Matt Carpenter and a Most Amazing Strike
I want to assure you right away that what follows isn’t sour grapes. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Even if I did, I’d complain on my own time, and not on the job in front of everyone (probably). What follows is about a call, and a controversial one at that, early in Monday’s Game. But I’m not here to talk about various implications. I’m here to talk about the call’s significance, relative to others, and about the process that contributed to the call. It was, in the end, a call most extraordinary that went Boston’s way.
The Red Sox went ahead 1-0 in the first, as you recall. The score remained the same into the bottom of the third, when David Freese led off with a single. Pete Kozma bunted Freese to second, and Adam Wainwright advanced Freese to nowhere with a strikeout. Matt Carpenter came up with two down, and he worked the count full. In that full count, Jon Lester threw a cutter inside. Carpenter started to first, assuming he’d drawn a two-out walk. Bill Miller, however, called him out, and Carpenter expressed his disagreement. That went about as well as most fairly cordial expressions of disagreement on a baseball field. That is, nothing changed, and the game moved on to the top of the fourth, with Carpenter having struck out looking.
From a straightaway angle, here’s the pitch that Carpenter took, right around when it crossed the front plane of the plate:
There’s really no controversy here, at least in terms of what should’ve happened. The pitch was over the edge — not of home plate — but of the batter’s box. That means the ball was inches out of the zone. Vertically, the pitch was fine. Laterally, the pitch missed. It doesn’t even fit in a gray area. That pitch unquestionably should’ve been ball four, and Carpenter should’ve advanced to first, which would have brought up Shane Robinson with two down and two on. Miller just got it wrong. OK.
But it isn’t just that the call was wrong. I wouldn’t be writing on FanGraphs about some ordinary wrong ball/strike call. Below is a plot of all called strikes thrown to lefties by lefties in 2013. Both Carpenter and Lester are left-handed, as I didn’t need to write, and every pitcher/batter combination gets its own strike zone for whatever reasons. Anyway:
You can already guess what the big red dot is. That’s the call that went in Lester’s favor on Monday. Among all pitches thrown by lefties to lefties this season, Lester got the most inside called strike. It was 16 inches inside from the center of the plate, with the runner-up one full inch less inside. In third was a pitch 1.5 less inside than the runner-up. You can ignore those weird blue dots down and to the left — those are PITCHf/x glitches I forgot to eliminate before saving the image file. Cameras. They lie, rarely.
Let’s look at another plot. This is Jon Lester pitching to lefties during the PITCHf/x era, going back to 2008:
Again, you should recognize the big red dot. This was by far the most inside called strike Lester has gotten against a lefty since at least 2007. Probably, it’s the most inside called strike against a lefty of his career. Previously, his most inside called strike against a lefty was 12.5 inches inside from the center of the plate. As a reminder, Monday’s strike was 16 inches inside from the center. That’s a difference of more than a quarter of a foot. And it’s not like the count was 3-and-0, when umpires tend to be forgiving. There were two strikes. This call was the difference between a walk and a strikeout in a close World Series game.
So how did this happen? We can go beyond just calling the umpire an idiot because it’s pretty much never that simple. I think we’re looking at three factors, ignoring any influence of Carpenter assuming the walk before it was granted. I’d like to think umpires aren’t quite that spiteful. First, here’s the third pitch of the plate appearance:
That’s another inside cutter, which was Lester either trying to get ahead in the count or get Carpenter jammed. David Ross set up inside, but he had to receive the ball a little more inside, and Miller identified it correctly. Here, Miller called the inside cutter a ball, but he was probably conditioned: If Ross set up inside again, and if Lester were to hit his spot, then Miller might be more likely to call that a strike. This demonstrated command, on Lester’s part. The next two pitches were away, and then Lester came back in.
Another factor is David Ross. Lester likes pitching to Ross, and Ross has been a highly effective pitch-receiver. Or framer. Whatever. Call it what you want to call it. Among the catchers who caught at least 1,000 called pitches this season, Ross was baseball’s sixth-best receiver. He was fifth-best at getting balls called strikes. Here he is, receiving the full-count cutter:
Ross is quiet, firm and comfortable. He catches the ball with his glove moving back toward the zone. Just watch the pitch and you kind of ignore how far inside Ross is set up. He just makes the pitch look a lot better. That is, except to Carpenter, who had a pretty good view himself. Carpenter wasn’t wrong in his assumption, but Ross made everything cloudy for everyone else.
