Josh Kalk uses PITCHf/x to study umpires strike zones and finds as a group MLB umpires are excellent ball-strike callers:

If you do this for all umpires, then you can start studying them as a group. You can ask how often they correctly identify a pitch compared to the MLB rule definition (accuracy), how often they correctly identify a pitch compared with their personal strike zone (precision), and how large these strike zones are compared to the MLB strike zones (size) for both left- and right-handed batters. When you do this, the first thing that jumps out at you is just how accurate and precise major league umpires are as a group. While they tend to give the outside corner a bit too much and are a bit stingy near the top and bottom, for the most part a pitch over the plate is called a strike and almost always a pitch that is thrown within a specific umpire's zone is called a strike. Of the 82 umpires who were behind the plate when the PITCHf/x cameras were working last year, even the least consistent was very consistent.

That's good to know. PITCHf/x should also prevent an NBA type scandal. We should be able to tell if an umpire becomes inconsistent at key points in a game, throwing it to one of the opponents.

Just in case you thought the pitch calling by the umpire was bad in game 5, Beyond the Boxscore offeres proof. I for one, welcome our new robot umpires.

It strikes me that there should be some electronic way to determine if the ball crossed the plate. Either a transponder or a local GPS system. It would then be up to the umpire to call the ball high or low. That's the tough call, because every batter has a different strike zone based on height and stance. Take away one dimension from the umpire, and you make their job a bit easier.

Kerwin Danley's performance last night landed him a new job offer.

C.B. Bucknor just took a second shot on a foul ball tonight. First got him on the top of his helmet, but this one got him between the top of the chest protector and the mask. He's in pain. They have should never have gotten away from the old balloon chest protectors. Those protected the throat better.

He's staying in the game.

Correction: I meant to say they should have kept the balloon chest protectors. I fixed the sentence.

Carlos Pena gained a home run Friday night thanks to instant replay:

Pena's drive to right field off Boof Bonser appeared to be touched by a fan before bouncing off the top of the fence. First base umpire Mike DiMuro signaled fan interference, bringing both managers out of the dugout.

The umpires huddled immediately and decided to look at the video for the third test of the system since Aug. 28, when baseball allowed umpires to use it determine boundary calls.

"The thought was the fan reached over and definitely made contact with the ball," DiMuro said.

It took 4 minutes, 10 seconds to reverse the call.

"We saw two angles," crew chief Gerry Davis said. "The first one was inconclusive. The second one was the one that showed it."

It was not a critical call as the Rays were blowing out the Twins.

I made the mistake of writing last night that the review of A-Rod's home run took two minutes. It took two minutes to look at the video:

Rays catcher Dioner Navarro protested, bringing manager Joe Maddon out of the dugout. After convening, the umpires left the field to review the tape. They confirmed the call after 2minutes, 15 seconds.

"We all believed it was a home run," crew chief Charlie Reliford said, "but since the technology is in place we made the decision to use the technology."

So I'm not sure how much time this really saved. In the old case, the four umps would get together, say it was a home run, Maddon would argue for a minute and then walk away. Now, the umps had to decide if they wanted to look at the replay, which seemed to me to take longer than if they just decided it was a home run.

Getting the call right is a laudable reason to want instant replay. I just don't see a huge time savings. If the umps don't overrule a bad call because they can't tell from the video, the wronged manager is going to take the ejection and have his say anyway.

They're going to look at a video replay in Tampa Bay. Alex hit a ball that went over the foul pole and hit something behind the pole. There is a foul line on the wall in the back. I have not seen a good angle yet. After looking, the umps call it a home run, and Alex passes Mike Schmidt with his 549th home run. It took two minutes to do the review.

Via FishStripes, Ronald Blum provides details of the Network Operations Center for instant replays:

Baseball spent $2.5 million and two months installing fiberlink lines, monitors and dedicated telephones to link every ballpark with the NOC. Major League Baseball Advanced Media will now collect both teams' video feeds from each game and send them here.

For the 20 to 30 games each year with no telecast, MLBAM already is sending its own production truck, with six-to-eight cameras. And just in case there's a power failure at the NOC, the control room has emergency battery power just behind the wall and a generator on the roof with at least 12 hours of fuel.

