The "age" of diva umpires

[Wonderful Monds]

I never once said that umpires should not call the game by the rule book. I said they should be consistent. If their interpretation of the strike zone (by the rule book) is slightly different than the little box on your computer, then so be it. Just be consistent. Like I said, I doubt you will ever find 2 umpires whose strike zones are identical. It's not because they don't know the rule, it's how they interpret the rule. If they are consistent, then so be it.

I don't know why y'all get so worked up about this. It's never going to be exact, ever. Never, ever. Umpires in 2013 are really so much more consistent than 30 years ago, it's laughable that there is so much hand wringing about it.

Bum

I'm not sure where the room for interpretation is here. It seems pretty black and white to me.

[Bumstead]

Shenanigans.

What's important is that the umpire enforces the rules.

An ump that designs his own strikezone has zero credibility concerning admonishing player reactions to his calls. He's the ultimate hypocrit.

Comical. The umpire interprets the rules when he reads them. Then he goes on the field and puts them in place. Then if he calls the game based on that interpretation consistently, what's your gripe then. What? You don't think these guys review their games and see what their "zone" was like each night? Shenanigans to you Sir. This is their profession and they get critiqued based on how they do. These guys get more consistent every year. There really is very little to complain about regarding the strike zone.

When you actually go out there to call balls and strikes, you know there is no little box there for you to easily call each pitch, right? I mean these guys read the rules and then go out and do their best to call the game using their interpretation of the rules and they try to be consistent with that interpretation. Still comical how some of you would hate the umpires even if they were perfect, which they are not; but, they are very, very good at the MLB level.

Bum

[jojo]

Comical. The umpire interprets the rules when he reads them. Then he goes on the field and puts them in place. Then if he calls the game based on that interpretation consistently, what's your gripe then. What? You don't think these guys review their games and see what their "zone" was like each night? Shenanigans to you Sir. This is their profession and they get critiqued based on how they do. These guys get more consistent every year. There really is very little to complain about regarding the strike zone.

When you actually go out there to call balls and strikes, you know there is no little box there for you to easily call each pitch, right? I mean these guys read the rules and then go out and do their best to call the game using their interpretation of the rules and they try to be consistent with that interpretation. Still comical how some of you would hate the umpires even if they were perfect, which they are not; but, they are very, very good at the MLB level.

Bum

The rule book explicitly defines the strikezone. You're arguing humans are incapable of interpreting the rule book the same way. Alright, fine, then humans shouldn't be relied upon to enforce the rules concerning balls and strikes.

But don't preen and pomp concerning the sanctity of the rules out of one side of the mouth while bristling at the notion that umps should be charged with upholding all of the rules out of the other side side of the mouth.

[Bumstead]

The rule book explicitly defines the strikezone. You're arguing humans are incapable of interpreting the rule book the same way. Alright, fine, then humans shouldn't be relied upon to enforce the rules concerning balls and strikes.

But don't preen and pomp concerning the sanctity of the rules.

I am just saying that your interpretation and my interpretation may differ slightly. I would think there would be minimal differences in the interpretations. Do they miss a pitch now and then? Yeah...they are human. Even the computer misses pitches and to be honest the difference between MLB umpires and the computers is negligible (it's like 4-5 pitches a game or something)...lots of complaining over not much of anything to be fair.

I don't believe the I have "preened and pomped" over anything. I have spoken to my experience and my opinions and that is all. I haven't even posted much in this thread as it is mostly a re-hashing of the last one isn't it?

Bum

[coachpipe]

I wouldnt mind being a Diva ump. They pay is great and then you get your name mentioned on ESPN...all media attention is good attention right?

[jojo]

I am just saying that your interpretation and my interpretation may differ slightly. I would think there would be minimal differences in the interpretations. Do they miss a pitch now and then? Yeah...they are human. Even the computer misses pitches and to be honest the difference between MLB umpires and the computers is negligible (it's like 4-5 pitches a game or something)...lots of complaining over not much of anything to be fair.

I don't believe the I have "preened and pomped" over anything. I have spoken to my experience and my opinions and that is all. I haven't even posted much in this thread as it is mostly a re-hashing of the last one isn't it?

Bum

In your last five posts you've characterized those who might disagree with you as uninformed geeks that are laughable while implying umps are ordained with the right to have a unique strikezone (I.e. have the power to arbitrarily enforce the rule book).

Let's just say such a stance probably doesn't translate into an effective PR message for the ump profession.

[mth123]

So why can't an umpire consistently call balls and strikes by the rule book? What makes calling it by the book inconsistent. It seems to me the only thing that would make it inconsistent is varyig from the book.

