I won't turn this into a dissertation, but holy smokes.

 

The ball and strike officiating by Davidson last night was truly awful. I commend Marlin hitters for absorbing some absurd calls last night, but how does someone like Davidson continue to earn a fancy living when they do their job like he did last night? As a case in point, how a did the third strike call on Hanley last night sit with you? Ten to twelve inches off the outside corner ... strike three. The blown calls last night topped at least a dozen.

 

While I have umpired behind the plate on more than a few occasions, I have admittedly never seen 90 mph pitches or major league quality breaking stuff. However, I do know that if you position yourself at eye level with the top of strike zone (the rule book still states that as the letters on a player's jersey, can you believe that?), that is the easiest part of the zone to call accurately. Next, if you put your nose right on the outside edge of the plate, that corner becomes fairly easy to judge as well. Interestingly though, the high pitch and the outside corner seem to be the pitches that umpires struggle with the most.

 

On a good night, you barely notice the ball and strike calls. Last night, it was hard to notice anything else.

 

Safe and out calls on the bases are problematic too. Does the rule book not state that a runner is safe unless clearly and obviously out? Ties go to the runner? In truth, it appears that umpires call a runner out if a play even appears to be close. This may be done in the name of keeping the game moving, but couldn't you accomplish the same thing more appropriately by bringing the top ten inches of the official strike zone back into play?

 

Whenever I was called out of the stands at a high school game to officiate because an umpire had failed to show up for the game and I had to call balls and strikes, I would tell both catchers before the game that if they ever though I missed a pitch, just mention it to me. After each pitch, rather than simply grunt ball or strike, I would describe the location of each pitch after each call. That description would range from " a foot outside" to "just low" to "right across the middle of the letters". I don't have particularly good vision and I may have missed some pitches, but I never had a catcher question any pitches at all. Not that I remember.

A couple things:

 

1) Balkin Bob has always been one of my favorite umps, but yesterday was pathetic.

2) Tie goes to the runner isn't a rule.

Actually, tie goes to the runner is the only interpretation of the rule I can make. To paraphrase the rulebook, the runner is awarded the base if he arrives there before he is out. If the ball and the runners foot arrive simultaneously, the runner has arrived at the base before he was out. Can there be a different interpretation?

Actually, tie goes to the runner is the only interpretation of the rule I can make. To paraphrase the rulebook, the runner is awarded the base if he arrives there before he is out. If the ball and the runners foot arrive simultaneously, the runner has arrived at the base before he was out. Can there be a different interpretation?

 

How does "before he is out" mean tie goes to the runner? It doesn't say "If he's there at the same time the ball arrives". If he gets there and at the same time the ball gets there, that could be interpreted as him being out at the same time, therefor being out. All that rule says is he's safe if he's not out.

It is one of those "tree falling in the forest" things but if you think about, simultaneously reaching base, at least the way the rule is being offered here and I have no reason to disbelieve this interpretation, suggests that since the runner was not out when he reached base (because the defensive player didn't touch the base ahead of him or he would be out, logic would suggest he's therefore "not out", or safe in this case.

The umpiring crew we had for the Dodgers series was without a doubt the worst the Marlins have had the displeasure of playing in front of this season. Thankfully they were consistently bad for both the Marlins and Dodgers for the most part.

The umpires are held accountable for their calls during games, I just don't know how. It's one of those "top secret" processes I'd guess, but don't worry, they aren't just making these calls and just walking off with no repercussions.

Who do you think holds them accountable? Certainly not MLB. The umpire's union is very powerful.

 

All I know is that I certainly would never want to be an umpire. That is one tough job.

Actually, tie goes to the runner is the only interpretation of the rule I can make. To paraphrase the rulebook, the runner is awarded the base if he arrives there before he is out. If the ball and the runners foot arrive simultaneously, the runner has arrived at the base before he was out. Can there be a different interpretation?

