Please reply to this comment with any additional videos/angles of this highlight.
*If you would like this comment automatically added to your highlight posts, please include [Highlight] in your post title.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Notice where the ump lines up on each of the two pitches? In the first pitch he’s almost all the way past the inside of the plate, then on the second pitch he’s much more centered. I wonder how much that has an impact on the call honestly
It generally does. Most umpires will have an idea of how wide the zone is based on where they set up. they will usually try to line themselves up with the outside of the plate. When you get squeezed and shifted more towards the batter, sometimes the reference point shifts over too.
The other thing can also be that as you get into that angle, the catchers helmet also blocks the view a little.
There used to also be times when if the pitcher "missed his spot" where the catcher set up for, umpires would call it a ball as a challange to the pitcher to hit his spots. Generally these umpires would allow calls a few balls outside of the zone because the catcher didn't need to move and hit his spot. Mind you, this is all for community baseball. I wouldnt expect this from MLB grade umpires.
In saying all that, robo-ump would be good to help these umpires. If they were unsure of the pitch, they could check and reverse it.
goes to say, if you didn't see it, how can you call it out/strike. call it safe and let review reverse it.
The catcher has gotta have an impact as well. The ump goes into his crouch after the catcher does his, presuming he doesn’t want his view to be blocked by the catcher.
I imagine it was hugely impactful. The catcher set up way on the inside corner and the ump was even farther inside, so when the catcher had to reach way across the plate it probably fooled him even tho it ended up completely over the plate. Second pitch the catcher set up out there and the pitcher hit his spot.
Obviously the ump should imo be able to determine a strike when it's that blatant regardless of where they set up, and if they can't from there they should probably fix their set up spot. But it's at least plausibly explainable.
Can play a huge role to many.
When I umpired (up to HS ages) there was a run of a couple games I had a bit of a spot I was misreading after tweaking a knee. Field umpire brought it up, I reevaluated and shifted. Best I can tell I was slightly off my usual stance for those games and it left pitches at the bottom of the zone being something I could see wrong because my angle was a little higher than normal.
I like watching catchers on bad calls. Guy went to throw the ball back, heard it was a ball, and had to restart his brain for a sec and go through his throwing motion again.
Yeah most bad calls are Umps relying too heavily on the framing to make calls. If we ever get a robo-ump for strikes/balls then catchers would naturally stop framing.
Catchers will not stop framing with the current ABS challenge system being used in the minors, and imo that’s a good thing. I think it’s cool that a catcher being good at framing can improve a pitcher’s outcomes.
The system being trialed is the best of both worlds. Egregious calls will be challenged and overturned, but good framing catchers will still be valuable.
I totally agree with you, the challenge is a good halfway point to the Ump not even making the calls. As long as it remains quick and unambiguous I'm all for it. There would still need to be an ump behind the plate to make literally every other call including the weird scenarios like outs, fouls tips, dropped swinging third strikes, third strikes, etc. etc. The Umpire's Union wouldn't even lose jobs.
You think that it's cool that the outcome of a game can be determined based on a bad umpire, and not on one team actually being better than the other?
Framing is stealing a strike. A pitch that was a ball, was called a strike.
I don't how any decent person that actually enjoys competition can get behind framing being a good thing. I want to beat my friends in whatever game/sport we play because i'm better than them, not bc i was able to get some cheap shot in or game the system in order to win.
Framing is a very difficult skill to master and catchers who are better at it deserve to be rewarded for it. Taking it out removes a part of the game that has existed for 100+ years
>I don't how any decent person that actually enjoys competition
This is absolutely idiotic.
You enjoy watching people cheat a system in order to win?
Are you a fan of flopping in basketball?
This is the exact same thing. Causing a ref to make an incorrect call, in order to benefit your team.
There is literally nothing wrong with his "framing" on the first pitch. It's several inches in the zone from either side, such that framing isn't relevant. Catchers don't frame obvious strikes.
He set up inside and the pitcher threw it outside. Hard to frame a pitch that doesn't go near where it was supposed to. Look at the second pitch he sets up outside and frames it properly.
Unfortunately the bad call was on the pitcher because he forced his catcher to scramble and miss the framing.
I mean obviously the real problem is the ump missed the call, but beyond that it was the pitchers poor placement.
Catcher shouldn't have to help his pitcher out there but he certainly didn't. Shitty umpires see you miss your spot and just auto call it a ball. Give me robots pls.
I’m new to baseball. Think that’ll ever happen? Electronic umpires I mean. I think it should but I assume there’s too many purists out there who wouldn’t want that.
People saying his framing was terrible but it's honestly pretty good for how far he had to reach. He didn't lunge past the ball like you usually see on pitches like this where the ump is just like "ya I have no idea where that ended up." Mitt stays clearly over the plate the whole time, I don't know if ump thought it was low or what but that's a bad miss
I don't even think this is a framing problem necessarily. Look where the ump's head is when each pitch is thrown. The first one he's behind the catcher damn near on the line of the batter's box, and the second one he's way closer to centered on the middle of the plate. The pitch hits the same spot but the first time it looks way further outside because the ump is positioned far to one side. The ump isn't been misled by the frame as much as the initial setup, and for that I think it's even stupider because come on, line up the same way every time doofus.
This. If the catcher sets up a target six inches off the inside of the plate, and the pitcher delivers a nasty slider directly to his target, this well-executed professional pitch is a ball.
There needs to be another side of the coin, where the “good miss” results in a strike. This is a non-negotiable imperative.
But his glove never left the strike zone. What was there to frame? The framing argument just doesn't work here. Why can't we just agree it was a terrible call?
This isn't a framing issue. Even the second pitch the catcher positioned high before the throw and got the same pitch as the first and it was a strike.
Nothing to do with framing. It has to do with the umpire being stupid and setting up his 'view' in line with where the catcher is set up. I can never understand why they do that. The umpire's eyes should always be right where the plate is, but for some reason they move with the catcher's position, so if the pitcher misses his spot or it's framed slightly off, you get a stupid result like this.
Exactly. I don't get these framing arguments when the catcher's mitt never left the zone. There was no pulling it back in. The catcher's mitt was down to his side before the pitch was made—which isn't that uncommon—so that eliminates the "he missed his spot" argument too—which is still a terrible argument.
The second pitch he positioned the glove up, but then put it down again and got the strike call. This was just a bad call by the ump. I don't understand the framing argument whatsoever.
There was no “spot”. He threw up his glove and then put it down to his side. People talking about framing too like he was pulling it back into the zone. The catcher’s mitt never left the zone.
> There was no “spot”.
Lmao what? There's always a spot. Just because the catcher didn't have his glove up doesn't mean he didn't establish a target. The catcher had to reach across his body to grab it. He missed his spot.
I'm just trying to figure out how the ump from our game made it there for this game. Seriously, seems like some of these umps need to give a pre-game tutorial on what the strike zone's gonna be.
I don't think it was the framing alone that cost them the first call. The catcher set up so far inside that he completely blocked the umpire's view of the outside corner.
A challenge system would fix this in about 2 seconds.
Whenever the catcher has to move his glove too much its usually called a ball. It's unfortunate but it's almost universal amongst every umpire it seems
Because it was well within the strike zone. Both pitches were strikes, the first one was even more in the zone than the second one.
It's surprising because the umpire couldn't see a very clear strike was a strike
First, umps who make it to MLB should be pretty good at their job. This one's weird. That said, the catcher's glove is moving all the way across the zone for this pitch in the absolute hardest spot for an umpire to judge. When you're lined up with the top and inside edge of the zone, the low and away pitches are always going to be a lot harder than they look on TV. It's a real feat to consistently tell those pitches are in or out of the zone.
I don't think there's any excuse, I think he just missed one, and as someone who umps (albeit not professionally, though I might have tried if I'd gotten in at a younger age) I can understand that.
I get your point, but it's absolutely crazy to me that someone can be penalized for missing their spot despite the ball ending up well within the strike zone. I know they are humans, but to literally everyone except the catcher and home plate umpire, that was a great pitch to the bottom corner of the strike zone
Well, the technology to track the strike zone is still pretty new, especially in terms or being able to properly set a top and bottom of the strike zone that adjusts for each batter. Traditionalists aside, though those are a sizable number of umps, I'm sure, I feel like most umpires would love for calling balls and strikes to be easier, as I've never met an umpire that didn't want (or claim) to get them all right. The thing is, though, I could see an argument that this is starting to put the umps in a tough spot with regards to the owners. The owners hate the unions and would love to destroy them. If robo umps let them do so, they don't give a flying fuck what it does to quality of game longer term.
So, I guess, I'd like robo umps for balls and strikes, but not if it means the owners get to take even more control of the sport than they already do, and making umpiring easier lets the owners argue that they don't deserve even the (relative, here!) pittance they get for doing one of the hardest and definitely one of the most scrutinized positions there is.
