Umpire Scorecard Thread

[Morgan423]

7 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Last night Paul Skenes threw a ball he thought was strike 3 and started walking off the mound before he realized it had been called a strike and caught himself.   Plate ump Doug Eddings, who we have discussed in this thread before and is one of the old guard still around, and always has a big strike zone, chewed him out for starting to walk off the mound.   

Now in this particular case Eddings was right on the call, it WAS pretty clearly a ball according to the box in the replay.   But I still don't think an ump needs to yell at a pitcher for a momentary reaction that is borderline reflexive.   It wasn't some attempt to show up Eddings.

The same thing as when batters start to jog off to first in three ball counts, when they think they just took ball four. 

They aren't trying to show up the ump, but you and I both know that they take it like a personal insult.  I'm convinced that there are umps that could have a 3-1 pitch thrown two feet over the batter's head and through the back netting like that White Sox starter did in this series, and if the batter started to jog before the ump could move, they'd ring it up. 

Edited September 4 by Morgan423

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Did you miss the part where I said diesel?

The Diesel it came with was 105 HP and that was before it blew up.

We couldn't get our hands on the Old's 350 that would have dropped right in.

You are correct. I missed the diesel part.

I had a friend who owned a big Buick with a four-cylinder four-speed manual. It was the weirdest combination I’ve ever seen, and that thing was so slow that walking was faster.

[ShoelesJoe]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Is 100% accuracy and an immunity to framing techniques a requirement for being considered "competent"? 

The guy last night missed on 18% of his strike calls. If that isn’t incompetent then nothing is. The benchmark shouldn’t be 100% accuracy — it should be however accurate the electronic strike zone system can be. MLB should be invested in calls being correct as much as possible. If that means human beings making those calls then so be it. But if an electronic system is more accurate then that should be implemented. 

[ShoelesJoe]

From last night's game Yankees vs Red Sox. #1 impactful call that was clearly strike one instead called ball two, giving Aaron Judge a 2-0 count with the bases loaded instead of a 1-1 count. What's the difference between 1-1 and 2-0 counts? Judge's 2-0 count OPS jumps over 500 points compared to when the count is 1-1. 

Also, 20% of Tumpane's called strikes last night were outside the strike zone, which is ghastly. To put it in perspective the umpire was ten times more likely to call a ball a strike, than to call a strike a ball. And yet in the biggest AB of the game he calls an obvious strike a ball? One of only two missed strikes out of the 161 calls he made all game? Given those numbers I'd love for somebody with a training in statistical analysis to determine what are the odds that the worst, most impactful call of the game, would occur A) in the biggest at bat of the night, and B) go in the Yankees favor. My guess is those odds are so low as to eliminate random human error by the umpire. As crazy as it sounds I do believe there's something going on wrt umpires favoring the Yankees this year. The only question in my mind is whether its a conscious or subconscious choice by the umpires.