THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
In theory, nobody should ever lose their job due to injury, especially if it was not their fault (or malicious). Hey, that's why we have insurance companies, right? (Actually, don't get me started on insurance companies.)
However, in the world of sports, where performance and victory are what define success outside of the dollar and the profit, injury puts people in very tough positions due to the nature of being unable to wait for success. Think about it. If a team's star player gets injured and is out for the remainder of the season, the season doesn't get canceled. The team still has to play, and it's up to everyone else on the team to step up and perform in the absence of the star. It may also be incumbent upon the ownership or management of the team to then bring in players to patch up the proverbial hole left by the injured star. Regardless, the fan base still expects to win; the response to an injury is never, "Well, wait till next year." It's always, "What do we need to do to win now?" So when quarterback Tony Romo went down with a major back injury during preseason, the Dallas Cowboys had no choice but to turn to rookie Dak Prescott for the first eight weeks of the season, which was the timetable of when Romo would probably return to playing action. The question was, however, if Romo would get his job back upon his return. Would Prescott's performance be enough to influence that decision? The answer was yes. Prescott is the starter going forward. There are a few too many instances in history where injury caused a major star to lose his job (and for a new star to be born). You might think of the Wally Pipp story that caused Lou Gehrig to be born, but it turns out that particular incident was just a myth. A more recent incident would be Drew Bledsoe and how his season-ending injury spawned the legacy of a man I dislike as much as Newman despises Keith Hernandez: Tom Brady. Ironically enough, Bledsoe was on the other end of Tony Romo's career as well. Bledsoe was the starting quarterback for Dallas when his poor performance caused Romo to take over the offense and led the team to the playoffs and beyond. Now, Romo has to now adjust to the role of the elder statesman and do the same thing. In a press conference on Tuesday, Romo took the high road and endorsed Prescott as the starter going forward. However, some in the media called Romo too dramatic, stating the tone of his speech was akin to his retirement and asked Romo to stop the act. As someone who has been in the shoes of both Tony Romo and Drew Bledsoe, I get it. When I was a senior in high school, I was primed to lead my varsity baseball team that year. We probably were not going to have a stellar season, but we were going to have a lot of fun. It was the culmination of my group of friends' experience playing the sport together, and we were determined to go out on top, albeit emotionally. So when a head cold knocked me down for the count the week after the tryouts, I didn't think much of it. The result? Well, after a slew of other instances of poor judgment by our second-year coach resulting in the benching of many of our seniors due to his goal of "rebuilding for the future," I found myself on the bench that season next to many of my friends. The only quantum of solace was that I was the only one of our graduating class to go on to still play Division I baseball, so I had the last laugh, even if just for my own psyche. I tried very hard to play through that cold, but after one day of intense drills, I knew it was time to stop when I couldn't breathe. I found myself on the trainer's table just asking if I could rest until enough oxygen could get through my system. I ended up needing a few more days off (and at least one of those days was spent home from school due to the severity of the symptoms). So I was shocked the following week during scrimmages when, after a few games of not starting due to what I thought was allowing me to ease back into things after a virus, I was still on the bench (or DHing at best). I still don't know if I've ever really forgiven that coach. When a competitive athlete loses the opportunity to compete at the highest level possible due to anything other than his or her own decision not to compete, the fight in that athlete gets activated even more. The drive to prove people wrong is fueled by a silent rage to remain at the pinnacle of successful performance. It's the equivalent to telling a teenager not to do something: it only makes him or her want to do it more. So when Tony Romo spoke with a tone of drama, I understood. It's like breaking up with someone, but you have to continue to see that person every day at work, and because you're so invested in the company, you force yourself to cope with the awkwardness for the better of the overall good. (Although, in that example, one might ask why you're dating someone from work in the first place...) The difference in these examples, however, is the path that each individual has to continue to form his or her own destiny. When you're in high school and you're still learning about life and trying to experience things that will help shape you as you approach adulthood, you don't have the same amount of control over situations. It begs the question about what is truly important: the better of the team? The lessons learned from such a tragedy? Or the experience a kid might have on what could be his final chance to play baseball? It's not like I could then choose to go play for another high school team (especially when the season is literally two months long and graduation is about a month after that). When you're a professional, the stakes are different because the opportunities are different. If you lose your job unfairly, you could get traded or sign with another team in free agency. You have the opportunity to move to a different city and restart. You also have the money and financial security to make these decisions. If I was making millions of dollars sitting on the bench, I might consider that a good gig. But that doesn't happen at seventeen years old. If you take out the competitive drive, it's probably easy for Tony Romo to accept the situation for the time being. He is still getting paid the same amount of money now to literally not play. Further, if Dak Prescott gets injured or stops performing, Romo is there to step in again. The dollar can speak volumes to people, contrary to popular belief. And in the worst case, Tony Romo can probably get a job somewhere else next year if he wants to start. His career is certainly not over. Now, maybe Romo has another reason to be somewhat somber. Perhaps Romo was so invested in the Dallas Cowboys that the fact that he will probably need to move on to another team to continue to play tugs at his heartstrings. That's admirable; that's putting the team first, yet also recognizing your own self-respect without being selfish. Another reason could be Romo's realization that he is on the back end of his career; he's certainly no spring chicken by comparison, and with the average NFL career being so short, he could see this as a wake-up call to his own mortality. All of these reasons are valid, and if they are the reasons why Romo was so somber during his press conference, then we still do not have evidence to rip him. This issue has become so gray because of the element of human emotion mixed into the competitive nature and result-oriented demand in sports. On paper, we want to see success. We want the laundry for which we root to win. And we put such a focus on the success of the team as being the greatest goal (and it technically is) that we choose to neglect the individual's success, and rightly so. But how is it fair that the fans, the media, and the world continue to focus on the forward progress of the Dallas Cowboys when Tony Romo is probably sitting at his locker with a broken heart? Would Romo "snap out of it" if someone showed him a picture of all the millions of dollars he has earned, just sitting in a vault waiting for him to dive into it like he was Scrooge McDuck from DuckTales? Perhaps we need to wait until next year to really judge this incident. Let's see if Dak Prescott keeps his job. Let's see if Tony Romo signs somewhere else. Until then, ease up on Tony.
