Umpiring...again

[klaiggeb]

It started in the bottom of the 6th... 2 different strike zones, and continued on into the 7th.

The dipstick squeezed Moronta, then everything for Chargois was a strike, then he picked up again against Black.

I've said it 89 gazillion times.

They call different strike zones against the giants when they play the Dodgers.

In fact, any team that is a favorite, gets the lean, and it's old.

Really really old.

No excuse for the giants not hitting, but I will go to my grave contending they cheat.

[sfgdood]

Electronic strike zones...we need them

[klaiggeb]

We need something, because it seems to me, the bigger the importance of the game, the more flaky those dipsticks get.

[klaiggeb]

It took me until the 11th inning to figure out how the putz was calling balls and strikes.

IF a hitter was hot, Machado, for instance, he squeezed the plate and had a much tighter strike zone.

If a hitter was cold, or didn't have a rep, he called wider strikes.

Might not have been doing it on purpose, but that is EXACTLY what he was doing.


But over all he did a poor job behind the plate.

I lost count of how many pitches were solidly in the strike zone...that he called balls.

And the "odd" coincidence? And I put "odd" in quotations because to me, it wasn't odd at all...the majority of pitches CLEARLY in the strike zone that he called balls...occurred with OUR guys on the mound.

Coincidence my fat fanny.

[rog]

Why would an umpire favor a team?

And why is it that we feel every year that the calls are going AGAINST the Giants, not for them?

Even though at the beginning of the game I believe Mike Krukow said the home plate umpire had a good zone, that was one of the worst games behind the plate I have seen. Some pitches are pretty close, and I wonder especially up, given the different heights of batters, the zone we see on TV might be just the tiniest bit off. But this guy missed pitches I couldn't believe.

So why though do we feel the calls always seem to go against the Giants? While injuries have been tough the past few seasons, other teams (such as the Dodgers) have suffered a lot too. But I think it is closer that the injuries have been worse than other teams than the calls.

Again, why would an umpire favor a team? Especially when they're reviewed every game? Boly has said the umpires should be held more accountable. One area in which they would be held accountable and FAST was if the league felt an umpire were favoring a team. That would smack of gambling implications, and a gambling scandal is what baseball fears most.

I think we can take this umpires being against the Giants thing with a grain of salt. If not, MLB has a much bigger problem than the Giants do.

[klaiggeb]

Not me. Every umpire has people for whom they have it in. and teams.

They feel they've been overly abused by a player or manager and so, perhaps unconsciously, the calls "oddly" seem to mostly go the other way.

That you don't see that, Roger, troubles me.

[sfgdood]

It's a similar neurosis shared by stats geeks. Both groups are jealous that they have never had the talent to play the game.

[klaiggeb]

actually, Randy, that's a very incite full point. I hadn't thought of that before, but my initial thoughts are that you've hit on something no one else has considered about umpires... and stat-geeks.

[rog]

IF a hitter was hot,

If a hitter was cold


Rog -- I don't think the umpires usually know this. Can you tell us for instance, who is hot on the Orioles? While I'm sure they find it hard to avoid everything, officials are taught to ignore what is written and said and go into a game with no prejudice.

[rog]

Every umpire has people for whom they have it in. and teams.


Rog -- Not all umpires I can assure you. If you've noticed, usually before the game and sometimes during it, umpires and players have almost jovial conversations. Of course it can happen, even subsconsciously, but for the most part, I don't think umpires have it in for players or especially teams.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again?page=1#ixzz5OP50WSxQ

[rog]

.the majority of pitches CLEARLY in the strike zone that he called balls...occurred with OUR guys on the mound.


Rog -- If so, it likely was coincidental or had something to do with the motion of the pitcher being harder for the umpire to pick up as well as for the hitter.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again?page=1#ixzz5OP5c17ah

[rog]

They feel they've been overly abused by a player or manager and so, perhaps unconsciously, the calls "oddly" seem to mostly go the other way.

That you don't see that, Roger, troubles me.


Rog -- You say I can't understand the game because I haven't played it at a high level. I think I can, but for most fans it's a little harder to understand the umpiring side of the game than the playing of it.

I can honestly say that I myself worked very hard NOT to discriminate against a team or player. For me, it was simply ball or strike, safe or out, catch or no catch.

One time in a playoff basketball game, it seemed as if EVERY close call made by either me or my partner went against the favored/home team. This was true thoughout the first half and into the second. At the appropriate time I took the home coach aside and told in this case her that I realized all the calls seemed to be going against her team, but that it would eventually even out more.

Sure enough that is what happened. It was the only time I felt like EVERY close call was going against a team, and I wanted the coach to know it wasn't intentional on our parts. A former high school and college player, she was OK with it.

Another girls high school game in which the daughter of Gary St. Jean (former coach and GM of the Warriors and Kings) played, I call off a shot at the end of the first half, saying it wasn't off on time. It was REALLY close, but I had a good look and I felt comfortable with the call.

When the game was over, the difference was a point or two, so the call in theory changed the winner. Both the coach and assistant coach came calmy up to me after the game and let me know that if I had made that call the other way, they would have won the game. In theory that was definitely true. They did so calmly, and I was impressed with how they handled it.

I felt a lot worse about the possibility I had missed the call than if they had yelled at me.

I guess St. Jean wasn't too horrified. The next time I saw him I was reffing a De La Salle game his son played in. He smiled, said hello to me, and shook my hand.

Of course, then he blistered me during the game! (Not really)

Here's another situation. I happened to eat at the same restaurant as one of the coaches most known for his shall we day vehement complaining. I walked right past him entering the restaurant, so I pretty much had to say hi. We got to talking and he told me he was going to St. Mary's college to watch a former player work out. I could tell he genuinely cared about the player, allowing me to see him a different light.

Didn't buy him any calls, but it did change my perception of him. To pull this back to baseball, this coach was the son of former major league baseball announcer Red Rush, who I believe announced in Chicago and for the A's.

Now, I can't say I've never seen an official have it in for someone (although I can't remember him having it in for the whole team). But those situations were relatively rare, and I hope the official didn't take it out with his calls. You're right, Boly, about the subsconscious, so it's impossible to say something like that doesn't affect calls at all. But I think it's far less than you believe.

I just wanted you to see the other side of the story. I'm still disappointed that you dislike officials. Especially at the levels I refereed, some were good and some were bad. But for the most part they were hard-working and honest.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again?page=1#ixzz5OP5u6mUN

[rog]

It's a similar neurosis shared by stats geeks. Both groups are jealous that they have never had the talent to play the game.


Rog -- You're really something, Randy.

This is something you'll be surprised at. Don Nelson wanted to be a referee before he got into coaching. He failed to get a job with the NBA. Certainly he knew a ton about basketball, but one doesn't become a good oficial overnight.

Obviously it worked out a lot better for him in coaching. He wouldn't have won rings, become the NBA's winningest coach (IIRC) or made the Hall of Fame if he had become a referee.

But surprisingly, Don wanted to be a ref before he took an interest in coaching. Of course once he got into coaching, he never thought a ref made the right call, but coaches don't have to be as unbaised as referees.

[rog]

actually, Randy, that's a very incite full point. I hadn't thought of that before, but my initial thoughts are that you've hit on something no one else has considered about umpires... and stat-geeks.


Rog -- I'm halfway joking here, Boly, but if you're going to make foolish statements, at least spell insightful correctly.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again?page=1#ixzz5OPBkWjkH

[rog]

By the way, I also favor electronic strike zones. And unlike anyone I've seen, I think almost every call could be made electronically. It would be expensive, but I have to think the technology is there.

[rog]

You guys are lucky. If an umpire misses a call, you really only get upset on the half that go against the Giants. EVERY time an umpire misses a call, it hurts me.

[sfgdood]

One wouldn't have known that by the way you make excuses for bad calls.

[rog]

One wouldn't have known that by the way you make excuses for bad calls.


Rog -- Of course you wouldn't, Randy. Just one of many things.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again#ixzz5OQ3cT0bo

[sfgdood]

it's arrogant smugness like this that makes it difficult to believe Boly when he says you're a good guy.

[klaiggeb]

Randy, Roger is really a good guy.

The thing is, he sees things differently than the rest of us do because of what his career was.

He's engrossed in numbers where you and I are not.

That's why he and I, and you and he, disagree so much.



He doesn't mean to be smug. He really doesn't.

The typed word makes it hard to distinguish tone of voice.

[rog]

I think it all comes down to frutstration, and I'm sorry I get frustrated. And I guess that mostly stems from this myth that you have to have played the game at a high level to understand it.

That's not to say I understand every nuance you guys do. I'm sure there are things you guys pick up on that I miss -- just as there are things I pick up on that you guys don't.

An example of how ridiculous this is appears to be that Boagie seemingly didn't think I knew that a batter was out when he bunted foul with two strikes. I've known that for only about 60 years.

Boagie said I endorsed Baez's highly unusual two-strike bunt only because I suck up to Cubs manager Joe Maddon. Apparently he missed the posts where in that same World Series we're describing, I criticized Maddon for badly overusing Aroldis Chapman in Game 6.

Here's the weird thing about that. Boagie would likely say that Joe did that because of sabermetrics, and indeed managers are using relievers for longer periods in the postseason now. But Joe was wrong, ironically because of a sabermetric principle -- you use your best relievers in high-leverage situations, not low-leverage ones. The Cubs had a big lead and there was no need to bring Chapman in. If Joe is a good sabermetric manager, he wasn't in that case.

Because as you guys correctly point out, it ISN'T all about numbers. These guys are human beings, not machines. They need to receive motivation, and they need to be used within the limits of their bodies and in situations where they are more likely to succeed.

Amazingly, in an extension of -- or at least concurrent with -- sabermetrics, teams are beginning to monitor how tired their players are. If a pitcher isn't tired, you guys are right on that 100 pitches shouldn't automatically mean that pitcher should leave the game. If he is, 100 pitches may be too MUCH. Not all players are going along with this yet, but some players are indeed benefiting themselves and their team by allowing biometric monitoring.

You notice I say it isn't all about numbers. Of course it isn't -- any more than my knowledge of the game isn't all about numbers. Let me challenge each of you -- come up with a baseball scenario, imagined or preferably something that actually happened in a Giants game (preferably in time for me to review the play on video), ask me about things you don't think I understand, and see what I come up with.

If I truly don't know baseball, it won't be much, will it?

And Randy, you're not helping in the least with your foolish icon here and your constant refusal to discuss in any detail anything that has to do with analytics.

Boly says that my ideas spring from being an accountant, and of course there has to be some truth to that. But although I don't compare to him in this endeavor, I'm also a writer. And not a news writer or fiction writer. A sportswriter.

For about 20 years I spent a significant portion of my life involved with officiating, evaluating or writing about sports. You guys say I don't know baseball because I didn't play it at a high level, and I could say you guys (with the exception of Boly) don't because you haven't been involved on the field or by it in so long you've forgotten. But you don't forget about sports.

And I haven't forgotten what I knew about sports -- which was enough to talk it intelligently with people in or around the game -- just because I got into analytics. What I found is that analytics are to baseball like icing is to a cake. The icing doesn't replace the cake -- it simply makes it better.

An example is that I too would have bought into the "winning pitcher" thing. I would have believed Kirk Rueter is such a competitor that he "willed" himself to win. I would never have thought about run support. When told that guys were pitchers were winning pitchers because they didn't give up leads, I would have accepted it and wouldn't have realized that in Kirk's highly surprising 15-win season in 1999, he gave up close to half the leads his Giants teammates gave him. I wouldn't have found out that he got an amazing 5.84 runs of support that season. Heck, Matt Cain had consecutive seasons in which he barely got that much support in the two seasons combined.

[Islandboagie]

Sometimes you don't need tone to determine if someone is smug or arrogant. Rog is on a Giants board speaking to a group of die hard Giants fans about how the Giants won three World Series due to luck, and how they aren't a Dynasty. Then he turns around goes on and on about how absolutely wonderful Clayton Kershaw is. Rog knows he irritates people, and it's clear he doesn't care. He's been asked to drop topics, he refuses. He always has to get the last word in. I don't know Rog in person, but based on what he's consistently showed us on this board for many years, why would I want to?

[rog]

Rog is on a Giants board speaking to a group of die hard Giants fans about how the Giants won three World Series due to luck, and how they aren't a Dynasty.


Rog -- I have never said the Giants won three World Series due to luck. I have said that they won them partly due to luck. When the Giants won the three championships, they never came close to being the best regular season team. What is a better measurement of a team -- its record over a tough 162-game season, or its record in a 19-game tournament?

