For those who didnt' see this ...

[thunderheads]

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

[bnumpire]

I saw that yesterday morning's broadcast. I have a couple of questions about the validity of ESPN's survey. For example, what did they consider a close call for plays where a runner is going to a base standing up (i.e. most plays at first) vs. when a player is sliding into a base? Also, an a more important one for MLB evaluators, were these calls evenly spread among all umpires or was one umpire coming up wrong more often than others?

These are just a few of the numerous questions that I have that, for me, just brings questions about making such a general statement about all MLB umpires.

[missouriump]

I really expected this ESPN “survey” to garner much more discussion on this forum. First, I do NOT want more replay in baseball. It takes away the “human” touch a real live umpire brings. If every call needs to be absolutely correct, then the umpires will be replaced by cameras and Doppler radar for the perfect strike zone. Besides, even the ESPN survey acknowledges, “Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call.” So, human contact would be needed to sort out the 13.9%---or we could just have 13.9% of the close calls as do-overs. No more YouTube videos of managers going off on umpires to make the workday move a bit faster, either.

In my opinion, the use of replay should be used to evaluate the umpires as the NFL uses game film to critique, train, and discipline its referees. In the evaluation process (at this level), if an umpire is really stinking up the field, then he should not get any post season assignments rather than letting the Good Ole Boy Network pick and choose who gets the post season games.

Since the strike zone illustrators have been in use the last few years, a much more consistent zone has become standard across both leagues. Just as it should be. No more National League zone from below the knees to the belt while the American League calls from the lower thigh to the belly button.

I don’t know the number of MLB umpires but it is less than 100 full timers. Plus, you have maybe a couple dozen AAA umpires to cover illness and such. So, maybe 125 different umpires see the MLB field each year??? Some of the veterans just don’t seem to hustle or care if the call they made is wrong. They know their job is safe and secure until they themselves decide to retire or until they pass away. The umpires’ union will fight this, but MLB should institute training and evaluation procedures similar to those of the NFL. New blood will make its way to the show and/or the veterans will step up their game and the game of baseball will be even better.

I thoroughly enjoy umpiring about any age up to and including high school aged players. Those who have read my previous posts know I don’t umpire men’s league because they whine and gripe too much. However, I see the MLB umpire’s gig as pretty sweet since they get paid quite well to put up with grown men whining and complaining while playing a game. There are a lot of good umpires (much better than me) that would jump at the chance to be an MLB umpire. If some in the current group of MLB umpires are not up to the level of excellence that should be expected, then they should step aside or be swept aside for umpires that can provide that level of excellence.

[Solsaa]

Whether you agree with the story or not, calls are missed. The question is, why are they missed? If you look at the plays that they played, you can see, more often than not, that the umpire was not in the optimum position to make the correct call. With proper positioning and timing, these missed calls would be reduced dramatically. That is why it is important to continue to refine and work at your game. Eliminating these mistakes eliminates mistakes. Learn from it and incorporate it into your game.

[johnnyg08]

Whether you agree with the story or not, calls are missed. The question is, why are they missed? If you look at the plays that they played, you can see, more often than not, that the umpire was not in the optimum position to make the correct call. With proper positioning and timing, these missed calls would be reduced dramatically. That is why it is important to continue to refine and work at your game. Eliminating these mistakes eliminates mistakes. Learn from it and incorporate it into your game.

Amen!

[yawetag]

I really expected this ESPN “survey” to garner much more discussion on this forum.
It's being discussed in every other umpire forum. It showed up here last. I suspect we're all tired of talking about it.

[BrianC14]

Here's one blogger's response to ESPN's survey:

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/8/16/1625746/espn-mlb-umpires-study-20-per-cent-miss-call-wrong-nate-silver

[bigbird69]

As a Math Major in college, If I had submitted the article as written to any of my professors, the letter grade would have been an 'F'.

First, they totally skip very relevant numbers (such as how many average plays per game), The don't define just how close is close, they don't tell you just how close to the undecided level that any of the misses were. I could go on and on. To say genericly that the umpires miss 20% of the calls is down right poor journalism. Here are a few numbers that I could come up with and lets see just how bad things really are....

