sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 15, 2013 20:22:03 GMT -5
Any thoughts?
I like Jon Miller's idea of putting a 5th umpire in a booth with a tv monitor, kind of like in college football. When there's a close play that needs further review, he buzzes down to the on-field crew to halt play until he makes his decision. This way you don't put the managers in a spot of having to choose which plays to challenge.
I'm glad they're finally doing something to try to get the calls right. The thing I like best is it will become public knowledge which umpires get their calls reversed most often and accountability will be easier to accomplish.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 16, 2013 9:21:55 GMT -5
Randy -- I like Jon Miller's idea of putting a 5th umpire in a booth with a tv monitor, kind of like in college football. Rog -- You are right, Randy. This one seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? I think hockey does replays the best. They not only have an off-ice official in the building, each review includes the league office in Toronto. MLB and the NFL make something of a travesty out of the situation by either taking their officials off the field or placing them under a magical hood. Talk about unnecesarily slowing the game down! The NHL has three sources of review: . The off-ice official. . The league office. . The referees themselves, since they are able to make headphone contact to explain what they believe they saw. As a former officlal myself, I think replay is a good thing. I also believe that the way the NFL and MLB in particular handle it is a bad one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1961#ixzz2c8qJz65Q |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 16, 2013 14:56:04 GMT -5
Well, they certainly need to do something to help these guys. I kind of like Miller's idea as well. The person watching the replay doesn't even have to be an umpire. Anyone with functional eyesight would do just as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 17, 2013 6:43:56 GMT -5
They blew another last night, saying Belt's foot had come off the bag when clearly it hadn't. The one thing this new rule won't address is the terrible strike zones of the umpires. They have technology that can instantaneously accurately call balls and strikes, but they'll never use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 17, 2013 13:16:09 GMT -5
Yes, I doubt that they would. If they would just crack down on the umpires and not give them the latitude to call their own zones, I think it would help alot.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 17, 2013 14:09:46 GMT -5
The part I like about it is the days of umpires being comfortable with their own mediocrity will soon be challenged. Stats on umpires' calls being reversed will be as readily available as player stats, and fans will have big time ammo when asking for someone to be canned due to failure as an umpire. That should sharpen everyone's skill and make sure that only the best umps remain in the rotation.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 17, 2013 17:57:07 GMT -5
They should doing that already. Keep stats on the umps, and make them available to the public. Keep percentages on missed calls on the bases, and use the electronnic strike zone to keep tabs on how they do behind the plate. The players stats are out there. Let the fans know which umpires are screwing up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dk on Aug 18, 2013 0:23:49 GMT -5
They should doing that already. Keep stats on the umps, and make them available to the public. Keep percentages on missed calls on the bases, and use the electronnic strike zone to keep tabs on how they do behind the plate. The players stats are out there. Let the fans know which umpires are screwing up. dk..the Angels talked a second base ump to talk to the other umps on a tag play at second...the umps met and the call was reversed...without a replay, but you could tell on the scoreboard screen that the guy was out. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 18, 2013 14:20:34 GMT -5
These guys miss a ton of calls. They missed the one on Belt the other night, Blanco was picked off twice in the first today and Randazzo missed them both. The guy who did the plate last night (Rackley?) flat stunk. I'm suprised Cain didn't kill him.
