Baltimore Umpires
by BAC on Apr 26, 2009 5:21 PM CDT
39 comments
I was astounded by how many calls the home plate umpires seemed to miss during this series against Baltimore. During Padilla's start, even TAG was consistently pointing out the numerous mistakes.
So, I went back to look at the weekend through Pitch F/X. There are a lot of graphs, so if you have slow internet or just don't care, you should consider stopping now.
Here are the breakdowns by game:
4/24: 135 total pitches, 30 swings, 18 mistaken calls.
4/25: 148 total, 32 swings, 24 mistakes.
4/26: 149 Total pitches, 32 swings, 20 mistakes
For the weekend, there were 432 pitches thrown by Rangers' pitchers, 94 swings by Baltimore batters, and 62 missed calls. Of calls made by the umpires, about 18% were incorrect.
I haven't done a previous 3 game series for comparrison, but 18% seems really horrible. The umpire for Padilla seemed especially erratic.
First, here is Vicente Padilla's strikezone plot from 4/24:
From what I can tell, Padilla had 10 pitches called balls that were actually strikes. He also had 7 pitches called strikes that were balls (including one in the lower right that must be a joke or something). Padilla threw 104 pitches and 22 of those were swung at, so about 21% of his called pitches were mistakes.
Eddie Guardado threw 5 pitches, all correctly called. Same for O'Day and his 2 pitches and C.J and his 18 pitches.
Frank Frank, however, had a pretty blatant missed strike:
Now, on to Feldman 4/25:
It looks like Feldman had 3 for sure missed strikes and 3 more that were pretty close. He also had 8 balls mistakenly called strikes. So, of his 79 pitches, 17 were swung at and 11 were clear mistakes. That's about 18% called wrong.
For Holland:
It looks like Holland had 6 strikes called balls (several of them really bad). He also had 3 balls called strikes. Since Holland threw 48 pitches and batters swung at 9 of them, 23% were called incorrectly.
CJ threw 8 pitches, all correctly called.
Frankie again had a badly missed call but may have gotten a makeup:
For 4/26
McCarthy seemed to really be getting squeezed, but I think most of the problems came during a couple of at bats:
McCarthy had 10 strikes called balls with 6 balls called strikes. He threw 91 pitches and batters swung at 21 of them. So, 23% of mistakes.
Jennings had 1 missed strike and 2 missed balls and Guardado had one missed ball.
14 recs |
39 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm sure the league will hearing from JD and co.
That's why they call them business sox
by egriffey on Apr 26, 2009 5:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious how this compares to a game picked at random
Really interesting stuff
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 26, 2009 6:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I was wondering the same thing.
But well done with the f/x data. Thanks for posting this.
"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin
by utlonghorn24 on Apr 26, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious how this compares...
to the Baltimore pitchers for this series. That would let us know if they were getting squeezed and therefore the strike zone, while wrong, was at least consistent or if the Rangers pitchers were just getting hosed.
by ghostofErikThompson on Apr 26, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you email this to the league?
The only way to get away with something like this is a game no one cares about, with the squeezed team being on the road, something just seems funny.
by tyd3311 on Apr 26, 2009 6:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
From the same site, for Orioles pitchers
Bergeson:
I only see four balls that should have been strikes, and all four on the very edge of the zone. But look at all the called strikes outside. McCarthy got a few of those, too… so I would say the home plate umpire was consistent with that. Bergeson didn’t have any missed that were obvious strikes, like McCarthy did, though.
by Oddibee on Apr 26, 2009 7:02 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Denys Baez
Got shafted low in the zone too… and then got a call way high:
by Oddibee on Apr 26, 2009 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conclusion
Not a biased umpire… just a bad umpire.
by Oddibee on Apr 26, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I’m with you. After looking at calls for Baltimore pitchers, I think the umpires were just bad. The only real exception was Padilla. He genuinely seemed to be getting squeezed while none of the other pitchers in that game had the same problem.
"LSB: We’re all-scaploading, all the time." -AJM
by BAC on Apr 26, 2009 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what its looking like now
Which is sad. At least if he had money riding on the game or something, there was a reason. This way, he just sucks at what he does.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Apr 26, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder
if any of these guys were on the crew that we had in Minnesota early in the year last year
by blueballlefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brooks Baseball
The strike zone plots includes swings (fouls plus swings and misses). The out of zone strikes are more likely swings than not.
by NoNameOnCard on Apr 26, 2009 8:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah
I did not know that. Thank you.
"LSB: We’re all-scaploading, all the time." -AJM
by BAC on Apr 26, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you use the "Extra Detailed" plots, you can see more detail (obviously).
His PITCHf/x tool doesn’t break it down by swinging/taking, though. The “Extra Detailed” charts will work, but you have to categorize the results in your brain to figure it out (and the color coding isn’t too friendly).
by NoNameOnCard on Apr 26, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom of the zone.
Pitchers with high release points are always going to struggle to get strikes called at the bottom of the zone because of the downward angle of their pitches.
The standard 1.5-3.5 ft vertical strike zones as a standard makes it nearly impossible to fairly judge ball and strike calls. Nelson Cruz, for example, has an average vertical strike zone of 1.6-3.4 ft. Balls called between 1.5-1.6 ft and between 3.4-3.5 ft look like mistakes if you use the standard zone for Cruz.
by NoNameOnCard on Apr 26, 2009 8:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
very true
although, im sure this woud be hard to judge
Chris (NJ): I am personally offended at how you ranked a prospect from my favorite team, even though I do not know said prospect, nor have I ever seen him play. In my opinion you only have your job because, like your employers, you have an unholy bias towards my favorite team’s rival. Also, you’re short.
Keith Law: You’re right. I am short.
by blalock84 on Apr 26, 2009 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure which point "this" refers to, but....
PITCHf/x data has this information. The height of the strike zone is set on a player-by-player basis by a human operator.
The bottom of the zone is sort of an optical illusion, so, yes, it’s hard to judge.
by NoNameOnCard on Apr 26, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, I meant the bottom of the zone would be hard to judge
Chris (NJ): I am personally offended at how you ranked a prospect from my favorite team, even though I do not know said prospect, nor have I ever seen him play. In my opinion you only have your job because, like your employers, you have an unholy bias towards my favorite team’s rival. Also, you’re short.
Keith Law: You’re right. I am short.
by blalock84 on Apr 26, 2009 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention curveballs
never get that low strike call
by SteveP on Apr 27, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's because 1/2 the time it bounces and these systems claim it is a strike
by Horns130 on Apr 27, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i haven't seen any curves in the dirt shown as strikes
but see plenty that are caught just below the knees that are called balls, but shown as strikes. anything over the plate at the bottom of the knee should be a strike.
by SteveP on Apr 27, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be impressive
considering it plots the entire trajectory of the pitch.
by jwiscarson on Apr 28, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK sent it in
To MLB as an interesting read for the MLB umpires’ self-assessment team. Not that I think we’ll ever hear back about it, but hopefully the material will be read. Nice work, and yeah, it mostly demonstrates not so good ball and strike calling.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Apr 26, 2009 10:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Surprise
Got an acknowledgement already, with a review case number. So the post will be read, or if not, some emplanation why not will be sent to me.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Apr 26, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've combined all of the charts from BAC's post, just for the hell of it.
by cmkelly29 on Apr 27, 2009 12:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Lot of green dots
Inside the box. What gauge was that shotgun ??
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Apr 27, 2009 1:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
do the tiny squares
represent the middle of the baseball?
by SteveP on Apr 27, 2009 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I looked at all the umpires since Pitch F/X started and they are on average wrong 16.8% of the time
You can then look up each umpire to see how often each is correct and their “Correctness Zones” for balls and strikes.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Apr 27, 2009 11:52 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Wow.
Taken at word.
¡Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!
by Chase Irwin on Apr 27, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
Just out of curiosity, how many of you have ever umpired a game? I have and despite what appears to be popular rhetoric, it is not easy.
Furthermore, I will never believe these systems are accurate. I’ve seen way tooany bullshit outputs, especially on breaking balls
by Horns130 on Apr 27, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
His argument is unassailable.
Joe Morgan would be proud.
I'm Matt mutha-effing Bush, bitches, and mutha-eff East County.
"I'm as passionate and knowlegeable as any fan out there." Josey Wales
by Brian Thomas on Apr 27, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
Yes, 14 years of umpiring – HS, NAIA, NCAA II and III. I’m tolerant of error rates calling balls and strikes, but not double digit error rates. Those scatter charts above aren’t bad – their deviation will be less than a person’s visual deviation regardless of zone dimensions. Heck I had just about top ratings from the associations, the coach feedback systems, and peer review, and I’d guess my error rate of balls and strikes was probably close to 10%. Disclaimer – those years were 1964 to 1978, no technology then like now.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Apr 27, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said previously, over the past 2 years the error rate is 16.8%.
These games where pretty typical.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Apr 27, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
