1 in 5 wrong? Really?
 

This season in Major League Baseball has seemingly brought a new umpiring controversy every week, with Jim Joyce's blown call in the Armando Galarraga near-perfect game standing out.

As calls to expand instant replay in the game continue, ESPN's "Outside the Lines" conducted a two-week study to get a sense of how often umpires made the right call on close plays -- and how often they were wrong.

Researchers used broadcast footage of all games from June 29 to July 11 -- 184 in total -- and reviewed every call, with the exception of balls and strikes.

The overwhelming majority of the calls (fair or foul, safe or out) were so obvious they did not require any sort of review.

But the "Outside the Lines" analysis found that an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call, with 65.7 percent confirmed as correct and 20.4 percent confirmed as incorrect.

"That's high," said U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame pitcher. "They shouldn't be allowed to miss [that many].

"I have seen some calls this year that just -- that curl your hair."

A Major League Baseball representative declined to comment on the study. Requests to interview Frank Robinson, recently named as MLB's senior vice president of major league operations, and commissioner Bud Selig or any other major league official were declined.

In an interview with ESPN Radio in St. Louis last month, Selig said he would "continue to review" the benefits of expanding replay, but also said none of his core advisers had supported the idea. Other sources said they do not believe Selig has any desire to push for expanded replay beyond its current use of determining whether a home run should stand.

The MLB Players Association, which would have to agree to any change in policy, said in an e-mail: "[The] players agreed to its limited use, but it's too premature to know if there's a consensus among the membership to extend its use."

Shortly after Galarraga's near-perfect game, ESPN The Magazine Baseball Confidential found major league players lukewarm -- at best -- on replay. Twenty-two percent of the 100 players surveyed said they favored replays for calls on the bases; 36 percent supported replay on fair/foul calls.

"Outside the Lines" surveyed 40 Hall of Famers about umpires and replay, and like Bunning, most deemed a 20 percent error rate on close calls too high. They were divided over what, if anything, should be done about it.

"More replay. More replay," said former Orioles manager Earl Weaver, famous for his arguments with umpires. "As long as you got human error involved and the umpire is seeing a play one way and you're seeing it the other way, the only way to decide it, the correct way, is through technology."

But Weaver's fellow Hall of Fame manager, Tommy Lasorda, argued passionately the other way.

"I don't believe in that. I believe the game should be played the way it has been," he said. "It's been like that for years, and I think it should stay that way."

Only one of the 40 made a case to expand replay to balls and strikes.

Those who argued against expanded replay said the "human element" of umpiring is just part of baseball, and some worried that replay would slow games.

But retired umpire Don Denkinger, who became a household name to angry St. Louis fans after his famously incorrect call in the ninth inning of Game 6 in the 1985 World Series, said replay can help umpires achieve the only goal that matters: getting the call right.

"Had I got that play right, or they had instant replay and got it corrected, they would remember the '85 World Series, but they wouldn't have remembered my name," he said.

Close calls, upon further review
ESPN analyzed all Major League Baseball umpire calls, other than balls and strikes, over a two-week span to determine umpires' accuracy. Of close calls made -- those for which instant replay was necessary to make a determination -- 65.7% were correct and 20.4% were incorrect. The remaining calls -- 13.9% -- proved inconclusive:

Denkinger said he did not support the use of replay for years after his infamous call, despite years of hate mail and death threats. But he said as the clarity of replays has improved, he has grown to support the idea, especially when it comes to plays like the one he missed.

His play -- the Royals' Jorge Orta chopped the ball to first, where Cardinals first baseman Jack Clark fielded the ball and tossed it to pitcher Todd Worrell, who was covering the bag -- was almost identical to the play Joyce missed this season on what would have been the last out of a perfect game for Galarraga.

The play is extraordinarily difficult to call, Denkinger said, because the first-base umpire is generally listening for the sound of the ball hitting the glove while watching the base. With a soft toss from the first baseman, especially during a game as loud as a World Series or a perfect game, the umpire cannot hear the catch and can't watch both the fielder's glove and the base at the same time.

