How Do You Feel About This Ball Down the Middle?
I just polled you all about something last Thursday. I asked you how you feel about the diminishing role of the starting pitcher in the modern game. I don’t know what I expected, which meant I’d be surprised by *any* results, but here’s where things stand — 23% of you are neutral. Yet 57% of you have a negative opinion, while just 20% of you have a positive opinion. That’s almost a 3-to-1 ratio. We’ll see how things evolve over time, as we become increasingly accustomed to how pitching staffs are used, but there’s clearly a collective sense of loss. The audience likes to think of the starter as the protagonist. The protagonists shouldn’t be killed off in the fourth or fifth inning. Leaves too much of the story.
Now I’m going back to the well again. I have another question for you all. This isn’t about some sort of trend within the game. Rather, this is about one call. But really, it’s about how calls are made in general. It’s about how you prefer that judgment be rendered. We’re going back to Saturday’s Game 1 of the Red Sox/Astros ALCS. Let’s all watch Joe Kelly throw a curveball down the middle.
Kelly hit Alex Bregman to lead off the sixth. The next batter reached on an error. Up came Tyler White, and he took a first-pitch ball. Kelly came back with a snapper.
Ball two!
It’s somewhat important to say this ultimately didn’t matter much. A few pitches later, White popped out. Granted, maybe the Astros don’t score in the inning if that one call goes the other way, but we can’t say that. Maybe they score more. White benefited from a ball down the middle. Then he made a harmless out. Hardly the biggest deal in the game.
But still, it’s a notable call. It’s a conspicuous call. It’s the worst called ball of this year’s young playoffs, based on the distance from the center of the zone. What could umpire James Hoye have been thinking? Let’s give it the screenshot treatment. Here’s the pitch on the way:
Here’s the pitch crossing the plate:
And here’s the pitch being caught:
Kelly could see that he threw a strike. It probably felt like a good strike right out of his hand. You can always tell when you throw a good spinner. But look at Christian Vazquez back there. Vazquez set up low, then he came up out of his crouch, responding to the pitch being elevated. Except, the pitch wasn’t elevated, and Vazquez had to dart back down. That’s not the way anyone teaches it, and you can forgive Hoye for being distracted or deceived. He probably didn’t get a great look at the pitch anyway. Vazquez and Kelly were crossed up. Kelly threw a curveball. Based on how Vazquez responded, he thought he’d called for a fastball. It’s worth noting that Vazquez had just entered the game as a catcher in the same inning.
There’s nothing particularly unusual about a cross-up. They happen. Signs get complicated when there are runners on base. Fingers and hands move around quickly. It would be amazing if players never slipped up. Still, cross-ups aren’t *that* common, and it’s definitely weird to see a cross-up result in a called ball on a pitch down the gut. It’s one of the only ways you can even get a called ball on a pitch down the gut. And this brings me to the question, the question I’m asking of you. Do you think the Red Sox deserved a strike, or do you think the Red Sox deserved a ball?
It comes down to execution, and how much is good enough. Or, it comes down to when execution begins and ends. One side of the coin, here: Joe Kelly threw a really excellent pitch. Full stop! Joe Kelly threw a sharp curveball that was obviously within the strike zone. It was such a good curve, in fact, that you can see Tyler White buckle. I guess Kelly caught multiple people off guard. According to the rule book, a strike is a pitch that passes within the strike zone. So this should’ve been a strike. It doesn’t matter what happens before the ball is thrown, or after it crosses the plate.
The other side of the coin: The Red Sox screwed up. They screwed up, because their pitcher and catcher weren’t on the same page. As a consequence, it was more or less impossible for the catcher to catch the pitch cleanly, because he thought the ball was going to do something else. The mistake at the beginning led to ugliness at the end. While a good pitch was executed, it was kind of executed by accident. It wasn’t part of the plan. At least, it wasn’t part of the plan, as Christian Vazquez called it.
