This is Dan Bellino (2)'s first ejection of 2012.
Dan Bellino now has -2 points in the UEFL (0 Previous + 2 MLB + -4 Incorrect Call = -2).
(Interim) Crew Chief Bob Davidson now has 0 points in the Crew Division (0 Previous + 0 Incorrect Call = 0).
*The strike three pitch had a lower bound, upper bound values of [1.0242, 1.2024], which is in the always a ball range. Therefore, the call is incorrect pursuant to UEFL Rule 6-2-b-2 and 6-2-b-2 comment, also known as the Miller Rule.
^After review, the Appeals Board has confirmed Quality of Correctness (5-0-1) ("Incorrect" ==> "Incorrect")
*The Appeals Board's historical decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal*
^After review, the Appeals Board has confirmed Quality of Correctness (5-0-1) ("Incorrect" ==> "Incorrect")
*The Appeals Board's historical decisions may be consulted via the UEFL Portal*
UEFL Standings Update
Soon
This is the 15th ejection of 2012.
This is the 10th Manager ejection of 2012.
This is Ron Washington's first ejection of 2012 and his 60th birthday.
Pitch f/x courtesy Brooks Baseball
*Pitch 11 had a lower bound, upper bound of [1.0242, 1.2024]: Kinsler at bat
*Pitch 11 had a lower bound, upper bound of [1.0242, 1.2024]: Kinsler at bat
Normalized Chart for Bellino's game:
Wow, I am soooooo shocked Dan Bellino ejected somebody.....not
ReplyDeleteWhen watching it live the TV station strike zone showed it as a strike, which made me do a double take. Definately looked high, however I think Bellino gave Kinsler a chance to walk away and did the same for Wash. He just turned around to say one more thing.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see Bob Davidson come in to play peacemaker. He was acting CC with Layne missing from the crew.
Happy birthday, Ron. Least you got to leave the park early.
ReplyDeleteChallenge. The chart shows the pitch within the strike zone. Regardless of what the numbers say, this must be a correct call and a strike.
ReplyDeleteHow was the call incorrect
ReplyDeleteThe graph shows it in the strike zone. Regardless of what the numbers say, this is a strike and correct call.
ReplyDeleteChallenge.
Dan starts working on the Davidson-Wendelstedt-Layne crew and proceeds to eject over a missed call. How shocking.
ReplyDeleteI think whoever looked at this pitch being incorrect was looking at the pitch in the chart that was earlier in the at bat. ESPN showed it as a strike on the air, definitely within the box. Could you look at this again? I challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe call is right! Washington wanted to go.
ReplyDeleteYou are looking at the wrong pitch. It wasn't a 1-2 count. It was 3-2. It was the 11th pitch of the at bat. I challenge.
ReplyDeleteThe 11th pitch was reviewed. The 3-2 pitch was the one that was looked at, but challenge is noted!
ReplyDeleteThis ruling and has been challenged and is under review.
I watched this game from start to finish and it sure seemed to me that Bellino's strike zone was lop sided, pretty clearly being in favour of the Rays.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, Doug Eddings baited Tim Hudson on Sunday but after a discussion Hudson, McCann and Fredi Gonzalez stayed in the game.
ReplyDeleteHudson looked disgusted after a borderline inside pitch was called a ball, but didn't say anything. Eddings stepped from behind the plate and yelled out to Hudson, "HEY, I said it was INSIDE!" Completely unprofessional because Hudson didn't say anything and could've easily been disgusted with himself. Of course Eddings has a history with the Braves...recall his baiting of catcher Johnny Estrada several years ago.
Seems to me that if Francona is going to claim that Bellino couldn't let it go, they should show the video of that. Otherwise, it's just an unproven claim as far as I'm concerned. Granted, Bellino has had his share of ejections, but so has Ron Washington.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem here is that the Brooks box for the individual at bat shows the pitch in question to be within the box. But the Brooks box for Bellino's overall game shows the pitch to be out of the box. How do we explain/resolve this discrepancy?
ReplyDeleteAlso, kinda disgusting how the video is altered to match the commentator's disparaging remarks about Bellino. If one was watching the game (as I was), then the replays showed at the time show Washington taking a couple of steps away, but still facing Bellino and running his mouth.
I think this is because the individualized box is specific for Kinsler. I went and watched the mlb feed again, after the break they come back and show the kzone. The pitch is a strike. It's in the zone. This has to be a correct call. We as umpires know that each batter has a different strike zone. It's not just one zone. Players come in all shapes and sizes.
ReplyDeleteIn the UFEL 6.2, what constitutes the non-normalized strike zone? How is this determined per batter? Obviously, the f/x graph shows this as a strike, so was it ruled incorrect via the normalized (incorrect) zone? I'm puzzled.
