umpires

[Dollaz]

With all do resptect, blackjack, umpires can stand on their head for all I care. Where they set up is pointless. Every single umpire can try to call the strike zone by the book and do the best to their capabilities. And I agree, there are studies that show what catchers are good at framing pitches or not. But, umpires have tendencies and that is backed up by cold, hard facts.

 

[Lareux]

Yeah Blackjack, you're still taking this personally and bringing up things no one is talking about. You mentioned that you haven't heard anyone say that the catcher can affect how the ump sees a pitch....that doesn't mean no one believe that, it's just not pertinent to this discussion. You're not going to get arguments from anyone about the umpiring profession, since you've been in it and no one else has. At the same time, the handicappers on this site have been doing what they do for years....and you haven't. There is actual data that show these umpires have a bias one way or another. The facts can't be argued or disputed. MLB may teach their umpires to do everything the same way, hoping that each ump will call balls/strikes exactly the same....but we all know that's not how it really works. Of course MLB is trying to make everything uniform, but people are human and have tendencies. Guys are taught to shoot a basketball the same exact way as well, but how many guys do you know who have the same exact form as any or everyone else?

 

[blackjack34]

ok. several people have said im taking it personally. one point i would like to make and it refers to the above post is this. just because someone has been doing something for a very long time does not mean anything. he/she could be doing it the wrong way for that whole time. he/she could think they are doing something correctly simply because they have done something for a long time. when in reality they have had a lot of experience doing something incorrectly for a very long time..1)i am bringing to light that i was an umpire.2)i worked with alot of the major league umpires.3) i instructed at umpire school, most of the fill in umpires in mlb now.5) umpires try to get each pitch exactly correct going by the rule book strike zone 6) many factors influence how a pitch is called and its not limited to where it crosses the plate, because sometimes catchers "butcher" pitches(make them look worse than they are) and sometimes catchers make borderline pitches look good. also sometimes an umpire gets blocked and didnt see the pitch well.......simply saying umpires have tendencies because one umpire has had more overs than unders or whatever you base your wagers cuz of who is umpiring is based on information that is far more complex than one umpire....if it were true that umpires have tendencies would any umpire change from one season to the next? if umpire ted barret was an over umpire one season wouldnt he then be an over umpire for his entire career? i dont follow umpire stats so i dont know if these stats are consistent from one season to the next. but if someone is placing bets and factoring in an umpires tendencies i would think they would never change because he is an individual and safe to say is the exact same person as he was last year.

 

[blackjack34]

if umpires are in some season over umpires and in other seasons under umpires what would you say their tendencies are then? its not like a player one season having a bad season and the next having a great season. umpires have been doing their craft with all the best instruction and proper teaching for minimum 10 years exactly the same way. They call the exact same things year in and year out. nothing changes for them accept rules and what is being emphasized by the league. I am trying to put information out there. that is all. if someone agrees thats fine if someone doesnt, that is fine too. im just puting it out there. you dont have to believe what im saying you can use this information free of charge. and i think thats pretty cool.

 

[SIGO]

Thanks for letting me use this information free of charge. Much appreciated. :shake:

 

[Dollaz]

over/under numbers may vary greatly and can depend on the line set, pitchers, parks, etc. But, umps are consistent in strike/ball percentages over a large sample size. If you take 10 years worth of data from 2 umps, shouldn't they have the same strike percentage if the zone was called the same?

 

[jdoggoakley]

if umpires are in some season over umpires and in other seasons under umpires what would you say their tendencies are then? its not like a player one season having a bad season and the next having a great season. umpires have been doing their craft with all the best instruction and proper teaching for minimum 10 years exactly the same way. They call the exact same things year in and year out. nothing changes for them accept rules and what is being emphasized by the league. I am trying to put information out there. that is all. if someone agrees thats fine if someone doesnt, that is fine too. im just puting it out there. you dont have to believe what im saying you can use this information free of charge. and i think thats pretty cool.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing this. Some umps have larger zones than others (and that's based on factual data). Doug Eddings has a larger strike zone than Larry Vanover. They may have been taught the same, but I've watched multiple games umpired by both of these very good MLB umps. Even at the start of the game, you will likely hear the color guys talk about the "tendencies" of this ump or that ump. When Eddings is behind the dish, everyone knows that pitchers get a little more leeway with their strike calls. When Vanover is the ump, they have a smaller k zone to work with. If you look at pitches called by both of these umps, I promise you, you will see more pitches at the edges of the "defined" strike zone called strikes on Eddings' chart than you will on Vanover's. These tendencies by these two guys are consistent year to year for these two umps. Nothing wrong with that, but when I go to handicap a baseball game (which is why we all waste our precious time in this wonderful setting), I absolutely look at the ump and based on that particular umps tendencies, I will decide whether a total play is at an advantage or not (based on who is behind the plate). Does it mean I'm always right? Nope. Does it mean that the ump had anything to do with the game going over or not? Probably not, but perhaps.
Umps, just like players, have tendencies that are likely year to year. You can be pretty sure, every year, that Miguel Cabrera is going to hit a bunch of home runs. You can also be pretty sure, based on tendencies, that Daniel Delscalzo is NOT going to hit a bunch of home runs. Why? Because of tendencies that are consistent with these players year to year - just like umps tendencies.

