One Last Thing About Umpire Videos
It’s pretty rare that we’ll write about something two years after it happens. Baseball is a fickle mistress. Two years after Bryan LaHair was an All-Star, he was playing abroad. A year after Mets went to the World Series, they lost in the Wild Card game, and a year after that, they won 70 games. A lot can change in two years, is the point.
Nevertheless, I’m going to take you down memory lane. To May of 2016, to be precise. The setting is a game between the Mets and Dodgers. Chase Utley is the batter; Noah Syndergaard is the pitcher. And for added emphasis, there’s history here – Chase Utley, you will remember, famously broke Ruben Tejada’s leg during the 2015 National League Division Series.
The next time the Mets faced Utley, all hell broke loose.
Noah Syndergaard buzzed Utley with a 99 mph fastball and was promptly ejected. The entire Mets infield argued vigorously, but the most emphatic argument came from Terry Collins, who is not nearly as geriatric or mild-mannered as one might suppose from his visage. And, for reasons known only to the baseball gods, the recording of this argument somehow only just came out last week.
Now, the game itself played out in a fairly Mets-like manner: after watching Syndergaard’s fastball sail behind him, Chase Utley went on to hit not one, but two, homers and lead the Dodgers to a 9-1 drubbing. But you don’t care about that, really. No, what you care about is the part of the video where umpire Tom Hallion calms down an angry Mets infield, and then turns to deal with a literally hopping mad Terry Collins. The resulting profanity-laced discussion between Hallion and Collins is — and I say this with absolute certainty — the best thing to come out of the 2016 baseball season.
Unbelievably, the most interesting part of the story might not actually be the video itself, but what happened after it went viral. Within hours, MLB began pulling it off the internet with copyright claims. The Associated Press, via ESPN, explains why:
“We made a commitment to the umpires that if they would wear microphones, certain types of interactions that we all know go on the field would not be aired publicly,” [MLB Commissioner Rob] Manfred said Thursday after the owners meetings ended. “We promised them that. It’s in the collective bargaining agreement. We had no choice in a situation like that than to do everything possible to live up to our agreement. It is Labor Relations 101. To not do that is the kind of breach of trust that puts you in a bad spot over the long haul,” he said.
Manfred is referring to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between MLB and umpires, which is not the same as the CBA between MLB and players. The umpires are part of a union called the World Umpires Association, which represents them in labor negotiations with MLB. Jason Foster of MSN passes along just what those regulations about umpire audio say:
“Those guidelines state that all audio from umpire microphones that are not aired during the telecast are to be deleted immediately after the game,” MLB said in statement to SN on Thursday, adding that a review is underway to determine how the Collins audio was leaked.
And relations between MLB and the WUA generally aren’t too cozy. Litigation, for instance, is far more common in this relationship than it is between MLB and players, and last year WUA members formally protested verbal attacks on umpires by players and coaches by wearing white wristbands. So it makes some sense, then, that Manfred and MLB would want to avoid an unnecessary kerfuffle in the widespread distribution of this video.
Which leads to another question, however: if umpire audio really is supposed to be deleted immediately after a game, then why was this particular item available to be leaked in the first place? In light of the arrangement between the umpires and the league, it should probably have never have existed — and certainly not more than two full years later. If the WUA wanted to take an action for breach of the CBA, then the legal basis for doing so — that is, the breach of the CBA itself — was complete as soon as that game ended and the video wasn’t deleted. That it achieved widespread distribution merely goes to damages, and MLB’s attempts to stop its spread go to mitigation rather than anything else.
And yet, on the other hand, it’s not at all clear that this is something the WUA should want quashed. After all, Hallion — profanity aside — did a fairly good job of keeping the lid on a potentially explosive situation, and was, at least in my opinion, professional in doing it. The video shows Hallion representing the WUA well. At the same time, it also shows the sort of verbal attacks which the WUA was protesting last year, and really makes you understand more just how hard an umpire’s job really can be.
And then, of course, there’s one final matter — namely, whether other examples of such audio exist. It’s possible that the Collins-Haillon encounter is an isolated incident. It almost might not be, though. It wouldn’t be surprising if this were a question the WUA is attempting to answer. After all, the next video may not be so benign, for anyone involved.
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
His butt was in the jackpot
Is that an expression? I understand from context what he means, but I’ve never heard that before.
The term “jackpot” was used several times in No Country For Old Men.
“You’re in the jackpot, and I’m trying to get you out of it.” I’ve never seen the movie or read the book, though.
We mic up players and coaches. We force them to be accountable to the media. Not sure why umpires get a pass. Nice article Sheryl.
