It seemed like a no-brainer out of loyalty, if nothing else.
Ken Oberkfell, who has managed the Mets’ Triple-A team for most of the last six years, will get a chance to interview for the opening with the big-league team.
Oberkfell has certainly paid all of his dues. He was Baseball America’s Minor League Manager of the Year in 2005. He’s managed the Mets’ Triple-A franchise through stops in Norfolk, New Orleans and Buffalo, with the only interruption coming when he became the team’s major league first-base coach for a spell in 2008 after Willie Randolph was fired as manager.
He’s even managing at this very moment. The interview will take place in the Dominican Republic because he’s trying to lead the Leones del Escogido to a second straight DWL championship.
A 16-year major leaguer, Oberkfell hit .278/.351/.362 with six clubs between 1977 and 1992. He had little power, but he amassed a 356/546 K/BB ratio in 4,874 career at-bats.
Oberkfell will be the seventh candidate interviewed by the Mets, joining fellow team employees Wally Backman, Terry Collins, Chip Hale, Dave Jauss and Bob Melvin and Red Sox bench coach DeMarlo Hale. Still on tap are Clint Hurdle and Don Wakamatsu.
Craig covered the bulk of Rob Manfred’s quotes from earlier. The commissioner was asked about robot umpires and he’s not a fan. Via Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports:
Manfred was wrong to blame the player’s union’s “lack of cooperation” on proposed rule changes, but he’s right about robot umps and the strike zone. The obvious point is that robot umps cannot yet call balls and strikes with greater accuracy than umpires. Those strike zone Twitter accounts, such as this, are sometimes hilariously wrong. Even the strike zone graphics used on television are incorrect and unfortunate percentage of the time.
The first issue to consider about robot umps is taking jobs away from people. There are 99 umps and more in the minors. If robot umpiring was adopted in collegiate baseball, as well as the independent leagues, that’s even more umpires out of work. Is it worth it for an extra one or two percent improvement in accuracy?
Personally, the fallibility of the umpires adds more intrigue to baseball games. There’s strategy involved, as each umpire has tendencies which teams can strategize against. For instance, an umpire with a more generous-than-average strike zone on the outer portion of the plate might entice a pitcher to pepper that area with more sliders than he would otherwise throw. Hitters, knowing an umpire with a smaller strike zone is behind the dish, may take more pitches in an attempt to draw a walk. Or, knowing that information, a hitter may swing for the fences on a 3-0 pitch knowing the pitcher has to throw in a very specific area to guarantee a strike call or else give up a walk.
The umpires make their mistakes in random fashion, so it adds a chaotic, unpredictable element to the game as well. It feels bad when one of those calls goes against your team, but fans often forget the myriad calls that previously went in their teams’ favor. The mistakes will mostly even out in the end.
I haven’t had the opportunity to say this often, but Rob Manfred is right in this instance.
ESPN’s Howard Bryant is reporting that Major League Baseball has approved a rule allowing for a dugout signal for an intentional walk. In other words, baseball is allowing automatic intentional walks. Bryant adds that this rule will be effective for the 2017 season.
MLB has been trying, particularly this month, to improve the pace of play. Getting rid of the formality of throwing four pitches wide of the strike zone will save a minute or two for each intentional walk. There were 932 of them across 2,428 games last season, an average of one intentional walk every 2.6 games. It’s not the biggest improvement, but it’s something at least.
Earlier, Commissioner Rob Manfred was upset with the players’ union’s “lack of cooperation.” Perhaps his public criticism was the catalyst for getting this rule passed.
Unfortunately, getting rid of the intentional walk formality will eradicate the chance of seeing any more moments like this: