Today's cadre of ML umpires have been castigated as incompetent, lazy and unworthy of working the sport. I've given this a lot of thought lately as I've spent a lot time over the past six summers watching and apeaking with MiLB and MLB umpires. I also have spent considerable time watching film from the 50's. 60's, 70's and a few from as far back as the 40's.
From the evidence, I find no significant difference in performance, overall, between today's umpires and those of yesteryear. In fact, today's umpires, on average, are more athletic and mover more and quicker to get to their spots to make calls.
There's no Eric Gregg strike zones being called today, and in fact the outsde of the plate is being controlled better than a couple of games I got to review played in the 40's, including one with Bob Feller on the mound as the Indians took on the Yankees in 1946. Feller got the advantage of a huge strike zone.
Bangers at first...no difference. Number of arguments after close plays...no difference.
Here are differences: Endless Instant Replay. Replay was introduced in 1963 but didn't become a regualar part of baseball until 1965. Prior to that everyone from the umpire to the manager to the fan had one realtime look at the play. Differnces of opinion would pretty much just that, and they did not last long. With no evidence of an error, sportswriters and fans moved on.
Even when replay first became popular, a play was replayed one time, and then then everyone, even the announcers, goyt on with their lives. The technology at the time did not allow easy, nor quick replays over and over.
Another difference: More cameras shooting from more and different views. Some of the earliest games had one, then two , then three cameras...all positioned on the meezzanine level. Even as late as 1970 there were just five cameras, four on the mezzanine and one in centerfield.
Things started popping. In 1990 there were 12 cameras and nine taping machines. Today, there are more still and they are at set at different levels and angles providing views that, at times, no umpires has access to in real time.
And the advent of HD as added more clarity and a better view for everyone but the umpire.
Today, with cameras surrouding every play and every pitch, and the truly "instant" instant reply, fans can be shown anywhere between four and eight replays of a close call or pitch, and even more if the announcers decide to go back to it later in the game.
Stills can be taken from these digital videos and are often featured in papers and on websites.
So the umpire errors of today, unlike those of the 40's, 50, 60, 70, and to a large extent, the 80's, are confirmed as fact rather than opinion. Thus it appears that umpiring has declined.
It has not. The newer umpires are in better shape than ever. They are better trained than ever and they have better mechanics than their earlier brethern. They also have unforgiving, fully exposing and relentlessly playing evidence of their errors that their early brethern did not have.
And, notice that I said "errors." For some reason it is not deemed "good television" or interesting journalism to use instant replay on the 95%+ of the calls they get right.
Original Post
