Getty Images

Umpire Lance Barksdale blames catcher for blown call


There was a lot of talk about the strike zone during last night’s game, with a whole lot of calls — mostly high and on the corners — being missed by home plate umpire Lance Barksdale. Given that the game was 7-1 those missed calls really had nothing to do with the outcome, but they were pretty notable.

But not as notable as one particular missed call that, it seems anyway, was not a function of Barksdale not being able to properly ascertain the difference between a ball and a strike. Rather, it was because he apparently thought Nationals catcher Yan Gomes was showing him up.

During the sixth inning, Nats pitcher Tanner Rainey threw a pitch to Astros outfielder Michael Brantley that pretty clearly caught the bottom corner and should’ve been strike three. Gomes, as a lot of catchers do when they know their pitcher made their pitch, caught it, bounced up and headed for the dugout. Barksdale called it a ball, however.

Why? Because, Barksdale said, “you were taking off on me,” suggesting that he called it a ball because Gomes got out of his crouch assuming the strike call, which Barksdale thought was disrespectful. Gomes immediately got Barksdale’s drift and said, “oh, it’s my fault?” Which I imagine might’ve gotten him run out of the game if it wasn’t October, but here we are:

An umpire missing a call because he’s bad at telling a ball from a strike is not great, but at least it’s just a mistake. An umpire blaming a missed call on the catcher — with the implication that, perhaps, he might’ve called it differently if his feelings weren’t hurt — is another thing altogether.

Umpires are gonna be upset if and when they’re replaced with automated systems to call balls and strikes. But they’ll be at least partially to blame if it happens.

MLBPA: MLB’s ‘demand for additional concessions was resoundingly rejected’

Rob Manfred and Tony Clark
LG Patterson/MLB via Getty Images

On Thursday evening, the Major League Baseball Players Association released a statement regarding ongoing negotiations between the owners and the union. The two sides continue to hash out details concerning a 2020 season. The owners want a shorter season, around 50 games. The union recently proposed a 114-game season that also offered the possibility of salary deferrals.

MLBPA executive director Tony Clark said that the union held a conference call that included the Executive Board and MLBPA player leaders. They “resoundingly rejected” the league’s “demand for additional concessions.”

The full statement:

In this time of unprecedented suffering at home and abroad, Players want nothing more than to get back to work and provide baseball fans with the game we all love. But we cannot do this alone.

Earlier this week, Major League Baseball communicated its intention to schedule a dramatically shortened 2020 season unless Players negotiate salary concessions. The concessions being sought are in addition to billions in Player salary reductions that have already been agreed upon.

This threat came in response to an Association proposal aimed at charting a path forward. Among other things, Players proposed more games, two years of expanded playoffs, salary deferrals in the event of a 2020 playoff cancellation, and the exploration of additional jewel events and broadcast enhancements aimed at creatively bringing our Players to the fans while simultaneously increasing the value of our product. Rather than engage, the league replied it will shorten the season unless Players agree to further salary reductions.

Earlier today we held a conference call of the Association’s Executive Board and several other MLBPA Player leaders. The overwhelming consensus of the Board is that Players are ready to report, ready to get back on the field, and they are willing to do so under unprecedented conditions that could affect the health and safety of not just themselves, but their families as well. The league’s demand for additional concessions was resoundingly rejected.

Important work remains to be done in order to safely resume the season. We stand ready to complete that work and look forward to getting back on the field.

As per the current agreement signed in March, if there is a 2020 season, players will be paid on a prorated basis. Thus, fewer games means the players get paid less and the owners save more. MLB has threatened to unilaterally set a 2020 season in motion if the two sides cannot come to terms. It should come as no surprise that the union has responded strongly on both fronts.

There have been varying reports in recent days over the confidence in a 2020 season happening. The MLBPA’s statement tonight doesn’t move the needle any; it simply affirms that the union remains steadfast in its goal to avoid a second significant cut in salaries.

As I see it, the ball is in the owners’ court. The owners can strongarm the players into a short season, saving money but significantly increasing the odds of a big fight in upcoming collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Or the owners can eat more of a financial loss, agreeing to a longer season than they feel is comfortable. The latter would have the double benefit of not damaging overall perception of the sport and would not disrupt labor peace going forward.

The MLBPA statement included a declaration that the players are “ready to report, ready to get back on the field, and they are willing to do so under unprecedented conditions.” If there is no 2020 season, we will have only the owners to blame, not the players.

Update: Cardinals pitcher Jack Flaherty, who has been quite vocal on social media about these negotiations, chimed in: