Beating a Dead Horse

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 8:31 AM PDT

Ridiculous calls from yesterday's game:

Swisher called safe when picked off at second in the top of the 4th, one out, Yankees up by three.
Swisher incorrectly called out for leaving the bag early on a sacrifice fly to end the 4th, Yankees up by three.
Robinson Cano called safe when out at third on a hilarious Swisher 1-2 DP, Yankees up by five.

It all evens out, you say? Well, using the THT Win Probability tool, we end up with the following changes in win expectancy due to bad calls from the umpires (Angels win ex is positive):

-4%
+10%
-1%

All in all, the umpires skewed game four of the ALCS in favour of the Angels by a non-insignificant amount - in fact, 5% WPA is almost as much as Albert Pujols contributed per game for the Cardinals (this is a silly comparison but it illustrates the point quite well).

The playoffs deserve better than this.

Tweet Comment 77 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

.

This was the worst umpiring performance at an Angels game since Leslie Nielsen in “The Naked Gun.”

and

People are human," Jeter said. “They’re going to make mistakes sometimes. Umpires are trying their best. Sometimes you get calls and sometimes you don’t. I don’t think it had any effect on this game.”

by msb on Oct 21, 2009 8:50 AM PDT reply actions

KLAW on Cowherd this morning.

He was ranting on the umps. It’s become a joke, really…

I also liked his in-game Twit: "Tonight’s Umpires … how fitting that they all look like mugshots. "

SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!

by PositivePaul on Oct 21, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions

I'm going to defend the 3rd base umpire on the two he made

He was blocked off from seeing Cano off the bag on that ‘double play.’ It was clear as day from the angle we had on tv, but I thought the umpire had one, if not two, people between he and Cano. He assumed Cano was on the base and couldn’t see otherwise.

On Swisher incorrectly being called out for leaving early, it’s really hard to see someone catch a ball 250 feet away and watch the guys foot on the bag at the same time. If you watch the play, the umpire is looking out towards CF. The only thing he can do is watch Swisher’s movement in his periphery. In watching that play, Swisher’s entire upper body was moving right before Hunter caught the ball (beginning his running motion). His foot remained on the bag, but I can see how it appeared that he left early.

Yes, the umpiring has been poor overall, but I’d rather argue about the strikes/balls and that pick off at 2nd, than these two calls I just defended.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions

So now it's ok for umpires to just guess?

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions

He was out of position...that's bad. But if he didn't see Cano not on the base do you want him to 'guess' that he wasn't due to the Angels telling him so?

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

The problem isn't in the fact that he guessed wrong, it was that he had to guess at all

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions

It seems like a lot of officiating these days in sports is guessing. They get out of position every once and a while Is he supposed to not make a call if he's out of position?

What are you supposed to do on that tag up from third play with Swisher? Those plays are almost always subjective because a person with two eyes can’t watch both the ball being caught and the foot on the bag.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions

How does that make it right, though?

Just because it’s happening doesn’t mean it should be happening. There’s a few easy ways to solve this. First, don’t be out of position. Second, either put more eyes on the field or put better technology in the hands of the eyes already on the field, so to speak.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Well..the subject line is a little messed up in that post.

What I was asking is: If they occasionally (maybe too occasionally) get out of position, are they supposed to abstain from making a ruling?

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions

No, they should make a call

But it becomes their responsibility if they’re wrong. This is why I think umpires should want better tools to be more accurate – they can’t enjoy being the guys who clearly screwed up on a big play.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions

So do we open up replay for things like that 'double-play' at third base?

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

I like Caple's suggestion at the end of the piece msb linked above

Another official watching the game on tv that can quickly override decisions on plays like that.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes! I didn't read the article msb linked. But I like it.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

This would be an excellent idea

Like a booth review type situation.

by OlSalty on Oct 21, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Why wouldn't we?

Make it like football – let the managers have a certain number of challenges per game, and if they challenge and lose, the next batter starts off at 0-1.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

I haaaaate the idea of challenges

There have got to be ways of fixing this problem without slowing down the game.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not thrilled with them either

but I’d live with them if it means that calls are made right. And you could pair the challenges with some rule changes (once in the batter’s box no leaving, etc) that would hopefully negate any time added by challenges.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd prefer doing something to increase accuracy with no challenges at all

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Me too

but I’m thinking that’d be a tough sell to the union. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued, just that it would probably be easier to go the challenge route than to do nothing.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions

If it creates one more umpire job they might listen

by Poochie on Oct 21, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

*per game

by Poochie on Oct 21, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

This is true

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Football does too many unnecessary review, baseball does too few

If the managers get any number of challenges they only get one

by Poochie on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions

Having the next batter start off 0-1 could hurt my fantasy baseball team!

