Friday, July 5, 2013

MLB Ejections 087, 088: A Hernandez (3, 4; Laird, Gonzalez)

HP Umpire Angel Hernandez ejected Braves C Gerald Laird and Manager Fredi Gonzalez for arguing a strike three call in the top of the 3rd inning of the Braves-Phillies game. With none out and none on, Laird took a 0-2
Laird confronts Angel Hernandez following K3.
fastball from Phillies pitcher Cliff Lee for a called third strike. Replays indicate the decisive pitch was located over the inner half of home plate at the midpoint between the top of the uniform pants and the shoulders (sz_top 3.320 pz CI (3.278, [3.361], 3.44) and that the two previous pitches were correctly ruled strikes, the call was correct. At the time of the ejections, the Phillies were leading, 3-0. The Phillies ultimately won the contest, 5-4.

These are Angel Hernandez (55)'s 3rd and 4th ejections of 2013.
Angel Hernandez now has 10 points in the UEFL (2 Previous + 2*[2 MLB + 2 Correct Call] = 10).
Crew Chief Dana DeMuth now has 4 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (2 Previous + 2 Correct Call = 4).

These are the 87th and 88th ejections of 2013.
This is the 39th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Laird was 0-1 in the contest.
This is the 40th Manager ejection of 2013.
This is the Braves' 3rd/4th ejection of 2013, T-1st in the NL East (ATL, NYM 4; PHI, WAS 2; MIA 1).
This is Gerald Laird's 1st ejection of 2013 and first since August 5, 2012 (Sam Holbrook; QOC = N).
This is Fredi Gonzalez's 2nd ejection of 2013 and first since June 1, 2013 (Larry Vanover; QOC = Y).
This is Angel Hernandez's first ejection since June 21, 2013 (Buck Showalter; QOC = Y).

41 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Finally, an umpire not afraid of calling the high strike - if the pitch is in the strike zone, and that strike zone INCLUDES the area between the belt and midpoint - then it should be called as such and consistently.

The Braves broadcast referenced the Andrelton Simmons strikeout to begin the ballgame and it was a similar pitch called strike three that Laird took for strike three. And sure enough, that pitch just like this one to Laird was shown on their little on-screen foxtrax box as being at the top of the strike zone on the line.


Both pitches were strikes and we're seeing yet another example of broadcasters and players criticizing the umpire and when shown evidence that the umpire was right, go on to criticize the computer...

Gil Imber said...

Pitch looks high to the naked eye, I'm surprised the computer has it at the top of the zone. Good call for Angel Hernandez, I guess.

Gil Imber said...

Angel Hernandez needs a rest. I could careless about this ejection [although the pitch looks high], but when he punched out Freddie Freeman in the next inning, he took it upon himself to follow him up the first base line and continue the conversation. Freeman did not say a word to Hernandez, and Hernandez deliberately tried to aggravate Freeman. There's no place for that in professional baseball. A joke.

Gil Imber said...

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware the standard between-innings location for the home plate umpire is up one of the baselines.

Gil Imber said...

From what I remember, you go to the baseline opposite the team that just completed their at-bat [to avoid confrontation]. And you only go up either 1/4 to 1/2 of the way. So, in theory, Angel went to the right baseline. I can't really comment on what he did, because I did not see it.

Gil Imber said...

That's what I was taught to do for high school ball. I'm guessing they do the same in the majors but I can't be sure.

Gil Imber said...

I want to challenge this. That pitch looks incredibly high. Umpires on the Appeals Board know that this pitch is up.

Gil Imber said...

We do that in college too

Gil Imber said...

This was discussed heavily on an earlier ejection (59/60 Iassogna). The Appeals Board (with one exception) saw no reason to throw out the PitchFX data in that instance. I would be very surprised if they decided to do so here.

Gil Imber said...

Another reason why replacing umpires with computers will never work... That is a good pitch...

Gil Imber said...

How much less could you care?

Gil Imber said...

...huh?

Gil Imber said...

Video, FYI: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130705&content_id=52806716&vkey=news_atl&c_id=atl

Gil Imber said...

This ruling has been challenged and is under further review by the UEFL Appeals Board.

Gil Imber said...

I'm going to go ahead and attach this photo. The two tropic yellow lines represent the shoulder top and belt/uni pants-top while the orange broken line represents the graphical midpoint between those two.

Gil Imber said...

No, no, he said he's careless about this ejection. I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is it means that he has a tendency to accidentally call an umpire doing what he's supposed to "a joke". That certainly seems careless to me.

Gil Imber said...

With the PitchFX data and this photo it looks pretty clear and convincing to me that the pitch is a strike. Granted, it's not one that we see called too often. With the ability for batters to hit these pitches farther than pitches lower in the strike zone, I don't understand why they are not called more.

Gil Imber said...

I agree. While I personally abhor Angel and think he is one of the lower-performing umpires in terms of correctness, this IS a strike. I also like calling this one (at the waist), and don't understand why more don't (as opposed to some of the ones I see just below the knees)!

Gil Imber said...

It is a TEXTBOOK strike but is ONE THAT IS NEVER CALLED. While Angel (who sucks donkey balls) is correct, how many other times this game did he call this pitch a ball? CONSISTENCY is the issue here, not whether or not it IS a strike or ball. And we all know arguing ANY ball or strike is futile...

Gil Imber said...

I didn't know we had a Grammar Gestapo on this board! Anyway, I agree 100%, and not many umpires do this as Angel does. I kinda wish Gary Pettis had popped him in 2011, and maybe he'd have learned something...

Gil Imber said...

Maybe so, but AH is one of the more confrontational umpires. And it does not help that he has a history of screwing up (I cite the missed HR as "Exhibit A"). What is ironic is that I actually admire Joe West, and did not like it when they were on the same squad. AH drags others down.

Gil Imber said...

DD4D, I respect your take. But, I think AH has mellowed out. Sure did not look like he wanted to dump Laird here [he could have dumped him early] and he dumped Gonzalez later. Took him forever to dump Showalter, too.



Not saying AH remains amongst the best; but he has become less confrontational over the years.

Gil Imber said...

That.... doesn't really help clarify the initial comment.

Gil Imber said...

Well, I checked the chart on brooksbaseball, and it looks safe to say that while this is a rulebook strike, and not one that I normally called, twas at least consistently a strike all night. I think I would only have an issue with this if he had just decided this one was a strike, but the ones a few innings earlier weren't. Doesn't look like that was the case.

Gil Imber said...

I agree with future HoF'er Chipper Jones here.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/chipper-jones-says-won-t-watch-games-umpired-103009650.html


What is interesting is that this article is actually not prevaricating when it says that "Angel Hernandez" was "trending" in terms of GOOGLE searches. Scary shit. I am not an "umpire apologist" or someone that simply bashes them, but AH is awful and ruins it for the rest.

Gil Imber said...

Well, then it's a good thing I was not trying to clarify it but rather engage it!!!

Gil Imber said...

Then how about "consistency of it being called a strike"? Whether or not it IS a strike, how often is it called? Either call it all of the time, or don't. Quite frankly, I wish they would simply enlarge the strike zone and not leave so much to our discretion. Despite textbook rules for it, all umpires "interpret" it differently.

Gil Imber said...

True, but he only had one direction to go - down. He was probably the most confrontational next to Bob D. or Joe West. He might have settled down, but it is clear that players and coaches don't like him, and do not respect him. How efficacious can someone be that is simply "tolerated"? Not very!


I respect you and BAPACop probably as much as I do Gil (immensely - you guys talk the talk AND walk the walk), but no one will ever be able to convince me that Angel Hernandez is NOT a useless piece of yak turd! =-)

Gil Imber said...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/chipper-jones-says-won-t-watch-games-umpired-103009650.html


Enough said! Now, if Chipper had said this about Bill Hohn, I'd say it was bias....

Gil Imber said...

They tell us to do that at the levels I do as well (high school).



Quite frankly I have no interest in doing college. College soccer players are difficult enough to manage, LOL....

Gil Imber said...

Not afraid of calling it ... in this instance. This needs to be called more.



And Laird is a catcher, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Gil Imber said...

I'm not disputing your point or anything, just... Can someone explain to me what the original comment even meant? Replacing umpires with computers will never work because that is a good pitch that the computer had as a strike?

Gil Imber said...

Well, Angel actually was pretty consistently calling the high strike this game (reference the Simmons at bat for instance), it's not an out of character call and certainly fits the game with the calls he had made earlier.


The issue is the umpires that DON'T call the high strike. The rule says midpoint yet many guys stop at the belt line. I applaud any umpire who actually calls the zone as it is written and even more any one who does it consistently, as Angel did during this game. It's his reputation that gets the criticism here, not the call.

Gil Imber said...

Ah, I was being glib, sorry. I think he simply meant that using that PitchFX is not reliable. If you look at it, then it seems the ball could have gone either way (but looks high). I like this strike call, I just don't like it only being called some of the time.



Like I said in another post, I like what you and Turducken bring to the discussions, so I like to respond to some of your statements. You guys know what the hell you're talking about. -)

Gil Imber said...

And trust me, BAPACop, your reasoning is sound. However, I'd be curious to see some statistics about how often this is called a ball versus a strike (just raw data to consume)....Like I said, even at the levels I officiate, I've been told that calling it might get me strung up by my bashizzles....

Gil Imber said...

It would certainly be interesting. A couple of college and minor league umpires held a clinic down here a few months ago and when asked about it they said they won't call anything above the belt a strike.

Gil Imber said...

That makes a bit more sense. I see this pitch called a strike all the time at the lower high school levels, but I'm not sure if that's because they think it's a strike or because they're expanding the zone a bit for the level.

Gil Imber said...

The sad thing is that all this is because he made the right call. His reputation is just so bad that people assume he's wrong even when he's not, and considering most people assume the umpire is wrong most of the time anyway, that's quite a feat.

Gil Imber said...

I will just say that a high school umpire saying that a guy working in the majors "sucks donkey balls" is pretty rich.

Gil Imber said...

What, pray tell, does someone's level of umpiring experience have to do with the validity of their opinion?

Gil Imber said...

In re: 087, 088 Hernandez 3, 4;

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

Per Curiam Opinion:
In order to overturn the Kulpa and/or Miller Rules, evidence must reach a "clear, convincing and conclusive" threshold, as established in Appeal 092 Everitt 1 (2012) and confirmed in 007 Fletcher 1 (2013) and 059, 060 Iassogna 2, 3 (2013). This standard has not been met; furthermore, the Original Ruling has been validated by visual evidence, as indicated above. Rule 6-2-b-2 (Miller Rule) was properly applied and the Board finds no reason to reverse course.

Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: tmac, RichMSN, yawetag, Turducken
Upheld: BT_Blue
Overturned: -
Deferred: -
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment)

Post a Comment