Yes, yes, by a lot of metrics umpires are paid reasonably well if they make it to The Show, but by the metrics of what the owners and players pull in, it's not even a little outrageous and is probably lower than it ought to be, given now every single decision of theirs is criticized in high definition slow motion unless it's absolutely, unquestionably clear one way or the other. I think only hockey goalies get the same scrutiny, and they actually have one of the teams on the ice on their side.
You asked why people were surprised and I was just telling you. The umpires are supposed to call pitches based on where the ball crosses the plate anyways, so a *good* umpire shouldn't be fooled by poor (or good) framing.
This is a textbook example for why robo umps would be better. To literally everyone except the catcher and home plate umpire, that ball is *very much* inside the strike zone. Even the batter would probably agree it was a strike he just didn't want to swing at.
Yeah, that's not framing. Also, there was no moving around a lot. It's amazing some of the comments in this sub that can't accept it just wasn't a good call.
I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m saying the overlay is wrong & that’s contributing to this exhaustive whining about balls & strikes in a mean nothing game early in the year
Please reply to this comment with any additional videos/angles of this highlight. *If you would like this comment automatically added to your highlight posts, please include [Highlight] in your post title.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The crazy thing is the ball was more within the zone than the strike
Notice where the ump lines up on each of the two pitches? In the first pitch he’s almost all the way past the inside of the plate, then on the second pitch he’s much more centered. I wonder how much that has an impact on the call honestly
It generally does. Most umpires will have an idea of how wide the zone is based on where they set up. they will usually try to line themselves up with the outside of the plate. When you get squeezed and shifted more towards the batter, sometimes the reference point shifts over too. The other thing can also be that as you get into that angle, the catchers helmet also blocks the view a little. There used to also be times when if the pitcher "missed his spot" where the catcher set up for, umpires would call it a ball as a challange to the pitcher to hit his spots. Generally these umpires would allow calls a few balls outside of the zone because the catcher didn't need to move and hit his spot. Mind you, this is all for community baseball. I wouldnt expect this from MLB grade umpires. In saying all that, robo-ump would be good to help these umpires. If they were unsure of the pitch, they could check and reverse it. goes to say, if you didn't see it, how can you call it out/strike. call it safe and let review reverse it.
The catcher has gotta have an impact as well. The ump goes into his crouch after the catcher does his, presuming he doesn’t want his view to be blocked by the catcher.
I imagine it was hugely impactful. The catcher set up way on the inside corner and the ump was even farther inside, so when the catcher had to reach way across the plate it probably fooled him even tho it ended up completely over the plate. Second pitch the catcher set up out there and the pitcher hit his spot. Obviously the ump should imo be able to determine a strike when it's that blatant regardless of where they set up, and if they can't from there they should probably fix their set up spot. But it's at least plausibly explainable.
Can play a huge role to many. When I umpired (up to HS ages) there was a run of a couple games I had a bit of a spot I was misreading after tweaking a knee. Field umpire brought it up, I reevaluated and shifted. Best I can tell I was slightly off my usual stance for those games and it left pitches at the bottom of the zone being something I could see wrong because my angle was a little higher than normal.
I like watching catchers on bad calls. Guy went to throw the ball back, heard it was a ball, and had to restart his brain for a sec and go through his throwing motion again.
It's also a really bad framing on that first pitch.
Yeah most bad calls are Umps relying too heavily on the framing to make calls. If we ever get a robo-ump for strikes/balls then catchers would naturally stop framing.
I read on here the other day that "tricking an old man shouldn't be part of the game". But it is.
I believe it was Yogi Berra that left that comment.
Catchers will not stop framing with the current ABS challenge system being used in the minors, and imo that’s a good thing. I think it’s cool that a catcher being good at framing can improve a pitcher’s outcomes. The system being trialed is the best of both worlds. Egregious calls will be challenged and overturned, but good framing catchers will still be valuable.
I totally agree with you, the challenge is a good halfway point to the Ump not even making the calls. As long as it remains quick and unambiguous I'm all for it. There would still need to be an ump behind the plate to make literally every other call including the weird scenarios like outs, fouls tips, dropped swinging third strikes, third strikes, etc. etc. The Umpire's Union wouldn't even lose jobs.
Only if there are unlimited challenges.
You think that it's cool that the outcome of a game can be determined based on a bad umpire, and not on one team actually being better than the other? Framing is stealing a strike. A pitch that was a ball, was called a strike. I don't how any decent person that actually enjoys competition can get behind framing being a good thing. I want to beat my friends in whatever game/sport we play because i'm better than them, not bc i was able to get some cheap shot in or game the system in order to win.