The transformation is dramatic for a site where Oreos, Mallomars and Animal Crackers used to be cooked up--and the change is about as radical for MLB.

Baseball was the last replay holdout among the major U.S. professional leagues, one so conservative that National League president Len Coleman chastised umpire Frank Pulli for consulting a monitor in May 1999 before awarding Florida's Cliff Floyd a double rather than a home run in a game against St. Louis.

"You can slow a picture down so much that you can see the grains of sand and the clay around the bag. You can see whether or not a person has shaved that day," Solomon said. "The commissioner has come around and he's embraced it, because the technology is undeniable. I'm sure there was a time when all of us watched baseball on black and white TVs. Now I bet you everybody in the room has a high-def TV."

Solomon goes on to say that replay will never be expanded beyond the boundary calls. My guess is that as soon as there is a blown call that costs a team a World Series (see 1985), replay will be used for everything.

Dwight Jaynes wants fans to see the replays the umpire sees. Right now, they won't be seen in the ballparks:

So in other words, the people sitting at home on the couch watching the game on television will know more about what's going on than the people in the ballpark? What else is new? It's been going on for years in sports and it's ridiculous. A player leaves the game with an injury -- if you're watching on television, you almost immediately know the problem. If you're at the ballpark, though, you're often mystified.

I know in the past ballparks have refrained from showing controversial replays so as not to incite the crowd. Maybe in this case, they don't want the fans influencing the decision of the umpire.

I agree with Dwight, however. Make the system transparent.

Baseball announced the implementation of instant replay starts with the next set of series. Three games will use it on Thursday, then all games on Friday:

For now, video will be used only on so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs.

I thought this was rather humorous coming from the man who implemented the wild card and interleague play:

"Like everything else in life, there are times that you have to make an adjustment," baseball commissioner Bud Selig said following Tuesday's announcement. "My opposition to unlimited instant replay is still very much in play. I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now doing things the way we did it."

People need to remember replay will not be perfect. I've seen runners look safe on one angle and out on another. It will, however, be better than just the umpire alone. I hope they did their best to get all the bugs out of the system.

It's starting. Once replay is in place for home runs, people will want to use it for other things:

The real irony here, and with some of the other notable botched calls this weekend, is that just last week the MLB Umpires' union complained about and eventually settled on a system for using instant replay to review disputed home run calls, and only home run calls. No discussion has been made of reviewing balls and strikes, or safe/out plays at a base using instant replay, but there have been noises about using it for checking outfield catches that might actually be trapped balls and other difficult judgment calls.

Like, you know, run-downs. This kind of play begs for the use of instant replay, and yet the MLB umpires stubbornly refuse to budge.

And before you know it, every close play at first, every borderline ball four and strike three called are being reviewed. Prepare for five hour games that aren't played by the Yankees and Red Sox.

The umpires objections to instant replay didn't last long:

The deal was signed by lawyers for the commissioner's office and the World Umpires Association one day after a WUA spokesman went public with complaints over negotiations.

After haggling over final details, the sides exchanged proposals Tuesday night.

"We reached an agreement. Final decision with respect to moving ahead has not been made yet, but we have an agreement with the umpires," said Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president of labor relations.

I wonder if the manager will have to throw a flag on the field before the next pitch?

The umpires are cool to instant replay right now:

Umps said their governing board voted Tuesday to boycott a conference call with management intended to discuss implementing replay, angry that their concerns aren't being addressed.

Major League Baseball responded by saying it canceled the Wednesday call because it doesn't have a replay agreement with the union.

"A lot of the procedural issues necessary for instant replay to be implemented need to be worked out," World Umpires Association spokesman Lamell McMorris said. "Major League Baseball needs to step up to the plate and iron out these issues."

Shouldn't baseball people use metaphors from other sports?

There appears to be a long list of issues the umpires want resolved. It may be a few more weeks before this system gets used in games.

I would still prefer to see it tested during spring training games. That way, all the bugs get worked out and a wrong decision doesn't matter.

An umpire following the ball and not the play costs the Padres a run. Jody Gerut was on third with two out when Jason Kendall had a pitch bounce off his glove. Gerut tried to score, Kendall fielded the ball and threw to Brian Shouse, whose slide to catch the ball push Gerut away from the plate. The ball came out of Shouse's glove, and bounded toward first base. While the ump watched the ball, Gerut got his hand on the plate, then starts walking toward the dugout. Kendall realizes there wasn't a call, Shouse picks up the ball and tags Jody out.

The announcers note that while Gerut was safe, he should have held the plate until the ump called him safe. Still, the Padres get three runs in the inning to take a 3-1 lead over Milwaukee and give Jake Peavy the chance for the win.

In the bottom of the fifth, Carlos Pena comes up with two out and a man on second, facing Jeremy Sowers. On a 3-2 count, Sal Fasano sets up outside. Sowers throws the ball, instead, over the inside corner. Fasano moves his gloves all the way across the plate to catch it, and the ump calls it ball four. It was clearly a strike on the inside corner. The ump gets fooled by the glove movement, and Evan Longoria follows with an RBI single. The Indians lead 5-4 at the end of five instead of 5-3.

Via FishStripes, MLB was almost ready for controversy last night:

The first night Major League Baseball tested instant-replay equipment at Citizens Bank Park, it had a controversial home-run ball in the seventh inning in the Phillies' 8-2 loss to the Florida Marlins.

Shane Victorino's two-run homer off Renyel Pinto looked foul on instant replay. Third base umpire Dale Scott called the ball fair and the umpires conferred after the Marlins protested. But the call stood, cutting the Marlins' lead to 4-2. Scott acknowledged after the game that the ball was foul.

Unfortunately for the Marlins, MLB was testing the equipment it could use in the future only to see how it works. In other words, umpires had no opportunity to run to a TV screen to check it out.

I saw the play, and I think the umps were fooled by the way the ball rebounded off the back wall into fair territory. Luckily for all involved, it didn't cost the Marlins the game.

A small home run controversy in Arizona. Mike Cameron hits a ball over the fence down the leftfield line. The leftfielder and the DBacks bullpen points foul. The umpire called it fair. The replay showed the ball was in front of the foul poll the whole time. The umpire, however, said it scraped the foul pole, and there was no clear replay that showed it didn't.

Given the original angle of the ball and where it landed, I can believe the ball hit something. It landed farther away from the pole away from fair territory than if it didn't hit anything.

Webb has not allowed two home runs and five runs in the game. He only gave up six homers all season coming into today.

MLB suspended Brian Runge one game for bumping Jerry Manuel. I wonder how much Manuel's expressed desire not to see Runge punished weighed in the decision. It seems a light suspension to me.

Brian Runge apologized to Jerry Manuel for bumping him on Tuesday night. That's good enough for the Mets manager, but Josh Alper wants MLB to suspend the ump anyway.

I don't agree with Manuel. Watch the video again and then ask yourself, if the two sides had acted differently would there be any doubt about a suspension? No way. Manuel would be fined and suspended by Major League Baseball for making contact with an umpire. The same standard should hold to Runge who escalated the situation well beyond a simple argument about balls and strikes.

I agree there should be some type of discipline of the umpire. Take him off the post-season list for five years.

There was just a disputed home run call in Boston. Pedroia hit one down the rightfield line that the umpires called foul initially, and after consultation agreed it was foul. The replay was somewhat inconclusive. Jerry Remy said the ball disappeared behind the pole. But there's a screen on the pole, and to my eye the ball was in front of that screen. There's are lights that run up and down the pole, and it seemed to me that the ball disappeared in the glare of the light.

Bottom line is I couldn't tell from that angle. If anything, it looked to me like the ball might have grazed the pole and changed angle ever so slightly, in which case it would be a home run. But that replay was little help in determining that.

The top umpire in baseball talked with the Houston Chronicle about using replays in baseball:

"Replay is coming," Rieker wrote. "If done properly we have an opportunity to set the gold standard in replay, learning from pros and cons from other sports. But we must do so in a fashion that will not delay the game further."

Rieker was asked if the home plate umpire would be the one to use the replay.

