|
Umpires
Jun 18, 2013 18:15:58 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 18, 2013 18:15:58 GMT -5
Allen- Make no mistake, my assertion isn't that the umps are costing us games or have it in for us
Boagie- I'm sorry I made that mistake, however it does seem like you've made that a regular topic after a Giants loss.
To me, the Marquez game was the last noteable poor umpiring game, the rest have been borderline calls with a lot of sloppy, frusterating play by the Giants which have made those calls stick out.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jun 18, 2013 21:24:35 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jun 18, 2013 21:24:35 GMT -5
The one in Pittsburgh were they missed both ends of a double play didn't strike you as bad?
|
|
|
Umpires
Jun 19, 2013 1:57:17 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Jun 19, 2013 1:57:17 GMT -5
It didn't anger me, because it wasn't a difference maker, but yeah it was bad. It won't stick out to me a month from now though, whereas the Marquez game probably will. My issue really isn't the umpiring, we agree they need to be held more accountable. At the same time I think you should hold the Giants more accountable in your posts after they lose, rather than pinning it all on bad umpiring.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jun 19, 2013 12:04:52 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jun 19, 2013 12:04:52 GMT -5
I don't think I've done that, in fact I usually point out that the umpiring was bad for both sides. You may be confusing me with boly. I don't think the umpiring's biased, it's just very bad. To make my point, Tony Randazzo missed a fairly easy call on Scutaro last night at first, calling him safe when he was obviously out. Manny Gonzalez seemed to be channeling Eric Gregg last night, calling strikes that were a good six inches to a foot outside. For both sides.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 6, 2013 23:55:01 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 6, 2013 23:55:01 GMT -5
Two unbelievably bad calls today. Not the only bad calls mind you, but these two were just implausible. First, the out call on Pence when he clearly beat out a grounder to short. The umpire (Larry Vanover) simply assumed that if a batter hit a grounder to short and it was fielded and thrown cleanly, the runner must be out. No need to take the trouble to actually watch the play. Second was the 2-2 pitch to Ethier right before the Federowicz homer. Right down the middle. No way you can't call that a strike, but somehow Tony Randazzo managed. Sometimes these guys are just hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 7, 2013 9:44:06 GMT -5
Two unbelievably bad calls today. Not the only bad calls mind you, but these two were just implausible. First, the out call on Pence when he clearly beat out a grounder to short. The umpire (Larry Vanover) simply assumed that if a batter hit a grounder to short and it was fielded and thrown cleanly, the runner must be out. No need to take the trouble to actually watch the play. Second was the 2-2 pitch to Ethier right before the Federowicz homer. Right down the middle. No way you can't call that a strike, but somehow Tony Randazzo managed. Sometimes these guys are just hard to believe.
---boly says---
I wasn't going to post about the umpiring, Allen, because we actually managed to win WITHOUT really hitting the ball.
But you're right. That wasn't a marginal strike three to Ethier, that WAS strike three.
Thing is, the moron missed pitches for both teams.
Posey should have been called out on a breaking ball is the one that comes to mind the biggest of all.
Like you, I'm sick and fed up with their inconsistancy.
I'm sick and tired of belt high strikes usually being called balls.
Call the darned strike zone!
