Umpire Scorecard Thread

[Mooreisbetter27]

3 minutes ago, AdamK said:

FWIW, Kremer didn't know it was blown (according to post-game interview). Either that or he's a level 20 diplomat.

Definitely he was being diplomatic.  He'd have the best view of it and it wasn't like it was just off the corner, that was practically down the middle.  The whole ball was in the strike zone.  

[Aristotelian]

28 minutes ago, Malike said:

Well, his xAcc was 91% which seems low. Lance Barksdale had an xAcc of 94%. I don't understand why there are differences other than knowing that Diaz is pure trash at his job and the bar is lower for him.

From what I can tell the xAcc is about the mix pitches they get. It is estimating "likelihood a given pitch is called correctly." Has nothing to with the skill of the umpire. So if he had a low xAcc that game, it would mean he had a lot of pitches on the edge of the strike zone or for whatever reason their algo thinks they were hard pitches to call. 

https://umpscorecards.com/explainers/accuracy

So this scorecard is saying that for the particular mix of pitches Laz got, he did better than expected and this could be considered a good game. I say that's dead wrong. 

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Mooreisbetter27 said:

I just don't see any justifiable reason why this isn't implemented.  I don't see why the umpire union would have an issue with it and it would make sure the calls are right.  We're already testing it in the minors.  Just bite the bullet and do it already.  Umpires don't lose jobs because they're still back there calling the plays.  The only ones who get mad about it is the old tradionalist's that consistently use the "human element" argument.  Which to me, is a crock.  So frustrating to watch constant mistakes when they easily can be rectified.  

I've been in a union for 25 years. I have seen many people lose their jobs despite being in a union. MLB should not be afraid that the umps will strike, if anything it could force them to go auto and actually take the nonsense out of the games. If you are incompetent at your job, union protection can't save you in any other industry.

[Malike]

1 minute ago, Aristotelian said:

From what I can tell the xAcc is about the mix pitches they get. It is estimating "likelihood a given pitch is called correctly." Has nothing to with the skill of the umpire. So if he had a low xAcc that game, it would mean he had a lot of pitches on the edge of the strike zone or for whatever reason their algo thinks they were hard pitches to call. 

https://umpscorecards.com/explainers/accuracy

So this scorecard is saying that for the particular mix of pitches Laz got, he did better than expected and this could be considered a good game. I say that's dead wrong. 

So they are basically admitting that pitchers with lots of spin are harder for humans to get right. Okay, you have the technology to help, use it.

[24fps]

28 minutes ago, Malike said:

It just doesn't make sense when they have the technology to improve it, to not improve it. 

Potential labor issues would be one part of it, although no umpire would need to lose his job over automated balls and strikes.  I also have a theory - which admittedly borders on the crackpot - that there's a desire on MLB's part to retain an ability to manipulate the game to maintain some sort of idealized balance between offense and defense.  Expanding and shrinking the strike zone as necessary would be an important tool in the toolbox.  Don't expect me to defend this notion too vigorously, but we all know that the specter of league-wide anemic offense is one thing that keeps Manfred up at night.

Now that the technology is all but proven and there are websites dedicated to putting umpires under the microscope every single day, it's only a matter of time before the pressure to change becomes overwhelming IMO.  I predict that it will take a playoff impacting mistake to provide the tipping point though. 

[Philip]

34 minutes ago, Malike said:

I've been in a union for 25 years. I have seen many people lose their jobs despite being in a union. MLB should not be afraid that the umps will strike, if anything it could force them to go auto and actually take the nonsense out of the games. If you are incompetent at your job, union protection can't save you in any other industry.

I think that’s absolutely arguable. The union’s job, aside from collecting dues, is to protect membership. There’s no reason Angel Hernandez is still around except that he’d be the thin end of the wedge on firing umpires, and the union won’t let that happen. 

Unions are different, with different secondary goals based on the field, but membership protection is  usually 3 on every list( collecting dues and expanding membership are usually the primary goals)

I've been one of the traditionalists. I grew up with  carburetors, rotary phones, black and white TV, and real mail, so umpire mistakes was just part of the life.

But now that stats are available, it’s clear that a team like the Yankees gets an unacceptable number of calls their way, because, well, they’re the Yankees. If everything averaged out, it’d be less egregious, but if the division is decided by one or two games, umpire favoritism would clearly be the reason.

It’s kind of sad, but I was sad to see the end of real newspapers, too. Life goes on…

and regarding striking: if the umpires struck, there’s a strong argument they could be COMPLETELY replaced.

[Malike]

50 minutes ago, 24fps said:

Potential labor issues would be one part of it, although no umpire would need to lose his job over automated balls and strikes.  I also have a theory - which admittedly borders on the crackpot - that there's a desire on MLB's part to retain an ability to manipulate the game to maintain some sort of idealized balance between offense and defense.  Expanding and shrinking the strike zone as necessary would be an important tool in the toolbox.  Don't expect me to defend this notion too vigorously, but we all know that the specter of league-wide anemic offense is one thing that keeps Manfred up at night.

Now that the technology is all but proven and there are websites dedicated to putting umpires under the microscope every single day, it's only a matter of time before the pressure to change becomes overwhelming IMO.  I predict that it will take a playoff impacting mistake to provide the tipping point though. 

It's not that crazy, I believe there is tweaking going on in the MiL year to year to the system to adjust the strike zone so every pitch doesn't have to be a meatball to be called a strike if the batter doesn't swing. I think the worst part is, you get kids in AAA who are used to balls being balls and strikes being strikes for a year or two, then they come up and now what they have been trained to take as a ball is a strike and the whole thing goes upside down.

[Three Run Homer]

2 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

 

 

Also I don't know how the Gorman pitch could be more impactful than the missed third strike that turned into a three run homer.

Ex-post, the missed third strike on Siani was the most impactful mistake--it put the game out of reach. 

I think that UmpireScorecards measure "impact" ex-ante--at the time of the mistake (before the next pitch), which mistake led to a bigger change in the expected number of extra runs scored going forward?  I think Siani was still 1-2 after the mistake, so ex ante it was not likely that he would have a successful at bat even after the blown call.  While I think Gorman was 3-2, so it was more likely that he would have a productive at bat after the blown call.  

[Just Regular]

It will be a bitter pill to swallow if we end up a couple games worse than NYY and this tabulator imagines they got 50 net runs of help.

Sig Mejdal would probably be only to happy to do some pro bono case preparation on behalf of Rob Manfred and David Rubenstein.

I do kind of think if/when robo-umps come, Orioles bats may enjoy a short-term preparedness advantage.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Malike said:

Expected accuracy is different for each umpire apparently. Diaz has an expected accuracy of 91%? He shouldn't be calling games.

No it isn’t.  It just compares to the average up.  Diaz had an above average day overall.  Goes to show you how inaccurate umps are on a daily basis.  

[Malike]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

No it isn’t.  It just compares to the average up.  Diaz had an above average day overall.  Goes to show you how inaccurate umps are on a daily basis.  

Yeah, someone explained that above. If accuracy goes down because of the pitch type, then humans are probably not sufficient for today's stuff to make accurate calls.

[Frobby]

Sunday’s game actually favored the O’s a bit.  But was noticeable to me watching the game was that the ump miscalled several true strikes as balls, including several that weren’t even close to the edges of the box.  

 

[ShoelesJoe]

 

[Bahama O's Fan]

1 hour ago, ShoelesJoe said:

 

And yet people still don't want to go to a system that is more accurate

[Aristotelian]

2 minutes ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

And yet people still don't want to go to a system that is more accurate

If by people you mean the umpire's union and MLB.