Finally, and probably most importantly, a big part of pitch-receiving is command. Good framers generally can’t save pitchers who miss their targets, even if they still miss in or near the zone. Pitchers who locate make catching a whole lot easier, and Lester nailed his target dead-on. You can see that in the .gif above, or you can see that in the screenshot down below:
You see the target, and the yellow dot represents where the ball was caught. In a full count, it looks like Ross wanted Lester to throw a ball. Lester threw that ball, and he threw it perfectly. In fact, he threw it so perfectly it wasn’t actually a ball to the one guy whose opinion mattered. Lester couldn’t have located that pitch better. Lester was rewarded, on one hand, for throwing a ball. On the other hand, he was rewarded for flawless execution. The strike zone should still be the strike zone, but you can’t say Lester didn’t do what he wanted.
In all, we have an extremely inside called strike to a lefty from a lefty. It’s the most inside such called strike this season, and maybe the most inside called strike of Lester’s big-league career. It was set up, in part, by an earlier inside cutter that just missed a little more in. The pitch was located perfectly by Lester, and it was received well by Ross, and when you put everything together, Bill Miller saw enough to call Carpenter out. Carpenter couldn’t believe it, and he was correct, but the Red Sox had Miller convinced. Forward moved the baseball game.
It’s too bad for the Cardinals. The right call would’ve extended the inning, putting two on for a righty. That righty, however, was Shane Robinson… so, yeah. In rough win-expectancy terms, the call reduced the Cardinals’ odds of winning by about 5%. That’s important, and I don’t know what would’ve happened had Carpenter reached. Then again, I’m not here to complain. Lots of things could’ve gone differently. Everything could’ve gone differently. Things went how they went, and this particular called strikeout gave us something remarkable. Even at the end of October, Jon Lester accomplished a season-first. There’s nothing I can do to change the way you feel about that. I can just try to explain how something happened.
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.
One of the things I noticed was Wainwright’s seeming inability to adjust to what was a wide strike zone. Lester took advantage, obviously. The big thing was the ump was consistent (to my eyes)
I don’t have the data so I can’t say whether he was generally consistent or not, but don’t we have two gifs in this very article – from the say at bat, even – in which the umpire calls the same pitch two different things?
‘consistent’ is code for ‘bad’ when talking about strike zones.
First pitch was a couple inches more inside than the strikeout pitch.
Well how can the umpire see anything with that view? It sure looks like he was blocked by Carpenter’s arms and he was left with watching where the catcher had his glove at.
Well at no point does Carpenter impede the view of the actual strike zone, so if the umpire can’t see the ball because of Carpenter’s arms, he should perform what must be considered a very simple mental task and call it a ball.
Also, Ross visibly tried to slide the first one, but stuck the second, which probably made it look even more like a strike than the first if only for the umpire reading Ross’ confidence in that.
Wainright adjusted….. check out the first 4 innings and Wainright having 3-4 pitches hitting the outside corner and not getting the call. The thing is these pitches were going over the plate…. Lester pitches were not going over the plate but still getting called balls. Ask Matt Carpenter about it— called out twice by the home plate ump on 2 pitches that were way out of the strike zone. How many games this year has Matt Carpenter been caught looking twice in the same game…. it just does not happen.
Oh please, call me when an infield fly is called at the last second in the outfield. Way wah wah, Phillips was right.
You still whining about that?
The issue here is umpire position. Regardless of where the catcher sets up, the umpire still needs to be square, and center to the plate. Deviation left or right is what causes 99% of missed pitch calls. The ump needs to take advantage of his own protective equipment and stay square to be able to actually see the strikezone. At this point its obvious the ump paid no attention to his position relative to the plate. If the catcher wasn’t set up to the inside of the batter that pitch would be down the middle. If the ump was where he needed to be this would be a non issue because he would have gotten the call right.
Bring on instant replay. It can do nothing but make the game better. Because obviously the human element is failing the game terribly.
If you actually look at the data, STL threw only 3 pitches on that side of the plate that missed by less than 3.5 inches and were not swung at, but all were called balls. Boston on the othe hand got 5 total called strikes technically out of the zone to that side. Yadi is no slouch when it comes to pitch framing, he got 23 balls called as strikes in the series with LA, so that wasn’t the problem either.
Koji threw 12/15 of his pitches on the outer part of that side of the plate. The rest of the series he threw 10/26.
Terrible, inconsistent strike zone.
That is some quality, objective analysis there, exactly what I expect from this site (thorough too). The most inside “called strike” from a lefty to a lefty this year…that’s worthy of a highlight. Do you suppose another factor in this getting called a strike is that Lester is a lefty who really likes his cutter, as opposed to the many lefty slider specialists (who sometimes get some crazy calls away to lefty batters)?
