Some Thoughts on Umpires

What a game last night.

After falling behind 0-2 against Angels closer Brian Fuentes, pinch-hitter Nick Green drew a walk to tie the game up at 8 apiece. Alex Gonzalez followed with a walk-off bloop single giving the Red Sox the second-best record in baseball. One more strike to Green and the game was over.

But the game should have been over long before Gonzalez stepped into the batters box. Angels manager Mike Scioscia claims Nick Green should have struck out not once but twice after a questionable check swing appeal and non-strike-three call on the subsequent pitch gave Nick Green two extra Mario mushroom 1-ups. He has a point.

Subjectively, everyone thought it was a ball, that is, everyone except for home plate umpire Rick Reed. Sitting with scouts behind home plate last night, ESPN baseball writer Keith Law tweeted "Was that strike 3 to green? Looked it from back here" He followed up this morning, "Not one reader has told me ball 4 to Green was actually a ball."

Our eyes didn't fool us. Using Brooks On Baseball's Pitch F/X tool, we can see the actual pitch location in graphical form.
































The black box, as you might have guessed, is the strike zone. That green square inside the strike zone with the nine next to it is the pitch everyone's talking about. As you can see, it's about four or five inches above the lower frame. It was a strike. Rick Reed blew the call.

Was this fair? As long as fallible humans are fully responsible and authorized to call balls and strikes, it is. But does it have to be that way?

Last week, supersharp Tommy Bennett over at Beyond The Boxscore defended the use of human umpires citing their entertainment value that we often take for granted. No over-the-top strike calls. No ejections. That would mean Lou Piniella would just be another manager. Don't worry this isn't your typical "my great-grandfather Ole Pap Shornbuckle played with umpires and God forbid I lose that ancestral connection!" argument. It's a great discussion.

My only disagreement with Bennett's argument is the premise that we must select either a) computers or b) human umpires. There should be third choice: c) human umpires with limited computer challenges at the manager's request.

This isn't a preposterous idea. Tennis does it. The NFL does it. We can all agree that their challenge systems are a success despite some fears that it would ruin the game.

Give each manager two (or however you see fit) challenges to argue a ball/strike. Scioscia tosses out his red flag from the dugout, the challenge is made, and everyone turns to scoreboard for a replay not unlike what they do for tennis. Either the Pitch F/X replay exonerates the umpire or kicks him in the ass to do a better job.

One problem. Unlike tennis, baseball's strike zone isn't clearly outlined with a stripe. The abstractness of a strike zone could make the computer's zone seem too arbitrary for a fan's taste but it's certainly more defined than the umpire's strike criteria.

I see option (c) as a necessary compromise between the two ends of the fairness and entertainment spectrum. This isn't the 19th century anymore. The only real reason Ole Pap Shornbuckle's commish didn't do it this way is because he didn't have the technological means. Now we do. Welcome to the 21st century.

Cue Leslie Nielsen.