 

[luoldeng]

I'm missing stats from a few years here but here's 14 years since 2000 from what most would consider to be an Over ump in McClellland and an Under ump in Eddings. McClelland year after year after year calls less strikes than Eddings does which leads to more runs per game. Notice not one of these years did McClelland call more than 63% strikes while not one of these years did Eddings call less than 63% strikes. Umpires do not have the same zones, they do not call pitches the same, this is not disputable, doesn't matter if you were a former umpire or not.

McClelland
2013 - 62.05%, 10.13 rpg
2012 - 62.72%, 9.52 rpg
2011 - 61.88%, 9.62 rpg
2010 - 62.35%, 8.36 rpg
2009 - 60.46%, 11.08 rpg
2008 - 61.65%, 10.22 rpg
2007 - 62.82%, 9.32 rpg
2006 -
2005 - 61.01%, 9.31 rpg
2004 - 61.44%, 10.10 rpg
2003 - 62.72%, 8.75 rpg
2002 - 61.72%, 10.57 rpg
2001 - 61.26%, 10.00 rpg
2000 - 59.99%, 9.78 rpg

Eddings
2013 - 64.85%, 8.27 rpg
2012 - 64.74%, 8.19 rpg
2011 - 64.28%, 8.18 rpg
2010 - 63.74%, 7.47 rpg
2009 - 63.05%, 9.20 rpg
2008 - 63.83%, 9.56 rpg
2007 -
2006 -
2005 - 66.03%, 8.26 rpg
2004 - 64.75%, 7.29 rpg
2003 - 64.93%. 9.44 rpg
2002 - 64.45%, 8.54 rpg
2001 - 64.17%, 9.26 rpg
2000 - 63.34%, 7.97 rpg

 

[Play2win]

Thanks AJ , good stuff :cheers:

 

[Lareux]

simply saying umpires have tendencies because one umpire has had more overs than unders or whatever you base your wagers cuz of who is umpiring is based on information that is far more complex than one umpire....if it were true that umpires have tendencies would any umpire change from one season to the next? if umpire ted barret was an over umpire one season wouldnt he then be an over umpire for his entire career? i dont follow umpire stats so i dont know if these stats are consistent from one season to the next. but if someone is placing bets and factoring in an umpires tendencies i would think they would never change because he is an individual and safe to say is the exact same person as he was last year.

I think this may be where the problem, or disconnect is lying. You don't follow ump stats, and seemingly haven't taken the time to look at the spreadsheets in the baseball forum. If you did, you would see that most guys do remain consistent with them being an over or an under ump. As others have pointed out though, it's not about the over/under result, as much as it is the strike %, and whether guys give the corners or not. The strike percentage will just lead to more unders, but of course the teams playing and the total itself are all factors, so every game a guy umps will be neither over nor under.

We all appreciate the insight you have given and can give on umpires. I don't think you're appreciating the info that has been compiled for years and years by the guys on this forum....and those stats clearly show that umpires have tendencies.

 

[nbafan88]

I'm not taking anything personally. But I've never heard a perspective from a professional umpire in a gambling thread before. I just have info that no one on here does and I thought I would share. The reason I name players is to maybe apeal to a fans mind about the experiences I have had. I did not believe I was something special. I took great pride in being approachable as an umpire. I did not portray any ego on the field. But people are gonna say what they want.

maybe your personal involvement is clouding your judgement when we are showing you factual information spanning over a decade?

 

[BJPLAYER]

I haven't read through whole thread yet, but have you looked at Brooks baseball data? I don't see how anyone can explain that data and conclude that every umpires zone is the same.

been watching and listening to bb for 40 years....no doubt in my mind that zones differ from ump to ump and umps change from game to game sometimes