Lets see how MLB handles this one....

[Tim C]

I look at umpiring as equal parts art and science.

Not unlike the laws of our land sometimes "stuff" is decided by tradition and common sense. Kingfield explained it very well in "The Paper Chase."

If we call games and only consider the written word we would be considered, at best, an overly officious oaf.

While I can respect the "high road" as taken by Mike Strybel it is altruistic in what has become a game based more on tradition.

"Old hides", such as myself, are seeing a game (and a way of officiating) that is changing to fit modern times and it drives us crazy. We hold onto traditions because that is where our comfort lies.

The science of umpiring comes from knowing all the rules and mechanics so they become second nature. The art comes from knowing where to draw lines (no NOT those lines) and take a written rule and understand what it really means to the game.

As umpires we have one basic responsabilty: make sure that there is a level playing field.

Even Mike would agree that we, as baseball umpires, are not robots (leave that to the softball side). Every umpire will have his own strike zone -- not to appease ANYONE -- just because we are all different.

While it would be impossible for anyone to convince me to call a strike on a pitch that passes through the zone but kicks up dust as caught I have learned that things such as the neighborhood play have probably passed to the grave.

As a retired umpire I look at things with a little different tint than when I worked. While I hate the direction of umpiring at the highest level I think that umpiring at our level (high school and college) is better than ever.

T

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by lawump

Mike Port has been quoted several times in several media stories that an umpire's zone evaluation (ZE) score (formerly QuesTec) will be changed on such a pitch. I have confirmed the same with several former colleagues who have advanced far beyond me to actually umpire MLB.

That is, ZE will initially mark the umpire as having "missed" the call because the curve ball passed through the zone. However, on such a pitch (where the ball ends up in the dirt, or the catcher has to significantly move his glove to catch it just above the dirt) in the post game analysis MLB evaluators will change the call from "missed" to "correct". This is done because almost no one (umpire, players, coaches, managers) expects that pitch to be a strike.

That is a FACT about ZE procedure...it is not opinion...that is what is done on a nearly daily basis.

So, maybe not all expected calls are quite the dinosaurs you think they are.

As I posted above, I do believe that many of the expected calls, especially on the bases (i.e. ball beat runner so call runner "out" if anything resembling a tag is made) have died due to expanded instant replay. But not all have died.

And as I have posted, umpiring for ratings is something some HAVE to do. It is still sad, but I understand that some feel the need to ignore the rules for personal gratification. That is not a statement of superiority but rather acknowledgement of reality for some. If you find yourself umpiring at the MLB level, consider Mike Port's thoughts regarding QuesTec.

Most MLB guys are ridiculously consistent, QT park or not. The adjustiment you speak of is statistically irrelevant to their scores. You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately. They still want the correct call, Port merely affirmed that they will alter scores if such a pitch occurs and is called. The ZE system is not highly regarded within the WUA and that concession is wise, but almost useless, given that scores are really high already.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I look at umpiring as equal parts art and science.

Not unlike the laws of our land sometimes "stuff" is decided by tradition and common sense. Kingfield explained it very well in "The Paper Chase."

If we call games and only consider the written word we would be considered, at best, an overly officious oaf.

While I can respect the "high road" as taken by Mike Strybel it is altruistic in what has become a game based more on tradition.

"Old hides", such as myself, are seeing a game (and a way of officiating) that is changing to fit modern times and it drives us crazy. We hold onto traditions because that is where our comfort lies.

The science of umpiring comes from knowing all the rules and mechanics so they become second nature. The art comes from knowing where to draw lines (no NOT those lines) and take a written rule and understand what it really means to the game.

As umpires we have one basic responsabilty: make sure that there is a level playing field.

Even Mike would agree that we, as baseball umpires, are not robots (leave that to the softball side). Every umpire will have his own strike zone -- not to appease ANYONE -- just because we are all different.

While it would be impossible for anyone to convince me to call a strike on a pitch that passes through the zone but kicks up dust as caught I have learned that things such as the neighborhood play have probably passed to the grave.

As a retired umpire I look at things with a little different tint than when I worked. While I hate the direction of umpiring at the highest level I think that umpiring at our level (high school and college) is better than ever.

T

Tim, this is not about altruism. MLB, the NCAA and Fed have all taken major steps to change the way that the game is umpired. A long time ago, I remember reading about a plan to get the call right. The old guard screamed to high heaven that they would not change the way they worked. Some claimed that messing with tradition was sacreligious. Others wrung their hands over any attempt to step on their authority. The anti-get the call right crowd figured they would keep on keeping on. How'd that work out?

Umpiring has evolved. We just saw an NCAA tournament where the committee wanted the games called according to the words in the rule book. Yes, there are inconsistencies in the book and common sense sometimes helps amateur umpires survive. Sticking with what is in the book is always a good shield though. As stated prior, I respect that some umpires have to appease assignors, some coaches and even partners with expected calls. I'm just happy to see that the best in the business are abandoning that effort. Try smiling, sighing is too much work on a hot day (100 here).

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

And as I have posted, umpiring for ratings is something some HAVE to do. It is still sad, but I understand that some feel the need to ignore the rules for personal gratification. That is not a statement of superiority but rather acknowledgement of reality for some. If you find yourself umpiring at the MLB level, consider Mike Port's thoughts regarding QuesTec.

Most MLB guys are ridiculously consistent, QT park or not. The adjustiment you speak of is statistically irrelevant to their scores. You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately. They still want the correct call, Port merely affirmed that they will alter scores if such a pitch occurs and is called. The ZE system is not highly regarded within the WUA and that concession is wise, but almost useless, given that scores are really high already.

Who in the major league office wants a 12-6 curveball that hits the ground called a strike because it "passed through the zone"???

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by asdf

Who in the major league office wants a 12-6 curveball that hits the ground called a strike because it "passed through the zone"???

I don't know, call them. I'm pretty sure that plenty of pitchers do.

Do you also ignore the pitch that cuts through the front of the zone but tails away (or in, as it were), making the catcher adjust his mitt outside the zone? I was always under the impression that players and coaches liked to see strikes called.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

If you find yourself umpiring at the MLB level, consider Mike Port's thoughts regarding QuesTec.

Actually, I can consider it now as an example that even at the highest level, an "expected" call is still allowed today. I do not need to be an MLB umpire to use this example to contradict some of your previous assertions in this thread.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Most MLB guys are ridiculously consistent, QT park or not. The adjustiment you speak of is statistically irrelevant to their scores.

Not always true.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately.

As I posted above in regards to the death of expected calls, I largely agree with you in that I believe most "expected" calls have died and that MLB wants the "correct" call made. I would add that the significantly improved quality of instant replay has generated this change, not the death of arrogance or anything else.

The bottom line for me in respect to all of your posts in this thread is this:

If you want to say that there were a lot of arrogant umpires in MLB in the 1990's or earlier, I won't disagree. I think their arrogance (and the arrogance of their leadership) directly contributed to the 1999 labor disaster (from the union's perspective). If you were to argue that their arrogance was as large a reason as any anger they may have had toward MLB for contributing to their refusal to start playoff games on time after the Alomar spitting incident...I'd agree with you. If you were to argue that the arrogance of some crew chiefs was the reason that many of them refused to use a unified 4-man mechanic system in MLB prior to 1999...I'd agree with you. Hell, if you were to argue that the late Eric Gregg showed contemptable arrogance after his 1997 playoff fiasco...I'd agree.

In other words, I am not niave to think or argue that there was no arrogance among MLB (or PBUC) umpires at those times. I think there was arrogance and I think they paid a price for that arrogance in a lot of ways. As an aside, I think they paid a price that was far steeper than they should have had to pay.

However, I will disagree that umpires made the "expected call" part of the game because of arrogance. The expected call did not arise and become part of the game because of the arrogance of a few (or many) umpires or umpiring executives. It became a part of the game because that is how players, coaches and managers wanted the game called (as evidenced by the amount of vitriol that came out of the dugouts when "expected calls" were not made) AND umpires deciding that they wanted quiet games rather than dugouts being burned down every night. This led baseball executives to officially tell umpires to call games this way. I do not see how this is has anything to do with arrogance. I will also disagree with any assertion that asserts that "expected calls" were only made by a "few" umpires during that time in baseball's history. I would assert that "expected calls" were made by the vast majority of umpires at this level, including the best umpires.

Nearly this entire debate, however, is an academic exercise in historical matters. Whichever reason one choses to assert as the cause of the "expected call" being used by umpires, for the most part (but not entirely), the expected call has died in professional baseball. I assert (as stated above) that this is a direct result of instant replay's evolution. I would also argue that the "expected call" is dying in lower levels partly because of instant replay (as it is used in college games), but mostly because whatever happens in MLB usually filters its way down to lower levels.

[GerryB]

Thanks Rich and Tim. Well spoken.
I really don't mind the direction the game is going. I was taught the "old way" and did well with it. I find the current game a challenge, one that keeps me sharp, to move and adapt as necessary. The college game does not have as much technology bearing own on it so expectations about what should be called vary. It is the art part and I relish working on it.

I had a coach this season in my face telling me "you can't call him safe the ball was there!". He came out later and apologized, admitting his third baseman was late with the tag. After the game one of my partners told me "You still kicked it. The ball was there." I'm fine with what I called.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

the need to ignore the rules for personal gratification.

Mike I do give you credit for your stance. But don't ascribe your reasons for what I do.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I don't know, call them. I'm pretty sure that plenty of pitchers do.

That's right....you don't know....

You stated earlier that...

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

You may have noticed that MLB has directed its umpires to make the correct call and not the expected one lately.

Again, I ask who in the MLB office, not a pitcher, (nice try) wants a 12-6 hitting the ground called a strike? Better yet, when is the last time you saw a 12-6 hit the ground and called a strike?

Never mind... most everyone knows this answer.



There is a reason why you don't see arguments on a ball beating the runner and the tag is belt high after the feet hit the bag. It's the same reason why the neighborhood play is called the way it is.

The spats that occur are when it is perceived that the accepted perameters have been exceeded. (bad throw, attempted evasive action by a runner...etc)

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by lawump

Not always true.

Never said it was, but the figures speak for themselves. Look them up and see.

As I posted above in regards to the death of expected calls, I largely agree with you in that I believe most "expected" calls have died and that MLB wants the "correct" call made. I would add that the significantly improved quality of instant replay has generated this change, not the death of arrogance or anything else.

The bottom line for me in respect to all of your posts in this thread is this:

If you want to say that there were a lot of arrogant umpires in MLB in the 1990's or earlier, I won't disagree. I think their arrogance (and the arrogance of their leadership) directly contributed to the 1999 labor disaster (from the union's perspective). If you were to argue that their arrogance was as large a reason as any anger they may have had toward MLB for contributing to their refusal to start playoff games on time after the Alomar spitting incident...I'd agree with you. If you were to argue that the arrogance of some crew chiefs was the reason that many of them refused to use a unified 4-man mechanic system in MLB prior to 1999...I'd agree with you. Hell, if you were to argue that the late Eric Gregg showed contemptable arrogance after his 1997 playoff fiasco...I'd agree.

In other words, I am not niave to think or argue that there was no arrogance among MLB (or PBUC) umpires at those times. I think there was arrogance and I think they paid a price for that arrogance in a lot of ways. As an aside, I think they paid a price that was far steeper than they should have had to pay.

However, I will disagree that umpires made the "expected call" part of the game because of arrogance. The expected call did not arise and become part of the game because of the arrogance of a few (or many) umpires or umpiring executives. It became a part of the game because that is how players, coaches and managers wanted the game called (as evidenced by the amount of vitriol that came out of the dugouts when "expected calls" were not made) AND umpires deciding that they wanted quiet games rather than dugouts being burned down every night. This led baseball executives to officially tell umpires to call games this way. I do not see how this is has anything to do with arrogance. I will also disagree with any assertion that asserts that "expected calls" were only made by a "few" umpires during that time in baseball's history. I would assert that "expected calls" were made by the vast majority of umpires at this level, including the best umpires.

Nearly this entire debate, however, is an academic exercise in historical matters. Whichever reason one choses to assert as the cause of the "expected call" being used by umpires, for the most part (but not entirely), the expected call has died in professional baseball. I assert (as stated above) that this is a direct result of instant replay's evolution. I would also argue that the "expected call" is dying in lower levels partly because of instant replay (as it is used in college games), but mostly because whatever happens in MLB usually filters its way down to lower levels.

Whew...a lot of words to get through on a sweltering July day. As best I can see it, you agree with me that expected calls are largely ignored by quality umpires now. You contend that instant replay caused the change. I don't disagree but know that recording games at all levels has caused an evaluation of officiating. The push to get the calls right began a decade ago and quality instant replay has been around for almost thirty.

In the end, I prefer to get the calls right or at least do my best to do that. When a coach comes out and tries to argue about a neighborhood play, it reminds me of the guy who yells, "Tie goes to the runner." Neither are impressive for believing things that may have been accepted in the past.

I wish you well on such a hot day.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's right....you don't know....

You stated earlier that...

Again, I ask who in the MLB office, not a pitcher, (nice try) wants a 12-6 hitting the ground called a strike? Better yet, when is the last time you saw a 12-6 hit the ground and called a strike?

Never mind... most everyone knows this answer.



There is a reason why you don't see arguments on a ball beating the runner and the tag is belt high after the feet hit the bag. It's the same reason why the neighborhood play is called the way it is.

The spats that occur are when it is perceived that the accepted perameters have been exceeded. (bad throw, attempted evasive action by a runner...etc)

Grow up. You ask me to answer a question directed at someone else and I honestly addressed it. Stop being a child.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Grow up. You ask me to answer a question directed at someone else and I honestly addressed it. Stop being a child.

"Contemptable", ain't I ???


You answered my question, which was in response to a claim that you made by saying "I don't know".

When called on it, like always, you name call....

A wise man once said, "when you continuously tell people how much you know, you just told them you don't know very much."

Wear that shoe... I'm sure it fits.

[APG]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Grow up. You ask me to answer a question directed at someone else and I honestly addressed it. Stop being a child.

It seemed like a very legit question to me. For awhile, you've regaled us about how quality umpires at the top levels are doing away with the expected call (which I do tend to agree with) and are now just "getting it right" which means by the book. Yet, here's an example of a strike by the clear wording of the book, yet umpires almost always call it a ball and have their evulations retoractively corrected to account for this by the powers that be...and everyone in the sport seems okay with this. Is this a case of the umpires putting their rating ahead of the game for their personal gratification as you put it?

I think we as an officiating community are doing away with "expected" calls in all sports not only due to instant replay...as you pointed out, we've had replay for a while now. I think it's largely being done away with because replay technology has improved immensely in the past decade. There are many more replay angles that weren't available in the past. We have HD largely available for most sports fans. We also have almost every game available on TV somewhere...unlike before where you'd only have the "Game of the Week" shown on TV. That means all 162 games by a team in MLB, 82 in the NBA and NHL, and 16 in the NFL are being scrutinized by the average Joe unlike yesteryear.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I wish you well on such a hot day.

I am in the deep south. Every building and house I go in is a cool 72-degrees. LOL

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by asdf

"Contemptable", ain't I ???


You answered my question, which was in response to a claim that you made by saying "I don't know".

When called on it, like always, you name call....

A wise man once said, "when you continuously tell people how much you know, you just told them you don't know very much."

Wear that shoe... I'm sure it fits.

You asked me to answer for someone in a MLB office. I said that I couldn't and suggested you do it, if you are so intrigued. It is hardly name calling to remind you that you are behaving like a child by doing that. As you say, the shoe fits, wear it.

I never once said I know more than anyone else here. I merely stated that expected calls are becoming extinct.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

It seemed like a very legit question to me.

(roll eyes) You think it is legitimate to ask me to answer for a MLB executive? Amazing.

For awhile, you've regaled us about how quality umpires at the top levels are doing away with the expected call (which I do tend to agree with) and are now just "getting it right" which means by the book. Yet, here's an example of a strike by the clear wording of the book, yet umpires almost always call it a ball and have their evulations retoractively corrected to account for this by the powers that be...and everyone in the sport seems okay with this. Is this a case of the umpires putting their rating ahead of the game for their personal gratification as you put it?

Yes. The WUA demanded the concession.

No, not everyone in the sport is 'okay with this'. A number of pitching coaches, catchers and pitchers have spoken out regarding the strike that isn't called.

I think we as an officiating community are doing away with "expected" calls in all sports not only due to instant replay...as you pointed out, we've had replay for a while now. I think it's largely being done away with because replay technology has improved immensely in the past decade. There are many more replay angles that weren't available in the past. We have HD largely available for most sports fans. We also have almost every game available on TV somewhere...unlike before where you'd only have the "Game of the Week" shown on TV. That means all 162 games by a team in MLB, 82 in the NBA and NHL, and 16 in the NFL are being scrutinized by the average Joe unlike yesteryear.

Thanks for agreeing.