I keep hoping Gardner gets ejected every game for the dugout noise-making. He seems oblivious to why he is getting thrown out which I find funny

Gardner really is a modern day Paul O'Neill.

IOW he's beloved by Yankees fans and hated by other teams' Politeness Police. Never mind that he was rightly reacting to those "personalized" Supersized strike zones that are getting more and more people calling for robo-umps.

Never mind that he was rightly reacting to those "personalized" Supersized strike zones that are getting more and more people calling for robo-umps.

Being upset about bad calls is fine. The roof-banging tantrum is juvenile and obnoxious, and should result in ejection every time.

Speaking of mercy rules, the O's should be allowed to forfeit the rest of their MLB games and play AAA teams the rest of the season. Pee you willy, do they stink.

Never mind that he was rightly reacting to those "personalized" Supersized strike zones

As soon as a guy complains that his pitchers are getting "personalized supersized strike zones", then I'll call throwing a tantrum over it "right".

Never mind that he was rightly reacting

Rule 8.02 (a):

Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but
not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a
pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is
final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to
any such judgment decisions.

He wasn't "rightly" reacting.

Speaking as a Red Sox fan, I've been watching Gardner his whole career, has he gotten extra salty this season? There's the banging, the arguing, the lip-splitting helmet toss...

the lip-splitting helmet toss

Still my favourite moment of the season (hey, I have to take what I can get at this point!).

But yeah, he should really get a lengthy suspension for persistent and continued offenses. Not that any one incident is that terrible, but the sheer number of occasions justifies the league giving him a solid kick up the ass.

IOW he's beloved by Yankees fans and hated by other teams' Politeness Police. Never mind that he was rightly reacting to those "personalized" Supersized strike zones that are getting more and more people calling for robo-umps.

I love Gardner, but this behavior is totally bush league. The ump should eject him immediately, every time he does this.

Never mind that he was rightly reacting to those "personalized" Supersized strike zones

As soon as a guy complains that his pitchers are getting "personalized supersized strike zones", then I'll call throwing a tantrum over it "right".

Boone's not going to complain about bad calls that favor his pitchers (duh). But if you were watching the calls he was complaining about, you could see that he was absolutely right to complain.

The larger issue is that home plate umpires are continually blowing ball and strike calls, particularly giving pitchers extra inches on balls outside or inside, and in some cases on pitches well below the knees. If you think players and managers should just "live with it", fine, but it makes no sense to me that MLB utilizes umpires in New York to micromanage bang-bang calls on the bases that happen maybe 2 or 3 times a game while not doing anything about expanded strike zones that can alter the game many more times than that, and can be fixed without causing 2 to 5 minute delays.

I love Gardner, but this behavior is totally bush league. The ump should eject him immediately, every time he does this.

A better move would be for MLB to eject those home plate umpires, or better yet, just take calling balls and strikes out of their job description.

But if you were watching the calls he was complaining about, you could see that he was absolutely right to complain.

Which inning are we talking about?

I looked at the 8th on Brooks Baseball, and all the calls look fine.

I wonder if Gardner would look better if he allowed his hair to grow a bit. His head is shaped strange and I know he's bald on top, but I feel like the shiny dome look isn't working for him. Trim usually looks best for balding men, I'd suggest he go for the Jason Stratham look.

Speaking as a Red Sox fan, I've been watching Gardner his whole career, has he gotten extra salty this season? There's the banging, the arguing, the lip-splitting helmet toss...

I was just assuming this was old fading player yelling at clowds behavior, but he's having a really good season! I really don't recall him doing this so much previously.

I really don't recall him doing this so much previously.

That is what I was thinking.

He'd be on a ridiculously short leash right now if I were an ump.

but he's having a really good season!

Yes, and he's playing an average to plus CF (by the metrics), which has been critical given that Aaron Hicks can not stay on the field (the man is made of glass) and the Yankees have no other real CF.

They almost have to bring him back next year. You can't count on Hicks for more than a half of a season, and Judge is always hurt as well.

But if you were watching the calls he was complaining about, you could see that he was absolutely right to complain.

Which inning are we talking about?

I looked at the 8th on Brooks Baseball, and all the calls look fine.

Gardner was ejected on Saturday in the 6th, not the 8th, after Maybin was called out on a pitch outside the zone. They replayed it several times with the zone box showing, and it was clear that the call was blown. If you can decipher those Brooks Baseball charts,** more power to you, but anyone who was actually watching that game could see that there was a legitimate complaint.

** Which come with a strike zone that for some reason is shaped like a square, not a rectangle.

He'd be on a ridiculously short leash right now if I were an ump.

If I were that ump I might think about de-personalizing my strike zone.

If I were an ump, I'd give Gardner a warning before the game even starts. Everybody gets a call they don't like nearly every game they play in. I'm not sure any player in the major leagues has become so completely unhinged every time a call goes against him. It's beyond unprofessional.

Gardner was ejected on Saturday in the 6th, not the 8th, after Maybin was called out on a pitch outside the zone. They replayed it several times with the zone box showing, and it was clear that the call was blown. If you can decipher those Brooks Baseball charts,** more power to you, but anyone who was actually watching that game could see that there was a legitimate complaint.

** Which come with a strike zone that for some reason is shaped like a square, not a rectangle.

Strike 3 against Maybin was slightly outside. Every other called strike was a strike.

Much to do about nothing.

If I were that ump I might think about de-personalizing my strike zone.

Is there any way I can just put certain phrases on ignore, like the empty "personalized strike zones" that you complain about ad nauseum.

Did the Orioles lose on a terrible strike call or something recently?

Is there any way I can just put certain phrases on ignore, like the empty "personalized strike zones" that you complain about ad nauseum.

Well, you can always ignore reality, just like the umps often ignore the reality of the actual strike zone.

Personally I hope players and managers keep complaining about the psz, so that maybe Manfred will get MLB to follow the lead of the Atlantic League and do away with them once and for all.

Strike 3 against Maybin was slightly outside. Every other called strike was a strike.

Much to do about nothing.

You have an interesting way of describing a blown call that changed the entire course of the inning, and only by luck didn't affect the outcome of the game.

Why is "getting it right" so important when it comes to plays on the bases, but "much to do about nothing" when it comes to balls and strikes? I've yet to see this question seriously addressed.

Well, you can always ignore reality, just like the umps often ignore the reality of the actual strike zone.

Personalized strike zone is the same thing as the strike zone. The strike zone has always been determined by the perception of the home plate umpire, dictated by where he stands among other things. It's not any more personalized now than it was 100 years ago when you were a child. Naming it hasn't ####### changed a damn thing.

Why is "getting it right" so important when it comes to plays on the bases, but "much to do about nothing" when it comes to balls and strikes? I've yet to see this question seriously addressed.

I think snapper's answer to that, given all he's written on the subject, is neither is so important. He's been remarkably consistent on the subject, unlike you and which team is your favorite on a given day.

You have an interesting way of describing a blown call that changed the entire course of the inning, and only by luck didn't affect the outcome of the game.

A critical and possibly missed call went against the Yankees, and Brett Gardner acts like a spoiled toddler. Both things can be true. But I have seen an awful lot of players get victimized by bad calls and manage to not go full asshat.

Gardner really is a modern day Paul O'Neill.

Credit to Gardner for trying, but nobody whined harder, ####### louder or complained incessantly quite like O'Neill. Brett will just have to settle for Crybaby HOVG.

You have an interesting way of describing a blown call that changed the entire course of the inning, and only by luck didn't affect the outcome of the game.

The pitch was an inch or two off the plate. You always run the risk of that being called a strike. If you don't like it, swing the bat.

Why is "getting it right" so important when it comes to plays on the bases, but "much to do about nothing" when it comes to balls and strikes? I've yet to see this question seriously addressed.

It's not. I totally oppose all use of replay in MLB.

I love Gardner's explanation/"question":

"I felt like as soon as I hit the top of the dugout, (umpire Phil Cuzzi) was running over from first base, pointing in the dugout and telling me that I can't do that and threw me out," Gardner said. "I asked him why and nobody's told me why I can't do that. Nobody's told me that I can't make noise. I didn't direct anything at anyone."

He thinks he's being very clever I suppose, but he's actually being (as noted by snapper and others above) unprofessional, juvenile and an #######, and I'd say the umps are right to toss him. (And no Andy, it actually doesn't matter if Gardner sometimes might have a point.)

That said, at this point Torre ought to be stepping in, telling The Yankees/Boone that it or similar outbursts won't be tolerated. Put him on notice.

And finally, count me as another Sox fan who sees this as out of character for Gardner. Always liked him.

Not particularly liked by any other teams, he has one plus. Gardner is possibly the only man of his advanced years to play regular cf in 2019. At age 35, he has played 60+ games in cf.

Who else plays cf and is over 30 in today's game? Adam Jones and Andrew McCutcheon moved to right this year. I can only come up with Lorenzo Cain and Charlie Blackmon. All 4 are in the NL. Is that significant?

Roid rage. Only way to explain the temperament change.

Who else plays cf and is over 30 in today's game? Adam Jones and Andrew McCutcheon moved to right this year. I can only come up with Lorenzo Cain and Charlie Blackmon. All 4 are in the NL. Is that significant?

Blackmon also moved to right field this year.

It's weird because they aren't even calls against HIM he's usually whining about. I find it sort of funny but it's not good for it to be encouraged.

As for the Yankees, Tauchman can play CF fine. Not that I believe he's this good of a hitter.

Gardner is the only 35-year-old to have appeared in CF for any amount of time this season.

Jarrod Dyson at 34 has also appeared in quite a few games in CF, as have Ian Desmond, Dexter Fowler, and Lorenzo Cain at 33. There are a few more in their early 30s.

Who else plays cf and is over 30 in today's game?

Juan Lagares is 30 as of March 17th and still playing a decent amount of CF for the Mets. It's a shame his bat has died, he's still fun to watch in CF, even if slower.

Who else plays cf and is over 30 in today's game? Adam Jones and Andrew McCutcheon moved to right this year. I can only come up with Lorenzo Cain and Charlie Blackmon. All 4 are in the NL. Is that significant?

Kevin Pillar, barely. He's also in the NL.

If you can decipher those Brooks Baseball charts,** more power to you

This is code for "the charts don't really support my case about the Yankees being jobbed". Or maybe it's sincere, and thus an opportunity for dialogue and education.

If you want to define "personalized" strike zones as being personalized to the umpire, then what would be a reasonable strike zone is the zone as generally called by all umpires. In the Brooks charts that's the dotted line. Now mind you, hitters don't have a K-Zone graphic or whatever while they're at the plate; they just have what they've gleaned from umpiring in general.* So the dotted line is the best representation of what the batter should expect a ball or strike to be, based on their general experience. On that basis there were six bad or borderline strike calls (4 to RHH, 2 to LHH) in that game. Only one was clearly outside the dotted-line, and that call went against the Indians.

There were by my count 10 bad or borderline balls (that is, called balls that were arguably in the zone) against either RHH or LHH. Six were for the Indians pitchers; 4 for the Yankees pitchers. There's one by the Yankees that's completely within the dotted line; the rest are touching the border, and the majority of those are (for those who want consistency) not closer to the zone than a similar pitch that was called a strike. FWIW most of the borderline calls were at the top of the zone, which is probably not a surprise to hitters given that the "typical" called zone isn't a perfect rectangle and most often differs from the perfect rectangle in the upper corners. (Put another way, hitters are accustomed to similar pitches being called as balls, despite the Brooks rectangle.)

So that's 2 pitches, out of >150 called pitches, one against each team, based on what the players would know of as the strike zone. I mean, if that's what we call a poorly-called strike zone I don't know what to say, other than that's a lot of whining by the so-called professionals.

* They made it to the majors by developing strike zone discipline based on calls by minor-league, college, and high school umpires. There's no way the players instinctively know the rulebook borders with any level of precision, unless the amateur-level umpires are better at calling the rulebook zone. The hitters just know what is typically called.

I love Gardner, but this behavior is totally bush league. The ump should eject him immediately, every time he does this

agree w/ Snapper on this. He's beating a wood bat against a metal roof, something's wrong with that.

If you can decipher those Brooks Baseball charts,** more power to you

This is code for "the charts don't really support my case about the Yankees being jobbed". Or maybe it's sincere, and thus an opportunity for dialogue and education.

I assure you that it's perfectly sincere, and that I'm fully aware that bad calls affect the other 29 teams.

But obviously some of those calls are blown, by varying numbers each game, and one study shows that in 2018 they missed 34,294 of them. And a few umpires, including the infamous Joe West, missed over 10% of them. (The best and worst umps are cited on the link.)

Obviously that's a small percentage of the total number of calls, but it still represents 34,294 times where a bad call could have changed the entire course of the game. I hope I don't have to spell out for you the difference between a 3rd strike and a 4th ball with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game. Or on a less melodramatic level, the difference between a 2-1 count and a 3-0 count, or just the difference between 0-1 and 1-0. Here's what one study shows:

1. Hitters who took a first-pitch strike instead of swinging took a 21-point hit to their batting average (from .345 to .321).

2. Once a hitter takes that first pitch strike, he won’t return to the same odds of success again until getting to a 2-1 count.

3. Somewhat surprisingly, batting averages don’t change much from a 0-0 pitch (.345) to 1-0 (.344) or 2-0 (.350), counts that would be more advantageous to the hitter. But averages skyrocket 57 points when going from 2-0 to 3-0, and even a 3-1 count is the second most advantageous (.363).

4. Any count with two strikes is a major advantage to the pitcher. Averages disappear to .157 for 0-2, .166 for 1-2, .183 for 2-2, and even .211 for 3-2.

5. Not surprisingly, any count with three balls also had the highest on base percentages since the next ball would result in a walk. Plate appearances that end immediately after a 3-0 count have a startling .944 on base percentage.

Again, I pose this so-far unanswered question: If it's important enough to call New York and delay the game to "get it right" on a play where a runner overslides the base by a fraction of an inch for a fraction of a second, why isn't it equally or more important to "get it right" on the strike zone, when doing so won't delay the game at all?

Tell you what: Install the robo-umps, and then the next time Gardner bangs his bat on the dugout ceiling to protest the call, I'll say to suspend him for a week. Deal?

My best guess for top over 30 center fielders (100+ games) in recent times:

Steve Finley age 41, 130 g for SFG
Willie Mays age 39, 128 g for SFG
Willie Davis age 36, 128 g for SDP
Ken Griffey age 36, 100 g for Cin
Tori Hunter age 33, 115 g for LAA
Johnny Damon age 32, 131 g for NYY
Mickey Mantle age 32, 102 g for NYY
Vada Pinson age 32, 100 g for Cle

I didn't know Willie Davis even played for the Padres.


Duke Snider age 30, 136 g for Bro
(Willie, Mickey & the Duke was a popular song, for NY folks to see who had the best CF))

Honestly, I'd rather just block you during Omnichatters. It's a lot easier.

Like Snapper, I'm against replay on anything, but you can't have the umpires be the only people in the world who don't have access to slo-mo replay. At some point there's gonna be tech upgrades to ball-strike calls, that's just inevitable.

Until that point in time, though, people need to shut up about it. Every batter on every team is subject to these calls, and have been since literally the beginning of balls and strikes. Just because we can quantify the misses now don't change that fact that this has been going on our entire lives, yet somehow, baseball moves along just fine. Gardner is neither special or interest in this case. Also, by OPS+, he'ss having the best season of his career at 35 ('roids, obviously), so if umpires are picking on him, they're doing an awful job. The only thing more ####### stupid than his behavior are the excuses Yankee fans make for him.

Gardner has never been known as the hissy fit throwing type until the recent bat/roof episodes. He's not even the biggest red ass on the team. Sabathia manages to inject himself into everything whether it's warranted or not. Unlike CC, at least Gardner is still good at his job. He's always a plus defender and is having one of his best offensive seasons.

Gardner has never been known as the hissy fit throwing type until the recent bat/roof episodes. He's not even the biggest red ass on the team. Sabathia manages to inject himself into everything whether it's warranted or not.

both of those are true, and CC has enough charisma that no matter how many times he has reacted angrily even to minor slights in recent years, he still gets painted as a guy who "just loves the game." (it doesn't hurt that he does a ton of off-field charity work and also seems to have continued to right the ship on his alcoholism, which is to be admired. I greatly respect who he is and his pending HOF career. but yes he also can't resist pissing matches.)

like everyone else, I wonder what happened to Gardner this year.

If abusing the dugout is now grounds for ejection, water coolers everywhere want some accountability for those who turned a blind eye to their mistreatment for decades.

like everyone else, I wonder what happened to Gardner this year.I feel like we're not giving the 'roids angle enough play here. 35 years old, best year yet with the bat, early balding. It's 'roids!

I loath replay in all its forms in all sports. It is terrible. I wouldn't mind an automated strike zone, but that wouldn't be replay, just part of normal play.

Linking the two somehow is silly. Yes, both use technology, but one is ensuring the play is called correctly as part of the normal play and the other disrupts the flow of the game and retcons what has already happened.

I loath replay in all its forms in all sports. It is terrible. I wouldn't mind an automated strike zone, but that wouldn't be replay, just part of normal play.

Linking the two somehow is silly. Yes, both use technology, but one is ensuring the play is called correctly as part of the normal play and the other disrupts the flow of the game and retcons what has already happened.

This.

I loath replay in all its forms in all sports. It is terrible. I wouldn't mind an automated strike zone, but that wouldn't be replay, just part of normal play.

Linking the two somehow is silly. Yes, both use technology, but one is ensuring the play is called correctly as part of the normal play and the other disrupts the flow of the game and retcons what has already happened.

I link the two because the impetus is the same. It's the "OMG!!! We have to get every call perfect!!! My team is getting screwed!!! That ball called in April cost us the Pennant!!!" nonsense of fanboys.

99% accuracy, or 98%, or 99.5% (whatever we've had for 150 years) is perfectly fine. It's not brain surgery, or bridge building. "Getting it right" just doesn't matter.

But since ball and strike robo-umps could get it right without disrupting the flow of the game, seems to me the only reason you're against it is because of your reverence for some hidebound tradition. There's no logical reason to oppose them, whereas there are plenty of reasons to oppose replays that cause game delays.

99% accuracy, or 98%, or 99.5% (whatever we've had for 150 years) is perfectly fine.

If only. Apparently you didn't bother to read this.

The Bottom 5 Umpires
Rank Umpire Age Exp. Calls Bad calls BCR
1. Ted Barrett 54 20 4,291 495 11.54%
2. Joe West 67 40 4,480 512 11.43%
3. Rob Drake 50 10 2,496 285 11.42%
4. Dan Iassogna 50 16 1,068 116 10.86%
5. Gary Cederstrom 64 24 4,696 506 10.78%

If only. Apparently you didn't bother to read this.

1) I dispute that all of these are "bad calls". An inch either way is well within the margin of error. The strike zone has never been that well defined.
2) I have zero problem firing bad umps.

I hope I don't have to spell out for you the difference between a 3rd strike and a 4th ball with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

What percentage of your complaints on mis-called pitches have taken place in that scenario?

1) I dispute that all of these are "bad calls". An inch either way is well within the margin of error. The strike zone has never been that well defined.

That's only because of the p-word. There's no reason it can't be made uniform.

2) I have zero problem firing bad umps.

So you'd agree that at least those bottom 5 umps should be fired?

---------------------------------------------------

I hope I don't have to spell out for you the difference between a 3rd strike and a 4th ball with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

What percentage of your complaints on mis-called pitches have taken place in that scenario?

I have no idea, but I notice you don't bother to reply to the rest of my comment:

Obviously that's a small percentage of the total number of calls, but it still represents 34,294 times where a bad call could have changed the entire course of the game. I hope I don't have to spell out for you the difference between a 3rd strike and a 4th ball with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game. Or on a less melodramatic level, the difference between a 2-1 count and a 3-0 count, or just the difference between 0-1 and 1-0. Here's what one study shows:

So the poster whose team is 40 games over .500 in mid August is outraged that his team is getting ###### by bad umps? Do I have that right?

I mean that's a legit question. So if the response is some lame not even Yahoo message board worthy snark just pass and I will be fine not knowing for certain