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
11 comments :
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!
Still waiting for the post on that rare feat...the Cubby Dump.
http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110717&content_id=21899788&vkey=news_sea&c_id=sea
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.
Video link
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16997233
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.
Has Mills been right on any of his ejections this year? Doesn't seem like it...
Anonymous,
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.
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.
Challenge. Ball is in the strike zone.
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.
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.
Denied.
"denied" LOL.
Ok, God! thanks for the ruling
Post a Comment