[757690]

So why can't an umpire consistently call balls and strikes by the rule book? What makes calling it by the book inconsistent. It seems to me the only thing that would make it inconsistent is varyig from the book.

It's about perspective. It's impossible for an ump to get a perfect view of every pitch. Because they have to set up behind the catcher, at an angle, they don't get a pure look at the pitch, it's always askew a bit.

Because of this, umps need to use their judgement and adjust their calls based on their skewed view. That's why consistency is more important than calling it by the book, since the ump never sees the pitch perfectly anyway. This is also why using technology to assist the umps would be a good idea.

[mth123]

It's about perspective. It's impossible for an ump to get a perfect view of every pitch. Because they have to set up behind the catcher, at an angle, they don't get a pure look at the pitch, it's always askew a bit.

Because of this, umps need to use their judgement and adjust their calls based on their skewed view. That's why consistency is more important than calling it by the book, since the ump never sees the pitch perfectly anyway. This is also why using technology to assist the umps would be a good idea.

Sounds to me like an easy excuse for missing a call. "Well I know that's a strike by the book, but my Zone is different."

They aren't going to see it perfectly no matter how they define their zone and they'll still have the same problem. Why not just use the rule book as the basis and if it's not always perfectly consistent so be it. It's not always perfectly consistent when they use their own zone either for the same reasons you've laid out above.

[757690]

Sounds to me like an easy excuse for missing a call. "Well I know that's a strike by the book, but my Zone is different."

They aren't going to see it perfectly no matter how they define their zone and they'll still have the same problem. Why not just use the rule book as the basis and if it's not always perfectly consistent so be it. It's not always perfectly consistent when they use their own zone either for the same reasons you've laid out above.

Thing is, they see it as a ball, even though it technically is a strike by the book. Their perspective makes it impossible to see it exactly the way it is. (Actually that's true for everyone, but no need to get into an epistemological discussion.)

They aren't seeing it one way and calling it another, they are calling it as they see it. They just aren't seeing it perfectly. Like I said, all the more reason to use technology to assist them.

[mth123]

Thing is, they see it as a ball, even though it technically is a strike by the book. Their perspective makes it impossible to see it exactly the way it is. (Actually that's true for everyone, but no need to get into an epistemological discussion.)

They aren't seeing it one way and calling it another, they are calling it as they see it. They just aren't seeing it perfectly. Like I said, all the more reason to use technology to assist them.

I've been in the camp that we should have an umpire in the booth reviewing everything but balls and strikes with near instantaneous and binding feedback to the umps on the field (I like Johnny Footstool's 30 second limit suggested earlier).

Balls and strikes are the area I'm least willing to take away from the umps on the field, but I do think the league should make them enforce the zone in the rule book. What you're describing is different than what was posted in this thread. A poster (rather nastily and without much respect for the Redszone community IMO) said he intentionally lowers the upper end of the zone and compensates by calling pitches off the plate as strikes. That isn't perspective, it's a guy thinking his idea is better than the rulebook. It may actually be, but until it's in the book it needs to stay in his head and not in his calls IMO.

[nate]

It is a ball to the geeks that sit around and watch that little square on the TV or their computer and throw their hands up when the call isn't what the computer says it should be.

I'm pretty tired of the name-calling.

Is it possible to make your point without it?

[Tony Cloninger]

I've been in the camp that we should have an umpire in the booth reviewing everything but balls and strikes with near instantaneous and binding feedback to the umps on the field (I like Johnny Footstool's 30 second limit suggested earlier).

Balls and strikes are the area I'm least willing to take away from the umps on the field, but I do think the league should make them enforce the zone in the rule book. What you're describing is different than what was posted in this thread. A poster (rather nastily and without much respect for the Redszone community IMO) said he intentionally lowers the upper end of the zone and compensates by calling pitches off the plate as strikes. That isn't perspective, it's a guy thinking his idea is better than the rulebook. It may actually be, but until it's in the book it needs to stay in his head and not in his calls IMO.

They refuse to have a unified strike zone. If they could do that.....then I agree with you but they like to have their own zone. I think the game would actually move faster if we know what the zone will be for every single team, batter, inning and so forth.

[mth123]

They refuse to have a unified strike zone. If they could do that.....then I agree with you but they like to have their own zone. I think the game would actually move faster if we know what the zone will be for every single team, batter, inning and so forth.

Hence the term "Diva" in the title of this thread. Difference between willing and able. IMO, they are able, they just aren't willing and not being willing is what makes them seem like Divas.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Diva Umpires. Diva Message Board Posters.

True Menace To Society.