"Probably not," he wrote. "Use of a possible replay official could come into play and we really don't want to take the umpires off the field to look at replays."

A fifth umpire in the pressbox? I still like the idea of the umpires having a handheld device that delivers replays to their hands. It should be easy to do with something like an iPhone.

Here's more on the Julio Lugo ejection in Tuesday night's game:

Lugo had been shouting "Check! Check!" from his shortstop position, indicating he wanted help from Hernandez on the pitch. After Hernandez ruled that Ibanez had held up, Lugo said the umpire was staring at him. When Lugo asked what he was staring at, Hernandez ejected him.

Lugo raced over to Hernandez for an explanation and the umpire several times turned away from the infielder, ignoring his question. Francona raced out to restrain Lugo and, not long after, got himself ejected, too.

"I didn't say nothing else," maintained Lugo after the game, a 4-3 Sox loss, had ended. "There's nothing else I can say. I don't know -- I don't understand. I just wanted to know why he threw me out."

Added an exasperated Francona: "I wouldn't know where to begin. I just wanted to get Lugo out of there and move on with the game."

The story goes on to explain that Lugo and Hernandez have a history, and Lugo obviously doesn't like Hernandez. If Lugo didn't utter an expletive when asking the question, Hernandez shouldn't have tossed him. You could see him telling Francona that Lugo argued the pitch call, which is an automatic ejection.

There was another missed home run in the Cleveland game last night:

Plus, Francisco's apparent homer was ruled an RBI double.

The call was the latest in a recent string of botched home run calls by big league umpires that has prompted increasing cries for instant replay in baseball.

"I think every time something like this happens there is more conversation about it," said Indians manager Eric Wedge, who was ejected by crew chief Dale Scott for arguing.

TV replays showed Francisco's drive clearly hit a railing above the yellow home run line atop the left-field wall in the sixth inning. Still, third-base ump Damien Beal ruled the ball in play. The umpires soon huddled and upheld the call.

"It was big and definitely changes the way the game plays out," said Wedge, adding that he has not supported instant replay, but is starting to change his mind.

That's at least four this week missed by umpires. You would think with all the publicity about missed home runs umps would be hyper-vigilant right now.

Rob Neyer (subscription required) appears to come out in favor of instant replay for home runs:

It's now pretty clear that we'll have instant replay soon, perhaps even next season, and it only seems more necessary after seeing three missed home-run calls in four days (two of them at Yankee Stadium). You know, 20 years ago these calls would have been made, there would have been an argument, and a day later everything's forgotten. But now that's just not possible, not with all the cameras in the ballparks and all the different places to see the resulting video. MLB's not being pulled into technology; the technology's already here and it's pushing MLB. Is this a good thing? Well, let me ask you this ... Today, when a player hits a long fly ball that might or might not have been a home run, everybody in the world knows exactly what happened ... except the four guys on the field who are supposed to know exactly what happened.

At this point, the crew chief can carry a wireless PDA and have the video streamed to him. He doesn't even need to leave the field.

FanHouse makes a very good point here about Carlos Delgado's home run/foul ball:

Perhaps I'm being harsh on Davidson's performance, especially since there's no reason for him to be put in that position. In the time it took for Reilly to make the call, Derek Jeter to protest it, the umpires to confer, Willie Randolph to argue their reversal and, finally, Davidson to eject Mets bench coach Jerry Manuel, they could have just looked at a replay and got the call right.

That's one argument against replay, it would take too long, debunked and the other, it would lead to all kinds of replays, is inane.

Carlos Delgado hits a ball down the leftfield line that the third base umpire call a home run. The umps get together, however, and after a conference call it foul. The initial angle on ESPN was bad, but on the replay it was clear that the ball it the top of the wall at the base of foul pole and richocetted into foul territory. The umps got that one wrong, and the Mets should have a 6-0 lead.

Update: Delgado singles in a run. Not as good as a three run homer, but he doesn't lose a time on base. The Mets lead 4-0.

The World Umpires Association sends this press release on the dangers umps face due to head injuries from pitched and batted balls. Given Kerwin Danley's recent injury, this is a timely reminder.

Kerwin Danley was knocked out by a Brad Penny pitch Saturday night. My best wishes go out to him for a quick recovery.

Maury Brown reads between the lines and wonders if an umpire is a member of the KKK.

John Hale presents an excellent piece of research at The Hardball Times on the strike zones of individual umpires.

Roger Clemens was well known for taking rigorous notes and studying umpires--when they can differ as much as this, you'd think that every pitcher would. Umpires don't just have big or small zones, they have very specific preferences for the four edges of the strike zone and are rarely simply "big" or "small". Often an ump expands the zone one way but plays it by the book in the other directions.

As I was watching the playoffs and tinkering with this data, I was amazed at how consistent each umpire's tendencies were. Remember when Victor Martinez started yelling at the home plate umpire over calls to Fausto Carmona? No wonder: Dana Demuth has the fourth smallest zone in the league where those pitches were called, on the left side of the plate.

The whole article is well worth the read, and he includes a database for download.

The general managers voted 25-5 to use instant replays to decide boundary calls:

The recommendation, by a 25-5 vote, was limited to boundary calls - whether potential home runs are fair or foul, whether balls go over fences or hit the top and bounce back, and whether fans have interfered with a possible homer.

That seems to be a reasonable recommendation. Fans of the 1996 Orioles would approve, I'm sure.

MLB suspended Mike Winters over the Milton Bradley incident (hat tip, Baseball Digest Daily).

The decision was made following an investigation during which Bradley, Winters, San Diego first-base coach Bobby Meacham and Colorado first baseman Todd Helton were interviewed.

The key moment in the decision, according to multiple sources, came as a result of Winters calling Bradley a "f------ piece of s---" during the heated argument at first base.

That moment is what appears to have escalated what already was a heated argument into a situation that spun so badly out of control that Bradley suffered a season-ending knee injury while being restrained by Padres manager Bud Black.

"There's a code of conduct, and what you're not supposed to do is engage these guys," one source with knowledge of the investigation said. "Umpires are supposed to call balls and strikes, safe and out and keep the flow of the game going. When tempers get high, they're supposed to help bring them back down, not make the situation worse."

Wow. I'm glad MLB took this action. Maybe they should demote Winters back to AAA next year, and let him relearn how to be an umpire. Too bad there is no one to throw umpires out of a game. Any player saying that to Winters would be back in the clubhouse in a second.

Chipper Jones called for Questec at Turner Field last night. He was upset about poor umpiring when he was at the plate:

"The first pitch to me with the bases loaded was in my batter's box, inside," Jones told reporters after the game. "Now you tell me how I'm supposed to hit that. We have to get Questec here in this ballpark. We've got to. Umpires have got to be held accountable. That's Little League World Series stuff right there."

...

"It's a joke," Jones said. "I'm tired of it. And baseball can fine me whatever they want. I do not care. Somebody's got to say something. I've got more walks than strikeouts in my career -- I know what a strike looks like."

At this point, Questec appears to do a lot more good than harm. It's really time to put it (or a system like it) in every ballpark.

Update: Michael Lerra send this shot from MLB GameDay, showing Chipper is upset about nothing:

I'd like to see video of the pitch, if anyone can find it on the Internet. Also, I'm not sure why he's complaining if he ended up walking in the plate appearance anyway.

Dan Fox rounds up commentary on the Umpires racial bias study that disagree that the results are significant. He also looks at the effect of Questec on calling strikes.

King Kaufman posts a very good take on the umpire bias paper.

Time Magazine reports on a finding that there exists a small racial bias among Major League umpires. Of course, being a technologically backward organization, Time doesn't bother to link to the actual report. They also appear to be mathematically challenged:

According to the new study led by Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin, Major League Baseball umpires tend to call more strikes when the pitcher is of their same race; when they're not, umps call more balls. It doesn't happen all the time -- in about 1% of pitches thrown -- but that's still one pitch per game, and it could be the one that makes the difference.

Starting pitchers are often pulled after 100 pitches, so it should be one pitcher per starter per game. It's not unusual to see 300 total pitches in a game, so we're talking about between two and three pitches per game.

(Correction: It wasn't clear from the Time article, but the 1% represents called pitches, so swings are left out. In that case, one pitch per game is about right.)

Secondly, this is an unpublished paper. In other words, it has not undergone peer review. Now, does this mean it's wrong? No, but other economists haven't had a chance to judge the work yet. So basically, take it with a grain of salt.

I do find this interesting, however:

Table 4 contains the results of estimating (1) separately by the presence of QuesTec in the ballpark. All of the estimated equations presented in Table 4 include controls for inning, pitch count, pitcher score advantage, and top of the inning. The direct effect of being in a QuesTec park is, of course, not directly observable, as it is subsumed in the pitcher-QuesTec fixed-effects terms. The results are remarkable: In ballparks with the umpire monitoring system (Column 1), the coefficient on UPM is -0.21 percentage points and is not significantly different from zero. In parks without QuesTec (Column 2) the same coefficient is 0.66 percentage points per pitch, significantly different from zero at the 1 percent level.

Columns 3 and 4 present the results when QuesTec is interacted with UPM, first without umpire-QuesTec and batter fixed effects and then with these additional controls. Controls for umpires and batters only strengthen the result, so that when the pitcher and umpire match race/ethnicity, being in a QuesTec park reduces the likelihood that a called pitch is ruled a strike by almost 1 percentage point. Columns 5 and 6 reveal that this effect is nearly twice as strong for minority as for White pitchers. As in the first three sets of results in Table 3, however, separating pitchers by race/ethnicity (or even by minority vs. non-minority) has a large impact on statistical significance, impairing our ability to infer much about the relative sizes of the effects of UPM across pitcher groups.

In one of my Baseball Prospectus columns exploring if a game fixing scandal could happen among baseball umpires, I suggest Questec be used in every ballpark to keep the umps honest:

The final piece is QuesTec. While watching a blowout the other day, the announcer was relaying a discussion he recently held with an umpire. The source told him that umpires in QuesTec stadiums could no longer move blowouts along. They would normally call close pitches against the team with the big lead to speed things up, but in QuesTec stadiums, they can't do that because it hurts their grades. If QuesTec is that effective in getting umpires to call games correctly, it should be in every ballpark. And the umpire information system should be used not only as a tool to improve umpire performance, but as another way of looking to see if the fix is in.

Seems QuesTec is a lot more useful than first thought. Finally, I like Hamermesh's overall take on the whole study:

Hamermesh, who has studied discrimination at all levels, says that bias is instilled in infancy -- much like enduring personality traits such as shyness or high self-esteem -- as an essential part of human behavior. "We all have these subconscious preferences for our own group," he says. Ever the economist, Hamermesh adds, "It's important to look at it in baseball because of the amount of money that's being made -- the salary of the umpires, baseball players and the amount of revenue that's being made by the industry. All these things make this important."

But the takeaway message of his study is a hopeful one, says Hamermesh: discrimination can be corrected. "I expect that [MLB] will not be very happy about this, but the fact that with a little bit of effort this kind of behavior can be altered, that's very gratifying. I wish with society as a whole we could reduce the impact of discrimination as easily as it could be done in baseball."

J.D. Drew hits a ball that lands on the top of the Green Monster and bounces back on the field. The ump calls it in play, Boston scores a run but Manny is thrown out at the plate. The replay clearly shows the ball was gone. Francona asks for a conference, and the other umps didn't see it either. Francona then gets himself thrown out of the game. Boston is up 1-0 when they should be up 3-0 and still batting.

Albert Pujols picked up a rare three-ball walk last night.

Suppan, part of the Cardinals' championship team last season, was rolling along to his 16th complete game of his career when Pujols came to plate with one out in the sixth inning.

Suppan got ahead of Pujols 0-2 before Pujols fouled off a pitch, took two balls and fouled off another. After the next pitch he was awarded first base by home plate umpire Dan Iassogna.

"I was mad at myself for going to 3-2 after being up 0-2, and then I saw him walking to first," said Suppan, who figured that maybe it was his mistake and he had walked him. "I looked at the umpire expecting him to call him back, but no one said anything. I just moved on and it didn't end up hurting me."