The weaknesses of the team were shown by their not even making the playoffs the two in-between years, including a 2011 season that was sub-.500.

The difference in my viewpoint and that of others is objectivity. I'm a huge Giants fan who has been a fan since they were in New York, but I'm also objective. Maybe officiating and (minimal) sportswriting do that to a person.

Maybe honesty does.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again#ixzz5OWKTG1Is

[rog]

Then he turns around goes on and on about how absolutely wonderful Clayton Kershaw is.


Rog -- Clayton is pretty good, although he's not as good as he once was. With the exception of non-pareil Mike Trout -- arguably the best player in history -- he has had the most distinguised career of any active major leaguer. And there are many playing now who will wind up in the Hall of Fame. The Giants themselves have at least one and possibly two.

Does anyone here understand Kershaw's career ERA is only 2.37? That's the best of any starter EVER who didn't play in the dead ball era. And it's the best by over a third of a run over Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax. (Notice that all three are southpaws.)

As for Trout, very few players have recorded 30/30 seasons. In his five full seasons, Trout has averaged over 30 home runs and close to 30 steals. He's averaged over 100 runs and close to 100 RBI's. Trout is basically your .300 guy with 30 homers and 100 runs scored and 100 RBI's. Oh, and 30 steals. No other player has ever had that broadness to his offensive game.

Kershaw and Trout are the best pitcher/position player combination playing at the same time since Koufax and Mays.

Do I like that both play in LA? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that they are two of the top players of all-time. The only thing they don't have going for them is longevity. Trout has played over 1000 games, and Kershaw is within 400 innings of Koufax.

Kershaw has been close to Koufax's five-year prime, and he's done it over a decade. Trout's first 1000 games have been more versatile offensively than, well, anyone.

To get an idea of Kershaw's prime decade, his road ERA during that time is 2.55. During Koufax's five-year prime, Sandy's road ERA was 2.57. On the road, Kershaw has been Koufax in Sandy's five-year prime, and Clayton has done it for a decade.

Perhaps what it boils down to is that we're all great Giants fans, but I am possibly a bigger fan of baseball overall than most.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again?page=1#ixzz5OWMOAOMS

[klaiggeb]

And I guess that mostly stems from this myth that you have to have played the game at a high level to understand it.

***boly says***

Rog, it's not a myth.

Here's an example;

When I was teaching at a private Catholic school, Marriage and Family class was taught by a priest.

When I asked how that could be, how they could teach about marriage when they'd never BEEN married, the answer I got was laughable.


"We live in a community, and as such, it's like a marriage. People get on people's nerves, you have to learn to live together and compromise, and so forth."

What horse crap!

1-You DON'T sleep in the same bed.

2-You DON'T have sex with your spouse.

3-You DON'T spend most of your free time with your spouse.

4-You DON'T argue about religion if you are of different faiths

5-You DON'T have a pool of income that you both draw from and have to spend.

6-You DON'T have children and the arguments that stem FROM that on how to raise them, or discipline them.

7-You DON'T have arguments over whose house you went to for last Christmas and where you're going this Christmas.

8-You DON'T have In-Law arguments

9-You DON'T argue about money

My first degree is in Sociology, with major emphasis on Marriage and the family.


Bottom line: if you've never been married (or played the game), you can understand it on an intellectual level; on a theoretical level, but since you've never experienced it, you really don't know


Thus, if you've never played the game:

1-You've never been in the dugout and experienced the chemistry, or lack-there-of, exists

2-If you've NEVER faced a pitcher with great stuff, you just don't know how hard it is to hit.

3-If you've NEVER fielded ground balls in the infield, you don't KNOW what it's like to make the catch and then throw.

4-If you've NEVER held good base stealers on, you don't KNOW how having to speed up your delivery really effects your pitching.

5-If you've NEVER played under the lights, you don't KNOW how easy it is to LOSE a ball in a high sky.

6-If you've NEVER faced a good breaking ball, you don't KNOW how hard it is to adjust.

7-If you've NEVER had to hit the cut off man, you don't KNOW what it's like to be under the pressure to do so.

8-If you've NEVER made the pivot in the middle of the infield, you don't KNOW what it's like to have to hit the base and clear the sliding runner.

In short, if you've NEVER played the game, all you know is the game on an intellectual level, nothing more.

Sometimes, that's okay.