boly
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 7, 2013 12:07:16 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jul 7, 2013 12:07:16 GMT -5
Allen -- First, the out call on Pence when he clearly beat out a grounder to short. The umpire (Larry Vanover) simply assumed that if a batter hit a grounder to short and it was fielded and thrown cleanly, the runner must be out. No need to take the trouble to actually watch the play. Rog -- Here are the things wrong with your comments here, Allen: . You don't know how the play looked to the umpire. (I'll explain soon.) . You assume the he assumed, when you don't truly have a clue. Whether he assumed or not I can't say for sure (although I doubt it), but that you assumed is flat-out wrong. You know what they say about assume? Well, it doesn't make an ass out of me -- because I try not to assume when criticizing. . You further compound your ridiculousness by being sarcastic with a "no need to take the trouble to actually watch the play" piece of stupidity. You don't know WHAT happened on the play, but you assume the umpire was not only blind, but gave up on the play. Admittedly Krukow also said that the umpire did, as well, but he doesn't really have much more way of knowing than you do. It would be like my saying that Krukow thought he could just blow a fastball down the middle past a hitter, when he was actually aiming for the corner. You don't know what is going through an umpire's mind, but you shouldn't assume he is as ignorant as you. So why did he miss the call? It may well have been because he was looking for the foot to touch the top of the bag, or at least the top corner. Instead, Hunter's foot hit the front side of the bag. To be completely honest, there was no way for the umpire to know for sure if Hunter's foot HAD hit the bag. He couldn't see the foot hit, and I'm pretty sure Hunter didn't get enough of the bag for it to move. Hey, maybe the umpire would have missed the call anyway. I don't know. But I do have an idea of what he may have been seeing and why he could have missed it. Here is a key difference between me and others on the board. When a mistake is made, most here want to point out how stupid or foolish or incompetent the person was who made the mistake. I try to go a step further and see WHY the mistake may have been made. When it comes to umpiring, Allen, you don't know a whole lot. I certainly don't know everything about it either, but at least I've done it and learned from the process. Why not keep an open mind and try to learn. Just from your political posts, it is pretty clear that neither you nor Don likes to keep his mind open. Hey, we ALL make mistakes. But I try not to make them because my mind is closed and/or I'm simply stubborn. Start trying to think about the WHY and HOW of things -- not just how dumb they are. Perhaps the dumber something looks from the outside, the dumber we are not to look at the possible reasons or possible other sides to the story. Or I suppose we could simply continue on in ignorant bliss. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#12376#ixzz2YNXnkdpD
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 7, 2013 15:51:04 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 7, 2013 15:51:04 GMT -5
Rog -- Here are the things wrong with your comments here, Allen:
. You don't know how the play looked to the umpire. (I'll explain soon.)
. You assume the he assumed, when you don't truly have a clue. Whether he assumed or not I can't say for sure (although I doubt it), but that you assumed is flat-out wrong. You know what they say about assume? Well, it doesn't make an ass out of me -- because I try not to assume when criticizing.
Allen_ I guess I was giving Vanover (who isn't a very good umpire) the benefit of the doubt. What's the alternative? Either he wasn't watching, or he's blind.
. You further compound your ridiculousness by being sarcastic with a "no need to take the trouble to actually watch the play" piece of stupidity.
You don't know WHAT happened on the play, but you assume the umpire was not only blind, but gave up on the play. Admittedly Krukow also said that the umpire did, as well, but he doesn't really have much more way of knowing than you do.
Allen- Yes, I do know what happened on the play. The runner was easily and clearly safe, yet he was called out. So, Krukow and I don't have any way of knowing what happened on the play, but of course you, in your infinite wisdom, know exactly what happened? Cut the horses***.
So why did he miss the call? It may well have been because he was looking for the foot to touch the top of the bag, or at least the top corner. Instead, Hunter's foot hit the front side of the bag. To be completely honest, there was no way for the umpire to know for sure if Hunter's foot HAD hit the bag. He couldn't see the foot hit, and I'm pretty sure Hunter didn't get enough of the bag for it to move. Allen- Please! It may well have been because he assumed that if the ball was fielded cleanly, the runner had to be out. Runners don't beat those plays very often, and Vanover was caught not paying close attention. If he can't see the runner's foot hit the bag, he needs to either alter his position or get out of the business. Do you think he really believed Hunter missed the base?
Here is a key difference between me and others on the board. When a mistake is made, most here want to point out how stupid or foolish or incompetent the person was who made the mistake. I try to go a step further and see WHY the mistake may have been made.
Allen- Actually, I think that what I said is that he had a lapse of concentration because he assumed the play was a routine out. Now Vanover isn't very good, but I don't think I used the words stupid, foolish, or incompetent. You, on the other hand did use the word stupid, and ignorant, all the while assuming you're smarter than everyone here, as well as someone who played MLB for a long time and has analyzed it for a long time as well. Like Vanover, you simply made a faulty assumption.
When it comes to umpiring, Allen, you don't know a whole lot. I certainly don't know everything about it either, but at least I've done it and learned from the process.
Allen- I have as well. What tickles me is how you consider yourself part of the umpiring fraternity, on a level with those who do it for a living. It's just so much BS. You're just a hack who has umped some amateur games. Big deal. You don't have any special insight. It isn't hard to see that ML umps miss an awful lot of calls. Far more than they should. I'm certainly not the only one saying it. Your excuses for these guys are pretty lame most of the time. You're like the umpires' Jay Carney.
Why not keep an open mind and try to learn. Just from your political posts, it is pretty clear that neither you nor Don likes to keep his mind open.
Allen- Your opinion, worth what it cost me. You don't have any special insight into politics either, Rog. And you certainly don't have any insight at all into me.
Hey, we ALL make mistakes. But I try not to make them because my mind is closed and/or I'm simply stubborn.
Allen- Actually, the fact that Vanover made a mistake was my original point. I don't think I said he was dumb. He just took something for granted that he shouldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 0:33:47 GMT -5
Rog -- So why did he miss the call? It may well have been because he was looking for the foot to touch the top of the bag, or at least the top corner. Instead, Hunter's foot hit the front side of the bag. To be completely honest, there was no way for the umpire to know for sure if Hunter's foot HAD hit the bag. He couldn't see the foot hit, and I'm pretty sure Hunter didn't get enough of the bag for it to move. Allen- Please! It may well have been because he assumed that if the ball was fielded cleanly, the runner had to be out. Runners don't beat those plays very often, and Vanover was caught not paying close attention. Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about here. You write that Vanover was caught not paying close attention, when you have no way of knowing. Allen - If he can't see the runner's foot hit the bag, he needs to either alter his position or get out of the business. Rog -- Once again you are expressing your ignorance here, Allen. You've apparently never umpired first base, so you don't realize it is impossible to position yourself to see every contingency well. Allen -- Do you think he really believed Hunter missed the base? Rog -- Probably not. But I do think having the base block Hunter's foot to a significant degree made it very difficult for Vanover to tell precisely when Pence's foot hit the bag. Be honest now. How many times have you THOUGHT the umpire blew a call when the replay actually showed him to be correct? How many times have you thought the umpire got the call right, only to have the replay prove you both wrong? How many times have you thought one way from one angle and then changed your mind when you saw another angle? How many times have you actually been down on the field with the play developing in front of you with lightening speed and had to make the call yourself? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#12402#ixzz2YQe4bLl8
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 0:35:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 0:42:20 GMT -5
Rog -- You don't know WHAT happened on the play, but you assume the umpire was not only blind, but gave up on the play. Admittedly Krukow also said that the umpire did, as well, but he doesn't really have much more way of knowing than you do. Allen- Yes, I do know what happened on the play. The runner was easily and clearly safe, yet he was called out. So, Krukow and I don't have any way of knowing what happened on the play, but of course you, in your infinite wisdom, know exactly what happened? Rog -- If you had paid attention, Allen, you would have seen that I said what MIGHT have happened on the play. It was something you apparently never considered. How much umpiring have you or Krukow done? You remember Don Nelson, who had a decent NBA career and may well go into the Hall of Fame for his coaching. Has he won the most games of any NBA coach? I think he may have. Did you know that when Nellie retired, his first desire wasn't to be a coach, but to be a referee instead? I don't think there was much question Don knew a lot about basketball. I don't think there was much question he knew a lot about how players tried to get away with stuff. I don't think there is any question he had seen a lot of calls made correctly and a lot of calls that were missed. But Don wasn't able to cut it as a ref, so he went on to coaching. Given both his volatile personality and the results he got as a coach and GM, I'd say he made the right choice. But if he had been good enough to referee, it is said that was his first choice. He found out he was better at critiquing calls than making them himself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2YQgwCV1r
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 0:43:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 0:58:41 GMT -5
Allen -- You, on the other hand did use the word stupid, and ignorant, all the while assuming you're smarter than everyone here, as well as someone who played MLB for a long time and has analyzed it for a long time as well. Like Vanover, you simply made a faulty assumption. Rog -- Allen, I have never said I was smarter than everyone here. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say that I have studied more but am not necessarily smarter. When it comes to umpiring, I simply have more experience than you or anyone else here. When it comes to other things about baseball, I have probably studied the game more than you or anyone else here. When it comes to making judgments, I might consider more aspects than anyone else here. But never have I said that I am smarter than others here. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2YQke6yV2
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 1:01:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 8, 2013 1:05:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 8, 2013 13:26:33 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 8, 2013 13:26:33 GMT -5
Allen- Please! It may well have been because he assumed that if the ball was fielded cleanly, the runner had to be out. Runners don't beat those plays very often, and Vanover was caught not paying close attention.
Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about here. You write that Vanover was caught not paying close attention, when you have no way of knowing.
Allen- I'd say it's far more likely than him thinking Hunter missed the bag.
Allen - If he can't see the runner's foot hit the bag, he needs to either alter his position or get out of the business.
Rog -- Once again you are expressing your ignorance here, Allen. You've apparently never umpired first base, so you don't realize it is impossible to position yourself to see every contingency well.
Allen- It's pretty simple to position yourself well when (as on this play) you can easily see where the throw is coming from. It's pretty simple geometry.
Allen -- Do you think he really believed Hunter missed the base?
Rog -- Probably not. But I do think having the base block Hunter's foot to a significant degree made it very difficult for Vanover to tell precisely when Pence's foot hit the bag.
Allen- You're making excuses. Is Vanover deaf, as well as blind? C'mon Rog. The play wasn't even close. Be honest now. How many times have you THOUGHT the umpire blew a call when the replay actually showed him to be correct? How many times have you thought the umpire got the call right, only to have the replay prove you both wrong? How many times have you thought one way from one angle and then changed your mind when you saw another angle? How many times have you actually been down on the field with the play developing in front of you with lightening speed and had to make the call yourself?
Allen- Probably some to all, but I sure had Pence safe on this one. It was a pretty easy call. Why is it so hard for you to admit Vanover missed it, and admit the very real possibility that since the play was handled cleanly, Vanover assumed an out?
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 8, 2013 13:29:44 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 8, 2013 13:29:44 GMT -5
Allen_ I guess I was giving Vanover (who isn't a very good umpire) the benefit of the doubt. What's the alternative? Either he wasn't watching, or he's blind. Rog -- You show very little understanding of the situation here. Even with the advantage of the TV angle, do you always get the call right? Weren't you watching, or are you blind? Which is it? Allen- I would say that your bias allows you even less understanding of the situation. Why would the TV angle necessarily be better? No, I don't always get them right, but the ones I miss are usually alot closer than this one was.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 8, 2013 13:35:02 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 8, 2013 13:35:02 GMT -5
Rog -- Allen, I have never said I was smarter than everyone here. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say that I have studied more but am not necessarily smarter.
Allen- I'll agree. If you were smarter, you wouldn't assume you had studied more than anyone hear, since you have no idea whether that is true or not.
When it comes to making judgments, I might consider more aspects than anyone else here.
Allen- You might, then again you might not. When it comes to umpiring you have a decided bias. I don't think even you would argue that.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 8, 2013 13:36:43 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 8, 2013 13:36:43 GMT -5
Rog -- I certainly don't have any special insight into politics, Allen. You know a lot more than I. But I do have an insight into you. When it comes to politics, your mind seems to be made up, and you don't seem to care to be confused with the facts.