Agree on quality of the analysis, though likely need to have a discussion (at least a brief one) on error bars and confidence intervals before we go as far as to say definitively it was the most inside called strike of the year. Its not sufficient to say “ignore the [outliers]” and move on — the existence of outliers means the positional plot of the “most inside called strike” of the year might be itself an outlier, at least in terms of where its position was recorded via the plot.
carpenter probably could have managed to be hit by that pitch if he’d wanted to.
Victorino would have gotten it done…….from the right side of the plate against a righthander that is.
I’m guessing that even Victorino isn’t looking to let a 3-2 pitch that’s half a foot off the plate hit him.
And hey, according to the ump that pitch was a strike, so even if it did hit him he’d still be out, right?
Interesting stuff. Another call that no one has seen for quite awhile. I’m guessing that this was not the biggest missed call (by the home plate ump) as far as win expectancy impact during the game though. Would love to know what the change would have been if Miller was able to see Molina’s missed tag on Ross and call him safe. The HP ump makes the call Miller did (almost) every time, but would still be interesting.
The overhead view showed that Ross was correctly called out.
You have a link? I haven’t seen that view.
From what I can tell inspecting a few of these plays this post season the play at the plate is going to be an absolute nightmare for instant replay next year. It seems like almost every close play there is room for argument even after viewing replays from multiple camera angles. For example, in the play you’re referring to, what part of Ross’s body first touched the plate?
Why is that a nightmare? If there is not indisputable evidence to reverse a call (or whatever the make the standard), then the call stands. So, on a really close play (where it is hard to tell safe from out), it is actually an easy decision. Call always stands.
You don’t watch hockey, do you?
He probably watches football, where that is how it is done. I agree it is the right way.
Except of course that it’s not. It’s how it is supposed to happen, but referees many times have overturned calls that were objectively questionable. What you get is 16 different (more really) interpretations of what indisputable evidence really means, and to my knowledge no real effort to equalize those interpretations through training.
The actual GIF of the pitch doesn’t look nearly as bad as the plots do. In addition to the framing and the comparison to the earlier pitch, this pitch’s movement had a big impact. It was moving strongly towards the zone at the end.
Yeah, I think that’s the last missing piece of the puzzle here. You sometimes hear announcers talk about how a pitch went “around” the plate, which is usually hyperbole–literally moving the ball from entirely outside the zone at the front of the plate to somewhere in line with the zone behind the plate is really, really tough. But this pitch looks to have had that sort of remarkable late movement.
Great point.
I’d be willing to guess if you looked at the lateral movement per inch traveled over the entire 60ft6in from the release point, the largest amount of movement would occur over the last 2-3 feet, especially for harder thrown pitches like a slider or cutter. Given that, if the Pitch f/x data catches the ball at the front edge of the plate, the ball likely underwent its greatest lateral movement over the distance from the front of the plate to the catchers mitt.
So from the Umpires perspective, he sees a catcher set up centered on the outside edge of the plate and a pitch hit its target perfectly — that pattern tends to reinforce a strike call. The hard part is that there is no way Carp could hit that pitch…
What you say is kind of true. Essentially the ball is accelerating to the catcher’s left from the moment Lester releases it, meaning its lateral velocity is highest when closest to the plate, meaning it moves to the catchers left between the plate and the mitt fastest compared to all other points beforehand.
I agree Jeff. There’s nothing worse than someone complaining about their dog fight at work in front of everyone.
What’s worse is Carpenter is a Top 10 MVP candidate who works the count and has an excellent knowledge of the strike zone. It’s like Miller rang up Pete Kozma here.
I wish umpires didn’t make such exaggerated motions and noises when they are calling someone out on strikes. It reeks of self importance and showing the batter up. (I realize this doesn’t have anything to do with the article, which was great.)
It’s how they’re taught. Umpires and officials in all sports do it. It is supposed to show confidence in the calls, especially on close plays.
I find the second image confusing — the red dot is on the opposite side of what you’d expect from the background image. I assume the strikes are as veiwed by the batter, but this is not explicitly stated, and imposing that on a pither’s view background is odd. (Same for the third image.) Otherwise, great article.
Oh, yeah, whoops. That’s just a dumb coincidence — I included the background images just for the sake of artistry, without really thinking about them.
There, I replaced the background image with something hopefully a little less misleading.
I confess to liking the images behind the graphs (makes them a little more visually appealing). But the parent comment is right — this one was really convincing.
I would really like a bg image that is carpenter at the plate against lester, with the strike zone (generated) plot to the same scale as the photograph. That would provide some really neat context for the call.
Gets really complicated translating the angles, though. On TV, you’re looking from a little above.
“which would have brought up Shane Robinson with two down and two on. ”
I rest my case.
3-run hr from Gomes
rbi double from Ross
the red sox have been trying to teach us that even terrible hitters can get big hits in the postseason.