Sometimes, it's not.

And to talk about the game as one who's never played it, as if one knows more than those who did, is beyond folly.

It's self delusion.

Which is why I resent Ahmed Fahreed so much.

He TALKS like he's played the game; like he's been out there and felt the stress and pressure and success and failure.

He has not.

He knows the game like an accountant knows the Actuary Tables, nothing more.

Talk, as they say, is cheap, and when the game goes beyond the numbers, he doesn't know his proverbial fanny from a hole in the ground.

[sfgdood]

When the Giants won the three championships, they never came close to being the best regular season team. What is a better measurement of a team -- its record over a tough 162-game season, or its record in a 19-game tournament?

Dood - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Commissioner's Trophy goes to the team that wins the World Series...NOT the team that won the most regular season games. I can't remember a parade on Market Street after the 2003 season when the Giants won an impressive 103 games only to get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs by eventual champion Florida. AND, I don't remember you being so obsessed about the Marlins being "lucky" back then.

[rog]

Of the things you've said, Boly, I certainly agree that a priest isn't the perfect guy to teach about marriage. Early in my marriage to my first wife (which still lasted 36 years) I had lunch with the priest of our church. My wife and her family knew about it, may even have set it up.

The priest asked me if I loved my wife. I said yes. And he said, that will take care of it. At least we enjoyed our lunch, and the prayer before the meal wasn't bad.

As for the other things you said about baseball, I do know about them -- or at the very least have a good idea. The one thing I will disagree with you on is the pressure to hit the cutoff man. I didn't play at a high level, but I knew the importance of hitting the cutoff man and simply hit him. Maybe if I had possessed a stronger arm it would have been different, which may be why you felt the pressure.

Where I thought it took work was to set up at just the right depth to MAKE the cut off. I tried to set up in a position where a throw through my chest would hit the catcher perfectly on one hop. Given the differences in outfield arms and even the differences based on how that player's body was positioned when he fielded the ball, that took some quick calculating. And of course you have to remember to adjust if the player's throw tails.

Similar to the way a pitcher throws to the catcher's glove, I wanted the outfielder to be able to use my chest as his target, and if he hit it, have made a perfect throw home.

One of my favorite plays on the cut off is when the cut off man realizes he is going to cut off the throw and runs toward the throw so he can make the throw more quickly and cut the distance of the throw to boot. Obviously that is but one of the many split second decisions made on the diamond.

One area on which we may disagree is that of the major sports, I think of baseball as being the most individual and least teamwork-oriented. If the linemen don't block together, for instance, even the best running back isn't likely to make yardage. If a basketball team doesn't work that way (as a team), the game is much harder both offensively and defensively.

Not that there isn't any teamwork in baseball, but 90% of the game is pitcher vs. hitter, with the catcher being the only player who is truly participating in that matchup until the ball is put into play. And once the ball is put in play, it's pretty much the guy who fields it, the base runners and the guy who is going to take the throw.

Relays involve teamwork, of course, but how difficult are they? There is some coordination and a little thought, of course, but a relay play isn't quite like the timing of setting picks, moving without the ball and delivering the pass on target at just the right moment.

The guy making the relay throw doesn't have to anticipate as he's starting the throw exactly how the relay man will make his cut to get away from the guy covering him. The player fielding the relay throw doesn't have to get away from the guy guarding him. The base runner doesn't have to find and then set up the hole he's running through.

[rog]

By the way, the one thing I've never been able to figure out is that since pitches move differently -- even a curve doesn't break precisely the same amount every time, and the fastball doesn't have the same "hop" -- how in the world do hitters put the bat in the hundredth of an inch leeway they have to hit the ball on the button?

[klaiggeb]

Great hand to eye coordination.

Even greater vision.

Dusty Baker was asked what made Will Clark and Hank Aaron great hitters.

First words out of his mouth were: "Great vision."

That means they could SEE the spin of the ball out of the pitcher's hand.

Most hitters can't pick it up that quickly

[rog]

AND, I don't remember you being so obsessed about the Marlins being "lucky" back then.

Rog -- I do remember being highly disappointed. I took my mom to the Sidney Ponson game. It was the last game she ever saw. The Giants looked strong early, but Sir Sidney couldn't hold the lead.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4759/umpiring-again#ixzz5OgPvuzro