HHP: Hard Data on Ball/Strike Calls - How Good/Bad are the Umpires

[sangar]

I think it's time for baseball to move past the home plate umpire. Technology is available that will eliminate these kinds of mistakes. To allow a multi-billion dollar game to ride on the judgement of men who have demonstrated bias is ludicrous.

[skanar]

Thanks, this is great info! That being said, I can't disagree more that it doesn't matter that much. The O's get screwed everytime they play the Yankees. We have two extra inning nail biters that could have gone either way against them. To say that it doesn't matter that they got 18 bad calls going against them is crazy. One bad call followed by an rbi hit makes all the difference in the world. Buck getting thrown out today was absolutely necessary. How can anyone compete on an unlevel playing field? It's Fing bad enough the Yankees outspend them 2-1.

Well, I don't want to say that it doesn't matter, just that we don't really have enough data yet one way or the other. Even in the worst-umpired games, only about 25% of the judgment calls have been bad, and there are plenty of pitches where the home plate umpire just doesn't get involved: swinging strikes, balls in play, etc. I think it certainly matters, I'm just not sure to what degree. I cherry-picked some of the worst examples in the OP and made the point that we won a few (including today, which was the least-favorable to the O's so far).

So far this season, the team that was favored by ball/strike calls has won 10/15 games (one game was called completely even). That's a lot, but it ignores the magnitude of the effect. Looking only at games where one team was heavily favored (at least 6 extra helpful calls; the average game has had 5.5 so far), the favored team has won 3/6. In short, we just don't have enough data to say how much a biased home plate umpire matters. Hopefully, by the end of the season, we'll have enough data to draw some reasonably firm conclusions.

[brianod]

Well, I don't want to say that it doesn't matter, just that we don't really have enough data yet one way or the other. Even in the worst-umpired games, only about 25% of the judgment calls have been bad, and there are plenty of pitches where the home plate umpire just doesn't get involved: swinging strikes, balls in play, etc. I think it certainly matters, I'm just not sure to what degree. I cherry-picked some of the worst examples in the OP and made the point that we won a few (including today, which was the least-favorable to the O's so far).

So far this season, the team that was favored by ball/strike calls has won 10/15 games (one game was called completely even). That's a lot, but it ignores the magnitude of the effect. Looking only at games where one team was heavily favored (at least 6 extra helpful calls; the average game has had 5.5 so far), the favored team has won 3/6. In short, we just don't have enough data to say how much a biased home plate umpire matters. Hopefully, by the end of the season, we'll have enough data to draw some reasonably firm conclusions.

I don't need data to tell me how much a bad call matters. Data will probably never tell you the real damage of an uneven playing field. If you are a Yankee player, how much is it worth to know that a pitch on the corner can be taken and you'll have a better than 50% chance of getting the call? It makes all the difference in the world.

[SrMeowMeow]

Amazing OP, and repped.

This is especially disturbing considering how highly Wieters was rated at pitch framing last season. If he's still elite at that and we're still getting these results, the overall bias (no matter the cause) could be worse than it looks.

[BarclaySouthway]

Great research, skanar.

However, it doesn't seem to matter THAT much, at least in terms of wins and losses.

We shall see. So far the Os have done a good job of battling through it.

4-0 when we come out on the plus side or even. 5-7 with a minus differential.

The fact that we're 3-12 on the plus/minus for the year is big deal and Buck, et al should continue to raise hell about IMO.

[brianod]

Great research, skanar.



We shall see. So far the Os have done a good job of battling through it.

4-0 when we come out on the plus side or even. 5-7 with a minus differential.

The fact that we're 3-12 on the plus/minus for the year is big deal and Buck, et al should continue to raise hell about IMO.

Absolutely. If you are going to change a losing culture, you need to demand respect from the umps.

[Rick_Schu]

I have a friend who used to "grade" umpires for MLB. I believe he said the umps are league average 91% accurrate on balls/strikes. For whatever that's worth. I like the fact that MLB reviews every pitch and holds the umps accountable.

[square634]

Amazing OP, and repped.

