Sunday, July 17, 2011

Ejections: Eric Cooper (1)

HP Umpire Eric Cooper ejected Astros Manager Brad Mills for arguing a strike call in the bottom of the 3rd inning of the Pirates-Astros game. With two out and one on, Astros batter Jeff Keppinger took a 3-0 fastball for a called strike one and a 3-1 cutter for a called strike two from Pirates pitcher Kevin Correia. Replays indicate that the strike one pitch caught the edge of the plate above the knees and the strike two pitch over the heart of the plate at the knees, the call was correct.*^ Keppinger subsequently hit a home run after the Mills ejection on a 3-2 pitch. At the time of the ejection, the Pirates were leading, 2-1. The Pirates ultimately won the contest, 7-5, in 11 innings.

This is Eric Cooper (56)'s first ejection of 2011.
Eric Cooper now has 4 points in the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League (0 Previous + 2 MLB + 2 Correct Call = 4).
Eric Cooper was not drafted in 2011.
* Pitch #4 (called strike one) is correct under the 'Kulpa' Rule because it had a px value of -0.901, which is in the borderline range (0.901 to 1.000, 0.000 to 0.900 is the strike range).
^ Quality of Correctness was challenged and confirmed ("Correct" ==> "Correct").

This is the 123rd ejection of 2011.
This is the 60th Manager ejection of 2011.
This is Brad Mills' fifth ejection of 2011, which leads all Managers.

Wrap: Pirates at Astros 6/17/11 Wrap
Video: Brad Mills is ejected by Eric Cooper

Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball


tmac said...

If I were Brad Mills I want to lead the league in something and if ejections have to be it.. well then so be it.... I'd want to get run every day if i was managing that group!

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for the post on that rare feat...the Cubby Dump.

Culnbreth doesn't get many...would hate to miss one, even though he does it with as much flair as telling Wedge where to find his car.

Unknown said...

Video link

Jon Terry said...

Oops! Astros lost, 7-5, in 11 innings.

On the broadcast, that pitch did look pretty low based on how the catcher handled it. But it was also dropping. I had friends who watched, and felt like Cooper might have been low all night. I imagine I'll look at the Brooks box for the whole game later.

While Mills certainly has a right to a ton of frustration with his team, he should keep it focussed there, where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

Has Mills been right on any of his ejections this year? Doesn't seem like it...

Jeremy Dircks said...


Mills has a QOC of 40%, meaning out of the five ejections, the reason for ejection was correct on three, incorrect on two. The two incorrect call ejections were both crewmate ejections, Joe West (1), where Paul Schrieber was the calling umpire and Jerry Layne (2), where Bob Davidson was the calling umpire.

Anonymous said...

While both called strikes were in the zone, what about the called ball three. It's hard to take the strike two as "correct" when ball three is "incorrect". I think this league does not take one thing into consideration, consistancy. I'm be willing to bet that if both ball three and strike two had been called consistantly one way or another this ejection would not have happened. Looking back through the game this one strike call was the lowest strike called in the game, in the normalized view, by a couple of inches.

Anonymous said...

Challenge. Ball is in the strike zone.

Anonymous said...

Why would you challenge this. The incorrect ball call did not negatively affect the outcome of the at bat and is not what Mills was arguing.

Lindsay said...

This ruling has been challenged.

After review, the Quality of Correctness has been confirmed. The call is now correct.

After review, including examination of the real-time play, replays, and alternate angles, the decision of confirming the original Quality of Correctness was made. Rule 6.e.iii.d. further declares that the argued call(s) during an at bat must be against the ejected person (or his team) and this call must have realistically resulted in a different outcome of the individual at bat. The challenged call was not against the ejected person (or his team) and therefore is ineligible for challenge.

Furthermore, this ejection is not subject to a Balls/Strikes Exemption under Rule 6.e.iv. In terms of consistency, the UEFL is dedicated to the objective analysis of calls that result in ejection with great regard for the rules and spirit of the game... in that order. When it comes to consistency, that shifts attention away from objectivity and more towards subjectivity, which we try to avoid here. Objectivity means we analyze singular plays (unless granted a B/S Exemption), and generally, each on its own merits; it is contrary to the spirit and mission of the UEFL to revisit an umpire's performance during multiple innings. Consistency is a variable that cannot be objectified (at least not as it relates to ejection resulting from perceived inconsistency), parameters cannot clearly be defined or even identified, and for that reason, consistency over multiple innings or at bats does not factor into the decision making process.

Accordingly, the UEFL does not fault umpires for 1) incorrect calls which are not the subject of argument, 2) incorrect calls which are in favor of the ejected person's team, and 3) incorrect calls (in the case of post-at bat ejections) which have not realistically resulted in a different outcome of the individual at bat.


Anonymous said...

"denied" LOL.

Ok, God! thanks for the ruling

Post a Comment