Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Ejection 002: Larry Vanover (1)

HP Umpire Larry Vanover ejected Mets Manager Terry Collins for arguing a ball in the top of the 7th inning of the Nationals-Mets game. With one out and one on, Nationals batter Danny Espinosa took a 3-1 changeup from Mets pitcher Manny Acosta for a ball. Replays indicate the 3-1 pitch from Acosta was below the bottom of the knees and inside. There were no incorrect callable pitches during the at bat, the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Nationals were leading, 1-0. The Nationals ultimately won the contest, 4-0.

This is Larry Vanover (27)'s first ejection of 2012.
Larry Vanover now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Brian Gorman now has 1 point in the UEFL's Crew division.
*After review, the Appeals Board has confirmed Quality of Correctness, 5-1-0 ("Correct" ==> "Correct")
*The Appeals Board's historical decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal.

UEFL Standings Update
1) 3 pts: JohnShulockFan
1) 3 pts: TheGunsofHochuli
1) 3 pts: Jeremy (Commish)
4) 2 pts: BONZ_kansascity
4) 2 pts: cyclone14
4) 2 pts: hitit2me
4) 2 pts: JRD
4) 2 pts: Spence1222 

This is the 2nd ejection of 2012.
This is the 2nd Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Terry Collin's first ejection of 2012.


Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball

38 comments :

Jon Terry said...

I watched this game. Hate to say it, but Vanover was a bit wild. He seemed tight early, then sat Jason Bay down in a later inning on an outside pitch that touched the opposite batter's box. Still later, he called a 3-0 pitch above the logo a strike, and that at-bat ended in a strikeout.

That said, Terry didn't come out and talk about the pitches when they happened. He barked from the bench, and then got himself in trouble while communicating a double-switch.

tmac said...

Well said Jon... Collins saw Bay argue in his AB when Vanover missed two wide strikes including Strike 3... When you look at his chart he missed close to thirty pitches but most were actually in favor of the mets.... What's worse is he was consistantly incosistant which will always drive the managers up a wall.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=4&day=11&year=2012&game=gid_2012_04_11_wasmlb_nynmlb_1%2F&prevDate=411

He misses two of six callable pitches in the 7th Strikes turned into balls... IN fact while Acosta was pitching he didn't call a strike in the top of the 7th... All in all a pretty Disasterous day

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?s_type=3&sp_type=1&batterX=0&inning7=y&month=04&day=11&game=gid_2012_04_11_wasmlb_nynmlb_1%2F&year=2012&pitchSel=407924&prevGame=gid_2012_04_11_wasmlb_nynmlb_1%2F

Jeremy Dircks said...

Vanover was definitely all over the place today according to the pitch f/x. However, Collins did not argue the Bay at bat. But there were some big misses by Vanover.

TX Wrangler said...

Isn't that usually Vanover's mantra? All over the place? LOL Definitely not one of those good ball/strike umpires like Tschida or Scott.

tmac said...

Jeremy,

That ball 3 pitch (pitch 4) of the at bat isn't on the edge? I've seen that called correct on both sides ..... Enlighten me!!

Anonymous said...

I just wanna see the video. Hurry up mlb please.

Anonymous said...

Challenge. The pitch that made the count 3-1 should have been ruled a strike IMO. A 2-2 count is much different than a 3-1 count and does change the outcome of an at-bat. Should be an incorrect call.

Anonymous said...

The border line calls are always ruled correct. If that same pitch would of been ruled a strike it still would of been correct. I do agree though that it is a strike. All the ball has to do is nip the zone.

Jeremy Dircks said...

Tmac,

Yes it does seem close to the edge, but under the previously established Miller Rule, the call must be a ball:

Rule 6.b.ii.b. Comment: The formula reads as follows: "sz_top + sz_bot / 2 = C... |C - pz| = D... norm_ht / D = R... 0.0833 * R = E... norm_ht + E = [Lower Bound, Upper Bound]. If this range of [Lower Bound, Upper Bound] is completely greater than |1.000|, then the correct call must be a ball. If this range of [Lower Bound, Upper Bound] at some point is less than or equal to |1.000|, then the correct call may be a strike.

From the pitch:

(3.404+1.63)/2= 2.517 = C |2.517-1.476|= |1.041| = D

-1.17362/1.041 = -1.127397 = R

0.0833 * -1.127397 = -0.093912 = E

-1.17362 + -0.093912 = -1.26275
-1.17362 - -0.093912 - -1.07971

The absolute values of the bounds are both greater than 1.000, therefore the pitch must be a ball.

tmac said...

ok Jeremy i put it on a tee and you knock it out of the park... Now if i only had a clue WTF you were talking about ;)

The Miller Rule... I think it should be the Miller Lite Rule

Jeremy Dircks said...

Hah. Crack open a cold one, any time the rule is invoked! Sounds like a deal to me!

Essentially it uses already existing pitch f/x data, this just shows at which points, through the strike zone was where the ball was. If at any point that pitch had a value that was less than the absolute value of one, it is conceivable that it was within the vertical bounds of the strike zone and could be called as such.

Anonymous said...

