CB Bucknor: How bad is he really?

[DrungoHazewood]

I can tolerate blown calls on the field. One can argue that they are too frequent, but they are nevertheless an inevitable part of the game. Being an advocate for a more reasonable level of offense, what really frosts me are basketball-sized strike zones. There's nothing more maddening than to watch a pitcher throw three strikes, get credit for only two, and then give up a base hit.

Didn't you know that an ump's own, personal version of the strike zone is deeply rooted in the hallowed traditions of our national pastime? And that anything that might cause umps to call balls and strikes as stated by the rules (i.e. Questec) is an affront to everyone and everything that makes baseball good, just and right? We don't need correct calls, we need the same game that the Babe and Mick played.

All joking aside, the presence of all these new trackers that enable us to precisely tell the trajectory of every pitch in almost real time are a really great innovation. It's in its infancy, but already a lot of researchers and writers have put together articles detailing umps' performances objectively. The more this kind of information gets distributed the closer we get to a day where an electronic umpire's aid will be standard and balls and strikes will be called to the book nearly 100% of the time. That day can't come soon enough for me.

[Migrant Redbird]

What annoys me more than his bad umpiring is his lame acronym name. CB? What a dumb name. He just SOUNDS like the lamest guy ever.

Sounds like a truck driver or a country music "singer". When driving cross country years ago before the advent of satellite radio, sometimes "hound dog music" was all that I could find on the radio. I would even search it out, on the theory that the annoyance value would help to keep me awake.

I can actually enjoy some country music in small doses, but I get my fill of the standard fare very quickly.

Agreed. Bucknor is a terrible ump, but his interference call on Marlon Anderson was absolutely correct. I have to give him some credit, because that was a ballsy call to make in that situation.

I haven't noticed Buckner (yet), but it was a non-call on interference which had Cardinals and Reds fans stirred up over the weekend.

Birds on the Bat: Brandon Phillips blames Pujols for pivotal play

In failing to turn that crucial double play Saturday, Phillips had some hard words for Albert:

"Pujols didn't slide," said Phillips. "Lesson learned. I'm a nice guy, but next time I'll throw it right through the (expletive). I play this game hard and don't try to hurt anybody. And I respect Pujols as a man and as a good player.

"But he came in standing up and that shows me he doesn't respect me in turning a double play," Phillips added. "You've seen that happen, guys get hit in the head, but I'm cool and don't have a beef with anybody. That showed me he tried to hurt me because he didn't slide or didn't try to get out of the way."

After the play, Phillips tried to say something to Pujols, but Pujols trotted off without listening.

"I tried to talk to him but he wouldn't listen and that led me to further realize that he didn't respect me," Phillips added. "From now on, I throw the ball through the guy, no matter who it is. I have to do my job. To me it was interference because he took a jab step inside the dirt to the grass. You're supposed to slide or get out of the way — but they won the game because of that."

Pujols had a quick and terse reaction.

"I play the game hard, play it that way every day," he said. "Next time I'll put him in left field."

In my opinion, Phillips is a whining baby. I don't know if Pujols respected him before that play, but I'd be willing to bet he doesn't now. Even little leaguers are taught to throw right at the incoming runner to force him to slide. Phillips was just surprised and botched the throw, keeping the inning alive in which the Cards scored the winning run. I'd be embarrassed if I were his manager, team mate, or a Reds fan.

Factors which should be taken into account are that

(1) Pujols has been playing with plantar fasciitis pain in his feet for years and that's flared up again, and he tweaked a hamstring about a week ago and has been playing under orders from La Russa to "run smart" on routine outs.

(2) Pujols was at the hospital with injured team mate, Juan Encarnacion, until 3 AM that morning and might have had Juan's injury on his mind when he responded so brusquely when reporters queried him regarding Phillips' remarks.

(3) It's the umpire's job to make the judgment call and rule interference when it occurs. I still hate the way that Reggie Jackson got away with throwing his hip in the way of a relay throw to 1st and breaking up a double play in a playoff game with the Royals, but it was the umpire's job to catch it (just as they did with A-Rod when he attempted to knock the ball out of a fielder's glove). It really irked me at the time the way Reggie was smirking afterward for getting away with it, but I don't consider it "dirty" play.

