A Walk-Off Letdown
On Thursday afternoon, a familiar groan rippled across the baseball world.
The Mets entered the bottom of the ninth down by one against the Marlins, and had put on a showcase of Fun Baseball to tie the game: a Jeff McNeil bat flip on a bomb into the right field stands, Luis Guillorme hustling out an infield single, and Brandon Nimmo slapping a double down the left field line against an extreme shift. Francisco Lindor was intentionally walked, which brought up Michael Conforto to face Marlins pitcher Anthony Bass. A few pitches later, on a 1-2 count, Conforto leaned his padded elbow into the strike zone and was grazed by a ring-him-up slider that home plate umpire Ron Kulpa was midway through calling before reversing course mid ring-up, instead awarding Conforto first base for a game-winning hit-by-pitch.
Here’s a look at where that pitch was:

And here’s a look at the contact being made:

Ouch?
The play was reviewed, but the only reviewable aspect of it was whether or not Conforto was hit by the ball; they couldn’t re-litigate his efforts to get out of the way of its path, or whether or not it was a strike. The official rule (5.05(b)(2)), by the way, does explicitly state that a batter is awarded first base if:
He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;
If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.
In this case, both counts are true: the ball was in the strike zone, and Conforto clearly did not attempt to avoid contact with it. But since that part wasn’t up for review, and upon said review, they did confirm that Conforto had been hit by the pitch, the call stood, the run scored, and the game was over. Hence the groan.
For many watching (and groaning), the feeling was familiar. It immediately reminded me of an afternoon in June 2015, back when it was virtually never worth it to try to stream a live baseball game from a moving car. I nevertheless found myself providing updates to an Acura full of people as I watched the choppy MLB.TV feed of Max Scherzer’s perfect game in progress in the back seat. When Scherzer retired Jordy Mercer for the second out of the ninth, we pulled the car over, and I leaned forward so we could all huddle around the cracked screen of my outdated iPhone, not wanting to miss out on witnessing history in real time. What we witnessed instead was Jose Tabata leaning into the path of an inside slider to break up the perfecto. Needless to say, the energy was sucked out of the car as we grumpily continued on our way to our dinner reservation.
For good measure, here’s where that inside pitch was (it’s pitch number eight in the sequence below):
Clearly the call wasn’t egregious from a balls-and-strikes perspective, as was the case for the final pitch of Thursday’s Mets game. While it’s always a shame to see a personal achievement fall short, especially on a dubious call, a perfect game is just that: a personal achievement. In the case of Conforto’s hit-by-strike (HBK), it determined the outcome of the game! And even though it’s only April, and everyone is still basking in how great it is to have baseball back rather than worrying too much about individual wins and losses, we all know those individual wins and losses add up over time and can make a significant difference come September.
Conforto and Tabata are far from the only players guilty of relying heavily on their elbow padding to lean into inside pitches. Across baseball, hit-by-pitches have increased steadily over time, undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the increased level of protection afforded by that padding (that pitchers are throwing more pitches inside surely plays a part as well). In fact, this trend is not unique to baseball; The Atlantic recently published a piece about how advances in hockey goalie padding have influenced the sport – both in terms of goalie technique, and offense against it – all based around the concept that padding makes getting hit with a projectile less painful.
I’m certainly not arguing against protective padding for batters, especially when pitchers are throwing harder than ever. But it’s also not difficult to understand why hit-by-pitches are steadily increasing in a time when batters can occasionally get plunked without as much risk of serious injury. This trend has inspired much discussion regarding the enforceability of determining whether a batter makes an actual effort to get out of the way of a pitch. The truth is, it hardly seems to be enforced at all at the big-league level. If you watch enough college baseball, however, it won’t be too long before you see a batter lean in a little too much for the umpire’s liking, and leading the ump to insist that he stay in the batter’s box, instead of being awarded first. Clearly, the rule itself is enforceable.
But ultimately, the end of Thursday’s Mets game didn’t come down to a matter of enforceability, but rather one of reviewability. Ron Kulpa has actually already conceded that he should have called Conforto out on strikes. But even if he had realized that immediately, the fact that the play wasn’t reviewable would have prevented him from changing the outcome of the call, and by extension, the game. Once again, a possible solution can be found by looking to the lower levels of the sport. In this case, let’s dive down several more levels, all the way down the Little League.
By rule, the last play of every Little League game in tournament play is reviewed by default. Sure, this may be an effort to avoid the particularly potent heartbreak that only a kid can feel upon losing a game due to an unfair call. But even if the egos of major leaguers are presumably a bit more iron-clad and capable of coping with disappointment, it hardly seems unreasonable to put up safeguards against the outcome of a game coming down to a blown call.
