McLelland is one of the best umpires in baseball (as was Randy Marsh). I am not a fan of the way the umpires are being managed at the moment, but I think too many people are hopping on the HE MADE A MISTAKE ONCE, FIRE HIM!!! bandwagon.

McLelland is also the guy who can't be bothered to signal ball or strike until about 2 seconds after the ball's been tossed back to the pitcher.

And he's like 8 feet tall.

And he made the "pine tar" call.

Once again, the umps who made the mistakes were not fired. Three umpire SUPERVISORS were fired.

but I think too many people are hopping on the HE MADE A MISTAKE ONCE, FIRE HIM!!! bandwagon.

Can we hop on the HE MADE A MISTAKE 9000 TIMES, FIRE HIM!!! bandwagon, so that we can finally get rid of Phil Cuzzi?

Once again, the umps who made the mistakes were not fired. Three umpire SUPERVISORS were fired.

It's kind of confusing, semantically, because the supervisors were former umps.

Note that they can't even get McClelland's name right.

You know what would be great? If ONE MSM article could get McClelland's name right. Just one.

Also, there will be 4 new full-time MLB umpires, and 4 new fill-in umpires working games this year. Expect things to get better, but if anyone thinks this is going to be the cure-all to solving these problems, they're wrong.

Lassus, part of the thinking could be that the supervisors recommended these guys for the playoffs, so let's get them out. Also, those supervisors were all 10+ years out of the game. Getting Marsh and Reliford in those roles gets respected umpires off the field and puts them in a much more relevant position than Garcia and Springstead were in.

EDIT: Coke Zero to flournoy, only because my long-winded post cost me a drink.

Lassus, part of the thinking could be that the supervisors recommended these guys for the playoffs, so let's get them out. Also, those supervisors were all 10+ years out of the game. Getting Marsh and Reliford in those roles gets respected umpires off the field and puts them in a much more relevant position than Garcia and Springstead were in.

Oh, definitely. I noted in the previous thread that from what I knew, the guys they let go weren't exacty willing to call for change by in effect calling out their own. Whether or not the replacement supervisors will be willing to either is yet to be seen, but this COULD (emphasis on the conditional) be a step in the right direction.

Although I don't believe Reliford and Marsh would have any more power than the previous supervisors unless some kind of change in role was also enacted. Also, you don't want to thin your ranks by getting rid of the actual good umpires. It's a tightrope.

“I would hope that people realize that umpires are going to make mistakes,” McLelland said on the Dan Patrick Show.

Of course, the problem is not that "umpires are going to make mistakes"; it's that after they make a mistake they're reluctant to convene to try to get the call right. For a while after the Richie Phillips fiasco they were convening more, but they've kind of gone away from it again.

They're also back to starting confrontation for no reason.

Also, historically they refused to admit to blown calls even after the game, even after everyone knew it was a blown call -- but now with the proliferation of camera angles they can't do that as much. Still, they don't seem to be available after games, and typically a spokesman (e.g., the crew chief) comes out to speak on behalf of the umpire, instead of the umpire himself doing so. I think people would appreciate it more if more often the umpire just came out for clear blown calls and said "Yeah, I blew it."

People are also reluctant to give umpires the benefit of the doubt because of their arrogance in calling their own personal strikezones.

People are also reluctant to give umpires the benefit of the doubt because of their arrogance in calling their own personal strikezones.

This. I can live with a few random bad calls on the ground that umpires are human, but when they set up a whole series of personalized strike zones (and expect everyone to "adjust" to them), they're a major factor in screwing up the entire game. I'd much rather have a robot calling balls and strikes than have some umpire define "his" strike zone as four inches wider and half a foot shorter than it is in the book, which it seems as if about half of them do these days.

I'd much rather have a robot calling balls and strikes than have some umpire define "his" strike zone as four inches wider and half a foot shorter than it is in the book.

But as long as the umpire's personal strike zone is "consistent" we don't care!

That would be a great line to use at work: Yes, I make up my own rules and do my job incorrectly, but I do so consistently so it's totally all good.

I'd much rather have a robot calling balls and strikes than have some umpire define "his" strike zone as four inches wider and half a foot shorter than it is in the book.

But as long as the umpire's personal strike zone is "consistent" we don't care!

That would be a great line to use at work: Yes, I make up my own rules and do my job incorrectly, but I do so consistently so it's totally all good.

I've also noticed that the ones who don't seem to care are mostly pitchers who like the extra two or three inches on the outside corner that some of those personal strike zones allow, and the hitters who don't like to swing at any pitch that's more than three inches above or below their belt buckle.

This. I can live with a few random bad calls on the ground that umpires are human, but when they set up a whole series of personalized strike zones (and expect everyone to "adjust" to them), they're a major factor in screwing up the entire game. I'd much rather have a robot calling balls and strikes than have some umpire define "his" strike zone as four inches wider and half a foot shorter than it is in the book, which it seems as if about half of them do these days.

Then they get all b!tchy and in-your-face when players/managers react to their whimsies with a well-place "What the ####?"(**)

The robots can't come fast enough.

(**) And in Game 163, bases loaded, extra innings, when his only task in life is to watch the pitched ball progress from pitcher's hand to catcher's glove, one of the rehired is unable to ascertain the plain fact that the ball's journey was interrupted by the hitter's person.

As$clown.

Hey man, it was extra innings, and he couldnt borrow some greenies like in the old days.

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Does No. 1's proscription include a human being's ERA or batting average (or, by extension, earning potential)?

As long as CB Buckner is being assigned to playoff games, I'm not buying that getting the calls right is the number one thing on the umpires minds.

Somebody needs to step up and change the umpire culture. They pretty much teach umpires to stick up for each other whether the call is good or bad. I went to some basic training for umps years ago and one of the first things they tell you is not to overule another umpire because you'll piss him off, show him up, he'll lose credibility and the crew will lose control of the game. They teach you to be emphatic and nobody will question you - that's assuming its a close call. When Cuzzi made that stupid foul ball call I'm sure all the other umps, especially the third base ump who you can see in the background straddling and looking straight down the line, clearly saw the ball was fair by 2 feet. That third base ump should have called time, gone straight to the crew chief and told him the ball was clearly fair and award Mauer second base. Of course, he doesn't have the balls to do that because that's not in his job description and the union will probably reprimand him for showing up another ump.

I've umpired a bunch of junior, senior and high school games and all I can say is the home plate ump can easily control the outcome of a game by squeezing one team's strike zone. You squeeze a pitcher enough he'll start throwing everything right down the middle. No different than those inconsistent holding calls in football.

I remember those cold early spring Friday and Saturday nights when my legs were cramping and in the later innings all I wanted to do was call everything 6 inches wide a strike so I could get the game over with and go home.

I went to some basic training for umps years ago and one of the first things they tell you is not to overule another umpire because you'll piss him off, show him up, he'll lose credibility and the crew will lose control of the game.

There is good reason for this - it's true. Umpiring is not exactly a new position, and this concept in particular wasn't plucked out of the air last year, last decade, or last half-century; it's a learned truth from going on 150 years. Obviously there are plenty of traditional behaviors that shouldn't stick and the status quo is often a mistake, but the concept that umpires constantly questioning themselves and each other will cause chaos is dead on. No one on the internet believes in a middle ground, but there definitely is one in regards to what should stay and what should go and a level of confidence that belies and combats constant questioning should stay. What that requires is then simply better umpires. Some of the money Baseball is making should be put into the umpiring war chest for schooling and improvement, that area is woefully thin.

There is good reason for this - it's true. Umpiring is not exactly a new position, and this concept in particular wasn't plucked out of the air last year, last decade, or last half-century; it's a learned truth from going on 150 years. Obviously there are plenty of traditional behaviors that shouldn't stick and the status quo is often a mistake, but the concept that umpires constantly questioning themselves and each other will cause chaos is dead on. No one on the internet believes in a middle ground, but there definitely is one in regards to what should stay and what should go and a level of confidence that belies and combats constant questioning should stay. What that requires is then simply better umpires. Some of the money Baseball is making should be put into the umpiring war chest for schooling and improvement, that area is woefully thin.

There may be a gray area, but when one ump knows the other ump ruled incorrectly it's no longer gray - they need to fix the call.

As long as CB Buckner is being assigned to playoff games, I'm not buying that getting the calls right is the number one thing on the umpires minds.

