Jesse Crain's Unlucky Plate Appearance
by Jesse on Aug 5, 2010 7:41 PM EDT
in News
Email
PrintWith the Twins leading 6-1 with the bases loaded and two outs in the eighth inning, Ron Gardenhire lifted Kevin Slowey in favor of Jesse Crain.
Crain entered to face Willy Aybar, who is a switch hitter. Naturally, Aybar continued to hit left-handed against the right-handed Crain. Versus right handers this year, Aybar was hitting .259 with a .354 on-base percentage. Definitely not an inspiring line by any stretch of the imagination, even if it would have beaten quite handily the production of Twins second basemen in 2009. Crain, meanwhile, had held left-handed hitters to a .254 batting average with a meager .329 on-base percentage. Also, not bad.
From pitch one, Crain attacked Aybar with confidence, throwing him three consecutive sliders to start off the at-bat. All of them were strikes. Or rather, all three of them should have been strikes. Home plate umpire Chris Guccione, however, didn't see it that way. Instead of striking out looking on three pitches, Aybar sat 2-1. Crain and Aybar continued to battle, and while Aybar did an admirable job fouling off a couple of pitches, Guccione gave him two additional favors. Pitches number five and eight ended up being balls three and four, and both were borderline.
Borderline calls are hard to begrudge the umpire, because there is an area of the strike zone that is open to interpretation. There always will be that human element in the game and there always should be. But in the context of this at-bat, not only should those pitches have never been thrown but the repurcussions nearly cost the Twins the game.
This is the strike zone plot for Crain's battle with Aybar.
As you can see, there isn't anything borderline about pitches two and three.
Aybar walked to make the score 6-2. Jason Barlett then smashed Ron Mahay to tie the game with one swing. I hate complaining about umpiring, I really do, and Mahay still should have done his damn job, but this kind of thing still kills me. You know what? I'm taking Jason Kubel's catwalk hit and calling it even. Justice of the baseball gods.
Oh, by the way. The run that ended up being charged to Crain on that grand slam was the first run charged to him since three unearned runs on June 10. Seriously.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What did the ump want?
I was watching this on Gameday and could not belive it. I’ve heard of umps changing the strike zone for different pitchers but never heard of the strike zone being removed all together. It was as if the ump was saying “I’ll give you a strike only if you can get it by the batter right down the middle”. This was a game changing strike zone.
Pitch number 3 was close to the middle of the zone
And it looked even closer to the middle on TV because it was a slider breaking towards the batter.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
My only concession for the ump...
is that there were no other strikes called (at least in this particular at-bat) above or outside of pitches 2 & 3… so it could be argued his zone was lower and more inside (I honestly don’t recall how he called the rest of the game)
THAT SAID, I agree that Crain got F-ing screwed by this ump, as I was able to see this game on MLB TV while working at home… but that’s baseball for you… and I concur, baseball karma was a deserved ending.
by San Diego Viking on Aug 5, 2010 10:33 PM EDT reply actions
Watching the Rays game feed
and even their announcers couldn’t believe that Aybar wasn’t set down after three pitches. Sometimes I really hate umpires.
He will not take #3 if #2 is a strike
Not to mention that #3 is probably a completely different pitch in an 0-2 count.
Happy you posted this...
Crain did his job here, the ump really seemed to want a closer game at that point for some reason. FWIW the Rays announcers showed the pitches on FOX tracks and wondered aloud why they were not strikes.
Normally on a travel day you get more strike calls to hurry the game up – weird:).
That was incredibly aggravating
While I’m sure he missed a few other ball strike counts at some point I don’t remember seeing anything ridiculous during the rest of the game. They became huge mistakes but thank goodness we still won or my outrage would be much higher.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
Marlins got robbed of a game tonight...
Because an umpire called a ball foul that had, in fact, landed fair at his feet (sound familiar?!?).
I think it has to be fair over the bag
and he was saying that it wasn’t. He said it went foul in the air next to the bag and then back into fair territory when it landed again (past the bag).
It was hard to tell with the camera angle I saw. If it has to be fair over the bag, which I believe it does, then he made the correct call. I didn’t see a camera angle that was good enough to tell.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
Thank You
For pointing this out, Crain was great and had two “non strike” balls called before the walk.
I, for one, think Crain is back and Joe Maddon needs to watch those two pitches before complaining about a catwalk.
"There always will be that human element in the game and there always should be."
wrong.
did anyone else hear Doug Harvey’s hall of fame speech a few days ago? he said “umpires are the integrity of the game.”
the software you’ve used to determine that the integrity was lacking during the aybar at-bat is also used to evaluate umpires’ strike calling. yet you and so many others feel that the 2-5% of strikezone inaccuracy that league umpires bring to the game is essential, even when it bites your favorite team in a critical situation.
irrational.
So what are you saying?
You want to get rid of umpires?
Have strikes and balls called by a computer?
by twinscrazy_german on Aug 6, 2010 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Not that crazy
I don’t like the idea of a computer calling balls and strikes from an aesthetics point of view. Red and green lights behind the batter just seem like they would be out of place. Maybe we would get used to it.
However, one thing you can say about computers, is they are unbiased, and they always pay attention. They tend to do things the same way every time.
I'm with you Pesky
Computers calling balls & strikes should not be so far fetched. We have all seen it time after time watching a game strikes being balls & balls being strikes. The computer will not be biased in any way & it will get it right. Nothing is more frustrating for a pitcher than to throw a nice strikeout pitch & the ump calling it a ball. You see every game where a player gives the ump a look or makes a comment as he is walking away after being struckout. Everyone just takes it in stride. That guy should have been out. There may come a day when the computer is calling balls & strikes. Boardline calls are one thing but when calls like that continue it really makes people think. If the ump can’t do any better than that things will eventually get changed.
What?
Wrong.
Oh, I’m sorry. Should we get rid of umpires? Should we just play with robots?
“Umpires are the integrity of the game.”
Okay. I wasn’t talking about integrity, but okay. It contradicts your next paragraph, I think, although I’m not sure about that either.
the software you’ve used to determine that the integrity was lacking during the aybar at-bat is also used to evaluate umpires’ strike calling. yet you and so many others feel that the 2-5% of strikezone inaccuracy that league umpires bring to the game is essential, even when it bites your favorite team in a critical situation.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. Are you arguing that people complain too much about a small percentage of mistakes, or that we should expect fewer mistakes?
irrational
.
Sigh. No, it’s not. It’s life. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you don’t accept it. If anything, it illustrates my belief that the human element IS essential in baseball, and is a critical part of what makes the game what it is and makes the game so great. Supporting something, even when it doesn’t benefit you 100% of the time, has less to do with being irrational than it has to do with understanding how things work.
irrational to regard human error as an essential component of the game
especially when it hurts your favorite team in a close game, or maybe worse, gives them a win they dont deserve (see phillies-marlins game yesterday). that’s all.
i know you weren’t specifically talking about integrity, but don’t we all want fairness here? i understand that the “human element” is present in baseball. but humans aren’t perfect. so my objection is with your contention that error “should” be present in areas like strike calling where it regularly degrades the quality of the game. MLB has already removed the human element from home-run calling (in about the slowest, most roundabout way possible). so that’s NOT “how things work” in that case, isn’t it? so, why preserve human error for strike-calling or any other area where the same technology exists to improve the integrity of the game?
There's a compromise.
Technology is there to review certain types of plays. I’m all for that. I’m all for accountability for umpires as well. But having them replaced really seems like a terrible idea.
We can replace umpires with computers.
Umpires blowing calls has nothing to do with life.
by ckb on Aug 6, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Can doesn't equal should.
On close plays at first base, do the players have to look up to the jumbotron until a computer figures it out?
Replay on certain plays, fine. But you can’t replace the umpires.
Computers bring their own challenges
They don’t solve everything. If computers are implemented, not only will the game be far less aesthetically pleasing, but we would have to deal with “technical difficulties.” I’m all for utilizing technology (i.e. instant replay) to get calls right, but I’m very skeptical about relying on technology.
The other problem using computers creates is that it puts a lot of people out of a job, especially if the computers were implemented in the minor leagues too. I can just see the whole thing getting way too robotic for my liking. There is something kind of cool about hearing an umpire bellow “Steeerrrike,” for instance, and the hand signals further enrich the game. Sure the umps will mess up on occasion, but that would be pretty easy to correct with instant replays for everything but balls and strikes. Why mess with the whole system when it just needs some tweaking?
Far less aesthetically pleasing?
are you jokinng. Umps arn’t aesthetically pleasing. They just try to make themselves part of the game. As far as jobs, the umps can run the system, guess what, the car put the horse out of a job, and so on and so on
by b1 on Aug 6, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
My big beef with the umpires is accountability
Players, coaches and managers are human too. They make mistakes. But there are consequences for them personally for making mistakes. Make a big enough mistake often enough and it’ll cost you your job. There’s plenty of prospects waiting for a chance, so there is not much tolerance for poor play or poor coaching. That is as it should be.
I just see a high tolerance for high-profile mistakes by umpires. We have seen some doozies this year. In many cases, the ump apologizes for it afterwords. But do they get suspended? Are umpires ever fired? No. They keep right on making bad calls without any apparent consequences. Perhaps they get a bad performance review or something. But they are umpires for as long as they want to keep doing it. Because there’s little accountability, there’s little incentive to improve.
And don’t get me started on ejections. I have seen some umpire behavior that would have gotten anybody in my company fired. Yet the manager is always the one who gets fined. Umpires don’t get fined for outrageous behavior during arguments. They’re like little Napoleons out there posturing and gesticulating. It makes me sick.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Well said.
Definitely what irks me the most.
And this is why Joe West and Angel Hernandez still have jobs
No punishment, or not good enough punishment.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
On a different note!
I for one em quite pleased with a split. During the games it’s easy to pick out the negitivies because they stand-out. Looking back, we played quite well. The starting pitching seems to have picked it back up, the hitting is off and on but thats the way it goes when other team has good pitchers. So, I’m going to try to be alittle more on the possitive side.
Umps get caught up in the moment
I think that when the crowd is loud, which was the first time all game yesterday, and a rally is happening, the umps tend to help out the rallying team. Much like the Twins ninth inning rally against Jenks and the Sox at Target Field, the ump’s strike zone got really small. It makes the pitcher lay it in to get a strike so it may have hurt Mahay on his at bat with Bartlett, too.
by Alexi Casilla All-Star on Aug 6, 2010 10:34 AM EDT reply actions
Remember when Brandon Inge got hit in game 163?
You win some you lose some. It gets incredibly aggravating when you lose one that makes a big impact on the game but the human element is there and sometimes it screws you. I think the only call that has just driven me completely batty in the past two years was the fair ball called foul in the Yankee game. Mainly because he was right there, it should have been obvious. Ball-Strike calls have got to be tough and they’re gonna miss a call here and there. The rest of the game seemed to be called well and the Twins still got the win.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
yes I know his jersey was very loose
I just wanted to nip that in the butt before anyone pointed it out. I don’t think there’s a rule that says the jersey has to be form fitting anywhere and yes I think the Ump may have taken that into account when he didn’t give him the HBP call. Either way, it was a missed call that went for us that time. The point being they go both ways in the grand scheme of things I have to believe they even out eventually.
Peyton's good but have you ever heard of Jeff George?
I think the Twins should have one player
on the bench with a really flouncy uniform, made out of a lightweight billowy fabric, more like a smock than a jersey. Bring him in the game when you really, really need a baserunner. Just before the pitcher throws, lean way out over the plate. As the ball comes in, kind of jerk back, leaving the smock pretty much on the inside portion of the strike zone. Kind of matador like. See if MLB doesn’t come up with some new rules after seeing that kind of performance.
by Old Twins Cap on Aug 6, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Just put Casilla in Mijares's uniform
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Missing the point
They’re called uniforms. Everyone is supposed to look similar (or uniform). I wouldn’t be opposed to everyone wearing a uniform like that. Maybe they could get the poofy plastic ones that are blown up with a vacuum.
the problem is, most MLB players wear jersey's that fit them
Not all, but most. Inge gets HBP A LOT and his jersey is a size or two too big. He gets HBP way more than he should because his jersey hangs over the plate and he gets as close as he can. Look at the replay that they have frozen, look how much jersey is out there hanging and notice where his actual stomach is. The distance is ridiculous. It’s going to be flappy if you move out of the way quick, but the amount of loose jersey he has hanging is nuts.
I’d love to know how many pitches have actually hit him and how many have only hit his jersey. I’m sure the majority, and most of the ones I’ve seen against him (i have MLB extra innings so I see a lot of other games), have only hit his jersey that’s hanging many inches off of his body.
And if it was a Twin, I’d think the same thing. A HBP, to me, is a pitch that hits your actual body…or at least grazes your body while wearing clothes that fit you.
Baseball reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.-Terence Mann/James Earl Jones in FoD
In favor of technology
Tennis is a sport that figured out how to use technology to improve the game, making it more about the players, and less about the umps. The human element is supposed to be the players, not the refs.
And tennis already had a bunch of line judges watching the lines. Technology improved what was already a good system.
Baseball needs to move in this direction.
by AM. on Aug 6, 2010 10:58 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
this should be obvious
but for whatever reason there is a big swath of baseball fans that have some kind of mystical regard for umpires, as though they are, and should be, participants in the game as well.
Exactly.
Hawk-Eye has made a huge improvement in the game. Challenges are also handled in a way that line judges can make the calls they feel are right without worrying about getting shown up or affecting the game. In my opinion, it’s the best solution in sports.
not exactly
the tennis analogy works, but not in the way you or A.M. seem to mean it. The cyclops or hawk -eye system used in tennis is used to determine if a physical object (the ball) crossed a physical line. The computerized systems were a way to take human mistake out of a static rule. Either the ball crossed a line or it didn’t. There was never meant to be any ability by anyone to have room for interpretation of the rule. This is analogous to using instant replay for determining whther a fly ball crossed inside or outside of the foul line pole, or whether a flyball crossed the outfield wall above a certain tangible physical line (homerun) or below that tangible physical line. Using a computer or camera to make that determination is simply using technology to perfect a rigid, non-interpretive rule. There never was supposed to be human interpretation built into those rules. You could also extend this to a ball falling inside/outside the foul line or a determination of whether a runner beat the ball or the tag. Those rules are static and were never meant to be subject to interpretation, just subject to human failings.
Umpiring (balls and strikes in a strikezone) is fundamentally different. There never was, and hopefully, never will be a physical, tangible, non-interpretive strikezone. There has always been a non-physical strikezone with rough parameters subject to the umpires’ discretion and interpretation. The ‘human element’ has always been built in. Removing that element (let’s hypothesize a holographic ring hovering above the mound through which a pitcher must throw the ball to qualify for a strike would fundamentally change the game and strip it of a uniquely charming element in a way that instituting instant replay on home runs wouldn’t.
My life's goal: to force fischean itno using her moderator powers
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 6, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Rec'd
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
Minnesota Twins 2010: GAME 163 OR BUST!!!
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Aug 6, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
To be clear, I'm referring to the the Marlins-Phillies call and the The Phil Cuzzi Game
Balls and strikes are another matter altogether, as you point out, because the strikezone in the rulebook has never been the actual zone. I have no idea how to deal with this, but I think it’s less of a problem than line calls, because they are supposed to be objective, and cannot be adjusted to by players the way strike zone calls can.
its perfectly analogous to the strike zone
the strike zone is just a smaller box-shaped target (like a tennis court). the ball is either in it, or its not. an umpire is just like a line judge. read the rules, there’s no mention of a discretionary space:
The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the [bottom] of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp
“the human element” is human error. that’s what you’re defending.
Yes and no
Each umpire is given some leeway to determine where he wants to set the boundary. Then, it’s his job to be consistent with that boundary the rest of the game. I don’t really have a problem with some umpires’ strike zones going up to the chest and others only to the waist. Just be consistent.
when the batter is standing straight?
When the batter is crouched in a regular batting stance?
When the batter is a midget?
When the batter has intentionally set a batting stance where he squats so as to make the length between the “top” of the “box” (the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants) and the “bottom” of the “box” (a line at the [bottom] of the knees) 11 inches long?
a line at the [bottom] of the knees.
Where exactly is the knee. Is it at the top of the knee? Dead center of the kneecap? Bottom of the knee? (you’ll notice that the square brackets are representative of an editorial construct).
What if the batter where’s his pants low? What if the batter cinches his pants up three inches above his belly button like a girl?
It is not an empirically drawn box that is static and tangible. Those instructions are clar enough for everyone to understand in a genral sense. They leave all kinds of discretion 9within logical parameters) for the umpire.
Those instructions allow for interpretation in a way fundamentally different way than does the judgment of whether a hockey puck crossed the crease; a volleyball touched the net on the serve; or a ball passed to the left, or to the right of the foul line pole. When determining if the batter’s foot is on the line or not, every fan, every umpire, every coach and manager and every player can all look down and see the batter’s foot and the batter’s box lines and determine for themselves just exactly where all of those things are in relation to each other.
Only the umpire can ‘see’ a strike zone on any given night. The rest of us get to interpret where it is through his/her eyes.
My life's goal: to force fischean itno using her moderator powers
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 6, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
was hoping you would go there
It is not an empirically drawn box that is static and tangible
yes, it is.
its the same k-zone box which viewers see in instant replay that baseball uses to evaluate its umpires’ strike calling.
the technology exists and we’re using it already. only we refuse to cut out the middle man because so many fans think he’s “charming?” and yet those same people (jesse) tell a damning analyses of their strike calling. it boggles the mind.
It would definitely change baseball
Can the feedback get to the catcher fast enough for him to react to the game? A strike/ball could mean a dead ball versus a live ball.
I’d be more in favor of using sensors down the lines but even then there are problems.
hahaha
you sure got me.
My life's goal: to force fischean itno using her moderator powers
by montanatwinsfan on Aug 6, 2010 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I've never said anything about "charming"
You keep calling it “Charming”.
Shit, let’s just get rid of unique stadiums, too. Every ballpark should be cookie cutter. The catcher should have to look for a sign on the jumbotron or have a light flashed in his eyes or the PA system can go BZZZZ.
On top of that,
you’ve never said anything about how this system would be implemented. As I said, I’m not opposed to technology, if it’s used correctly. I’d prefer the use of the technology to augment the game and ensure proper calls, I just don’t see it as realistic behind the plate. If you can enlighten all of us as to how you could implement this technology while resolving all potential issues (how feedback is provided to the entire field, how quickly that feedback is provided, how you can ensure strikezone accuracy is at 100% for every pitch, what you would use as a backup in the event of a power failure or technical difficulties, are we creating jobs by having someone who will adjust the strikezone for different heights and batting stances), then okay. Write your manifesto and change the baseball world.
the easiest part is implementation
i imaging the first thing people might accept is for the umpire to stay behind the catcher as per usual, dodging foul balls and sweeping off the plate when needed. but for strike calling he would merely relay the call as determined by the umpire information system (through an earpiece or something).
beeeep – “steeeerike!”
the technology is virtually instant, an answer would be available in under a second. it could be implemented in any number of ways.
I think the Umps become to much a part of the game
Phantom tags, Not tagging the bag on DP’s, the ball beats the runner so the tag doesn’t matter, pulling off 1b early. Is it becoming about what the Ump will give you? I can’t stand that the Stars K zone in smaller then the rookies! Human element, why?
It's always been about what the ump gives you
Umps have always called the shots. Players have always tried to sell plays to the umps. This is not a new development. This is the game of baseball.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
actually the umps have not always called the shots.
orginally, the hitter called the shots – “high,” “low,” or “fair”
with the umpire RELAYING that call to the pitcher
it would be a return to baseball’s roots, in a way. call them transmitter-umpires.
Crain lovin'
I can’t believe I’m saying it, but I think Crain deserves a little love for how good he’s been the last couple months.
He's a poor man's Matt Capps at this point
with bad facial hair.
by Old Twins Cap on Aug 6, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry Dave.
That’s strike three. You are out.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
Minnesota Twins 2010: GAME 163 OR BUST!!!
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Aug 6, 2010 4:04 PM EDT reply actions
F*** the sterilization of baseball.
I happen to like when bad calls go the Twins’ way.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Twinkie Town
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
