Problems with MLB umpiring

[adambr2]

Something I noticed in the game against the Padres last night from homeplate umpire Mike Winters that I've noticed on several other occasions and find a little disturbing. On that 3-2 pitch to Ishikawa, Winters called a third strike to end the game on a pitch that was well off the outside corner and not a pitch that was called a strike all night. It was clearly called that way in the interests of ending the game. What should have actually happened is Ishikawa walking to first with the tying run at the plate.

 

By no means are umpires intended to be perfect, I understand that. But there is a big difference between incompetence (just missing a call at a base), and negligence (letting emotions/feelings/atmosphere dictate a call). I am not saying that they are all guilty of that, but I have seen it happen enough times as to where I think it's a problem.

 

The party line is to say that umpires do a great job in MLB, and for the most part, they probably do, but will anyone deny that some of them do at times let their emotions dictate calls on the field? This can be anything from hearing a roaring home crowd in the 9th (like last night), to expanding your strike zone to get a game over with in the 9th, to squeezing a pitcher who showed you up by shaking his head on the mound at an earlier pitch. This is all inexcusable -- at no time should an umpire take the game into his own hands.

 

But -- why shouldn't they? There is no accountability. An umpire has no incentive other than his own ethical values not to let outside influences dictate calls -- there is no consequence for blowing a call that changes the course of a game or even season. At least, not to the point where it's going to hurt him in the wallet or cost him his job.

[chadomac]

I am not anti-union and not trying to start a union-based argument here... but in this case the union is probably too strong for anything to be done about it. Sometimes that is just the case. It's too bad because the umpiring has been AWFUL for years now.

[Ennder]

Officiating is terrible in all sports pretty much.

[TooLiveBrew]

The thing is, though, that the umpiring hasn't been awful or anywhere close to it. The problem imo is twofold:

 

1) Umpiring at the MLB level is incredibly difficult

2) Our fan expectation of what umpire success rates should be is somewhere around 99-100%

 

I won't argue that every MLB ump is a good ump... but if you held a gun to my head, I'd side with that extreme rather than that there is a systemic problem with MLB umps.

[dlk9s]

I've always felt that umps allow themselves to be influenced by the emotion of the crowd way too much. Doesn't really happen in football, but it happens constantly in basketball, and very often with balls and strikes (particularly strikes on the final visiting hitter) in baseball. It's just silly.

 

Also, I can't stand that umps are allowed to have their own custom strike zone. Call it like it is drawn up in the rule book. I understand if you miss one sometimes, but to have totally different strike zones game to game is ludicrous.

[adambr2]

The thing is, though, that the umpiring hasn't been awful or anywhere close to it. The problem imo is twofold:

 

1) Umpiring at the MLB level is incredibly difficult

2) Our fan expectation of what umpire success rates should be is somewhere around 99-100%

 

I won't argue that every MLB ump is a good ump... but if you held a gun to my head, I'd side with that extreme rather than that there is a systemic problem with MLB umps.

 

 

Compared to what? I hear this a lot, and I'm not saying I totally disagree or anything, and since I've never officiated at any sport at any level, anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, but look at the officiating of professional sports in general. In the NFL, you have 22 guys to watch in a short 5-10 second period of play, not to mention watching for many subjective calls such as holding, pass interference, etc, during this period. In the NBA you're constantly watching 10 people and also having to judge subjective calls.

 

In baseball, you're watching one piece of action at a time. most of your calls are black and white, not subjective (i.e, did the runner beat the throw? did the ball land in fair territory, or foul?) Some of these calls can be extremely close, but they're not subjective, and they could always use replay to help out with the really close ones like they do in other professional sports.

 

Probably the most subjective calls in baseball are balls and strikes, but they're not supposed to be, there is a designed strike zone, but in practice every umpire has variables and tendencies.

 

I'm not saying that they don't need to be good at what they do and have good eyes, (like Braun being called safe at 2nd last night on the stolen base. The average person probably misses that call). I'm just saying when you stack baseball officiating up against any other professional sports, what sport can you honestly say is easier to officiate?

[owbc]

Fixing the umpiring might be the best way to reverse the trend of declining offense in MLB. Too often, hitters have to swing at pitches on the corner because it's "too close" to take given that umpires consistently miss the borderline calls. Using an automated system would be best, the fans watching at home already immediately know if it was a ball or a strike, and it seems like the automated system is good enough to be used in games. I guess you could argue that a good pitcher's ability to "expand the zone" is part of the game, but I think fairness is more important. With a consistent strike zone, hitters can be more selective and scoring will go up.

 

Since any fully automated system is never going to happen, a compromise might be to allow the hitters and pitchers to challenge borderline calls, similar to the system used in Tennis. Replays would be instant and shown on the scoreboard. Challenge issued, umpire presses a button or points to press box, and bam, call confirmed or overturned in less than 20 seconds. Each team gets one challenge per half inning, if they win then they get another. As an added benefit, the instant feedback would almost certainly improve the human umpires and get rid of stupid mistakes like not calling a strike down the middle that the catcher dropped. Within a few months, nobody would even notice the system and it would only get used a few times per game.

 

I am actually less in favor of expanding replay to safe/out calls. We do not want a situation like in the NFL where every close play is reviewed. Baseball calls are often too close to call anyway, and the umpire usually has a better view than any of the camera angles. I think one challenge per team at most should be allowed so that it is only used in important situations.

 

The good news is that umpires do not influence the outcome of the game very often in MLB--and there are so many games that the good/bad calls tend to even out over time. So I don't think the issue is as pressing as other sports, especially those dealing with subjective foul calls or penalties.

[TooLiveBrew]

adambr2, I will say that I think the most important part of your post #6 in this thread is "I've never officiated" -- and I don't mean any kind of malice in saying that. It's just not as easy as it appears to be. I don't mean to imply that I think you wouldn't be able to umpire or umpire well.

 

The only umping I've ever done is slow-pitch softball (in my 7th season now), and I can tell you even that job is not as simple as it looks. It's by no means really really difficult; that's not the point I'm trying to make. But I can assure you that umpiring baseball at any level is much harder than it appears to those who've never tried it... especially when, as fans, we're able to watch the games on TV like we can with MLB/MiLB/college... great camerawork, replays, etc.

 

 

In baseball, you're watching one piece of action at a time. most of your calls are black and white, not subjective (i.e, did the runner beat the throw? did the ball land in fair territory, or foul?) Some of these calls can be extremely close, but they're not subjective, and they could always use replay to help out with the really close ones like they do in other professional sports.

It's not necessarily always true that you have just one piece of action to watch at a time, although I suppose if you segment a given play, you could discuss it in terms of pieces of action strung together to comprise the play on the field. Every single time a ball is pitched/put into play, every umpire has a sequence of things he/she needs to be watching. So examine a 1B umpire's p.o.v. while a pitcher delivers the ball to the plate:

 

- Did the pitcher balk? (in & of itself this rule has several things that need to be watched... hands, legs, feet, upper body)

- Was there a check-swing by the batter, & if so, did he swing or hold up?

- If runner(s) on base with a ball hit into play, was there interference or obstruction?

- If ball is hit into play, where is my proper positioning? (very important for seeing things like a diving catch in the OF, or a fair/foul call)

- Batter-runner safe/out at 1B?

- If the batter-runner rounds 1B while advancing toward 2B, did he touch the 1B bag?

- If a runner tags up, did he leave early?

- What call is mine, and what call is the responsibility of one of the other umps on the field?

 

I'll freely admit ignorance of knowing exact *baseball* umping techniques, positioning, & runner/batter-runner call responsibilities, but hopefully my layman's example here can illustrate just how much an umpire has to be prepared to watch, & then watch, all in the amount of time it takes for a pitch to be delivered to the plate & possibly batted into play. And I feel pretty confident that I've probably overlooked some responsibilities the 1B ump might have on any given play.

 

Yes, each of these individual items is not necessarily complicated; but with every pitch an ump has to be mentally prepared to watch a sequence of events, & do so in the timespan of just seconds. And that's not even mentioning the incredibly extensive knowledge that's required of the MLB rulebook... I wouldn't wish that curse on my biggest enemy! The physical positioning is something that's easy to notice when watching a game. The mental 'positioning', however, is just as important to being a good ump, and one simply can't see that as a 'lay' observer.

 

To further reinforce my "this is freakin' difficult" stance, look at Jim Joyce's blown call during Armando Gallaraga's perfecto bid in 2010. Joyce is widely regarded by players & managers as being as good as it gets for MLB umps. And the call he blew in that game is about as easy as it gets for MLB umps. It's just never as easy as it looks to us fans imo. There's so much that an umpire has to be ready for on any given play, that sometimes mistakes are made on what appear to be (& in some cases are) really routine, easy calls. EDIT: Just like a hitter striking out or fielder making an error doesn't automatically make him a bad hitter or fielder, an umpire missing a call doesn't necessarily make him/her a bad umpire.

 

 

I'm not saying that they don't need to be good at what they do and have good eyes, (like Braun being called safe at 2nd last night on the stolen base. The average person probably misses that call).

The average MLB umpire most likely misses that call more times than not. That was an example of an absolutely brilliant call imo -- it was all due to good positioning, & knowing what to be watching as the play unfolded. The latter is a combo of experience & mental preparation.

 

 

I'm just saying when you stack baseball officiating up against any other professional sports, what sport can you honestly say is easier to officiate?

I don't think I see the point about determining if MLB is easier or harder to officiate than other pro sports. I get the relative comparison angle, but just because MLB may or may not be easier to officiate than the NFL or NBA, that still doesn't mean it's easy.

[Patrick425]

I am not anti-union and not trying to start a union-based argument here... but in this case the union is probably too strong for anything to be done about it. Sometimes that is just the case. It's too bad because the umpiring has been AWFUL for years now.

 

I'm probably not remembering this correctly. However, are the umpires still unionized. I thought MLB "broke" the union when the umpires went on strike several years ago?

[Funketown]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Welke.jpg

 

Hairston was called out.

 

Umpiring is really tough, and I'm not going to denigrate the work of MLB umps because I think they do a very good job overall. I tend to think most of the bad calls average out over a 162 game season, but that hardly makes it less frustrating. Just expand replay already. It probably would have taken 15 seconds to overturn that call.

[BrewersSuperCollector]

I am not anti-union and not trying to start a union-based argument here... but in this case the union is probably too strong for anything to be done about it. Sometimes that is just the case. It's too bad because the umpiring has been AWFUL for years now.

 

I'm probably not remembering this correctly. However, are the umpires still unionized. I thought MLB "broke" the union when the umpires went on strike several years ago?

 

 

MLB showed that the umpires union is not very strong.

 

The problem with second guessing calls is that we're watching it in slow motion. Views would be different in many cases if the replay was only shown at live speed.

[logan82]

I am not as concerned with missed calls quite as much as overaggressive umpires. Bad calls will happen but there is no need to compound the problem by being a dick about it. I have to think the union is strong if a guy like Joe West is still employed.

 

Having an extra guy in the booth looking over things would help tremendously and I doubt would slow the game much if at all.

[pebadger]

I am not as concerned with missed calls quite as much as overaggressive umpires. Bad calls will happen but there is no need to compound the problem by being a dick about it. I have to think the union is strong if a guy like Joe West is still employed.

 

Having an extra guy in the booth looking over things would help tremendously and I doubt would slow the game much if at all.

 

Agreed.

I don't think replay solves all ills, given the nature of how the game works, but just putting a guy in a position with authority to help the rest of the on-field crew solve most of them would be an improvement. And I say that as a guy who beleives umps make at least as many really, really good calls as really, really bad ones.

 

As to the stuff upthread about experience with officiating: calling balls and strikes is not easy. It's not easy at any level, from 10-year-old kids through high school age kids (I've called games in the past at those levels and all between, but I haven't called a game in about a decade now.). To a certain degree I think the same qualities that make guys kind of prickly are the same qualities that lend themselves to being any kind of good at calling balls and strikes. I could go on and on about it, but I won't. The best umps are the guys who can be complete authorities on the field during the play and who then have the ability to turn that off and relate to players and coaches after the action.

[trwi7]

Baseball is the easiest sport I've ever officiated. I think some of you guys are letting these guys off the hook way too easily.

[MJLiverock]

Logan hit my beef with them on the nose. A bad call will happen but the umps now are all too happy to escalate arguments or even initiate them. More umps are looking like Earl Weaver with mask rip and chest out running to get in the face of players and managers or heading right for the dugout. A few of them have reminded me of a movie drill Sargent screaming and spitting at a guy just standing there who he knows better not touch him or react.

[JohnBriggs12]

Officiating is terrible in all sports pretty much.

 

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

[Schlitz001]

As long as there are subjective calls like basketball fouls, football pass interference and baseball check swings, there is always going to be people upset. However, all of the black and white calls would be extremely easy to fix with replay. Can you really say anymore than that? Why is this not happening?

[Ennder]

Baseball is the easiest sport I've ever officiated. I think some of you guys are letting these guys off the hook way too easily.

 

I'd say Basketball is easier to get the calls right with at least, not talking how physically demanding it is etc.

[brettac1]

I am all for computerizing as much of umpiring as possible, down to even the strike zone. Human error has no place in the game in 2012, or at least not near the huge part it has in baseball. You would still have umpires for out/safe calls, check swings, etc., but they could eliminate complete garbage like "too close to take with 2 strikes" when it comes to the batter vs pitcher confrontation.

[1992casey]

I'm probably not remembering this correctly. However, are the umpires still unionized. I thought MLB "broke" the union when the umpires went on strike several years ago?

The umpires decertified their union and formed a new one.

[prophet]

I honestly think that with the technology we have today, balls and strikes could and maybe should be done by computers. Safe and out calls would probably still have to be done with computers though. Just saying.

[DHonks]

I've been upset this year with the strike zone. I usually follow games with my Ipad which has the gametracker pitchfx data. It's amazing how Gallardo, Greinke, and KRod have walked people multiple times this year when only 1 or 2 pitches should have legitimately been called balls. I don't remember this as a problem in past years. It used to be 1 or 2 missed per game. But now I'm seeing some games where there are 3 or 4 missed per inning.

[Invader3K]

This call on Jerry Hairston from yesterday doesn't help make the umpires' case:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=goZAKhjG15k#!

[brwrsfan]

Balls and strikes are one thing, but to call him out on a play where his foot is at least a foot away from first base when he catches the ball is pretty ridiculous. As a first base ump, that is really your only job on that play, watch the base for the defenders foot, the runners foot and listen for the ball. Wow is that bad.

[bani1717]

I have no idea what the propoer positioning for an umpire is on that play, but I see why he missed it judging by his angle on the play. Either he was terribly out of position, or he was in the correct position and just had a play where that meant having a bad angle (which you can't really blame him for, you just have to hope that the home plate umpire notices the 1B's foot is way off the bag)