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

[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.

[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?

[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

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

This study says that on average there are 1.3 calls PER GAME that are "too close to call- in other words, "ties".

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."

[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.

[BSUmp16]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.

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

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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".

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.

"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?

[UmpTTS43]

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.