 

How does "before he is out" mean tie goes to the runner? It doesn't say "If he's there at the same time the ball arrives". If he gets there and at the same time the ball gets there, that could be interpreted as him being out at the same time, therefor being out. All that rule says is he's safe if he's not out.

 

If the rule reads as cornfield says, then his explanation makes perfect sense. The bolded sentence is key.

The umpires are held accountable for their calls during games, I just don't know how. It's one of those "top secret" processes I'd guess, but don't worry, they aren't just making these calls and just walking off with no repercussions.

 

You are correct. The umps/MLB have a guy (former ump, I think,) actually an office of people (he has a staff) who spends 100% of his time reviewing calls and reviewing problematic calls with the umps who made them.

 

They rate umps internally all year long. The best get to do the post-season games. The worst, well, who knows. Perhaps they're encouraged to retire or to pursue a career selling eyewear. I've never heard of an MLB ump being outright fired.

Who do you think holds them accountable? Certainly not MLB. The umpire's union is very powerful.

 

 

So? The player's union is powerful too, yet they still get fined and suspended. To think that umpires aren't held accountable, unlike every other job in America, is pretty disingenuous. I guess the rest of what I'd say was covered in ...'s post.

A tidbit about umpire supervision from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution of about a month ago:

 

Umpiring is monitored on a daily basis by Major League Baseball, which maintains a staff of seven supervisors and a network of field observers to keep tabs on performance. An estimated 55 percent of all games are graded on-site by a MLB official and Mike Port, MLB’s vice president of umpiring, reviews controversial plays the following day.Those reviews are passed on to the individual umpiring crews. A general analysis of all umps is made at the end of the season and those with the highest marks are rewarded with post-season assignments, according to MLB. Umps may be reprimanded or fined for critical mis-calls, but those measures are typically meted [out] without announcement.

 

But suspensions, however rare, are made public. Umpire Mike Winters, for instance, was suspended the final week of the 2007 season for a confrontation with Milton Bradley, then playing for San Diego. Umpire Paul Schrieber was not suspended for putting a hand on Detroit’s Magglio Ordonez during an argument last month but issued a rare public apology the next day for the incident.

 

 

([out] added to the quote so that the AJC writer appears to be more literate than he is.)

 

Brian Runge (Ed Runge's kid, I watched Ed ump games in the '60s) was also suspended for one whole game for bumping Mets manager Jerry Manuel in 2008.

 

Notice that the (minimal) umpire suspensions involved either minor or flagrant losses of temper (bumping, confronting,) not garbage calls, or, say, a failure to eject a pitcher who intentionally threw twice at the upper body/head area of a star player.

 

Here's some snippets for the Cleveland Plain Dealer in May of this year, just in case you don't think you yet know enough about the very cushy union sinecures which MLB umpires enjoy:

 

[snip]

 

As of Tuesday morning, Port was still in the process of gathering data on the Garko blown call.

 

Port, a longtime executive for several clubs, has overseen all things umpiring for MLB since August 2005. In an interview this week with The Plain Dealer, he shed light on how the umpire arm of the operation works:

 

PD: How many people report to you?

 

MP: We have seven umpire supervisors: six with major-league umpiring experience, and a seventh who is a longtime minor-league umpire who coordinates our developmental efforts at the Triple-A level. We also have a special assistant and a director of umpire administration. And we have a nationwide network of 11 people we refer to as "field observers." They observe within a very specific set of parameters and do not have contact with the umpires.

 

PD: How many umpires are on the MLB roster?

 

MP: We have a full-time staff of 68. A club has a 40-man roster, with 25 active and 15 "on option." Of our 68, 22 are on option. They rotate in for various reasons.

 

[snip]

 

PD: Is there a grading system for umpires?

 

MP: There is. It's more of a pass / fail situation. We have certain categories where they are graded in terms of exceeded / met / did not meet. It's not anything in terms of a numerical scale, but we do evaluate virtually everything related to umpiring.

 

PD: Are they graded each game?

