PDA

View Full Version : Now you are allowed to be embarrassed



Pages : 1 [2]

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Also, I don't know why people are complaining about Utley missing 3rd, the Reds never appealed any way so it really makes no difference.

Yea unless the Reds appeal then the umpires cannot rule on it.

But I only saw one replay and it was far from conclusive.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 12:07 PM
Fine, so why did the ump assume that it did hit him? He didn't grimace or anything. The "replay" shows that much. If you don't see or hear it hit the batter then you shouldn't give the HBP call. Indecision should favor the pitcher in that instance

You aren't going to hear the ball graze a batters hand.

As a general rule of thumb if on a play similar to the Utley play, if the ball enters the batters box which is the domain of the batter, you give the benefit of doubt to the hitter. It is kinda seen as the pitcher was invading the batters space so if in doubt which I have no doubt the HP umpire was, he gave the benefit of doubt to the hitter.

Also how a batter reacts is a factor in making that call. If the batter "sells it" like Utley did by immediately running to first base, it can help make a split second decision by the umpire go in his favor.

Sea Ray
10-09-2010, 12:23 PM
You aren't going to hear the ball graze a batters hand.

As a general rule of thumb if on a play similar to the Utley play, if the ball enters the batters box which is the domain of the batter, you give the benefit of doubt to the hitter. It is kinda seen as the pitcher was invading the batters space so if in doubt which I have no doubt the HP umpire was, he gave the benefit of doubt to the hitter.

Also how a batter reacts is a factor in making that call. If the batter "sells it" like Utley did by immediately running to first base, it can help make a split second decision by the umpire go in his favor.

After the publicity of the Jeter HBP recently, running to 1B should have been met with sketicism. In fact I'd say it's a poor ump who lets a batter dupe him like that, especially a "frozen" LH hitter in the box against Chapman. As a baseball person I knew Utley would try to sell it. I just hoped the ump wouldn't buy it

blumj
10-09-2010, 12:27 PM
I've never understood why more people don't have a problem with HP umps calling HBPs, since they've always appeared to me to have a more obstructed view of the action than anyone else in the park.

mth123
10-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Still don't understand why the Reds didn't question the call. Seems like Hanigan and Chapman must have thought it hit him too.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 01:07 PM
Arroyo only missed two bats all night, missed his location an awful lot and was a flyball machine and the Reds weren't choking as they kept him in the game.


And yet, if his 2B and 3B don't boot two routine groundballs, he pitches five shutout innings. Arroyo pitched a heckuva game last night.

Far East
10-09-2010, 01:09 PM
This post might not represent reality and is at least partly hypothetical. But what if there were an "honor system" in baseball, one where Jeter or Utley would refuse to go to first base if they knew that they were not actualy hit by the pitch. I know what they did is gamesmanship, and I have practiced a bit of that myself (stealing signs, hidden ball trick, etc.).

But there is a part of me that wants fairness; for example, if a Philly is called out when he is really safe, I don't like it. It does not matter if it's a Red or an opponent, fair is fair. For instance, I thought Friday's homeplate ump was squeezing Oswalt at the low part of the zone early on -- and I'm no Oswalt fan.

Another example: the Reds' fan reaching into the field of play to snatch Bruce's fly ball from the glove of the Brewer centerfielder; the umps ruled it a HR, but I (who love Bruce) thought that the pitcher should not have been charged with giving up a homerun.

How about the no-hitter that almost happened earlier in the season (I know few umpire names and few players on other teams) where the ump called the batter out at first base? What if an "honor system" would have prompted the batter and first base coach to not have accepted that "free" base? The kid would have gotten the no-hitter he had earned.

What if dozens of Reds were called safe like that and dozens of "safe" Phils were called out -- enough to cause a Reds' win -- would the Reds deserve that victory?

Once (but only once, as I recall) I was pitching (amateur league 40-50 years ago) and the ump called one of my pitches a strike, a pitch that was clearly to me both too high and too wide of the zone. I immediately called to the ump my opinion, and he changed the call from a strike to a ball. What if I had thrown every pitch to that location and the ump had called all 81 of those pitches a strike (assuming no batter swung)? Well I'd have been credited with a perfect game -- but it sure would not have been earned and sure would not have been honorable to have accepted it.

Philadelphia has little to gloat about over game 2, whether it was gifts given them by men in Red or men in Blue.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 01:11 PM
Just saw the replay of the Utley "HBP." What a disgrace. Utley had no chance against Chapman. That changed the whole complexion of the inning and game. That ump should be embarrassed.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:22 PM
And yet, if his 2B and 3B don't boot two routine groundballs, he pitches five shutout innings. Arroyo pitched a heckuva game last night.

He pitched a game.

SMcGavin
10-09-2010, 01:23 PM
I have a real hard time calling what I saw last night choking.

Bruce wasn't choking when he hit the dinger.

Phillips wasn't choking as he was a triple away from hitting a cycle.

Arroyo only missed two bats all night, missed his location an awful lot and was a flyball machine and the Reds weren't choking as they kept him in the game.

The 2010 Reds were above average at 6 spots on the field and had one of the best defenses in the majors. The Phillies match the Reds and raise them pitching. The Phillies are playing really well. The Reds aren't quite.

Four errors and five unearned runs from perhaps the best defense in MLB. To me choking means playing well below your ability in an important situation, the Reds defense certainly did that last night.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 01:24 PM
He pitched a game.

He pitched a good game. With even average defense, he throws five shutout innings. I don't care how sexy it was whether he had one strikeout or eight, he threw up zeroes until his defense killed him. That's all that matters.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:25 PM
Four errors and five unearned runs from perhaps the best defense in MLB. To me choking means playing well below your ability in an important situation, the Reds defense certainly did that last night.

To me choking means playing poorly because one can't handle the pressure. That's different than playing poorly.

