Umps Fenway-biased? Scioscia plants the seed
Pre-emptive strike was smart, with Angels-Red Sox playoff duel looming
 | Los Angeles Angels manager Mike Scioscia argues with umpire Tim Timmons after an attempted force at second base by Angels shortstop Erick Aybar in the sixth inning Wednesday. Timmons ruled that Aybar did not have control of the ball, so Jason Bay was safe. |
Elise Amendola / AP |
 |
Latest tweets from the HBT guys
|
For more MLB musings, check out Hardball Talk. |
 | Video: Baseball from NBC Sports |
 Manuel praises Halladay Jan. 27: Phillies manager Charlie Manuel thinks Roy Halladay is the best pitcher in the league and says it would have been nice to have him in his pitching rotation this upcoming year. |
|
Manager Mike Scioscia and reliever Brian Fuentes didn’t just complain that home plate ump Rick Reed missed a couple of calls that helped Boston tie the game and then win it. They accused Reed and other umpires of favoring the Red Sox because they’re afraid of the crowd.
The comments are out of line. Did you hear that, kids? Never, ever try this at home. Or on the playground. It’s lousy sportsmanship and shows a lack of refinement.
On the other hand, while Fuentes was probably just spouting off, Scioscia is a cagey manager and knew exactly what he was saying when he suggested that the Red Sox and maybe a few other teams enjoy home-field umpiring because of their passionate fans in sold-out stadiums.
If Scioscia had been an NBA coach, we’d hardly blink at what he said. Phil Jackson and Pat Riley before him made an art form of accusing the ref of favoring the other team. Over the years, both have racked up impressive fine totals for their calculated comments. But they’ve also probably bought a few calls that may have decided some games. If they didn’t think the comments were worth it, they wouldn’t keep making them.
In Jackson’s case, it is worth it. Every time he whines about the officiating, his enemies will swear the refs cut him breaks. How else could Kobe Bryant get away with so many elbows in the paint? He also has the championship rings to prove that something he’s doing works — including ref-baiting.
You have to figure Scioscia feels the same way. His remarks didn’t spring spontaneously from sterile soil Wednesday night. Nor did Fuentes’. Both had clearly been harboring the suspicion that Boston enjoys a home-ump advantage for some time.
As a closer, Fuentes has probably spent a lot of idle innings in the bullpen complaining about the umpiring in various venues with his fellow relievers. And Scioscia has spent years watching umpiring slights — both real and imagined — from visiting dugouts across the country.
So what they said was something they’ve believed for quite some time. And Tuesday night turned out to be a perfect time to say so.
The playoffs are just a couple of weeks away, and the way things are looking, the Angels will be playing the Red Sox in the first round. That means two games in Fenway, where Los Angeles thinks the umps let the crowd’s judgment influence their own.
Instead of waiting to see if things change, the Angels launched a preemptive verbal strike. The fines they end up paying won’t matter. The idea has been planted and it can’t help but grow. It might even work.
All they need is for one strike call to go their way. Tuesday night, Nick Green should have been called out looking at strike three — actually, as Scioscia sarcastically put it, strike four. That digital strike zone that the TV folks superimpose on replays showed that the pitch Reed called ball four wasn’t even borderline. It was totally inside the zone.
At this point, it doesn’t matter if the umps’ judgment is clouded by the miasma of noise cascading down on them from Red Sox Nation. They’ve been told by a professional manager that they’re not being objective. Since umpires are human — really, they are — the natural reaction will be for the umps to get angry at having their professionalism called into question. To prove they’re not swayed by the crowd, they’ll subconsciously bend their calls the other way.
It’s basic psychology. So, too, is the reason why it’s probably true that officials in any sport may tend to favor the home team — even when they’ll swear they’re being objective.
Umpires are paid to be objective. They take great pride in their ability to call ‘em as they see ‘em. During the game, they focus on the call, not on the uniform or the situation.
But because they’re human, it is possible for umpires to be influenced by crowd noises. You see it all the time in basketball. There’s a reason the home team usually gets more calls than the visitors, and it has to do with the crowd’s approval and disapproval working on the ref’s minds.
It’s not conscious. All officials worth their paychecks — and that includes the folks making ten bucks a game at the town park — do everything they can to shut out the crowd. They are convinced they are the souls of objectivity.
But objectivity is a subjective thing. And hearing cheers is always preferable to hearing boos. Our subconscious minds take care of making the adjustments necessary to make that happen.
I expect officials of every stripe to be outraged at what I’ve said. I’d think less of them if they weren’t. But that doesn’t mean that they’re immune to human psychology, nor does it mean anything I’ve said isn’t true.
So, as lousy a display of sportsmanship as Scioscia and Fuentes put on, it may turn out to be worth it. They honestly believe they’re getting the short end of the calls. They did the only thing they saw as having a chance of changing that. They called the umps out in public.
They’ll pay for what they said. But just maybe, come October, the Red Sox will be the ones who ultimately foot the bill.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
LowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM BASEBALL |
 Baseball Section Front |
| Add Baseball headlines to your news reader: |
Sponsored links