Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Ejection 112: Larry Vanover (2)

HP Umpire Larry Vanover ejected Diamondbacks center fielder Chris Young for arguing a called third strike in the top of the 7th inning of the Diamondbacks-Pirates game. With two out and three on, Young took a 1-2 sinker from Pirates pitcher Tony Watson for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was thigh high, and on the inside corner of the plate (px value of 0.899), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Pirates were leading, 7-5. The Pirates ultimately won the contest, 7-6.

This is Larry Vanover (27)'s second ejection of 2012.
Larry Vanover now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 8).
Crew Chief Brian O'Nora now has 1 point in the UEFL's Crew division (0 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 1).
UEFL'ers MSNUMP and DanNJ316 win Prop Bet 2-3, Date of: First Arizona D-Backs Ejection of 2012.

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 112th ejection of 2012.
This is the 45th player ejection of 2012.
This is the Diamondbacks' 1st ejection of 2012.
This is Chris Young's first career ejection.
This is Larry Vanover's first ejection since April 11 (Terry Collins; QOC = Correct).

Wrap: Diamondbacks at Pirates, 8/8/12
Video: Called out on strikes to end a bases loaded threat, Young argues & is ejected

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball

59 comments :

Turducken said...

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=453265&game=gid_2012_08_08_arimlb_pitmlb_1&batterX=63&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif

Plot

Anonymous said...

Not a fan of Larry Vanover, but those pitches are clearly strikes

Anonymous said...

Several observations in regards to this inning. Two batters before the ejections Marquez made a great call at 1st with Upton reaching when the throw pulled The first baseman off the bag. After Young is ejected and pushed to his dugout by Kirk Gibson the Pirate announcers mistakenly think that Vanover is chasing after Young when in fact Brian O'Nora is doing his job and making sure that Young does not cause any more problems. Finally, kudos to Kirk Gibson for staying very calm and doing little if any arguing after he has two players ejected.

Bryan Zegers said...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=23742095

LouOCNY said...

First pitch, Vanover calls a strike that is on on the low inside corner, and Young pitches a pretty big fit, stepping out of the box. Second strike is about the same place, and Young just steps out and SEETHES - you could see him grinding his jaw. The third strike was an even better pitch, and Young throws a fit, and slams the bat with both hands on the plate. Goodbye. Young went absolutely nuts - if Gibson had not hustled out and restrained Young, Vanover would have been in serious physical jeopardy. Upton tossed the helmet in the general direction of Vanover AWAY from the Dbacks dugout. Marquez saw that - goodbye, Mr Upton!

Whatever any plot says, all three strikes were good pitches.

kickersrule said...

Horrible video. I hope they make a longer one so we can see upton ejected also. From the little bit that they show chris young just looks like a thug.

Anonymous said...

This is where MLB does a horrible job. Those pitches were strikes, yet batters have been conditioned to think that unless the pitch is right down the middle, it is a ball. MLB should tell these batters that pitches like that are strikes, and will be called so.

Anonymous said...

Serious physical danger? The only thing serious is the over use of hyperbole. They had no reason to throw Upton out. Vigilante umpiring.

Anonymous said...

Great post, except the last pitch was NOT a strike!

Anonymous said...

The problem was is they weren't strikes for either side before that at-bat. The 4th pitch and called 3rd strike was clearly not a strike.

Anonymous said...

they are all strikes. swing the bat.

Anonymous said...

B/S Exemption -- Challenge

BAPACop said...

@Anon 10:43: Except for the fact that he was arguing balls and strikes, right? Because you're not allowed to do that. Oh, and the whole throwing the helmet thing. That's against the rules too. So other than those two big reasons, you're right. No reason at all.

BAPACop said...

About the actual call... Okay, so it was off the plate.

But you've got two outs AND two strikes AND the bases loaded AND you're losing. Why aren't you swinging the bat at a pitch that close?

Anonymous said...

Especially given the previous strikes in that at-bat. It wasn't that far from the previous called strikes.

Anonymous said...

You can argue balls and strikes, people. You just can't leave your position to argue balls and strikes. He was tossed for throwing his helmet to the ground.

All strikes in my opinion......

BAPACop said...

Whether or not you're allowed to argue balls and strikes is weird, really. 9.02a is pretty clear: "Any umpire's decision which involves [...] whether a pitch is a strike or a ball [...] is final. No player, manager, coach, or substitute shall object to any such judgement decisions." And then the comment throws in the leaving position/bench/box thing for balls/strikes which seems to contradict what the rule just said.

Anonymous said...

Happens to come at the end of the inning, though, BAPACop. Entitled to BS Exemption, I think.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:04

BAPACop was actually responding to a different anonymous post:

"Serious physical danger? The only thing serious is the over use of hyperbole. They had no reason to throw Upton out. Vigilante umpiring. "

Turducken said...

Better Video -- http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?c_id=ari&content_id=23742095&topic_id=8878524

Turducken said...

I also think Brian O'Nora is the applicable CC here -- Gorman isn't umpiring in this game.

BAPACop said...

@Turducken: That's a nice video of the Young ejection, showing the entire at-bat. But an absolutely terrible job on the Upton ejection. I know video of it happening exists. Neither feed got it live but the Pittsburgh broadcast showed replays of it. Seems MLB can't be bothered to find it though.

Cricket said...

@kickersrule

Agree. This video is pathetic; no replay, no second ejection, very little commentary...

As for the ejection...you just took the same pitch on the black three times in one at-bat? What are you bitching about? Young looks like a real ass here.

Pitch has px value of -0.899; strike three.

Anonymous said...

That's distracting from the issue. My problem is with Vanover not being consistent with his strike zone. With the plate he was calling to that point, 2 of those pitches were not strikes. Young was mad because he know Larry was calling a different plate starting with the first pitch of the at bat. Young had every right to respond in the manner he did and Vanover was 100% right in tossing him. Alfonzo Marquez on the other hand was completely wrong in tossing Upton. Alfonzo Marquez was staring down Upton the moment the inning ended. His job is to keep order and arbitrate; it is not his job to be an instigator. Upton didn't make any contact with Vanover so you saying he was arguing balls and strikes is incorrect. Upton threw his helmet, so what! Marquez had no way of knowing for sure what he was throwing it for. Alfonzo was looking to toss Upton the moment the inning ended. It was a mistake. Wasn't the first one and it won't be the last; we're all human after all.

Anonymous said...

Regardless, nothing damning transpired, and all will be well tomorrow, err, today. It only makes for a spirited debate.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as the black....it's plate or not. Especially in the majors where there isn't a lip around the edges of home plate. Either way, those are good pitches.

Gil Imber said...

This challenge has been summarily affirmed, in part, and summarily denied, in part. The Original Ruling has been ammended and Quality of Correctness has been reversed to "Correct" in a summary decision.

Because the umpire's accuracy during this half inning was 92.9 percent (13/14) as pertaining to callable pitches, and the one incorrectly ruled pitch against the ejected team (called strike outside the strike zone) occurred during an at-bat in which the affected player put the ball in play with no out recorded, this ejection is not eligible for a Balls/Strikes Exemption.

Relevant UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 (Kulpa Rule): "an absolute px value between 0.768 and 0.935 shall be deemed borderline, and shall routinely reflect the call on the field as correct unless evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise."

Relevant UEFL Rule 6-5-d: "Single-case [Balls/Strikes] Exemptions may or may not be made, depending on the overall inning's performance by the Home Plate umpire. Typically, an umpire must have less than 66% accuracy on callable pitches during a specific half inning for an exemption to be made ... Only ejections flagged 'Eligible for Balls/Strikes Exemption' may be challenged under the realm of [this provision]."

BAPACop said...

@Anon 12:58: Gonna have to disagree on multiple counts. First, Vanover's chart for the game shows that part of the plate WAS a strike all game long.

Second, logical reasoning tells us Upton was upset about the strike three call. What other reason would he have for throwing the helmet? Was he upset he was called safe at first, and so decided to throw the helmet in the direction of the playing field? No. He wasn't. But it doesn't matter why he threw it, only that he did in fact throw it. It's an equipment violation. You get ejected for equipment violations.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the chart to which you are referring because I watched the game and I can assure you that until that point, those pitches were not being called strikes. And once again, the Upton helmet toss is completely irrelevant! I could find a time during a game in which each player throws a piece of equipment out of frustration. Upton was not engaged with an umpire nor was he looking at one. As he was walking to the dugout he tossed his helmet to the side, not even in the direction of Marquez. Alfonzo was looking for a reason to toss him. It was a poor choice in the heat of the moment by Marquez. Upton wasn't showing him up; what did tossing him accomplish? Nothing.

BAPACop said...

@Anon 1:30: Of five pitches thrown in that area (three by Arizona pitchers and two by Pittsburgh pitches) all five were called strikes. He was a bit inconsistent if you go higher, and balled two pitches lower, but that area was a strike the whole game. The chart:

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/zoneplot.php-pitchSel=all&game=gid_2012_08_08_arimlb_pitmlb_1&sp_type=1&s_type=7.gif

And are you saying that just because Upton was facing away from the umpires that he wasn't arguing the call? Because last I checked you don't have to be facing someone to be talking to them.

mark38090 said...

I'm with the rest here, looks like three good strikes and bases loaded why are you letting that go?

Anonymous said...

looks like three good pitches, strikes all day for me, and upton was obviously not "frustrated with himself" as he was called safe at first. He was frustrated with the at bat and furthermore the strike calls. Marquez was 110% right in getting his partner's back here.

wwjd said...

Challenge the Upton reason for ejection. Shouldn't the reason for the Upton ejection be unsportsmanlike conduct Cuse isn't throwing equipment unsportsmanlike conduct

wwjd said...

Challenge the Upton reason for ejection. Shouldn't the reason for the Upton ejection be unsportsmanlike conduct Cuse isn't throwing equipment unsportsmanlike conduct

Anonymous said...

i agree with wwjd...he wasn't directly arguing the call- it was NEC-unsportsmanlike conduct to throw the helmet.

UmpsRule said...

For those saying Upton shouldn't have been ejected, please note how he very calmly walked off the field without putting up a big argument. Maybe he knew he deserved it. Also, maybe Chris Young should learn a little from Upton about how to handle being ejected, not that Upton did very well last time he was tossed but this time was different. Finally, it's blatantly obvious that Young deserved to go.

Anonymous said...

I'll challenge the Upton ejection as Marquez had nothing to do with the play, and Upton's actions merited nothing more than an equipment fine. Think there is some rule granting an Incorrect QOC when a situation like that occurs.

Russ said...

Anon, The Upton ejection is not even eligible to be ruled incorrect. At worst it will be irrecusable based on unsportsmanlike conduct-NEC. The Quality of correctness is based on the call not the ejection. Even if you don't agree with the ejection, he was ejected either for arguing the correct call or for throwing his helmet. Nowhere in that is there an incorrect call so you will get your way in that aspect.

Russ said...

I'm also pretty sure Larry Vanover is the CC not O'Nora. Unlike the Everitt-Schreiber situation where Everitt is only 1 year younger and is so obviously better, Vanover has 4 more years of experience and the gap is not as big as the previous example but O'Nora is still better.

Anonymous said...

Young's at bat w/ Vanover reminded me of Bryce Harper's at bat(s) w/ Angel Hernandez last night - although, that did not result in an EJ. My opinion, they either got all of the calls correct or missed them all because the pitches were in the same spots.

Players and coaches always cry about consistentcy... well, those pitches were all ruled the same (strikes) - although some of you may say they were called "consistently wrong"? Nevertheless, if they call the first one a strike, and then strike the next pitch in the same/similar location, its pretty obvious the ump is seeing that pitch as a strike and you may want to consider swinging at the next one.

Anonymous said...

Was at the game. O'Nora was introduced as the CC.

Russ said...

Thanks 1:10, I am kind of surprised by that but O'Nora is probably a better Umpire. I wonder if they go by playoff record since O'Nora has 5 playoff assignments compared to Vanover's three. That would also explain the Everitt situation since Mike has only missed the Playoffs once since 2000 compared to Schreiber not working the Playoffs since 2001.

Curt Crowley said...

@BAPACop: "But it doesn't matter why he threw it, only that he did in fact throw it. It's an equipment violation. You get ejected for equipment violations."

Well, sometimes. We routinely see spiked helmets, bats, etc., and no one gets ejected. The difference has to be the reason why the equipment is thrown. Furstration with self normally doesn't result in an ejection, while anger with the call does. For that reason, I would say the motivation for the equipment throwing is highly relevant, so long as the umpires implement the rule in this manner.

In support of this, I would offer Fairchild ejecting Dave Martinez for arguing the non-ejection of Marco Scutero for spiking his bat out of frustration when he popped up. Fairchild's failure to eject Scutero is pretty typical of how most umpires handle the equipment spiking issue.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17006091

Note that I haven't seen the video of Marquez and Upton, and will assume that Marquez acted appropriately until I see evidence to the contrary.

Curt Crowley said...

This may be the explanation for why MLB hasn't posted the video of the Justin Upton ejection. According to Gibson, Upton did not get ejected until he said something in the dugout, and that Marquez had left his position and was "kind of rabbit-earing the dugout, and that's where Justin got ran right there...."

http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120809&content_id=36417176&notebook_id=36417180&vkey=notebook_ari&c_id=ari

BAPACop said...

@Curt Crowley: You missed the key preceding part of that post, the fact that he didn't throw it down or into the dugout in frustration, but that he threw it "in the direction of the playing field" as he entered the dugout, which Marquez may have interpreted as throwing towards the umpire(s) and therefore in protest of the call.

However, I've been basing all these statements on a earlier comment saying Upton threw the helmet towards the field and was immediately ejected. If the latter is not actually true, than the former may not be true as well.
So I retract all statements regarding the Upton ejection until such time as a video of said ejection is made available.

Anonymous said...

After Young was ejected, things had settled down. Fonzie was standing in front of the DBack dugout while Gibson discussed the EJ with Vanover. Upton ran his mouth and Fonzie dumped him. Upton wasn't aware he had been ejected and took the field in the bottom of the 7th. O'Nora had to go over to him and tell him he was gone. He jogged off the field without incident.

Curt Crowley said...

If things had settled down, then why was Marquez standing watch over the dugout? The video shows the discussion between Vanover and Gibson. It wasn't an argument, as Vanover went to Gibson to talk about what happened (nothing wrong with Vanover doing that). It looked like Young was gone by the time Upton would have been tossed, and O'Nora was already over there anyway. So, again, why was Marquez standing over the dugout?

Umpire + Dugout = Trouble.

I'd like to think Fonzarelli wasn't doing his macho camacho routine, but according to Gibson that's what it seems like.

BAPACop said...

@Curley: Young was still flipping out when he went into the dugout. Marquez could have been standing there to make sure he actually left the dugout and didn't decide to come back onto the field.

By the way, why do so many people think this is true:
Player + Dugout = Immunity

Because it's not. Being in the dugout does not give you leeway to continue to argue the call. It's quite possible Upton said something as he was walking near Marquez and just didn't shut up when he went into the dugout. It is also equally possible that Upton said nothing when he walked past Marquez and shouted something from within that got him tossed. It's even possible, however unlikely, that Upton maybe didn't do anything deserving of an ejection at all. But contrary to popular belief, umpires don't go on the field looking to throw people out of the game. If Marquez threw Upton out, and it wasn't because of the helmet toss, then it was probably because Upton was arguing the call from the dugout.

Curt Crowley said...

