THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
During the course of the 2019 MLB regular season, there was an increase in poor behavior that required policing, thus drawing the ire of the public and the media. But the ire was not drawn because of the behavior, but rather the psychological projection onto those visibly doing the policing.
The most obvious example is the New York Yankees, whose culture of class that was so prominent in the days of Jeter and Rivera cannot be matched by Judge and Gregorius. The "leaders" on the team, notably manager Aaron Boone and elder statesmen CC Sabathia and Brett Gardner, have led the team into being examples for kids that promote behavior that continues to divide our society and grow hatred rather than understanding. The umpires, who are the on-field police (as opposed to the league office, which is practically invisible), become the target of hatred spewed from the uneducated and primitively toxic men playing the game, and yet the umpires are gagged by the league to refrain from responding to such personal attacks. The media perpetuates this due to their platform, mixed with their lack of research done on the subject of officiating. Not since the great Vin Scully has a broadcaster actually given the officials their due respect and silently demanded that those who listen to his voice do the same. And outside of our friends at Close Call Sports, rarely (if ever) has a journalist with prominence stepped up to the plate with the defense of the integrity of the officials. What those who bash the umpires fail to realize is that the psychology of their words and actions speak volumes about their egos, characters, and personalities. As Gil Imber from Close Call Sports has said in an eloquently written article (and quoted on his various audio/video posts), criticism of sports officials in a position of authority, especially in such settings with vehemence, is actually a projection of the dissatisfaction with oneself onto an innocent victim. To say, "I'm dissatisfied with this umpire," is really translated to mean, "I'm dissatisfied with myself." Let's make a quick clarification, though. The above translation does not mean, "I disagree with this umpire." We are allowed to share a different opinion, especially if the call was incorrect. A pitch that is two tenths of an inch off the outside corner of the plate is, by rule, not a strike, regardless if it's "too close to take." But respectful disagreement can be communicated without the behavior of a petulant child. Back to the psychological projection, though: we must also remember that the denial we may have in accepting this fact is par for the course. People are afraid to lower their defenses and be vulnerable, especially when it comes to the almost certain inner examination of one's shortcomings. If we can avoid feeling something bad, why would we put ourselves in a position to feel less than desirable emotions? The first step to closing this division is empathy. Somebody has to extend the olive branch, and perhaps that someone is you. Can you feel empathy for the players who feel wronged, even if you don't agree with their reaction? Can you feel empathy for the umpires who are not out to be unfair towards a certain player or team? Can you feel empathy for the media members who are lost when it comes to discussing the topic? The second step is to begin to stop identifying with your point of view or opinion on the subject. To identify with it means to be unable to separate who you are from that particular thought. When dissent occurs and it differs from our opinion, we take that other opinion personally and believe that others are out to attack us. This is what happens all too quickly on the field: players and coaches immediately believe that umpires are attacking them with their judgments and interpretations, as opposed to simply doing their job. When a player stops thinking that he has been "wronged" or personally offended by what he perceives to be a bad call, that player will stop projecting such dissatisfaction with oneself onto the entity he thinks slighted him. The third step? Love. Sportsmanship. Practice what you preach.
0 Comments
Let me preface this entire post by saying this is all me. I don't intend to offend anyone with this post, but I know how sensitive some of these topics can be. As such, I would ask that anyone who has a problem with these thoughts solely look to me, not this organization.
