...yes I know it's possible to stick up for your team without throwing a temper tantrum...that's the first solution I thought of because most managers do (throw temper tantrums) and because (and perhaps this says something bad about me), that's what I would have done if I had Wok's job. I am slightly ashamed to say that.
But I haven't seen it from Wok this year. Not at all...I haven't even seen him talk to an umpire about a call for more than 5 seconds.
I don't think I can ever respect C.B. Bucknor again. This is three times now he's umpired a Mariner game and ticked me off. I don't know how Wok could had just stood there in the dubout with what looked like an amused smirk on his face after that call. There was just something about the expression on his face that made me even angrier.
they figure out how to do battle on their own terms.
Matty has an article up on the bag job the M's got from the umps Saturday, and on Wakamatsu's lack of reaction to it. (Here's an article about Wakamatsu's baby-soft treatment of the umpires in his rookie season.)
This one -- the bases-loaded phantom strikeout that decided the game -- was outrageous, and in umpire terms it was a loogie into the M's dugout. Sorry, not wishing to be vulgar, but that's what it was.
...............
It's a tough call here, because Wakamatsu is brainy, respectful and polite, and he obviously has a strategy in mind -- pay your dues as a rook so as to get their respect later.
I can appreciate somebody saying, "Hey, that's not me, to scream in another person's face." It's not me either, as it's not Jon or Russ or a lot of us. If I managed 20 years in the majors, there would never be a shouting incident on the field. The same may be true of Wok IRL.
................
But! as Bruce Froemming put it, "this is a game of personalities and a game of sales." The manager has never lived who could survive in MLB without pushing back when he gets pushed.
Walter Alston, probably the most low-key great manager I can ever remember, would go out and he would use an indoor voice. But it's not like he went 23 years with 0 ejections. He could make an umpire feel absolutely terrible about the way he'd blown a play.
Froemming once talked about when he was a rookie, and he blew a call on a catcher trapping the ball against the fence, and Alston came out with anger in his face but not in his voice. "What's the story?" Alston said, quietly but dangerously.
Froemming's reply was snotty and sarcastic. Alston narrowed his eyes. "That's how you're going to talk to me?," Alston bit the words off. And shut up and waited.
Froemming remembered the humiliation for 30 years, or something. "I had nowhere to go from there. But you learn."
..................
Not all MLB umps are professional. Some are smirkers, some bait players and managers hoping for a fight, some are lazy, some hold grudges, some are just creeps. And some are great umps. According to the men who've written books about it, that is.
Wok simply does not have the luxury of letting umps push his team around with impunity. I admire his spiritual bearings, but he needs a spiritual solution to a secular problem.
The super-spiritual men that I have known, who have been good coaches at the amateur level, were not afraid to fight with the refs. They fought in honorable ways, but they were just as insistent about their rights as anybody else.
..................
Nobody's questioning Wakamatsu's personal toughness. There's no such thing as a major league catcher who isn't a very tough man. ... Wok's masterfully gentle-but-forceful handling of the Carlos Silva showdown, early in 2009, could have served as a textbook chapter for Mike Hargrove in the art of veteran - management.
We'll see what Wok has in mind, with respect to the umps taking advantage of him. Wouldn't surprise me if he was two steps ahead of us on this thing. I hope so. :- )
Russter, what exactly would you do in Wok's shoes?
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
... if I'm not mistaken.
Odds are, he'll have to explain himself to his supervisor on that, and I wouldn't want to have to...
"Russter, what exactly would you do in Wok's shoes?"
I'd make sure my team knew I had their back. Wok hasn't built a lot of capital yet, the way Alston had. Whatever capital I've built, I'd spend it for now on my guys behind closed doors. There are many guys that need to show that emotion for their own satisfaction. That's not me. I surmise that Wok is a lot like what I would aspire to be. I rather like Tony Dungy's methodology myself. Basically always show grace. Always, however, be strong enough to be able to have a controlled conversation with an official.
Me? I'd make sure I let the ump know that I knew he blew one (or many). Let him know I want the same plate they're giving to CC (or whoever). Leave it at that. Then let my guys know that no matter what happens in that arena, we can allow ourselves to understand what is real, but never let that stop us from doing our jobs. As near as I can tell, that's the way Wok does business.
I rarely ever see Wak even come out of the dugout...how can he even be letting them know he knows their zone is biased without actually...talking to them.
My own coach hero would get sort of stern with the refs, until they told him to go back to the bench, and he'd insist, "What do you mean go back to the bench? I'm not going back to the bench until you start getting these right!" Okay, that's a T.
He might keep it up, get two T's and an ejection.
