Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1844: Grill the Umpire

Episode Date: May 3, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about April’s low offensive numbers and Zack Greinke’s deadball-style success, then (7:11) talk to 32-year MLB umpire Dale Scott and SABRcast host Rob Neyer, co-authors of Scott’s new memoir The Umpire is Out: Calling the Game and Living My True Self, touching on the definition of “nutcutter,” how Dale […]

Blue on Blue I've got a message and a song for you You're like a meal, you run me through I call you Blue on Blue I call you Blue on Blue I call you blue on blue I call you, call you blue on blue Hello and welcome to episode 1844 of Effectively Wild, a Fangrafts baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters.

I'm Meg Rowley of Fangrafts, and I'm joined as always by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how are you? I am doing well, and it is baseball book season, and we've just read one, so we're going to discuss it in just a second with an author and a co-author. April, the book is closed. I just wanted to give you the stats, the offensive stats, the cold hard facts about offense in baseball in April. It was not great. I followed through on my promise or threat to do an article about what I stat blasted about a couple of weeks ago about the idea of limiting the number of pitchers on the active roster. I think it's a good idea. I ran through why and had a bunch of data and information and graphs in there, which I will link to on the show page. But for that, I was doing some April offense comparisons and boy, it was bleak. And I don't know what to make of it because you never know if part of it is just

compressed spring training and late start to the season. And who knows, maybe things will equalize a little bit. And obviously as the weather warms up, offense will take up too. But I was comparing to previous Aprils. And if anything, you would think that offense would be up because A, you've got universal DH, no more pitcher hitting, dragging down offense. B, you've got stricter enforcement supposedly of foreign substances. C, you've still got the zombie runner inflating offense because offense is just wild in extra innings. And you also skipped the first week of April because the season started late. So in theory, that should be the coldest

and most offense suppressing part of the month. And despite all that, the league as a whole hit 231, 306, 369 in April. That's a 675 OPS, a 282 BABIP, a 23% strikeout rate, 4.12 runs per team per nine innings. So just to give you some sense of how long it's been since we saw numbers like that in April, that is the lowest batting average in April since 1968, the year of the pitcher, the lowest OPS in April since 1981, which it was barely better than 1981. And before that, you had to go back to 1972, which was pre-DH. The lowest BABIP slugging percentage and runs per nine total in April since

1992. And then the second highest position player strikeout rate ever after last season. So I know that offense picked up a little bit maybe over the weekend, even though there was a no hitter, if you want to call it that, a combined no hitter by the Mets over the Phillies. But boy, for the month as a whole, I don't know what it portends for the rest of the season. But it turns out when the ball is a little bit deader and you don't do anything else to inflate offense, it's just going to crater. And that's what happened. Yeah. And we can't count on like Anthony Rizzo hitting three home runs in a bunch of games over the weekend. It does seem to suggest that we are in for a muted offensive season. And like you said, there might be things that change. It could be that as we approach the time of year

where the average humidor settings are more conducive to the ball going or the weather picks up and what have you, that there are things that can be done. I'll be very curious to see what the impact of reduced rosters are, even though not every team is getting rid of relievers. Some of them are getting rid of Robinson Kino, although that might lift offense too, sadly. But it is definitely something to keep an eye on because the earlier returns do not seem great. And we are once again, sadly, left wondering, did you guys really think this through all the way? Yep. Yeah. Although often in the past, when you get down to an extreme like that,

often that is the thing that prompts change. And so when I'm citing 1968 and 1972, like big notable things happened after that. So in that sense, if you're someone who wants to see change and wants to see whatever measure you think would bring baseball into line with what fans want, then bottoming out can kind of help with that. It's like, oh, boy, we better do something. And it overcomes resistance to doing something. So we'll see if things pick up. But I think the underlying issues here, which we've talked about and which I detail in my article, they're not just going to go away on their own. So they are going to require some sort of intervention. Although I have enjoyed the work of one Zach Grinke so far this season, who is just thus far defying modern baseball, basically. He pitched six innings on

Monday, gave up one run on a solo homer, and now through 28 innings, he has a 2.57 ERA for the Royals, and he has seven strikeouts, and he has three walks. So he's got like a three-point-something percent walk rate and a six point something percent strikeout rate and I would love to see that continue but I can't imagine that it will I don't know whether the ERA will rise or the rates will rise but something's got to get there because you can't strike out like two guys per nine at this point in baseball history and survive even if you're Zach Greinke I'd love to see him do it so So he has a low BABIP. He has a low home run per fly ball rate.

He doesn't have such a low FIP and XFIP and all of that. And I believe in his wiliness and his craftiness and his ability to induce soft contact. But I fear for what will happen when something starts going the other way, if he doesn't start missing some bats and you know he doesn't throw as hard as he used to but it's been a lot of fun to watch him get away with it at least for a little while and he had some help on Monday from Michael Taylor who robbed a homer while he was pitching so that'll do it too but yeah I think that either the the spectacular defensive plays have to continue or we might be in for a rude awakening although I suppose the possibility

exists that he will justify expectation and keep doing this and then we'll be in for a rude awakening. Although I suppose the possibility exists that he will justify expectation and keep doing this and then we'll be back here in like four months being like, what happened with Zach Greinke? I would love that. Yeah. If he somehow had mystical powers and he was able to just run a 230 BABIP with a 5% home run per fly ball rate all year. If anyone could do that, it would be Zach Greinke. But I have learned my lesson in the past with other pitchers who I thought, oh, they can just beat Babbitt and they can beat Fipp and they'll get soft contact. Regression always kind of comes for you. And I'm sure Zach Greinke is as aware of that as anyone.

So I don't know whether he will change things too. But it's been fun to watch this throwback dead ball line for a little while here. So long may Zach Greinke continue. So let's get to our guests. Yes. Well, we are joined now by a couple of Portlanders and past podcast guests who have joined forces on a new baseball memoir. It's called The Umpire is Out, Calling the Game and Living My True Self. And it's officially out this week, though it was sort of soft launched ahead of the release date. And the titular umpire and author is Dale Scott, who had a 32-year career in MLB before his retirement in 2017. Dale, congrats on the book and welcome back to the show. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm glad to be here. And I certainly

enjoyed writing this book, something I've never done before. So that was an educational lot of fun. And the other person who played a part in that process, an important part in shaping the book, and for that matter, in shaping my and Meg's careers is Rob Nyer, whom you may know from many of his own books, as well as his hosting of Sabercast. Rob, always a pleasure to have you on. Well, I am just thrilled that Dale has given you an excuse to have me back on the show. Always trying to help out, Ro. I know you've been calling this Dale's book, and it is, but it's also yours in some way. So I have to ask what we should call you because I have taken other people to task for mislabeling,

in my view, the automatic runner in extra innings as a ghost runner, even though the runner is real and very visible. So I can't call you a ghost writer when your name is right there on the cover. So do you have a preferred title? You know, I honestly, ghost writer certainly is not the right term, although it's been applied broadly over the years. But a ghost writer, in my mind, is someone who actually sits down and writes the book. Like Babe Ruth had ghostwriters.

Babe Ruth didn't ever touch a typewriter unless for publicity still. And he didn't even really talk to his ghostwriters. They just wrote it and put his name on it. So obviously this is not that I think the safest term is simply coauthor with Dale's name first. I think that tells the best story co-author with Dale's name first. I think that tells the best story. Dale Scott with Rob Neier, as it says on the cover. My next question is, which of you decided to begin the book by defining the term nut cutter?

And Dale, could you define it for our audience? Well, nut cutter has several definitions. You want me to tell you what nut cutters are? Yes, please. And who made the bold decision to start there? A nut cutter, well, it could be a little tricky because a nut cutter could be in the context that was a nut cutter pitch. You know, that means it was really close pitch or that was a nut cutter game.

It was a really intense pitch or that was a nut cutter game. That was a really intense game. Or it can be what the obvious definition is. It's a foul ball or a pitch that hits you in the nut cutter. And so that would be the obvious explanation of it. But basically, it's a term that's not necessarily the most positive term. If you had a nut cutter pitch, that means that you probably had a bitch pitch, which is another way of saying it, and somebody bitched about it. Or if you have the literal nut cutter, it can be painful and awkward. So that's the beginning of the book. Once you get past that, that first chapter is kind of the definitions as you go through the book of some of the terms that we use and what they mean. And I think it's very helpful for the reader.

Yeah. No, it was a good way to break the ice and also provide a glossary of sorts, which sometimes is in the back of the book. But in this case, it was a good primer because you use a lot of this lingo throughout the book, very umpire-specific terminology, some of which was familiar to me and some of which was new to me. So I congratulate whichever one of you decided that of all the possible places to start in recounting your long career, it would be with defining nut cutter. Well, I would say one of the things, I love lingo. I love professional lingo, any profession. I don't care what profession it is. I love lingo. I love professional lingo. Any profession. I don't care what profession it is. I just hilarious the way that Dale describes these terms.

So instead of just starting with, you know, I was born a white child in Eugene, Oregon, we'll just do something a little different to get people to understand this book's going to be funny. And it's going to be, at its core, a baseball book. And I think those things come across in that first chapter. And, you know, Rob, having written books before, obviously, he really helped me in a lot of ways. But putting these chapters and how we put this book together, it wasn't he was the one that came up with the idea of starting with this chapter. And I thought it was absolutely the right way to go. We don't necessarily go just, you know, like like he said, I was born and then I was in high school and then I did that. I mean, those are in the book, but it's all, you know, intertwined with other stories and other chapters

and stuff. And that was mostly Rob, how he, you know, envisioned how this was all going to be put together. And he's the one that should get, you know, the credit for that because, you know, I was just following his lead on that one for sure. It's kind of striking that for all of our advances in technology, it seems like the cup has really stalled out in terms of how far it's come along. I think, Rob, having established yourself as the co-author and us having established what a nut cutter is, I do wonder if you guys could talk a little bit more about sort of what was your process for bringing the book together? And Dale, how did you initially conceptualize what the balance was going to be

between your professional story and your personal story? Those are obviously intertwined both in the book and in your own experience of life. But what was the process for you guys in writing this? And how did you kind of come to discover what the balance of those things was going to be in the book? Well, when we finally got the University of Nebraska Press, this thing was happening. It was in October of 2020. And of course, that's during the pandemic and everything. So Rob, what we would do is about three times a week, usually like a Monday, Wednesday, Friday type thing.

He would give me a topic. Hey, Friday, let's talk about the 2001 World Series. Or let's talk about some topic. And then he would call, he would record our conversation and, and then he would transcribe that and send it to me and then we'd work on it. But, you know, inevitably maybe the topic was the 2001 World Series, but in, in, in talking about it and, and, and him following up with questions that we, you know, a lot of times I drifted off into something completely off topic or whatever, but it was all incorporated and, you know, put in there. As far as how much,

you know, how much is going to be baseball and how much personal or whatever, we really didn't, that was kind of organic, just how it, you know, we just, we were writing about personal life, you know, growing up, my family working in the, you know, how I started, you know, when I was 15, my radio years or whatever, you know, that was there, you know, when I was 15, my radio years or whatever, you know, that was there. And then, and then of course the umpire school and the minor leagues and that was there. And then we just kind of put it all together. We really didn't, uh, you know, have a, let's do, you know, 60% of this and 40 of this or that kind of thing. Well, and for me, it was such a pleasure because I've always found writing to be, you know, enjoyable to a degree, but also

painful as almost any writer will attest. For me, the enjoyable part has always been the puzzle nature. I love puzzles. And a book is, you're putting together a puzzle of all these things that you want to be in there. And my last book, Powerball, was certainly a puzzle of sorts where I had all these different ingredients that I knew needed to be in the book or should be in the book. Now I have to write the damn things and figure out exactly where they go. This was much easier because I didn't have to do the writing. I just had to put the puzzle together. And I really enjoyed that part of it. And for me, the process, I think I had an advantage over maybe, I don't know if this is an advantage or not, but I had read or I did read during the process, basically every book ever written by or about

an umpire. So I had a million topics, potential topics floating around in my head. Plus I'd had enough conversations with Dale to know what, which stories animated him, which things he found important, which maybe not so important. So I just, I shared it. I'm a big spreadsheet guy too, probably part of the puzzle thing. And so I shared with Dale my spreadsheet pretty early on. Here's a list of 30 things that I think we should probably consider for the book. And then we just spent however many months it was, Dale, working

through that list. Yeah. And Rob, I've seen your Goodreads profile and I know you've read about as many baseball books as anyone, including many memoirs and even many umpire memoirs. As you said, it's a genre unto itself. And Dale, I know you've read a bunch of those too. So did either of you learn anything from previous umpire books that you tried to emulate or avoid with this one? Well, the only thing I will tell you about that is that the only thing that I learned is that a lot of umpires, and maybe it's the more modern ones, but they tend to share a lot of bitterness in their books toward managers, toward players, and especially toward the league offices. A lot of anger, a lot of

bitterness. And I would have been fine with having those things in the book, but in my own life, I tried to avoid public displays of bitterness and honestly made it a lot more pleasurable for me because Dale doesn't have that. And if he does, he doesn't share it. So you'll find some complaints, but there is almost no mean-spiritedness in this book. And that's just because that's how Dale presents himself. And that really made the job a lot more fun. You know, it's a personality thing. Yeah.

and that really made the job a lot more fun. You know, it's a personality thing, yeah. I remember talking with friends or whatever before we even started writing or doing this, and they were saying, well, is this a tell-all book? Are you going to tell some deep, dark secrets? Well, first of all, I don't really have a lot of those to tell, but second of all, that's just not me. I'm just telling a story.

I'm telling these are just things that happened along the way on this on this journey that I've been on. And for years, I've been telling a lot of these baseball stories, I mean, for decades. And and I can't tell you how many people say, man, you got to write a book. You got to write a book. You got to write a book. And I really didn't. I had no one. Rob can tell you, I had no intention of writing a book. Rob, I helped Rob with a book a few years before I retired. That's how we officially met. And he had a copy of that book to give to me. So we met for lunch in 2018. And that's when Rob said, well, when are you going to write a book? Because if you write a book, I'd be the first one to read it. And I said, Rob, I have no intention of doing that. And he goes, why? And I go, well, because a lot of umpires have written books. They're funny. They're entertaining. They're kind of true, whatever. But I just didn't want to do that. And he goes, yeah, yeah, yeah. But I mean, you've got the baseball stories, but you have a completely other story that nobody has that I think should be out there. And the more I thought about it, because when I did come out in 2014 and the messages that I received, hundreds of emails

around the world were so positive from people that my story gave them one step closer to getting out of the closet or my story showed some courage that they hope to show. I mean, just stuff how it affected their lives and not just gay people. I remember this one father in Toronto messaged me. He goes, you know, congratulations. I am so happy that you have told this story. He goes, I'm hoping that this is just another step in a world where my two daughters are growing up in, that this won't even be news someday, which is, you know, the goal. So obviously when I came out, it affected a lot of people.

And those are just the people that contacted me. Who knows how many that didn't. But between Rob talking about that and then me thinking about that, I thought, you know what, maybe I should write a book. Maybe my story should get out there because maybe it'll help somebody. I may never know who it is, but it helps somebody. And that's kind of how I flipped and decided to go ahead and do this project. And I said, Rob, you're the one that's

got to help me. Yeah, I guess it makes sense that some umpire memoirs might be bitter because umpires have had insults and abuse hurled at them for decades. And they figure, this is my book. This is my chance to get even now. And I was going to ask about that because I don't think this is a vindictive memoir where you're out to air grievances and settle scores. But it's also not one where you're remembering everyone through rose-colored glasses and calling everyone the greatest guy in the world. So there are some pretty unvarnished accounts of conversations with players and managers and even other umpires in here. And if someone was a pain to deal with, you don't sugarcoat that in some of the best stories in the books or the run know, the run-ins that you had with some legendary, just hard-ass managers, right? And I mean, going back to Dick Williams and Earl Weaver and Billy Martin and all the rest. So I wondered whether there was anything you weren't sure about putting in, even if a lot of time had passed, like, is there any code of silence when

it comes to things that happen or are said on the field? Or did the idea of an omerta in baseball memoirs go out the window with ball four, basically? Well, not really. I didn't not put something in there that is really salacious and would blow the doors open if it got out or whatever. I did, frankly, I didn't maybe express my real feelings on some of these people, but that wasn't the goal that, that, that wasn't the, the goal of the book. The goal was, you know, just to talk about the journey and not necessarily my grievances or my, you know, slights or, or, or, or people that,

that I thought were extremely unfair. I mean, I talked about them, but I didn't I didn't just bury them, you know, with, and just, again, that's really not me. That's really not my, my personality. And, and, and, and I, you know, I, I felt that, you know, I felt that I had a story, you know, two stories, right? I mean, I felt I had the baseball story, which, you know, sells itself. I mean, as far as all the, when you're on the field for 37 years of professional baseball, you're going to have stories. I mean, it's just, it's the way it works. And then the personal side of it was personal. And I mean, when I was writing the chapters about growing up with my family or when I met Mike and some of the things that we've

experienced together, we're really personal. And one thing, Rob, obviously you can relate to this from a standpoint of a writer, is when I'm talking about and writing about, for example, the 99 labor issue that we had with our union, which was the lowest point in my career. The lowest point on the field in my career was 87, and I talk about that. But as far as just being an umpire and that, it was in 99. But when I'm writing about that and researching it again and going through a lot of the papers that I'd kept for, you know, years and my files, I was reliving it. You know, I was reliving those times and it was depressing at times, you know, because I

remember how, you know, just how bad it was and how relationships were severed or certainly damaged. And conversely, when I was writing about getting the call that I was hired in the big leagues or that kind of stuff, I was reliving that too and the joy that I felt and the excitement that I felt and that kind of stuff. And so that was very, you know, I was living all these different aspects of my journey once again, kind of in depth. And it was both invigorating and fun and also at times kind of depressing and not the greatest times in the world. But the whole process was so cleansing for me in a way. And I don't know if that's something that is normal or if that's

just because I've never written anything like this before. And Dale, you mentioned that maybe previous umpire books have not been entirely accurate or truthful at all times. There's a lot of printing the legend that happens in baseball books. And Rob, you started out helping Bill James research stories like those, which you two called tracers, where you'd often dive into a baseball book and you'd try to figure out whether something had actually happened that way. And I know that Dale had a lot of documentation of things he described in the book, his old umpire reports from the minor leagues.

But when you did tracers on stories that he would tell you, how did he do? Because I was wondering whether there were any times when he told you a story and you looked it up and you had to tell him, well, actually, it couldn't have happened quite that way because this team wasn't in town or that player wasn't in the lineup. And then if that did happen, I wonder what your philosophy is when it comes to the glory of their times debate about truthfulness versus entertainment value, where you think, well, that can't have happened, but it's a heck of a story. Well, Dale and I never actually talked about this. I think I just, for some reason, assumed that Dale wouldn't want to tell stories that weren't precisely true, probably because it's so damned easy to look everything up now. And I know Dale is a big

fan of Retro Sheet. And it's very easy to find a log of every game in Dale Scott's career. That's, by the way, something I don't believe you can do. I could be wrong at baseballreference.com. I think Retro Sheet is the only source for those umpire logs. And there were times when we would be talking, usually we would be talking usually on, we would be talking on Skype because we couldn't get together because of the pandemic. So we'd be talking and he would be telling a story. And sometimes if he sounded a little unsure of a detail or just said he didn't know, I could just look it up in real time and tell him, no, this is what happened. And that's what would be in the book. There were other times I'm fairly certain when Dale

went back and looked something up because he wasn't sure he'd gotten it right. That doesn't mean we got a hundred percent of the facts, right? Because I know we, we've already had to send in a few minor corrections, but Dale correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you wanted everything to be as accurate as possible. Well, absolutely. And you're exactly right. You know, some of those umpire books that we talked about earlier were published, you know, there was no internet or it was just starting or whatever. You know, I can't remember names for that all, but I do remember numbers and dates and that kind of stuff. And I'm kind of anal about that.

