Check Swing Appeal...Unrequested?

[Rich]

The PBUC hasn't instructed umpires to refuse such request for checked swings, Warren.

Matter of fact, I've seen batters rung up at low level minor league games with umpires in the middle (B or C). That just tells me that you're way off base and you really don't know what the current thinking is over here. And you certainly aren't speaking for the umpire schools or the PBUC. Jim Evans pooh-poohed the secret signal nonsense at a clinic I attended -- he said the base umpire should call what he sees provided he's sure of a swing REGARDLESS of his location on the field.

The days when a top umpire feels slighted when his partner overturns a call of "BALL" upon appeal are mostly over. The only ones that seem to care about this these days are (1) Smittys, (2) Control freaks, and (3) Umpires that should've hung it up 10 years ago. Category three usually also involves a balloon protector and the mistaken belief that the plate umpire only covers the plate and the base umpire covers the rest.

Me? Thanks for getting me another strike. Now let's get on with the game.

But you know how I feel about that.

Rich

PS - I don't know how you can say that the PBUC has concluded the plate umpire has the better view. Wasn't there a study done where checked swings were looked at and 90% of the time the batter actually offered? If so, why isn't the plate umpire CALLING 90% of the check swings as strikes?

[David B]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

PS - I don't know how you can say that the PBUC has concluded the plate umpire has the better view. Wasn't there a study done where checked swings were looked at and 90% of the time the batter actually offered? If so, why isn't the plate umpire CALLING 90% of the check swings as strikes?

I agree with that statement.

A couple of years ago at a clinic it was suggested that if you have a doubt then he probably swung at the pitch. (unless you are completely blocked by a bad F2)

So the last couple of years I have called strike on any check swing when PU unless I knew 100% that he did not swing.

I have not had one complaint in those two years when I've called the strike.

Thanks
David

[Bainer]

Gentlemen!!

Allow me to clarify, as clearly, this question has gotten out of hand-

-I, as does Rich apparently, say "Ball- no, he didn't go" on all checks. This is what I was taught at the pro school, and little by little, I have been growing away from it, but for the most part- it's what I do.

-Although the ensuing conversation did raise some interesting points, the purpose of this post was to find out if it is acceptable to check on your own- clearly mixed results.

Thanks for everyone's help!


Bainer.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
The PBUC hasn't instructed umpires to refuse such request for checked swings, Warren.

I didn't say that they had! I said that they no longer believed the BU was in the best position to make that call. That is reflected in the fact that their criterion for deciding whether a batter checked or not has changed from the 70's version of "Did the barrel of the bat break the plane of the plate" to the 90's version of "Did the batter swing at the pitch".

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
PS - I don't know how you can say that the PBUC has concluded the plate umpire has the better view. Wasn't there a study done where checked swings were looked at and 90% of the time the batter actually offered? If so, why isn't the plate umpire CALLING 90% of the check swings as strikes?

See above.

It's all a matter of opinion, right Rich?

Cheers

[Jim Porter]

One simply needs to look at some games from the 70's on ESPN Classic to see the impact that checked swing appeals have made on the game. Anytime I watch one of those oldies, I am astounded by the number of times the batters clearly break the plane, break their wrists, and even point their barrels into fair territory, and they are all called balls by the plate umpire. Nary a word is said, too.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Bainer
Gentlemen!!

Allow me to clarify, as clearly, this question has gotten out of hand-

Bainer.

Bainer;

You should not be upset that this situation has "gotten out of hand." That is not bad, it is GOOD.

Unfortunately, I cannot explain my reasoning at this time on the free part of this site. I have written an 11 part article on this subject for the paid site, which the editor says will begin on August 12.

Thank you for providing an opportunity to plug my article.

Peter

[Ump20]

Thank you for providing an opportunity to plug my article.

Peter

Your honesty is indeed refreshing. What an advertisement for the dignified paid part of this site! Jim / NYC

[Bainer]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Bainer;

You should not be upset that this situation has "gotten out of hand." That is not bad, it is GOOD.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not upset- as a writer myself I reserve the right to digress at will...

I just wanted to make sure that everyone was playing fair.

There's something to be said for the involving way that two or more educated individuals can debate a given topic- but when they stray and begin to question EACH OTHER- the interest wains.

Keep it clean boys-


Bainer.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
You should not be upset that this situation has "gotten out of hand." That is not bad, it is GOOD.

Unfortunately, I cannot explain my reasoning at this time on the free part of this site.

I'm afraid I am one person who is never going to see the GOOD in a litany of personal insults, Peter. I'm even less likely to want to follow an 11-part series on the subject, but since I never read your articles I guess you'll lose nothing of your "popularity" by that admission.

I believe we can "disagree without being disagreeable", to quote an old nemesis of yours. I believe that it is possible to disparage the idea without disparaging the person behind it. And I believe that anonimity is no excuse for poor behaviour. That is why I have always posted exclusively under my own name, with all the attendant risks, and made my e-mail address freely available for off-line discussions.

All I can say, Peter, is that it must be some awfully convoluted reasoning that requires an 11-part series of 800+ word articles to make your point.

Cheers

[David B]

I don't think 11 parts on the anatomy of the check swing could clear this subject anymore than it has been in this thread.

I don't think it needs 11 parts though. But maybe they need the material for filler.

Maybe 2. Either you ask or you don't, and either you call what you saw or go along with Smitty.

Thanks
David

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by David B
I don't think 11 parts on the anatomy of the check swing could clear this subject anymore than it has been in this thread.

I don't think it needs 11 parts though. But maybe they need the material for filler.

Maybe 2. Either you ask or you don't, and either you call what you saw or go along with Smitty.

Thanks
David

Uh, I don't think Peter's 11-part series is on the Check Swing, David. I think it is generally on the value of Internet umpiring. All the same, around 9000 words does seem a bit excessive even for the latter subject. The longest series I ever managed was on Umpire Ethics, and that ran to only 7 parts.

My series on the Check Swing appeal, entitled Help of a Half Swing, was only 3 parts: roughly What It Is (part 1), How To Handle It (part 2) and When To Refuse It (part 3). Of course Part 3 was easily the most controversial.

[David B]

That makes more sense, (g)

I was not completely paying attention I guess.

Internet umpiring - that at least sounds interesting, and it keeps guys coming back to the boards.

I just wonder how much of it is actually making its way onto the field.

Thanks
David

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Uh, I don't think Peter's 11-part series is on the Check Swing, David. I think it is generally on the value of Internet umpiring. All the same, around 9000 words does seem a bit excessive even for the latter subject. The longest series I ever managed was on Umpire Ethics, and that ran to only 7 parts.

My series on the Check Swing appeal, entitled Help of a Half Swing, was only 3 parts: roughly What It Is (part 1), How To Handle It (part 2) and When To Refuse It (part 3). Of course Part 3 was easily the most controversial.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by David B
That makes more sense, (g)

I was not completely paying attention I guess.

Internet umpiring - that at least sounds interesting, and it keeps guys coming back to the boards.

I just wonder how much of it is actually making its way onto the field.

Thanks
David

David;

Thanks for more opportunities to promote my article. I'll give a brief outline here since there seems to be some confusion on the subject.

The aspects of Internet umpiring working its way into the real game is only contained in one or two parts of the 11 part series. However, since this is one of the most eyecatching part, it is easily promoted that way.

The series is entitled "Creative Ejections". It begins with the proposition that youth ball umpires are allowing way too much bad behavior in their games. The article expounds at length on why this bad for the umpire. (as if it wasn't bad enough for the kids.) Just read any of the recent news blurbs on this site about youth baseball games degenerating into near riots.

The article gives lots of specific examples. The following examples are not from the article but it might give the reader a flavor:

Imagine if you will, the following far fetched scenerio:

Friex and myself head to Australia on a vacation together and go to a typical bush league baseball game to take in the local flavor of baseball. Lo and behold, Warren Willson is working the plate. This is not the type of baseball that he has led us to believe that he does, this more closely resembles MSBL. Warren does not know that Freix and I are there and have linked up. Freix takes a seat behind third and I take a seat behind first. (among the 22 other fans in attendnace.)

In the third inning, Warren calls a worm burner a strike and while the dugout groans, I yell out "Hey, Warren, is this the AAA baseball that you have led the Internet umpires believe you work?"

