POLL- do you think the Umpire determines who wins?

[Dabears17]

No. Last week I thought the umpires made two mistakes and my DD's team made at least 4 or 5 mistakes in a game we lost 10-8. My DD was catching and said the PU's zone was a little weird, but mostly consistent. A lot of the pitches that were called balls that looked like strikes based upon where my DD caught it, looked a little high or a little outside where it crossed the plate based upon watching an inning on video, checking the pitch frame by frame.

One of the outs I thought we were "robbed" of, the base runner was actually safe by a frame or two when watched frame by frame. Another time the BU had to be in the 'C' position and our runner at 1B was out by just under half a step, he called her safe, but it was the right call for an umpire in the 'C' position.

My rule of thumb is each error costs you a run. We make 1 or 2 less errors, we likely win.

Would be interesting to see a similar poll about coaches . Their decisions cost teams many more games than umpires.

 

[Nimrod]

That's the topic
Do you think the umpire determines who wins?

For conversation~
If you do think the Umpire determines who wins can you please explain why?

If you do not think the Umpire determines who wins can you explain why?

GO DFP

I think the way you've phrased this might be throwing people off. Maybe the question should be: "How often do you think the umpire determines who wins?" Nobody, unless he's an idiot, thinks that the umpires are the most important factor in winning or losing.

To answer what I think you're getting at, I'll say that I never go away thinking the umpire determines who wins or loses. There are times when I think were it not for a bad call, the other team would've won, but my mindset is that it's part of the game. Just like a line drive turned into a double play or a popup that falls for a hit. Not overly worried about luck in the game.

 

[radness]

I think the way you've phrased this might be throwing people off. Maybe the question should be: "How often do you think the umpire determines who wins?" Nobody, unless he's an idiot, thinks that the umpires are the most important factor in winning or losing.

To answer what I think you're getting at, I'll say that I never go away thinking the umpire determines who wins or loses. There are times when I think were it not for a bad call, the other team would've won, but my mindset is that it's part of the game. Just like a line drive turned into a double play or a popup that falls for a hit. Not overly worried about luck in the game.

No I phrased it the way I phrased it because it's a specific answer it's either yes or it's no. People can debate about umpires being wrong or not calling rules but at the bottom line do they think the Umpire actually controls who wins or not. That is the exact directness of the post.

***You say that people maybe an idiot to think that however there are people that will focus on one or two or three plays in the game and blame losing the game on the Umpire. So I presented the post.

Nice to see you recognize the gist of the question post.

 

[radness]

Starting posts is not because I want people to think one way or the other... Hopefully what I can do is influence 'some thinking' and 'people adding perspective'. Good luck enjoy

 

[Pigskinguru34]

Interesting question and while I perceive that the teams determine the outcome I believe an umpire can play a role in the outcome.

I think a more interesting option for an answer to vote on would be: Can an umpire play a role in the outcome of a game?

I think that is an emphatic yes. To me the best umpires don't look to do this. I also think that an umpire can be partial to one team in a game and they still lose the game.

The part where you can have 2 evenly matched teams but umpire has different strike zone for each team and ultimately it can and does have an impact on determining the outcome. Saw a state semi-final game where pitches over the plate were being called balls for one-team and balls an inch off plate were strikes for the other. Eventually the team getting calls pulled ahead 1-0 to win. Pretty sure the outcome would have been different if both pitchers had the same strike zone. (The umpire got undressed by the coach of the team getting squeezed in a game month and a half prior, the ump definitely got his revenge.)

 

[canyonjoe]

In a game with 2 even teams lots of things contribute. A bases loaded shot down the line that's either fair or foul can be the difference. A close play or a trap/catch in the OF can make the difference. So a bad call can affect the outcome. However, in the super majority of the games the umps really don't care who wins. They just do their best to make the right calls.

 

[radness]

The part where you can have 2 evenly matched teams but umpire has different strike zone for each team and ultimately it can and does have an impact on determining the outcome.

Why? How does that change the outcome of each batters at bat?
Umpire does not control whether or not the batter swings.

Saw a state semi-final game where pitches over the plate were being called balls for one-team and balls an inch off plate were strikes for the other. Eventually the team getting calls pulled ahead 1-0 to win. Pretty sure the outcome would have been different if both pitchers had the same strike zone.

Hmmm very possible that the hitters on one team were able to make better adjustments to their strike zone...and pitch locations,
and the other team did not.
Because it doesn't have to be a strike to hit the ball. And it doesn't have to be a perfect strike to swing.
Then there are the times that batters swung and didn't make contact.

Sharing my perspective that I've been in a lot of different games and every game strikes zone area seems to be different enough. that i know.
it's my job in the box to make my at-bat productive regardless of fluctuating strike zones.

 

[_MIA_]

Of course an umpire can effect the final outcome of a single game but unless you think the umpires are out to get you, over the course of a season things will even out and your winning percentage will not be effected.

 

[Pigskinguru34]

Wow you can't be serious? I pitched in my day and work with players today and I can start by saying a pitcher who knows they can throw off the plate and get strike calls has a tremendous advantage over a pitcher who is getting squeezed and then feels they have to put the ball over the plate for strike calls.

As a hitter, I know I had a lot more confidence at the plate if I knew the strike zone was small and I could be ahead in the count early and forcing a pitcher to have to come over the plate to try and get me out.

I understand you can use the approach of "well hitter still has to hit" or "pitcher still has to pitch" but I am sorry the hitter who knows the umps zone is small verse the umps zone is huge has a tremendous advantage. Same as the pitcher because a pitcher who can get ahead early in the count has a huge advantage over the hitter and vice versa. If I am throwing strike one naval high on the plate and it is ball one instead of strike one, the batter has gained the advantage in the at bat.

 

[radness]

Wow you can't be serious? I pitched in my day and work with players today and I can start by saying a pitcher who knows they can throw off the plate and get strike calls has a tremendous advantage over a pitcher who is getting squeezed and then feels they have to put the ball over the plate for strike calls.

Not sure who you're responding to wow you can't be serious...

will comment I am absolutely serious that I never would blame the Umpire for my at bat.
And they are not responsible for me crushing the ball either


As a catcher who sees pitches called strikes 2 softballs off the plate, up and down called strikes,
as a hitter I know
To pay attention to the strike zone in the game and make my bat work for me and my team.

While you are paying attention to the strike zone what do you think the batter's responsibility is in reaction to it?
Batters get 3 strikes.
Swinging or staring at them.

Plus other pitches that can option in.