News: Umpires complain of pressure -- from owners

[Patrick Szalapski]

This from AP. P-Sz
=====================
NEW YORK - Baseball umpires filed a grievance to keep the commissioner's
office from pressuring them to call more strikes and reduce pitches, saying
management's move ``threatens the integrity of the game.''

The grievance, filed late Saturday, says the commissioner's office violated the
umpires' new labor contract by keeping track of the average number of pitches
in games worked behind the plate by each umpire and ranking each umpire in that
category.

``If you have good pitchers pitching, there will be fewer pitches thrown, but
if the pitchers are struggling, we can't control that,'' umpire Randy Marsh
said. ``If the pitch is a strike, it's a strike, and if it's a ball, it's a
ball.''

Larry Gibson, a lawyer for the umpires, notified baseball of the grievance in a
three-page letter he faxed Saturday to the commissioner's office.

``The union has learned that the office of the commissioner believes the
average to be around 285 pitches in a nine-inning game,'' Gibson and Joel
Smith, another union lawyer, wrote in the letter. ``Umpires are being told that
this number is too high and to `bring your pitch count down' ... to 270 pitches
a game.''

Gibson and Smith wrote that umps have been told to ``call more strikes,'' ``be
aggressive'' and to ``hunt for strikes.''

``The pitch count, whether or not it is coupled with a direct instruction to
call more strikes, interferes with an umpires' duty to exercise independent
judgment on each pitch,'' the letter said. ``Pitch count pressure threatens the
integrity of the game, in that it brings on to the playing field improper
influence on umpire performance.''

The labor contract calls for the sides to meet on the issue. If they can't
resolve it, the case would go to an arbitrator selected from a list provided by
the American Arbitration Association.

``This is the first I've heard of it,'' Sandy Alderson, executive vice
president of baseball operations in the commissioner's office, said Sunday when
told of the grievance by a reporter.

``I'm sure we'll meet with the union to discuss it. I think this has been taken
way out of context by the union. I'm surprised they haven't attempted to
discuss this matter with us privately and have resorted to this more public
approach.''

Baseball and its umpires have been at odds for more than two decades and just
last month, umpire Al Clark was terminated for charging plane tickets for his
wife to a credit card paid for by the commissioner's office.

Larry Barnett, one of baseball's umpire supervisors, retired July 6, partly
because of the pitch-count pressure.

``I just didn't feel I could go that direction,'' said Barnett, whose
retirement was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Sunday
night.

A major league umpire from 1969-99, Barnett became a supervisor two years ago.
He said his retirement could not be directly attributed to pitch-count pressure
but that but to ``a bunch of things'' but also said he felt uncomfortable with
the decision to push for more strikes, especially when he had to call a young
umpire about it.

``I never even thought about it in all the games I umpired,'' Barnett said.
``If you have two very good pitchers, this is my opinion, you might get a low
pitch count. If you make four or five pitching changes, you might get a high
pitch count.''

Commissioner Bud Selig has been concerned about the lengthening time in takes
to play games in recent years and has pushed, with little success, for the pace
to speed up. The average time of nine-inning games this year is 2 hours, 55
minutes, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, down just two minutes from last
year.

Gibson blamed slow games on the 2:05 allowed between innings for television
commercials, a time increased to 2:25 for nationally televised games.

``Is an umpire to catch up on his average going from one game to the next and
is he to keep that average in mind when making a judgment as to whether a
particular pitch is a strike or a ball?'' the letter said.

Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations, declined
comment.

``We ought to be able to resolve this,'' Gibson said Sunday. ``We understand
there's actually a chart they developed that ranked all the umpires by pitch
count over eight games. We want to see it. We hope in the future, it doesn't
get created again.''

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
This from AP. P-Sz
=====================
NEW YORK - Baseball umpires filed a grievance to keep the commissioner's
office from pressuring them to call more strikes and reduce pitches, saying
management's move ``threatens the integrity of the game.''

The grievance, filed late Saturday, says the commissioner's office violated the
umpires' new labor contract by keeping track of the average number of pitches
in games worked behind the plate by each umpire and ranking each umpire in that
category.

Patrick calling more strikes does not reduce the length of games. Eliminating Commercials will. IMO the 2 largest components of length of games are:

1. Commercials and

2. Pitching changes

1. Commercials I'd venture to guess that each game has approximately 25 - 30 minutes of commercials, and if the game is nationally televised, that number increases.

