THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

According to another article on MLB.com, West said this:

“I had two managers on the field,” West said. “One of them was arguing that they wanted an out, and the other was arguing that he wanted a home run. Because they wanted me to go look because they wanted a home run, I got to judge whether it went over the fence or not.

So he specifically said that Manuel was on the field (before the review).  Is that true?  Again, looking at the replay (and I also watched the game live), it did not look like Manuel came out of the dugout until the umpires came out of the video room.  You can seem him get up from the bench at that point, so unless he came out and then went back to the dugout (which is possible), then West is lying.

Surely, it is easily verifiable whether Manuel came out and talked to any umpires before the review…

I am going to pull you over for a broken tail light, but then I am going to see if you have illegal drugs in your car…

Has Joe West received playoff and/or World Series assignments ? I have read that umpires cannot be fired (some weird union thing, even supported by the players union) but presumably MLB can keep this joker and the other incompetents out of the post-season.

That being said, according to the rules, no one needs to ASK for a review I don’t think.

Not only that, but I don’t think a manager is allowed to ask/demand for a review.  The umpires can refuse.

There was no indication that any of the umpires thought it was interference.  If they did, they would have called the interference right away, I think.

Not necessarily. Officials are very particular about zones of responsibility. In football, we refer to throwing flags in areas of the field that aren’t yours as “fishing in somebody else’s pond”. If I think I see something on the far side of the field but I’m not sure (which is the best conclusion Fairchild could legitimately come to), I’m probably not going to call it and instead default to the judgment of the guy who is on that side of the field. If I get a chance, I might ask him if he saw what I saw. But if you’re going to make a call that isn’t yours (and I can’t imagine that fan interference on a possible home run is the plate umpire’s call), you have to be 100% sure that you’re right.

The ball was within six inches of being a home run, so there is no factual basis for the contention that the umpires never should have consulted the video replay.  Whether Manuel or McKeon or both or nobody requested the video replay, for whatever reasons, is irrelevant.  The umpires were doing a good job and applying the rules correctly by checking the potential home run call on video.

Now whether they’re able to use evidence from that video replay to make the call they did is a different question, the answer to which is not clear to me.  I’ve not seen the full text of the replay directive anywhere to know what’s allowed and what’s not.

In any case, I don’t understand the invective leveled by some at West for getting a call RIGHT, even if he skirted the rules to do so.  Even if people hate West to start with, which I recognize some people do, the worst thing he did here is point out a problem area in the replay rules.  If he’d refused to allow an interference call even after he saw it clearly on video, am I to imagine that people would really be praising West for his wise and fair application of the rules?

#3/Birdwatcher:  Joe West has received more than the average number of post-season assignments over the 10 years from 2001-2010.  He has done 4 division series (2002-05-08-09), 2 championship series (2003-04) and 2 world series (2005-09).  An average number of assignments would have been 3.5 division series, 1.8 championship series and 0.9 world series.  Clearly somebody important either thinks he is better than average or thinks that quality isn’t as important as seniority in assigning postseason umpires.

The umpire who seems to have received the most post-season assignments is Tim McClelland--3 division series, 7 championship series and 2 world series over the past 10 years.  On the other hand, only one umpire, Andy Fletcher, has been on staff for 10 years without ever receiving a postseason assignment.

I’m not buying a 50-50 split. If you took out Philly fans, I bet you’d see at least 70% of people saying Peterson makes the catch.

Philly fans in the stadium were all motioning home run, and most likely the Phillies themselves were saying the same thing from the dugout or base paths. We can’t hear what is going on, only see a few moments of camera shots at the bench.

I just think West misspoke or got the timeline mixed up. Not a big deal, nothing like the Eddings situation.

#5, the invective, at least from me, is due to the likelihood that West lied, especially when he didn’t have to.

As to getting the call RIGHT, so you are saying that it was certain that Peterson would have made the catch absent the interference?  According to the interference rule, that is the only way you can call the batter out.

In any case, getting the call RIGHT has nothing necessarily to do with criticizing an umpire in a situation like that.  Let’s say there was a close call at first and the umpire blew the call.  If West decided to review that call and then reversed it, you don’t think you could lambast him?

Many people think that he was not supposed to review the play.  I don’t necessarily agree, but to those people, West deserves to be criticized. 

I do think there was a very good chance that he decided to review the play because of the interference and NOT the possible HR.  If that is the case, then he deserves to be heavily criticized…

I don’t think you have to be sure that Peterson would have caught the ball absent interference to make an interference call; you just have to be sure he had a chance, and that the interference eliminated that chance.

#5, the invective, at least from me, is due to the likelihood that West lied, especially when he didn’t have to.

You’re assuming he lied based upon what you didn’t see on the broadcast video feed.  That’s quite a leap to accuse someone of lying.

As to getting the call RIGHT, so you are saying that it was certain that Peterson would have made the catch absent the interference?  According to the interference rule, that is the only way you can call the batter out.

Here is what the interference rule actually says:

3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

In any case, getting the call RIGHT has nothing necessarily to do with criticizing an umpire in a situation like that.  Let’s say there was a close call at first and the umpire blew the call.  If West decided to review that call and then reversed it, you don’t think you could lambast him?

I understand the distinction, but no one has produced the text of the replay directive to show that what West did was outside of his instructions.  I agree that’s the crux of the real argument here, and I would like to make the judgment on that based on facts.  Instead of that, all we have are some vague summaries of what the directive allows.  I’ll agree it’s possible that West exceeded his authority here.  I don’t know how we can know that for sure without knowing what the replay directive actually says, though.

Many people think that he was not supposed to review the play.

Those people are clearly wrong.  The umpire has jurisdiction to review balls that were very close to the boundary, whether the original call was a HR or in play.  This ball was within six inches of being over the fence, so it clearly qualifies.  The umpire has discretion to order such a review and does not need any input from the managers one way or the other.  Whether he got such input, whether it was verbal or visual or delivered from the dugout or the field or three feet from the umpire or 90 feet from the umpire, and whether McKeon or Manuel spoke first or closest or loudest are all completely irrelevant.  In no way does West deserve to be criticized for ordering the replay. The people that think so are clearly wrong, according to the rules

The review was allowed.  It’s unclear whether what he did once he saw the review was allowed.  Let’s not conflate the two and confuse the issue.

I am wrong about the interference.  I thought it said that the umpire must be sure that the fielder would have caught the ball.  It says only that he must be sure that the interference prevented the catch.  It is a little ambiguous though.  It does not address how sure the umpire must be that the catch would have been made, and it should.

“You’re assuming he lied based upon what you didn’t see on the broadcast video feed.  That’s quite a leap to accuse someone of lying.”

I said there is a good chance that he was lying.  I also said several times that it APPEARED that Manuel did not leave the dugout and did not talk to West prior to the review. Please don’t accuse me of saying something I clearly did not say and/or distort my statements.

“The umpire has discretion to order such a review and does not need any input from the managers one way or the other.”

Yes, that has been said a thousand times already and I clearly said that in my original post.

“Those people are clearly wrong.”

Those people are NOT clearly wrong.  I am not talking about those people who think (incorrectly) that someone had to request a review.  I am talking about those people who thought that West ordered a review in order to determine whether interference occurred. I suspect that he did or at least that he might have. Of course, no one will ever know (but West himself).  The reason I say that is because I don’t think that any of the umpires thought that it might have been a home run so there would be no reason for a review.  Again, I say “might” and “think.” I am nowhere near certain, so again, please don’t twist my statements (like you have above) and say that I said that, “The umpires did not think that it might have been a HR.” No one knows that of course…

FWIW, I cannot stand this notion that, “You cannot accuse someone of (insert whatever you want - e.g. lying) unless you are X% sure or you have Y amount of evidence.  That is small minded and ridiculous.

You can correctly say that you are x, y, z, etc. sure that someone is lying based on a,b,c evidence, whether that evidence is direct, circumstantial, inferential, or otherwise.

When you say, “I think,” that means something other than 0 or 100%, depending on context.

