Lets see how MLB handles this one....

[GerryB]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Rich, it is funny that you used that phrase. Being on a soapbox used to be a good thing, one was exercising his/her right to speak. Apparently, around here, there are some who believe you are only allowed to write "+1" in reference to their posts while others take pleasure in ridiculing anyone who takes on the status quo.

The arrogance involved in 'expected calls' is sad. The arrogance I spoke of is being defended as what was expected by the powers that be. Hoistory is filled with examples of those who did what they knew was wrong only to impress others. If you were taught to ignore the proper call, live the dream. As has been stated prior, professional umpires and many amateur umpires have adopted a different set of standards. Whether instant replay caused it or introspection, it doesn't matter. Umpires used to be able to m-therf-cker a player or coach, act as if they were too good to hustle, take the field out of shape and make calls that made players, fans and managament cringe in disbelief. Thank goodness that the arrogance they once displayed is giving way to an attempt to get the calls correct, even at the risk of ridicule. I'm glad to work with guys who put the game ahead of their careers. If some are upset at my use of 'arrogance' to describe making an improper call solely because it is expected, too bad. The exepected call legion is dwindling, thankfully.

I don't know if I cringe more at the arrogance of this quote or the misspellings.
Actually, you've received a reasoned discourse on why some things in baseball came to be. You on the other hand insist on labels and talking down. Why advocate for players, fans and management as well? If the legion is dwindling it is not the "status quo" by the way.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by GerryB

I don't know if I cringe more at the arrogance of this quote or the misspellings.

Sorry, I typed my response on a DroidX while watching my son's football drills. It's nice to know that the spelling police are on patrol though.

Actually, you've received a reasoned discourse on why some things in baseball came to be.

No, I saw a couple people say that they were taught to ignore the rules and call what was expected in order to appease a few arrogant soles and improve their ratings.

You on the other hand insist on labels and talking down.

No, it always makes me smile when others think that being criticized for doing wrong is demeaning. I am not talking down to you unless you feel inferior. Anyone who has lived through pro school knows that criticism helps make you better. Thicker skin will serve you well too.

It is arrogant to do what you know is wrong, simply to improve your place in this world. An umpire is tasked with following the rules, not simply the ones that expedite their promotion. While PBUC advocated this a while ago, it is not done now and for good reason. If you cannot see that, I am truly sorry. It is not a superior stance, it is knowing what my job is - do my best to get the call correct.

Why advocate for players, fans and management as well? If the legion is dwindling it is not the "status quo" by the way.

I have suggested it before, try reading Linda McMeniman's 'From Inquiry to Argument'. Your attempt to mislead the board by misrepresenting what I wrote is contemptible. My comment about the status quo regarded the way this board often operates, not the dynamics of umpire development. Some here feel it necessary to ridicule anyone who deviates from ad populum tact. All I did was point out how professional umpiring no longer embraces 'expected calls' and that it is dinosaur officiating to continue to do so. Around this area, the better umpires emulate what the best in the business do currently. I prefer to work with guys who share the challenge of following the rules and calling what they see, not what helps get them a higher rating.

[Rich]

The way I look at it is this:

When you have a boss that is going to determine whether you get to stay in your job, you either do as you're told or you move on.

It's not arrogant to listen to your bosses -- it's arrogant to have your boss tell you one thing that helps make the group consistent and unilaterally think "I know better" and refuse to conform for that reason.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The way I look at it is this:

When you have a boss that is going to determine whether you get to stay in your job, you either do as you're told or you move on.

It's not arrogant to listen to your bosses -- it's arrogant to have your boss tell you one thing that helps make the group consistent and unilaterally think "I know better" and refuse to conform for that reason.

Rich, in no way am I suggesting that I am superior to anyone here - in fact, I have admitted many mistakes I have made over the years and my hope that they made me better. I do, however, pride myself in having learned right from wrong long ago. It is absolutely arrogant to do what you know is wrong solely to improve your ratings or performance evaluation. The expected call is a dinosaur. But there are still some who cling to it. For example, the high strike, dropped pitch that crossed the plate, and curve ball that passed through the zone but ended up just above the dirt. These things have been discussed endlessly here. Some call them for what they are and others refuse because they know it is expected and will improve their rating. I know you take pride in your abilities and find it difficult to believe you would knowingly ignore a rule solely to advance. I have seen your posts take issue with those who earn post season assignments based on kissing up rather than merit. That is what the EC is all about, after all.

It is not a matter of "I know better". I respect that some of you have to appease assignors who demand ignorance of certain rules. I understand that some of you have to make calls based on performance reveiews and a desire to advance. Complying with directives is a tough call. So are most things about our profession.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

and curve ball that passed through the zone but ended up just above the dirt.

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.

[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.

[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"???

[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.