“Hernandez has not presented, and the record does not contain, a scintilla of evidence that MLB’s actions were based on his race or national origin,” MLB wrote in a 58-page filing on Wednesday.

OK, so make that one thing I agree with that Manfred has overseen during his ruinous tenure.

Hernandez served as an interim crew chief from 2011 to 2016

How does this kind of thing work (interim for 6 years)?

There's more:

MLB wrote Wednesday that "Hernandez has been quick to eject managers, which enflames on-field tensions, rather than issue warnings that potentially could defuse those situations. Hernandez also has failed to communicate with other umpires on his crew, which has resulted in confusion on the field and unnecessary game delays."

MLB also claimed Torre observed Hernandez throwing his headset after a video review overturned one of his calls in 2014 and misapplied a substitution rule, leading to a 14-minute delay and a protest during a game between Boston and the Tampa Bay Rays on July 24, 2019.

"During that investigation, MLB concluded that Hernandez intentionally and deceptively eavesdropped on a confidential conversation with another umpire on his crew in order to hear what that umpire would say concerning the incident; and when MLB asked Hernandez about it, he lied about his conduct," MLB wrote.

MLB also repeated an allegation it made earlier in the lawsuit that Hernandez asked Cincinnati Reds pitcher Homer Bailey to autograph 11 baseballs following a game in which Bailey pitched a no-hitter in 2012.

Cincinnati Reds pitcher Homer Bailey to autograph 11 baseballs

I hope that's not his retirement plan.

Cincinnati Reds pitcher Homer Bailey to autograph 11 baseballs

One for every ball called a strike

a scintilla of evidence

For all you lawyers who post, is that a regularly used legal term? I know scintilla is a real word and all, but it reads a bit odd.

what is the proper percentage for Hernandez of "I actually believe my own nonsense" vs "what the hell, I'll play the race card and maybe I cash in, even though I know I'm a terrible umpire."

my speculation gives a huge number to the former, but I'm not sure.

I agree with Howie. people that are bad at their jobs never seem to realize it -- it's always someone else's fault when something doesn't go their way

I think Hernandez is fully convinced of his own righteousness, therefore it does not matter to him if his nonsense is factual or not.

Its definitely dishonesty, but it's a different species of dishonesty than the grifter-Pete Rose type.

If umpires have to actually demonstrate competence at their jobs in order to be made permanent crew chiefs, what would become of the baseball we know and love?

Rules being enforced correctly. Players only being ejected for good reason and not long held beefs? Balls called as balls and strikes called strikes?

What a boring brew of madness that would be.

what is the proper percentage for Hernandez of "I actually believe my own nonsense" vs "what the hell, I'll play the race card and maybe I cash in, even though I know I'm a terrible umpire."

my speculation gives a huge number to the former, but I'm not sure.

A narcissist does not comprehend that there is even a distinction between the two.

I think success all the way to the final level has to be just confusing as all #### for almost anyone. The worst ballplayer in MLB at any time is still one hell of a ballplayer. Now, advancement within the umpiring ranks may be less of a meritocracy, but still--I suspect Hernandez sincerely believes his #### smells like roses.

I'd like to see the crowd in every Hernandez game chant 'robo-ump' each time he makes a mistake - so doing it a LOT.

Rules being enforced correctly. Players only being ejected for good reason and not long held beefs? Balls called as balls and strikes called strikes?

What a boring brew of madness that would be.

but enough about sports talk radio

:)

WFAN in NYC earlier this year hired ex-Giants RB Tiki Barber as a co-host of a mid-morning show (had to look up his partner, Brandon Tierney).

only two ways to go here - be cogent and forward-thinking and awesome (ok, this has never happened), or be a buffoon.

I enjoy the buffoons, in modest doses.

and as with this ump, they believe they are extremely talented.

but in the case of the radio clowns, their ratings - quite literally - are far higher than Angel's.

the radio guy is supposed to be the reason you consume the entertainment. the ump - not so much.

back to Tiki. not a buffoon and not cogent enough - and hence, unlistenable, at least in this sample size of one.

My theory on Angel is that he's about the quality of umps we had back in the 70s/80s. I think umpiring has improved a ton in the intervening years but Angel was left behind. That's the charitable view.

It could be he's just a guy who sees the whole world through a prism of race and therefore can't see his own terrible performance

.
For all you lawyers who post, is that a regularly used legal term? I know scintilla is a real word and all, but it reads a bit odd.

Yes, it’s a legal standard (that reads a bit odd). In order to survive a motion for summary judgment and proceed to trial, the plaintiff must present “more than a scintilla” of evidence to support each claim. Nobody really knows what it’s supposed to mean.

"I remember an adventure vacation in the Andes Mountains many years ago, where we hunted scintillas for their thick, lush fur."

- Emily Litella

#nevermind

But please don't show us the gory conclusions of those hunts. There's already too much violins on television.

what is the proper percentage for Hernandez of "I actually believe my own nonsense" vs "what the hell, I'll play the race card and maybe I cash in, even though I know I'm a terrible umpire."


It's 2022. It's 99% "play the race card and I'll get rewarded".

One out in the 5th and the Phils pitchers have thrown 155 pitches to the suddenly juggernauty Giants.

My theory on Angel is that he's about the quality of umps we had back in the 70s/80s. I think umpiring has improved a ton in the intervening years but Angel was left behind. That's the charitable view.

Agree - watch MLB's longer WS-highlights films from the 60s and 70s; seemingly every one has these moments of "Wait, WHAT???" umpiring.

I was just skimming through Phil Niekro's 300th win last night (he said he barely threw any knuckleballs & I found that a little dubious), and he was the beneficiary of the worst called strike I've ever seen in the first inning - 28:58 in video below:

https://youtu.be/RLzYJ-tpFEM?t=1738

Well, the called zone has changed a good bit over the years so what's egregious today may have been less egregious at the time. When I first started watching baseball in the early 70s I was regularly confused when the announcer would say "there's a strike across the letters" on a pitch that was maybe a smidgen above the belt. I wondered "maybe they mean at the height of where the letters would be on the C but then that wouldn't be 'across' and now the pitch is above the C's letters." Anyway, the top of the zone now is higher, the bottom is lower (or maybe about the same as the 70s but lower than the 90s) but the outside corner is no longer six inches outside.

All that said, on breaking pitches, there are still several times a game where I'm thinking "oh come on" only to have that damn box show it clipping an edge. So maybe the zones of old weren't as generous to breaking pitches as I thought.

Well, the called zone has changed a good bit over the years so what's egregious today may have been less egregious at the time.

Uh-huh, sure ... did you actually watch the vid? It was plenty egregious for the time, and the reactions of the broadcasters are exactly what you'd expect for such a crazy strike call.