They had one a while ago where they picked Adam Jones off second. Jones was literally laying on the glove, (which had the ball in it) while he was a foot off the bag. Easy call right? No way you could miss it. But they did.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 18, 2013 19:13:48 GMT -5
I can almost put up with the close calls blown if it werent for the plethora of those in the "not even close" variety. Like that one in Tampa where the sac bunt turned into a ridiculous hit.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 13:29:45 GMT -5
Allen -- Well, they certainly need to do something to help these guys. I kind of like Miller's idea as well. The person watching the replay doesn't even have to be an umpire. Anyone with functional eyesight would do just as well. Rog -- It would occasionally be a benefit if the reviewer knew the rules, which isn't always the case with laymen. Your overall point is good, but your tone is a bit snippy. I just realized that although I like you, you come across as being very self-righteous. I'm sure you could say the same about me, but usually I will either be ready to back up my assertion with incontrovertible facts or I will state that I'm merely guessing or whatever. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#13881#ixzz2cRIG0FWF |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
Mark -- They have technology that can instantaneously accurately call balls and strikes, but they'll never use it. Rog -- Well, never is a long time, but I understand your point. The fans actually seem to LIKE having something else to gripe about. Personally I would be all FOR doing just what you suggest. At some point, the technology might even be practical to automate ALL calls in the game. I suspect the technology exists right now, but isn't yet close to being practical. Hey, I'm all for it. But I think that as much as people complain about officials, somewhere in their minds they would miss them if they were gone. Most people LOVE to complain, and with instant replay, officials are easy targets. Once in a while a replay will be ambiguous, but for the most part they can pretty clearly show if a call is right or wrong. As a former officlal myself, my goal is to get the call RIGHT. I agree with Mark that the technology is actually EASILY available to call balls and strikes, and probably to make force calls, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#ixzz2cRPuRs00 |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 19, 2013 13:37:48 GMT -5
Rog -- I just realized that although I like you, you come across as being very self-righteous. I'm sure you could say the same about me,
Dood - my personal opinion is that you come across as a persnickety, smug, self-righteous, pompous SOB. But that's just my opinion.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 13:38:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 13:43:15 GMT -5
Dood - my personal opinion is that you come across as a persnickety, smug, self-righteous, pompous SOB. But that's just my opinion. Rog -- And I can appreciate that. On the other hand, look closely at what I say. I can usually back it up pretty well. One thing I haven't done is give up on the Giants this time last season or given up on Brandon Belt earlier this season. I will change my opinion (although I realize the consensus here is that I don't), but I rarely swing from one extreme to the other. And I continue to point out the importance of the gray area. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#ixzz2cRS6xeGh |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 13:48:01 GMT -5
Randy -- I can almost put up with the close calls blown if it werent for the plethora of those in the "not even close" variety. Like that one in Tampa where the sac bunt turned into a ridiculous hit. Rog -- When a call is missed against the Giants, likely no one here is offended than I. I am offended for the Giants, and I'm offended as a former official. But I also know from experience some of the things that can happen. We're talking about human beings here, not machines. Mistakes WILL happen, even big ones. Let me ask you this: How big a mistake was it in giving up on the Giants a year ago? How big a mistake was it giving up on Brandon Belt just two or three weeks ago? I consider you to be a very competent observer. But just in the past two years you have missed a couple of BIG ones. You know, the type where when you said them, one had to ask how in the world you could have missed it? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#ixzz2cRTBL5UZ |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 19, 2013 14:33:27 GMT -5
Randy -- I can almost put up with the close calls blown if it werent for the plethora of those in the "not even close" variety. Like that one in Tampa where the sac bunt turned into a ridiculous hit.
Rog -- When a call is missed against the Giants, likely no one here is offended than I. I am offended for the Giants, and I'm offended as a former official. But I also know from experience some of the things that can happen.
We're talking about human beings here, not machines. Mistakes WILL happen, even big ones.
---boly says---
Rog, here's the deal for me; Yeah, they're human. Yeah, they'll make mistakes... BUT... and I mean B B U U T !!!!
They get worse and worse each year. And I'm not just bitching about calls that go against the Giants. They flat out STINK ALL TOO OFTEN against both teams.
The final game against Miami proved 11 perfect examples.
Twice Blanco was clearly picked off.
Then there was the CLEAR CUT out call at 2B... and don't even get me started on balls and strikes.
Dead people could have called it better.
No. Sorry, Rog. That excuse of "they're just human" dried up 5 to 10 years ago.
Now, they DECIDE what the play will be on the bases BEFORE it's played out, and balls and strikes?
Ridiculous! Atrocious, and down right disgusting!
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 19, 2013 14:39:12 GMT -5
Allen -- Well, they certainly need to do something to help these guys. I kind of like Miller's idea as well. The person watching the replay doesn't even have to be an umpire. Anyone with functional eyesight would do just as well. Rog -- It would occasionally be a benefit if the reviewer knew the rules, which isn't always the case with laymen. Your overall point is good, but your tone is a bit snippy. I just realized that although I like you, you come across as being very self-righteous. I'm sure you could say the same about me, but usually I will either be ready to back up my assertion with incontrovertible facts or I will state that I'm merely guessing or whatever. Allen- Maybe I'm just righteous, in addition to being prescient, which you called me before. Actually, most calls that would involve replay wouldn't involve the rules, would they? Mostly safe or out, fair or foul, catch or trap, home run or not, right? A rudimentary understanding of the rules would suffice, no? |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 19, 2013 16:24:32 GMT -5
Dood - my personal opinion is that you come across as a persnickety, smug, self-righteous, pompous SOB. But that's just my opinion.
Rog -- And I can appreciate that.