No one believes that a player has immunity to act however he wants in the dugout. I'm still operating under the assumption that Marquez's action was appropriate, but Gibson's statement calls that assumption into question. My questions were directed to 3:09's recitation of events, as we cannot see Marquez or Upton on the video. I questioned why Marquez was still standing there if "things had calmed down," as 3:09 suggested. I thought perhaps 3:09 saw the game live or on tv and could shed some more light on what happened.

BAPACop said...

I saw the game live on TV and couldn't tell what happened, since neither broadcast was watching Upton and I think the ejection happened after both stations went to commercial anyway. I saw very brief replays of it that didn't really give a good sense of when the ejection happened in relation to the other events.

Neither Upton nor Gibson seemed too upset about the ejection. Yeah, Upton gives this "what did I do?" shrug as he enters the dugout, but that really seems since he doesn't seem all that surprised when O'Nora is talking to him. That makes me think that, despite the way Gibson phrased comments after the game, that both he and Upton knew the ejection was deserved. But since MLB doesn't seem to want to show the video, unless someone recorded one of the broadcasts no one will ever know what happened here.

Anonymous said...

3:09 here. Things had "settled down" in the sense that Upton left the field. Gibson was still out there discussing things with Vanover. The inning was over. Both O'Nora and Fonzie came in to help clear things up. There was still shouting going on from the DBacks dugout. As the 1B umpire, Fonzie has ressponsibility for the 1B dugout whenever there is an issue. It was a righteous ejection. The fact that Upton didn't dispute it at all supports this.

Mike said...

So Anon 8:24, with that in mind, you must agree that if a player disputes a call then it is not a righteous ejection? Isn't that what you just said?

LOL

BAPACop said...

@Mike: He said that Upton didn't dispute the EJECTION, so he must have known he deserved it.

Mike said...

Okay, you're right. SO when he disputes the EJECTION, that means it's not a righteous ejection?

BAPACop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BAPACop said...

When a player shows zero signs of agreeing with an ejection then you have to assume that they feel it was warranted. When a player shows every sign of agreeing, they feel it wasn't.

In theory, that says nothing about whether or not the ejection was actually warranted because the player is not impartial. But in practice it is so rare that a player feels that they should have been ejected that when they do react calmly to an ejection, and therefore give the impression that they feel it was warranted, it is (in most cases) safe to conclude that it was, because this usually means that the player not only did something to draw the ejection but knows that he did it and that the ejection was correct.

Russ said...

For those who were wondering why Upton was ejected, I don't have a definitive answer for what he did but I can tell you what he didn't do. There was no helmet toss in the direction of Vanover by Upton. When he was walking back to the dugout he did not even have his helmet in his hand, the bat boy did. You could see him turn around and say a few things most likely pretty quietly and after he turned around just before enetering the dugout he was ejected by Marquez who was standing around the first base dugout. Not sure if it was warranted or not, I will assume that it was. Upton didn't realize he was ejected because Marquez gave the ejection signal when Upton was not looking and well in the dugout. That's when Chris Young started going crazy in the dugout which can actually be seen in the video. I think Young at that point was protesting Upton's ejection. Very interesting stuff though.

Russ said...

For those who were wondering why Upton was ejected, I don't have a definitive answer for what he did but I can tell you what he didn't do. There was no helmet toss in the direction of Vanover by Upton. When he was walking back to the dugout he did not even have his helmet in his hand, the bat boy did. You could see him turn around and say a few things most likely pretty quietly and after he turned around just before enetering the dugout he was ejected by Marquez who was standing around the first base dugout. Not sure if it was warranted or not, I will assume that it was. Upton didn't realize he was ejected because Marquez gave the ejection signal when Upton was not looking and well in the dugout. That's when Chris Young started going crazy in the dugout which can actually be seen in the video. I think Young at that point was protesting Upton's ejection. Very interesting stuff though.

Troy said...

"I was walking off the field and I didn't think that anyone was paying attention to me," Upton said, "and I had some remarks about the pitch, and I didn't say them to anybody. I guess either my lips got read because I was being watched or somebody heard what I said."
Justin Upton, as reported by the Associated Press.

Post a Comment