From over at third Freix yells out "Come on Warren, no need to call pitches like that, the sheep will wait for your body."

For the rest of the game, I yap at Warren about AAA baseball and how this isn't it, and Freix yells "BAA, BAA" and other suggestive things about what Warren does with sheep.

Now here on the anonymous Internet, where Warren does not know anyone, he goes crazy when someone questions his integrity or suggests that he has the hots for animals. He dropped off the site and stopped writing for a year because of questions about his integrity. What would he do when this occurred up close and personal at a baseball game? Does anyone seriously believe that it would not affect the quality of his calls?

You think the above is preposterous. OK, let me give you a real life example, also not from the 11 part series. I wouldn't want to give anything away for free.

Several years ago, we had a true a$$hole umpire that made me look like a saint. I couldn't hold a candle to this guy when it came to being disagreeable. Anyway, he found out that whenever a certain minor league umpire (from the Carlonia League, single A) came to town, he stayed with a woman we'll call Karen.

Our umpire fan would go to the games where this minor league umpire worked and make references to Karen all game long. Comments like "I'll warm up Karen for you if this game goes into extra innings." Every time a close call came up against the home team, he yelled out a comment (usally sexual) about Karen. The minor league umpire's performance went into the toilet as the game would go along.

If this happens to minor league umpires, what happens to journeyman umpires when the negativity starts. For the coaches and fans will jump in right on the thing sends the umpire up a wall. (In exactly the same way that I jump on Porter about his mental problems.) Warren's inabilty to deal with this in an anonymous Internet setting is why I have doubts about his status as an umpire in Australia.

They coaches and fans show no mercy. The 11 part series gives the umpire ways to be an a$$hole and launch preemptive strikes against his tormenters. Hence the title, "Creative Ejections."

Peter

[Bfair]

Peter, I'm sure Warren will tell you.........

that's a b-a-a-a, b-a-a-a, b-a-a-a-a-a-a-d example..........LOL


Freix

[GarthB]

I'm sure Peter's article will prove to be interesting and thought provoking as is most of his previous work. I'm also sure that he will do less assuming in his piece.

I know a number of people who are sensitive to attacks on their integrity whether they are in a quasi-anonymous setting or not. Our own dear U.S. president has reportedly gone into an absolute rage over attacks on his. And this where no one but secret service agents can see him. Hard to be in a more anonymous setting than that. Yet in public, he handles the same barbs with great aplomb.

I wouldn't use having difficulty with personal attacks on the internet as criteria for how one performs in the real world. Very often, just the opposite is true. I know of some umpires on the internet who handle attacks with something just short of grace, yet in the real world when they are seen coming on the field eyes roll and snickers are heard. Once the chirping starts, they just go to hell.

While we cannot deny who we are and it is we take all our baggage with us where ever we go, some of us are better actors than others. Two days ago I ejected a multi-ethnic catcher and was subjected to catcalls of "bigot" and "racist." There is nothing more dear to a former 60's liberal than his sense of racial fairness, and I was never more pissed at or shaken by fans in my life. But I decided that I never heard them. My zone didn't waver. My judgment on close plays at home remained consistent and both coaches congratulated me for staying in the game and giving them my best, even the coach of the ejected player and the obscene fans.

Have fans ever gotten to me? Sure. But it had nothing to do with any outward reaction you or any one else has ever witnessed or any trait I have exhibited in anonymous environments.

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that Peter's artcle will entertain and even enlighten, but I doubt it will be based on mere conjecture. I have known of Peter for several years. We have been on opposite sides and we have been on adjacent sides. Peter says what he thinks. I have no problem with that. And, over time, he has improved in how he puts his thoughts on paper. While he can still be provocative, and intentionally so, at times, I have learned to have a better understanding for the message behind the medium.

I do have new found respect, however, for his marketing skills; not the cheap plug for his article, but how he has used a seemingly needless needling of an adversary as a hook to his new series. At first, I thought, "Why dredge this up again, Peter?". But it became quickly obvious: For the same reason the National Inquirer will never let Elvis die or Bill Clinton go impotent.

The devise works so well, rather than be offended, Warren will probaly do it homage by using it to his own advantage on a piece down the road.