Saturday, April 13, 2013

MLB Ejection 007: Andy Fletcher (1; Bob Melvin)

HP Umpire Andy Fletcher ejected Athletics Manager Bob Melvin for arguing a called third strike in the bottom of the 8th inning of the Tigers-A's game. With none out and none on, A's batter Brandon Moss took a 2-2 fastball from Tigers pitcher Phil Coke for a called third strike. Replays indicate the pitch was located hollow of the knee high and over the outside corner of home plate (px -.856, pz 1.564; sz_bot 1.500), the call was correct.* At the time of the ejection, the Tigers were leading, 7-3. The Tigers ultimately won the contest, 7-3.

This is Andy Fletcher (49)'s first ejection of 2013.
Andy Fletcher now has 4 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Crew Chief Sam Holbrook now has 5 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (4 Previous + 1 Correct = 5).
*This ruling has been challenged and affirmed by the UEFL Appeals Board in a 5-0 decision.

UEFL Standings Update

This is the 7th ejection of 2013.
This is the 1st Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Athletics' 1st ejection of 2013, 1st in the AL West (OAK 1; HOU, LAA, SEA, TEX 0).

Wrap: Detroit Tigers at Oakland Athletics, 4/13/13
Video: Fletcher's called third strike to Moss is met with disgust by Athletics players, coaches and broadcasters

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball

35 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Brooks Baseball no longer uses the strike zone graphic pictured above. According to the updated smaller zone, this pitch is low

Gil Imber said...

Neither do we, for QOC computation. UEFL Rule 6-2-b specifies QOC for balls/strikes ejections. In determining horizontal pitch location, px values less than 0.935 may be deemed a strike while in determining vertical pitch location, pz values greater than or equal to sz_bot—which is the calculated bottom of the individual batter's strike zone—may also be deemed a strike; if both px and pz fall into "strike" range, the pitch is likely a strike, making QOC correct.


The graphic is solely for visual aid; it has no bearing on the correctness of any call.

Gil Imber said...

To me, from the naked eye, looked both outside AND low.

Gil Imber said...

"Robot umpires, let computers call balls and strikes, human element is BS..."


Pitch f/x computer: The 3-2 pitch is legitimately a strike, textbook definition of "low outside corner."


"No fair! It looked low and away - I SAW IT! The computer MUST be wrong here."


Good grief.

Gil Imber said...

Well at least the Oakland A's are leading in one category this year so far

Gil Imber said...

My man you've hit it right on the head we got this sort of argument every time there's a close call that the umpires right about but some fans feel otherwise

Gil Imber said...

...wow. Just wow.

Gil Imber said...

Welcome back Janet good to see you again

Gil Imber said...

Not to detract from Andy Fletcher's big moment or anything but look at Sam Holbrook the crew chief. Who knew he'd have all of these points so early cowboy Joe doesn't even need to come back at this rate. I'm kidding of course we want you back Joe

Gil Imber said...

I am amused. Seriously I love comic relief

Gil Imber said...

Challenge. Hopefully people with umpiring experience realize that this is not a strike.

Gil Imber said...

What exactly are you challenging? PitchFX shows the pitch was within the strike zone.

Gil Imber said...

I completely agree. If you can come up with a legitimate reason to challenge, I'm sure it would be listened to. But to yell "challenge" at the top of your lungs just because you are a fanboy that didn't pick Mr. Fletcher will be ignored along with the rest of the white noise.

Gil Imber said...

I'm not sold on the computer's analysis on the pitch location. Melvin deserved the ejection but that one sure looked low and outside. The announcers definitely didn't like the call!

Gil Imber said...

I'll allow it. This ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.

Gil Imber said...

Arik: It will *not* be ignored. It's never been 100% about the computer for me, although I do give it a lot of weight since it's the only objective measure we have. But I reserve the right to look at it and weigh other factors on borderline pitches.

Gil Imber said...

Guess want the umpires opinion is the only one that matters. If we started to care what other people think then we need to get out of the job. No matter what 50% are going to like the call and 50% are going to hate it. That's only counting players and managers because let's face it fans don't know the rules or for that matter anything about baseball. So go to your games shut up and drink your beer. I wish as an umpire I could come to the people who yell and scream at games find out where they work and go tell them how bad they are at their job. Do your job and let us do ours.

Gil Imber said...

Get. A. Clue. Seriously....half of the people that comment on this site must be trolls

Gil Imber said...

The only reason hawk said that is because there hasnt been a bad call against the sox yet. The season is young yet. Dont worry he will have a blow up.