This is especially disturbing considering how highly Wieters was rated at pitch framing last season. If he's still elite at that and we're still getting these results, the overall bias (no matter the cause) could be worse than it looks.

I think another really crucial piece of the data would be how many close pitches the Orioles actually swing at as compared to other teams. If you take more pitches, you open yourself up to more bad calls right?

(And of course, how many total "borderline" pitches Orioles pitchers throw compare to opponents).

[bobmc]

It makes me feel better that what I thought were the "worst" games were actually the worst. Today's game and the Sabathia game stuck out to me before I saw this thread. We did an amazing job to get that win today. Really excellent effort all around. We lose that game 19 of 20 times with the slanted zone, on the road, last game of a 10 day/10 game trip.

Awesome stuff and great idea to do this daily. If you guys get tired, I can do some games. Rep given.

I repped him also but wondering if you saw the game and your take on Chen's outing. Perhaps in a Chen thread...

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think another really crucial piece of the data would be how many close pitches the Orioles actually swing at as compared to other teams. If you take more pitches, you open yourself up to more bad calls right?

Yeah, I think somebody mentioned that already. How about where the catcher was set up and where the pitch ended up. Umpires kinda frown when you're not near the target. Anybody shocked that Arrieta is half our minus total and CC Sabathia kicked his but at this game. Am I the only one not buying this?

[dgroomes]

I personally feel that the Yankees get the calls in the same way NBA superstars get fouls called. I feel at times that officials/umps are differential to the "superstars" because its assumed that through their talent they get the benefit of the doubt. For instance, Texiera has a rep for having a "good eye" for the strike zone and the Yankees are a team that makes almost a theatrical display of how confident they are in balls and strikes, and being that its the Yanks, the umps give them the benefit. In the NBA, Michale Jordan got phantom touch calls that no one else got. Why? Because it was assumed that if he took a shot leaned in to a defender and missed, there must have been contact, and he would make such a deal of getting calls, the officials gave him the benefit of the doubt. This is one of the major problem I have with the "human" aspect of the game. There seems to be too much "respect" ruling it and not enough unweighted treatment of the plays.

[Lucky Jim]

Yeah, I think somebody mentioned that already. How about where the catcher was set up and where the pitch ended up. Umpires kinda frown when you're not near the target. Anybody shocked that Arrieta is half our minus total and CC Sabathia kicked his but at this game. Am I the only one not buying this?

Both points ignore the fact that the strike zone is objective.

I'm not sure, exactly, what you're "not buying" and haven't been since you started attempting some unclear criticism of this data. Having command within the strike zone is a skill that will aid individual pitchers regardless of whether the exact strike zone is enforced. That doesn't mean that strikes shouldn't be strikes and/or balls should be called strikes because the result-location was intended. Intent has literally nothing to do with the fact of a strike.

[OrangeJerseys]

This thread is why OH is the champion of the universe.

[sangar]

Both points ignore the fact that the strike zone is objective.
Intent has literally nothing to do with the fact of a strike.

I fail to see why so many people don't get this. The strike zone is a basic concept and has no gray areas. Either it is, or it isn't.

Umpires who try to read intent, or who reward a pitcher for execution, are placing their judgement above the rules.

[SrMeowMeow]

I fail to see why so many people don't get this. The strike zone is a basic concept and has no gray areas. Either it is, or it isn't.

Umpires who try to read intent, or who reward a pitcher for execution, are placing their judgement above the rules.

Both points ignore the fact that the strike zone is objective.

I'm not sure, exactly, what you're "not buying" and haven't been since you started attempting some unclear criticism of this data. Having command within the strike zone is a skill that will aid individual pitchers regardless of whether the exact strike zone is enforced. That doesn't mean that strikes shouldn't be strikes and/or balls should be called strikes because the result-location was intended. Intent has literally nothing to do with the fact of a strike.

But these effects exist, and pitchers use them when they can. You'll often hear an announcer talking about a pitcher trying to establish a certain strike zone or pitch. And if some pitchers can do this successfully, that's one of the reasons they're successful.