Allen- Examples please. Even one would be good enough.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 9, 2013 9:29:49 GMT -5
Allen- Please! It may well have been because he assumed that if the ball was fielded cleanly, the runner had to be out. Runners don't beat those plays very often, and Vanover was caught not paying close attention. Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about here. You write that Vanover was caught not paying close attention, when you have no way of knowing. Allen- I'd say it's far more likely than him thinking Hunter missed the bag. Rog -- So you say that a guy wasn't paying close attention and then justify your call by saying it's far more likely than something I agreed probably wasn't the case anyway? I say you don't know whether he was paying attention or not, and it is likely that he was. At the very least most umpires pay close attention most of the time. It is likely that Vanover was paying close attention. What else would he be doing? Calls DO get missed, Allen. There is no question about it. But that certainly doesn't mean they're not paying close attention. You seem to think that umpiring is an easy job, and in a way, it is. One can make a lot of mistakes and still be a good umpire. The job may be easy, but the calls aren't. Major league baseball selects what it considers to be the best umpires in the world. That's out of many thousands of umpires. Let's say they rank in the top 1% of their field, and it's probably even higher than that. Just a guess on my part, Allen, but I'll bet you're not in the top 1% in your profession. Boly received a very important award for his teaching, so he can likely make that claim. And I suspect that the rest of us are/were very good at our professions. But I don't think many of us can accurately say we are or were in the top 1%. Why do umpires miss calls even though they have been chosen from the very best? It seems likely that it's more difficult to get calls right than you assume. If we were to bring in someone who knows the in's and out's of both major league umpiring and your job, I'll bet that person would conclude the umoires are better compared to other umpires than you are compared to your peers. Not just you: I'm sure the same thing would have been said about me -- and almost everyone of us here. Degree of difficulty should factor into evaluation. A hitter who gets three hits out of 10 is considered a top hitter. An umpire has to be successful a little more often than that. A pitcher who throws two out of three pitches for strikes is considered to have excellent control. An umpire has to do a lot better than that. A free throw shooter who makes four out of five is considered very good. An umpire has to do a lot better than that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#12419#ixzz2YYdnPyZ5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 9, 2013 9:37:46 GMT -5
Allen- You might, then again you might not. When it comes to umpiring you have a decided bias. I don't think even you would argue that. Rog -- Bias? I have agreed that umpires miss a LOT of calls. What I try to do is educate you as to WHY the umpire may have missed the call. There are plenty of times that umpires miss calls because they aren't paying close enough attention. But I believe you said that Vanover either had to not be paying close attention or be blind. That's not a correct statement. That Vanover missed the call is a fact. The instant replay clearly demonstrated that. WHY he missed isn't clear. You indicate you know why he missed the call. You just don't know for sure WHY he missed it. And you seem to act as if you do. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2YYi3yRN1
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 9, 2013 11:05:00 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 9, 2013 11:05:00 GMT -5
Rog -- Bias? I have agreed that umpires miss a LOT of calls. What I try to do is educate you as to WHY the umpire may have missed the call.
There are plenty of times that umpires miss calls because they aren't paying close enough attention. But I believe you said that Vanover either had to not be paying close attention or be blind.
That's not a correct statement.
That Vanover missed the call is a fact. The instant replay clearly demonstrated that. WHY he missed isn't clear. You indicate you know why he missed the call. You just don't know for sure WHY he missed it.
And you seem to act as if you do.
---boly says---
Rog, I have to side with Allen here about umpires. They are bad and getting worse.
See, I don't care WHY they missed a call. I don't. They miss so many the WHY is no longer important.
Like you, I look at the umpire's angle; could he really 'see' from where he was.
But each year, the number of blantly missed calls keeps getting worse and worse and worse, and it needs to stop.
The one that ticks me off the most is when the ball beats a runner sliding into a bag, he's called out 99% of the time EVEN if the tag is late.
When Affeldt picked off Wright last night, he BEAT the tag but was called out.
That's ridiculous
Another is the pathetic strike zone the umpires call.
Call the rule book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The young kid had a huge strike zone last night, and I loved it!
Swing the damned bats!
Stop calling the belt and knees. That's not the zone.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, and you can call me paranoid; I don't like umpires, I don't trust umpires. I contend they often make up their mind BEFORE the play is done, and class it thus
And this year, once again, I've seen nothing to change my mind.
boly
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 9, 2013 11:21:11 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 9, 2013 11:21:11 GMT -5
Allen- Please! It may well have been because he assumed that if the ball was fielded cleanly, the runner had to be out. Runners don't beat those plays very often, and Vanover was caught not paying close attention. Rog -- You don't know what you're talking about here. You write that Vanover was caught not paying close attention, when you have no way of knowing. Allen- I'd say it's far more likely than him thinking Hunter missed the bag. Rog -- So you say that a guy wasn't paying close attention and then justify your call by saying it's far more likely than something I agreed probably wasn't the case anyway? Allen- If you don't think that was the case, then why bring it up? Why would you consider that as a possibility rather than the far more likely one that Vanover just got caught with his concentration down. I say you don't know whether he was paying attention or not, and it is likely that he was. At the very least most umpires pay close attention most of the time. It is likely that Vanover was paying close attention. What else would he be doing? Allen- It's called being human Rog. When you do something in your job that you've done so often it's rote, your concentration can wander from time to time. I'd say Vanover saw the play, saw Ramirez fielded it cleanly, saw the throw was accurate, and figured Pence would be out. Calls DO get missed, Allen. There is no question about it. But that certainly doesn't mean they're not paying close attention. Allen- No, not in all cases, but it certainly seemed to be what happened here. You seem to think that umpiring is an easy job, and in a way, it is. One can make a lot of mistakes and still be a good umpire. The job may be easy, but the calls aren't. Allen- That one was. That's why I think Vanover just had an attention lapse. Major league baseball selects what it considers to be the best umpires in the world. That's out of many thousands of umpires. Let's say they rank in the top 1% of their field, and it's probably even higher than that. Allen- You can watch the guy they had behind the plate last night and say that? He made six or seven bad calls just on Brandon Belt. The players had no idea where the strike zone was, and apparently neither did the umpire. He called balls and strikes like he was working a game being played by nine or ten year olds. Anything close to the plate is a strike. Maybe these guys were tops when they were hired, (though there seems to be alot of nepotism in the hiring process) but many appear to have grown compacent knowing they have union backing. (See: West, Joe). Do you really think Joe is among the top 1% of umpires in the country? Angel Hernandez. CB Bucknor, Laz Diaz, Alfonzo Marquez, Bruce Dreckman?
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 9, 2013 11:36:38 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 9, 2013 11:36:38 GMT -5
Another is the pathetic strike zone the umpires call.
Call the rule book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The young kid had a huge strike zone last night, and I loved it!
Swing the damned bats!
Stop calling the belt and knees. That's not the zone.
Allen- Agree. This is particularly aggravating. The strike zone is defined in the rule book. Why do the umpires get the latitude to create their own strike zone? Why does MLB allow this? You hear Krukow's scouting reports early in the game, and you really can't believe they would keep these umpires if what he says is true. The guy's hesitant to call a third strike? The strike zone changes as the game goes on? High or low zones? The player has to earn his strike zone if he's young? Looks for strikes? None of this should be allowed. The umpire should divorce himself from the game situation when calling balls and strikes (or even safe or out for that matter). It doesn't matter what the count is, what the score is, who the player's are. If it's in the strike zone, it's a strike. If it's not, it's a ball. And if you can't be good, at least be consistent for crissakes. Alot of these guys, the strike zone floats around all night. Impossible to hit or pitch your best if you don't know where the strike zone is. If they have the technology to call balls and strikes electronically, I'm not sure I would use it to call the game, but I would use it for evaluation purposes, and I would definitely take steps to get these guys to call at least a somewhat uniform strike zone.