"I don't think you can get yourself in a good position for that particular call," Denkinger said. "I didn't know that I had missed the call; I don't think there is any umpire alive that would intentionally miss a call. But when I did see it on replay, which was the next day, I was pretty upset about it, but there is really nothing you can do."

The day after the Joyce/Galarraga episode in June, veteran umpire Tim McClelland told ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike in the Morning" that Joyce's call and his own experience of making an admittedly incorrect call at third base during last year's ALCS have made him more receptive to replay.

"I know the commissioner isn't for it. Personally, I would be for it," McClelland said. "We talked about it in the crew. I know I wasn't for it, but after watching what I went through in the playoffs last year and then what Jimmy's gone through, I think more and more umpires are coming around to it."

Reached more recently, McClelland said he was no longer permitted to speak to reporters; Major League Baseball said it would not grant umpires permission to speak about the issue to ESPN.

One of the game's most celebrated umpires, Doug Harvey, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame last month, said he opposes any additional replay review.

"If you're going to do that, why don't we just get robots and let them play the game?" he said. "If you don't need umpires out there, and you can put robots out there, then why do we need ballplayers?"

While some critics of replay have said they believe it would undermine the umpires' authority, some supporters, like San Francisco manager Bruce Bochy, said the world already can see whether an umpire got a call right, so it's unlikely replay would make anything worse.

"I think it would take pressure off the umpires. I know [missing a call is] not something they want to live with, so I'm for it," Bochy said. His club, which is locked in a tight playoff race, lost a July 18 game after umpire Phil Cuzzi incorrectly called the Giants' Travis Ishikawa out at home for what would have been the winning run.

"The last thing you want is to look back and a call came back to beat you," Bochy said. "I just think with our technology, we're able to do it without slowing down the game too much."

Some of the Hall of Famers surveyed said they would support expanded replay if MLB could find a way to review calls quickly, possibly by allowing managers one or two challenges a game.

But Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn said whatever the mechanism, accuracy should be baseball's top priority.

"Fans need to feel good about the fact that we're going to try to get the call right. I think umpires feel like if there's an easy way to do it, they want to be able to get the call right, too," he said. "It helps the game, I think. I think it helps the fans. I think it helps both teams, because the objective is to get the call right."

Honestly, I'm not sure I buy 1 in 5. I wonder at what plays the excluded for being obvious and if that affected the number (include more plays, maybe it's 1 in 10 or 1 in 20). And I worry about the inconclusives. Really? 13% inconclusive WITH replay? That's a shot against replay right there. It's VERY rare that a replay doesn't show you what the right call should have been. More than 1 a game? No way.

Then my next question would be do they know the rules that apply to the calls they consider "close" or not. In other words are they giving the tie to the runner and calling the umpire wrong based on a lack of knowledge of the rule. And the inconclusive also puzzled me. If you have as high as 13% you cannot determine, then what are you going to do if a close call that "changes the game" is not conclusive and you have no replay to back up either way? This is why baseball really needs to stay away from replay for no other reason they will not have cameras for all plays during the regular season.

Now they are supposed to do this for the other sports. I am going to love their position on the sports and the media is really clueless when it comes to other sports. Close plays in baseball are mostly either/or calls. Not that way in other sports where there is much more nuance to the calls.

Peace

God, how I hate the way the media uses statistics. Remember what they are talking about is 20% of the 1.3 close calls per game, not 20% of all calls. This will, in reality, equate to less than 5% of total calls. Right where the figure has been estimated for years.

This data will, no doubt, be misinterpreted by fans, managers, coaches and talking heads.

Your math is off. WAY off. Consider a normal game - 54 outs, let's say 15 strikeouts - 39 non-K outs. That's at least 39 total calls (yeah, some are easy ... but see below). Add in all the safe plays where there was a play (either on a close catch or a close play at a base), etc - let's call it 50 although it's probably more like 70.

20% of 1.3 calls a game is .26 calls a game. Out of 50, this is not 5%ish - it's 0.5%. Meaning that out of 1000 calls, they miss 5, and 2 more are undeterminable even via replay.

The other fallacy of the logic is removing "non-close" plays or obvious plays. You can't judge any sort of percentage by arbitrarily effing with the denominator. This is as dumb as saying, "of all the calls that were either wrong or too close to call, the umpire missed SIXTY PERCENT of them."

Oh, and I can't wait for football, where there are 100's of decisions made by the 5-7 officials on EVERY PLAY. What is going to count as a close play? A non-hold that wasn't called? A NZ enfraction, where there was one? This one is going to be impossible to judge. And basketball even worse.

That was my thought, and that could skew the data one way or the other.

For example, during the televised segment on ESPN, as an example of a "blown call" they showed the recent foul ball call by Bob Davidson that was discussed here last week. Apparently to support that this close call was "missed", they froze and zoomed in on the shot of the ball hitting a few inches inside the line in the outfield AFTER it had passed the bag- which, if you know the rule, is totally irrelevant in determining fair or foul.

I believe I said LESS than 5%. I believe .5% is LESS than 5%.:rolleyes:

I didn't have the time to spend much time on this this morning. I have a life. Nevertheless, I was correct in my spur of the moment statement.

1/5 seems ridiculous, but this year has been really bad...

The same thing they do in every other sport with instant replay -- the official's original call stands. IR isn't used to choose a side; it's used to overturn the official's call, but only if there's conclusive video to show the official was wrong. In every other instance, the call stands.

You only think so because the media portrays it as such. Selective memory.

I love how fans and the media all claim that the umpiring is so much worse now than it has ever been. Of course this is a myth, because we all know that the only thing that has changed is more cameras, HD televisions, and 24-hour sports channels replaying every call of every game. Furthermore, I would say that training, uniformity, and professionalism is better now than it has ever been with MLB umpires. I realize I'm biased, but the strike zone in MLB seems very consistent from umpire to umpire. I think they're all a bit too tight with the top of the zone, but for the most part they're pretty dang consistent.

The game has been fine for over 100 years without replay. There aren't any more calls being missed now than there were 30, 40, or 50 years ago, so there is no reason to go and change things now.

It was my understanding as well that the claim is 20% wrong of the 1.3 "close calls" per game. If we say that's .25 of a blown call per game on average (not just outs, but fair/foul, above the HR line/below the HR line, etc.) that's one blown call for every 4 MLB games.

Apart from the fact that that number is ASTONISHINGLY low just in its own right, the question is whether it warrants more replay. One argument that shouldn't fly any longer is that more replay would slow down the game: if replay were targeted at the 1.3 "close" calls each game, it would have no significant impact on the length of games.

That said, I'd still like to know how many of the "close" calls really affected the outcome. Apparently the downside of adding more replay isn't so bad; but what's the upside, really?

Being over 80% perefect, (and I believe this is low) in a GAME where Professionals are considered good if they hit close to 30% of the time and pitch perfectly less than 70% of the time is pretty dam good.

What is the "same thing they do in other sports?" The reason I say this in football there are a bunch of plays they cannot review because there is entirely a judgment call. In basketball they do not review all calls. And if you let the public have their way, they would want to review those too.

Peace

Well that is if it only takes a minute to decide. But what if the discussion takes over 5 minutes because of the things we have discussed like not very many good angles? For example if they make the Bob Davidson fair/foul call apart of replay, how long would it take for that call to be made either way? In the NFL and in the NBA, taking more than 5 minutes is not totally out of the question. And if baseball has IR, what is the procedure and how long are they going to debate a call. Remember coaches already delay the game to debate calls they do not like and there is no replay. What is going to happen in a baseball season? Is there going to be a screen near the field? Will a person at each game need to be there to decide what play is to be reviewed? Will there be a limit on the number of IR reviews? And just because ESPN says that only involves 1.3 plays a game, does that mean a team will not think more plays are missed which would further delay the game? I do not have the answer, but I cannot imagine that this would not delay the game more than it is already delayed with the other things that slow the game down.

Peace

It could be that...or the fact that I typically watch one or more baseball games every day.

[QUOTE]MLB should invest in THEIR product. Umpires are part of THEIR product. MLB should take control of the umpiring.

Presently, you are NOT getting the best of the best because one has to have certian life-style to TRY and make it to the BIGS. You earn "peanuts" unless you are fortunate enough to make it to the BIGS. How many individuals even if they wanted to can afford to "go down that path"

If MLB a Billion dollar industry took over control of the umpiring perhaps we would see a better product on the field. Presently there is little movement at the major League level.

Also, unlike basketball / football there are many "coin-flip" calls in baseball. Also, the myth a tie goes to the runner is another one. What will replay accomplish for these? How many angles will be used?

Therefore, IMO before MLB goes to a full fledged replay system, try taking a more serious role in umpire development and then see what happens.

Pete Booth

Please don't get me started on the "ties go the runner is a myth" thing because of the "there are no ties in baseball" fallacy. This study says that on average there are 1.3 calls PER GAME that are "too close to call- in other words, "ties". Of these 1.3/game almost 14% were"too close to call" EVEN IN SLO-MO INSTANT REPLY.

There are most certainly "ties" in baseball - the challenge is that you, as the ump, just have to figure out a consistent approach to how you're going to call those "too close to call" plays.

Of the missed calls I've seen from the report, the umpires were in poor positions.
Are all of the missed calls posted?

What a crock! I guess I have three choices now: "safe!" "out!" or "too close to call!"

"Tie goes to the runner" is a myth. I have yet to see a play that was a tie in one of my games.

And what's with 1.3? What's the 0.3? Is that like a soft ground ball that would have been a close play if it hadn't rolled foul? :rolleyes:;)

Whether you agree with the story or not, calls are missed. The question is, why are they missed? If you look at the plays that they played, you can see, more often than not, that the umpire was not in the optimum position to make the correct call. With proper positioning and timing, these missed calls would be reduced dramatically. That is why it is important to continue to refine and work at your game. Eliminating these mistakes eliminates mistakes. Guys, you don't have to get all worked up over this. Don't take it personally. Learn from it and incorporate it into your game.

There's IR in football and hockey. No, it's not for any play, but there are defined plays. I would assume baseball would also define which plays can be reviewed.

In football and hockey, if the play is reviewed, the official's call is only overturned if there's conclusive video to show the original call was incorrect. In any other situation, the original call stands.

Actually, we have no indication as to what ESPN's criteria was in determining which calls they decided to review, other than "requiring instant replay."

If you read the story and accept the figures it is based on, they are b!tching because the umpires are were wrong on less than 1% of their calls.

Is this really shocking?

Doh!!! There are three things an umpire should do before making a call - Pause.... Read... React. I think you skipped the second stage.

I NEVER said there are three choices. There are, and always have been, two choices to make on a play - Safe and Out. As I said, as the umpire you have to make one of those two choices.

Having said THAT, saying that there are no 'ties" in baseball is simply not true. If, on instant slo-mo replay it cannot be determined whether the ball arrived before the runner (or vice versa) then that is, for all practical purposes, a "tie - or "too close to call" (which according to this study happens about once every 12-14 games). Nevertheless you, as an umpire HAVE TO MAKE THE CALL - Safe or Out. How you, as an umpire, go about consistently resolving that decision - to arrive at the safe or out call, is up to you. But the fact remains, as this study proves, there are going to be situations where it is impossible for you tell tell definitively whether the ball or the runner arrived first, because it's "too close to call".

1 in 5 wrong? Really?
 

Nothing is "too close to call". There is a system in place---umpires. "too close to overturn" might have been a better term. Reread Pete Booth's reply and digest it. MLB is seriously delinquent in this area. Billions in income and shortchanging the customers. Kinda like BP saving a few bucks on the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

BS. Safe and out are defined by rule. Runner beats ball = safe; runner doesn't beat ball = out.

Please explain where "ties" and your idea of creative, arbitrary, subjective call-making enter the rules.

BSUmp16,

1. "Pause...Read...React..." has nothing to do with the actual making of a call.

It is the technique taught to decide on the proper movement (and eventual positioning) when a ball is batted into play.

2. While I would grant that it is theoretically possible for two events to occur simultaneously at two different points in space (i.e., a "tie") both Einstein and Hegel argue, rather persuasively, that it is impossible for a human being to accurately perceive that happened. Einstein from a physics perspective, Hegel from a limits of human perception perspective; they are both a lot smarter than you or I, and I believe them.

3. This "study" http://www.umpire-empire.com/forum/i...it_20Laugh.gif proves nothing other than the authors don't know jack about statistics, studies, or responsible journalism.

However, I wholeheartedly agree with your essential point that it is the umpire's responsibility to MAKE THE DAMN CALL!

JM

I am fully aware of all of this. That is why I made the statements I did. But based on what this report said, there were no criteria other than leave all plays up for debate and review. If baseball does that, then you will have a lot of problems with timing of the game.

Peace

That's awfully highbrow for an umpire site, John. Next we'll have some yahoo debating the Copenhagen interpretation on here!

Hmm,
 

While not the final word:

The NTSB and the NBA did studies that document that the human mind cannot comprehend activites that occur within .03th of a second of each other.

So when a call is "to close to call" we settle for a subconscious process that makes us "believe" we are correct.

I agree with JM (but I always do).

T

I agree with Tim C (who agrees with JM):

"The NTSB and the NBA did studies that document that the human mind cannot comprehend activites that occur within .03th of a second of each other."

The notion of a "tie" comes when the human brain (which, despite what some coaches will tell you includes the umpire's brain) cannot physiologically determine which event occured first and which came second.

While I agree that the statistics used in the report are all goofed up, the underlying data shows that on average there are 1.3 calls per game that are too close for the human brain to distinguish which event came first (runner at bag) and which came second (ball at bag). Of those 1.3 plays 14% are found to be too close for determination EVEN USING SLOW MOTION REPLAY. Those plays are what I (and I think most people) would call "ties". Based on the data, those plays will occur, on average, once every 6 games! That's a lot of "too close to call" plays over a season, so its not just theoretical.

There are no tie CALLS in baseball; there are tie PLAYS. Simply repeating the old "There are no ties in Baseball" does nothing to address the real issue.

And I am not being "creative, arbitrary, or subjective". I'm applying OBR Rule 6.05(j) (applicable to runners going into first base) which states: “A batter is out when - after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged BEFORE he touches first base.” BY RULE, ties (i.e., those plays that the human brain cannot make a determination as to which event happened first) go to the runner.

You may disagree, but simply saying "BS" is not really a legitimate response.

P.S. My "Pause... Read... React." comment was meant metaphorically - a reference to the fact that MByron had not apparently "read" my comment before he "reacted" to it.

There are no ties in baseball.

Not since Connie Mack wore one, at least.

Ah, there was a snappy dresser.

That's not what you said before. You said that it was up to each umpire how to call "ties." Now you want to go by rule, which is a significant improvement.

Unfortunately, you've selected the wrong rule. You're evidently unaware that umpires ignore that clause of 6.05 and instead enforce the standard of 7.01 at all bases: "A runner acquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he is out."

As I stated previously: the runner must beat the throw to be safe.

Didn't MLB change the wording of 6.05j this year so the runner or the base has to be tagged before he touches. This makes it the same as 7.08e regarding a forced runner. Both imply a that a tie goes to the runner on a force or play at 1B and the change of 6.05 is noteworthy.

I, too, thought the rule had been changed so that both sections were consistent, but I can't verify that and the current OBR at the MLB website does not reflect a change. But thanks for recognizing the point

Look, I'm aware of the differences between 6.05 and 7.08e as they currently (?) read - 6.05j applies to runners going into 1st and 7.08e applies to runners going into the other bases. 7.08e states that "Any runner is out when he or the next base is tagged before he touches the next base", which is the opposite of 6.05j. I know that. And if UmpJim is correct, I agree it is a significant change.

Even if the two rules still are inconsistent, it doesn't change the basic question. If, under 7.08e, you can't say that the runner touched the base before he was was put out (i.e., before the ball arrived at the base), because the human brain can't physiologically make that determination (see reference to NTSB above), under 7.08e you call him out ("too close to call = out"). Under 6.05j "too close to call" = safe. Now you can ignore the rule (6.05j), as some say they do, but that seems to be a funny position to take for a guy (*cough* mbyron *cough*) who complains that MY position is "arbitrary" or "subjective". Unless you have a consistent approach to those plays, you're the one who will be making calls arbitrarily.

This is what drives fans and sports announcers crazy. On plays that are too close to call sometimes the runner will be out and sometimes he'll be safe - no consistency, which then prompts more agitation for instant replay - which I think will ruin the game.

If you want to avoid continual outbursts about the need for instant replay, one way (not the only way) to do it is to develop a consistent approach to calling those type of plays (which do happen with some frequency - see data cited above) which approach is also consistent with the published rules. Saying "there are no ties in baseball" is just putting your head in the sand and feeding the demand for more and more instant replay.

My final 2 cents. Take your best shot.

There you have it. As succinctly as possible. Almost passes the five-word test! And without consulting Hegel or Einstein, either! Kudos to mbyron for his brevity and UmpJM for his erudition. :D

WOW!

:D:D:D:D

Thanks for one of the biggest laughs you've ever given us!

Michael,

Why thank you. :o I think...

As always, I blame the Jesuits.

Since you brought it up, I actually believe all umpires should be given an overview of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I certainly find it useful in umpiring - but don't worry, I'm not going to try to convince anyone else.

I would agree with that statement.

But, I would also say that the throw must beat the runner for him to be out. (Despite the new wording in 6.05.)

The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided.

JM

I think the new wording in 6.05j agrees with what you are saying.

But it's a confusing world out there now.

I recently had a safe on a steal of 3B (Indy league fill in) where the high throw beat R2 but the tag was late and R2's arm had the bag before the tag hit R2's hip. I got to talk to the manager. My seasoned partner advises after the game that when the throw beats the runner it's an out. Well you still gotta make a tag. In that venue,throw beats runner equals out, in MLB with video. tag has to get runner.



Like UmpJM said: " The umpire must decide which happened based on what he perceives. Then he lets everyone know what he decided"

Unless you are in Bristol, CT :D

The Jesuits taught you Hegel? I guess they'll stoop to anything to avoid teaching that fat, old Dominican... ;)

Let's not forget that this "data" came from a 2 week sample. Any statistician / econometrician worth their salt will tell you that in the course of an entire baseball season, a 2 week sample is hardly representative of the product as a whole. If you remember, the big reason they have replay now is because in the span of a week there were 3 or 4 missed HR calls, so everyone was up in arms, but then you didn't see another for the next 3 months. In the long run, it all averages out.

Aslo, great points about what ESPN determined was too close or not close enough to count, etc. It's a bunch of nonsense just like the players ranking the umpires.

But...after the story, ESPN asked Joe Morgan (aka former umpire) for his opinion on the results. If that's not credibility, I don't know what is.

I used to be around the Giants when Morgan worked as an analyst on their broadcasts.

There is no cheaper, more discourteous, more unprofessional character in the game than that troubled, little man. The people inside the organization absolutely detested him. Longtime announcer Hank Greenwald elected to broadcast only radio games, and eventually left the Giants out of a refusal to work with the jerk. He abused and demeaned everyone from the elevator operator to the press room waitress to the press box attendant to the ...

When Very Little Joe had lunch in the press room, he was always alone, and he never left a tip. He carries that practice everywhere. His favorite line to any skycap, server, valet: "Sorry, I don't have any change."

The pisspot used to like to go into the Giants' clubhouse and use the workout and shower facilities. The players hated him and resented him so much that he had to be told to stay the hell out of there unless he was in his role as an announcer. And since he never does any homework as an announcer, that meant that he never came back at all.

There is no first-ballot Hall of Famer with Morgan's numbers. The only first-ballot Hall of Famer with a five-year prime was Sandy friggin' Koufax! How How Very Little Joe achieved that distinction with his lone 100-RBI campaign and his two .300 seasons, I will never fully understand. His utter bankruptcy of character is apparent to all that observe him, and are forced to deal with him, yet he has a somewhat glowing reputation among the general public. That friendly, smiling, fun-loving demeanor is as phony as anyone in public life.

I love the fact that he's a constant source of idiocy in his role as a commentator. At least there's that.

Hey LMan, you been gone for a while. Where you been, sarcasm camp? :D

Yep, but wasn't so great this year. Had to stay in a barracks, pay for my own laundry, be sarcastic 8 hours a day and all I got was a cap and a shirt.