2. Pitching changes - First F2 goes and talks to F1 to give the relief pitcher time to warm - up. Then the pitching coach comes out and talks to F1 and finally the manger comes in and removes F1. Also, how many times do you see the righty / lefty moves. Also, whenever a pitching change is made - More commercials.

Owners should start looking inward when examining why the average lenght of a baseball game these days is over 3 hours long. All this hub-bub about the zone - it's enough already.

There already is a defintion of the strike zone - enforce what is written, tone down on the number of commercials and come-up with some sort of time limit on pitching changes and maybe we will get back to those 2 hrs. and change games.

Pete Booth

[Patrick Szalapski]

I have to agree, Pete, but, let's take a look:

1. MLB currently has a contract with Fox and ESPN for nationally televised baseball games, which includes the provision that the networks will average x amount of commercial time. Additionally, each team has local contracts with cable stations--mostly Fox Sports Net---and local broadcast stations. There are also local radio and ESPN radio contracts, and MLB itself gets revenue from its subscription internet radio. If MLB wants to decrease commercial time, they must negotiate new contracts all-around. How do you think all their partners would react to a 25% reduction in ad revenue? The contracts would simply be worth less, therefore MLB would get less. They would also have wait until all the current contracts are over to implement the changes. The bottom line is that broadcast contract revenue is what drives the sport, and the owners are not willing to decrease that significantly for the better good of the game.

2. I don't think pitching changes (during the inning) delay games that much. Most games only have one or two, and it's not worth changing the rules to change this. What would you do, prohibit manager visits? Limit warmup tosses even further? I don't think these solutions would work.

How to speed up games? Raise the mound. Keep trying to get the BOOK ZONE called, not the owner's zone. Get batters in the box more--eliminate the directed pitch rule in favor of a FED-style automatic strike, and then start using it early and often! Those three changes would do a lot of good.

P-Sz

[bluezebra]

Do away with commercials and you do away with "free" TV baseball games.

Bob

[Patrick Szalapski]

This from AP. P-Sz
=====================
NEW YORK -- Umpires have overreacted to baseball's directive to call more strikes, according to a top official of the commissioner's office, who seemed surprised at the attention given the matter.

Sandy Alderson, the executive vice president of baseball operations, said his labor lawyers were preparing a response to the grievance filed Saturday by the umpires' union, which said pitch-count pressure was threatening "the integrity of the game."

"All I've said is there is a fairly strong correlation between the misapplication of the strike zone and a high pitch count," Alderson said. "Not that a high pitch count was determinative, but it was an indication of a misapplication of the strike zone. On that basis, there was a communication with some umpires."

Umpires have interpreted that as pressure to call more strikes, cut down on the number of pitches each night and quicken games. They say that violates their new labor contract.


"If you have good pitchers pitching, there will be fewer pitches thrown, but if the pitchers are struggling, we can't control that," umpire Randy Marsh said. "If the pitch is a strike, it's a strike, and if it's a ball, it's a ball."


Larry Gibson, a lawyer for the umpires, notified baseball of the grievance in a three-page letter he faxed to the commissioner's office.


"The union has learned that the office of the commissioner believes the average to be around 285 pitches in a nine-inning game," Gibson wrote. "Umpires are being told that this number is too high and to `bring your pitch count down' ... to 270 pitches a game."


Gibson wrote that umps have been told to "call more strikes," "be aggressive" and to "hunt for strikes."


"The pitch count, whether or not it is coupled with a direct instruction to call more strikes, interferes with an umpires' duty to exercise independent judgment on each pitch," Gibson's letter said. "Pitch count pressure threatens the integrity of the game, in that it brings on to the playing field improper influence on umpire performance."

New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza said that while the strike zone has gotten bigger this season, he hasn't noticed dramatic change.

"Just to call more strikes is messing with the integrity of the game," he said. "Let's go baby steps now. Let's not say every game has to be under two hours and a certain number of pitches."

The rule-book definition of the strike zone hadn't been enforced in years, with umpires pulling the strike zone lower and making it wider through the 1980s and 1990s. Commissioner Bud Selig and Alderson wanted that changed, and emphasized that to umpires during the offseason.

This year, with more high strikes being called, many offensive statistics have decreased 5-10 percent.

"What we're looking for is an appropriate, consistent application of the strike zone," Alderson said. "There are a whole host of ways we're able to focus in on who is able to do it. Pitch count is one of the tools. It was never used in the absence of prior direct observation, observation through television and videotape."

Toronto manager Buck Martinez, a former catcher and television broadcaster, thought the debate was silly.

"I think we're making way too much out of it," he said. "I don't think it's that big a deal."

Piazza urged caution.

"I don't think the game can go from an offense-dominated game to a pitching-dominated game overnight," he said. "I'm sure pitchers wouldn't mind."

Baseball and its umpires have been at odds for more than two decades and just last month, umpire Al Clark was terminated for charging plane tickets for his wife to a credit card paid for by the commissioner's office.

Gibson blamed slow games on the 2:05 allowed between innings for television commercials, a time increased to 2:25 for nationally televised games.

"Is an umpire to catch up on his average going from one game to the next and is he to keep that average in mind when making a judgment as to whether a particular pitch is a strike or a ball?" Gibson's letter said.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Ray Ratto agrees with us...

P-Sz

[Gre144]

I look at some of those pitches that the major league umpires call balls and I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. Even in slow motion a lot of pitches look right over the plate but are being called balls in the big leagues. I feel that a lot of HS umpires emulate the narrow strike zone of major league umpires. I would personally like to see umpires at all levels expand the strike zone to the book definition. Why is it frowned on by coaches in legion A and higher for an umpire to call a high strike? It is the high strike that is often hit over the fence for a homerun but noone likes it when you call it a strike when the batter is not swinging at it.

[Edited by Gre144 on Jul 17th, 2001 at 02:56 AM]

[Bfair]

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

[Mike M]

I agree with Freix that the evaluation of an umpire's capability to call balls and strikes could be done by an electronic machine. Today's baseball players studies tons of videotape. I believe giving the umpire the ability to review their game using latest technology could provide some objective feedback to the umpire.

As technology has evolved and the number of games televised increased, the TV watching fan is being exposed to a different perspective of the game. Much like the NFL, where an official's call late in a playoff game bought on the use of instant replay, over time the fan's perception of baseball will change if TV continues to display electronic version of the strike zone. I believe baseball and its participants (management and umpires) would be best served, if they explored how to proactively use technology.

[Gee]

"SNIP from PZ's post"

"2. I don't think pitching changes (during the inning) delay games that much. Most games only have one or two, and it's not worth changing the rules to change this. What would you do, prohibit manager visits? Limit warmup tosses even further? I don't think these solutions would work."
-----------------------------------
Pat,
I checked the box scores from yesterdays game published in the Boston Globe. There were ten box scores published.

A total of 76 pitchers were used in those games. That is an average of 7.6 pitchers each game. Take out the two starters and you have an average of 5.6 changes a game.

I did not take into account the between inning and during an inning count but they still have that long walk in from the bullpen.

Anyway, I think it is a lot more than the one or two you mentioned. Also, why does a pitcher who has just finished warming up need eight warm up pitches after he has just completed forty or fifty in the bullpen?

In this area the HS pitchers are only allowed five after the first inning except for a relief pitcher when he first comes in?

They should give him two or three. But if they did that, they would have lost some commercials yesterday. Go figure. G.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Hear, hear, Steve! If umpires were evaluated by the true zone as sensed by a computer, the pitch count would go down and the "integrity of the game" would be intact--nay, even restored! I fully agree with you. Now, how do we convince Alderson, Selig, and Hirschbeck?

Now, Gee, let's take a look at pitching changes as you say. Pitching changes between innings take zero extra time--they already are waiting at least 2:05 for commercials.

Here are the mid-inning pitching changes from yesterday's 15 games.

DET 1
CIN 0
BOS 2
MTL 2
NYY 1
PHI 2
LA 0
PIT 0
BAL 0
FLA 1
TOR 0
NYM 0
TB 3
ATL 1
CHW 1
MIL 2
KC 2
CHC 1
CLE 3
HOU 1
MIN 0
STL 3
SF 2
TEX 1
SD 1
ANA 1
COL 1
OAK 2
ARZ 2
SEA 0
=====
T 36 / 15 == 2.4 mid-inning pitching changes per game

So, lets say each change is one minute mound meeting plus one minute warmup plus twenty seconds in between. Thats 2:20 per change, times 2.4 is 5:36 time per game spent on pitching changes. So you want to say, cut that in half? Are the changes you want make to the strategic game of baseball worth two and a half minutes shorter of a game?

P-Sz

[Brent McLaren]

A bad pitcher on a 10" mound is still a bad pitcher on a 12" mound. That is why they did not raise the mound.