All in all, Michael Conforto’s HBK was the unfitting capper to what was otherwise an extremely exciting inning of baseball. By the end, even the Mets broadcast booth was copping to having gotten away with one. And while it won’t always be necessary to change game-ending plays, expanding the rules of what is reviewable to include all game-ending outs or scores seems like an easy guardrail to install against potentially season-altering miscalls.
Tess is a contributor at FanGraphs. When she's not watching college or professional baseball, she works as a sports video editor, creating highlight reels for high school athletes. She can be found on Twitter at @tesstass.
I love the term HBK, thank you. Just makes me picture Shawn Michaels walking in and blasting Conforto with a boot for leaning in.
I was watching this on SNY and Keith Hernandez and the rest of the crew all immediately said that he should have been called out on strikes. Ya done messed up when you lost the home team’s crew.
Yeah, kudos to the SNY booth for immediately saying what they felt despite the confusion. They continue to set the standard.
Not a surprise that the Mets broadcast team called it as it was. That’s the way they roll.
OK, so it was not reviewable by New York, but surely when the 4 umpires huddled, one of them could have reminded Kulpa that he had started to call it a strike, and therefore it wasn’t a HBP. Unless none of them knew the rule, which is inexcusable.
I’m not sure what all the other umpires look at during a pitch, but I’m guessing it’s not the home plate umpire. It’s possible none of them saw him begin the strike motion. I didn’t see it until the replay — and remember, when they huddle they get no aids and when they do a review they get headsets but they don’t get video monitors. That’s all on the league office in NY.
Just a heads up, second line should be the Mets were down by 1. The bottom of the ninth began with the score 2-1.
Thanks! Corrected!
If you don’t like this then you don’t like Major League Baseball.
Meh
Obviously the call on Conforto was incorrect, but should we question the decision to intentionally load the bases in that scenario? Now you’ve put your pitcher in a situation where an actual HPB ends the game, and he can’t pitch carefully because a regular BB will too. Why put that pressure on him, all to face a guy with a .401 wOBA last season?
I suppose it’s worth examining. I guess the obvious benefit of a walk in that scenario is the possibility of getting an out at any base plus the possibility of a double play (as I believe there was only one out at that point). For that, you’re trading the possibility that a HBP or BB ends the game.
Additionally, you’re choosing to face Conforto instead of lindor. Or possibly Conforto then Alonso rather than Lindor and Conforto if you got just one initial out. Conforto and Alonso are probably better overall hitters than Lindor, but the difference is probably negated in the scenario where any base hit will do and a ball in play at all might do it since Lindor strikes out less than the other two. Lindor might actually be the one you wanted to face least in that scenario.
I suspect the double play/out at any base/strikeout benefits made the walk sensible there.
You make some good points. I double-checked the RE24 numbers (from 2010-2015 so maybe a bit out of date), and the chance of 1 run scoring with 2nd and 3rd, 1 out is .676, and it drops to .657 with the bases loaded and one out. So disregarding player characteristics for the moment, the numbers seem to say its the right call by a slight margin.
I was watching and the part of the play that shocked me completely was that Ron Kulpa, a major league umpire since 1998, did not know the rule! How could that possibly be? It was clear that he was in the process of calling a strike then suddenly changed the call. What were the other umpires doing? At least one of them should have seen that or is it even conceivable that none of them knew the rule?
Yes, it is entirely believable that 4 MLB umpires did not know or just could not remember the rule. Which is literally their only job. In conclusion, MLB umpires are very bad at their jobs.
They are not bad at their jobs. The advent of Instant Replay has proven that the umpires get the calls right (or at least to the point that it can’t be proven otherwise) the overwhelming majority of the time (keeping in mind that most calls have no reason to be reviewed in the first place).
While I was typing my comment an obtrusive ad covered the screen and I was unable to remove it or scroll around it. I was forced to close the site, reopen it, and begin again. Has anyone else had this happen?
The ads here are some of the worst one the internet, sadly.
Especially on mobile. It’s a good reason to get the ad-free membership.
the mets are gonna win the division by one game
I believe Mattingly should have protested the game at that moment because there was clearly a misinterpretation of the rules. Wallach, the catcher, said that Kulpa had made an audible strike call and Kulpa was clearly in the process of ringing up Conforto when he went brain dead and changed his call in as obvious an indication that he didn’t know the rule as there could ever be. That seems to be the definition of a protest.
It’s extremely unlikely that he could win a protest on a judgment call, but I agree he should’ve at least tried the protest, if nothing else than to increase the PR around the issue.