Also, let me state that I am merely suggesting similarities with these arguments in order to make a point. I don't want to suggest that the current battles negate any previous battles, nor do I want to diminish the gravitas of our history and the pain felt by so many to this day. These discussions are meant to spark conversation, never to be divisive. While surveying the landscape of the ridiculous hatred of MLB umpire Angel Hernandez, I noticed a trend that I probably should have noticed much earlier. Fans of opposing teams shared a bond in a mutual hatred of Hernandez. In essence, two fan bases that would normally rip each other to shreds have found a common ground of people to hate rather than each other: umpires. It's not quite "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Maybe it's closer to the two major political parties finding common ground in agreeing on patriotism. Perhaps the better image is of two rival fans arguing with each other at the bar while watching their teams square off against one another, only to find the one place they can agree is on their hatred of the umpires calling the game. The idea of finding common ground (or at least reducing tension) between rivals is, in theory, positive. But the method used of finding a new entity to hate together becomes faulty when said entity is innocent. It would be one thing if political parties came together to hate terrorists, which has occurred in history. Terrorists, by definition, are not people that are normally positive. (Even if they are claiming the title of "freedom fighter," the nature of the entire scenario is a bit more conflicted based on the violence.) Officials, on the other hand, are not the same negative entity. However, based on the nature of how fan bases can agree upon such hatred, we reach the unfortunate and incorrect conclusion that officials should be the target of such disdain. This faulty logic is the type of material that leads us, as a group of people (or even a society) down the wrong path in judging a group of people improperly. As a result, we can simplify this equation. People hate officials simply because they are officials. It is compounded by inaccurate interpretations of data rather than fully understanding rules and mechanics. Thus, it has nothing to do with actual performance nor the content of the character of each person. The official is hated because he/she wears the stripes/uniform. If you've successfully completed a high school social studies course about the 20th century, you may have encountered this template before: people are being judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. Substitute "skin" with "uniform" and you'll have an accurate description of this situation. The systematic hatred of officials (simply because they're officials) is a new type of racism. There, I said it. Please note this has nothing to do with whether an official is of a particular race/gender/ethnicity/disability/religion/sexual orientation, etc. It is simply because the person puts on the uniform of an official and goes to work as an official that the hatred is directed at him/her. Without going through the entire dissertation on the nature of the civil rights movement, I think it's a very basic, safe, and general summary to simply say that African Americans were disliked because they had a different skin color. People ignorantly perceived and inferred things that led to feeling slighted by the African American community. Again, it's not an exact "copy and paste" job, but the same is happening with officials because there is an ignorance on the part of the fans. Rather than taking the time to understand the calls made by the officials based on rules and mechanics, fans just assume the officials are not only wrong, but the sworn enemy. This ideology is perpetuated by the impressionable behavior of fans everywhere not understanding the consequences of their actions. That behavior breeds the ignorance. It is a vicious cycle that continues to create and grow an unnecessary hatred towards a group of people that have done nothing to deserve the hatred. Now, perhaps you might suggest that a bad call by the official is what causes this to occur. Not only does MLB data show that their umpires are right more than 97% of the time when calling balls and strikes (which is higher than the 91% of the correct calls made by the computerized strike zone), but the laziness on the part of the fan to understand how and why a call is made is not excused when the officials are right more than 97% of the time. So, the majority of the "bad calls" are actually correct calls improperly judged by an uneducated fan. But let's go deeper. Let's say that the bad call is actually incorrect and falls into that margin that is less than 3%. There are two psychological elements that are forgotten when fans are in the heat of association with a team. First, fans will forget that the officials are not actively trying to get the calls wrong. If that is ever not the case, then the situation is usually a case similar to a bribery or other legal issue, not the content of the character of the official in a vacuum. Second, fans will associate with their teams so deeply that they will assume that a bad call is a personal attack against each fan, rather than just an incorrectly adjudicated decision that only affects a game and not the realities of life and death. Put simply, the hatred for officials has grown in the same ignorant manner as general racism, and it is perpetuated in a silent way where the overwhelming majority of people do not have the ability (or the knowledge) to stand up for the officials. How do we solve this? Well, if we still have problems with racism in the 21st century, it stands to reason that the problem of racism against officials will also not be eliminated anytime soon. But we can hope to curb it in the small ways that we can. Individually, it is incumbent upon all people to look inside their own heart and ask if their view on officials is appropriate. Further, the question must be asked if each person's behavior towards officials mirrors that view in a proper way. But it also comes down to similar things that we must do to combat all racism. For example, we know that certain words/names are very racist in nature. The same holds true for officials. Terms such as "ump show" are actually very offensive because they contain the negative connotation that demeans officials who are trying to do the best job they can. If we are serious about eliminating the unfair treatment of minorities, officials should be considered here as well. They are the minority compared to the participants, coaches, and fans, and they are treated the worst. It's not about being overly sensitive. It's about eliminating hate. Competition tends to have a clearly defined distinction: my victory equals your failure. That is, if two parties are competing for the same thing, one will win and one will lose. And if multiple parties are competing for the same thing, one will win and many will lose.
In some respects, that's not always the case. Some competitions have multiple winners, or at least multiple parties who "make the cut." The best example I can think of in my other industry of music is getting a gig at a particular venue. Whether it is a club, concert hall, restaurant, or wherever, there are probably a limited number of available slots for an artist to perform, so the goal is to fill those slots with a variety of acts so as not to saturate the event. One musician is not necessarily going to play every Saturday night at the same restaurant; there is probably a rotation of musicians who come in over a set period of time. Therefore, if the competition is between getting the gig and not getting the gig in this case, you have a better chance of succeeding, and your success does not automatically equal the failure of someone else. However, it is very easy to forget this. No matter the industry, our failure can easily seep into our thoughts when we see someone else succeed, especially when it has no correlation to our situation! If I see a colleague succeeding at a gig at a restaurant where I once tried to get a gig years prior, why am I jealous? That doesn't mean that I am not a successful musician! I can have tons of other gigs that allow me to perform and compensate me, but the fact that I didn't get that one gig and someone else did still irks me. These are the situations where many of us need to take the additional time to think through these thoughts and readjust our views. If a baseball roster has 25 guys on it, then 25 guys are going to make the cut, not just one. Sure, there may be competition to earn a specific spot, but pulling the lens back will show that the example is somewhat similar to the idea above. The point is that competition sometimes leads us to become jealous or wish even wish failure on others when it really has to bearing to our success. Our paths sometimes lead us to something greater, and we have to be open and awake to that. This past MLB season saw something happen that not many people noticed:
The World Umpire Association (WUA), which is union that represents MLB umps, rebranded as the Major League Baseball Umpires Association (MLBUA), and became the fifth of the "big five" professional team sports to have a major online presence through websites and social media. MLB umpires join officials from the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLS as becoming more transparent to the public. Granted, the public will probably go the way of abusing this privilege (see the #RefWatchParty that occurred during the NBA Finals), but the intent to keep the conversation open and ongoing is a fantastic thing. The union has actually been very active on Twitter (@MLBUA), showcasing good calls by umpires in an attempt to educate the general public on how they work. Possibly the best part of this work, however, is even more highlights for the UMPS CARE charity. Officials in these major sports take unfortunate abuse from the uneducated public. Players, coaches, and the media have a tendency to speak and act in ways that do not represent the educated point of view of the official. These actions speak to a psychological issue of scapegoating, leaving the officials as the common enemy among rivals. The officials are tired of being treated as sub-humans. These platforms will allow their voices to be heard. The public would be smart to recognize this and know they are proud to uphold the integrity of the game and do their job. On August 31, 2018, a feat occurred in a baseball game between the Yankees and Tigers that doesn't happen too often: both managers were ejected.
Aaron Boone (Yankees) was ejected by Home Plate Umpire Nic Lentz for arguing balls and strikes. Ron Gardenhire (Tigers) was ejected by First Base Umpire Paul Nauert for arguing a check swing no-call. Both cases contained an element of absurdity that further proves that the theater of baseball disqualifications regarding managers is not only a joke to the game, but also an abhorrent way to influence others who witness it. Boone took exception with the strike zone of Lentz to the point where he made contact with the umpire and put on a demonstration in a catcher's crouch that did nothing more than delay the game and solidify his ignorance towards the arbiters of the game. What Boone probably didn't know is that, according to the official plot of the zone after the game by Brooks Baseball Pitch f/x tool, Lentz really only missed two pitches the entire game. Further, Boone was clearly upset at his team's lack of offense and used the ejection as a way to "fire up" his team. This translates to the idea of yelling vociferously at an innocent umpire to vent your frustrations over your own team's inability to hit with the hope that your players decide to change their ways somehow. The fact of the matter is that these arguments are rarely filled with the tirade we think they are. Usually, the manager is yelling about how bad his team is, leaving the umpire the unfortunate target of hate where the fans usually pile on him as the bad guy for tossing the manager (assuming it's the home team). In fact, even if the manager is yelling about his displeasure with an umpire, the confrontation has the ability to make even a professional umpire begin to question his calls, resulting in more displeasure. On the flip side, Gardenhire was ejected when Nauert ruled that Yankees hitter Luke Voit did not swing at a pitch. It was a close pitch and a tough call to make in real time, but the replay seemed to make me think the call was incorrect: Voit did offer at the pitch. Gardenhire's argument resulted in ridiculous accusations that Nauert could obviously see through, but it wasn't until the argument finished that it was clear it was a joke of an argument. As soon as Gardenhire turned around to walk back to the clubhouse, he looked right at Voit who was standing on first base (the no-call resulted in a walk) and asked him, "Did you swing?" as he walked by, followed by a smirk . Even Gardenhire knew this was a joke. A few days later, Boone was hit with a one-game suspension for making contact with Lentz during the confrontation. To quote Boone: "I was arguing, I got kicked out of the game, I reacted how I reacted. Unfortunately, I got a little too close, and I do regret that. I always want to be in control of my emotions, to a degree. But sometimes you also have to state your claim and defend certain things that are important. I definitely shouldn't have nicked his cap." In this brief statement, we got a cop-out about responsibility for one's actions and emotions as well as evidence of misplaced priorities. No mention of an apology...no mention that Lentz actually was doing a good job...just a lame way of getting around talking about something where Boone was at fault. Sorry, Aaron. Cancer is important. Poverty is important. Borderline pitches are not. In our continued discussion on self-esteem and how it relates to sportsmanship and competition, consider the following:
Why does losing lead to poor self-esteem? Well, perhaps it is because most competitors lose most of the time! Think about it statistically. The best probability is a 50/50 chance when the competition consists of two teams (or just competitors). So when competitions increase to more than just two competitors, the odds change and each team has a better chance to lose than to win; that probability of losing directly increases as the number of competitors increases. As such, people who compete are exposed to much more failure than success, whether it be athletics or a simple contest. Further, this is just a macro view of failure being rampant in competition. Specific examples such as the science (or art) of hitting in baseball drive the point home. The best hitters in baseball, on average, get a hit three out of every ten times they come up to bat. That means that the greats who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame failed seven out of every ten times! If people feel the need to prove themselves worthy by winning, they're in for a rude awakening. The worst thing we can do is attach our self-esteem to whether we win or lose at any competition. The snow in New Jersey throughout March kept me from most of my baseball scrimmages, leaving me all of two games (only one behind the plate) to be ready for the regular season. However, one play during my final game proved a very important point.
With a runner on first base, the pitcher, while in the stretch, did not come to a complete stop. My partner correctly ruled it a balk as the pitch was delivered. The batter, however, swung and lined a base hit through the left side of the infield. Immediately, I came out from behind the plate and yelled, "TIME! DEAD BALL!" The first base coach, however, was already disagreeing with me. "You have to play that out! A balk is not a dead ball!" "Yes it is, coach," I said. "In NFHS (high school) baseball, a balk is an immediate dead ball." He immediately dropped his argument, which was amazing, in my opinion. But my partner took the time to explain it to him. The runner from first base was advanced to second, and the batter resumed his at-bat. The conflict that arose is that, in OBR (official baseball rules, which is what MLB uses, as do many other forms of baseball), a balk is a delayed dead ball. That is, you wait for the play to be over before deciding to enforce the balk. In the case above, we would have let the play go, then given the offense the option of taking the balk penalty or the result of the play. However, high school rules do not allow this: they clearly state that the ball is dead immediately and the balk is enforced. It's an odd shame when something good happens, though...what if the batter hit a home run? You guessed it: I become the bad guy and have to nullify the home run to award the balk penalty. Sometimes these rules don't make sense. But it's not my job, as the umpire, to debate the rules. I just have to enforce them. Further, the coaches should probably take the time to understand these rules as well. When offered a high school coaching job, it's not as simple as just teaching the game and leading the team. You have to understand that there are MAJOR DIFFERENCES between high school sports and other levels of those same sports. As much as officials do their homework to know these odd rules, coaches need to do the same. After all, high school athletics are an extension of the classroom. They are another opportunity to educate student athletes on valuable life lessons. We, as coaches and officials, owe it to the kids to get it right. In a society where people are innocent until proven guilty, we must preface this story by stating that we cannot prove intent. The only judgment we can give is that from the court of public opinion, not one with any actual legal weight.
Last season, an incident occurred where MLB umpire Quinn Wolcott was hit with a fastball up around the head/neck area from Detroit Tigers pitcher Buck Farmer. The incident immediately followed Wolcott's ejection of both Tigers catcher James McCann and then manager Brad Ausmus over balls and strikes. The problem wasn't just that Wolcott was hit, but that the immediate reaction was incredibly telling by the Tigers. As soon as Wolcott went down, Cleveland Indians batter Yandy Diaz was the only one to tend to Wolcott until base umpires Brian O'Nora and Paul Emmel made it to the plate at a dead sprint, meeting the Indians training staff at the same time. Replacement catcher John Hicks and pitcher Buck Farmer paid zero attention to Wolcott. The key to this incident is in Hicks' response. Catchers and umpires have a kinship because they both wear the gear behind the plate. They are both subject to the bumps and bruises of foul balls and other minor injuries throughout the course of a game. They work together to get strikes called for pitchers. Even though they're not on the same "team," per se, they are on the same team. When one goes down, the other tends to him. So when Hicks immediately ignored Wolcott, that told you all you needed to know. No postgame comments from anyone on the Tigers could sway the opinion otherwise. Following the incident with the Yankees earlier in the year, it was pretty clear that the 2017 Detroit Tigers were no longer playing for their late owner: they were in a selfish free fall that can best be described as unfortunate. "You don't get in front of a man and his nachos."
That quote from Cubs shortstop Addison Russell summed up a fantastic scene at Busch Stadium toward the end of the 2017 MLB Regular Season. During a game between the Cubs and the Cardinals, Russell ran towards the stands in an almost Derek-Jeter-like fashion to make a catch and fly into the seats. The problem? Russell fell into a Cardinals fan and his big tray of nachos. Andrew Gudermuth would forever be known as "Nachoman" following the incident as a result. So what happened? Well, Russell didn't catch the foul ball...in fact, Jedd Gyorko finished the at-bat with a homer. But the staff at Busch stadium brought Gudermuth a complimentary new plate of loaded nachos for him to enjoy. But it doesn't stop there. Between innings, Russell ran out to Gudermuth with a tray of plain nachos (with cheese) in an act of contrition. He even posed for a few selfies with Gudermuth. In a rivalry as tense as that between the Cubs and Cardinals, this is how you put things in perspective: by remembering that the fans are humans, and it's very easy to make new friends, even if they don't root for your team. I guarantee you that Gudermuth probably will never boo Russell again, nor will he think of the Cubs as a hated rival in the same way. That's the power of nachos. Here's a cute story from the end of the 2017 MLB Regular Season...
As the Yankees were facing the Twins with only a few games left in the regular season, the Bronx Bombers went on a torrid run to sweep the three game series and flex their muscles against the team they would eventually defeat in the American League Wild Card game. In one instance, Didi Gregorius came to the plate and drilled a home run into the right field seats. But what happened as Didi swung? His bat drop hit catcher Jason Castro. So what did Didi do? He turned and apologized to Jason before trotting around the bases! Imagine if the ball hadn't gone out of the park. Imagine if Didi's actions were the difference between hitting a single and a double. That's still a pretty classy move. Cheers to Didi for doing what was right: apologizing for an accident and instinctively knowing that human decency is more important than a trip around the bases. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|