Choking suggests game three doesn't need to be played. Playing poorly means, we might get to witness one of the greatest comebacks in the franchise's history.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:26 PM
He pitched a good game. With even average defense, he throws five shutout innings. I don't care how sexy it was whether he had one strikeout or eight, he threw up zeroes until his defense killed him. That's all that matters.

If given a do over, he could pitch exactly like he did last night and give up 5 runs with no errors.

SMcGavin
10-09-2010, 01:34 PM
To me choking means playing poorly because one can't handle the pressure. That's different than playing poorly.

Choking suggests game three doesn't need to be played. Playing poorly means, we might get to witness one of the greatest comebacks in the franchise's history.

Well sure, we're never going to know whether all those mistakes were due to nerves or just random events happening at an unfortunate time. That answer is only in the heads of the players. But 4 errors from a team averaging less than 0.5 per game pushes me in one of those directions.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:37 PM
Well sure, we're never going to know whether all those mistakes were due to nerves or just random events happening at an unfortunate time. That answer is only in the heads of the players. But 4 errors from a team averaging less than 0.5 per game pushes me in one of those directions.

But three of the errors were made by guys who distinguished themselves at the plate and a fourth was made by a guy that has a ton of playoff experience.

I'm just not buying the choke narrative.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 01:38 PM
If given a do over, he could pitch exactly like he did last night and give up 5 runs with no errors.

The only thing that matters is he tossed up zeroes last night. People have been predicting Arroyo to fall off the cliff for three years now and yet he continues to toss up 200+ innings of league avergage or better baseball.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:42 PM
The only thing that matters is he tossed up zeroes last night. People have been predicting Arroyo to fall off the cliff for three years now and yet he continues to toss up 200+ innings of league avergage or better baseball.

I'll defer to the archives concerning ERA and why it's not useful.

SMcGavin
10-09-2010, 01:45 PM
But three of the errors were made by guys who distinguished themselves at the plate and a fourth was made by a guy that has a ton of playoff experience.

I'm just not buying the choke narrative.

I'm not calling those players little girls who will wet their panties in any pressure situation. Just speculating that in that one millisecond out in the field, a little bit of "this is really important don't mess up" snuck into their heads. It happens.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 01:46 PM
I'll defer to the archives concerning ERA and why it's not useful.

No thanks.

Bronson Arroyo did his job last night. He deserved much better.

cincrazy
10-09-2010, 01:48 PM
If given a do over, he could pitch exactly like he did last night and give up 5 runs with no errors.

But he didn't give up five runs.... he gave up practically nothing.

jojo
10-09-2010, 01:55 PM
But he didn't give up five runs.... he gave up practically nothing.

He isn't the appropriate pronoun.

mth123
10-09-2010, 01:58 PM
I'll defer to the archives concerning ERA and why it's not useful.

I understand those arguments but after as many years and innings as a guy like Arroyo has in, actual number take precendence over hypotheticals. If you want to resort to xFIP and component stats for a guy like Leake or Wood, I get that logic, but Arroyo has been successful year after year. In 2006 and 2007 he put up similar numbers with guys like Dunn, Lopez/Aurilia, Griffey, Freel, David frickin Ross, and EdE playing "defense" behind him. If your argument is that his defense is why he is successful, then how is that explained. In 2007 Arroyo had his worst season as a Red and it was the year his K-Rate at 7.3/9 was the best and his HR rate hasn't really varied much. Claim luck all you want, but after 5 years, my guess is that the difference between the theoreticals and the actuals is more due to problems with the formula than anything.

savafan
10-09-2010, 02:05 PM
I'll defer to the archives concerning ERA and why it's not useful.

47 wins over the last three seasons, the most by any Reds pitcher during that span. Clearly he's garbage.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 02:08 PM
He pitched a game.

I agree. He benifited early from good defense, and then got burned by it. He wasn't fooling anyone. I saw a lot of hard hit balls before he gave up any runs.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:08 PM
Just saw the replay of the Utley "HBP." What a disgrace. Utley had no chance against Chapman. That changed the whole complexion of the inning and game. That ump should be embarrassed.

I doubt if he is embarrased nor should he be.

If you want to give the umpire the same luxury you have of watching the replay in slow motion at all different angles then I am sure he would get it right as everyone else sitting on their sofas at home have done. The reality is the ump doesn't have the same luxury you, I and everyone else who saw the replay has.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:10 PM
I've never understood why more people don't have a problem with HP umps calling HBPs, since they've always appeared to me to have a more obstructed view of the action than anyone else in the park.

HBP alot of times is a very hard call to make because yes you are blocked out alot or you have a poor angle. Unfortunately your partners are far away from the action so they aren't much help.

savafan
10-09-2010, 02:11 PM
I doubt if he is embarrased nor should he be.

If you want to give the umpire the same luxury you have of watching the replay in slow motion at all different angles then I am sure he would get it right as everyone else sitting on their sofas at home have done. The reality is the ump doesn't have the same luxury you, I and everyone else who saw the replay has.

You keep talking about all of these different angles in slow motion, but when I saw the pitch the first time, live, at full speed, I knew it didn't hit Utley. Likewise the play at 2nd base, which Brandon Phillips and Dusty Baker also got right without the benefit of slow motion replay.

NJReds
10-09-2010, 02:13 PM
Halladay was dominant in Game 1. It happens, no shame in that.

We had this one and played like little leaguers.

I didn't even have to read another post in this thread. This is exactly how I felt last night.

SunDeck
10-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I'm not calling those players little girls who will wet their panties in any pressure situation. Just speculating that in that one millisecond out in the field, a little bit of "this is really important don't mess up" snuck into their heads. It happens.

I think watching golf can give you a pretty good idea about what happens in pressure situations. Baseball fundamentals, such as catching grounders and making relay throws are pretty easy until you up the stakes to the level of costing a game at the highest level in the world. There's an old saying in training that the goal is to achieve unconscious competence, being so well trained that you don't think about things like fundamentals, you just execute them. Sporting events like the US Open, the Masters, the playoffs all expose players for being even a shade below that level. In my opinion, that's what we saw last night; a cascade of mistakes brought on by introducing the nemesis of all athletes- thought- into execution. It is often most obvious in pitching because it is such a finely tuned action, but last night we got to see a bunch of athletes all over the field regress to little league competence on national TV.

Ghosts of 1990
10-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I'm sorry I didn't get here to respond on the first page of this thread. I refuse to be embarrassed and these guys have nothing to hang their heads about. no one gave them a chance to begin with; and they had these guys on the ropes following up the no-hitter.

Jay Bruce is another story; the guy is on the verge of being a rising star in this game. Not just a good player or great player; a rising star. He's got it. Brighter days lie ahead and if you don't appreciate what is happening to us you don't understand that this is all part of the journey. We're gonna make it.

SMcGavin
10-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I doubt if he is embarrased nor should he be.

If you want to give the umpire the same luxury you have of watching the replay in slow motion at all different angles then I am sure he would get it right as everyone else sitting on their sofas at home have done. The reality is the ump doesn't have the same luxury you, I and everyone else who saw the replay has.

The play at 2nd base didn't require different angles or slow motion. The ump was standing right in front of the bag and blew it.

Anyway, the problem isn't with the umps (human error is unavoidable), but with a system that denies them the angles and slow mo you talk about.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:16 PM
You keep talking about all of these different angles in slow motion, but when I saw the pitch the first time, live, at full speed, I knew it didn't hit Utley. Likewise the play at 2nd base, which Brandon Phillips and Dusty Baker also got right without the benefit of slow motion replay.

I watched the Utley pitch and I had no idea if it hit him or not and that is with me having alot better angle on the play than the HP ump had. You may think otherwise but it is possible and you hafta admit that maybe you were watching the play with rose colored glasses on. Fans sometimes see things the way they want to.

If the play at 2B was so bad why didn't Dusty go out and argue?? My first thought was he was safe. It was very close and could have gone either way.

SunDeck
10-09-2010, 02:17 PM
I watched the Utley pitch and I had no idea if it hit him or not and that is with me having alot better angle on the play than the HP ump had. You may think otherwise but it is possible and you hafta admit that maybe you were watching the play with rose colored glasses on. Fans sometimes see things the way they want to.

If the play at 2B was so bad why didn't Dusty go out and argue?? My first thought was he was safe. It was very close and could have gone either way.

I thought Dusty did argue the play at 2nd.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:19 PM
The play at 2nd base didn't require different angles or slow motion. The ump was standing right in front of the bag and blew it.

Anyway, the problem isn't with the umps (human error is unavoidable), but with a system that denies them the angles and slow mo you talk about.

The picture that was posted in this thread shows an excellent angle from the OF that showed he was out. From where the umpire was standing he didn't have the excellent angle from the OF that we saw. He is positioned on the inside and if you place yourself where he was you will agree that his angle compared to our frozen picture one from the OF is not nearly as good.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:20 PM
I thought Dusty did argue the play at 2nd.

Your right....my bad..he wasn't very adament about it though.

savafan
10-09-2010, 02:22 PM
I thought Dusty did argue the play at 2nd.

He did. Some of us were too busy trying to figure out the formula for UZR to see that apparently.

SunDeck
10-09-2010, 02:25 PM
The picture that was posted in this thread shows an excellent angle from the OF that showed he was out. From where the umpire was standing he didn't have the excellent angle from the OF that we saw. He is positioned on the inside and if you place yourself where he was you will agree that his angle compared to our frozen picture one from the OF is not nearly as good.

In the picture his foot is above the bag, but you really don't know that he didn't touch it and have his foot bounce off after he touched it, in which case he would need to have been tagged to be out.

FWIW, I thought he was safe when I saw it live, only because of the timing. Upon review, I couldn't tell one way or the other. If there were replay in baseball, it doesn't seem to me like there would have been a way to overturn the call.

mth123
10-09-2010, 02:26 PM
I watched the Utley pitch and I had no idea if it hit him or not and that is with me having alot better angle on the play than the HP ump had. You may think otherwise but it is possible and you hafta admit that maybe you were watching the play with rose colored glasses on. Fans sometimes see things the way they want to.

If the play at 2B was so bad why didn't Dusty go out and argue?? My first thought was he was safe. It was very close and could have gone either way.

Phillips argued and Dusty argued.

The logic I don't understand is that you, an umpire yourself, admit that the umps don't have the benefit of all the angles, yet there is a big resistance to provide that info in getting the play correct. The umps on the field don't need to leave their posts to go watch a replay. Station an ump in the booth and let them make the judgements and relay them or radio them to the crew chief. It would take no time at all. As fans we see and know these things very quickly. The probelm with replay is the insistence that the on field umps be the reviewers. The Union should love it. Long time umps who are out of shape or physically unable to handle the on-field rigors would have a place to finish their careers and it would mean more jobs for everybody. Refusal to do this is an issue of pride and vanity and nothing more IMO.

Ghosts of 1990
10-09-2010, 02:27 PM
Nothing will take away from this year, not even this ending. But it's a damn tough pill to swallow.

And I've got tickets to Sunday's game :(. I've been waiting my whole life for this moment, and I'm not even excited about it.

You said it yourself; don't punish yourself. Tomorrow is special no matter the outcome. This is just the beginning, or should be. Enjoy it. Treasure it. These are great days we're living as baseball fans. Our Reds just weren't ready for the stage yet. this is only Act I. If we're lucky we see a win in person and live to fight another day. Be excited.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 02:28 PM
The problem I had with the umps HBP call on Utley is that he clearly did not see it. You can watch the replay and see that he he flinched and looked away when the ball buzzed by him. I can't blame him for that, that's just human instinct. But how can he definitively call an HBP if he didn't see it. I would think the proper protocol would be to only call an HBP if you see or hear it.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 02:30 PM
Phillips argued and Dusty argued.