And Robinson himself made the same point in the NLCS, where he knocked around Clayton Kershaw of all people.
I agree with your point, but Jonny Gomes and David Ross are NOT “terrible hitters.” Not even close.
well Ross is at least as bad as Shane Robinson.
Ross is not better than Robinson.
Gomes is barely better, also, irrelevantly, a jerk.
Gomes hit .247/.344/.426 this year.
Ross hit .216/.298/.382 this year
Robinson hit .250/.345/.319 this year.
So, you can say Ross and Robinson are close (Ross has an edge in OPS, but its a SLG based edge), but Robinson isn’t anywhere near close to Gomes.
Gomes is a vastly superior hitter.
Jon Jay ground out resulting in the winning run scoring.
If you’re resting your case after that argument I think your case is lost. First of all, Shane Robinson has a higher OBP vs. LHP than Carlos Beltran each of the last couple years. Would you rest your case if it was up to Beltran to keep the inning going? What’s more, Robinson smacked a ball up the middle off Lester his first AB – it was only dumb luck that the ball deflected right to Pedroia. So it certainly wasn’t implausible that Robinson could have had success against Lester.
What are you talking about
Beltrans ops vs lefties this year was .729 and last year it was .867.
Robinsons ops vs lefties this year was .598 and last year it was .694.
try using facts.
also robinson sucks and matheny is an idiot for hitting him second.
What am I talking about? Precisely what I said I’m taking about. Robinson had a higher OBP vs. LHP than Beltran in both 2012 (.340 to .329) and in 2013 (.319 to .281). Are those the kind of facts you’re talking about? Jesus.
I mean, of course Beltran is a better hitter overall than Robinson. And of course he has more pop. No one’s saying Beltran wouldn’t have been a better option with runners on 1st and 2nd. I was just responding to the idea that Robinson would’ve been an automatic out against Lester – and when it comes to making outs, Beltran actually makes outs against LHP even more frequently than Robinson.
So what about that are you having trouble following?
I nearly shit when this pitch was called a strike during the game.
And if you look at the entire game zones at Brooks Baseball, that pitch is basically the worst, by far, call of the night, for both teams. Other than that one, he was pretty consistent, especially when accounting for the typically expanded outside zone for lefties.
That’s what makes me think that maybe umpires are spiteful when it comes to prematurely running to first base, assuming you’ve been walked. Lester threw plenty of cutters inside like this to lefties, with equally good command, and the umpire didn’t feel the need to call those strikes.
Yeah, that was my thought.
And frankly, if the umps are going to be inconsistent, I’d rather have them calling out guys who run to 1st base before the call, than just being random.
I’ve said for years now, umps need to be consistent and need to be held more accountable. There are also alot of umps out there that make calls very delayed. And they seem to alot of time get the reaction from both pitcher and batter before making the call. I think its just what you called. He had no clue so he made a snap decision based on spite. I’m a huge Cards fan and have been for years. I’m not saying this was the only bad call. Or that it would have decided the outcome. Boston Deserved this win. They played their hearts out. The Cards just didn’t. They were a little to relaxed. We won all year long playing small ball….but once we made the big stage, they were swinging for the fences! Everone wanted to be the “Hero”. Boston is a hell of a team. STL had several scoring opportunities that they failed on. I really don’t know what would have happened nor do I care at this point. But a very interesting article. Hoping replay puts some Umps in their place next year!
This pitch was a ball for sure, but give some credit to Ross. He is an excellent pitch framer and has been over his career. He sets up at great angles so his glove is moving back into the zone in a very natural manner while he is receiving a ball. He also keeps the rest of his body still. Kudos, Mr. Ross.
No clue what he did on that pitch that 25 other catchers wouldn’t have done. Would another catcher have lunged for the ball? Or moved around all jerky-jerky? I would say the strike call, if it had to do with player skill at all, was more b/c of the action on Lester’s pitch.
Some catchers are jerky when framing pitches, with their gloves darting noticeably towards the zone after the catch. Compared to many of those moves I have seen, Ross caught the ball very well.
And the data Jeff gathered backs up the idea Ross is an above-average receiver.
He IS an above-average pitch framer, and he did a fine job staying still. I’m just not prepared to say “Kudos, Mr. Ross,” as if he did anything that dozens of other catchers wouldn’t have done in that exact same situation.
I am not as baseball savvy as most the commenters here at FG but if you look at the graph of LHP vs LHB called strikes for the season isn’t it fair to say the “strike zone” is complete horseshit? Just saying that it changes from matchup to matchup and umpire to umpire. Even catcher to catcher. It’s just weird to me that things like PITCH f/x exist and are allowed to install their cameras in MLB stadiums and broadcasts even show us a computer strike zone on the TV screen and yet human eyes are still making calls in the MLB. I don’t know, it’s just weird.