 

MP: Yes - from every game that is observed firsthand, which is just over 55 percent of them. In those games, we look not only at the pitch-evaluation system, but missed calls, ejections, other situations. We watch demeanor, hustle, form, concentration.

 

PD: How are postseason assignments determined?

 

MP: It begins with a meeting of supervisors that normally lasts about three days. We go through every umpire, covering 10 or 11 categories, and eventually forward our recommendations to the commissioner.

 

PD: Who makes the call on whether an umpire will be fined or suspended?

 

MP: I do. A lot goes into it. We don't take any situation lightly.

 

PD: Can an umpire, regardless of service time, get demoted to the minors because of too many mistakes or consistently poor ball-strike calls?

 

MP: In a word, no.

 

[snip]

 

PD: In other words, once an umpire is in, he's in.

 

MP: [begin obfuscation/prevarication/rationalization] Experience is something to be appreciated. I can't recall in my time in baseball an umpire being sent down for developmental purposes. Unless there's a lack of effort, they deserve to be there. [Never mind that even if there is a total lack of effort and competence, they'll still be there] Umpires make mistakes. They're human. But the important thing is to learn from them, to take strides to minimize them. And just because an umpire makes a mistake does not mean he's a bad umpire. My observation has been that it's a job of peaks and valleys. Several years ago, one of our guys missed a couple of close calls at first but came back the next night to have a great game behind the plate. Great players might strike out three times one night and have three hits the next. [end obfuscation/prevarication/rationalization]

 

PD: How much experience do the young umpires typically have before MLB hires them full time?

 

MP: They probably average 10-12 years of minor-league experience, in addition to their service at the major-league level as a call-up umpire. The last umpire added to the staff, Chris Guccione, had worked more than 1,200 major-league games as a vacation or injury replacement.

 

According to MLB.com, these guys make from $120K to $350K, not big bucks by ballplayer standards, but they make it no matter how hard of sight they may repeatedly prove to be.

 

It reminds me of the NYC school system where there are 700 union "teachers" who get sent to sit in a room to do nothing at full pay, usually for many years while their unfitness to teach is evaluated. Don't believe me? See http://cbs5.com/wate....2.1056208.html Costs NYC $65 mill a year.

 

The difference is that there is no room to which incompetent MLB umpires can be sent so that they can do no harm, instead they are able to continue to inflict themselves on the game and the fans.

 

The bottom line is that the best of them get rewarded with the prestige of post-season games, but there are no real penalties for the incompetent or just plain shoddy nor any way to get rid of them.

Let's go with the electronic strike zone and take the umpire out of calling balls and strikes. I'm confident the technology is in place.

Let's go with the electronic strike zone and take the umpire out of calling balls and strikes. I'm confident the technology is in place.

 

This is something I never ever want to do. I mean, I'm all for technological advancement (especially since I'm planning on it to pay for my life) but there is something to say for the human element, especially something that's been part of the game since the beginning. I'm all for instant replay but I never want computers to make the decisions.

Let's go with the electronic strike zone and take the umpire out of calling balls and strikes. I'm confident the technology is in place.

 

This is something I never ever want to do. I mean, I'm all for technological advancement (especially since I'm planning on it to pay for my life) but there is something to say for the human element, especially something that's been part of the game since the beginning. I'm all for instant replay but I never want computers to make the decisions.

Plus, if that happens, are fans going to get upset that Fredi didn't go out and argue and defend his players against the machine?

Let's go with the electronic strike zone and take the umpire out of calling balls and strikes. I'm confident the technology is in place.

 

This is something I never ever want to do. I mean, I'm all for technological advancement (especially since I'm planning on it to pay for my life) but there is something to say for the human element, especially something that's been part of the game since the beginning. I'm all for instant replay but I never want computers to make the decisions.

 

Umpires are only a part of tradition because of necessity. If there's a better option, there's no reason not to pursue it. Getting things right (like instant replay) is far more important to me.

The electronic strike zone would be great. It would put an end to the complains about balls and strikes.