The logic I don't understand is that you, an umpire yourself, admit that the umps don't have the benefit of all the angles, yet there is a big resistance to provide that info in getting the play correct. The umps on the field don't need to leave their posts to go watch a replay. Station an ump in the booth and let them make the judgements and relay them or radio them to the crew chief. It would take no time at all. As fans we see and know these things very quickly. The probelm with replay is the insistence that the on field umps be the reviewers. The Union should love it. Long time umps who are out of shape or physically unable to handle the on-field rigors would have a place to finish their careers and it would mean more jobs for everybody. Refusal to do this is an issue of pride and vanity and nothing more IMO.

I have no problem with having a replay type system in MLB. I think they need to be careful if they do implement it because some teams will want every single play reviewed but in general if they have some type system similar to the NFL's then I would be ok with it.

Razor Shines
10-09-2010, 02:32 PM
I watched the Utley pitch and I had no idea if it hit him or not and that is with me having alot better angle on the play than the HP ump had. You may think otherwise but it is possible and you hafta admit that maybe you were watching the play with rose colored glasses on. Fans sometimes see things the way they want to.

.

I agree. There is no way anyone could tell for sure from the *live* tv feed if that hit Utley or not. And we absolutely had a better angle than the HP ump. I don't believe for a second that any of the base umps would have been able to tell either. I'm fine with adding replay for those type of plays, but these guys didn't have it and I can't fault them for the Utley HBP.

mth123
10-09-2010, 02:34 PM
I have no problem with having a replay type system in MLB. I think they need to be careful if they do implement it because some teams will want every single play reviewed but in general if they have some type system similar to the NFL's then I would be ok with it.

Shouldn't be up to the teams. An ump is stationed in the booth and he sends a message to correct the call on the field when he sees an error. No stoppage and no fanfare. It would take less time than the umps huddling on the field for a confeence even w/o the replay.

Balls and Strikes should be exempt from the booth ump, but they should watch and correct anything else that is correctable. Simetimes the play may have run its course and they can't change it, but many calls can be corrected quickly w/o any impact on any subsequent events that may have occurred.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 02:37 PM
I doubt if he is embarrased nor should he be.

If you want to give the umpire the same luxury you have of watching the replay in slow motion at all different angles then I am sure he would get it right as everyone else sitting on their sofas at home have done. The reality is the ump doesn't have the same luxury you, I and everyone else who saw the replay has.

I watched the play in real time and at no point did it look like the ball hit Utley.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 02:38 PM
I watched the play in real time and at no point did it look like the ball hit Utley.

The ump wasn't watching it on the couch.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 02:39 PM
With how much heat they are taking, I wonder if the umps pull an Alomar circa '96 on Utley.

Ghosts of 1990
10-09-2010, 02:41 PM
Ball didn't hit Utley. Don't know how anyone can conclude that it did. Another blown call. Aroldis knew it didn't hit Utley you can tell by watching him afterwards he thought it was a bad call.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 02:44 PM
From Mark Sheldon:


"I don't think at any time that the ball hit him. I don't think he ever got hit," Chapman said.

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/10/errors_sting_big_time_down_0-2.html

NJReds
10-09-2010, 02:44 PM
I watched the play in real time and at no point did it look like the ball hit Utley.

I felt the same way. It wasn't close to Utley. In real time I knew it didn't hit him, and the replay only confirmed it. The umps choked last night every bit as much as the Reds.

NJReds
10-09-2010, 02:45 PM
The ump wasn't watching it on the couch.

That's the only place he should be watching games.

TheNext44
10-09-2010, 02:46 PM
With how much heat they are taking, I wonder if the umps pull an Alomar circa '96 on Utley.

???? Please refresh out memories.

edabbs44
10-09-2010, 03:44 PM
???? Please refresh out memories.

Alomar spit in an ump's face during the season and he got zero calls the entire ALDS vs the Yanks. If the ball was anywhere near the plate while he was up it was a strike. It was awful.

I wonder if the umps are going to take what Utley did personal. 103 mph fastballs are difficult enough to judge by an umpire, it doesn't help when players are trying to decieve you. This would be a way for the umpires to get revenge and stop an epidemic from happening. Jeter and Utley do it and next thing you know everyone starts flopping.

Razor Shines
10-09-2010, 03:49 PM
Alomar spit in an ump's face during the season and he got zero calls the entire ALDS vs the Yanks. If the ball was anywhere near the plate while he was up it was a strike. It was awful.

I wonder if the umps are going to take what Utley did personal. 103 mph fastballs are difficult enough to judge by an umpire, it doesn't help when players are trying to decieve you. This would be a way for the umpires to get revenge and stop an epidemic from happening. Jeter and Utley do it and next thing you know everyone starts flopping.

I think it makes it worse that he actually came out the next day and basically said it didn't hit him. If I'm umping and I give you a questionable HBP, I'd be pretty upset if you start telling everyone that "you don't know if it hit you". Really? You seemed pretty sure at the time.

George Anderson
10-09-2010, 04:23 PM
I watched the play in real time and at no point did it look like the ball hit Utley.

If that is the case then do the game a service and contact these guys as soon as possible and tell them you want to be a professional umpire.

http://www.umpireschool.com/

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 04:41 PM
If that is the case then do the game a service and contact these guys as soon as possible and tell them you want to be a professional umpire.

http://www.umpireschool.com/

Cool. I don't think we Redszoners could do any worse than the actual umpires have this postseason.

Just kidding of course.

I thought it was obvious the ball didn't hit Utley. It was a horrible call.

Brutus
10-09-2010, 05:45 PM
Cool. I don't think we Redszoners could do any worse than the actual umpires have this postseason.