You don't have to yell, curse, etc to be a battler. In baseball, the umps aren't municipal judges; they're part of the action out there. Or at least they are, until they themselves decide to take "personalities" out of their own umping.
I saw the Langerhans ring-up ... and want to say as an unbiased (as much as any person can be unbiased) party -- that was one of the single most egregious blown strike calls I've seen in 40 years of watching baseball on TV.
That said ... here's the difficult reality. As noted by others ... rookies in *ALL* sports do not get credit. Veterans get the calls, rookies get screwed. It's not just in MLB.
The problem in Seattle TODAY is the basic problem squared. Part of what allows rookies to move from getting screwed to being allowed to voice their displeasure is by making it thru the systemic 'hazing' of bad calls. You pay a season of dues while keeping your mouth shut, THEN you've demonstrated "reasonableness" (sic). So, in year 2 and beyond, complaints can be viewed as more than simply whining from brats.
But, you've got a whole lineup of rookie pitchers, being coached by a rookie manager. The problem here is that the same rule that applies to the players, applies to coaches also. Wak has to pay HIS dues, too. (It's stupid -- it's sad -- and it's unfair -- but it's reality). So, while I would COMPLETELY agree with the assessment that Wak has to get out there and show he's got his player's backs ... doing so TODAY is likely to be detrimental long term, (same as with the players).
He's a rookie Manager, who has done a great job at a lot of things. But, he's still learning exactly what the job entails. Get through 2009 as a "good boy", and Wak likely gains 10 times more respect NEXT season when he starts challenging the umps. (If he fails to adjust next season - THEN I will fully support the position that he needs to get his duff off the bench and start going Bobby Cox on some of these umps).
I agree that this is likely what's happening to the M's (players as well as coaches) this year, with regard to balls and strikes. I am generally in favor of keeping the more "traditional" facets of the game in tact... But this sort of thing really grinds my gears. Like you say, it's reality, so there's not a huge point in getting upset over it. But in my opinion, it's complete garbage. Balls and strikes aren't, and shouldn't be, subjective. We know what the strike zone is. We have the technology to call them accurately, if not 100% of the time, then much more often than a human could. With so much money at stake, why do we leave such an inefficient system in place, when we have the tools to improve it? The argument essentially boils down to the fact that people find it quaint. Which is fine, that's a reasonable opinion, and I can empathize. I'm just past the breaking point on this one.
Also, with regards to the paying of "dues". Who's to say that any other umpire will understand the situation, and therefor start giving the M's the good calls? This was one particular, terrible, umpire that we are talking about here (Buckner). Just because he botched a call, how will another ump next year 1. know that, and 2. change his calling accordingly? I don't see the connection. I think you must strive for correct game calling always, and get pushed around never.
The reason that one can expect "some" improvement after rookie seasons is because umps go to school and have spring training and umpire directives, etc., etc. every year.
The umps talk to each other, and word spreads ... "Wak is a real pro, doesn't jump all over you every time something is close." But it takes TIME for words like that to spread amongst the umpiring crews. AFTER that rep is established, then if Wak comes out, every ump who has created the "cool and reasonable" Wak foundation, is going to be MUCH more apt to consider a complaint as reasonable. If Wak goes all Bobby Cox from day one, then he NEVER gets the respect he might deserve.
===
I do, however, completely agree that this is a ridiculous methodology. I also believe that eventually, we will have technology-assisted strike-zones. But, it ain't gonna be real soon. FIRST, you've gotta solve the vertical problems, (the horizontal strike zone is fixed, but the vertical changes for each batter). Tennis had Cyclops for YEARS before the players accepted it. And the tennis challenge system today is about the ultimate capacity of bleeding edge technology. But, you add ONE variable, (vertical zone), and you've got a boatload of technical issues to work out.
You can either:
a) require all players invited to spring training camps to stand in their traditional batting stance and hand-record the vertical height of the bottom of their knees and the midway point between their belt and their shoulders (possibly flawed if the player crunches his zone down and then adjusts it during the regular season)...
or
b) place shiny target dots on their uniforms at the outside edge of the knees (just below the kneecap) and under the crook of their arms (right about where the top of the zone should be) and triangulate them the same way you triangulate the ball, giving you a dynamic strikezone height that locks in when the pitcher comes set.
That's pretty ingenious, I must say. That uniform idea is golden. They wouldn't even need to be visible to the human eye. Surely there's some sort of technology that a special camera could pick up on, that isn't visible by the naked eye.
We're getting a little theoretical here, but I think more and more people are willing to consider the idea of a non-human called strike zone. I'm all for that.
You could embed an infrared-emitting wire in the fibers of the uniforms that tracks the position of a player's knees and midsection as prescribed by the rulebook.