Gil Imber said...

It didnt used to be that way but the site got to popular.

Gil Imber said...

I thought 2 people had to want a challenge to actually have a call challenged?

Gil Imber said...

I'm not arguing the rule. Rules are rules whether I agree with them or not. My only point is this: if you go to the Brooks website, you are going to see that the majority of pitches in that location are called balls.

Gil Imber said...

Before yesterdays game, Oakland lead both the NL and AL in HRs, hits, runs, and RBIs.

Gil Imber said...

This year we require a charge or reason for appeal, though don't require a second (6-1).

Gil Imber said...

In re Ejection 007: Andy Fletcher (1)

After review, the Original Ruling has affirmed in a 5-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members voted to uphold the call and one elected to confirm it.

Per Curiam Opinion:
Pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b, px is located within the borderline horizontal bound (|0.768| to |0.935|) while pz, by virtue of it being greater than sz_bot, is located within the strike zone.

A commenter addresses the issue of the pitch f/x plot for this individual at-bat indicating the pitch is touching the bounds of the strike zone whereas Brooks' pitch f/x Fastmap plot for the game shows the pitch outside of the zone. This paradox has been explained in In re Ejection 015: Dan Bellino (1) [2012]. Jeremy further opined in In re Ejection 008, 009: Greg Gibson (1, 2) [2012], that "anything in between 0.768 and 0.935 px value is considered borderline and within the margin of error." yawetag, In re 092: Mike Everitt (1) [2012]: "It [the ball was] inside at the front of the plate and moving closer, there's no way it was over the plate at any point." This is a reference to the physical properties of the program that acknowledges the reliance of pitch f/x to capture the starting point as the ball arrives at the front edge of home plate.

Concurring Opinion, tmac:
I am well aware of the chance the calabrity (SP) of the CEP could be off slightly or the camera angle could be poor, however i am given no reason to believe this call is a missed one. I am of the belief that when you're not 100% but rather pretty sure to uphold the call.

Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue:
Dispite the piss poor job of the catcher to not drag this pitch towards the dirt, according to the information we use to determine QOC, we have to determine this call correct.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: Jeremy
Upheld: tmac, RichMSN, BT_Blue, Turducken
Overturned: -
Deferred: -
Abstained: Gil (Posted Original Ruling), yawetag (owns Fletcher's ordinary crew chief, Joe West)

Quality of Correctness has been affirmed, 5-0.

Gil Imber said...

Funny, some of you act as if computing technology is infallible. I've worked in IT for almost 20 years now and hate to alarm some of you, but computing technology is only as good as its inventor (humans). The "pitch tracker" can state what it "thinks", but most of us know that in an MLB game that is not a strike. Maybe it is in high school. We can all disagree on close pitches, but don't throw the computer in there as the unequivocal setter of levels!

Gil Imber said...

I am with you 100% Janet, though it goes both ways. But in this case to me, it does not look physically possible.

Gil Imber said...

I am curious where the pitch is actually tracked VERSUS where it shows up on the radar. Is it tracked as it crosses the plate? After? If it is the latter of the two, oye.

Gil Imber said...

I'm pretty sure PitchFX's location is where the ball passed the very front of the plate.

Gil Imber said...

The strike zones on this website and the ones used during TV broadcasts are simply too big in regards to height. A pitch like this should not be called a strike. It was too low, as was a strike-three pitch to Asdrubal Cabrera last season that resulted in an ejection. Darling punched him out on a pitch that nearly hit the dirt, but of course, CCS had the pitch as a strike just because the zones are taller than they should be. My main gripe with this site is that too many low pitches are considered strikes. That is all.

Gil Imber said...

Right back at you, I guess excessive masturbation DOES impede brain function (be careful, you could go blind.)

Gil Imber said...

I wish there was a better way we could evaluate that, I simply don't trust technology enough.

Gil Imber said...

I think some people simply don't agree with the call. Again, just because the computer says it is so does not make it so. Haven't you guys ever seen "I, Robot"? LOL

Gil Imber said...

If I'm the umpire and the catcher pulls the ball toward the strike zone, that's an automatic disqualifier for me. It's still a ball...heck, even the catcher thinks it wasn't a strike. I recognize some of that movement in the mitt is going to be recoil from catching a sinking object that's moving toward you at 95 miles an hour. This went beyond that.


I'm not terribly concerned what Pitch F/X or any other piece of technology said here. If it's not good enough for the catcher, it's certainly not good enough for me.

Gil Imber said...

Because despite popular notion computers are not infallible.

Post a Comment