…because they negotiated for and won the privilege to not be heard.
So as to keep their asses out of the jackpot.
It does make me wonder what kind of leverage they had with the MLB that they could win such a concession in their CBA.
I think it is in MLB’s interest to keep the umps as faceless and mysterious as possible.
Yeah I honestly don’t imagine it was a huge sticking point for MLB. There’s probably a lot of stuff that people say on the field they probably don’t really want to be public.
Here too robo umps would help.
“Hilarious”
– Joe West
Seeing as they can be easily replaced by either technology or by minor league umps who are dying to get to the big leagues MLB should break the union and provide for more accountability.
I believe the Pinkertons may have an opening for you
if there’s a site where we can hear players making candid, in-the-moment comments on the field, I’m unaware of it.
It may just be me, but I feel like the World Umpire’s Association is a confused group. They protest verbal abuse while continually run horrific umpires out there, drawing abuse.
Rather than strain the MLB-WUA relationship, they should try to be peaceful and content – it’ll be extremely easy to replace them with robots once the technology is ready.
I (and anyone else with a television) can do the vast majority of an umpire’s job with 99% accuracy from my couch. The technology exists now.
I’m not going to go around arguing that umpires don’t screw up big sometimes, but in the average game the worst an umpire does is miss a few strike/ball calls. I think we should cool it with the “it’s easy to be an umpire” talk and also the “it’s going to be easy to replace umpires” talk. They do a tough job and most of them do it well.
I have never argued “it’s easy to be an umpire”. Quite the contrary, I have long argued because of the inherent difficulty of the tasks is should have be relegated to an automated process that could complete it with a much higher level of accuracy and consistency.
“a much higher level of”… boring, faceless and unaccountable HAL’s. Not my idea of what any sport is intended to be.
The problem is that there are several terrible ones (West, Hernandez, Bucknor).
cocksuckers
not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Seinfield reference…nice!
And frankly, sports fans, he used a word that’s a no-no with umpires.
The video, which is of course great, makes the umps look really, really good — professional, trying to defuse the situation at every opportunity. So it is a little strange that MLB attacked it so aggressively with the takedowns. But this is a genie-back-in-the-bottle situation and with any luck they’ll learn that you just can’t allow recordings of this stuff to be kept if you don’t want it out there. I assume the TV production staff are being investigated, internally and very quietly in a way we’ll never hear about, but that’s the part of this story I’d really like to know more about. Is someone losing their job over this? Are TV production workflows being reviewed and changed to prevent other recordings from being made? If not, expect it to happen again.
Yes, very professional.
This one made the guy look good. I’m quite sure there are cases where the ump was putting on a show, and if one of THEM leaks out then things would look … less good.
I’m sure of that too, and really we’re both just repeating the article here, but it’s weird to see them making a fuss about this, which is pretty much just nice clean fun and a nifty look behind the scenes.
There’s a principle involved. Principled people — and organizations — want the rules to be followed whether doing so is in their best interests in any specific case.
I commented on the wrong thing and I don’t know how to delete my comment so now I’m editing it to say nothing at all.
Better than most of the replies I get!
I didn’t realize there was so much umpire hate.
They get balls and strikes right 85% of the time:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.beyondtheboxscore.com/platform/amp/2014/1/27/5341676/how-well-do-umpires-call-balls-and-strikes
Imagine if somebody busted your balls at your job the 15% of the time you weren’t perfect. Oh and I doubt anything is flying at you 90 mph at your office.
15% failure rate in most professions gets you fired. In war it gets you killed
Truth. If they were 85% accurate on safe/out calls at 1st base people would be up in arms. Laser strike zones are overdue. Leave the umps behind the plate to communicate with the batter where exactly the ball missed. Plus — and this is important to remind people of the average human thought process — you would actually see people like Machado and Justin Upton arguing with the umpires about “BS” calls even when the umpires have no say in the matter, which would be hilarious and entertaining to fans.
As a batter failing 60% of the time can get you millions of dollars.
If my job was at risk of being automated by a machine that can be 100% accurate, and I am wrong 15% of the time, I’d be polishing my resume.
I don’t think a machine that calls balls and strikes perfectly exists right now.
I don’t think an umpire that calls balls and strikes better than a machine exists right now.
I’m quite sure there is one that can do better than 85% though.
Those of you who think robot umps would get it right 100% of the time are living some fantasy. How often do you hear, “our computers are down.”?
I don’t have to imagine. I’m a network engineer. Any time we are wrong we spend a week minimum being raked over the coals in incident review board meetings. I’ve had friends and colleagues fired over a single typo in 200+ lines of config text.
Wow that’s bad. If an engineer decided to blow past a reliable presubmit check, sure, then they screwed up. If the check was unreliable or non-existent, then somebody bigger screwed up.
“Human error” is almost never a good attribution in technical systems. That’s just a way of not fixing your process that let the human error go through. Mistakes happen, and firing people just gets you new mistake makers.
end rant
Additionally, I find that 85% number less than impressive as it includes all the easy calls. I believe another study found that when you eliminate these easy calls, (balls in the dirt, center cut strikes, ect.) and look only at calls made along the edges of the strike zone, their accuracy drops below 60%.
As you take the infinitesimal limit to the strike zone boundary, do you get 50%?
That would be close to ideal. Sadly I don’t have those numbers.
If umpires called everything a ball, they’d be correct 68% of the time.
In light of that, that 85% number doesn’t look that good, does it?
It’s a tough job. Mike Trout doesn’t bat .850
Mike Trout doesn’t call balls and strikes. His job is much more difficult.
[ Insert Tyler Chatwood joke here ]
It’s amazing how many people here at Fangraphs don’t make mistakes.
How are the foibles, professional or personal, of the fangraphs community any sort of a justification for the umpire’s performance?
I make mistakes, but 1) I don’t get paid $500,000/year, 2) I don’t have a hissy fit when someone gets upset at me for making mistakes, 3) I’m willing to admit I’m wrong when shown evidence that I made mistakes, and 4) I do everything I can to automate any process where I can make a mistake to prevent them in the future.
You haven’t heard of Six Sigma, have you?
Nor have I… care to expound?
That post finds that umpires and PitchF/X disagreed 15% of the time. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that PitchF/X is 100% accurate about the top and bottom edges of the strike zone. I repeat this a lot when the subject of strike-zone automation comes up but it’s still true — the top and bottom of the rulebook strike zone vary not just per batter, but depending on the batter’s specific stance as the pitch crosses the plate on a per-pitch basis, and so far as I know the current technology takes no account of that at all.
Yes, but we also know umps don’t move the zone even per batter.
See baseball prospectus, spinning yarns on the strike zone (sorry, phone won’t let me link). Basically, the zone varies by less than an inch between players.
I’d appreciate a link if you can find one. I googled the article you seemed to be talking about ( https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/12965/spinning-yarn-the-real-strike-zone/ ) and clicked on all the links and I can’t find anything that even remotely seems to bear out your claim. On the contrary, the majority of the cited research (e.g. https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/strike-zone-fact-vs-fiction/ ) uses a “standardized” single zone without even attempting to adjust for batter variation.
Agreed, a unmoving strike zone probably makes the most sense and probably fits the data best without overfitting. Here’s the article. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/14098/spinning-yarn-the-real-strike-zone-part-2/ Here’s the quote, “Most batters’ strike zone boundaries are within an inch of 41 inches (3.42 feet) high at the top and within an inch of 21 inches (1.75 feet) high at the bottom.”
The umpire came out looking really good in this video. It is too bad for baseball it is no longer public. It seemed like this ump acted the way an Umpire should act.
I just downloaded it from YouTube. 22.2 MB two minutes long.
YouTube search: LAD/NYM: 1B umpire Tom Hallion mic’d up as Thor & manager TC ejected
I never thought I’d be saying this, but I really am not enjoying how fine many people here seem to feel saying that umpires aren’t perfect and therefore should lose their jobs to machines.
I don’t think it’s a malicious “you’re bad so you don’t deserve to have a job” feeling so much as it is a “hey we really really need this to be done right so if you can’t do that then sorry but you gotta go”
I’d like for Umps to get some assistive technology so their accuracy rates go up dramatically. I don’t think “Lose their job” is really on the table despite some here saying they want to see it.
That much is doable today with a heads up display, say a monocle.
Give them a strike zone overlay like the broadcasts use.
Still a judgment call but they could be more consistent which would go a long way to reduce ball-strike arguments. Especially by pitchers.
I was thinking more like a tone played in an earpiece that indicates a strike – and everything else is a ball. Super simple, invisible, and already used for 100 mph balls in tennis (in 2d, 3d is harder, of course).
What most of those interested in a robo ump fail to realize is the strike zone is not on a simple plain. Home plate lies flat on the ground so the strike zone has depth along with width and height. I recognize the difficulty of getting the calls right, but am not confident that on balance robo umps will improve the game.