Just kidding of course.

I thought it was obvious the ball didn't hit Utley. It was a horrible call.

How was it obvious? There were 3 or 4 camera angles, and none can be made from heads or tails. You must have really, really good vision.

I'm pretty sure it didn't hit him, but I was only 60/40 on that based on the replays. It was Utley's demeanor when standing on first and then his postgame comments that convinces me he didn't get hit. But that's all benefit of hindsight.

My guess is the umpire didn't see the ball. One thing I know from experience, when the ball is coming right at you and the catcher misses it, you tend to flinch. That's human nature. You try to condition yourself to not flinch, but it's a hard reaction to avoid. And that's my experience without having a 100+ MPH fastball coming at me (I was used to only 80-93 MPH doing Legion ball). Unfortunately when you flinch, you sometimes have to use sound if possible, and when that doesn't help, you just have to turn to the hitter's reaction for clues. It's unfortunate, but sometimes you have no choice.

I think that's what happened. The umpire didn't see and had to use the hitter's reaction. Utley probably faked it (gratuitous Seinfeld reference) and was fortuitously awarded first base.

OnBaseMachine
10-09-2010, 05:53 PM
How was it obvious? There were 3 or 4 camera angles, and none can be made from heads or tails. You must have really, really good vision.


I guess so because at no point in time did I think that ball hit Utley. Gotta give Utley credit though, the guy is one heck of an actor.

Brutus
10-09-2010, 05:55 PM
I guess so because at no point in time did I think that ball hit Utley. Gotta give Utley credit though, the guy is one heck of an actor.

I didn't "think" it did either (an apt term). But I certainly didn't know for sure, and the replays, which the umpires have none the benefit of, sure did nothing to advance my lack of certainty on the matter.

jojo
10-09-2010, 08:12 PM
I understand those arguments but after as many years and innings as a guy like Arroyo has in, actual number take precendence over hypotheticals. If you want to resort to xFIP and component stats for a guy like Leake or Wood, I get that logic, but Arroyo has been successful year after year. In 2006 and 2007 he put up similar numbers with guys like Dunn, Lopez/Aurilia, Griffey, Freel, David frickin Ross, and EdE playing "defense" behind him. If your argument is that his defense is why he is successful, then how is that explained. In 2007 Arroyo had his worst season as a Red and it was the year his K-Rate at 7.3/9 was the best and his HR rate hasn't really varied much. Claim luck all you want, but after 5 years, my guess is that the difference between the theoreticals and the actuals is more due to problems with the formula than anything.

Luck? He's living off of a great defense.

jojo
10-09-2010, 08:18 PM
Concerning Utley, I originally though he was looking at the ump to see if he was indicating Utley went around for strike three as he was about to sprint to first. The ump was signaling beanage and Utley went with it. On replay, I don't think the ump would've said Utley went around.

Mario-Rijo
10-09-2010, 08:38 PM
I guess so because at no point in time did I think that ball hit Utley. Gotta give Utley credit though, the guy is one heck of an actor.

I agree on the 1st part, I didn't think it hit him in real time or after replay. However the 2nd part you have there is what I take umbrage with the umps for, Utley is no doubt a fairly tough dude but he really didn't show any signs of being hit by a 100+ MPH fastball. He didn't even wince.

Our boys choked big time in this game and the umps didn't do us any favors either but the Reds and the environment lost us this game. Several mishandled balls due to bad hops (crap infield?) and of course the big misplayed ball by Jay due to the white flags flying around.

Maybe we should do them one better and take white sheets with baseballs on them to the game sunday.

VR
10-09-2010, 09:36 PM
Luck? He's living off of a great defense.

The same defense all the others starters for the last 5 years have had.

mth123
10-09-2010, 10:12 PM
Luck? He's living off of a great defense.

So why did Leake suck so bad for the last three months with a similar pitch to contact style and the same guys behind him and why did Arroyo succeed in 2006 and 2007 when the defense was atrocious. Your formula contradicts its own conclusions.

Cedric
10-09-2010, 10:18 PM
So why did Leake suck so bad for the last three months with a similar pitch to contact style and the same guys behind him and why did Arroyo succeed in 2006 and 2007 when the defense was atrocious. Your formula contradicts its own conclusions.

You are correct. It's just common sense to realize that BABIP is not equal to all pitchers.

Bronson keeps RH hitters off balance and soft contact is usually all you are going to get. The key to pitching is messing with a hitters timing, either getting a swing in miss or getting someone out in front and having them roll over. It's not new or rocket science.

Patrick Bateman
10-09-2010, 10:24 PM
So why did Leake suck so bad for the last three months with a similar pitch to contact style and the same guys behind him and why did Arroyo succeed in 2006 and 2007 when the defense was atrocious. Your formula contradicts its own conclusions.

It's based on averages.
It's not like the defense plays the same way every game, and there are random variances.

Regardless, over his career, Arroyo has shown no ability to control his BAPIP. As such, he has been the beneficiary of a good BAPIP, which was not unlikley conisdering the strength of the defense. He could have had Leake's luck and vice versa.

We've seen Arroyo with average defense. He was a 4.50 type of guy. Did he really get better at age 30? If so, why were hsis peripherals consistent? He just magically learned to control his BAPIP?

Look, Arroyo is prettay average. That's not bad, it just means that conisdering he's aging, you extend him if the price is right, not because you think he has some magic abilities that are pretty clearly resulting from factors beyond himself. If he takes a Rolen type of deal, then I think its worth exploring.

Patrick Bateman
10-09-2010, 10:31 PM
You are correct. It's just common sense to realize that BABIP is not equal to all pitchers.

Bronson keeps RH hitters off balance and soft contact is usually all you are going to get. The key to pitching is messing with a hitters timing, either getting a swing in miss or getting someone out in front and having them roll over. It's not new or rocket science.

To a slight degree not that to that of what Arroyo has had the last few years. Back when we had bad defense, Arroyo had yet to "develop" those skills.

We used to argue about Belisle and Coffey...... I mean, it didn't happen with the Reds, but once they "learned" how to control their BAPIP they became conbtributors.

mth123
10-09-2010, 10:54 PM
It's based on averages.
It's not like the defense plays the same way every game, and there are random variances.

Regardless, over his career, Arroyo has shown no ability to control his BAPIP. As such, he has been the beneficiary of a good BAPIP, which was not unlikley conisdering the strength of the defense. He could have had Leake's luck and vice versa.

We've seen Arroyo with average defense. He was a 4.50 type of guy. Did he really get better at age 30? If so, why were hsis peripherals consistent? He just magically learned to control his BAPIP?

Look, Arroyo is prettay average. That's not bad, it just means that conisdering he's aging, you extend him if the price is right, not because you think he has some magic abilities that are pretty clearly resulting from factors beyond himself. If he takes a Rolen type of deal, then I think its worth exploring.

Or 5 years of actual results trump the hypotheticals and there is something that Arroyo does that contributes to his success that the formula doesn't account for. For the record, I do think his BABIP this year is lower than we should expect, but if the real Arroyo is 200+ IP of 4.25 to 4.50, he's worth it for another year on a staff with so many kids that still need to be babied and so many question marks that might just as easily go the way of Josh Fogg as become successful. I just don't see the Reds gettimg anybody capable of that many of those types of innings for any less. The best chance was to deal for Oswalt at the deadline, but that was a longshot if any shot at all.

In 2012 Leake and Chapman should be ready and the others should have sorted themselves out so I don't want him for more than anoither year unless its a real bargain.

jojo
10-10-2010, 12:01 AM
So why did Leake suck so bad for the last three months with a similar pitch to contact style and the same guys behind him and why did Arroyo succeed in 2006 and 2007 when the defense was atrocious. Your formula contradicts its own conclusions.

How does it contradict? The defense can't do much with walks and homers....

BTW, Arroyo was an above average pitcher based upon his peripherals in 2006. He's been declining since and his defense is masking it.

mth123
10-10-2010, 07:04 AM
How does it contradict? The defense can't do much with walks and homers....

BTW, Arroyo was an above average pitcher based upon his peripherals in 2006. He's been declining since and his defense is masking it.

IMO, the conclusions are too heavily reliant on K-Rate as an indicator. I don't buy it for two years in a row with over 400 IP of actual evidence. I think we have a bit of a chicken and egg argument going on here. Your stance seems to be that Arroyo has declined and is just throwing it up and hoping the defense makes the plays. I think Arroyo has consciously adjusted to the fact there is an improved defense behind him. He's throwing more to contact while limiting harder hit balls (look at how the LD Rate declined at the same time the K-Rate did), getting more ground balls and taking advantage of the circumstances. You're assertion seems to be that he's just chucking it up there and there are lots of others who can do that. I believe he is actually pitching. He has a game plan in mind when he goes out there and is executing it well and I don't buy that all those cheap alternatives are capable of that. The results are the LD percentage has dropped, the BABIP dropped (though I buy that maybe it dropped to a lower level than we should expect next year) and as a consequence the K-Rate dropped with it. Of course his defense is benefitting him, I just disagree that it has nothing to do with Arroyo and that there are lots of others for less money who could get the same results.

I think a lot of these cheaper alternatives would get hammered and the ones that we know won't get hammered would cost just as much as Arroyo and probably require a longer commitment to acquire than just invoking the option. There probably are some cheap alternatives out there that the team could gamble on and might have a chance of replicating Arroyo's results, but this team wants to contend and IMO is already gambling with too many other spots in the rotation. This group has a lot of kids who still need to establish themselves and guys coming off of injuries who need to prove they can actually pitch reliably for a 162 game season. This team needs the relative certainty of 200 plus competitive innings that Arroyo provides. RedsmanRick suggested Maloney and I actually would be in favor of that if the Reds were still a 75 win team looking to put the pieces in place. In the lost decade, I would have been in favor of giving this spot to Maloney while having Lecure as an alternative or just letting Leake take his lumps while learning in the majors. Heck if the reds were still that team, Arroyo would probably already be gone and we wouldn't be having this discussion. A contender can't have question marks in every rotation spot. Unspectacular certainty is worth a lot and simply the results of Arroyo's own innings don't capture it all. I hope a couple of the kids (Leake and Maloney especially) end up just like him.

I do agree about the HR in Leake's case. It was an huge problem that he needs to resolve and a year in AAA pitching in a 5 man rotation and getting 170 Innings under his belt is just what the docter should order IMO and its one of many reasons why the Reds need Arroyo or some one like him.

traderumor
10-10-2010, 02:04 PM
The problem I had with the umps HBP call on Utley is that he clearly did not see it. You can watch the replay and see that he he flinched and looked away when the ball buzzed by him. I can't blame him for that, that's just human instinct. But how can he definitively call an HBP if he didn't see it. I would think the proper protocol would be to only call an HBP if you see or hear it.

Exactamundo. The ump clearly made the call on the player's reaction. OK, check his arm or hand. A 100+ MPH fastball is gonna make a mark, even a graze. If you don't see a call, don't guess, ESPECIALLY on a HBP.

George, I appreciate your defense of the umps, but these are basics. Poor positioning leads to bad calls, as does guessing. Maybe they need to question the traditional positioning since it leads to many poor calls. Maybe they should question if the infield is the best place to make calls at second. Oh, and definately quit guessing and trusting that a player wouldn't fake a HBP.

George Anderson
10-10-2010, 02:33 PM
George, I appreciate your defense of the umps, but these are basics. Poor positioning leads to bad calls, as does guessing. Maybe they need to question the traditional positioning since it leads to many poor calls. Maybe they should question if the infield is the best place to make calls at second. Oh, and definately quit guessing and trusting that a player wouldn't fake a HBP.


The infield is the best place to make calls at second. You are not going to position the umpire in short center field to make a call at 2B. No one play is the same but without question the vast majority of the time the best position to be when making the call at 2B is on the infield. The problem is with technology we now have all these different angles thru cameras to see if a play was correct or not. Unfortunately the umpire only has one angle to see the play and not 3-4 like we have sitting at home.


There are only 4 umpires on the field. It is impossible for an umpire to get to be able to see the same 3-4 different angles that we see on the television. The only way an umpire can get the same exact angles we see on tv is if you add extra umpires to the mix. If you wanna put three umpires on 3B, three umpires at 2B and 3 umpires at 1B and another three at HP to get the same views we see from TV then by all means lets do it.

If MLB wants to consider replay then I am fine with that but in the mean time the results we are getting from the umpires on the field are the very best you can get.

George Anderson
10-10-2010, 02:37 PM
Exactamundo. The ump clearly made the call on the player's reaction. OK, check his arm or hand. A 100+ MPH fastball is gonna make a mark, even a graze. If you don't see a call, don't guess, ESPECIALLY on a HBP.
.

Utley had long sleeves on and batting gloves. The ball isn't gonna leave a mark grazing clothing or a glove.

traderumor
10-11-2010, 12:24 AM
Utley had long sleeves on and batting gloves. The ball isn't gonna leave a mark grazing clothing or a glove.

OK, then back to "if you don't see it and you have no evidence, don't call it." Umpiring 101. Always easier to deal with the no call then the making a call that's a guess. The ump made the call too quick, probably didn't even see the pitch, just saw Utley do his little feign and gave him the base. The HBP is one of the tougher calls to make. Many times, you get blocked out from actually seeing it hit the batter, but the call usually takes care of itself. Here, the ump had no chance of seeing it clearly and he guessed, and guessed wrong. Defending the indefensible.

traderumor
10-11-2010, 12:30 AM
The infield is the best place to make calls at second. You are not going to position the umpire in short center field to make a call at 2B. No one play is the same but without question the vast majority of the time the best position to be when making the call at 2B is on the infield. The problem is with technology we now have all these different angles thru cameras to see if a play was correct or not. Unfortunately the umpire only has one angle to see the play and not 3-4 like we have sitting at home.


There are only 4 umpires on the field. It is impossible for an umpire to get to be able to see the same 3-4 different angles that we see on the television. The only way an umpire can get the same exact angles we see on tv is if you add extra umpires to the mix. If you wanna put three umpires on 3B, three umpires at 2B and 3 umpires at 1B and another three at HP to get the same views we see from TV then by all means lets do it.

If MLB wants to consider replay then I am fine with that but in the mean time the results we are getting from the umpires on the field are the very best you can get.Now its technology's fault. It used to be "boy, look how many times they get it right." Now its that they can't humanly get the best angle. I think what the improving technology reveals is how poor a job these umpires are really doing. Whereas replay used to not be able to show so definitively the missed calls, now they can and it is exposing the quality.

dman
10-11-2010, 12:33 AM
Utley had long sleeves on and batting gloves. The ball isn't gonna leave a mark grazing clothing or a glove.

I have to agree with traderumor on this. I don't care if it's a pencil eraser being thrown at 100+ MPH, if it makes contact of any kind, there will be a mark to account for it.

Tony Cloninger
10-11-2010, 12:36 AM
OK, then back to "if you don't see it and you have no evidence, don't call it." Umpiring 101. Always easier to deal with the no call then the making a call that's a guess. The ump made the call too quick, probably didn't even see the pitch, just saw Utley do his little feign and gave him the base. The HBP is one of the tougher calls to make. Many times, you get blocked out from actually seeing it hit the batter, but the call usually takes care of itself. Here, the ump had no chance of seeing it clearly and he guessed, and guessed wrong. Defending the indefensible.


I agree. He guessed based on Utley's reaction. Figured....I am in Philly, Utley looked like he was hit, I better call this now or else it will loom worse if I don't.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 02:38 AM
Now its technology's fault. It used to be "boy, look how many times they get it right." Now its that they can't humanly get the best angle. I think what the improving technology reveals is how poor a job these umpires are really doing. Whereas replay used to not be able to show so definitively the missed calls, now they can and it is exposing the quality.



If this is the case then tell me just when umpiring has ever been better in MLB history?? The answer is it never has been than it is now. While the umpiring is far from perfect it is light years better than it was just 20-30 years ago. Turn on a game from years past and if you have any knowledge at all on the mechanics of umpiring then you will be sick to your stomach like I tend to be when watching it.

What you are wanting is human beings to have the keen eye sight that Hi Def cameras have from 3-4 different angles at slow motion have. My point is it is not humanly possible to have a human being to be the equivelant of the cameras. This is an instance where technology is far, far more advanced than what a human being is capable of doing.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 02:40 AM
I have to agree with traderumor on this. I don't care if it's a pencil eraser being thrown at 100+ MPH, if it makes contact of any kind, there will be a mark to account for it.

Utley had sleeves and gloves on. You aren't going to have a mark if the pitch grazes a sleeve or a glove.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 02:48 AM
OK, then back to "if you don't see it and you have no evidence, don't call it." Umpiring 101. Always easier to deal with the no call then the making a call that's a guess. The ump made the call too quick, probably didn't even see the pitch, just saw Utley do his little feign and gave him the base. The HBP is one of the tougher calls to make. Many times, you get blocked out from actually seeing it hit the batter, but the call usually takes care of itself. Here, the ump had no chance of seeing it clearly and he guessed, and guessed wrong. Defending the indefensible.

I cannot tell you how many times especially on the bases I have not seen the exact tag being made because the angle to where I am standing will not allow me to see the tag. Alor of times you have to use your judgement and make an educated guess on what happened. If you want a hard nosed rule of "if you don't see it and you have no evidence, don't call it" then you are going to have alot of horribly missed calls.

In the Utley case, Utley sold the call, the pitcher made the mistake of entering the batters domain of the batters box with his pitch, so Utley got the benefit of doubt. It is really that simple.

Ron Madden
10-11-2010, 03:10 AM
Like I said before, I may have been disappointed but I am not embarrassed.

REDblooded
10-11-2010, 03:26 AM
If this is the case then tell me just when umpiring has ever been better in MLB history?? The answer is it never has been than it is now. While the umpiring is far from perfect it is light years better than it was just 20-30 years ago. Turn on a game from years past and if you have any knowledge at all on the mechanics of umpiring then you will be sick to your stomach like I tend to be when watching it.

What you are wanting is human beings to have the keen eye sight that Hi Def cameras have from 3-4 different angles at slow motion have. My point is it is not humanly possible to have a human being to be the equivelant of the cameras. This is an instance where technology is far, far more advanced than what a human being is capable of doing.


In that case, it's time MLB finally stops getting in its own way, and allows for video replay when needed...

Ah wait... That wouldn't work. I forgot about Ol' Bud Selig the traditionalist... Interleague/All-star game='s Homefield his self...

jojo
10-11-2010, 07:37 AM
In that case, it's time MLB finally stops getting in its own way, and allows for video replay when needed...

Ah wait... That wouldn't work. I forgot about Ol' Bud Selig the traditionalist... Interleague/All-star game='s Homefield his self...

Ironically, replay was used in game three.

traderumor
10-11-2010, 08:35 AM
I cannot tell you how many times especially on the bases I have not seen the exact tag being made because the angle to where I am standing will not allow me to see the tag. Alor of times you have to use your judgement and make an educated guess on what happened. If you want a hard nosed rule of "if you don't see it and you have no evidence, don't call it" then you are going to have alot of horribly missed calls.

In the Utley case, Utley sold the call, the pitcher made the mistake of entering the batters domain of the batters box with his pitch, so Utley got the benefit of doubt. It is really that simple.Uttley hangs over the plate as much as anyone.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 10:05 AM
In that case, it's time MLB finally stops getting in its own way, and allows for video replay when needed...

Ah wait... That wouldn't work. I forgot about Ol' Bud Selig the traditionalist... Interleague/All-star game='s Homefield his self...

The more I think about it, I am pretty sure MLB is eventually going to go the route of instant replay. They really do not have a choice because technology today is so incredibly good that it looks bad with so many calls being missed and MLB doing nothing about it

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 10:08 AM
Uttley hangs over the plate as much as anyone.

It doesn't matter if he hangs over the plate so long as he is not in the strike zone when he is hit by the pitch. If the pitch hits him and the body part that was hit was in the strike zone then it would be a dead ball strike.

I have made that call a couple times and it isn't to terribly popular.

bucksfan2
10-11-2010, 10:12 AM
It doesn't matter if he hangs over the plate so long as he is not in the strike zone when he is hit by the pitch. If the pitch hits him and the body part that was hit was in the strike zone then it would be a dead ball strike.

I have made that call a couple times and it isn't to terribly popular.

I thought there was a rule on the books that you had to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitch.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 10:23 AM
I thought there was a rule on the books that you had to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitch.

In HS Federation and NCAA rules there is. In MLB I am really not sure. In all my years of watching MLB though I have never seen an umpire make the batter stay because he didn't make an effort to avoid getting hit.

traderumor
10-11-2010, 10:39 AM
It doesn't matter if he hangs over the plate so long as he is not in the strike zone when he is hit by the pitch. If the pitch hits him and the body part that was hit was in the strike zone then it would be a dead ball strike.

I have made that call a couple times and it isn't to terribly popular.Right, the pitch was barely inside. You said that Chapman "entered the hitter's domain." George, it was a bad guess call. Not sure why you can't just admit that and quit making excuses simply because you are a fellow umpire.

George Anderson
10-11-2010, 10:42 AM
Right, the pitch was barely inside. You said that Chapman "entered the hitter's domain." George, it was a bad guess call. Not sure why you can't just admit that and quit making excuses simply because you are a fellow umpire.

Take time to review my past posts especially about last years playoff umpiring and in regards to CB Bucknor and Hunter Wendlestat and you will see that I am very far from an umpire apologist. I rip umpires all the time if I feel like they were wrong.

dfs
10-11-2010, 12:56 PM
I thought there was a rule on the books that you had to make an effort to get out of the way of a pitch.

I bring this up as well. Not for this specific instance, but because NOBODY tries to get out of the way any more. Is it just not in the rulebook, or is it not enforced?

Roy Tucker
10-11-2010, 01:07 PM
In HS Federation and NCAA rules there is. In MLB I am really not sure. In all my years of watching MLB though I have never seen an umpire make the batter stay because he didn't make an effort to avoid getting hit.

It happens, but not frequently. Most famously was Don Drysdale's scoreless streak back in 1968...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_11_61/ai_92521926/



In a game between the Dodgers and Giants at Los Angeles, the Giants had the bases loaded in the ninth inning and none out with Giants' catcher Dick Dietz at bat with a 2-and-2 count facing Drysdale. The next pitch struck Dietz, but plate umpire Harry Wendelstedt ruled that Dietz had made no effort to get out of the way of the pitch. Wendelstedt ruled the pitch "ball three" and Dietz eventually flied out. Drysdale's streak remained intact thanks to 6.08 (b).

Tornon
10-11-2010, 01:10 PM
In HS Federation and NCAA rules there is. In MLB I am really not sure. In all my years of watching MLB though I have never seen an umpire make the batter stay because he didn't make an effort to avoid getting hit.

I seem to remember that happened to Craig Biggio once 4 or 5 years back when he was making his run at the all time HBP mark