0 Comments
Saturday saw some interesting ejections in Major League Baseball. News flash: the umpires were right...again.
In Washington, Bryce Harper (shocker that he's involved) was ejected by home plate umpire Mike Winters in the 10th inning after striking out looking on a pitch that was on the outside corner. Harper slammed his helmet as he began to berate Winters, earning him the automatic ejection. Winters simply stated to him over and over that the pitch was not outside. Ironically, not a single person from the Nationals went out to defend Harper, nor did a single person show any support for him as he walked back to the dugout and directly into the clubhouse. In Detroit, home plate umpire Mike Everitt ejected a quartet of Tigers all over called strikes. Unfortunately, the golf courses were all closed by that point, so the four of them couldn't get a quick 18 holes in. In the 3rd inning, Victor Martinez was ejected after arguing a strike one call on him. In the 5th inning, hitting coach Wally Joyner and manager Brad Ausmus were ejected after arguing a strike three call on Ian Kinsler. In the 6th inning, J.D. Martinez was ejected aftering arguing a strike three call on him. According to the official plot of the pitches, Everitt got two of the three pitches correct. So where do we start? Let's begin by saying the Harper ejection doesn't need to be dissected anymore than it has been above, but we will use it for the purposes of supporting the following arguments. Harper is a punk whose act is wearing thin across the league. For someone who wants to "make baseball fun again," he does the exact opposite with these shenanigans. By the way, if you listen to the commentator, you'll hear that Harper had a legitimate gripe because the graphic shows the pitch to be outside. Let's get this disclaimer out of the way right now: the graphics used on television are rarely accurate when depicting pitches on the border of the strike zone. (Sensing another gray comment about the title of this blog?) These graphics show a two-dimensional representation of the zone and usually represent where the ball is caught by the catcher, not where the pitch crosses the plate, which is what determines a strike. Sure, the reception of the ball by the catcher can influence the umpire (what some might call "framing"), but a good umpire tracks the pitch through the zone and only lets a catcher influence a borderline call with poor reception of the pitch. What does that mean, you ask? Well, I'll tell you! Growing up as a catcher, many of my coaches worked with me on "framing" pitches, which is defined as how I receive each pitch with my mitt. So many of my coaches would state that moving my mitt back into the strike zone would get me more strikes. As an umpire, I came to find out that this could not be farther from the truth. The best catchers who know how to receive pitches will tell you that no movement of the mitt as I receive the pitch will actually get me more strikes. When a catcher moves his mitt following the reception of the pitch, he's telling the umpire the pitch was not a strike and that he has to change the final location of the caught pitch to influence the umpire of his decision. That's why you hear things about catchers who have "quiet hands" as being the best: the hands don't move! (And for clarification, catchers wear mitts, just like first basemen. Everyone else wears a glove.) Now, back to the plot of the strike zone... It is impossible to properly represent the strike zone with a graphic, even when it is three-dimensional. We can only get asymptotically close to a representation without actually getting to an exact representation with our graphics. Further, since human umpires and making the calls, they will be making judgments based on so many other factors such as reception, consistency, presentation, batting stances, etc. The closest graphic I've seen that can represent the job done by the umpire can be found at Brooks Baseball with their Pitch f/x system. What makes this system superior is that it also superimposes the standard strike zone as called by umpires based on tendencies to different hitters. Take a look at this graphic from the Pitch f/x system that represents Mike Everitt's called balls and strikes to left handed hitters in the above game: You'll see the dashed lines represent the "accepted" strike zone, whereas the solid lines give the best representation of the actual strike zone. What this doesn't account for, however, is that since different players are different sizes, the height of the zone changes from hitter to hitter, so these graphs are only best read when trying to determine pitches that are inside or outside. The height of the zone is supposed to go from the midpoint between the shoulders and the belt (what some might call the "letters," but really is slightly lower than that) to the hollow of the knee (which is the lower end of the knee just before the shin bone starts). One of the best part of these graphs, however, is that it shows how consistent an umpire is. If the umpire is consistently calling a pitch that is just off the edge (possibly represented inside the dashed lines), then you can't really formulate an argument. Every player and coach will always say it doesn't matter what the umpire is calling so long as he is consistent. So then why did that change on Saturday night? In the case of the Detroit Tigers vs. Mike Everitt, although only one of the three calls that resulted in ejection was deemed "incorrect," in that it truly was below the dashed line on the plot, Everitt was consistent the entire night! No umpire is going to get a 100% accuracy rating when dealing with the gray strike zone; as you can see from the plot to right handed hitters, Everitt missed one pitch low (the one that caused the ejection) and one pitch inside. But it's up to the players to make the adjustments. It's unfortunate that both of those called pitches went against Detroit, but if you go to the next level of borderline pitches, there are two pitches (one high, one outside) that were both called strikes to Angels batters; it's tough to tell if those pitches are on the dashed line, whereas the other two are clearly not. Each of these ejections for Everitt, however, almost became tangential to the actual call based on the arguments. In the case of Victor Martinez, Martinez turned around to discuss the call with Everitt, and Everitt gave him the chance to state his case. Eventually, Everitt made it clear that the discussion was over and they were to play the game again. Martinez did not let this stop his part of the debate, and Everitt told him enough was enough. When Martinez continued, Everitt had to put a stop to it and make it clear the discussion was over, which resulted in the ejection. Not only is it a great job by Everitt, it is an equally poor job by Martinez to erupt the way he did and make the argument personal. In the case of Joyner and Ausmus, umpires don't like to hear from coaches. If a manager has a gripe, that's one thing. But when coaches (or anyone who is not acting as the manager) start to run their mouths, it usually results in a quick hook. According to Everitt, both Joyner and Ausmus were warned plenty of times not to continue the argument. When they did, they faced the music. Finally, with J.D. Martinez, after he struck out, he turned to Everitt and said, "You're having a bad day today, huh?" Everitt gave him the chance to hang himself by asking what he said. Martinez could have just walked away, but he said it again. Gone. Many of the Tigers involved said postgame that they just thought Everitt was having an off-night. Well, the science says otherwise. Everitt called a consistent game, and if the Tigers didn't like that pitch called a strike at the bottom of the zone, they should have swung at it. Also, how stupid do you have to be as J.D. Martinez to say something like that to an umpire and not expect that result, especially after three previous ejections? That's like mouthing off to a judge during a court case. Finally, shame on the Detroit fans. During the second video, you can hear the entire crowd at Comerica Park engage in a derogatory chant towards Everitt. Would you like it if 33,115 people came to your job and shouted at you when they thought you made a mistake? I didn't think so. Every ejection by Everitt was justified. Enough with these tantrums, please. He is listed as the 6th biggest hothead in Major League Baseball, according to the Umpire Ejection Fantasy League. His name is Joey Votto, and you'd think that a Canadian would be nicer.
Votto is the first baseman for the Cincinnati Reds, and he's not going anywhere anytime soon. He's signed through 2023 with a team option for 2024. He won the NL MVP in 2010 and a Gold Glove in 2011. He finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting in 2008, and he is a four-time All Star. And he's a jerk. A story broke this week about Votto's conversation with a kid in the front row while the Reds were in San Francisco. The kid had asked for Votto's batting gloves. Votto's response? Ms. Nichols didn't help herself much afterwards with this one, though... Let's take a brief pause while my hands slide slowly down my face. Okay, we're back. Votto has a history of this kind of behavior. In May of this year, Votto faked out a kid in Philadelphia by mimicking the action of tossing the kid a ball. Votto then kept it for himself and said, "Too bad." Prior to that, Votto went on a stomping spree to destroy a paper airplane that landed near him while on the field at Dodgers Stadium. In both of those incidents, members of the media spun the acts to be more playful. Whether you agree with that or not, this incident in San Francisco has no playfulness. Votto's behavior doesn't stop there. In 2015, Votto was ejected three times. In May 2015, Votto was ejected by home plate umpire Chris Conroy for slamming his equipment after a strikeout. Votto didn't realize he had been ejected until he was warming up in the field for the next inning; when he did realize it, he stormed over to Conroy and bumped him. Later that year in August, Votto was ejected as part of a fight that broke out between the Reds and the Pittsburgh Pirates. Finally, the big one in September: Votto was ejected by home plate umpire Bill Welke after disagreeing not only over the strike zone (insert comment about how the blog is named the same thing), but also over a request for time during an at bat. Votto not only seemed to make contact with Welke, but he also spit on him. As a quick aside in the above ejection, credit to Laz Diaz for holding Votto back. But I suppose we could always expect moves from Diaz after this: Okay, back on point now... We see the history of Joey Votto. We see he has a temper with umpires and a rude demeanor with fans. It's time for Joey Votto to grow up. Let's take a moment real quick to play devil's advocate and argue the opposing side. Votto could argue the same thing that many players argue when displeased with the call of an umpire. This goes beyond just a game to some of these players: this is their profession, and their performance on the field dictates their ability to negotiate the highest possible salary for their services. If a player is going to have a bad year, the player wants to be responsible for poor performance; he doesn't want the umpire to play a role in his ability to earn a living. You know what the response is to that? Suck it up. This is coming from someone who is economically conservative, mind you, but if you're going to make $25,000,000 per year between the years of 2018 and 2023 inclusively, the negotiation is over. I'm all for everybody trying to earn every penny they can, but you've won already, Joey. Unless you violate the terms of your contract, you and many generations of your family will be set for life. You become more valuable when you show restraint and show you are a good influence on your teammates. Good clubhouse personalities are hard to find these days. Okay, so what about the kids who asked for the items from Votto? If they're sitting so close to the field, do they really need the additional game-used souvenirs? The experience of just sitting there at a level where they can hear the players pass gas should be rewarding enough, right? In theory, yes. If you're going to look at it from the standpoint of trying to give all kids an equally great experience, then the kids who sit that close to the field have already had theirs. If it came down to Votto having to decide to give a ball or his batting gloves to the kid in the front row or to the kid in the bleachers, then it's a completely different story, especially if Votto makes the right call and gives whatever he has to the kid in the bleachers. In fact, Andrew McCutchen knows how to make grown men cry by doing it: But what makes this such a head scratcher is the selfishness that creates the divisiveness between the two schools of thought. Votto cares about earning every penny he can earn on the field, but when it comes to doing something nice for kids, it's more about spreading the wealth and not rewarding the kid in the front row who may have already had his reward. Either that, or Votto is just so selfish that it's all about him through and through. Perhaps the kids need to be reeled in a little and taught a lesson about being grateful for what they do have. Is today's generation of youth self-entitled? In general, absolutely. Perhaps the kids need to experience a tough lesson. But at the same time, you are a professional athlete. You are the role model for these kids. You have the power to make a dream come true. You can make a fan for life or an enemy based on your behavior on the field (and in public). Andrew McCutchen probably has his finger wrapped around the hearts of those young boys in the above video. And at the very least, do what you're told to do by every high ranking official: ignore it. Pretend that person isn't there. Don't instigate it and then end up on a blog like this because you're a jerk. Many of my previous articles regarding officials have been about defending my fellow colleagues who take unnecessary abuse from players, coaches, and fans. Although I stand by those comments 110%, in the interest of being fair and balanced, today's article will actually be aimed at officials with the goal of causing some self-reflection and improvement.
When I look back at my ten years of umpiring baseball, sometimes I go back to the beginning and try to remember why I started umpiring in the first place. In my specific case, there was a multitude of reasons why I started umpiring baseball. I was two years removed from graduating college with no luck finding steady work in my field (which is performing, composing, and arranging jazz music). When I began to consider umpiring, the benefits of pursuing it kept adding up. I was getting into, in my opinion, the best part-time job available. I was remaining involved in the one sport which was ingrained into my DNA throughout my entire life. I was getting a physical workout (which was a lot easier than going to a gym). I began to have a new appreciation and understanding for the sport, which later inspired me to have a greater desire to spread my message of the importance of sportsmanship. And I was finally making a little bit of money, which was important for obvious reasons. By becoming a sports official, I inadvertently joined a close knit fraternity of people who all share the same bond. We all care about our craft of officiating sports properly and upholding the integrity of each game. We get joy out of doing our job properly, regardless of who wins and loses. We all have to deal with the same people who don't understand that yelling and screaming at officials is not really that smart of an idea. It is one of the paradoxes of brotherhood because you never actually have to pledge yourself to group like you were trying to join a college fraternity; you just automatically become part of it. As Groucho Marx once said, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." And as that holds true to my standards, I still ended up being part of this club! To this day, even after ten years of doing this job, I still get anxiety before stepping onto the field prior to each game. Thankfully, this doesn't scare me as much for two reasons. First, thanks to researching this phenomenon within the field of sports psychology, I've worked at trying to understand that this anxiety can actually be interpreted as excitement for something about which I simply care. Second, in talking with other officials, I've found that some of my colleagues who have been doing this far longer than I have still experience the same thing. So I'm not alone. Why then would we continue to experience this anxiety or excitement? The obvious answer is because we, as officials, care about the job we do. We don't want to mess up. We want to get every call right. In theory, we are in the business of customer service, and our job is to make sure that every participant walks away with a positive experience, regardless of outcome. One of the best parts of the job of officiating is when a member of a losing team comes up to me after a game to shake my hand. It's easy for someone who just won to thank me for a good job; but getting someone who just lost to thank me for coming out shows class and respect, and it is reciprocated. In fact, one could make the argument that this experience of anxiety holds true for anything of value in life. Although anxiety is usually defined as the emotion felt when something horrible could happen (even though it probably won't), how many times do we feel anxiety prior to something we know has the potential to be very good? As much as we take the time to understand anxiety from a psychological standpoint in the hope of curing or preventing it since it has such a negative connotation, there is one quantum of solace that must be highlighted: having anxiety about something usually means you care, and that's a great thing. So how does this relate back to officiating again? Well, if I experience some form of anxiety prior to officiating a baseball game, it must mean I care about the game and the job that I will do. The big question now, as we get into the meat of this discussion, is: do all sports officials feel this way in some form? And if not, why? In ten years of umpiring baseball, for every large faction of good umpires I've encountered, I've also encountered a small number of officials who make me scratch my head and wonder why they're here. It's difficult to nail down and summarize, but much like the uncertainty of the strike zone (see what I did there?), you know it when you see it in someone. It's natural to then start to ask questions about where this behavior originates within each person. Does it come from a background of being bullied? By becoming an official, you immediately become the authority figure with the last word. You are the judge and jury on the field, so if anybody starts to give you grief, you have the ability to enforce a penalty, which you may not have had in social situations throughout life. Is it an ego trip? Some officials need the feeling of being the authority figure in order to feed their thirst for power. Maybe they don't get that in their life, either at home, at work, or even social circles. The list really could go on for a long time regarding why certain people get into officiating if they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What's interesting, though, is that this behavior can then also manifest itself in circumstances that don't directly relate to on-field officiating. For example, the state of New Jersey has instituted a new requirement for all state-certified officials for high school sports that they are to purchase and wear a specific mandatory uniform for each sport. It ultimately boils down to each official having to purchase a new set of shirts, jackets, and/or hats that vary from sport to sport. For example, as a baseball official, I was asked to purchase a new blue umpire shirt that had our New Jersey logo sublimated on the front and an American flag sublimated on the sleeve. I also purchased the optional long sleeve version of the same shirt, and I will probably eventually purchase the necessary jackets as well. Conversely, football officials were asked to purchase black and white striped shirts that had the same logos in the same spots. They were also asked to purchase hats with the logo embroidered on the front. They also had the option, like me, of getting other shirts with the logo on them for various weather-related situations. The goal was to have each official in each sport wearing the exact same basic uniform with little to no margin for error regarding looking identical. This change in uniform was implemented over a three-year period to allow officials, and their representative organizations, to prepare for the change. It allowed them to budget money for the purchase as well as consider buying the shirts in bulk in order to save money. I have never seen grown men have such a backlash or problem over what to wear. Officials have gone on record saying they think the new uniforms are ugly and shouldn't have to wear them. Some officials have complained because the manufacturer had the shirts made in an American territory rather than the continental USA, thereby undermining our economy and society while also tying that argument into the shirts being poor quality. Certain officials just didn't like change. Others were upset that they were being forced to spend money for these shirts. (For the record, each shirt cost less than the fee received to officiate one game, on average.) As someone who has some perspective in life, I'd like to step back and ask one question: "Are you guys serious?" Are we really making a big deal over uniforms for officials? It's not like we're being asked to go out on the field wearing pink thongs and nothing else. (Although, I'm sure that would be a sight to see...) The point is that some of my brothers and sisters in sports officiating create conflict themselves. Whether on a grand scale or a very small specific scale, elements of ego and selfishness come into play and take the focus away from what really matters in the context of our argument, which is doing a good job while out on the field. That's not to say that all conflict is avoidable. Everyone in every walk of life faces conflict in some way. Even I face it as an official when not on the field, per se. I question whether or not to accept certain assignments when the fee for officiating the game is not near what I deem to be what my time, energy, and service is worth. I also try not to officiate games when I know a certain team or coach is going to give me an unnecessary headache based on how they argue with officials. I guess I just wonder why some officials have conflict follow them. Why do some officials refuse to take a step back, look in the proverbial mirror, and ask if they can justify why they officiate or why they have issues with certain items in the world of officiating? Why do some officials need the feeling of getting into uniform and stepping out on the field in order to justify their decisions in life (or to run and hide from the real problems in their lives)? Why do some officials even bother to continue to officiate if all they do is complain about it? Why do some officials think that certain aspects of the job are "beneath" them? Do some officials actually think that people come to games to watch them officiate? The only people who go to the game to watch the officials are other officials, friends and family of the official, and people there to evaluate the officials. So do you officiate for the right reasons, whatever they may be? In the event you didn't know, this week is National Hazing Prevention Week. However, what you might have known was that professional baseball teams take this time of year to haze.
With the pictures beginning to circulate social media of professional athletes being forced to dress up in some sort of ridiculous outfit in order to "initiate" them to the big leagues, I thought this would be the time to discuss just how ridiculous these stunts are, how detrimental they can be to all humans, and discuss some of the offshoots of hazing that are equally dangerous. According to HazingPrevention.org (which is a fantastic resource), hazing is defined as "any action taken or any situation created intentionally that causes embarrassment, harassment or ridicule and risks emotional and/or physical harm to members of a group or team, whether new or not, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate." Most people who haze, when asked why they do it, usually don't have an answer with any substance. They give the same old song and dance: "We all had to do it to be part of this group." "It's just tradition." "The recruits have to prove their worth!" However, anyone with an I.Q. in double digits could easily realize that those answers don't mean much. Hazing is usually about some sort of power or control. It may be power and control over another person (especially if that person is new or younger). Or, more interestingly, it could be power and control over the inner psyche of the person doing the hazing, as if it were a way to suppress insecurities or pain. There really are a myriad of explanations as to why people haze because of the unique experiences we all have and the emotions they imprint on each person. We can only hope to summarize them as best we can in the hope that this allows us to identify hazing, end it, prevent it, etc. It's tough to tell where hazing originated. I'm sure it's possible that the Apostles hazed new recruits...it's possible, however unlikely. But where it is now is widespread. Most frequently, it is found among kids as young as middle school; it is most prevalent among high school and college students; and adults who belong to certain groups usually populated by kids (or populated by adults who have the mind of children) continue the tradition (hence the sports teams). As wrong as hazing is, one might almost expect such immature behavior from children. After all, they're kids; they probably don't know any better. Again, I cannot express how wrong it is, nor do I endorse it at any level, but for the purposes of responsibility felt by others, younger people probably do not have the experience or common sense to be able to step back and understand their mistakes. That's why it is so surprising that hazing continues to exist as the participants get older. Prior to reaching a true adulthood (which is probably closer to the age of 30 than it is 18), it's really up to the elder statesmen to police the younger generation and prevent hazing from occurring. Many states have passed laws regarding hazing that apply to students of middle school, high school, and college that require that the adult supervisors of groups that could contain hazing must police it and stop it at all costs. Usually, if any problems exist as a result of this, it's one of two very common ones. First, there is a huge debate coming from the adults because of the paradox of whether or not to help. In groups such as sports teams at these ages, hazing tends to occur typically in a locker room. So if an adult coach goes in to monitor his team with the intent of preventing or stopping hazing, there could be that one odd parent that then accuses the coach of being a pedophile. Second, as the age of the participants get older (such as college aged athletes), the chances that the supervising adults relate more to the younger ones as peers or equals rather than members of the coach/player or teacher/student relationship increase. That relation can sometimes lead to the a desire for the authority figure to relive younger days and bond with the younger ones in a manner that discards any respect for the prevention of hazing or similar activities. Ultimately, every justification given as to why hazing is endorsed is frankly false. It does not build camaraderie or create bonds among people. The psychological damage done to victims of hazing can be so deep and dormant that it can surface at the worst possible time and create complex issues that only therapists could understand. Victims of hazing frequently develop poor habits that can include the abuse of drugs or alcohol, the abuse of other people, destructive tendencies in relationships, illogical fears, and plenty of other things that you wouldn't wish on your loved ones. Organizations such as HazingPrevention.org cover the topics of hazing much more in depth and do justice to it better that I could. But there are a few specific topics that need to be discussed here. First, why do professional athletes feel the need to continue the practice of hazing? Could it be a matter of subconsciously living loosely due to the absurd amounts of money they make in providing entertainment to fans? Is it a refusal to grow up and remain youthful as long as possible so as to not face the reality of the passage of time and our ever present mortality? Or is just arrogance, plain and simple? Whatever it is, one of the worst parts about allowing them to continue to haze is that it gives off the impression to the younger generations that hazing is acceptable, when it is clearly not. And unfortunately, some of the more recent practices of hazing among youth are far more dangerous than the practices used by professional athletes. I'm not endorsing any of it, but making players dress up in a goofy outfit, as wrong as it is, is not on the same scale of rape and sodomy. Our youth are very impressionable, even into the years where they are, by our standards, considered legal adults. And in this age of technology where we have access to everybody at all times thanks to social media and other outlets, the impressionable youth have a greater chance of finding out about the behavior of their role models, whether positive or negative. The real hypocrisy, however, is the fact that celebrities and professional athletes will get behind plenty of charitable causes when their movement becomes strong enough, yet the prevention of hazing is almost an affront to the sacred mystery of the team clubhouse. The prevention of domestic violence is all the rage these days, so how is the prevention of hazing that far removed? Second, hazing just doesn't occur behind closed doors. The celebrations that occur in sports when victory is achieved in an improbable manner are equally guilty of being categorized as hazing. In simpler terms, dumping a cooler of Gatorade on the guy who just hit the home run to win the game is clearly hazing. There's one difference, however: these practices of hazing can actually cause severe physical damage that can sideline professional athletes due to injury occurred outside the field of play. The Baltimore Orioles were the first team to actually recognize this. In the recent past, when the Orioles would achieve a walk-off win, center fielder Adam Jones would usually come running out, find the hero as he was being interviewed for television or radio, and hit him with a pie. The Orioles quickly realized that the chances of someone trying to avoid the pie and subsequently pulling a muscle or getting injured in another way was too high for the practice to continue. As these players are assets and investments, the front office doesn't want to risk their investment over a stupid injury like this. Should the player get hurt during a game, that's a risk the team is willing to take in return for winning games. But imagine if your star first baseman, responsible for hitting 60 home runs each year while making a cool $30,000,000, suffers a grade four oblique strain trying to avoid a pie from Adam Jones. The chances of your team winning 90 games and making the playoffs just decreased so significantly that it is now going to be hard to justify to the season ticket holders why they're paying so much money to come see the games. The point here is that our adults and our role models need to do a better job of setting the example for our youth. This is a sentiment that goes without saying for a multitude of subjects, so we're not breaking any new ground with this. Another similar point that needs to be reinforced is to follow the golden rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. If you would not want to be the victim of hazing, why would you participate in hazing someone else? Finally, it's time for Major League Baseball to step in and outlaw hazing. If laws are going to be written to deter negative behavior so as to not reinforce it to the youth, hazing certainly deserves attention. Hey, it's tough to change the world, and it's tough to tell people to just stop this. If someone actually wants to be hazed, it's hard to stop that person. But a good benchmark is to make sure that you don't have to be part of it if you don't want to. If those boundaries were respected more often, we would have our first major victory in the elimination of hazing altogether. I love baseball. From the time pitchers and catchers report until the final out of the World Series, my life revolves around baseball, which doesn't say much for my actual career as a musician. So naturally, you'd think I want more of it in anyway possible, right?
In theory, yes. In a perfect world, I think Spring Training games should begin around Valentine's Day and the World Series shouldn't end until close to Thanksgiving. I'm sure many of my relationships would suffer, especially since I plan most of my life around watching the Yankees, but my loved ones would understand. And if they didn't, I'd get new loved ones. (That was a joke, by the way.) However, in reality, the issue of the length of the baseball season is much more complex than that. Over the past few months, the number of complaints from teams and players about the ridiculousness of the schedule have increased, and rightfully so. Teams that play on Sunday night at 8pm in one city shouldn't have to play on Monday at 1pm in another city. Teams that play on the west coast that have to fly east following that game should not have to play that day. Balance and sense have both left the world of baseball. The reason for this is two-fold. First, we have a significant unbalance in the world of determining fairness during a championship season. There are too many non-economical factors that come into play, such as who plays who and how many times and where, etc. It seems that every minute detail is examined when changes are proposed to determine fairness, let alone the economic effect. The second reason is the economic factor. National television contracts, engaging match-ups, and anything else that maximizes revenue is at the forefront of this product known as baseball. The fact of the matter is that the powers that be have let the monster become too great, possibly due to the steroid era or the strike of 1994 and the decline in interest in baseball. The good news is that this isn't a scary monster that lives under your bed. This is a reasonable monster that can be contained. But it involves a lot of sacrifice in the short-term for a hopefully better product in the long-term, and we all know that trying to tell people to make monetary sacrifices is usually met with blank stares. Many baseball players and those associated with teams on a day-to-day basis (such as uniformed personnel, front office staff, medical staff, broadcasters, etc.) will tell you that the grind of 162 games over no more than 183 days is very difficult. It puts stress and strain on your body, both physically and mentally. You have to make so many sacrifices for your employment, whether it be keeping your body in the best possible shape or limiting time with your family. And if you think that's bad, imagine what the umpires have to go through. Unlike players, they never have a "home field." They travel for almost ten months of the entire year. Sure, they get vacation time, but their salaries are nothing compared to those of the players, nor do they get compensated for being the so-called "villains" for making calls that might go against one team. However, the various revenue streams for baseball have actually increased significantly in the past few years thanks to one of the greatest inventions since indoor plumbing: the MLB At-Bat application. This application followed in the footsteps of another advancement in media, namely the regional sports network. Prior to these two inventions, baseball was a sport that was not easily attainable. Sure, you had the radio...if you were within their broadcast range. You had nationally broadcast games. You had the newspaper. You could go to the game for the full experience. But thanks to these, baseball has flooded the market with games. Depending on where you live, you can watch almost every single game throughout the entire season for every team! Compare this to a sport like football. Football has become a national sport. The television contracts alone have made games accessible to fans across the country, and the advent of the NFL Sunday Ticket perpetuates that. Baseball, however, has become a regional sport. Unlike football where you could find a Green Bay Packers fan in New Jersey quite easily, you won't find a Minnesota Twins fan in Tennessee. Unless you're a fan of the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, or Red Sox, to name just a select few, fans are not spread nationally in baseball. Consider this as well. Football has a stranglehold on the tickets to their games due to supply and demand as well as the television contracts. There are only eight home games per season per team, and if the games aren't sold out, they get blacked out in their market. Baseball has 81 home games per team, and the number of people going out to games during the regular season has dwindled, even in major markets. A sellout in baseball just doesn't occur as frequently anymore. Why? Because people can watch the entire game from the comfort of their own home. The same could be said for football as well, but there is an intangible lure of attending a football game that cannot be recreated in other sports. We could continue to dissect each individual economical aspect of this argument, but we're going to continue to circle around to the same conclusion: if baseball wants to grow in popularity and revenue, it may have to depreciate financially in the short-term in order to make huge leaps a few years down the line. So how do we do this? Well, there's one big issue that has to be addressed first, and that is the possibility of expansion. If new stadiums can finally get built in the greater Oakland and Tampa Bay markets for their respective teams, then baseball's next venture will be to expand from 30 to 32 teams. So in order to propose any sort of plan for the long-term, we have to consider this inevitability and factor that into our discussion. Let's make the assumption that the new stadium deals are done and the two teams in question will remain in their respective locations. Let's also assume that expansion is on the way, and the National League will add a team in Montreal, and the American League will add a team in Portland, Oregon. (The big rumor was that Mexico City was the target, but based on the geography of the city and how much teams would have to travel, as well as the political unrest in Mexico in general, a safer bet is to keep this team domestic. You'll see the reasoning behind Portland later when we show you the divisions.) Now, consider some of the things that are currently in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that need to be held over or amended. ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball is the cause of one of the major concerns based on the travel and game time the following day. MLB would need to negotiate a new deal with ESPN that allows for the Sunday night match-ups to be determined during the finalization of the schedule so that adjustments can be made to give teams necessary days off following those games. Further, a stricter rule regarding days off following travel from the west coast (specifically the Pacific Time Zone) needs to be addressed. We can't have teams flying from San Diego to Chicago to play a day game. Alternatively, the teams currently have the control to set game times. If that control was given to MLB, many of the problems would simply disappear. We could also go on about what else is in the CBA and needs to be addressed, but if you try to read and dissect the CBA, you will either automatically become a lawyer or start to bleed out of your ears. Yes, it's that long and complicated. So just trust me. Realignment would need to occur to satisfy the new 16-team leagues. Here's my proposal for divisions: AL East: New York Boston Baltimore Toronto AL North: Cleveland Minnesota Detroit Chicago AL South: Tampa Bay Kansas City Texas Houston AL West: Los Angeles Oakland Portland Seattle NL East: New York Philadelphia Washington Montreal NL North: Pittsburgh Chicago Milwaukee Cincinnati NL South: Miami Atlanta St. Louis Colorado NL West: Los Angeles San Francisco San Diego Arizona If you notice, many of the teams are aligned so that natural rivalries are in the corresponding divisions. The Yankees and the Mets are both in the East, along with the Orioles and Nationals as well as the Blue Jays and the Expos. The Cubs and White Sox are both in the North, along with the Indians and Reds (the Ohio series). The Rays and Marlins are both in the South, along with the Royals and Cardinals (the Missouri series). And in the west, the Angels and Dodgers as well as the Athletics and Giants are maintained. (Also maintained are the Padres and Mariners who formulate a rivalry since they share a Spring Training facility.) Regarding the schedule for the regular season, this is where people will begin to disagree with me. Two major things need to happen. First, the number of regular season games will be reduced to 156, which means each team will lose three home games. Second, the "cross-town rivalry" Interleague Series will be eliminated and only played during the regular season once every four years. If we use the Yankees are our example, then the makeup of the schedule starts like this: -The Yankees will play 20 games against each of the teams in their division: the Red Sox, Orioles, and Blue Jays. There will be six series for each match-up: three at home and three on the road. Two of the three at each location will be 3-game series, and one will be a 4-game series. This totals 60 games. -The Yankees will play six games against every other team in the American League: three at home and three on the road. This totals 72 games. -The Yankees will finally play one division from the National League for Interleague Play. This will rotate each year, and they will not play the same division twice until they have played each division once. They will play six games against each team in that division: three at home and three on the road. This totals 24 games. Grand total: 156 games. By eliminating the Yankees vs. Mets Subway Series and only playing it once every four years, it builds excitement and juice and momentum. It plays into the supply and demand that will drive ticket sales based on the rarity. Baseball is so over-saturated with these money-making match-ups that they lose their luster after a while. So how would the playoffs work? We would have to resort to a system where 8 teams from each league make the playoffs. The division winners would be ranked as the top four seeds in each league, and the second place teams would be the Wild Cards, ranked fifth through eighth based on winning percentage. Now we expand the playoffs so that the first round is a best-of-three, which features 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 5. The home-field would be in a 1-1-1 format with a travel day in between each game. Perhaps we'd call this the Wild Card Series? The ALWS and NLWS? The second round would feature the remaining teams in a best-of-five series, currently known as the Division Series. The final two rounds would be best-of-seven. The most important part of the playoff expansion, however, would lie in the revenue sharing. The current revenue sharing system works, but it would have to be amended if each team is going to give up three home games per season. Maybe a percentage of the revenue from the first round is distributed to the teams that didn't make the playoffs? There are numerous benefits of this as well that go beyond the economic benefits. The amount of days off would increase in both the regular season and the playoffs. Pitchers would have a better opportunity to rest and not get pushed into ridiculous amounts of work, since we spend so much time worrying about them now. The final controversy here, however, would be the reduction of salaries for players. If players are playing six less games per regular season, it stands to reason that their average annual salary can also reduce. They'll make it back based on the fact that more teams make the playoffs, but it evens out the fact that the price we pay for baseball can get a little too high from time to time. Look, I'm a moderate who leans to the right economically, but there has to be something said about the philosophy of our star athletes (who are essentially entertainers) getting paid more than the actual heroes on this planet, such as our soldiers and veterans, our educators, or our fire/police/EMT personnel. I don't mean to sound like my heart is bleeding, but those are actual heroes, not people who can hit a ball 400 feet. As a player myself, I know how difficult it is to play baseball. Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do athletically well. You're hitting a round ball with a round bat that's coming at you at almost 100mph on a downward plane, and you don't even know the trajectory the ball will take (if it's a fastball or curveball). You have to take extra special care of yourself, travel at ungodly hours, and not see your family a lot. I'm not saying a large salary isn't reflective of the work done, and I'm also not saying that we shouldn't let the market work itself out. But there is cause for conversation there. Hell, it's evident even within the sport itself: umpires get paid far too less than players at all levels. And minor league players get paid far too less than major league players. Okay, I'll get off the soap box now... The conclusion here is that change is coming to baseball. Baseball has an opportunity to go light years ahead of other sports if they play their cards right. A mix of tradition and modernity will ultimately make baseball a powerhouse industry in the 21st Century. But growing pains will be inevitable, and we can't be afraid of them if we're going to make this sport come out on top. When Harold Reynolds and Tom Verducci went off on home plate umpire Tom Hallion during Game 4 of the Nationals/Dodgers NLDS over a check swing call, the first thing I did was mute the television so I didn't have to hear the inexplicable nonsense both were spewing. Like I said the other day, analysts should be qualified to do do color commentary on television, and like our friends at ESPN, neither Reynolds nor Verducci qualify either.
In previous articles, we've discussed the strike zone with relation to the graphics used to try to display some sort of representation of each pitch and how inaccurate and flat out wrong they are. We now will delve into the topic of the check swing so that you are properly educated on that as well. If you read the Official Baseball Rule Book, there is actually no language that specifically defines what is or is not a swing. Commentators will try to give you an idea of what umpires use to determine swings, but none of them are actually rules. All the rule book states is that it is the job of the home plate umpire to declare each pitch that the batter does not attempt to hit either ball or a strike (obviously excluding hit batsmen and all other situations, etc.). Further, it also states that if the home plate umpire declares a pitch a ball and that a batter did not swing at it, then, in the event of a check swing, where a batter starts and stops his swing, the catcher or other defensive player or manager may request an appeal to the requisite base umpire to ask if the batter swung. That's it. There is nothing about whether the bat crossed the front plane of the plate, or if the bat head went through the strike zone. There is nothing about if the wrists of the batter "break" or "roll over." A swing is defined by the batter's intent to strike a pitch. That's all we've got. Put simply: umpires have to judge the intent of the batter to strike a pitch. How they do it is up to them. If you're a thinking person, you may be thinking, "Hey, isn't every check swing an intent to strike a pitch?" The answer is yes. So by that logic, even if a hitter "checks" his swing, you could make the argument that the hitter had intent to strike the pitch at some point, which would qualify as a strike, no matter how far the bat head goes. You can imagine how many more upset players, coaches, and fans we would have if this is how swings were adjudicated. Now, let's go back to fact for a moment and introduce more rules. In the baseball umpire manual, it is clearly noted that it is the responsibility of the home plate umpire to determine if a batter swings at a pitch. He is the first "line of defense" when dealing with the gray area of check swings. If he does not declare it a swing and the pitch is declared a ball, only upon the request of a member of the defensive team may be determine whether or not to ask a base umpire for an appeal. Translation: the plate umpire makes the call, and he does not have to go to a base umpire unless he decides to. So don't get upset when the plate umpire makes the call himself and refuses to ask for help. That same thinking person is probably wondering, "How can the plate umpire see both the pitch and the swing at the same time?" Great question: he probably can't. However, umpires are taught to stay with the pitch until he is sure the pitch cannot be a strike, at which point he can move his eyes to the swing. If the pitch is in the dirt and bounces before home plate, good umpires will be trained to move their eyes to the potential swing immediately after the bounce. It is in these situations where an umpire cannot watch both which explains why the option for the appeal is necessary. But it is also necessary that we emphasize that the home plate umpire is not required to ask for an appeal, even if requested by the defense. It is equally important to mention again (if it hasn't been made clear enough) that the home plate umpire cannot ask for an appeal once the swing has been called by the home plate umpire and the strike has been assessed. If you really want to bake your noodle (is that the expression?), consider this. In most forms of baseball below Major League Baseball, a four man umpiring crew is not always available. The most common permutation is the two man crew with one behind the plate and one on the bases. A three man crew is considered a luxury in many forms of baseball. And unfortunately, many leagues consisting of kids younger than 10/11 years old only ask for one umpire per game in order to save money. So if the standard is to ask the first base umpire for help with a right handed batter's swing, as well as conversely asking the third base umpire when a lefty is up, what happens when less than four umpires are working a game and umpires are in different positions that are not directly down the foul line? Answer: a lot of checked swings. For example, let's say there are only two umpires working a game. With a runner on first base, the base umpire moves to the "B" position, which is approximately halfway between the dirt on the pitchers mound and the dirt of the infield on the first base side, using the tangential line from the back corner of home plate to the edge of the dirt on the mound as a guide as to where to line up. How can that umpire see a right handed batter check his swing (or any batter, for that matter)? It's the same thing in that same game with nobody on and a left handed batter up. Although the base umpire is in the "A" position down the first base line in foul territory, he cannot clearly see the lefty check his swing. In these situations, umpires are taught that they are to determine the batter checked his swing (as in he did not swing) unless they are 100% sure and have clear and convincing evidence that the batter swung. It's a good thing we have sub-varsity time limits in my county! So the next time you listen to an uninformed commentator explain what he thinks is a bad call, or the next time you feel short-changed when you or your kid is called out on a swing, remember that umpires are asked to gauge intent to strike the pitch and have nothing else in the book to help them. In fact, they're doing YOU a favor by not calling every questionable swing a strike! After all, doesn't every half swing have intent? Welcome to the very first post to the new location of THE STRIKE ZONE, the official blog of The OSIP Foundation, Inc.! My name is Jack Furlong, and yes, that is me under the mask!
This blog is unique in that it mirrors the subjects of OSIP and is promoted as such, yet it also holds some independence in that the opinions expressed are solely mine and do not reflect any other person or organization. We will be working diligently over the next few weeks to set up this blog to become live and regularly updated, so please stay tuned for updates as we transfer the blog here from its previous site. |
Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|