But Pujols came in for a lot of criticism from Cards fans too in the St Louis Sports Forum game thread, prompting a moderator to remind posters of SLSF's "kindlier and gentler" policy which prohibits rude language towards other posters. (We can call Tony La Russa or Bud Selig an idiot and Scott Boras a whore, but using language like that towards another poster quickly draws a warning and/or ban.)

After he learned of Phillips' comments, La Russa sent 1st base coach, Dave McKay, to talk to his friend, Reds manager Pete Mackanin, and explain that Pujols was following orders to take it easy on the base paths. Tony then gave Albert a well deserved rest Sunday in the final game of the series, which the Cards won 3-2 to sweep the Reds. I think that Tony undoubtedly did that to defuse the situation and allow cooler heads to prevail before the Cards again play the Reds in Cincinnati on Sept. 11th. I am not a fan of Tony as a manager, but I do give him kudos for taking a prudent course in this situation.

I took a look at the Cincinnati Reds forum and found that Reds fans came down on both sides of the issue as well. Some of them were wanting Bronson Arroyo to plunk Pujols in the 1st inning Sunday and suggested that he hit Ankiel instead when they found out Pujols wasn't in the lineup. I respect the following post more.

Brandon should know by now that you aim right between the runner's eyes if you want him to slide. Hopefully that lesson has been reinforced. We'll see. Talk is cheap.

.... I don't think Pujols should get hit but I'm guessing he'll find himself on base one way or another today. Perhaps we'll then see if Brandon is all hat and no cattle. If he's turning the DP and throws at Pujols' head and he hits him, que sera sera. Pujols is probably out of the game and out of the Cards lineup for a consderable amount of time whle they are chasing the Cubs. And if Pujols gets down, the Reds turn a double play. It's a win-win situation.

Below are some photos and more discussion threads at Cardinals forums.

Viva El Birdos -- photos and discussion

SLSF: Albert vs Phillips baserunning episode - VEB discussion

In my opinion, Phillips had a legitimate beef, but with the 2nd base umpire, not with Pujols. Any time that I've seen a play like that where the umpire possible should have called interference, both the infielder and the manager are immediately all over the umpire. That didn't happen in the game on Saturday, which suggests to me that the interference wasn't flagrant enough to have been called. Pujols was not running hard and Phillips was not in any danger of getting taken out on the play, but Phillips did allow himself to get flustered and he blew a play that might have cost the Reds the game. He should be kicking himself, not Pujols.

[bgfield]

I just watched the video of that (I just found out mlb.com lets you watch replays of any inning of any game, cool stuff) and I think Albert was wrong there. Even the Cardinals announcers were saying he got away with one. And I don't blame the guy at all for not wanting to throw a pitch into the guy. Who cares what you're taught in little league, nobody wants to do that.

[Migrant Redbird]

I just watched the video of that (I just found out mlb.com lets you watch replays of any inning of any game, cool stuff)...

Is that the subscription version, or is it available to everyone? I'm assuming that it's the subscription.

One of the drawbacks of living in this area is that I rarely get an opportunity to watch Cardinals broadcasts. There were 131 games scheduled on Fox Sports Midwest, but they're blocked out here. I was going to sign up for EI, but they faked me out by not blocking a lot of the spring training games and I thought I might be able to get away without buying EI. By the time I figured out I couldn't, I was anticipating that they offer a discount to people who sign up after the season was well underway. If they do, I haven't seen it. Next year, sigh!

As much discussion as there's been of the play (13,400 hits at google, of which the 1st 2-1/2 pages appeared to all be relevant), I'm surprised that I wasn't able to find where someone has posted the video on line. Maybe if I go to you tube and put in fewer search words, it would come up.

Here's a comment by a fan who was at the game.

I was at the game, and what I saw was Pujols not running all out to second, then sidestepping towards Phillips at the last second to mess with his head.