Anyway, I loved reading the article and comments. I learn so much about baseball here at FG I could browse all day.
Exactly!
Mariners (real mariners, not the ones from Seattle) no longer navigate by the stars because someone invented GPS!!! Why do we still have umpires???
I’m pretty sure the Seattle Mariners are still trying to navigate with the stars though.
Who would managers argue with?…..I’m envisioning Earl Weaver kicking dirt on the strike-o-matic 3000 machine
I think it would be worth any difficulties/adjustments/etc just to see that.
See the John Walsh articles (from 2007!) linked at the beginning of this article
What does America’s Most Wanted have to do with any of this?
Very good article. Ross’s pitch-framing almost had me fooled watching at home. At first glance, it looked like the pitch was one of those pitches that is a ball when it crosses the front of the plate but then curves around the plate such that it is directly behind the corner of the plate by the time it hits the catcher’s glove. I was shocked to see that the ball never even came close to the strike zone after watching the replay. Ross’s subtle glove movement really tricks the eye.
If you know about the movement on Lester’s cutter, which surely the umpires do or should, then it should not be shocking that a pitch ends up 3 or 4 inches more to the the left than you think (from the pitcher’s perspective).
Miller has one of the largest strikezones in baseball, so if anyone is going to make a call like that, it is not surprising that it would be him.
I was shocked at this call when it was made. I’m ready for an automated strike zone, probably with some sort of direct human oversight. It’s time for an actually consistent strikezone.
What’s the technology like? Could the system they have in tennis work?
Can you imagine the shit storm that would cause? Every pitcher in the game has learned to pitch to the “Ump’s” strike zone, now they’d have to keep it in the box, ouch.
Is it possible to write a program that rewards consistently close but outside of the zone pitches to allow the “Maddux” strike zone? Or software that has random bias?
Presumably, you could do either one of those things rather easily, although the “random bias” option isn’t very appealing to me. If the game plays better with a strike zone that’s a little bigger than the current rulebook says, then they could and should just tweak the rulebook strikezone and the computer program so that the strike zone is whatever they want it to be. No reason to pretend the strike zone is smaller than it really is.
You could have the system send the calls directly to the home plate ump and he could relay them to the world via traditional strike/ball calls (albeit slightly delayed). Or he could be responsible the vertical part of the zone, and the system could take the horizontal. We could work the human element into this.
I like the idea of giving the ump help horizontally but not vertically. There is NO judgment on horizontal, only definition questions like how much edge is enough. There’s a fair amount of judgment/batter to batter variation around where the knees are and how much crouch.
Can’t run numbers but I think there are a lot more inconsistent calls on the sides. Though when I had to ump a game I wondered how on earth umps can call the bottom of the zone. I was hopeless.
if the automated ump system calls pitches outside of the defined strike zone as strikes, then what is the point of having a defined strike zone? why not just draw pitch outcomes out of a hat?
there is a defined strike zone in the rules for a reason. if we’re going to accept ‘consistently close’ we are simply expanding the strike zone. if that’s the case, why not do it officially?
Can we honor Wally Bell’s many years of service with WALL-E Bell, strike zone robot?
I find that a large conributing factor to missed calls like this, is the umpires positioning behind the catcher. I don’t have knowledgte of where umps are trained to position themselves relative to the catcher, but in this instance you can clearly see the ump’s face is directly in line with the catchers glove, and in fact, even slighty more towards the batters box. THe ump is not even looking at the strike zone, since the catcher is not presenting a target in the strike zone. Ball hits glove, gets strike 3 called.
Why is the ump posititioned so that his eyes are not even viewing the strike zone when the ball comes in?
I am an official umpire here in Europe.
The mechanics at home plate are to set up inside. And no, you don’t move over with the catcher. You have your spot and there you stay. So Carpenter is a LHH so the ump sits inside. Nothing special there.
The home plate ump was right where he was supposed be, in what’s known as the “slot”. Essentially, he is supposed to center his head in the space between the batters toes and the center of the plate, with his front toe no further forward than the catchers heels, and his chin just above the catchers mask.
The positioning typical tends toworad two biases; 1) Being off-center on the inside half of the plate typically leads to seeing dirt (vs. plate) under pitches on the outside edge, leading to strikes being called balls, specially if the catcher isn’t set up outside to give the ump a better view of that edge. 2) Batter-side breaking pitches (i.e. RHP to RHB curveball) tend to be blocked by the batters body/limbs until the ball breaks back toward the zone, meaning the ump has to make the call more based on where the ball is caught vs. where it crosses the plate.
I think Lester got the benefit of this bias with this cutter, and it seem like he took advantage of it several times in that game.
Here is my take; the ump moved over with the catcher. I know that is probably a common practice and a safety thing. The pitch is thrown dead center where the catcher set up so it looks like a strike if you are using the catcher as the frame of reference and not the plate. Shouldn’t the ump stay center plate? If not, he needs to recognize that his line of site has changed and adjust his calls accordingly.
Just have to say: This is a terrific article. Great balance in analyzing the combination of facts, intent, context and – ultimately: Umpire perception.
Is anyone else haunted by a recurring dream where you’re alone with Jon Lester and he’s demanding his mother’s milk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxwMTAy1gP0
Ross has the Braves’ catching technique down pat: set up withe the center of your glove well off the plate edge. If the ball leaks back to the plate, it”s still a strike.
In the late 90’s, during an inter league game between the Red Sox and Braves in ATL, Jimy Williams, Sox manager and former Braves’ coach, called time after one pitch and challenged the width of the catcher’s box. Sure enough it was much wider than regulation, allowing B’s catchers to center off the plate, but still “conform” to the box. Ross, former Braves catcher, makes no bones about extending one foot well outside the line, and is not called for it
Wow, I had no idea the call was quite that bad.
Rob Neyer mentioned the pitch briefly in his article on game 5 (http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/10/29/5041386/world-series-game5-jon-lester-adam-wainwright-cardinals-manager-mike-matheny#comments). I wrote the below comment in that article and am wondering whether Jeff would have felt the need to include a paragraph to start his article stating that he was complaining if the bad call had been on the field and not in the strike zone.
Here’s the comment:
“Rob,
I’m always fascinated that fans accept a bad call on a pitch so much better than a bad call in the field. I’m not sure whether that means we should tolerate bad calls in the field more often because we don’t know what would happen after or if we should be more comfortable criticizing balls and strikes the way we do bad calls in the field.
As you say, it’s impossible to know what would have happened if Carpenter had walked. Perhaps the Cardinals score 4 in the 3rd. Or maybe Robinson stirkes out, then Holliday doesn’t hit a homerun the next inning, and the Cardinals get shut out the rest of the way. Or the Red Sox win 12-11 in 13 innings. We have no idea what would have happened. The only certain benefit the Cardinals would have received is a chance with a runner in a scoring position, the ability to move through the order at least one batter (getting to closer to a 3rd or 4th time through the order), and forcing Lester to throw more high leverage pitches. I get why you say that the game isn’t/wasn’t about the umpires.
However, imagine that instead of a called strike 3, the following had happened: Carpenter swung and hit a ground ball deep in the whole to Drew’s right. Drew gets up, throws to first and misses getting Carpenter by half a step. But the first base ump misses the call and the inning ends.
How many articles would be written about how the blown call cost the Cardinals an opportunity with a man on first and third, two outs, and Robinson at the plate? The post game discussion would be very different and the game might very well be about the umpire despite what you having said being just as true : “And maybe everything is different. But probably not, considering the next batter was Shane Robinson.”
I’m not saying Cards fans should be complaining. I’m one myself, and I don’t think that call cost the Cardinals the game. Lester’s great pitching and Matheny’s decision making in the seventh were much more important. But, I do think the call cost the Cardinals the game to the same degree that my hypothetical bad call would have.
What I’m really getting at and wondering is whether it’s a problem that the baseball world would react in a different manner if the bad call was on the field when the impact is basically identical. And related to this, I’m wondering whether fans and reporters will be writing more/complaining more about bad ball strike calls after replay is instituted (assuming replay cleans up the most egregious bad calls in the field).
I’m also curious to know whether you, Rob, would change your opinion as to whether the game was about the umpires if my scenario happened. I don’t have a good answer.”
Excellent article – love when FG drills down deep into one pitch, one AB. Of course Miller blew the call, but I’m also wondering if there are just glitches that are hardwired into the brain’s sense of visual perception and pattern recognition that preclude the ideal of 100% accuracy. Like maybe a bird or an insect can track objects flying 50+mph with pinpoint precision, but humans simply can’t. In other words, this strikes me as not so much an umpire failing but a human failing. Either way it leads us to the same conclusion: let computers do the job umpires cannot.
To disagree with jpheterson, this call did matter a great deal for the Cardinals. For one thing, there was a sequel with Carpenter at the plate in the 9th, except the second time the call by plate ump Miller was a ball outside by Uehara labelled a strike. FoxTrax showed as much. And Carpenter struck out in that at bat too. Except in the second instance he didn’t protest.
The thing is, when Carpenter gets on base, the Cardinals score runs. That is how their offense works, and that is how it worked all year. Homeplate ump Miller, on the national stage of sorts offered by his big-time gig in the Series, may have felt some primal monkey instinct after being challenged by Carpenter in the 3rd to make the second bad call in the 9th. Carpenter losing one bat in the 3rd, well, okay. Carpenter losing two at bats, one in the 9th, to patently bad calls…
This has to change. Give the umps something like Google Glass with a strike zone that can be customized to each ump and leave the final say of ball/strike to the ump. At least that way, whoever is behind the plate will at least have access to the same data that fans watching TBS or, occasionally even FOX, do, and not have to live with the fear of being made a fool of on national TV or inappropriately swaying the outcome of a game while overcompensating to deal with that fear. Repeat instances of this sort of umping, the guys in blue having less a sense of a strike zone than the hitter at the plate, is just embarrassing to see and deflates a fan’s interest in the competition when the fan can double-check the accuracy of a call better than the ump. If unaddressed, this is the sort of thing that will prove fatal the integrity of the game.
Not sure why you think this would prove fatal to the integrity of the game. Clearly, you can debate for the installation of automated strike zones, but it’s a lot harder to prove it will be fatal otherwise.
that’s one of the problems. umpires blowing calls on balls and strikes– even as badly as Miller did– are never made out to be fools. we make excuses for them, even if it’s the single worst call in half a decade. if the player/ manager complains, we say he’s being a bad sport and delaying the game, even if he is correct. push the issue, and that player/ manager is ejected.
this article is the only blowback i’ve seen from that horribly missed call. has an umpire ever been warned, fined, or benched for blowing a ball/ strike call? i honestly do not know.
in the field? different story. they’ll remember your gaffe for years, just ask Denkinger or Joyce.
but when an ump pitifully misses a called third strike, even if it is a foot off the center of the plate, what bs, umpire-forgiving, line do we trot out?
‘gotta protect the plate with two strikes!’
If you read my comment to indicate that I don’t think the call mattered, I probably did a bad job explaining it. What I said was that I don’t think it cost the Cardinals the game. What I should have said was that I think it cost them another opportunity to win the game. Those aren’t the same things.
I think the call absolutely mattered. It mattered basically the same amount that a blown call at first base would have mattered.
If that had occurred, there would have been outrage. In this case, we’re getting near silence. That distinction bothers me and that was my basic point: why do we care so little about a mistake on a ball/strike call that’s just as impactful as a play on the basepaths? I’m guilty of it in my comment – it’s why its written in such a way that someone can read it as though I don’t think the call mattered.
I see what you’re saying, jpheterson. And, yes, I suppose it’s a question of how keen is the complaint: to me this is a major issue when the ump goes from being a presiding authority in the eyes of the fan to a sort of clown in a dunking booth. And come playoff time, everything goes to a higher register, the umps’ desire not to look weak in the face of this kind of likelihood and the inevitability that they will. What fans want is the Cardinals vs. the Red Sox and not the Cardinals vs. the Red Sox vs. the Umps to see whose egos come out on top.
The best parallel in sports is to tennis. That sport has embraced full automation. I would not go as far as that but instead suggest giving umps instant access to the same info fans have. Most home-plate umps already delay a second before making their calls anyway.
That was a close call, but far from the worst call of the night:
http://brooksbaseball.baseballprospectus.com/pfxVB/pfx.php?month=10&day=28&year=2013&game=gid_2013_10_28_bosmlb_slnmlb_1%2F&pitchSel=425794&prevGame=gid_2013_10_28_bosmlb_slnmlb_1%2F&prevDate=1028&league=mlb
Lester’s pitch was 1.3 feet inside. Wainwright had a pitch that was almost 3 feet outside called a strike…
oops…never mind. Both pitchout and called strike use the bright red box…
The strike zone has been weird the entire series. They haven’t called anything above the belt a strike, from what I’ve seen. Mostly the zone has been fair for both teams, but this call was horrible and really affected the Cards’ chances of scoring some runs and winning the game. Carpenter seems to be bearing the brunt of close calls against him. On the other hand, Ortiz (who as a bigger man, should have a larger strike zone) has had pitches on the corner called balls. And Ortiz doesn’t need any help from the umpires, he’s really in the zone. It’s amazing.
Kind of funny the Sox get a call this bad when the Cards are the ones with a Molina, I feel like the Sox owe the Rays about 1000 of these.
Easy solution. Give the home plate umpire Google Glass mounted in his mask with the strikezone box displayed. All he has to do is read the box for the pitch location. Problem solved.