Any pitch that touches any part of the 3d zone should be a strike. Cameras could absolutely do that. If the official strike zone then needs to be changed slightly because of unintended consequences (too many strikes on pitches at the very edge?), so be it.
If a robot did my job significantly better than me I’d be fine with losing it.
You are either lying or are in fact a robot.
Or maybe he has a job like mine. There’s really no reason for my job to exist, and if my Dad could find a robot to do it, I’d gladly retire.
Nope. How could anyone feel worthy of being paid for something that a machine could do better? You wouldn’t be making a difference.
I will also shed no tears when automated vehicles render taxi cab drivers obsolete.
How about long distance truckers? That will happen first. Mostly because there is a shortage.
The shortage is largely due to the fact that Trucker pay has not kept up with inflation since the 1980’s due to the deregulation of the trucking industry.
In 1980, the average trucker earned $111,000 per year when adjusted for inflation. Today, they make just $44,000.
The deregulation bumped the economy quite a bit, but the trucking profession has never recovered.
“In 1980, the average trucker earned $111,000 per year when adjusted for inflation.”
Yet they whined like crazy, blamed Carter for it, and cheered when Reagan came around to save them.
It is also a tough job.
Long runs and seasonally dangerous.
And it’s one that automation can improve, especially on late night runs on the interstates. Particularly in bad weather.
Tests are underway by several companies.
I expect they’ll go with a drone approach where remotely located drivers will monitor a bunch of convoys, ready to take over in case of emergency.
#truckgraphs
Thank God. I won’t miss truckers going 90 down a hill and 50 up it, or passing another truck by going .05 MPH faster on a two lane highway.
First, nobody on this thread is saying that, despite your multiple comments suggesting it.
Second, why would they be fired? Can an automated strike zone determine out or safe, or a balk, or even analyze a lineup card?
The goal of calling balls and strikes is to be as perfect as you can. If a machine does it better, please use it. Umpires won’t lose their jobs – they do too much. But this whole ‘you aren’t perfect so we need to fire you for a machine’ idea you keep ‘seeing’ doesn’t exist on this thread and, frankly, even in real life, if a machine can do it better, probably should let it do it.
You’re right that I overgeneralized. But I don’t agree that there is no sentiment in this thread at all that umpires should just be replaced. That idea really bothers me, so I overreacted as if that’s what most people were saying.
I would rather have 85% accuracy than 100% accuracy if it means putting a robot behind the plate. Umpires play a part in making the game entertaining.
Let’s get rid of the foul lines and get more umps in the outfield – that’ll REALLY be entertaining.
They don’t need to lose their jobs, just some of their responsibilities.
I misread the headline as “One Last Thing About Vampire Videos” and clicked on it thinking, “What could that possibly mean?!” When the page loaded, I realized my mistake, but for a second I thought you had somehow written about vampires on Fangraphs, which would be a pretty impressive connection to make.
Vlad “The Impaler” Guerrero Jr. (Bring back Notgraphs)
This happens all the time to people thinking this is FangGraphs.
I’m going a bit off topic here but whatever:
Can the MLB get rid of lines drawn on walls determining home runs.
Billions are put into these parks and they can’t build ones where a wall determines a home run ?
Nice. That’s a pet peeve of mine.
Thank you once again, as always, Sheryl.
Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn’t portray umpires in a good light? It seems like he was, at worst, making the claim that his decision was based on the consequences that he would receive and not based on what he actually thought was the right call. At worst, he was just saying that to calm the Mets down, but the end result was to blame the leagues instead of defend his decision.
I think he was blaming the league for the lack of consequences for Utley and the Dodgers. I think that is fair. If the league wanted to end this behavior the consequences for intentionally injuring or trying to injure an opponent would be immediate and severe. Implementing this would be difficult because the suspension process takes weeks. For example, think of the Anthony Rizzo discussion on this site several weeks ago, the league said that the umpires had the call wrong but there were no consequences for Rizzo.
The day that robo umps are deployed we will all realize that we simply trade one problem for another. There was a time when everyone thought instant replay was such a great idea, it took a few years to realize why it wasn’t (slide rules, pace-of-play, etc). Are calls really better now? Every overturned blunder is probably offset by a cooky overslide… not no mention that SBs just kind of evaporated as a result. Is that really better? Anyone who does any research will find that pitch tracking has issues – it won’t be perfect. At that point you are just trading one problem for another – at least we have scapegoats in the current system and lets be honest. we love those. Change isn’t always for the best… but we live in a society addicted to it. My definition of an addiction is when it becomes compulsive and starts to destroy the things around itself… sounds about right to me.