If he had slid, he would've been able to get to the base (the usual standard for interference) and he was never all the way "in the grass" as Phillips was claiming.

I was glad AP didn't slide, it looked like he was nursing the hammy on the play, and the last thing I want to see is a collision/hard play and have AP come up hurt.

Pujols playing on bad wheels is still better than 95% of everyone else in perfect health. A little like Bonds there, not that it's a comparison I like.

... and I think Albert was wrong there. Even the Cardinals announcers were saying he got away with one.

Some of them. A Reds fan listening on XM said they were talking about Phillips' screwing up his footwork, and suggested the Cards announcers felt constrained from saying anything negative about Pujols.

... And I don't blame the guy at all for not wanting to throw a pitch into the guy. Who cares what you're taught in little league, nobody wants to do that.

I'm sorry, but the runner has a right to run in the baseline and the pivot man has a right to throw the ball through him if he doesn't slide. The pivot man accepts the risk of losing the out and getting an error on the throw if he hits the runner, while the runner accepts the risk of getting beaned because he didn't slide.

Looking at the still photos and reading the accounts of the play, I'm inclined to believe it was deliberate interference and the umpire would have been justified to call it. He didn't, and that should be it. There are other ways that Phillips could have communicated a message to Pujols not to try it again without coming off as a childish whiner in the press, and Pujols should not have responded by threatening to knock Phillips into left field. La Russa did the best that he could have done to defuse the situation and I'm hoping that both players got the message loud and clear.

[bgfield]

Is that the subscription version, or is it available to everyone? I'm assuming that it's the subscription.

Nope, anyone can go do it. Just go to mlb.com, at the bottom of the scoreboard you can change the date to whatever day you're looking for, and then it shows recaps of every game. Find the game, click the score of that particular half inning and you can watch it. I'm not sure how far back it goes but I was finally able to watch that bad take-out slide against the Blue Jays by Alex Rodriguiez which happened back in August.

[Migrant Redbird]

Thanks! Viewing the video, there was an obvious change of direction by Pujols just before he reached the base. It was probably intentional, but it did look to me as though he might have been reacting to pain from his hamstring rather than trying to break up the play. I'm not sure which leg it was that he was having a problem with.

[Baltimoron]

Does anyone know of any performance metrics for umpires that are available to the public? Obviously it would be difficult, but you could compare an umpire's strike zone to a computerized ball and strike caller, go through and analyze video and estimate a percentage of wrong calls

A walks/Ks analysis

Sorta related:

So the easy question to ask is, does it work? Well, if we take all umpire data from 1999-2001, and compare the spread in it (corrected for the expected spread) to the spread (again, corrected) in the 2004-06 data, we can directly answer that question. If QuesTec has forced umpires to call a more uniform strike zone, then the differences between umpires will be smaller than before QuesTec was installed.

And in fact, there has been a greater than 25% reduction in the true spread between umpires since the MLB first installed QuesTec in selected major league parks, which indeed supports the usefulness of the technology. It seems that umpires have curtailed the liberality of their definition of the strike zone for fear of losing their job, and gone with the rulebook definition instead.

Indeed, Eddings and Miller, for example, had the two largest strike zones between 1999 and 2001, calling 2.7% and 2.4% more strikes than expected, respectively (note: all numbers are “true rates,” and thus regressed to the mean). In the past three years, they have still called a higher number of strikes than anyone, but only 1.9% and 1.0% more than the league average, respectively. They may still be a pitcher’s best friend, but the bond isn’t nearly as strong as it used to be.

link

[Migrant Redbird]

The Questec system requires operator input and isn't quick enough. It's only useful in providing an umpire feedback after the fact, but it doesn't help him in the heat of the game when he's observing the flight of a 98 mph fastball from an angle. What's needed is an automated system that can provide input directly to the umpire quickly enough that fans will not perceive a delay in his call because he's waiting for the ball/strike indicator. If the umpire's electronic assistance tells him whether or not the ball crossed the plate in the strike zone (a red/green LED indicator), he only has to determine if the batter swung, and if the batter made contact on a foul tip.

[Baltimoron]

The Questec system requires operator input and isn't quick enough. It's only useful in providing an umpire feedback after the fact, but it doesn't help him in the heat of the game when he's observing the flight of a 98 mph fastball from an angle. What's needed is an automated system that can provide input directly to the umpire quickly enough that fans will not perceive a delay in his call because he's waiting for the ball/strike indicator. If the umpire's electronic assistance tells him whether or not the ball crossed the plate in the strike zone (a red/green LED indicator), he only has to determine if the batter swung, and if the batter made contact on a foul tip.

What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure no one has suggested anything otherwise.

[Migrant Redbird]

What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure no one has suggested anything otherwise.

I proposed an IRAD (Independent Research and Development) system to my employer about 12 years ago which would have incorporated defense technology software into an electronic assistance system for umpires. The organization where I work was developing software to recognize military targets from a video image. (I wasn't working on that project myself, so I don't know whether it was successful or not.) The developers I talked to thought that recognizing a baseball on a video image would be trivial compared to that of recognizing a military aircraft traveling at higher speeds and varying aspects against a cluttered background. After all, regardless of the aspect from which you view a baseball, it's always a 2.75 inch white sphere and it would always be a fixed distance from the fixed camera. The programmers were eager to take on the challenge.

My proposed system would have used 3 video cameras: one directly over the plate on a cantilevered pole like those used for traffic signals, high enough that it would rarely if ever interfere with pop ups; a second one along the right field railing even with home plate (might have to relocate the batting circle) to be used for right handed hitters; and a third one on the left field side for the left handed hitters. Care would need to be taken so that players would not obstruct the cameras' views and so that fans couldn't.

You've all seen the overhead camera angles which demonstrated clearly how umpires were calling some pitches strikes that were 4-6 inches or more outside. The overhead video feed would be used to determine whether the pitch crossed over the plate or not. The sideline camera would be used to determine the height of the ball as it crossed the front and the back of the plate.

The pitch location would be compared to a standard strike zone established for that player during spring training. If the player altered his strike zone during the season, he might be allowed to petition to have it adjusted in the system data base, but I'd generally be adverse to that. Players who deliberately used an exaggerated crouch during spring training to shrink their strike zones might need to be monitored during the season to ensure they were actually maintaining the strike zones they established. For players who hadn't been calibrated into the system, an umpire could watch them during batting practice swinging next to a calibrated yardstick (OK -- a 2 yard stick) and the system operator could manually enter the data into the system. However, I believe the system would be adopted in the minor leagues as well, so a player's strike zone data would already be well established and available.

Even 12 years ago, we believed that a notebook computer would have had sufficient processing power to identify the pitch location in near real time and transmit the information to an LED indicator mounted on the umpire's mask. As I said above, the umpire would get a green or red indicator which would provide him positive correlation whether the pitch was in the strike zone or not, but it would be up to the umpire to determine if the batter checked his swing or tipped the ball, just as he does not. The system would be transparent to the fans, except that suddenly all the umpires would appear to have perfect strike zones and the disputes over bad calls would disappear from the game.

I even went so far as to query our legal office for a patent search. I still have the folder filed away with some of the extremely complicated radar systems which had already been filed with the U.S. patent office. Reviewing the patent descriptions, I don't believe that they were practical. My proposal was -- provided that the programmers were correct when they told me the object recognition would be easy compared to the military targets they were trying to identify.

My boss vetoed the idea, for 3 reasons:

(1) He believed that the traditionalists in baseball would never accept the system.

(2) I had worked up a business case for what I believed amateur baseball organizations would pay for the system, based upon the ability to get by with one fewer umpire at games. I even researched what umpires were paid for local high school games. My boss didn't believe that my business case was credible, and it probably did need quite a bit of refining, especially in the area of projected development costs.

(3) Our business was defense research and development, and he didn't feel that a baseball system fell within our charter.