On the other hand, look closely at what I say. I can usually back it up pretty well.
One thing I haven't done is give up on the Giants this time last season or given up on Brandon Belt earlier this season.
Dood - oh yeah, I forgot one...a beater of dead horses too
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 17:43:35 GMT -5
Boly -- Now, they DECIDE what the play will be on the bases BEFORE it's played out, and balls and strikes? Ridiculous! Atrocious, and down right disgusting! Rog -- But also not correct, Boly. How do we know that a decision has been made on the bases before a play has been played out? I have seen a runner called out, only to have the call reversed when the ball was dropped. That is a poor mechanic from the umpire -- although it didn't keep him from ultimately getting the play right. Still, most umpires have made that mistake at some point. I myself asked the player to show me the ball -- and then called the runner out if he could do so without picking it up off the ground. But it can also take a LONG time to make a call in such situations. Still, that is the way to do so -- and I have seen it done improperly even at the major league level. Only once do I recall a runner being called out and having the call stand. And that was a very difficult call to make, one that was borderline anyway. In fact, I don't think the announcers commented on it even after seeing replay, although I could be wrong about that part. I realize it is the consensus here that umpires DO make up their mind before the play unfolds, but I haven't seen any evidence that is incontrovertable. Baseball is a very slow game. Why would an umpire do so? By the way, great to have you back, Boly. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#13975#ixzz2cSPiM1ei |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 17:54:43 GMT -5
Boly -- They get worse and worse each year.
Rog -- Perhaps that is true, but I see no reason WHY it would be.
To become a major league umpire is almost certainly more competitive than any job any of us have here. Wouldn't one think MLB would try to choose the best? They have a lot to choose from. Most who attend umpire school don't even get picked to umpire in the minor leagues.
As is the case with the players, those who make it all the way to the majors are few and far between.
The umpires can now more easily review every call they make. You don't think when they miss one, they try to learn from it so there will be less chance they will do so again?
I can't say whether the umpires are better or worse than they were. I don't have a vast library of old games for comparison -- and most of those either don't have replay or don't have as many angles as today.
I do know that today's umpires have more feedback from which to improve, and umpiring may well be more competitive now.
I think in the old days we THOUGHT a lot of calls were wrong, but didn't have concrete visual evidence. Today we usually do have good visual evidence.
Are we going to remember calls from long ago that we THOUGHT were wrong as much as we are going to remember today's calls that we know from visual evidence ARE wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 17:55:52 GMT -5
Boly -- Dead people could have called it better.
Rog -- Possibly not -- but we'll allow you the hyper-Boly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 17:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 18:16:32 GMT -5
Allen -- Actually, most calls that would involve replay wouldn't involve the rules, would they? Mostly safe or out, fair or foul, catch or trap, home run or not, right? A rudimentary understanding of the rules would suffice, no? Rog -- Absolutely. But not always. That was my point. You do realize that even with replay, the announcers miss calls, right? By the way, I agreed with the non-call on the pitch to Stanton right before his long home run against Matt Cain. He may even have been hit with the pitch, and I will say I have seen such a play called a strike before -- but I don't truly believe it was. The rule says something to the effect if the batter intended to swing, it is a strike. In a way that's crazy, because if the batter DIDN'T intend to swing, he wouldn't have started to do so. But normally the call is made based on how far the bat goes forward and perhaps if the wrists are still cocked. On the pitch to Stanton, he wasn't trying to swing at the pitch so much as get out of the way of it. His bat hadn't gone far enough forward for me personally to have called a strike until it went forward as he was attempting to twist away from the pitch. I can understand why Cain didn't like the call -- especially since after Stanton hit the ball, the only question seemed to be whether the ball would come down again -- and I would say that WOULD be called a strike on occasion and perhaps even on MANY occasions. It's just that the way I saw the play, I personally wouldn't have called it a strike. I'm not saying the call was good or that it was bad. I am simply saying that based on what I saw, I personally wouldn't have called it a strike. There isn't really a lot of gray area to call in baseball. But the check swing is an example of where there is. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#ixzz2cSVWAOWR |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 19, 2013 18:24:02 GMT -5
IRog -- One thing I haven't done is give up on the Giants this time last season or given up on Brandon Belt earlier this season.
Dood - oh yeah, I forgot one...a beater of dead horses too
Rog -- But MAN those were egregious errors. Saying Scott Proctor was better than Chad Gaudin wasn't among your better calls, either.
I don't recall your making such outrageous calls in previous years.