Their numbers indicate that there are 1.3 close calls per game, and of those, 1/5th are made incorrectly. Makes it sound like these guys suck, until you realize the piss poor sample that the conviently don't make light of. 1 call every 4 games is missed. How bad is that really? (and for every call like Jim Joyces (which may have not even been close enough to make the study for all we know), which was pretty obvious w/o replay which even he now admits, how many were so close that they had to replay 20+ times before they could determine one way or another?)

Lets fill in the rest of the story... a doubled ended perfect game would be 54 putouts. Since they admit they avoided the strikezone, we need to subtract a reasonable number of strikeouts per game. I will say for average about 7 per side... now we are down to 40 putouts/plays to look at... now we all know that there are no double perfect games so how many actual calls are there... we have fair foul calls, we have stolen bases.. calls that are safe... ( an we can't forget the missed fair ball called foul or vice versa, and on the one called foul, how many came back to help the defense?) I will say in the whole scheme of things, we could easily be talking 100 calls per game, and I personally believe this to be very conservative too. (though we also don't have what they defined as a call either)

Assuming 100 calls per game, and 1 call missed every 4 games, you have 1 out of 400, for a .998 accuracy average. Pretty damn good in the overall scheme of life.

I think the bigger question is, how many of these missed calls end up being a non-factor in the game? (Like Jim Joyces call was for the sake of who wins, which is really what is important anyway)

In the grand scheme of life, the author of this article is clearly trying to inflame readers, not speak the truth. Probably one of the biggest reasons why I turned ESPN off years ago.... ( Well that and they are clearly biased for certain teams and certain sports, which in journalism is just plain wrong.)

[yawetag]

As a Math Major in college, If I had submitted the article as written to any of my professors, the letter grade would have been an 'F'.
I think it would have been an "F" in any relevant class.

Playing Devil's Advocate:

To be fair, the statement is correct: 20% of close calls were wrong. While I agree that the umpires are right 99+% of the time, all but 184 of those were obvious calls. This would include foul balls into the stands and put-outs where the runner was out by 2 or 3 steps.

So, of all the calls, 184 were considered ones that umpires get paid to call. Of those, 20% were wrong. Is that a bad number? I don't know -- how does the 2 weeks before, or after, the sample look? How does it look for 2009? 20% sounds like a large number.

It's not the hundreds or thousands of easy calls that umpires are graded on -- it's the 184 that ESPN reviewed. If you failed at 20% of the difficult tasks at your job, I'm sure you wouldn't be hired for very long.

Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. In reality, I think the story is biased about as badly as it can.

[BrianC14]

I think it would have been an "F" in any relevant class.

Playing Devil's Advocate:

To be fair, the statement is correct: 20% of close calls were wrong. While I agree that the umpires are right 99+% of the time, all but 184 of those were obvious calls. This would include foul balls into the stands and put-outs where the runner was out by 2 or 3 steps.

So, of all the calls, 184 were considered ones that umpires get paid to call. Of those, 20% were wrong. Is that a bad number? I don't know -- how does the 2 weeks before, or after, the sample look? How does it look for 2009? 20% sounds like a large number.

It's not the hundreds or thousands of easy calls that umpires are graded on -- it's the 184 that ESPN reviewed. If you failed at 20% of the difficult tasks at your job, I'm sure you wouldn't be hired for very long.

Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. In reality, I think the story is biased about as badly as it can.

That's what happens when they start with a conclusion and arrange a few data points to fit their preconceived "facts".

[denimvest]

I really expected this ESPN “survey” to garner much more discussion on this forum.It's being discussed in every other umpire forum. It showed up here last. I suspect we're all tired of talking about it.
In addition to this and the other good points made above, perhaps many people here realize that any "survey" done by ESPN is likely to be complete and total crap. Never forget that the "E" in ESPN stands for "entertainment," there's a reason it comes before the "S," and they've done more than almost any other single force in recent decades to go from blurring the lines between the two to demolishing them. Remember the one-hour LeBron James signing special? It was only very recently in its history that ESPN stopped airing professional "wrestling." Just as I'm positive that their radar guns at the LLWS are completely bogus, I take anything ESPN does that purports to be investigative journalism with a grain of salt that could choke a monkey.