The new CBA gives the Commissioner's Office more latitude over post-season assignments, including the ability to work consecutive World Series. Hopefully that means we'll get the 36 best umpires working the postseason, not the 36 who haven't gotten an assignment lately.

What that requires is then simply better umpires. Some of the money Baseball is making should be put into the umpiring war chest for schooling and improvement, that area is woefully thin.

+1, +2, and +3. MLB knows nothing about its umpire prospects until he is at AAA. At that point, MLB begins evaluating and observing for MLB potential. The only thing MLB does is certify the Wendelstedt and Evans umpiring schools, and does not provide any support or training for minor league umpires. Even those MiLB umpires work for their respective leagues and not MLB, there needs to be some kind of MLB/MiLB partnership in this area where no one has supervision (unlike teams, who operate their own minor league clubs).

There may be a gray area, but when one ump knows the other ump ruled incorrectly it's no longer gray - they need to fix the call.

To get to that point, MLB might have to give in and allow for a 5th umpire on a crew. The extra man would sit in the booth and buzz someone (either the PU or the crew chief) is there is a play that needs to be reviewed. As Lassus hit on before, an umpire on the field will not overrule a partner- but if an umpire approaches a partner looking for help, he can use the other guy's advice to change his own call- and should be more liberal about looking for help.

Umpires are good to have around as a lightening rod to keep the abuse away from where it usually belongs, the players and management.

There may be a gray area, but when one ump knows the other ump ruled incorrectly it's no longer gray - they need to fix the call.

In the case of the Cuzzi call, you'll get no argument from me. But this turns into consult or even replay on every call, because the people playing will whine and argue about the calls that anyone can tell aren't even close, especially when they know they have latitude to do so.

I personally think MLB throwing a couple million of the 6+ billion they took in revenue for the purpose of better training would be a step in the right direction. Maybe that's a union problem, so let that dog-whistle bring out the barkers.

There may be a gray area, but when one ump knows the other ump ruled incorrectly it's no longer gray - they need to fix the call.

And what happens if one ump 'knows' he made the call correctly but another 'knows' the call was incorrect?

And what happens if one ump 'knows' he made the call correctly but another 'knows' the call was incorrect?

Pistols at 50 paces? Or Jello wrestling.

Look, I get what your saying, but trust an ump--we're not watching each other's calls that closely. We have responsibilities in our own area of the field, and while everyone is keeping one eye on the ball, we're also looking for base touches and interference and obstruction etc. We might not have had a good look, and we certainly weren't in the best position--that's why it's the other ump's call in the first place, he's over there. The best we can ever do is tell our partner what we had if he or she comes to ask. It's still up to them to change that call.

McLelland is also the guy who can't be bothered to signal ball or strike until about 2 seconds after the ball's been tossed back to the pitcher

McClelland is also one of the best umpires, particularly around the strike zone, in the game.

Can we hop on the HE MADE A MISTAKE 9000 TIMES, FIRE HIM!!! bandwagon, so that we can finally get rid of Phil Cuzzi?

YES! That's my point. Stop whining about good umpires and go after the bad ones. Tim McClelland gets more crap for his delayed strike call than CB Bucknor, Angel Hernandez and Greg Gibson combined. And those guys truly suck as umpires.

But as long as the umpire's personal strike zone is "consistent" we don't care!

That would be a great line to use at work: Yes, I make up my own rules and do my job incorrectly, but I do so consistently so it's totally all good.

The players don't, so why should we? Pitchers liked pitching to Marsh because even though he had a small strike zone, it was consistent. He wasn't going to give you the black, but he wasn't ever going to give the other guy the black (like Eric Gregg or other umps do/did). He'd call a strike whether it was strike 1 or strike 3.

Don't get me wrong, I want these guys calling the strike zone as it is, but good umps with weird (but consistent) strike zones is well behind the guys who bait players/managers, guys who consistently don't get in good position to make calls, guys who will call a fastball off the black a strike for one guy and not another and guys who don't stay in shape.

Also I'd like to see more emphasis on conferencing. It worked well in the 2004 ALCS but then umpires stopped doing it. I'm not opposed to instant replay, but I wonder how many calls would need instant replay if the umps got together.

Once again, the umps who made the mistakes were not fired. Three umpire SUPERVISORS were fired.