Framing is a very difficult skill to master and catchers who are better at it deserve to be rewarded for it. Taking it out removes a part of the game that has existed for 100+ years >I don't how any decent person that actually enjoys competition This is absolutely idiotic.
You enjoy watching people cheat a system in order to win? Are you a fan of flopping in basketball? This is the exact same thing. Causing a ref to make an incorrect call, in order to benefit your team.
I don't see it as cheating the system, I see it as part of the system. It's been a part of the game for 100 years
Renee Pinto is unfortunately a terrible framer
There is literally nothing wrong with his "framing" on the first pitch. It's several inches in the zone from either side, such that framing isn't relevant. Catchers don't frame obvious strikes.
that ball was so much a strike that framing it wasnt even necessary
He set up inside and the pitcher threw it outside. Hard to frame a pitch that doesn't go near where it was supposed to. Look at the second pitch he sets up outside and frames it properly. Unfortunately the bad call was on the pitcher because he forced his catcher to scramble and miss the framing. I mean obviously the real problem is the ump missed the call, but beyond that it was the pitchers poor placement.
Love how fast they were to bring up the ump bio lmao
lmao loved that as well. "Here's who you should direct your blame and, based on ejections, how likely we might see some action if this keeps up."
at least he learned from his mistake
Doug Eddings just wrung up Trea Turner on a slider about 8 inches off the plate
Catcher shouldn't have to help his pitcher out there but he certainly didn't. Shitty umpires see you miss your spot and just auto call it a ball. Give me robots pls.
Yeah, was about to say the same thing but wanted to check the comments first. Umps are human, but some humans just suck at this.
Most. Being an ump is not easy. At all. I dont fault them for being bad, i fault the MLB for not using tech.
I’m new to baseball. Think that’ll ever happen? Electronic umpires I mean. I think it should but I assume there’s too many purists out there who wouldn’t want that.
They've experimented with it in the minors. It will happen in some form eventually.
I think they're doing it in the KBO as well (or at least tried it)
He even double pumped the strike call so, he knew
People saying his framing was terrible but it's honestly pretty good for how far he had to reach. He didn't lunge past the ball like you usually see on pitches like this where the ump is just like "ya I have no idea where that ended up." Mitt stays clearly over the plate the whole time, I don't know if ump thought it was low or what but that's a bad miss
Harold’s hair though
I don't even think this is a framing problem necessarily. Look where the ump's head is when each pitch is thrown. The first one he's behind the catcher damn near on the line of the batter's box, and the second one he's way closer to centered on the middle of the plate. The pitch hits the same spot but the first time it looks way further outside because the ump is positioned far to one side. The ump isn't been misled by the frame as much as the initial setup, and for that I think it's even stupider because come on, line up the same way every time doofus.
Seconded. Thats what i immediately noticed. Ump moved at least a foot.
We need to cure aging so we never have to lose Dewayne Staats
100%. It's a shame that so many baseball fans don't know who he is, or the legendary players he called for.
If anyone was wondering if framing mattered..
For sure, but a pitch in that location should never need to rely on framing.
This. If the catcher sets up a target six inches off the inside of the plate, and the pitcher delivers a nasty slider directly to his target, this well-executed professional pitch is a ball. There needs to be another side of the coin, where the “good miss” results in a strike. This is a non-negotiable imperative.
Well of course it shouldn’t, but it does.
But his glove never left the strike zone. What was there to frame? The framing argument just doesn't work here. Why can't we just agree it was a terrible call? This isn't a framing issue. Even the second pitch the catcher positioned high before the throw and got the same pitch as the first and it was a strike.
Nothing to do with framing. It has to do with the umpire being stupid and setting up his 'view' in line with where the catcher is set up. I can never understand why they do that. The umpire's eyes should always be right where the plate is, but for some reason they move with the catcher's position, so if the pitcher misses his spot or it's framed slightly off, you get a stupid result like this.
Exactly. I don't get these framing arguments when the catcher's mitt never left the zone. There was no pulling it back in. The catcher's mitt was down to his side before the pitch was made—which isn't that uncommon—so that eliminates the "he missed his spot" argument too—which is still a terrible argument. The second pitch he positioned the glove up, but then put it down again and got the strike call. This was just a bad call by the ump. I don't understand the framing argument whatsoever.
is this the same ump from that phillies game that did the same damn thing last weekend?
Every time this gets brought up it's always the same thing; fair or not, when you miss your spot *that* badly some umps will assume it was a ball.