Watching pitchers from "A" and "AA" clubs getting called up to make their MLB debut, and then back down again in two weeks, is a clear sign of the lack of talent out there.

Last season hitters dominated. This season pitchers appear to have a better chance. Still, the best pitchers use less time and less pitches.

Should the assessment of your job performance be based on the performance of some guy you have no control over? Just because you draw the fifth starter for two or three weeks, does that mean you are inferior?

Five stadiums have the "electronic strike zone" in place. Maybe we need a beep like tennis. Outfit the umpire with an earpiece and let it go from there. No beep = strike. Now who would the batter argue with?

Brent

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
Hear, hear, Steve! If umpires were evaluated by the true zone as sensed by a computer, the pitch count would go down and the "integrity of the game" would be intact--nay, even restored! I fully agree with you. Now, how do we convince Alderson, Selig, and Hirschbeck?
P-Sz

Patrick, the management has a legitimate reason for wanting the zone the way they do:
1) it's what the book says
2) quicker games, better revenues
NOTE: not necessarily in that order

I do not have the insight as to why the umpire's union wouldn't just merely adjust to the desires of their employers. I would think the umpires are capable of doing what is desired by management. Certainly there may be more involved than many are aware of.

However, perhaps it's just arrogance and power struggle of not liking being "told" what to do. That is how I view it at this point.

Of course, the point I was really trying to make, is that if management were to make it a requirement of the umpire's job, then the umpire will do it, lose it, or let the union fight it. Are there other options?

Let's get to the real world. Other people lose jobs for poor performance or not doing as requested by their employers. I am not talking about meeting pitchcounts, but I am talking about adjusting their zones to meet the book.
Why should umpires be any different than other working folk?
Better union???

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Bfair
Patrick, the management has a legitimate reason for wanting the zone the way they do:
[/B]

Perhaps you got the wrong impression; I meant to say that I agree with you!

My only reservation: I can understand the WUA's complaint that MLB wants them to call not the book zone but just a bigger zone. The owners want the ends (shorter games == lower pitch counts) while the umpires want to ensure the means is proper (integrity of the game). Proof of that is the mandate to "get pitch counts down" rather than directly measuring umpire's performance (which hopefully is going to happen anyway).

In summary, the book zone or bust!

P-Sz

[Patrick Szalapski]

This from AP. P-Sz
===================
NEW YORK -- Baseball umpires dropped their grievance Wednesday when the commissioner's office said it wouldn't use pitch counts to evaluate an umpire's performance.


"As far as we're concerned the matter is now closed and umpires can get back out of the press, where they prefer to be," umpires' union lawyer Larry Gibson said.


The grievance was filed last Saturday, with the umpires saying the commissioner's office violated their new labor contract by keeping track of the average number of pitches in games worked behind the plate by each umpire and ranking each umpire in that category.


The grievance demanded that baseball "abandon pitch counts as a measure of umpire performance."


A letter from Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations, to the union said the commissioner's office would do just that. The umpires followed by dropping their grievance.


"It was settled with us getting exactly 100 percent of what we requested," Gibson said.

Umpires were happy with the development.


"I think I can speak for a lot of umpires and say I'm relieved," umpire Tim Tschida said from Los Angeles. "I don't know if pitch count is really a very accurate tool for an umpire to gauge his performance."


Baseball had said high pitch counts can be an indication umpires aren't applying the strike zone as defined in the rule book, but they are not a determining factor.


"I would characterize this as a misinterpretation on their part, which led to the filing of the grievance in absence of private dialogue," said Sandy Alderson, the executive vice president of baseball operations in the commissioner's office.


"I think it is important that it is behind us and we go forward," he said.


Baseball and its umpires have been at odds for more than two decades. This confrontation only increased the animosity between the two sides.


But Alderson said he doesn't expect this dispute to linger.


"This incident is over as far as I'm concerned," Alderson said. "I am not interested in prolonging or furthering it with any analysis."


Since spring training, Alderson and commissioner Bud Selig have pushed for umpires to enforce the strike zone as the rule book defines it, which results in more high strikes.


The rule-book definition of the strike zone hadn't been enforced in years, with umpires pulling the strike zone lower and making it wider through the 1980s and 1990s. Baseball wanted that changed, and emphasized that to umpires during the offseason.


This year, with more high strikes being called, many offensive statistics have decreased 5-10 percent.


"Major league umpires will continue to call balls and strikes with professionalism and absolute neutrality to each pitch," Gibson wrote in a letter to baseball officials notifying them that the grievance was dropped.