Pujols was erased a few moments later on a double play by Scott Rolen to end the inning.

It's amazing to me that no one caught that. Four umpires, the catcher, the pitcher all assumed the home plate umpire was correct. I wonder if the scoreboard had the count wrong?

The minor league umpires ratified a new contract. The increases in monthly salary and per diems seem low, but they'll be back on the field by June 12.

Chris Constancio looks at home team bias among minor league replacement umps. His conclusion:

The season is still young and we need to collect more information to better understand the effects of the replacement umpires, but so far all the evidence all points in the same direction. Home team batters appear to have an advantage at the plate. Furthermore, there may be other effects of the new umpiring population that are more difficult to quantify or assess with traditional statistics such as strikeouts and walks. It is clear, however, that we need to be more careful than ever when analyzing minor leaguers' performance. The initial evidence suggests an appreciation for a prospect's home and away splits may be particularly important this year.

It looks like the minor league umpires strike is getting close to a settlement. The rank and file need to approve the deal.

Here's the latest on the strike by minor league umpires over salary and meal money:

The 220 minor league umpires around the country are seeking higher salaries and an increase in meal money. The average salary for Triple-A umpires is $15,000, with a per diem of $25.

"And it's been the same for the last 10 years," said Scott, who worked third base in the umpire crew with Iassogna and Kulpa at the Reds-Nationals game Monday night.

Is that what the umpires are worth? I wonder if half the minor league umpires quit tomorrow, would there be a rush to fill the jobs at $15,000 a year? I would guess the supply of potential umpires is much greater than the demand for them by professional baseball. That would certainly keep salaries down.

However, there is a skill factor that needs to be taken into consideration. While there may be a large number of people willing to do the job, there may be much smaller group that's capable of doing it well. Plus, there's the cost of bringing on new employees that any business faces. It strikes me from a quality of game perspective that the minor leagues should do their best to keep the good umps around. If that means more money, it seems a raise somewhat more often than once every ten years is appropriate.

It appears that Doug Eddings is going to change his signals:

The umpire who made the controversial dropped third strike call in Game 2 of the American League Championship Series said yesterday he "absolutely" made the right call, but admitted he was wrong in the manner in which he called it.

"I think I've got to change my mechanic a little," Doug Eddings said upon arriving at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, Calif. Eddings' raised, clenched fist for a strike call is similar to a traditional out call. "That's why I feel bad. I should have given a safe sign."

Eddings admitted he called a dropped third strike more emphatically earlier in the game.

That's better than what he said in the press conference last night. I wonder why there are no standards for how an umpire calls a strike?

I'm listening to the Astros broadcast on the computer, and it seems both sides (offense and defense) are complaining about the umpiring at home. Still with supposedly bad calls, the score is still just 1-1.

A missed call in the Red Sox game as Gabe Kapler hits a ball off the top of the Green Monster, but the umpires miss the call. Gabe winds up stranded at second instead of tying the game.

A very strange occurrence in the Braves-Cardinals game. With two strikes on Edmonds, Foster throws a pitch up and in. Edmonds starts to swing and tries to check it. But checking it means he gets hit, so he turns out of the way, appearing to complete the swing. The Braves start off the field on the apparent strikeout, but the home plate ump has called it a ball. They appeal to the third base umpire, and he concurs.

According to the announcers, Edmonds was trying to get out of the way, so the swing doesn't count because he checked it, then dove. Watching the replay, it sure looked like a swinging strike to me.

Correction: I meant Edmonds, not Rolen.

Buddy Bell got an earful from umpire Joe Brinkman last night and didn't like it.

Bell questioned a call on Berroa — complaining that a called strike was in fact too low — when he said Brinkman responded with a profanity-laced tirade.

“We’re supposed to sit back,” Bell said, “and we’re supposed to say, ‘OK, whatever they want to say.’ He can call me whatever he wants and get away with it?

“To be honest with you, there’s a little bit of a double-standard when umpires can do whatever they want and you can’t do anything back to them.”

According to the article, the exchange between manager and umpire could be heard by the fans. Was anyone at the game last night? What exactly was said?