I've discussed the system several times in baseball forums on line over the years, including in this forum a time or two, but mostly in my Cardinals forum. I still think that it's feasible and would probably be superior to Questec, but I don't have the programming expertise or time to write the software. If I did, I would have set up the cameras and filmed some video of pitches crossing the plate and attempt to develop it myself, just to verify (or disprove) the feasibility.

The greatest benefit which I saw to the system was for use in youth leagues, so that the umpire could get out from behind the catcher and call the balls and strikes from behind the pitcher, and where he would be more ideally situated to call plays at any base. In most situations, the number of umpires per game could be reduced by one, unless there was only one umpire to begin with. It would be a great training aid for teaching kids their strike zones, because they would always get a consistent call from a properly functioning system, rather than having to deal with the vagaries of calls by a human umpire. Since the kids would learn their strike zones better, they would take fewer strikes and swing at fewer balls. (OK, maybe I'm not being realistic about that, especially with the younger ones.) Pitchers with excellent control would be rewarded for it, instead of being penalized by incompetent umpires.

For amateur players, I envisioned a yardstick which the umpire could stand up next to the ballplayer and measure what his strike zone would be, then choose it from a set of predefined strike zones in the data base. That wouldn't be completely accurate because of the variations in how batters crouch in their stances, but it would be more fair than the capricious strike zones batters have to deal with now.

[scOtt]

More bad umpire fodder here.

Chipper will probably get a fine but he doesn't sound like he cares too much.

[longflyball]

Take it to em, Chipper. The fact that he said what he said after a loss makes it look like he's coming up with excuses, but it's the truth nonetheless.

[davearm]

Thanks! Viewing the video, there was an obvious change of direction by Pujols just before he reached the base. It was probably intentional, but it did look to me as though he might have been reacting to pain from his hamstring rather than trying to break up the play. I'm not sure which leg it was that he was having a problem with.

Well that's easily the most preposterous and homerific thing I'll read all day today.

It's a prohibitive favorite for the weekly honor, too.

For a guy so talented, Pujols sure does seem to get himself mixed up in a lot of bushleague stuff.

[RShack]

I proposed an IRAD (Independent Research and Development) system to my employer about 12 years ago... [stuff deleted]... My proposed system would have used 3 video cameras...

3 should do it...

The pitch location would be compared to a standard strike zone established for that player during spring training. If the player altered his strike zone during the season, he might be allowed to petition to have it adjusted in the system data base, but I'd generally be adverse to that.

This is the very, very bad part. You are changing the game to suit your techno-system. IMO, that's v. bad. If it is to be done, it needs to be able to handle things dynamically. Changing baseball to fit some computerized scheme is my idea of a nightmare.

Even if a perfect system existed, removing the whole "kill the ump" aspect of baseball is a very dubious proposition. I think it's a horrible idea, but I realize others have priorities than are different than mine. I favor improved umpire supervision, both re: their calls and especially re: the childish confrontational manner that some umps have. But I do NOT want robot-umps.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 should do it...

This is the very, very bad part. You are changing the game to suit your techno-system. IMO, that's v. bad. If it is to be done, it needs to be able to handle things dynamically. Changing baseball to fit some computerized scheme is my idea of a nightmare.

Even if a perfect system existed, removing the whole "kill the ump" aspect of baseball is a very dubious proposition. I think it's a horrible idea, but I realize others have priorities than are different than mine. I favor improved umpire supervision, both re: their calls and especially re: the childish confrontational manner that some umps have. But I do NOT want robot-umps.

I'm sure a lot of people thought the industrial revolution was a bad idea, and instant worldwide communication was a nightmare, too.

I can easily see a world, in 30 or 40 years, where kids will be astonished that there used to be a time where we let flawed, biased people judge sporting events despite incontrovertible evidence that they were wrong 5%, 10%, 15% of the time. They'll ask "didn't you care that many games were decided by umpire's errors rather than skill of the players?" We'll be left trying to explain how that was tradition, and how it was cool to watch people scream their bloody head off when they were called out on a pitch eight inches off the plate. And the kids will think that's quaint, just like buggy whips and Atari 2600s.