Dood - your memory is failing old man. I have made many errors that you have beaten over and over with a horse whip over the years. But you forget because you go on pompous rants with so many posters here they start to meld together.
And FYI, Proctor did (and probably still does) have far better stuff than Goudin does, as even Krukow said during Spring Training. Both were non roster guys so I wasnt saying either was going to be great...merely stating a preference. As it turns out Goudin had a fine season...although I still say he's a wuss for going on the DL with a slight bruise. It's not certain that Scott would have bombed out here as he did after we released him...most likely he'd have been no worse than Kontos and Macchi.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 18:28:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 18:33:31 GMT -5
Rog -- And FYI, Proctor did (and probably still does) have far better stuff than Goudin does, as even Krukow said during Spring Training. Both were non roster guys so I wasnt saying either was going to be great...merely stating a preference. Rog -- IIRC you stated it pretty strongly. Gaudin HAS been impressive, and I think I merely stated he was having better spring training than Proctor was. You seemed very convinced that Proctor was better, but in fact, Scott wasn't playing organized ball the last I looked. I'm not disagreeing on whether Scott had better stuff. I don't really know, although I could look up which pitcher had more swing throughs, which is a decent indicator. And I definitely agree with you that the last pitching spot on the roster isn't usually a big deal. But as Gaudin has shown this season -- and Vogelsong two years before -- it can wind up having an impact. Hey, if you were merely saying that Proctor had better stuff, I won't disagree at this point. I simply thought you said he was cleary a better pitcher -- and that hasn't yet materialized. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#ixzz2cSd2wOZG |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 19, 2013 18:36:40 GMT -5
Hey, I DID look it up, and Proctor's career swing-through percentage is 9.7% compared to Gaudin's 8.9%, so you're probably right about Scott's having the better stuff.
That Scott's peripherals haven't really improved this season makes him a candidate to regress the mean -- a process which may already have begun.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 20, 2013 9:40:08 GMT -5
Boly -- Now, they DECIDE what the play will be on the bases BEFORE it's played out, and balls and strikes?
Ridiculous! Atrocious, and down right disgusting!
Rog -- But also not correct, Boly. How do we know that a decision has been made on the bases before a play has been played out?
---boly says---
Rog, it IS true.
1-Every time, or let's be fair, 99% of the time, when the ball beats a runner to the base, he's called out.
but OFTEN, the replay SHOWS, the tag was late.
Still, he's called out.
2-The "in-the-area" call for a SS on the DP. Sometimes, the SS is so far off the base he hasn't even TOUCHED it with the ball in his glove... and the runner is called out.
How come the SECONDBASEMAN has to be in contact with the bag, but NOT the SS?
And the 2nd baseman is in a MORE vulnerable position with his back to the runner!
Sorry, Rog, but you're letting your years as an official sway your opinion.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 20, 2013 10:08:20 GMT -5
Boly -- 1-Every time, or let's be fair, 99% of the time, when the ball beats a runner to the base, he's called out. but OFTEN, the replay SHOWS, the tag was late. Still, he's called out. Rog -- That's a tough call, Boly. One key in making it is not to get too close to the play -- but that also makes it almost impossible to make a significant change in angle to watch the play. Sometimes it's nearly impossible to tell which came first. So the umpire usually takes the position that the runner is out until he proves himself to be safe. Doesn't mean he's automatically called out, but that more or less the benefit of he doubt goes to the defense. Unlike the force play, where the umpire is looking primarily at one thing -- the batter/runner's foot and can listen for the ball being caught -- on a tag play the umpire needs to focus on the runner's hitting the bag, and the ball's tagging the runner. On very close plays, that's a tough one. On plays where the throw or the slide of the runner changes the angle of the play, that's a tough one. I don't care how good the umpire, those plays can be very challenging. I was thinking yesterday about what might have happened had I tried to become a major league umpire. There is no way of knowing, of course, but here is my best shot at it. I would have beaten most of my umpire classmates and been selected to umpire in the minor leagues, based on my being good behind the plate, my knowledge of the game and the rules, my hustle, and my willingness to let players and managers have their say. But I wouldn't have made the majors because I wouldn't have been good enough on the bases. Maybe if I had the guts to cheat BACK a little on tag plays in order to get a more panoramic view of plays. Maybe if it were recognized that I was open-minded on tag plays but also didn't give TOO much credit to the runners. But I don't think I would have made it to the bigs -- because I don't think I would have been good enough on the bases. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1961&page=1#14017#ixzz2cWOkQ1Dq |
|