You can see the toss here: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20536955&c_id=mlb

Anonymous said...

Does anybody happen to know the number of total pitches Vanover missed and the total number of callable pitches? I'm curious as to what Vanover's accuracy rate was today.

Gil Imber said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under review.

Dan said...

As they said on the Mets feed of the game, that strike three call to Jason Bay was an Eric Gregg call. Not a banner day for Larry Vanover to say the least.

If Collins had come out after that call, we'd have a definite incorrect call here, but instead he pulled the old "work over the home plate umpire while I'm making a pitching change" move, and that's a no no.

MLB.com is terrible this year in terms of showing ejections. They cut off the Bochy clip before the actual ejection, and for this one, they didn't even bother posting a clip.

Anonymous said...

Dan,

You can see the clip of the ejection by watching the daily recap.

Anonymous said...

Not much of a clip though. And those that get too involved in the science of the call need to take a break as a lot of us have no clue what you are talking about.

Gil Imber said...

This ruling has been challenged. After review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Correct" has been confirmed in a 5-1-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Five Appeals Board members elected to Confirm the original QOC, one elected to Uphold the original QOC and zero voted to Overturn the original QOC.

During review, the Appeals Board applied a Balls/Strikes Exemption pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-5-d. This exemption allows the Board to adjudicate this call's QOC based on the overall inning's performance by the HP Umpire, up to and including the pitch immediately preceding ejection: no pitch thrown prior to the half inning in question nor thrown after the ejection itself may be considered. In 2011, an accuracy of 66% for pitches reviewed under the Balls/Strikes Exemption qualified for a QOC of "Correct"; an accuracy less than 66% qualified for a QOC of "incorrect."

This ruling invokes the Kulpa Rule (6-2-b-1), which states pitches with absolute px values greater than 1.000 may be deemed a ball. This ruling also invokes the Miller Rule (6-2-b-2), which gives a formula of "sz_top + sz_bot / 2 = C... |C - pz| = D... norm_ht / D = R... 0.0833* R = E... norm_ht + E = [Lower Bound, Upper Bound]. If this range of [Lower Bound, Upper Bound] is completely greater than |1.000|, then the correct call must be a ball. If this range of [Lower Bound, Upper Bound] at some point is less than or equal to |1.000|, then the correct call may be a strike.

For Ejection 002, Vanover's calls 120411_152302nyn through 120411_125646nyn were the only pitches considered in evaluating QOC. Of these, only five were callable pitches and all five were "against" the ejected team (all five were ball calls).

Call One: px .325 / norm_ht 1.69892
Call Two: px -1.086 / norm_ht .76889
Call Three: px -1.164 / norm_ht .-.35851
Call Four: px -.486 / norm_ht -1.17362
Call Five: px -.943 / norm_ht -1.277


Because the Appeals Board ruled that all callable pitches were correctly judged by the Umpire, the Board did not rule on the issue of whether an incorrect call "realistically resulted in a different outcome of the individual at-bat," as in UEFL Rule 6-5-c-Approved Ruling-4.

Confirmed: Gil, Albertaumpire, BillMueller, RichMSN, yawetag
Upheld: tmac
Overturned: None
Deferred: None
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted original QOC of "Correct")

Quality of Correctness has been confirmed, 5-1-0.

tmac said...

I wouldn't worry about the Ejections so far not being shown... !st of all most spring training games are not on TV and the 1st two this year were not exactly run of the mill... Collins was ejected in a commercial break and Bochy was canned from the hole after a visit. It would be like saying you have to trade your best players because he's hitting .185 so far this season... GIve it time!! MLB.com loves showing conflict!

Jon Terry said...

I notice that MLB also didn't post video of the interference call against Hunter Pence in the Phils-Marlins game. Last year it would have posted.

Anonymous said...

And they did post a video for Bochy's toss, even if the actual toss itself wasn't seen.

Big Marc said...

1st of all Vanover's call was confirmed. Then the AB agreed 5-1. Vanover was not all over the place. Please give me the data that shows Vanover all over the place, I don't care for your opinion. The post that most stepped over the line, was in comparing Vanover and Eric Gregg. Mr. Gregg umpired in the big leagues for well over 25 years. He called a bigger strike zone in an era of small zones. He was a fine man and a solid umpire, I would love to be compared to Mr. Gregg.
Larry V. is a solid umpire, and had an ejection, and then had the call confirmed. But somehow Larry and Mr. Gregg end up as the brunt of a joke.
Some people put the umpire uniform on for years, but never do they become an Umpire.

Anonymous said...

Big Marc, I understand your opinion and your displeasure at finding umpire criticism on this site. That said, an umpire is responsible for calling the game correctly. If he does not do well, he has to expect criticism. When umpires bristle at said criticism, it aids the belief that they are arrogant. Besides, the umpire should be the first person displeased when he performs poorly.
Also, like it or not, Eric Gregg's legacy is not only that he was a fine man and a solid umpire. Even if he did have a good career, he will be remembered for his infamous part in game 5 of the 1997 NLCS, when he gave Livan Hernandez a strike zone that was big enough to apply for statehood.

tmac said...

You ask you get!! Here is Vanover's Strike Zone

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=4&day=11&year=2012&game=gid_2012_04_11_wasmlb_nynmlb_1%2F&prevDate=411

Of course knowing some people on this site who always defend the umpires no matter how poorly they perform you can NEVER take them serious as even when they miss a call you will hear from them "They are big league umpires and you are not" And to that i say you can not reason with the unreasonable.

To sum up Vanover wasn't very sound... I think most reasonable people see that... Let's hope for Vanover's sake it isn't a trend!

Anonymous said...

tmac for president.

I think that mlb umpires are generally excellent (see game 6 of WS and Jeff Nelson in playoffs) but Larry was bad that game. dont get around it. larry had a bad game. i also had a bad game that day. i live up to it

Anonymous said...

Anon from 8:25 AM here, I want to add that it would be unfair to Vanover to discredit everything he has ever done due to one bad game. Unlike the Eric Gregg case, this game carries far less significance (though it is still important to be sharp) and the calls could not have been so egregious.

Anonymous said...

How's this for bizarre: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=20576339&c_id=mlb

It didn't take Cederstrom very long to determine that Cabrera had a point.

Anonymous said...

that batters box thing is crazy. we need another ejection though.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it has been a slow start for EJs. Kinda the same as last year.

Dan said...

Big Marc,

I'm sure Eric Gregg was a fine man and he was a solid umpire, no one has said otherwise. But he was known for having a wide strike zone. That's not exactly a secret. When Larry Vanover calls a pitch that is almost in the left handed batters box a strike, it's a comparison that one could make.

And it wasn't me that made the comparison, it was Ron Darling doing the Mets broadcast of the game. I mentioned it because I agreed with the reference on that particular call, which is the call I was talking about, not the one that was challenged and confirmed, which occurred later in the game.

Vanover generally seems to be a solid umpire. He got an ALCS postseason assignment last year, and they don't just hand those out for nothing. But he had a bad game here, and the Pitch FX from the game, that tmac posted, verifies that.

Anonymous said...

I want to mention that not only did Vanover work the ALCS last year but had a very good game behind the plate in Game 2. I think he just had a bad day on Wednesday. I also would say Vanover will be one of the next in line along with Jeff Nelson, Ted Barrett and a few others to get a CC Opening. I think he is a solid Umpire but just had a bad day.

Big Marc, when people say the ump missed the call that is not attacking the integrity or ability of the umpire but just simply pointing out the call may have been incorrect. We all know all 68 men in blue are there for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Imagine that, Ron Darling criticized an umpire. In other news, grass is green and water is wet.

Considering that Larry Vanover is 56, I'd imagine he should be near the top of the list for future crew chiefs. His crew chief, Brian Gorman, is younger than Vanover, as are several others. As I understand it, age is probably less significant that seniority, but Vanover is in his 19th season.

It is worth noting that Bob Davidson is three years older than Vanover and is not a crew chief. He has not helped his chances of becoming one, either.

Anonymous said...

Bringing up excellent games in the post season is a great way to show how capable these men are but I also remember Layne's plate job in game 7. I think it wouldn't be far off to call it the anti-Gregg strike zone....

Dan said...

I think Ron Darling is generally pretty fair in his commentary. He made a comment in last night's game about what a great job Brian O'Nora was doing behind the plate. He criticizes as well, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly, like most announcers.

Anonymous said...

Gil--what the heck is going on with the box. It's shrinking again.
2 years ago it was from the -1 to the +1. Last year it went from the -.9 to the +.9. This year it is from the -.85 to the +.85. Heck it keeps getting smaller and smaller every year. What gives?

Gil Imber said...

I'm not sure what formula is employed to draw the box. To compute QOC, we don't use the graphic: we use the expanded tabular data, the numbers. For the most accurate representation of a pitch's location, the numbers and the datapoint itself are much more accurate than the drawn batter's box, which doesn't account for several key variables indicated by the raw data.

Jeremy Dircks said...

Mr. Vanover was behind the plate today, and looks like he had a tough final at bat of the game. All five pitches were callable, missed two of them on the outside.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=407845&game=gid_2012_04_16_tbamlb_bosmlb_1&batterX=71&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif

Big Marc said...

Guys,

I take exception to the "flip" commnets regarding the obvious umpire mistakes in question. And the comments about the umpires.
1st, a big league umpire never IS, WAS, WILL BE, MIGHT BE, OR CLOSE TO, all over the place.
The umpire working the 3rd softball game at SunnyDale park is all over the place.
MLB umpires make mistakes, I understand that, let's talk about it.
But I really don't need a word picture painted for me, using Big League umpire's as jokes, dead or alive.
Saying, (which I understand you did not say Dan) but saying, "It was an Eric Gregg call"
is a terrible, terrible thing to say.
Let's break it down. I suggest Eric was in the 90 % accuracy for his career.
So by saying it was a Gregg type call, is the announcer really saying, the call was probably 90% chance it was called correct?
NO, he's saying it's a 100% wrong. Gregg is used as a joke.

Post a Comment