OH SAY CAN’T YOU SEE? Umpire Angel Hernandez (right) ejects A’s manager Bob Melvin after a replay error cost Oakland a home run Wednesday night in Cleveland. (
)
Instant replay helps umpires get more calls correct. But not all of them. Ultimately, a human being still must interpret the information and, thus, the process is subject to human error.
That is why the outrage should not be directed at Angel Hernandez’s botched replay decision on Adam Rosales’ apparent home run Wednesday night in Cleveland, as egregious and game-changing as it was.
The worse stuff came afterward, particularly in areas of accountability. If, say, Oakland manager Bob Melvin had cost his team a game with a flagrant mistake such as having his team bat out of order or Indians shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera had done similarly by, say, brain-locking and throwing to the wrong base, then tradition, encouragement from teams and the unwritten rules of the game are that they would have faced the media and responded to all inquiries.
Hernandez, though, had to face just a designated pool reporter and he set up the ground rule of no taping or filming the interview.
Which leads to this question — who the hell is Angel Hernandez to be setting policy?
But this is not really just an Angel Hernandez issue. This is about umpires. The perception is those charged with enforcing the game’s laws act as if they are above it. Does MLB really want its fan base to believe umps are not held to standards or that they can stink at their jobs without repercussion or that 68 full-time umps get to dictate everything from their own strike zones to their own media policies?
How is that good for the game?
That is why two items should be changed immediately. Neither will improve, say, replay judgment. Again, replay helps, but no system is ever going to be perfect. This is about providing a greater sense of umpire accountability, a greater belief that the umpires are being held to high standards:
1. Umpires involved in on-field issues should be available to the media after games, like any other on-field personnel. It was not long ago that was the general rule. Now, at best, a pool reporter is designated to speak to the crew chief, not necessarily the ump involved in a dubious call.
These are not Supreme Court judges. They should not be above questioning, above the rules that apply to other participants in the game. If you can’t handle this as a basic part of the job, then don’t become a major league ump.
A few years back, Jim Joyce botched a call at first that should have been the 27th out of Armando Galarraga’s perfect game. He faced every question afterward with honesty and humanity and was praised. Again, humans make these calls. No one expects 100 percent accuracy. Only 100 percent accountability.
When umps do not explain themselves it hurts the game’s integrity. Are they making calls, for example, as vendettas? CC Sabathia does not like discussing a hanging slider hit for a homer. David Wright certainly would prefer not to give his insights on striking out with the bases loaded. But both are pros and do so. That is all that is being asked of umpires. Be transparent. Be available to explain to fans how final judgments are made. Be pros.
2. Make umpire grades available, at least end-of-season grades. Again, we get statistical or analytical judgments on everyone else in the sport. Why should I know what Matt Harvey does against lefty hitters, but not know if Tim McClelland is good at making calls on the bases?
In a way it does a disservice to the umps. For example, from what I hear Hernandez actually grades out well in items such as discerning balls and strikes. But the public image is of a stubborn man getting tons of calls wrong.
Also, there is too much belief that the same umps are terrible year after year, and yet they keep their jobs as opposed to, say, a catcher or general manager who fails annually. The grades would provide a way of tracking umps who are consistently good or bad, and if they are being held to acceptable standards.
In the end, major league baseball is a game of constant public judgment. The on-field judges should not be above that.
A.J. thrives after escape from N.Y.
The NL strikeout leader was at Citi Field last night and his name was not Matt Harvey.
A.J. Burnett — 16-10 with a 3.51 ERA last year with Pittsburgh — is 3-3 with a 2.57 ERA and 62 strikeouts this season, when the Yankees are paying $8.5 million of his $16 million salary.
The consensus is that he is beneficiary of a change of scenery, mainly in leaving the stress of the Yankees and the AL East. One NL personnel man echoed the theme of three executives asked about Burnett by saying the righty “is better and the reason isn’t stuff — it’s environment. Burnett is a classic small-market guy; the less the games matter the better he pitches. It’s not unlike Kenny Rogers or others who have struggled when they went to bigger markets to play where every game mattered. It’s easy to pitch in Pittsburgh because all you have to do is finish .500 whereas with the Yankees it’s a relentless pursuit of the next World Series title.”
Pirates manager Clint Hurdle actually said big responsibility is central to Burnett’s Pirates success, explaining, “he was just another guy in New York. He is not another guy in our clubhouse. He is our guy. … He has met the challenge and been up to it. He has been absolutely awesome.”
Russell Martin, who has caught Burnett in both locales, said, “being The Guy has helped him. He is just being free out there, just being himself. He is not adding pressure on himself.”
* The Mets actually will miss Burnett in a four-game series against Pittsburgh. But they are scheduled to face three straight lefties, beginning with Jeff Locke last night followed by Wandy Rodriguez and Francisco Liriano.
Terry Collins countered by benching both Lucas Duda and Ike Davis, and using Andrew Brown and Juan Lagares in the outfield and Justin Turner at first. It will be interesting to see if he continues that throughout this series.
But what is becoming the bigger long-term issue to watch is if the Mets feel they can have both Duda and Davis on the roster. It is one thing if Duda is hitting enough to forgive his defensive deficiencies in left. But if both Davis and Duda are going to struggle in the clutch and against lefties (especially Davis), wouldn’t the Mets be better off picking one or the other to play first and potentially using the other as a piece of a trade?