ReplyDeleteThe normalized strike zone is not to scale, but is correct per batter while the non-normalized strike zone is to scale, but not per batter. For instance, this is why the normalized zone runs from -1.0 to +1.0 while the non-normalized zone runs from 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet: The non-normalized zone assumes that every batter has a strike zone that extends from 1.5 feet above home plate (lower bound) to 3.5 feet above home plate (upper bound). This is obviously not the case with all batters: for instance, Kinsler's upper bound for this pitch is 3.37 feet, which is less than the 3.50ft top of the box. Pitch #11's location is 3.476 feet—a strike in the non-normalized zone, but a ball in Kinsler's zone.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care what happens with this challenge, and thanks for the explanation. I just think its strange that we are saying this all was incorrect when the box on tv shows it to be correct. One of the two has to be wrong, an my money is on ESPN being more accurate. So I think it's just bizarre that we say that a pitch under the Kulpa rule is a strike when its clearly out of the box, but miller rule is different. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I still think this was a strike. Oh well. If I had Bellino in this league I'd make a bigger stink. I guess it's just my gain for the time being.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation. All these graphs have me confused, and I hold an accredited bachelors in math and computer science. But after looking once more at the video, it's obvious that the ball crosses at the letters on Kinsler's jersey.
ReplyDeleteregardless of the graph, the pitch is clearly high!
ReplyDeleteOn another thread, there are posrs about Bellino having a quick hook...I don't see it as a quick hook...I think it is a young umpire, still a rookie by MLB standards, setting his limits and setting a tone. The flip side of this is does Wash argue this pitch to that degree if it had been called by a Davis or Tim McClelland...methinks not.
ReplyDeleteI own Bellino, and I'm not going to raise a fuss. As much as it pains me to say, that pitch was high. Oh, well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter review, the original Quality of Correctness of "Incorrect" has been confirmed in a 5-0-1 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Three Appeals Board members elected to Uphold the original QOC, two elected to Confirm the original QOC, one voted to Defer the original QOC and zero voted to Overturn the original QOC.
ReplyDeleteDuring review, the Appeals Board considered whether the final pitch of this at-bat traveled through the strike zone.
In adjudicating this matter, the Board referenced Rule 6-2-b-2, also known as the Miller Rule. The Miller Rule provides a precise formula for normalizing vertical pitch location given actual height. The following are raw numbers.
(3.37 + 1.5) / 2 = 2.435 = C (sz_top + sz_bot) / 2 = C
|2.435 - 3.476|= |-1.041| = 1.041 = D |C - pz| = D
1.113 / 1.041 = 1.070 = R norm_ht / D = R
0.0833 * 1.070 = 0.089 = E 0.0833 * R = E
1.113 + 0.089 = 1.202 = Upper Bound norm_ht + E = Upper Bound
1.113 - 0.0891 = 1.024 = Lower Bound norm_ht - E = Lower Bound
[1.024, 1.202] = [Lower Bound, Upper Bound]
Per the Miller Rule: the correct call may be a ball.
The Board first addresses the paradox in which the pitch f/x plot for the individual at-bat appears to show this pitch within the bounds of the strike zone whereas the pitch f/x plot for the entire game appears to show this pitch outside of the strike zone.
The reason for this is the core difference between normalization and non-normalized charts: The individual at-bat plot is not normalized, whereas the game chart is normalized.
In writing for the majority, Gil opined: "Normalized strike zones are batter-pitch-specific & place lower bounds (hollow of the knee) at -1.000 and upper bounds (midpoint) at +1.000. Ergo, the vertical coordinate of a normalized strike zone may be stretched and is not to scale.
"A non-normalized strike zone does not take into account a batter's height and instead generates a constant strike zone for the average player. At present, the non-normalized, generic strike zone runs from 1.500 to 3.500 feet, which, due to the non-normalized nature, is not stretched and is to scale.
"Kinsler's real strike zone is generally lower than the non-normalized zone from 1.5 to 3.5 feet. Due to Kinsler's stance for this pitch, his real strike zone ran from 1.5 to 3.37 feet (for this pitch only). The pitch was located at 3.476 feet, which accounts for the aforeseen paradox."
In concurrance, tmac opined: "I can't find any conclusive evidance to overturn said call... Kinda like one of those NFL instant replays that could have been ruled either way on the field but will hold up regardless upon further review!"
The Board additionally recognizes Ejections: Vic Carapazza (1) (2011) and the issue of strike zone depth: "Pitch f/x data...is accurate...but even then, it is a 2D plot. Home plate and the strike zone are 3D - they have depth...[the pitch is] ultimately one dot, representing just one location where that ball was at [the front edge of] home plate."
RichMSN specifically wrote in his dissent and decision to defer: "I was torn between saying—if I can't decide, what's wrong with the call by Bellino AND if I can't decide, why should I overturn the commish's original decision. So I'm deferring my decision."
The Board recognizes per curiam the validity of the Carapazza observation and commentary, but notes that no decision was rendered in Carapazza; per the Miller Rule, the present call is upheld as incorrect.
Confirmed: Albertaumpire, BillMueller
Upheld: Gil, tmac, yawetag
Overturned: None
Deferred: RichMSN
Abstained: Jeremy (Posted original QOC of "Incorrect")
Quality of Correctness has been confirmed, 5-0-1.