Genius? With new and improved robo-ump, catchers can’t trick him, but he’s still the arbiter of how the strike zone is shaped or whether consistency matters, etc. Seems like a happy medium between precision and the human element baseball is afraid to lose.
Breaking News: Umpire Distracted by Cat Videos
Hah! hilarious
Carpenter is a really unlikable player
Why do you say that? He’s quite possibly my favorite Cardinal. I’m assuming you’re just trying to be an ass, since you gave no reasoning, but I’m curious if you have any actual thought or analysis behind that.
This is garden variety trolling I think.
lol
What could one possibly dislike about Matt Carpenter? Even in the face of literally the most wrong called inside strike to a LHB from a LHP all year, he still only offered the most token resistance… so surely it’s not that you think his complaining was too much. He doesn’t really display a personality on the field like some players, so surely you can’t hate him for something like that. He’s a good player that plays intelligently and gets more out of his innate ability than most- what is there to dislike? I really would like to know.
lol
As Jeff mentioned, earlier in that inning the Cardinals had Kozma sacrifice a runner to second with the pitcher on deck.
What was the motivation? Is Kozma that bad, or Wainwright that surprisingly good, at hitting?
I think it was a bunt for a hit, probably out of frustration by Kozma (who’s had a terrible playoffs) and maybe to test Ortiz at 1st. Kozma really is very, very bad though.
Kozma has done that a handful of times this season. I think he actually did manage a single once, but the other times it’s just wound up a sacrifice. Apparently baseball smarts is one of the many, many areas where his game could use improvement.
Kozma is that bad. He’s is literally the worst full-time hitter in baseball – dead last in wOBA for 400+ PAs. But, Wainwright isn’t any better, so likely an attempted bunt for a hit.
Hey! He was 2nd to last in wRC+! Alcides Escobar was 1 point lower. He’s not as bad as you thought now, is he?
As a 22 year umpire, going up the the ranks of HS, small college, and semi-pro, I never, EVER understand why anyone talks about a catcher “framing” a pitch. Yes, I understand why it “matters” to those watching at home, but as an umpire, I paid no mind to where the catcher caught the ball. Where the catcher set up only mattered to me in the regard that I would set up inside the catcher’s head (toward the batter). I then only watched the ball as to where it was in relation to home plate when it passed the plate. Didn’t matter if the catcher caught it, moved his glove, did the hokey-pokey, whatever. I’m not saying I didn’t miss any pitches- I’m sure I did. If a catcher “jerked” an obstructed my vision, 99 of 100 times I’d call that pitch a ball because, frankly, I couldn’t definitively judge that it was a strike. (The 100th time was a pitch down broadway, which didn’t happen very often, since the catcher would rarely move enough to obstruct my view on those pitches). Now I know that other umps didn’t do things the same way- heck, I’ve read articles in umpire’s publications where MLB guys would say “call a fastball that just missed a strike, but not a big breaking ball that just catches the corner”- but I really don’t see how “framing” affects a major league umpire positioned behind the catcher. I’d be curious to see quotes from current umpires about this odd (to me) phenomenon.
I think the idea is that it subconsciously affects the way umpires see a pitch, rather than that an umpire will see a well framed pitch and go “man, that was really well done, I think I’ll reward him with a strike”. You can try to not pay attention to it all you want, but it’s impossible for you to NOT see where/how the catcher catches the ball, and even if you’re trying not to let it, it is entirely possible that it will affect your view of a pitch in the immediate aftermath.
“I’m sure I did. If a catcher “jerked” an obstructed my vision, 99 of 100 times I’d call that pitch a ball because, frankly, I couldn’t definitively judge that it was a strike.”
So, catcher framing doesn’t exist, except when the catcher doesn’t do it well?
Don’t know what you’re saying here. A catcher moving abruptly and getting between my eyes and the pitch is not ‘framing’. This usually occurred with a baserunner moving on the pitch and the catcher standing up too soon to try to throw the runner out. So no.
Since the umpires are “graded” on their work, do these bad calls result in some type of penalty for them? Another question, why does the ump still peer over a catchers shoulder when the catcher is clearly very much inside? If the umps sight line was on the edge of the plate this call would be obvious.
They’re hiding behind the guy who has to be in the way of any foul tips or wild pitches.
One of the things that’s interesting about this is that much was made of the fact that Beltran batted 4th instead of his normal 2nd. That’s Matheny’s mistake, of course, but if this awful call was correctly called a ball, maybe Robinso makes the final out of the inning and Beltran, who was left on deck when the game ended, maybe hits in the 9th.
Probably not, of course. Something else would’ve changed also but it’s sort of fun to think about the possibility of a correct call here letting Matheny off the hook for his blunder.
Wow, great analysis! I had no idea that pitch was such an outlier.