ESPN Study Umps

[SargentBargs101]

Was watching it on espn and they were basically moderating calls in a two week span i think there were 230 plays if i'm not mistaken

64% Correct calls
14% to close ( inconclusive)
20% Incorrect

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news ... id=5464015

If your a bit confuse this post might clarify it:

"As I have addressed in another forum, using ESPN's numbers, there is .26 of a missed call every game, or about one every four games.

Also using these numbers, an average umpire misses a call every 15 games.

So, is that better or worse than what you would find acceptable?

For those of you that don't know of what the OP is speaking, ESPN evaluated calls on the bases over a certain timeframe (it was around six weeks or so, IIRC.) Of those, ESPN says about 1.3 calls a game required a look on replay. Of those, that is what the OP mentions.

It's not 20% of calls missed; it's 20% of calls that require mechanical assistance to evaluate."

[Mike Hunt]

If you look at those numbers and consider that probably half (if not more) of that 14% of "too close" calls are "out" calls, then the numbers are even more skewed. If you go by the spirit of the rules, all of those "too close" calls should go to the batter (the benefit of the doubt is always given to the batter (ie, a "tie" is a win for a batter. He is declared safe). As such, you're then looking at something in the viscinity of 27% (maybe as high as 30%) of close calls being wrong. That number is much more significant than the initial 20% report.

I hate this argument of "the human element" being taken out of the game. How about taking bad calls out of the game? Doesn't that seem like a fruitful endeavour? Also, if you introduce a challenge type system for replay, you bring in coaches' decisions into play (ie, does a coach potentially waste a challenge on a close play in the 5th instead of saving it for the ninth?). I think those risk/reward types of decisions are much more "human" than one guy deciding if a player is one of 2 things: out or safe.

[baulderdash77]

I agree- virtually all the inconclusive calls are given to the defense these days.

What this shows is that a little over 1/3 of the calls that could be challanged, should be overruled given the spirit of the rules.

I don't really care at all about the human element in refereeing. One of the things that I don't like is that every ref has his own strike zone and he may or may not be consistent in using it.

I'm certainly for expanded instant replay at the minimum, and if technology would allow it without slowing down the game I'd be for computer balls and strikes.

[WpgPage]

Different strike zones with different Umps is part of the game I dont care how large or small a zone is as long as its consistent for the entire game. While I would like to see some expansion of replay maybe just in the playoffs or at the request of the crew chief I cant say I would ever be in favor of computer balls and strikes.

[Mike Hunt]

While I like the idea of replay for close out/safe calls (like the study showed, you'll need it an average of a little over once per game), I hate it for balls and strikes.

Despite what most people think, I actually find umps to be doing pretty good work behind the plate. I don't care that strike zones vary from ump to ump. I actually kind of like it (again, that consistency thing is important). To me, it adds to the variety of the game (just like not all fields have the same dimension).

Balls and strikes are called 250+ times per game. That's a big enough sample size that a certain degree of error is ok. If you're a batter at any level, the first thing you're told with 2 strikes is to protect the strike zone. This means you swing at anything close; not just strikes, but anything close enough that a mistaken ump might call a strike. In that scenario, the batter at least has a chance to protect himself from the bad call (If the pitch is close and you swing and miss or hit into an out, at least you gave yourself a chance. You might also foul it off and get another crack at it or in the best case scenario, you might actually get a hit). I've seen guys be rung up on pitches that were about 4" off the plate but I've rarely seen guys strike out looking on pitches a foot off the plate or in the dirt, so you have to figure most of those strike out pitches are at least somewhat hittable.

The out/safe call is much more black and white. You run to the bag as fast as you can and hope the ump makes the right decision.