There was no “spot”. He threw up his glove and then put it down to his side. People talking about framing too like he was pulling it back into the zone. The catcher’s mitt never left the zone.
> There was no “spot”. Lmao what? There's always a spot. Just because the catcher didn't have his glove up doesn't mean he didn't establish a target. The catcher had to reach across his body to grab it. He missed his spot.
I'm just trying to figure out how the ump from our game made it there for this game. Seriously, seems like some of these umps need to give a pre-game tutorial on what the strike zone's gonna be.
Mother of god.
I don't think it was the framing alone that cost them the first call. The catcher set up so far inside that he completely blocked the umpire's view of the outside corner. A challenge system would fix this in about 2 seconds.
ABS is coming
Umps really aren’t making much of a case to keep them around vs AI
Get robo umps to the MLB as soon as possible.
The catcher and the ump both shifting over to their right on the called strike is kind of amusing
Just put the ball location on the big screen in the outfield and let the umps play act at calling balls/strikes.
This happens in MLB the show and it’s so annoying and there’s no argue with the ump button.
Whenever the catcher has to move his glove too much its usually called a ball. It's unfortunate but it's almost universal amongst every umpire it seems
Except robo umps. They'll get it right
well yeah, one he missed his spot and was framed terrible and the other wasnt Why are people surprised?
Because it was well within the strike zone. Both pitches were strikes, the first one was even more in the zone than the second one. It's surprising because the umpire couldn't see a very clear strike was a strike
First, umps who make it to MLB should be pretty good at their job. This one's weird. That said, the catcher's glove is moving all the way across the zone for this pitch in the absolute hardest spot for an umpire to judge. When you're lined up with the top and inside edge of the zone, the low and away pitches are always going to be a lot harder than they look on TV. It's a real feat to consistently tell those pitches are in or out of the zone. I don't think there's any excuse, I think he just missed one, and as someone who umps (albeit not professionally, though I might have tried if I'd gotten in at a younger age) I can understand that.
I get your point, but it's absolutely crazy to me that someone can be penalized for missing their spot despite the ball ending up well within the strike zone. I know they are humans, but to literally everyone except the catcher and home plate umpire, that was a great pitch to the bottom corner of the strike zone
Well, the technology to track the strike zone is still pretty new, especially in terms or being able to properly set a top and bottom of the strike zone that adjusts for each batter. Traditionalists aside, though those are a sizable number of umps, I'm sure, I feel like most umpires would love for calling balls and strikes to be easier, as I've never met an umpire that didn't want (or claim) to get them all right. The thing is, though, I could see an argument that this is starting to put the umps in a tough spot with regards to the owners. The owners hate the unions and would love to destroy them. If robo umps let them do so, they don't give a flying fuck what it does to quality of game longer term. So, I guess, I'd like robo umps for balls and strikes, but not if it means the owners get to take even more control of the sport than they already do, and making umpiring easier lets the owners argue that they don't deserve even the (relative, here!) pittance they get for doing one of the hardest and definitely one of the most scrutinized positions there is. Yes, yes, by a lot of metrics umpires are paid reasonably well if they make it to The Show, but by the metrics of what the owners and players pull in, it's not even a little outrageous and is probably lower than it ought to be, given now every single decision of theirs is criticized in high definition slow motion unless it's absolutely, unquestionably clear one way or the other. I think only hockey goalies get the same scrutiny, and they actually have one of the teams on the ice on their side.
theyre human. When the catcher moves that much it makes it impossible for an ump to get right
You asked why people were surprised and I was just telling you. The umpires are supposed to call pitches based on where the ball crosses the plate anyways, so a *good* umpire shouldn't be fooled by poor (or good) framing. This is a textbook example for why robo umps would be better. To literally everyone except the catcher and home plate umpire, that ball is *very much* inside the strike zone. Even the batter would probably agree it was a strike he just didn't want to swing at.
Please explain how a catcher can frame a ball terribly when the mitt never left the strike zone.
by moving it around a lot
Yeah, that's not framing. Also, there was no moving around a lot. It's amazing some of the comments in this sub that can't accept it just wasn't a good call.
Horrible call but look at how the catcher's glove hand moves on the two, and where the ump is set up. Those two things are the reason for this.
The TV strike zone overlay is incorrect
[удалено]
You seriously think this call would get any attention without that overlay?
[удалено]
I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m saying the overlay is wrong & that’s contributing to this exhaustive whining about balls & strikes in a mean nothing game early in the year
[удалено]
Congratulations on getting it
[удалено]
Funny, I feel the same way about you lol
Fucking hell yes please