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:08:22 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 12:08:22 GMT -5
Allen- If you don't think that was the case, then why bring it up? Why would you consider that as a possibility rather than the far more likely one that Vanover just got caught with his concentration down. Rog -- Because I've been there, and it ISN'T more likely that Vanover got caught with his concentration down. The toughest calls are often when players don't do what they're supposed to. In that case, I'll bet Pence was shooting for the top front corner of the bag and came up just short of his target, making it tough for Vanover to see exactly when the foot hit the bag. I would say the biggest difference between our observations on this play, Allen, is that I've been there. I know the difficulties of making that call and can more easily see the possibilities for what went wrong. You could be right that Vanover simply took the play for granted, but look at it this way: If you had perhaps 15 or 20 chances of fice seconds or less to show your worth each day, wouldn't you find it pretty easy to concentrate on each one of them? Would you be taking those opportunities for granted, no matter HOW obvious they seemed? Let me ask you this, Allen. From the instant the pitcher begins his motion, where do you think the umpire's eyes and concentration go? Step by step. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2YqqTvus6
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:10:01 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 12:10:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:18:46 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 12, 2013 12:18:46 GMT -5
Allen- If you don't think that was the case, then why bring it up? Why would you consider that as a possibility rather than the far more likely one that Vanover just got caught with his concentration down. Rog -- Because I've been there, and it ISN'T more likely that Vanover got caught with his concentration down. The toughest calls are often when players don't do what they're supposed to. Allen- But that wasn't the case here, except for possibly Ramirez taking too long to make his throw. The guy who didn't do what he was supposed to do was Vanover, who didn't watch the play, and assumed an out. In that case, I'll bet Pence was shooting for the top front corner of the bag and came up just short of his target, making it tough for Vanover to see exactly when the foot hit the bag. Allen- So in you're mind, Pence was at fault because he hustled enough to beat the throw. Wonderful. I would say the biggest difference between our observations on this play, Allen, is that I've been there. I know the difficulties of making that call and can more easily see the possibilities for what went wrong. Allen- Horse s*** Rog. Where have you been? You umped some high school games, so this puts you on a level with guys officiating games between the best players in the world. Horses***. You could be right that Vanover simply took the play for granted, but look at it this way: If you had perhaps 15 or 20 chances of fice seconds or less to show your worth each day, wouldn't you find it pretty easy to concentrate on each one of them? Allen- Or put it this way. When you do something almost every day for eight months out of the year, for a good number of years, and something comes up that you've seen thousands of times before, wouldn't you be likely to see it as rote?
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:26:44 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 12:26:44 GMT -5
Boly -- The young kid had a huge strike zone last night, and I loved it! Rog -- As you say, the new umpire had a very large strike zone. I think that was part of the reason Tim Lincecum pitched so very, very well until the 6th inning. You noticed, though, that the hitters weren't very happy? And I didn't blame them. On the other hand, if the strike zone were called that way all the time, the hitters would be forced to adjust. But I do think hitting would decline noticeably. Have you ever seen the color-coded hitter's zones. Each hitter's hot and cold spots can differ, but one thing is pretty consistent: The farther the pitch from the middle fo the strike zone, the less well hitters hit it. Make the strike zone bigger, and batters won't hit as well. Right now, hitting and pitching seem to be pretty well in balance. The runs scored in the National League this season (4.09) are right in line with scoring from 1956 through 1993. With the exception of the Year of the Pitcher (1968) those years fell between 3.81 runs per game and 4.52 tallies. I don't think increasing the size of the strike zone would improve the game. Today's pitchers are just too hard to hit. They throw harder, they have more stuff, and today's relievers pitch BETTER than the starters -- not worse as was the case in the old days. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2Yqts9xoK
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:33:18 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 12:33:18 GMT -5
Allen -- Why is it so hard for you to admit Vanover missed it Rog -- I don't think he DID miss it. I just think he probably missed it for a reason you hadn't even considered. Hey, you can see the plays on TV as well as I can. What we don't see is the view the UMPIRE had. I have a much better idea of what that view might have been than you do. That puts me in a better position to see WHY the umpire might have missed the call. Boly says that calls are missed so often that he doesn't CARE why they were missed. I do. Because the better the umpires understand why the all was missed, the better prepared they will be not to miss it the next time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1810&page=2#ixzz2YqxxTLd8
|
|
|
Umpires
Jul 12, 2013 12:37:50 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jul 12, 2013 12:37:50 GMT -5
You don't think he missed the call?! Even after seeig the replay?! Wow, now you're just denying reality Rog. Are you related to Nancy Pelosi?
|
|