This is kind of a form of the automated-strike-zone question. Four and a half years ago, I asked the audience how it felt about pitch-framing. To my surprise, 61% of respondents said they like that framing is a skill that matters. I’d assumed back then that the FanGraphs readers would’ve been all aboard the automation train. This is like an updated version of the same poll, to see if opinions have shifted. But this is also narrowly about a specific kind of bad pitch-framing. It’s about bad pitch-framing that occurs as a consequence of mixed signals. In your ideal game of baseball, should the Red Sox be penalized for miscommunication, or is the miscommunication irrelevant given that the actual pitch thrown was a good breaking ball over the plate?
This is a very small matter. But it’s also, I suppose, part of a broader conversation. Thank you all, each and every one of you, for your votes.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Absolutely a strike but not surprised it was called a ball when the catcher’s head completely obstructed the umpire’s view.
“…the catcher’s head completely obstructed the umpire’s view.”
Barry Bonds is Boston’s catcher now?
To me, the pitch is obviously a strike and it’s just as obvious that Vazquez blocked the ump’s view. Allowing the ump to see the pitch is, in my opinion, a prerequisite of a strike.
Put another way, an ump can’t call a strike if what he actually saw was the back of the catcher’s head. Even if he’s pretty sure it was a strike.
Wouldn’t the opposite also be true, though? The umpire can’t call it a ball if what he actually saw was the back of the catcher’s head. Why is a ball the default call? Can an umpire call a “no pitch”?
A strike has a requirement, it HAS to cross over the plate. If you can’t see it cross over the plate, you can’t say it did ,thus lacking the requirement to be a strike.
I don’t see it that way. I might go for this argument if somehow the offense was the one obstructing the umpire’s view (which isn’t really possible).
A “no pitch” would require a new rule. It’s easier and more sensible to simply require the defense to not un/intentional block the umpire’s view.
I feel like I’m ready for robot umps
It will be load of fun to learn about the problems that come along with it. Instant replay was a savior at one point, but it pretty clearly isn’t at this point. Is the game any better off? It seems like there are more egregious replays at 2nd than correct calls that were missed on the field.
For what it’s worth, any time your argument begins withholding “Seema like”, there’s a good chance the numbers won’t actually support it. If replay made more errors than corrections, they wouldn’t use it. You’re simply remembering only the errors, while the boring right calls make no impression.
I don’t think he’s really arguing that replay makes more incorrect calls than not replay. I’m pretty sure he’s saying that the net value of those corrected calls is negative to the viewer.
I could be wrong.
In any case, that’s my argument. I’m not here for a runner getting called out when he beats a throw but pops up a millimeter off the bag. That’s safe. Don’t @ me.
“That’s safe.”
No, that’s out.
@@@@@@@
I agree with you in spirit that the popping off the bag call is very much a ticky-tacky call.
Then again so are so many times when we’re parsing if the runner beat the throw to the bag, and WILL be so many times when a robo-ump says a pitch barely got a whisker of the edge of the plate.
Football may be a game of inches, but baseball is a game of millimeters.
Personally I’m not big on robo-umps, but I’d never actually considered the possibility of the actual smallest of slivers catching the zone being called a strike, as it’s supposed to be today. That might actually be more annoying than a bad call of that same pitch, if something that’s barely legible to the naked eye is called a strike. (Though i’m sure there would be some way to set a % of the ball that has to cross the zone)
Instant replay is obviously better than the alternative. Going back to the days of Denkinger ? Please.
Replay got rid of most of the horrible decisions made by MLB’s awful umpires. A radar-based and computer-called strike zone will get rid of most of the rest.
Maybe then we can finally get that @&$)(;: !!! Angel Hernandez fired.
I like the distinction between the textbook rule definition of a “strike” and the execution side of pitcher/catcher proficiency. I have to say though, sports as a whole are a results based endeavor not an intention based endeavor. Think of the seeing eye single off the end of the bat, or the bloop hit off the handle…fun discussion though!
The Sox deserve a strike but:
I still like pitch framing when we are talking about finesse on the margins from an aesthetic perspective.
I do not like “pitch framing” if we are lumping in things like this that result in absurd calls.
Can we hate the umpire responses to pitch framing (mostly/especially these egregious cases) while still admiring the talent catchers exhibit and not wanting that aspect of the game entirely removed via robot umps?
No. You are not allowed to appreciate the nuance of a subject. You have to love it or hate and be able to tell us all why in 140 characters.
