Diary: Angel Hernandez Must Be Ejected From Baseball

by peeder on May 7, 2006 6:44 PM EDT

(moved from diaries. --Eric)

After the game, both Lima and Lo Duca said that Hernandez told them that he was calling pitches farther off the plate strikes for Smoltz, but not for Lima.
''When the umpire said 'I'm going to give you a couple of inches off the plate, but I'm not going to give you 4-5 inches because you're not John Smoltz,' I'm trying to protect my pitcher,'' Lo Duca said.

I'm sorry, but the umpire openly admitted to having a biased strikezone. That is grounds for immediate termination. Bud Selig, you are on notice.

[UPDATE: 5/8 @ 9:35 AM by Eric Simon]: The Star Ledger has picked up on this story and has some interesting info; definitely worth a read.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I thought after Black Sox that baseball

had a committment to credibility, that is still felt in e.g. the permanent ban on Pete Rose.

There can be no credibility in baseball with Angel Hernandez on the field.

Time for him to go. Period.

by peeder on May 7, 2006 6:47 PM EDT reply actions

if he really said that

he should be disiplined no doubt

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on May 7, 2006 7:49 PM EDT reply actions

if he really said that,

then you're right -- that begins to sound like grounds for firing. If he admits to saying anything even close to that, any kind of admission that his strike zone was different for the two teams, it sounds like grounds for a serious suspension from his job. Fairness is an umpire's stock-in-trade, and anyone who said anything that even came across to the players this way, even if he meant something more innocuous and they misunderstood him, substantially damaged baseball's reputation. I assume there's a similar clause in umps' contract to the one players have about conduct injurious to baseball's image, and Hernandez sounds like he just ran afoul of it.

by anonymous on May 7, 2006 8:51 PM EDT reply actions

I have to take LoDuca's word

Lima who knows about, but LoDuca needs to get calls from umps for 130+ games a year, and he's not going to start a shit-flinging match with them unless there is just no other way around it. He's a veteran, he's seen everything over the years. And every one of us knows, and has known all season, that Angel Hernandez is simply beyond the pale.

by peeder on May 7, 2006 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Watch

I said this earlier. Nothing will happen to him because of the Union.

by future on May 7, 2006 9:39 PM EDT reply actions

I don't think it's the union that they're worried

about. I think they'd be worried that he'll write yet another tell-all book, and who knows what kind of crap would be in there.

If their house is in order however, they need to sweep him out of it to keep it that way.

by peeder on May 7, 2006 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions

the union

will certainly go to bat for him. But if he said this it won't matter. Baseball can stick to his guns and have him removed.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on May 8, 2006 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

The union.

The union will not go to bat for Angel if, in the best case scenario, he admits to it. It would hurt their credibility in this case.

What I'm guessing is they'll be a denial.

"They win the damn thing by a score of 10-9!"

by ZaBlanc on May 8, 2006 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions

That is just a complete disgrace

that an ump would say that to catcher. If he is not fired he should not be allowed anywhere near a Mets game for several years because he had a clear bias today and will no doubt have a bias going forward because PLD outed him.

by udamnwright on May 7, 2006 10:00 PM EDT reply actions

Track my pitch up?

Is Shea still a QuesTec park? I certainly believe LoDuca's story that he was told this--which should be grounds for dismissal by itself. But if they're tracking every pitch, there's also evidence of the actual favoritism.

Now let's all wait patiently for the authority figure to be punished for his improprieties and lack of integrity...

Oops pow surprise! Ohhhhhh!

by Doc Manhattan on May 7, 2006 11:58 PM EDT reply actions

questec is still in shea

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on May 8, 2006 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Too late for Mike Port to sweep it under the rug

It's out in the papers and on the blogs, and if this ump so much as makes a delayed call from here on, it'll just grow like a cancer on the game. We don't forget this cwap.

Sounds like Alderson was a good man for the job.

by peeder on May 8, 2006 9:51 AM EDT reply actions

Yea . . . so . . .

Angel Hernandez is a lousy umpire. We all know that. And assuming he actually made that comment to Lo Duca, it was very inappropriate. But so what? This is shocking to all of you? Who the hell is Lima anyway? Why should he get the benefit of a close call? Lima got released by the Royals. THE ROYALS!!!

