Zambrano's Last Two Outings - Solid...and Lucky?

[Mark_R]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human?

 

It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense.

 

I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid.

 

If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball.

 

How do you know an umps call would be affected by a manager instead of a pitcher? Prove it.

[Chocolate Milk]

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation.

 

It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone.

 

I said it could. I didn't say it does.

 

You really think umpires care who is pitching?

 

I don't know. I wouldn't say that it's out of the realm of possibility. Ref's in other sports seem to care who's playing, I'm not sure why baseball would be any different. I think it's preposterous to assert with 100% certainty, like you are doing here, that they don't.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Chocolate Milk

[srbin84]

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation.

 

It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone.

 

I said it could. I didn't say it does.

 

You really think umpires care who is pitching?

 

Does your theory only apply to managers with a reputation of being good or have a certain amount of career wins?...is it only for fiery managers?.....because that's the kind of manager the Cubs need. If we had a manager that could influence the umpire to make even one key call in our favor every game just by being mad at him, then that would be one hell of an advantage.

[CubinNY]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human?

 

It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense.

 

I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid.

 

If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball.

 

How do you know an umps call would be affected by a manager instead of a pitcher? Prove it.

 

I don't know that it does as I've said in the above posts. Three times. I said it could. And the umpire could be affected by who is getting on his case the positon of the person on the team is irrelevent.

 

Let me try this again. You guys are saying that before the first pitch the umpire decides how he will call the entire game based on who is on the mound or in the batter's box. And that is always the case.

 

I am saying that their could be factors during the game where an umpire might not give the benefit of the doubt to a pticher or a batter for one pitch or perhaps one at bat. But that is not always the case

[CubinNY]

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation.

 

It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone.

 

I said it could. I didn't say it does.

 

You really think umpires care who is pitching?

 

Does your theory only apply to managers with a reputation of being good or have a certain amount of career wins?...is it only for fiery managers?.....because that's the kind of manager the Cubs need. If we had a manager that could influence the umpire to make even one key call in our favor every game just by being mad at him, then that would be one hell of an advantage.

 

If you've read my posts you would have noticed that I think a manger does his team a disservice by griping at the umpire. But again, I would think that might occur very rarely.

[srbin84]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human?

 

It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense.

 

I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid.

 

If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball.

 

How do you know an umps call would be affected by a manager instead of a pitcher? Prove it.

 

I don't know that it does as I've said in the above posts. Three times. I said it could. And the umpire could be affected by who is getting on his case the positon of the person on the team is irrelevent.

 

Let me try this again. You guys are saying that before the first pitch the umpire decides how he will call the entire game based on who is on the mound or in the batter's box. And that is always the case.

 

I am saying that their could be factors during the game where an umpire might not give the benefit of the doubt to a pticher or a batter for one pitch or perhaps one at bat. But that is not always the case

 

Well then I'm sure you'd agree with the sentiment that the umpire could, before the game say something to the effect of the following in his head

"hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners"

Edited May 11, 2006 by srbin84

[Mark_R]

I'm curious. How do you know baseball isn't like basketball if you don't watch it?

[srbin84]

I'm curious. How do you know baseball isn't like basketball if you don't watch it?

 

And to go off that idea, it's certainly conceivable to me that a lowly umpire could possibly be intimidated by a player like Bonds or Pujols. If they are unsure of the call, they might think that if that player didn't swing at it, it wasn't a strike....or give them the benefit of the doubt because it's a toss up. I'm sure star players butter up the umps, just like some NBA players do.

[CubinNY]

Well then I'm sure you'd agree with the sentiment that the umpire could, before the game say something to the effect of the following in his head

"hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners"

 

No that is absurd because I beleive in the integrity of the umpires.

 

All this stuff is sour grapes fueled by ex-ballplayer sprotscasters.

[jjgman21]

And if last night is any indication, it is at least not always the case.

 

 

you've returned to this a couple of times in the conversation, and it's rather absurd. what is being discussed here is pitches on the corner. painting the black. those pitches that when called strikes, Joe Morgan calls them "acceptable" strikes, aka pitches that are balls, but close enough to being strikes that Questech will register it as the proper call, even though it is not.

 

the pitches...or is it pitch?...called on Bonds was unquestionably a strike. even Bonds knew it, just dropping his head and walking back.

 

you are trying to use one pitch that was rightfully called a strike as evidence that Barry Bonds does not get favorable treatment. we are not talking about never having a strike called. we are talking about a trend we see in officiating, the same trend you see in other sports, but for some reason are unwilling to impute to baseball.

 

furthermore, labeling what people are discussing as a conspiracy is a non-sequitor. nobody said these people got together to plan to give Barry a better strike zone. I've never seen it as a conspiracy. perhaps a bit of group think, but conspiracy or not, it happens.

 

obviously you feel strongly about this, but your arguments, from what you said Questech proved, to using one strike called on Barry Bonds, to screaming 'prove it' like a petulant Missourian, are rather weak.

[CubinNY]

I'm curious. How do you know baseball isn't like basketball if you don't watch it?

 

Please, not the gacha statements. Of course I've see basketball games. Perhaps I should have written I don't really like the NBA and could care less about the sport.

 

Basketball and baseball are only similar in the respect that they are both played with a ball that is round.

[CubinNY]

And if last night is any indication, it is at least not always the case.

 

 

you've returned to this a couple of times in the conversation, and it's rather absurd. what is being discussed here is pitches on the corner. painting the black. those pitches that when called strikes, Joe Morgan calls them "acceptable" strikes, aka pitches that are balls, but close enough to being strikes that Questech will register it as the proper call, even though it is not.

 

the pitches...or is it pitch?...called on Bonds was unquestionably a strike. even Bonds knew it, just dropping his head and walking back.

 

you are trying to use one pitch that was rightfully called a strike as evidence that Barry Bonds does not get favorable treatment. we are not talking about never having a strike called. we are talking about a trend we see in officiating, the same trend you see in other sports, but for some reason are unwilling to impute to baseball.

 

furthermore, labeling what people are discussing as a conspiracy is a non-sequitor. nobody said these people got together to plan to give Barry a better strike zone. I've never seen it as a conspiracy. perhaps a bit of group think, but conspiracy or not, it happens.

 

obviously you feel strongly about this, but your arguments, from what you said Questech proved, to using one strike called on Barry Bonds, to screaming 'prove it' like a petulant Missourian, are rather weak.

 

Groupthink? Is that your answer to everyting. Because I know you've accused members of this borad of groupthink.

 

Questech has shown that the umpires are correct @90% of the time. At least that is the acceptable rate to stay in the bigs. I guess they are only off for the top 5% or pitchers and 5% of hitters.

 

Aren't you the one who continually harps on consipricies against the Cubs. Whether it be the schedule maker or the umpires?

Edited May 11, 2006 by CubinNY

[srbin84]

Here's evidence of umpires giving more calls to home teams in the minor leagues. It's a really good article.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/are-the-minor-league-replacement-umpires-biased/