When you say, “Pretty sure,” that means someone greater than 50 or 75% or some such thing.

When you say, “might,” it could be 10% or 40%.

All of those statements are legitimate.  It’s not like I am arresting someone or putting them in jail based on a 38% chance that I think they are guilty (lying).

A court of law requires “beyond a reasonable doubt” for obvious reasons.  I, or anyone else on an informal basis (e.g. a blog), does not need any standard whatsoever.  The responsible thing is merely to use the appropriate modifiers (like “might”, “pretty sure,” “I think,” etc.) as I have.  And my opinion of the weight of the evidence is not necessarily going to agree with yours or anyone else’s…

Okay, if this is a “let’s imagine what was going on inside Joe West’s head” party, then by all means, carry on.  That doesn’t interest me one iota, but it’s your blog.

I am quite interested in what the rules surrounding replay in general and this play in specific are, though.  I am also very interested in umpire performance and how to grade that.

As far as whether West is lying, he says that Manuel wanted a replay check to see if it was a HR. Manuel denies that he requested this. So, someone must be lying (unless there is an honest misunderstanding).  West might be lying to legitimize his improper video review. Manuel might be lying to cover his mistake (as it turned out) in asking for the review.

I don’t think you can determine the truth, to a reliable degree, by looking at video of when Manuel came out of the dugout, etc.

For West to be lying, he would have had to say to himself, “I (or another ump in my crew) strongly think a fan interfered. I have no basis to order a review based on that, but I’m such a crusader for the truth that I’ll order it anyway and make a up a reason that will pass muster.  I do this without regard for any consequences to me in terms of my reputation if I am found out, which is increasingly likely in this age of internet and video.  Also, to accomplish this act of heroism for the truth, I’m going to say that Manuel asked for the replay even though he didn’t, just to make my actions seem even more legit, even though I didn’t need to do that. If Manuel rightly insists to MLB, the press, and all the other managers that he didn’t ask for a replay (and therefore implying that I am lying), well, I don’t care because I got the call RIGHT!”

Is there something wrong with that scenario, or am I just missing something?

Yeah, you are missing something.  I know lots of people who lie all the time, about silly things and important things alike. In few cases, does rational thinking enter into the process.  They just don’t like looking bad so they lie.  It is instinctual for them.

The fact that Manuel does not appear to come out of the dugout in the video is evidence. Just not conclusive by any means. But, that is irrelevant, other than from the standpoint of a blogger like me making a judgement on how likely it is that West lied or not. There were thousands (well, maybe hundreds in Florida) of people who saw whether Manuel talked to West or not so there is little need for us to debate that.

It is much more likely, IMO, that West lied than than Manuel lied.  That is more “evidence” that West lied.

BTW, there is evidence in cognitive psychology that certain people actually believe their lies.  Another thing that you are missing, Dave.

Can’t disagree with that general sentiment, but it’s a pretty weak counter to my post…

My #18 was a response to MGL #16, not #17.

as to MGL #17, if the only way you can discredit my interpretation of West’s thought process is to fall back on ‘pop psychology’ notions, color me unimpressed. I do know about cognitive psychology and the like, have earned a BA in Psych (albeit many years ago).

I would be more interested in an actual counter to my suggested West thought process, assuming he is thinking reasonably logically (no reason to assume otherwise, AFAICT).

The notion that some people (and all people at some time) can firmly believe their recollection of events when those events are counter-factual is hardly pop psychology…

What does that have to do with this situation?

I give up.

Joe West says Charlie Manuel asked for a video review. Manuel says he didn’t. mgl points out that Manuel didn’t leave the dugout.

It might be possible that someone in the dugout, within earshot of Joe West, was yelling something like “Hey Joe, that was a home run!”. West recalls it as Manuel asking for a replay, while Manuel knew he didn’t say anything and didn’t hear anyone specifically ask for a review.

When I quote someone, I try my best to remember the actual words. My wife, however, will repeat back her interpretation of what she heard.

"What does that have to do with this situation?”

You were wondering how Manuel could lie.  I am suggesting that he might not think he is lying…