Smoltz is a Hall of Fame pitcher. If you guys think that Clemens, Maddux, and Pedro (even Glavine) don't get the close calls, you're crazy. Relax. Hernandez already has a shaky reputation as an umpire. Don't worry about his comments to Lo Duca, who by the way, acted like a jack ass yesterday. Let's worry about the health and strength of our rotation.

by rubychill on May 8, 2006 2:20 PM EDT reply actions

It's not the close calls

it's the ones that are four inches outside that make the difference.

Even though umpires do give the more established pitchers the calls, officially they aren't supposed to, and it is ridiculous that this guy would basically admit to favoring one team over another.

Umpires are supposed to enforce the rules as written in the rulebook, fairly and impartially.

That is the minimum standard, and anything less should be completely unacceptable.

When umpires insist on having their own strike zone, they insist on inserting their personalities into the outcome of the game, which is the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing.

And when they admit to calling the game one way for one player, and a different way for another, there should be consequences, because they are deciding what the outcome is going to be before the fact.

I'll admit that if he admitted to calling pitches that he knew were outside the zone as strikes for a Mets pitcher I would be less upset, but it would still rub me the wrong way.

It's only one game that it cost us, but this is bigger than one game or one team.

You are technically right that Lima was released by the Royals, but that was in 2002. Last year he signed a one year deal and made 32 starts for them. He was terrible last year, but that doesn't mean that when he throws a pitch that crosses the plate it shouldn't be a strike.

Mr Koufax, don't you think Flanders is a big jerk?

by peteyfan45 @ Amazin' Avenue on May 8, 2006 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

QuesTec

Personally, I don't see why they shouldn't get rid of the umps' responsibility for calling balls and strikes and give it over to QuesTec entirely. Seriously. There is no way a human is better at judging this kind of stuff than a machine.

by DavidNYC on May 9, 2006 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

The example is Cyclops in tennis

It was impossible to correctly call the depth of tennis serves...which have reached 150MPH and are in or out based on brushing a millimeter worth of line. Line judges do still call whether they are in (or on) the sidelines, however, and whether 110 MPH groundstrokes are in on the baseline. With mostly good results.

It is possible to call balls and strikes, however, baseball is a very different game then tennis. For one thing, the robot eye would need to have the top and bottom of the zone set for each batter (knees to letters).

But more importantly, there is a social/psychological difference. Tennis is a sport with a proud tradition of formality and etiquette and it plays to an upper class audience. Baseball is a rough-and-tumble, high-testosterone, loud American sport that plays to all classes. The umpire is expected to be in the player's faces, and control them from brawling and hurting each other. I have never heard of a fight breaking out on a tennis court above the club level.

And so an umpire may be tempted to "throw their weight around" and become part of the show, rather than invisible as they should be. Referees in tennis who do that (a woman refereeing a recent Serena Williams match comes to mind) are never heard from again. (Imagine, for instance, a tennis referee saying that Roger Federer could hit balls four inches off the line and still have them called in, "because he's Roger Federer." That referee is unlikely to even be able to beg a spot playing in their local round-robin from then on.)

But somehow, this idea that the umpire has to be the alpha male on the baseball diamond, lest the players start hacking each other to bits in violent frenzies, makes it somehow acceptable that they have unquestioned authority. Perhaps it's seen as some way of demonstrating that there is a BOSS to children or the working class or something, but maybe I'm assigning wildly.

I think in this case it's imperative that baseball demonstrate that corruption of any form is intolerable...as they did with Pete Rose. They needn't force a single, uniform strikezone for all umpires, but all individual umpires must give all pitchers they call the same one. An admission to the contrary, confirming at least weeks of our own observations here, is unconscionable.

Angel Hernandez has made a mockery of this sport.

by peeder on May 9, 2006 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions

right

I like the human element in baseball, but it got out of hand when these umps were giving Maddux and Glavine the pitch four inches outside in every game.

Questec was put in to encourage them to call the strike zone as it is written in the rulebook, but I don't want to see some kind of robot system take the place of umpires.

I realize that this means that you are going to have errors.

But the problem, once again, is when guys admit to not calling it as it is in the rule book.

Mr Koufax, don't you think Flanders is a big jerk?

by peteyfan45 @ Amazin' Avenue on May 9, 2006 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions

common misconception

"as it is in the rule book"

That's just the thing: from what I understand, the rulebook does not define the strike zone as anything other than what the umpire says it is.

I think the old "knees to letters and over the plate" thing is more or less to give an idea about what it should be, but those words are not in the rulebook.

Someone look it up, I'm too lazy...

by kingcritical on May 9, 2006 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

no offense

but what you understand is wrong.

From section 2.00 of the official rules:
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

this defintion leads to a somewhat subjective interpretation of what the zone is, but those words are in the rulebook

Mr Koufax, don't you think Flanders is a big jerk?

by peteyfan45 @ Amazin' Avenue on May 9, 2006 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

there you have it

Thanks, I told you I was too lazy to look it up.

I forget where I had heard that, but I stand corrected.

by kingcritical on May 9, 2006 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions

actually

I didn't know it was there, I just remember hearing that phrase 'as it is in the rulebook' when they were talking about the ump strike and the placement of questec.

So I'm glad you said something, because I also learned that they have the official rules posted online.

Mr Koufax, don't you think Flanders is a big jerk?

by peteyfan45 @ Amazin' Avenue on May 9, 2006 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions

The Strike Zone

Per the MLB Official Rulebook:

The STRIKE ZONEis that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

The "over home plate" part defines the lateral bounds of the strike zone (e.g. from the outside corner to the inside corner of the plate).

by Eric Simon on May 9, 2006 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions

haha

it looks like it takes less time to write the HTML for italics than it does for a blockquote ;)

Mr Koufax, don't you think Flanders is a big jerk?

by peteyfan45 @ Amazin' Avenue on May 9, 2006 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Anyone watching the game could see that

Hernandez was giving Smoltz a much more generous strike zone than Lima.

This was the last comment in yesterday's game thread, by TheFuturetheWrightWay, which I thought was good enough to be repeated here:

I in no way believe that the Mets had a good chance to win today's game.
But when Eric Simon does the win probability chart, it should start the Mets at less than 50% to win just based on the biased umpireeing of Angel Hernandez. Yes, we lost by 10, but what happens if that game is close on the single that Beltran doesn't even remotely try to get to? At that point the game is out of reach, but if it's close, he hustles and catches that ball.
If he calls the game fair, Lima goes another inning, at least. Lima does not have control problems. He rarely walks guys. And he walked a bunch, and got in holes he couldn't get out because he fell behind in the count. Even when Angel Hernandez didn't make a terrible call for a Strike 3, he set up the whole tone of the at-bat by forcing Lima to throw a perfect strike to get a strike call, and then Smoltz could throw 4 inches off the plate and get the call every time.
If the strike zone was the same for both pitchers, and I say this honestly, I think just on that alone, the game is remarkably different. And it's not like Lima Time is some young punk, he's been in baseball a long time and to see him disrespected like that is beyond reason. I can understand if Bannister or Maine don't get the respect on the corners. But Lima? Come on, don't give 4 inches off the plate to Smoltz and not even give the black to Lima.
The botched call at the plate was a huge error. So was the "balk." And for him(the 2B ump) to definitively call that a balk so strongly is ludicrous, there was no balk, that was a phantom balk that I saw Smoltz do at least a half dozen times in the game and he never called it.
If the strike zones are the same, the Mets might have still lost, and we lost 13-3 today. That's fine, we can't win them all. But the umpireeing crew changed the whole tone of this baseball game. Right from the get-go the Mets got a bad break, then Lo Duca got tossed, and then Cox got tossed(which some of my Braves fans friends will tell you benefited the Braves :).)
Yeah we lost, but of all the 10 run losses I've seen the Mets take, this is one I think the Mets had a good chance to make competitive with a crew that doesn't make as many mistakes.
And a ballboy who gets his fat butt out of the way. Sheesh man, pick up the stool and get the heck out of the way!

by BlueYonder on May 8, 2006 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

Heh, thanks Max

Appreciate the kudos.

Another thing I noticed in the article that Eric linked to.

" There's a lot going on with the umpires these days, and it's not all good. Ever since Sandy Alderson left his post at MLB to take over the San Diego Padres last year, there have been grumblings that the umpiring standards have declined, and that some umps are now acting as renegades, the way they did before Alderson took charge and scared them all into line."

Ok, maybe it's not the union, maybe it's just the umpires being terrible and not being scared into line.

by future on May 8, 2006 5:55 PM EDT reply actions

FWIW

I sent a copy of the NYTimes article and the Star Ledger article to Jimmie Lee Solomon's office, the executive in charge of on-field matters along with a note about the ridiculous incident. I doubt I'll get a response, but if I do I'll post it.

by OronosFemur on May 9, 2006 10:19 AM EDT reply actions