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Considering the rarity of being called out for leaving the bag to early it appears that the precedent is to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions

I would absolutely agree with this.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions

So what does an umpire do if he has no idea what call to make?

by .Taylor on Oct 21, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Or we could just avoid this in the first place by having better umpires.

by .Taylor on Oct 21, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions

He asks for help.

From the rest of his crew who was presumably paying more attention. It would be nice if there were the outside reviews mentioned here available to him but at the very least he needs to ask for help from the crew.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

An important part of an umpire's job is to physically move to get into a position where he's not blocked by one if not two people.

He absolutely assumed that Cano was on the base, and couldn’t see otherwise. And that’s a damning indictment of his umpiring.

by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Agreed, watching that play he just practically stood there and didn't move to see Cano.

I don’t want him changing his call (as bad as it was) because Angels players were jumping around complaining.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

It's got nothing to do with the Angels, or their reaction

I mean, he fucked up once in this game alone because he watched Torii Hunter’s reaction to Nick Swisher leaving 3rd. In that case too, Timmy didn’t move to get into a better position.

He’s just actually got to work a little bit and give himself a chance to do something other than guess/assume. A part of me is happy that this is happening because I think it highlights just how often people do this. And that makes it incrementally more likely that we get robot overlords soon.

by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

I think that's a lot of the problem I have with umpiring

so much of it is based on assumption – sometimes by necessity as in the example above, sometimes by tradition as in the “neighborhood play”. It’s completely inane that in this day and age that is allowed to be a thing – umpires should be able to KNOW, not have to assume. Technology can help that.

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

McClelland does not say his view was blocked, though

“On the play with Cano and Posada, I thought Cano was on the base. I was waiting for two players to be on the base, and when there was never the situation where both of them were on the base at the same time. When he tagged Cano, I thought Cano was on the base, and when Jorge touched the base and continued and tagged Posada out, I thought Posada was out …
(The replay) showed that Cano was off the bag when he was tagged. I did not see that for whatever reason … I’m just out there trying to do my job and do it the best I can.”

by msb on Oct 21, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

I love how he basically admits that he's assuming an outcome

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions

He should have just said "I blew it, I'm sorry" and left it at that.

I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.

by EnglishMariner on Oct 21, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Exactly. He said far too many words.

It’s like a recent story I read about a couple that was found dead in their hot tub. Some investigators think faulty wiring may have electrocuted them.

So they interviewed a neighbor on the sadness/tradgedy of it all and he was like, “Yeah, I helped them install the hot tub.” Probably not something you want to admit at this point in public.

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Oct 21, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Videos?

Anyone have a link to these calls? I’d love to seem them. Thanks

Gritty... that's the term I think of when I see Jack Wilson play. Gritty

by A Steamy Day in Cleveland on Oct 21, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

Here you go, to the Cano/Posada mess at 3B anyway.

Link.

by Kermit. on Oct 21, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't forget the strike zone!

Who knows what impact this had.

by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 10:05 AM PDT reply actions

I need WPA for ball and strike calling

I bet for the WS combined with bad calls on other plays we could get the absolute value of umpire’s interference over one win.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Honest question for anyone:

When looking at the strike zone, it seems as if there were seven “strikes” called balls on pitches the Yankees threw, and eight “strikes” called balls on pitches the Angels threw. Anaheim got three “balls” called strikes, though, to the Yankees one.

Obviously these ball/strike errors aren’t linked to LI so there’s no way of quantifying possible change WE. But, in instances like this, where the zone appeared to be relatively equally bad, what’s the argument (if there is one) that holds water that the strike zone had a negative impact on the Angels WE Tuesday?

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Timing

The timing of calls can be really important. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the zone to notice the blown calls there, but if the Angels were getting breaks when the game was close and the Yankees got them later, that’s clearly favouring the Angels. And if it were the other way around, it favours the Yankees

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions

No, I get that.

Then in that case, why not just pull up the Pitch F/X results from each high leverage ab last night and see if there were calls that benefited one team or another in those situations?

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Uh because I don't really have the time to right now and that wasn't really the premise of my post?

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

I wasn't asking you to do this, moreso I was just asking if this is a conceivable option?

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, it would be

I’d prefer a method that integrated pitch count into WPA though

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

I could definitely get behind this.

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

The argument is that bad or inconsistent strike zones have some effect

I don’t know what that effect is. Nobody does. But you have to believe that, if a pitcher gets a call, or doesn’t get a call, or a batter isn’t given a clear idea of the boundaries, the game is going to be different. It’s hard enough to train a person to recognize pitches in and out of the strike zone. Strike zones that change by day or even by inning only serve to complicate.

by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually, we could

Say we know the average change in at-bat outcome with different counts. We could then figure out expected WPA changes with blown ball and strike calls.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

We could investigate the effect of specific calls

but it’s impossible to know how they change the rest of the game from that point on.

by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions

WPA tells you how much on average they would impact a specific game.

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

You're probably right and WPA would get us close enough

by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 21, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions

The world's biggest markov chain since Asimov!

by Matthew on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

On an unrelated note

what’s the acceptable rate of error (if there is any) on balls and strikes.

284 pitches thrown, 19 seemingly missed. 6.7% seems high, but is it way out of whack?

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

They number I hear quoted a lot for the average is 95%

by Matthew on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

So Lane missed five pitches more than the acceptable norm?

Whoopty-doo.

On the one hand, we have the ability / technology to reduce that acceptable / actual rate of error significantly, why not do it.

But, on the other hand, the missed b/s calls seemed to even out at least in this particular game to 10 for one team 9 for the other. Additionally, a “poorly” called game still only featured 5 missed b/s calls over the average rate. I don’t know. Fuck you Angels fans.

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Turns out all games are poorly called!

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Viva consistency!

Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.

by pdb on Oct 21, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Yea.

Maybe if my team was involved I’d feel more jilted, or even maybe care.

Now though, I just can’t be bothered to really give a crap other than to say good lord there have been some really blatant and inexcusable non-b/s screw ups,

I go to law school. Therefore, I have no life.

by andrewgolfsalot on Oct 21, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

That's fewer missed than usual I think

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions

Er more

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

How about something wild and crazy like the other umps calling for a biref confab

that 6th man who’s just hanging out along the 3rd base line might have noticed both players were tagged out.

by msb on Oct 21, 2009 10:13 AM PDT reply actions

Sort of like the 3b ump should've seen that Mauer 'foul' ball was about a foot and a half fair.

I think an umpire who didn’t see a play is more than happy to call in his colleagues, but I don’t know that I’ve seen another umpire run over to one who was in a ‘better’ position and question his call. You’re right, I think they should if they see something obvious, but they’re quite loathe to do so. I understand why and all, but that just makes me want robots more.

by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

As I just posted over at Fangraphs...

We really should have TV Umpires, just like in cricket, who can review a replay and radio to the Umpire what the correct call should be. No need to walk off the field – just a simple 30 second review of the replay, and you have your result.

Cricket should never, ever be ahead of baseball in utilising technology.

I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.

by EnglishMariner on Oct 21, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions

Do you even need 30 seconds?

The Cano non-DP call should have been overruled in about three

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions

I bet they'd be obliged to look at one replay or to hit rewind on their tivo

by Poochie on Oct 21, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

True!

I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.

by EnglishMariner on Oct 21, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions

It's just East coast bias payback for HH insinuating that Mariano Rivera was cheating

by seattlebruin on Oct 21, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions

Did you not see where the umpiring turns out to have massively favoured the Angels?

by Graham MacAree on Oct 21, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

As if I read the posts before I comment

by seattlebruin on Oct 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions

My only hope from this postseason is that so much umpire outrage is drummed up that changes are actually made to make it better.

by OlSalty on Oct 21, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions

That would be a good outcome, but my goal is even bigger: these playoffs have been so singularly ugly

that it might help stop people from romanticizing a short odd tournament at the end of baseball season. The playoffs can be tremendously exciting, and can showcase baseball at its best. They can also feature mind-numbingly stupid umpire decisions, games won on bases loaded walks, walk-off throwing errors and blowouts.
These games can stand or fall on their merits, and I don’t want to hear about how amazing playoff baseball is because it’s PLAYOFF Baseball!!!!!™ A year like this should make people appreciate the regular season a bit more; baseball (and sportswriters) sometimes seem to express relief that the damn season’s over so the important games can start. And I hate that.

by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions