Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English.

There are 58 comments on MLB Umpires Missed 34,294 Ball-Strike Calls in 2018. Bring on Robo-umps?

  1. This is a great article. I agree completely. When I coached my son’s team for many years, we would sometimes scrimmage in practice. I would ump and it was very difficult. I actually started standing by the mound so I could see the balls/strikes more clearly. It would not be safe at the Major League level but I saw first hand how difficult it is to be accurate from behind the plate. I agree with this article completely. Great job !

    1. AGREE, LIKE TOTALLY DUDE!!
      Cringing at the bad calls while watching the Sox defeat the Rays last Saturday, sitting with my best pal from elementary school with whom i used to compete to catch the fouls over the right fence hit by Ted Williams at spring practice, We discussed this very topic after being total fans for over six decades…
      TIME AND ENOUGH MLB::: DO it, please, if for no other reason than to keep a couple of very old fans from having heart attacks by the badly missed calls…

      Thank you.

  2. Great job on this article Mark, you and your team put a lot of work into and it really shows. I consider myself a Baseball purist; I hate the DH, I yearn for the game where the catcher is called for a balk, I dislike the bat-flip and the wave belongs nowhere near a Baseball field. Having said all that I am totally for any type of equipment that can aid the umpire in making better calls… as long as they benefit my beloved Yankees! Seriously, if they can do that and not disrupt the pace of play then I’m all for it. I was against the replay for the longest time but now I like it, so I can change too. This reminds me of a story about a young rookie pitcher that was pitching against Rogers Hornsby and the pitcher threw the pitch and the umpire called it a ball, he threw the next one and the ump called a ball, the pitcher got upset so he finally said to ump, “Hey ump, those two pitches were perfect what gives?” The umpire took his mask off and said, “Young man, when you throw a strike, Mr. Hornsby will let you know.”

  3. Mark, what is the criteria you used to determine a call was incorrect? Specifically, what px values comprised your acceptable call range on the horizontal axis (all else equal), and what pz values relative to sz_bot/sz_top comprised your acceptable call range on the vertical axis? Was there any accounting for strike zone depth, e.g., a pitch, based on spin rate, that breaks back over the plate after crossing the front edge off the plate? Margin of error?

    1. Gil, you can question, be cynical even yet that doesn’t mean the study had flaws discrediting the findings. Clearly you are educated and intelligent yet it appears you have a bias in proving the assessment and data is incomplete and thus a poor study.

      1. what is wrong with any of his questions? none of them were explained in the article, and they are all legitimate questions. you seem to expect people to just accept the study and not question it at all. that isn’t how science works.

    2. It may sound simple, but the technology already exists. Most, if not all stadiums, have a camera pointed straight down to home plate from above and behind the umpire. The path of the ball can easily be seen either crossing or not crossing home plate. The cameras showing whether a batter checks his swing can also show if the pitch is too high, too low, or in the zone.

  4. I am an obsessed baseball fan. This is a great report. I do think something is missing, though. The biggest problems I see with ball/strike calls is that many umpires seem to give a left-handed pitcher throwing to a right-handed batter a much bigger strike zone than a righty to righty matchup. The reverse is also true. It literally seems as though they are completely guessing about the outside edge of the plate. Also, very few umps will call a strike above the belt. If umpires were calling a complete strike zone, the game times would be much shorter. It would be drastically more effective than a pitch clock. Just call the strike zone the way it was called the first hundred years…

  5. As an 24 year veteran in umpiring high school and babe ruth games. I thought the article was interesting.
    However what is the strike zone you are looking at? Did you know that any ball above the letters is out of the strike zone. Did you ask how many of these pitches were curveballs, change-ups, fastballs, or screwballs, they all have different reactions when thrown. What about the batting stance that also effects the strike zone.

  6. Is there any relation to more pitchers throw harder, mph, than ever before. Umpires with many years of calling balls and strikes, were calling balls and strikes on much slower pitches. And I wonder if over time, the many yearumpires who were consistently calling balls and strikes on much slower pitches, have muscle memory in their eyes.Where pitches normal course of flight were easier to track, I wonder of the experienced umpires realistically do not have the physical tools to track accurate flight of pitches that are mph faster than yesteryear. Where newer umpires don’t have that predisposition in their eye muscle memory??

    1. I think you make a great observation Rickie. Speaking as an umpire myself, I think reflexes and having young eyes have a big impact on ball/strike accuracy and shouldn’t be overlooked, but I think you definitely could have a point.

      1. What you are offering is reasons why mlb umpire’s are not capable of maintaining a k zone. Digitizing each player is simple enough…humans just cannot do this task acceptably

  7. Well.. let’s see…MLB players made a total of 2688 errors last year.
    They struck out approximately 43,698 times.
    Pitchers gave up a total of 16,736 walks.

    And.. while you can argue that some of those were intentional thats still over 62,000 times a player either made a fielding error… misjudged a pitch and struck out… or gave up a walk by not hitting the strike zone.

    Whether those were because of missed calls by umpires… or not… that’s a grievous amount of errors being made by the human ballplayers.

    Why don’t we simply program in abilities and portability statistics and play 162 games for each team on a computer… that way we can remove ALL human error.

    1. You’re creating a different debate. Do you want the “judges” in your life, government, police, judges to be accurate and get it right? I assumed you played sports growing up or in college. Did you want officials, referees, umpires to get calls right?

      1. What’s interesting about your argument hear is that you assume that all judges, police etc., get it right. Law is left up to interpretation as seen by a judge. They get to hear objections and make a rulings based on their opinion of their interpretation of the objection. Police officers make errors to, that is why we have a judicial branch. I love seeing this type of data but baseball is a game of human nature and accepting failure is part of it.

  8. Interesting piece and an amazing amount of man (& woman) hours. Kudos to all in making the case for ball-and-strike accuracy.
    1. Report glosses over that BCR dropped from 16.4 to 9.2 per game since 2008.
    2. Other than game-ending Bad Calls (BCs) and the two-strike tendency, there’s no tracking of how many BCs are in clutch or crucial situations.
    3. In umpire ratings, BCs on bases, HRs, foul balls aren’t factored in.
    4. Nor is Game Management.
    5. Or umps’ personality, ie, the combative quick-ejection folks.
    6. Do certain teams have more BCs against them?
    7. Are certain pitchers able to “work” umpires to get more BCs in their favor?
    8. Did tuition dollars fund this study?
    All-in-all fascinating stuff.

    1. 3) BC’s on bases, HRs, foul balls are all reviewable, so that would be a different report that would measure accuracy of replay and number of over turns vs total number of calls made.
      6) I’d be curious if more players have BC’s against them (their stance leads to an oddly perceived zone) or catchers with high BC’s for them (they are great at framing a bad pitch; aka “great hands while receiving”)
      8) I’d hope so.

  9. While the number of missed pitches seems high, it’s less than 1% of all pitches. The human error factor is 0.8%, which is fantastic given how many times humans make errors. How many pitchers throw 99.92% strikes? How many fielders have a 99.92% fielding percentage? How many batters make it on base 99.92% of the time? We’re all human and its the humanness that is part of the game. Controversy gives sportscasters and fans something to talk about. Adding more technology will lengthen an already too long game. We need adults to help others learn that we’re all human, we all make mistakes. It’s part of the game. It’s part of life. It’s up to the players to make sure the tiny number of errors aren’t a factor in the outcome – of the game or of life.

    1. You’re missing the point. We want to see all the “humanness that is part of the game”, played by the players on the field, add up to the result that it should, according to the rules of the game: not some random result, superimposed by an umpiring mistake.

      “It’s up to the players” – no, it’s not; good games played by good teams are often close. And if a third of all 2-strike balls are called strikes instead…many outcomes are going to be decided by umpiring mistakes. This makes no sense.

  10. This article definitely seems to set out with an agenda. Data doesn’t lie, but those who interpret it do. Even your best attempts in this article seem biased.
    Also, there are some things that are not considered which anyone who plays or watches a lot of baseball would know. For one thing, the strike zone IS intentionally slightly larger with 2 strikes. I learned that when I was 10. Granted, it is an unwritten rule, but it is a known part of the game you ignore.
    And your statistic about strikeouts being more likely to be wrongly called than a ball 4 walk – have you properly controlled for the tendency for ball 4 to be very far from the strike zone? There are plenty of intentional walks, and plenty of pitchers just don’t want to throw a hit-able pitch to the other team’s best player when they have a 3-0 or 3-1 count.
    Also, the graph “Umpires’ inconsistent performance by innings” does seem to show strong correlation by inning. I’m not sure how you can immediately follow that graph with the opposite statement.

  11. These statistics are a great tool for helping umpires understand their inconsistencies and can show them that they are not perfect………but….

    This article is only addressing one aspect of the MLB Umpire “game”, Balls & Strikes. There are several references to umpires selected for the World Series are not the “best” umpires. The World Series umpires are not specifically selected for having the “best BCR” strike zone. There are other areas of the umpiring game that come into consideration as well. Such as game management, addressing and managing the egos of the players & coaches, having experience at handling many “tough” situations, being able to internally handle the pressure at the general expected level of a World Series, to accurately as humanly possible to administer and judge correctly the rules of the game, and to get the balls & strikes as correct as “humanly” possible (last year’s WS had some games above the 97% mark, which is well above the hitters averages).

    So, it is more than just balls & strikes. Many of these younger umpires, who seem to be well on their way to very successful careers in MLB, would likely falter a bit when it came to the enormity of the WS games and the intense pressure they are under.

  12. Great report, Mark. You and your team should be very proud.

    When will MLB catch up to NBA when it comes to using technology to get the calls right as often as possible?

    Check out Michel Lewis’ last report on “This American Life”

    Hoop Reams
    https://www.thisamericanlife.org/672/no-fair/act-one-3

    The NBA is aggressively using technology to get the calls right.

    Here’s hoping the MLB will use technology to get the calls right in the future.

    Thanks again for this report.

  13. While I do get frustrated with bad calls and wouldn’t be too upset if robot umps were installed, there are some problems with this article.

    1. You don’t have the criteria used to determine what is wrong or right. I assume it’s a difference between the game record and the pitch f/x result. But the assumption that every pitch f/x is correct to the micron is a little much, which brings me to the next point…

    2. You say that pitch f/x “accuracy is claimed to be within one inch”. So let’s say there’s a margin for error of one inch. When there is a +/- of an inch on a (slightly less than) 3 inch ball traveling across a 17 inch plate, isn’t that a somewhat high? YOu can’t have a margin of error measurable in inches for a game that is known as “a game of inches”.

    3. What’s more, where’s the verification that this is correct? I’m sure it’s there, but realistically, how is it verified? Again, the tolerances must be tight here if we’re going to upend the system.

    4. It totally disregards the situation. If Joe West has a left leaning strikezone, and the pitcher and hitters figure that out, then nobody has a problem. What I would love to see is a regression analysis run on each umpire’s strikezones to see how far out of their own zone they call. Because a consistent slightly off zone is not the problem. It’s an unconsistent zone.

    5. Does this use the official strikezone definition? Because there are going to be a lot of calls at the letter that are going to be called if we adhere to the official strikezone (that I think should be called) that the hitters won’t like.

    All in all, the “resisting change” indictment I see a lot and it is a problem. Not changing something when the mobs call for it is not “resisting change”, it’s exercising prudence, especially with things like DH, robo umps, and other things that are pretty core to the sport. Flowing in and out with the tide does not produce a lasting game.

    I understand that people have the onus to change things because they have the wrong idea that change is always progress. But those that exercise patience will ultimately be the ones that avoid unforeseen consequences and actually make progress, not just change.

    1. I agree on points 1 and 2. This is a legit concern that should be addressed. Because a baseball is more than 2x larger than the accuracy scale, perhaps the standard could be whether 50% of the ball crosses the strike-zone. That way, even if it’s off by a full inch, that still means 15% of the ball hit the zone. If they can pin it down to within a half inch, I think this issue can be ignored. No human being can confidently argue over a half inch for a thrown pitch.

      Disagree on point 4. “If Joe West has a left leaning strike zone, and the pitcher and hitters figure that out, then nobody has a problem.” Until strike 3 or ball 4 is called.

      On point 5, I hope they do match the rule book. If too many strikeouts occur, change the strike zone or move the pitcher’s mound backward. I’ve felt for a long time that the front edge of the pitcher’s plate should be around 63′ 7″. That’s the midpoint between the back of the plate and 2nd base. Though that hurts the pitcher, it does help him out in 2 ways: reaction time to hit ball and better view to 1st base, which would be at a 90° angle rather than 92.8° angle.

    2. Agree with the first 2 points here as well. What truly determines what is a right vs wrong call? And 1 inch variance of a 3 inch object is a high statistical error in my opinion.

  14. As an amateur umpire for over 30 years, knowing and being friends with current and former MLB and MiLB umpires, and more in NCAA Div 1 baseball….

    calling correctly balls and strikes is something that umpires in the highest levels are concerned about each and every year.

    Apparently data that MLB umpires get from MLB Umpire Supervisors and whatever tracking information is used at those levels of professional baseball indicate that their accuracy of calling balls and strikes has improved over the years from the low 90 percentile to about 97-98%.

    Your data indicates something entirely different. And, while it’s a statistical analysis may have some validity I think it’s important that your data needs to ‘walk in the other persons shoes’ !

    Maybe if your data is compared to what MLB Umpires get regarding calling pitches there would be a better understanding of how to use your data more effectively.

    Speaking from personal experience and umpiring knowledge any part of the ball that touches the 3 dimensional strike zone is generally called a strike.

    However, perception is part of the game, and the players know such. So when a pitch that looks very close to be in that 3 dimensional zone and the catcher does something the make the umpire believe it’s a strike, many umpires will call such a pitch a ball.

    Maybe, a discussion with catchers about how they rate MLB Umpires would be an interesting non data analysis of any specific MLB Umpires effectively calling pitches.

    There’s more to any analysis than statistics and data. As someone teaching and passing on your knowledge to your students the need is there to be as fair and impartial by looking into all the areas where either specific data is available or perceptions of those who are catching each of those thousands of pitches.

    On a positive note, I did really enjoy reading the complete analysis. I thought it looked into many different ideas of analysis.

    Do you think any of it would apply to our current representatives in Congress? LOL

    That would be a very interesting analysis for your students.

  15. This research appears strong and convincing, however the report is lacking in at least a couple of ways.

    First, the description of exactly how the technology determines a correct call is deficient. The analysts assume the technology as a “perfect” reference so, as such, they ought to rigorously test that assumption.

    Second, and at least as important, is lack of analysis of consistency of individual umpires’ calls. It is well known at all levels of baseball that individual umps have certain biases. By and large, players and coaches adapt to those biases and they tend to judge umpires by their “internal consistency”, not consistency against the book definition of a strike. I believe internal consistency is something that can and should be measured with the available data.

    Finally, there are many other important nuances of tradition in the game that are wholly absent from this analysis, most notably the importance of how a catcher “frames” a pitch. For example, it is widely understood that a pitch that requires the catcher to reach to catch it will very rarely be a called strike regardless of location. As such, fans and players will tend to distrust a robot that calls a strike if the catcher must reach.

    I commend these data scientists for their work, and encourage them to refine it in future interations.

  16. Since there apparently are not available such technology to apply assessing such ball and strike calls from 50’s, 60’s, 70’s 80′ 90’s MLB games, by MLB umpires, are we sure the prior generations of MLB umpires calling balls and strikes, were any more accurate? Or, is technology just improved to the point science technology can applied to any human judgment calls, and inadvertently cast a dim shadow on the current, from 90’s until today,MLB umpires, to the point their abilities to correctly determine which pitches are balls and strikes, make the current roster of umpires less efficient that prior generations of umpires in MLB, regarding the calling of balls and strikes? Maybe the prior of MLB umpires were less efficient in calling balls and strikes. It is easy to be a back seat driver and criticize current MLB umpires, when if you or I were standing behind any major league catcher trying to determine if a thrown baseball fit into an imagery predetermined strike zone of invisible lines, would we be able to do any better? Understandably these are seasoned professionals, with many years of training, but are they really supposed to be perfect? What line of human error is acceptable regarding the calling of balls and strikes in MLB?

  17. I generally enjoyed reading this, but it certainly comes at this from a particular bias. Your data does show that umpires are improving, and that is likely due to the use of technology to help grade their performance. Since this is a game played by humans, there will always be an error rate, why should that not be accepted?

    You also fail to realize one critical factor in all of this, the umpires have a very strong union and as such, has resisted change, resists punishing umpires publicly, and protects those with seniority. Even with their CBA expiring at the end of this season, do not expect that to change a whole lot.

    Lastly, with any technology, before you roll it out there needs to be testing. So MLB is not dragging its feat by having the Atlantic League test out technology assisted umpiring. It is doing the right thing. There are always bumps in the road, unforeseen problems when using new technology. So yes, it should have some actual on-field testing before rolled out at the highest level.

  18. The only strike zone I’ve ever known is the one the ump, the catcher, and I created together. The best part about a zone is that it’s the umpires, affected by the batters stance, and the catchers position, and can change and you have to change with it. It’s an integral part of a unique game to keep the game organic and unique. Change that and you might as well fully transform players to player factories only, with the only MLB players being 5 tool from a combine. Reality is you’d never have a Will Clark or an Edgar Martinez, or a Pete Rose ever again. None were 5 tool, and no ump will ever be perfect. It’s the beauty of the game.

  19. As a reference point, look at the NFL the year the season opened with “Fill-In” referees and umpires. It wasn’t too many games in to the season it was apparent, although the Union Referees, Umpires, etcs, were far from perfect, the Union Umpires were definitely more efficient in calling an NFL games. Determining valid catches, forward progress, interference, etc. Much the same thing would happen in MLB if “substitute” umpires were in charge of balls and strikes, double play calls, runner out calls, etc. I would almost bet the people who are slamming umpires balls and strikes would quickly change their tune if substitute MLB umpires were suddenly in charge of the MLB games. Your thoughts?

  20. This article assumes that the Statcast strike zone is 100% accurate. It ignores the fact that there is a human element in determining the vertical borders of that strike zone, which according to the rules of baseball should be recalibrated on every pitch as the hitter varies his stance. It ignores the fact that there is a different position for the radar devices in each ballpark.

    I don’t dispute that umpires make mistakes and I find it particularly interesting that the error rate increases with age (though I’m not sure why it doesn’t also increase toward the later innings, when fatigue should be a factor). I’m not convinced, however, that a ‘robot’ strike zone is automatically more accurate. Worse, since it’s the robot strike zone that is being used to judge the umpires, I don’t see any way to make an objective judgment as to which is more accurate.

    At this stage of the technology, a case can be made for using it as an aid to the umpire. But I do not agree that it should have the final call.

  21. While I’m pro robo ump your opinion that MLB is stalling is very wrong. It actually would be irresponsible to introduce a technology without testing it at the highest level.

    Testing it at the lower level is exactly the right thing to do.

    Also I don’t like how strongly you argue that mlb has to act now as if world integrity was in danger.

    Bad ump decisions have been around for decades but are no economic issue for mlb. In the end it is a zero sum game for mlb and some even argue that little human element of chance is good. I don’t agree with that assertion but mlb is still making record revenue, there is no crisis with this. Fans will go off on ump bad calls but they won’t stop watching baseball.

  22. A brit perspective… we are trying out VAR (Video Assisted Refereeing) for football (soccer) at the moment… all that has happened is that the arguments have moved from the play to arguing about the VAR call – with ridiculous amounts of time being used up when challenges are made. Sometimes things are best left well alone and just accept human decision making is the best.

  23. I play historic base ball, the kind where the game is spelled out with two words, with rules written in the 1860’s and ’70’s, when it was played by gentlemen. Our umpire calls balls and strikes only when the hurler and striker can’t get it together. Close plays are decided by the players themselves, and “judgement” called only when they can’t agree. And then, the umpire’s judgement is accepted. Return to a game of honor, of fair play and accept that the game is played by humans, and this, mistakes and all, is how the game should be played. Of course, I understand this is not possible in modern baseball, which is a business after all (note, the research was done by the business school) and there is a lot of money on the line. I am content and thankful to relive a bit of history and leave the current game to the “professionals”.

  24. So umpires get it right about 91 percent of the time in 2018, yet you want to change it? I’m lucky in life if I get everything right 91 percent of the time.

    1. Home plate umpire are just too unpredictable and I’m all in for the new system that way the “automatic” strike after 3 balls in a row would be history…Imagine no more head coaches throw away anymore!

  25. Let’s face it friends, there are some great ball/strike calls I see in MOST games. It’s a really tough job behind the plate. If we’re all honest, we’d mainly just have to tip our hats to the HPU’s. Having said that, boy, there really might not be anything that can make me jump out of my chair and scream at the TV screen quite like some of the gross bad calls from time to time behind the plate. The ones that are close you just kinda figure, buddy maybe you should think about protecting the plate when they are that close (to the batter). But it’s those gross game changing bad calls that have driven me to say, “enough is enough”, bring on the robot-caller. Use the technology, give the ump a in-ear device or vibrating device or something.

  26. I favor the use of technology to help the umpires get it right. One of the most attractive aspects of baseball is its capacity to put athletes in competitive situations that reward excellence. There are so many things that are right about Baseball, it’s a true shame that something this wrong is allowed to diminish the game’s ability to facilitate the truth.

    We have the technology to tell us when the pall passes through the strike zone: a column with five corners, its footprint being home plate and its top and bottom defined by the rules and the player’s anatomy. The rectangle we see on TV shows us only a plane at the front of the zone and ignores the rest of the column. Breaking pitches can miss the front plane and still pass through the column to become a strike. Nobody can reasonably expect a human to get that right from a crouched position behind the catcher.

    For MLB to have access to that technology and not use it in service to the integrity of the game is irresponsible at best.

    1. Home plate umpire are just too unpredictable and I’m all in for the new system that way the “automatic” strike after 3 balls in a row would be history…Imagine no more head coaches throw away anymore!

  27. Robo umps provide the consistency that human umps are just not capable of. It doesn’t matter if a pitch is 1/2 an inch off the plate and is called a strike or not, just as long as every player gets the exact same call. Machines provide that, a human does not. The outcome of a game should be determined by the performance of the athletes playing under the same rules without advantage and not by some random inconsistency or a mistake of an umpire. It is beyond logical comprehension to defend the idea of an umpire randomly making incorrect calls, sometimes egregiously, which may or may not determine the outcome as “Part of the Game”.

    Baseball has been suffering decreasing attendance and interest for several years and MLB should be looking at every way to improve the experience. I don’t watch games to see umpire mistakes determine the outcome, nor do I watch to see players argue with the umps. The accuracy and consistency of calling balls and strikes is such a major part of the game that it needs to be fixed since it readily can be.

  28. I agree. Tech assisted balls & strikes is the #1 step MLB can take to improve the game. Bad calls are not a tradition worth protecting. The fact that the strike zone can be called extremely accurately with tech is a big advantage for baseball relative to football or basketball where ambiguous calls like holding, pass interference and fouls will continue to frustrate fans. Hope MLB realizes tech assisted strike zones is an opportunity not a threat.

  29. Do you happen to have the data that compares teams? Which teams got more favorable calls and which teams got less? I would almost put money that the lower smaller market teams got less favorable calls more often than not

  30. Completely agree with comment on high strikes. However, people have been criticizing the paucity of “high” strike calls for decades, so this is nothing new.

    One remedy: Change the rules. This would be like recognizing that people routinely drive at least 5 mph over the posted speed limit (closer to 10, maybe) and so we should increase the limit accordingly.

  31. The study is flawed, at least to the same level that the study shows is the error rate of umpires. Due simply because the strike zone measuring equipment impose a stagnant zone on each batter, from Aaron Judge who is 6’7” to Garcia on the Wh Sox at 5’7”. Unless the strike zone, as defined in the Official Rules of Baseball, can be programmed and adjusted for every batter – their height, and individual batting stances when ready to swing – then the analysis cannot be considered definitive in terms of percentages of accuracy or inaccuracy of a given umpire. That being said, is Angel still horrible? Yes. There are 1000 non-MLB umpires who are better.

  32. This is a great study that leads us in the desired direction of getting the call right. I think there should at least be better performance evaluation and age should be a factor.
    I would also point out that the number of bad calls is not the only effect. Bad calls alter the behavior of both the batter and pitcher. If a ball is called a strike then the batter has to alter his approach and may swing at a ball that may be called a strike. This is not included in the bad call % but clearly alters the game. Full count 2 out in 9th does that pitch that would be a ball get swung at because of previous bad calls?

  33. Use the technology you have teams worth over a billion dollars players who work their whole lives to be great at their trade and than have some idiot behind the plate like West or Hernandez who can change not only one @t bat but a whole season every other sport has the brains to use the technology available what’s wrong with America’s past time I love the Yankees but if I watch a game and they start making bad calls I turn to something else can’t watch this crap when it could be made a lot better than these hacks.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *