1 in 5 wrong? Really?

[MD Longhorn]

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."

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[MrUmpire]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then my next question would be do they know the rules that apply to the calls they consider "close" or not.

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Your math is off. WAY off... this is not 5%ish - it's 0.5%.

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

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.

[briancurtin]

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

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.

Originally Posted by briancurtin

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

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

[zm1283]

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.

[mbyron]

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?

[jicecone]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

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

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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

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