280* characters now.
Not on my iPhone 3GS. Only supports the 140 character format!
You can hate it all you want, but as long as pitch framing is a thing and is supported, egregious calls are going to happen. Only thing that worries me about robot umps is that the robots are not going to favor getting more balls in play (i.e., human umps help whoever is down in the count).
Yeah, l don’t think people are afraid enough of the behavior of high-accuracy robot umps, in terms of reducing balls in play.
People have this idea that machines will get it right every time. That wouldn’t happen. Pitch classification and tracking isn’t perfect.
You could easily put sensors in the plate to create a vertical plane. The only thing then is do we put micro chips in the hitter’s jersey to create the zone or something similar. If that plane is created the ball probably doesn’t need a sensor itself but adding that would probably be a good idea. Pretty easy to setup a very good system without relying on tracking info.
“Perfect” is not the proper metric. “More accurate” is.
There’s little doubt that auto balls&strikes are more accurate. The straw man argument that “if it’s not perfect then what’s the difference, really” is facially disingenuous.
Facially?
Yes, as in prima facie, or “on the face of it”. Basically, bleeding obvious.
Robot Umps don’t have to be perfect. The merely have to outperform the humans. Not a very high bar.
Honestly, give me an instance where a human could surpass the performance of a machine created for a simple manual task.
Tying a shoe ?
I now hate framing, and I was a catcher. To keep hitters in the game we just take an inch off the strike zone.
Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.
It’s got a little to do with the inevitability of Robot Umps:
Instant replay exists because deserve wasn’t getting served.
(Great movie reference 6-10, BTW)
I vote ball.
By definition of the strike zone, that should be a strike. One condition for a pitch to be called a strike, however, is the ump seeing it. I don’t want umps guessing blindly, which calling it a strike would have been. All the evidence this ump saw, a pitch high and tight that then got blocked by an almost-fully standing catcher, implied this was a ball.
The Red Sox tandem didn’t perform. ‘Should’ve’ been a strike, but shouldn’t have been at the same time. (and yes, I’m in the unpopular opinion corner. Let’s discuss it if someone disagrees).
Completely with you. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes of typing out this comment myself!
With the way the system is I’m on your side. But I want a system that creates the zone so we can really test the control of pitchers. Curveballs that enter the strikezone after the front of the plate would be nasty and fun to watch.
Say, we have robot umpires, who only look at the 3-dimensional zone and nothing else.
What’s to say the catcher doesn’t jump and shout and freak out, to distract the batter on a pitch going down the middle? His jumping around here caused a strike to become a ball, but in that scenario, it’d be a strike the batter very likely doesn’t swing at. Is that fair?
(I favor robot-umpires but this is food for thought).
Brian McCann. Brian McCann’s to say.
Wrong sport, that’s Basketball..
So you’ve never tried to catch a 98 mph fastball, huh?
I had an old boss that radar clocked at 94 in his mid 30s. A European friend wanted to try and hit off him, so in a suit and tie, I caught him for 5 fastballs with an outfielders glove and zero gear. I tried to catch the pitches in the webbing, but right on my palm each time. Yep it hurt, but luckily no foul tips or I might not be walking and talking today. He was scouted in H.S. But blew out his arm. 15 Years later he is throwing 94 with control.
East Coasters really don’t dress casual for anything!
Well I mean if you want to clear the benches. That would do it.
An automated strike zone and on-field umpires are not mutually exclusive. This type of behavior would be controlled by on-field umps and for sure, a rule would be established, if needed, to prevent catches from intentionally distracting batters. I would think such a rule may already exist, though not sure.
You still need a HP ump to call plays at home, and maybe some fair/foul stuff between the bases.
tb, listen,
There’s not going to be an actual robot out there. The human umpire will still stand back there, with a little earpiece. The earpiece will beep when the strike zone is breached by the baseball.
Ump will be plenty busy. Foul balls, catchers interference, plays at the plate, hit-by-pitch, check swings, keeping lineups, calling balks.
Kelly deserved the strike; Vasquez didn’t. In my ideal version of baseball, this pitch is sometimes called a strike, sometimes called a ball. So I can’t really answer the question.
But what if Vasquez had called for a fastball and Kelly threw the wrong pitch?
I think pitch framing should matter as long as human umps are involved and should not matter when/if human umps are removed. Once robot umps are used, it changes risk/reward calculation for having two human beings behind the plate to closely monitor a dangerous flying object ie the baseball (one to catch and the other to umpire for foul tips or check swings or everything else). Why not just have the pitcher throw the ball towards a net? The fact that catchers and umpires wear so much gear should be a red flag that it’s dangerous.
Edit: So this is like a reductio ad absurdum argument, I guess. Do you like pitch framing? Then this was a ball. Do u like the idea of a pitcher throwing it into a net, with ball and strikes being monitored by a robot? Then this was a strike.
Why not dispense with the danger inherent in throwing a ball at great speed in close proximity to the hitter, and instead just put the ball on a tee? Why not dispense with the danger inherent in swinging a huge, heavy wooden stick, and allow the “hitter” to kick a large, soft rubber ball instead? I know we all disagree at some point around the margins (as witness the DH debates) but it doesn’t seem too controversial to say that these things are part of what “baseball” ought to mean, as opposed to some other sport.
If you’re saying that I want to make baseball so safe that it’s boring, that’s not what I’m saying. There’s a certain risk/reward calculation that takes place in sports that makes it fun. For example, a quarterback might get hurt trying to leap into the end zone, or an NBA player might twist their ankle when they land on someone’s foot given how often they jump in close proximity, or a baseball player might hurt themselves sliding into a base. There is incentive to do these things because the result is potentially positive.
Pitch framing provides the incentive to justify the risk of two additional human human beings (in addition to the batter) to be in harms way. Without that incentive, it’s better for pitchers to be throwing into a net, I think.
The net receives every throw home brilliantly but has yet to nail the technique on applying the tag.
When are they forced to apply a tag so quickly that having a literal catcher to catch the flying object at speeds of 100mph vs having someone there near the net but able to cover it? Just ban those plays…they are such a small part of baseball anyhow.
This “net” idea would completely eliminate some plays that are integral to how baseball is currently played, namely stolen base attempts and wild pitches / passed balls.
It would also dramatically change both plays at the plate with a runner on 3rd and fielding bunts that are deadened immediately in front of home plate. For this player “near the net” to cover those plays to be in a safer position than a catcher is currently, he can’t just be somewhat near home plate. Otherwise he’s just exposed to foul balls flying at him. He’d have to be either a long ways from home plate or directly behind the net, needing to run around it to reach home.
I am a big fan of the art of pitch framing. I am also a big fan of Jeff Sullivan’s writing. Another quality read. Well done!
Pitch framing is fine on border line calls. But if an umpire can’t tell a ball is right dow the middle, regardless of how it was caught, bad job by him.
I’m going to buck the trend and say it was a deserved ball. (disclosure: Red Sox fan here)
At the time, I was really annoyed. But if we’re going to include pitch framing in catcher valuation, then what we’re saying is that a strike is *not* the reward for throwing the ball in the “strike zone”, but rather the reward for making the umpire believe you have done so. Obviously, the far and away vast majority of that process (making the umpire believe) involves actually throwing a “strike” in the Platonically-ideal zone. But a meaningful chunk of that process is in the presentation, and sometimes the presentation can be so egregious (one way or another) that it can result in a dramatic reversal of the throwing itself.
This presentation is what we’re measuring when we measure framing value. If we’re going to reward/penalize catchers for positive/negative presentation around the edges, we should definitely penalize them for such egregiously negative presentation right down the middle. Most of the time, framing is measured in tiny increments and probabilities. What Vazquez did there was anything but tiny, which is what makes it so unusual, but it’s still conceptually the same thing.
Or rather… what Vazquez *and* Kelly did. This is what’s interesting. I wonder if we’re rewarding/penalizing catchers a bit too much for framing and not really considering the implications of their battery-mate. Pedro Martinez talked about how his stuff played up significantly more when he started throwing to Veritek, since Veritek was better able to handle the “sometimes violent” late break on his pitches. Those of us who watch Steven Wright or watched Tim Wakefield have seen plenty of calls blown on pitches “down the middle” as the befuddled catcher frantically stabbed at a ball which broke the opposite of any direction it had any right to go. Is that really on the catcher?
I’d be curious to see a framing runs study which takes into account both members of the battery, especially now that we have such relatively firm catcher framing data, it should be possible to apply a mixed model and get a reasonably distinctive separation, particularly with starters.
Should be lots more mound visits. That would solve miscommunication problems.
This call was brutal and it goes without saying that this has not been a good post-season for the umpires, but i have also been surprised by the very poor catching from supposedly good defenders, Grandal and Maldonado. I have heard of scoring without a hit but Maldonado’s inability to stop anything was shocking. I can’t make up my mind which has been worse, the umpiring or the catching.
I haven’t thought it was a bad postseason for umpires. Things are never going to be perfect for everyone.
“I can’t make up my mind which has been worse, the umpiring or the catching.”
It’s been a race to the bottom for sure.
I’ll never understand how anybody doesn’t want that called a strike.
In order for a game to be compelling there needs to be clearly defined sets of rules. Continuing to allow pitches that pass through the strike zone be called however the current umpire so chooses (or sees) is a clear violation of that principle. On top of that, catch framing is, to be honest, not compelling baseball – it’s interesting only from an analytical standpoint. Catchers should be focused on calling quality pitches and controlling the running game – the latter of which is often at odds with pitch framing. Let robots focus on what the strike zone is or isn’t and force catchers/pitchers to work inside that zone to get strikes.
Sounds to me like some baseball fans have been playing devil’s advocate for so long, they’ve lost touch with reality.
Imagine this was game 7, 9th inning bases loaded, 3-2 count, 1 run game.
Who wants an ump guessing which team wins the World Series because they can’t at very least position a dude at second base as a backup ?
I remember the game announcers talking about this when it happened. They said pretty much everything that was said here: the umpire couldn’t have called it a strike because he didn’t see it. All he saw was Vasquez yo-yoing around in front of him. Here is why this kind of thing is bad for baseball and, by extension, why human umpires need to be replaced by robot umpires: there was only one person in the stadium who thought that pitch was a ball, and that was the umpire; this is directly analagous to 1980s WWF (now WWE) wrestling when Randy “Macho Man” Savage would bring a lead pipe or a monkey wrench into the ring to clobber his opponent with and the only person in the whole arena who didn’t see it was the ref (who was otherwise distracted by Miss Elizabeth (RIP)). So, unless you want baseball to become a latter day WWF, I suggest you embrace robot umpires.
There is something to be said for Alex Rodriguez getting a steel chair to the back of the coconut though.
From reading Sheryl Ring, I know that, according to the rule book, a strike is NOT a pitch that passes within the strike zone. A strike is a pitch that is called a strike by the umpire.
But Kelly deserved a strike there.
“From reading Sheryl Ring, I know that, according to the rule book, a strike is NOT a pitch that passes within the strike zone. A strike is a pitch that is called a strike by the umpire.”
That’s just lawyer nonsense. A strike IS a pitch that passes within the strike zone. A lawyer can try to relabel that strike whatever they want to for legal reasons but in reality it was a strike and it will always be a strike. Kelly threw a strike. The umpire missed the call. Kelly got jobbed. MLB playoff umpiring sucks canal water. End of story.
This is a philosophical question. Do things have inherent qualities, or do its qualities depend on a human to perceive and interpret them? One’s answer largely depends on one’s level of reverence for authority and/or us sentient sacks of flesh. I say it is a strike, was a strike, and will always be a strike. Umpires do not determine reality, although they sometimes determine the outcomes of games by demonstrating the severe limits of human perception.
It’s kind of funny that most of us are OK with cheating as long as it’s not too egregious. Don’t get me wrong, I’m OK with it too. I can’t really explain why but I am. But that’s essentially what pitch framing is, right? Basically just trying to deceive the umpire to believe something happened that didn’t really happen? Why is that?
There is a difference between cheating (breaking rules) and taking advantage of what you can, which is what everyone does all the time.
I mean sort of. Pitch framing isn’t necessarily a new thing but it’s only been recently that we’ve seen how impactful it is and such an emphasis has been placed on it. I wonder if it could mimic the history of flopping in the NBA. Flopping had always been around but it wasn’t until recently that it got out of control and rules needed to be established to prevent it. Previously it wasn’t technically cheating but the whole point was to deceive the Refs to make them believe something happened that didn’t really happen. Is it really fare to the batter that he judges a pitch correctly but it’s called a strike because a guy behind the plate, who he can’t even see or react to, deceives the umpire? Don’t get me wrong, its a skill and adds an extra element of strategy to the game, but is it really good for the game? If your teams at bat and a ball is called strike three because the catcher frames it beautifully, are you tipping your cap in respect or are you pissed and ripping the umpire for missing the call?
I do not consider pitch framing cheating.
I do. Now we’re at an impasse.
I bet hundreds of pitches every year are guessed at by umps bc they don’t have a clear line of vision as the ball crosses home.
Girardi’s been saying balls & strikes should be called by an ump located behind a pitcher.
I’m a strong auto ball-strike advocate, but at very least have some back-up plan if the ump can’t see the pitch. It’s ridiculous.
Even if hunderds of pitches are guessed at, hell, lets say 1000 pitches are guessed at, that would represent 0.13% of all pitches thrown this year. Even if you cut the total number of pitches in half to account for (insert whatever reason you want) 1000 guessed pitches would only be 0.27% of pitches. Umps would have to be guessing at nearly 8000 pitches per year for it to even be 1% of the total pitches thrown. And the odds of one of those of pitches being a significant, meaningful moment in a game are astronomical.
I think you might be overreacting just a tad.
(and lets not also forget that just because an ump “guessed” does not mean the call was wrong. He can guess and still be right).
I would think that the estimate of hundreds of pitches or a thousand pitches is very conservative. There are 2430 regular season games per year and we know that the accuracy of umps of calling balls as balls and strikes as strikes is around 86% (of the 50-55% of total pitches that are taken). Obviously a sizable portion of that is a matter of interpretation of the strike zone, with another big chunk due to pitch framing. The rest has to be put on the umpire’s judgement of flight path and split-second determination of 95 mph hurled objects coming at his face.
If we start with the assumption that ML umpires are very good at their jobs and are being judged on their performance, they can’t be so bad at calling pitches as they are, based on their knowledge of the strike zone. It has to be a matter of their ability to perceive what actually happened. They have to be making guesses as to whether the pitch is a ball or strike a very significant portion of time and their educated guesses are right more often than not. But there are a bunch that aren’t.
Put another way – if an umpire randomly guessed (with 50% accuracy) at every borderline pitch to get to the 14% incorrect calls, that means that an umpire guessed at 28% of all the taken pitches in a game. A game has roughly 300 pitches, of which, for simplicity’s sake, 50% are taken (150 pitches); 28% of that is 42 pitches. Let’s pare down the 14% incorrect calls – take five points off for different interpretations of the strike zone (that seems generous) and another five for framing (I don’t know offhand if that is high or low), which gets us to 4% incorrect or 8% guessed or about 12 pitches per game.
Let’s surmise that ML umpires are very good about guessing; they guess right 80% of the time. That means, for there to be the same amount of incorrect calls based on their guesses, that they are guessing more often – an 80% success rate with 6 wrong guesses means 30 total guesses per game. That comes out to nearly 75,000 guesses on ball-strike calls per year in MLB. Even if you say they’re only 50-50 on those guesses, you’re looking at 30K.
I think the question is worded badly for what you want. Of course the Red Sox “deserve” a strike. It was a strike. Your real question is, “In light of framing and calls that catchers steal for their pitchers, do you feel the same way about this call as you would had Vazquez caught it clean?”
I think an equally fair question is, who is Kelly more angry at, Vazquez or the Ump?
dark horse candidate: himself if he misunderstood the sign / didn’t throw the pitch Vazquez called and realized it.
Bregman knew it was a strike. I’ve never seen him bail like that.
There are umpires, a few, who call it correctly when the pitch misses to the other side of the plate, or the catcher blows. They must take a mindset into the game specifically to do that. The rest are just being lazy.
I voted for ball but i knew i’d be in the minority. I think it’s tough enough to get anyone to want to play catcher and the more importance we give to what the catcher does or fails to do, the better. And catcher is the toughest defensive position to evaluate and i like to have the challenge.
The catcher is already part of the pitching battery. He’s directly affecting pitch selection and location and plays a very important role in the game. How is “you can royally fuck your pitcher if you frame pitches poorly” an incentive that will make people to want to be catchers? Most people prefer clarity in their job descriptions to vague nebulous things.
I’m sure you like the challenge, I’m also sure there are other people who would prefer to not have subjective opinions determine their performance.
Why don’t we take one of the useless LF/RF umpires and put them behind the pitcher and have that guy call balls/strikes. It boggles my mind how we’ve all decided that the best spot for an umpire to judge balls/strikes is by partially hiding behind the catcher.
An added bonus would be more balls in play hitting Joe West.
It boggles my mind that you you seriously think an ump standing 70-80′ away and partially hiding behind the pitcher would somehow be better.
Joe Girardi says so. I’m taking his opinion over yours.
Well then add Joe Girardi to the long list of athletes who have dumb ideas I guess. *shrug*
As someone who pitched in university and has worked as a local ump for ~10 years I find the idea that an umpire standing behind the pitcher would actually be better at calling balls and strikes to be downright laughable.
I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise go stand on a baseball field in the proposed spot to get some perspective.
how much different would balls/strikes be if the umpire was situated directly behind the pitcher instead?
Wander Javier would have absolutely crushed that pitch.
86% think the Red Sox deserve a strike, but I bet 86% would not agree to a robot strike zone. It would be fascinating to hear the thoughts of people who think the Sox deserved a strike but don’t want robot umps, since human umpires will result in this exact pitch getting called a ball 100% of the time.
Also from the title I thought this was referring to the 0-2 pitch Dylan Floro threw to Orlando Arcia in the 9th. I have NEVER seen such a bad call with no crossup or catcher stabbing at the ball or something like that.
With both ALCS participants utilizing advanced signs for calling pitches even with no one on, it has me wondering if there’s a better way for the catcher and pitcher to agree on a pitch. Like framing, some people probably like the subterfuge of secretly calling pitches and stealing signs, but as a viewer I want the catcher and pitcher to agree on a pitch as quickly as possible and get on with it. A smart watch type of device where the catcher can send an icon to the pitcher to either accept or reject is just one idea for how this system could be modernized. Inevitably, there would be times where the tech would fail, similar to when the communication equipment between a middle linebacker and the sideline fails in an NFL game that would necessitate manual signs, but it might be worth testing something similar in the minor leagues for a spell. Plus it would provide for many talking points when a ball club inevitably gets caught trying to hack the watches of an opposing team to steal signs.
I just amused myself thinking about a catcher catching Mariano Rivera with one of these systems, and there just being one big icon for “cutter”.
I agree. The NFL does this already with headsets.
Of course I bet Belichick hacks into his opponent’s frequency and listens in on their signals.
The people saying that the umpire’s view was blocked are correct, but it’s not correct to say that the Red Sox didn’t “deserve” a strike because Kelly/Vazquez got crossed up. There is already a built-in penalty for getting crossed up, and it is the increased likelihood of a passed ball.
Thanks
What a ridiculous way to word the poll. The Red Sox both deserve a strike and deserve a ball, for much the reasons you discuss in the article. Asking me to pick one or the other based on what “the Red Sox deserve” is so baked and stewed with social-cultural meaning that I think both are correct, and so I can’t really choose.
I think the call *should* have been a strike, but I don’t think the Red Sox “deserve” it any more or less than when (e.g.) a batter swings at a pitchout (be it for running control, or the alas bygone days of intentional walks). Does the pitching team “deserve” a strike if the ball was deliberately and obviously pitched well outside the zone, but where the batter swung anyways? So what I think the call should be is totally separate from what the Sox “deserve”.
At any rate, even though it “should” have been a strike, there’s really no way to fault the human ump, since he may as well have been wearing a Jedi force-training helmet for all he could see there. I see it as an argument-by-proxy for an electronic zone.