Umpire Scorecard Thread

[Mooreisbetter27]

It felt even worse than this watching. 

[harp6]

I was screaming at the TV in the second inning on the called ball to Calhoun that should have been the third strike.  I was just glad that Bradish was then able to get him on a later pitch.  I can think of 3 really bad calls that went in Coles favor.  One was a very low strike called on Rutschman in the first inning. Cole got two other called strikes that were very much off the plate.

[baltfan]

18 minutes ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

It felt even worse than this watching. 

How nuanaced are these scorecards?  Is a bad miss judged the same as a close miss?  

[Mooreisbetter27]

1 minute ago, baltfan said:

How nuanaced are these scorecards?  Is a bad miss judged the same as a close miss?  

I wish I knew.  

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, baltfan said:

How nuanaced are these scorecards?  Is a bad miss judged the same as a close miss?  

I think so.  

I didn’t think the ump did a bad job with Bradish or our other pitchers.  I mostly felt that he gave Cole several favorable strike calls that we didn’t get.  Especially below the zone.  
 

[baltfan]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I think so.  

I didn’t think the ump did a bad job with Bradish or our other pitchers.  I mostly felt that he gave Cole several favorable strike calls that we didn’t get.  Especially below the zone.  
 

Seems a bad miss should be weighted.  Multiple bad misses should be weighted even heavier as they are more likely to force a zone expansion.  Also the strike that is missed or wrongly called should be weighted.  A first strike isn’t as important as a last strike, etc…
I suspect this is more simplistic though.  

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Seems a bad miss should be weighted.  Multiple bad misses should be weighted even heavier as they are more likely to force a zone expansion.  Also the strike that is missed or wrongly called should be weighted.  A first strike isn’t as important as a last strike, etc…
I suspect this is more simplistic though.  

Well, I do think they consider the count. They use data on what the average hitter does after 2-1 vs. 1-2 or whatever, plus the base/out situation, to determine how the bad call would impact the game, on average.  But at the end of the day, a bad call has the same effect on what happens next regardless of whether the pitch missed by 3 inches or 6, unless there’s a pattern and the hitters have to start expanding their zone by a crazy amount.  

[Mooreisbetter27]

5 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Seems a bad miss should be weighted.  Multiple bad misses should be weighted even heavier as they are more likely to force a zone expansion.  Also the strike that is missed or wrongly called should be weighted.  A first strike isn’t as important as a last strike, etc…
I suspect this is more simplistic though.  

One of my biggest questions is... what is considered a "true strike" and a "true ball".  If it was anything that just touches the zone, I don't see the need to put the word true in there.  If it's a ball that is literally completely inside the strike zone or completely outside of the strike zone then that changes things a lot. 

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

One of my biggest questions is... what is considered a "true strike" and a "true ball".  If it was anything that just touches the zone, I don't see the need to put the word true in there.  If it's a ball that is literally completely inside the strike zone or completely outside of the strike zone then that changes things a lot. 

I think the word “true” is just supposed to contrast with the word “called.”  

[Billy F-Face3]

There were a couple strikes in the bottom of the zone he didn't call strikes for (IIRC) Cano. Even Jim Palmer was getting frustrated with the Ump.

I'm really surprised that "scorecard" was that generous.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

There were a couple strikes in the bottom of the zone he didn't call strikes for (IIRC) Cano. Even Jim Palmer was getting frustrated with the Ump.

I'm really surprised that "scorecard" was that generous.

It isn't a matter of generosity, it's where the balls actually went.

[Billy F-Face3]

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of how nuanced it is though. So we are basically taking the word of the "Scorecard graders" to be representative with where the balls went, without actually understanding the process of how they are really graded.

[Frobby]

43 minutes ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of how nuanced it is though. So we are basically taking the word of the "Scorecard graders" to be representative with where the balls went, without actually understanding the process of how they are really graded.

You could actually look it up.

https://umpscorecards.com/info/

[Can_of_corn]

Hey look, it's an Umpire Scorecard that has the O's being favored more than the Yankees.

I thought that was unpossible.

[Frobby]

+0.49 seems pretty averagish for any one game.   From Boone’s reaction you’d think it had been the most lopsided game of all time.