I'm gonna guess this is because the umps are in a union, and the supes were not. Correct?

I'm gonna guess this is because the umps are in a union, and the supes were not. Correct?

One would like to hope - as I said in the other thread - that it's to enact a particular level of administrative change; however I think there's a lot of accuracy in that statement, even if it's more cynical than I like to be.

There is good reason for this - it's true. Umpiring is not exactly a new position, and this concept in particular wasn't plucked out of the air last year, last decade, or last half-century; it's a learned truth from going on 150 years.

150 years ago, losing control of the game might mean a riot; at the time all sorts of illegal play were de rigeur, and an ump feared for his life on the field. I should think society has changed a bit since then.

I don't even think back then someone was going to get killed. Losing control means more losing authority, and that applies in any time period.

I don't even think back then someone was going to get killed. Losing control means more losing authority, and that applies in any time period.

Instant replay in football and hockey has caused literally thousands of officials' calls to be overruled in the past 20 years. The sports culture has been acculturated to the concept. (**) The baseball umpires will survive.

(**) If you want to let them save face by having the overruler be in a booth somewhere other than on the field with them, go with that.

And what happens if one ump 'knows' he made the call correctly but another 'knows' the call was incorrect?

All the umps convene and they make a decision rationally, based on who saw what and who had the best view.

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Does No. 1's proscription include a human being's ERA or batting average (or, by extension, earning potential)?

Remember the Twilight Zone episode with the robot pitcher? In the end, the robot quits the game because he can't bear to strike out opposing batters and thus ruin their careers.

Instant replay in football and hockey has caused literally thousands of officials' calls to be overruled in the past 20 years. The sports culture has been acculturated to the concept. (**) The baseball umpires will survive.

This is not an invalid point, but baseball umps are far different from football refs. Refs call penalties, and entire halves are known to go by with no penalties called at all. The umps in baseball are a much bigger part of the game, involved on every pitch, and the possibility of more than one member of the crew used on ANY pitch and any and every action of the game. The closest thing in football is spotting the ball on downs, and that is admittedly an estimation, no one would ever think otherwise. There are probably better examples I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Again, I'm not discounting your point entirely, perhaps the game would adjust fine, but I don't think it's even close to parallel as far as their specific roles in their respective games


In the end, the robot quits the game because he can't bear to strike out opposing batters and thus ruin their careers.

Take it to the Strasburg thread.

I should think society has changed a bit since then.

I don't believe human behavior displayed by masses at sporting events has evolved much in the last 150 years. The descent into madness is as precipitous as it ever was.

Note that they can't even get McClelland's name right.

or spell "fortunately" correctly

fortunatley it happens and it’s part of the game.

or spell "fortunately" correctly

fortunatley it happens and it’s part of the game.

Or spell unfortunately correctly:

Unfortanatley they did.

And what happens if one ump 'knows' he made the call correctly but another 'knows' the call was incorrect?

All the umps convene and they make a decision rationally, based on who saw what and who had the best view.

Yes, but only if a manager questions the call, asks the ump to ask the other umps for help, and the ump agrees to do so.

This is not an invalid point, but baseball umps are far different from football refs. Refs call penalties, and entire halves are known to go by with no penalties called at all. The umps in baseball are a much bigger part of the game, involved on every pitch, and the possibility of more than one member of the crew used on ANY pitch and any and every action of the game. The closest thing in football is spotting the ball on downs, and that is admittedly an estimation, no one would ever think otherwise.

Actually, as you note with the downs, refs are actively engaged on every single play in the NFL. To say they only call penalties is ridiculous. Obviously every sports refs have different duties, but they all have incredibly similar jobs. And the general point stands - if a ref/ump/official repeatedly admits s/he was wrong and changes the call - more complaints and questions will arise until the ref is no longer an accepted moderator of the game.

I forget who it was (or what sport he reffed, I think maybe basketball) but there was a very good ref who was known to tell players and coaches "I owe you one, but I am never going to pay up".

the concept that umpires constantly questioning themselves and each other will cause chaos is dead on.

Basketball refs overrule and reverse each other all the time. No one thinks twice about it and somehow order is maintained.

It seems like it would be a big deal among umps because they make it a big deal because they think anyone gives a #### about their egos and little fiefdoms.