Rule 7.04 on Protesting Games says that “No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire.” That means an umpire’s judgment call, such as balls and strikes, safe or out, or fair or foul, can’t be protested.
Whether it was a strike or a hit by pitch was a judgment call. Therefore, it wasn’t a protestable call.
Strikes are judgement calls as things currently stand. That’s a tough thing to review. Bring on the robot strike zone and then this sort of play can be reviewable!
This is not a question about reviewing a strike call. The strike had already been called! The catcher heard it and Kulpa’s movement’s, which we have all seen far too often, were clearly the one’s made by an umpire when he is ringing up the hitter. Why did he not realize that the strike was the controlling action on the play? This is about as egregious a blunder as I have ever seen ranking up there with Sam Holbrook’s “infield fly”, Phil Scuzzi’s foul call on a ball that landed well fair and Don Denkinger’s miss of a play at first base that may well have reversed the outcome of the 1985 WS. Those all occurred in the post-season. This would have eclipsed those if it had happened then.
Holbrook DID make the right call on that infield fly as the rules stand. The only thing you can argue there is the judgment on whether the shortstop could’ve made the catch with “ordinary effort” (which most analysts believe he could).
As for this case, he still technically never called the strike, so it’s still technically a judgment call.
He audibly called a strike. That is not in question. Whether that is a conclusive call or not I don’t know.
Obviously, it wasn’t conclusive, or it would’ve stood as the call. The point remains that the strike does not officially exist as far as the records are concerned, so it’s still a judgment call.
Even Kulpa admitted he made a mistake and should have called Conforto out. That is the conclusive answer.
I’m all for making more calls reviewable. But as others have said, couldn’t this be reversed without officially reviewing it?
Also, what can be done about umpires refusing to follow the part of the rule about trying to get out of the way? I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a ball called on a “HBP” where the batter doesn’t move. Has this just become a non-rule like the strike zone and (former) phantom 2B force out?
The part in the rule about it being called a ball if it is out of the strike zone and the player doesn’t attempt to move is kind of ridiculous.
1. It is almost never called
2. It shouldn’t be.
If you are willing to get hit by the pitch and its out of the strike zone, your reward is first base. Now if you are intentionally moving into a ball to get hit when it is not in the strike zone, that is a different story.
It’s not just if they don’t attempt to move. The rule is that a batter who is touched by a pitched ball gets first base unless “(B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball…”
The reason why it is almost never called is that all that is required is the bare minimum attempt to avoid being touched. If you’re leaning into the ball and don’t try to pull back at all, that can fall under “no attempt.” But good luck getting that called.
Nice to see Ron with the Mea Kulpa there though.
The idea of someone getting hit by a strike makes me irrationally angry. It’s annoying enough when people crowd the plate so much that basically anything that misses becomes a HBP, but encroaching on the actual strike zone? Rage.
Well, that’s actually one downside to Instant Replay. It used to be that the umpires (usually after they all huddled together) could reverse a bad call on their own with no reviewable limits.
Although, in this case it would’ve been difficult to do so on a game-ending call.
Terrible, terrible umpiring. If those 4 guys and NewYork can’t get that call correct, then bring in the robots to umpire now,. Watching a lot of first week baseball and in addition to this major judgement error, the ball- strike calls so far in many games are all over the place. Maybe it’s the center field cameras nothing being set right, but umpires seemingly are missing a dozen pitches a game or more. Is there a summary by umpire that tabulates missed calls based on the strike zone outline per tv picture?
Robot Ump might not have helped with this particular bad call. The proposed robots just tell the home plate umpire if the ball was in the zone or not. Kulpa knew that the ball was in the zone, and made the wrong call despite that. For some reason MLB umpires almost never call a batter on being hit in the strike zone or making no effort to avoid the pitch.
Maybe a roboump would give them the confidence to call the batter on this more often, but I think that it would still be an umpire call.
Great article. I feel like the umpire honestly in the moment forgot about how the HBP rule distinguishes between balls and strikes. The problem wasn’t that he didn’t know it was a strike, the problem is that he failed to connect the dots between the fact that it was a strike, and the fact that it hit the batter.
It’s not common for major league umpires to forget rules, but it does happen, as, for example, in the 2015 ALDS Game 5, where Russell Martin’s throw to the pitcher ricocheted off Shin-Soo Choo’s bat. The home plate umpire immediately called a dead ball while Odor scampered home, and told Odor to return to third, but the call was changed and run allowed after the umpires were reminded of the rule by the Rangers manager.
Same should have happened here.