Lisa Gray makes a very good point today. If you're sitting in the stands and watching what looks like a triple play turn into a double play, you have no idea what's going on. Her solution: mike the umps just like in the NFL. Then, if a complicated play like that happens (or even the A-Rod play in the ALCS when the umps had to confer) they can turn the mike on and explain it to the fans in the stands (and the listening and view audience). Not a bad idea.

A very bad call on the first play of the Yankees-Red Sox game. Womack hit a ball in the hole, Renteria threw to first, but the throw was down the line toward home plate. Millar swept his arm around trying to tag Tony, but Womack was already by him. The ump called Womack out. What's interesting to me is that the ump appeared to have a good angle on the play. The replay clearly showed Womack was safe.

Derek Zumsteg pens a piece about the state of umpiring. In general, it's positive.

The state of umpiring today is amazing. While umpires are devoid of the kind of personality that, say, Ron Luciano had, as a group they have improved so markedly since baseball broke their union that it's amazing to watch old games on ESPN Classic, even playoff games. Umpires today are faster to get into position and more observant. They're willing to consult other umps who might have a better view of a disputed play. They're far more professional than their predecessors.

I'm not surprised by this. In my initial rant about the union stopping the A-Rod to Boston trade I wrote:

It's my opinion that the MLBPA is the greatest labor union the world has ever seen. Most labor unions set up systems that insure the continued employment of their least talented workers, while limiting the advancement of their most talented. The MLBPA has done just the opposite. They set up parameters for salary growth and negotiation, but how much you make depends in great part on how well you perform. They protect players rights extremely well, make sure they have generous benefits and proper legal counsel. It should be the model for how all unions operate.

The umpires union was protecting the bad umpires, bringing down the overall quality of their crews. If, like the MLBPA, they had worried about salary and benefits, and let umpires ability to umpire determine participation in baseball, they still might be in business.

Derek, however, believes things still need to get better.

I am more convinced than ever that the umpires have demonstrated the need for better strike zone measurement tools. We haven't heard much about Questec this year, due in part to Tom Glavine enjoying a bounceback year. But I watch so much baseball it frightens small children, and I see blown balls and strike calls all the time. And I don't even mean close calls, either, I'm taking about clearly up, down, or off the plate and my favorite, Ye Olde Hit the Target Strike. Like the other parts of the umpire's game, it's gotten better, but it's still not as good as it needs to be.

Derek feels we need some automatic tools to help umpires. The problem is, automatic tools make mistakes also. In my previous job at the University of Massachusetts, I worked in a lab that conducted research in information retrieval. What I basically learned is that these types of problems are very difficult to solve exactly. So, if you go to an automatic system, you're still go to have bad calls; the difference, I believe, would be that the bad calls would be on the edges, rather than the flagrant calls Derek discusses above.

One thing that would help in a video system are more cameras at more angles. But that's a big cost in both equipment, and time to analyze all that data. A cool solution would be to use GPS. A GPS reciever would be built into the center of each ball. The problem with this, of, course, is that GPS is only accurate at best to about 1 meter, which is way to big for calling strikes. However, if instead of using the satellites, a large number (>5) transmitters were built into the structure of each ballpark (on each light pole, for example), I bet you could get very good accuracy for the position of the ball during flight. You could also put four sensors on the batter, to frame his strikezone.

But would all this technology really improve things? I think the correct use of any ball/strike location system is the way Questec is being used; to teach umpires what they called wrong so they are less likely to make the same mistakes in the future. Calling balls and strikes acurately is as difficult a problem for machines as it is for humans. Let's use our machines to work with our umpires not replace them.

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has a blog, blog maverick (hat tip, Bambino's Curse). He has a post on how referees call fouls based on situations, rather than the rule book. It's exactly how I feel about umpires and the strike zone.

Ed Rapuano is the umpire at first base who's made the two bad calls. It's cost the Marlins one run scored and one run allowed. They really should be up 4-0 at this point.

Mike's Baseball Rants has a long bit of research on the strikezone, QuesTec and how we got to the current umpire/management war. Worth the read just for history of the rule changes.