a factor. There is no factor that is the only factor to consider when betting baseball. There are probably 10 crucial ones, and knowledge of all of them leads to an educated bet. Knowing the umpire is one of them.


No, you will not get rich on betting on umpires, but it is important, especially if betting overs and unders. Wide strike zones generally bring about low scores. Tight zones, especially with a team like Boston that is known for patience at the plate, play into a higher score for a hitting team like Boston. Wide zones detract.

( Maybe you should contact the "mob".I'm sure they have
all the info you can stand.)

As far as what umpires I'm curious about and reading my mind, I don't know how that was so ambiguous. If you had an answer or a site to point me to, I imagine they'd review all the MLB umpires. I can find all the playoff umpires from there. I would think a site that reviews umpires would review all of them.

( All levels of umpires are discussed here.Maybe when you ask for info from people you don't know,perhaps you should
be just a touch more specific. )

But your real answer was: You don't know.

( The real answer is you didn't phrase the question to get
the answer you wanted.)

Another post that says it's a dumb question because "every umpire is going to call the strike zone defined by the rules as consistently as possible." Well...I guess I'd have to say that that's not only a dumb reply, but...well, I won't go further. I suggest watching a little more baseball. The umpires have as distinctive a strike zone as batters have stances. Yes, they keep within the "theory" of the rules, but if you think their zone is defined by the rules and consistent with the rules, you do not follow the nuances of the game. And the nuances of the game are what make the game.

(And if you think you know more about calling balls and strikes than most folks here,I'd love to come out
to the park to watch you work.)

At any rate, I appreciate the hostility and arrogance to my very simple, very innocuous, very politely asked question. I thought I even said "thank you in advance", and was greeted with innane, insulting, and ridiculous commentary.

( Hostility? You don't know from hostility.I would recommend
reading any post by "rulesgeek", "dudeinblue",or several others.They've seen true hostility,full force.)

So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!

(And as my sainted mother would say: " And the same to you.....jacka$$" )

[phumbeutel33]

The 'N'owledge on this site borders on the hilarious. One of the respondants to my lengthy diatribe says:

"You didn't specify which umpires you were asking about and you think it's our problem?"

Now, this was something I was accused of earlier, so I addressed it in my, admittedly, long response. But I shouldn't expect anyone here to be capable of reading more than four sentences at a time.

Check this quote from my response:

"As far as what umpires I'm curious about and reading my mind, I don't know how that was so ambiguous. If you had an answer or a site to point me to, I imagine they'd review all the MLB umpires. I can find all the playoff umpires from there. I would think a site that reviews umpires would review all of them."

Anybody else want to send the same accusation at me for, what, the third time? If you'd like, I can write the obvious again and again and again.

The next attempt at taking a shot at me says:

"Since you started the thread, are you included in your insult?"

No, I'm not. As I stated (and you quoted in your response) "So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!"

The statement, by the very nature of it's sentence structure, is directed at the "respondants". "Respondants" means "those who respond." As I was the originator of the thread, I cannot be a responder to myself. As you were all responding to my horrible, obscene, unbelievably idiotic question of:

"Does anyone know of any location where I can get a thorough review of each umpire's tendencies behind the plate, strike zone, consistency, etc.? Thanks in advance."

...well, then you would be the respondants.

Is this just a place where angry, disgruntled, ex-softball players go to vent their frustrations? Fascinating. Truly fascinating. A wonderful study in Internet Personality.

But please, keep it coming. This is something fun to do inbetween innings. I love to see that a simple question, asked in good faith and honest curiosity (with, admittedly, an interest in gambling), can provoke such a whirlwind of hostility. Fun.

Next batter?

[Rich]

Originally posted by phumbeutel33
The 'N'owledge on this site borders on the hilarious. One of the respondants to my lengthy diatribe says:

"You didn't specify which umpires you were asking about and you think it's our problem?"

Now, this was something I was accused of earlier, so I addressed it in my, admittedly, long response. But I shouldn't expect anyone here to be capable of reading more than four sentences at a time.

Check this quote from my response:

"As far as what umpires I'm curious about and reading my mind, I don't know how that was so ambiguous. If you had an answer or a site to point me to, I imagine they'd review all the MLB umpires. I can find all the playoff umpires from there. I would think a site that reviews umpires would review all of them."

Anybody else want to send the same accusation at me for, what, the third time? If you'd like, I can write the obvious again and again and again.

The next attempt at taking a shot at me says:

"Since you started the thread, are you included in your insult?"

No, I'm not. As I stated (and you quoted in your response) "So without further commentary, I bid all of you respondants a fond "**** you!" Enjoy the playoffs, you ****ing forum dorks!"

The statement, by the very nature of it's sentence structure, is directed at the "respondants". "Respondants" means "those who respond." As I was the originator of the thread, I cannot be a responder to myself. As you were all responding to my horrible, obscene, unbelievably idiotic question of:

"Does anyone know of any location where I can get a thorough review of each umpire's tendencies behind the plate, strike zone, consistency, etc.? Thanks in advance."

...well, then you would be the respondants.

Is this just a place where angry, disgruntled, ex-softball players go to vent their frustrations? Fascinating. Truly fascinating. A wonderful study in Internet Personality.

But please, keep it coming. This is something fun to do inbetween innings. I love to see that a simple question, asked in good faith and honest curiosity (with, admittedly, an interest in gambling), can provoke such a whirlwind of hostility. Fun.

Next batter?

Ex-softball players? You're an idiot. This is a forum for amateur sports officials. Most of us don't give a crap how ML umpires call balls and strikes.