I mean, I like to know, you know, if I'm hearing a story, I like to know, when was this? Was it 1978? Or, you know, it's? That's how I hear things. So you're absolutely right. I wanted to make sure. For example, the first major league game I ever saw, I was almost 14 years old at Dodger Stadium. The Mets were there. It was the last year of Willie Mays' career, that one year he played for the Mets. And I remember that being a fact. And in my mind, he had played right field that game. And Rob pointed out, he goes, well, you know, he was in the game. He pinch hit in the ninth inning. He didn't play the game. My memory was he played, you know, I saw Willie Mays play his last game or his last year. I did, but he didn't play in the game. He just, he pinch hit. So, you know, we that and and again that that my memory was was a little bit off from what what really happened there was a there was another uh situation that

i i remember uh it was a tony talking about tony phillips the player and and when he was turning over a new leaf and this and that and i could have swore it was the opening series in detroit or you know for the season and i could have swore that the umpire partner that I had this discussion with was with Tim McClellan. Well, it was not the opening series. It was in May and it was with Tim Welke, a different Tim, you know, and by going- A lot of Tims in the umpire. Exactly.

But by going to Retro Sheet and just, you know, fact-checking it, we got that right. And my memory, again, the story was correct, but it just was not necessarily the right umpire or whatever, but it was the same story. And of course, in anything that's not accurate, I just blame on my concussions. I think one of the things that I found the most striking about it, and of course, this is obvious if you stop to think about it for a second, but you're describing your trajectory through umpire

school and in the minors and being a vacation swing guy when you were finally on an American League crew and sort of the pride you felt when you were called up and when you were made a crew chief. And of course, there are all of these beats to an umpire's career that are very meaningful, like there are in anyone's professional life. And we're just not used to thinking about the game through the lens of the person behind the plate. And so I wonder, what do you think that fans get the most wrong about umpires and what they view their role in the game to be? that and you hear fans say it that we don't care we just don't care we you know we we just show up we do whatever we do and then we leave and and we have you know we if we missed a bunch of pitches or a bunch of plays getting you know what we don't care because we'll just show up we you know we make good money and yeah and it's just so far from the truth yeah umpires are there are the their most critical you know we're very critical i mean it eats at you when you miss a play,

especially a, you know, a big play. It just, it absolutely eats at you. I remember I had a game, this was around 1991, Boston at Kansas City, and Edmund, Rich Edmund for the Red Sox hit what would have been a three-run home run in like the seventh inning or something that would have put them ahead with two outs, blah, blah, blah. I called a foul. It was a pole bender. I had first base down the right field line. I called a foul, and there was really no reaction. And then he ends up, like, grounding into a double play or something, and the inning's over.

So then in between innings, John McNamara, manager at that time, was – and they're in the third base dugout, so they're across from me and they're not next to me. All of a sudden, I see him throwing his arms up and screaming and stuff. Obviously, he must have seen a replay or something that just now set him off, and it was a delayed thing. It didn't happen when it happened. Well, as it turns out, the ball just nicked the foul ball. It didn't really change directions.

I mean, it just barely, but the video shows that it definitely, you know, went against the foul pole, which would have been a home run, you know, and the whole thing. The second base umpire, Rick Reed, at the time, had the same thing. And a lot of times you can see it. You have a great angle from inside the diamond there on those pole vendors. But anyway, you know, he thought it was foul too. I mean, it was just that close.

You know, I felt terrible about that. I mean, I was, you know, down on myself for missing that. Now, it was a tough, tough, and like I said, there was no reaction when it actually happened. It wasn't until replay that you even saw that. But still, that's a miss, and that's a big miss. That's a three-run home run all of a sudden instead of double play. That's a big deal, and I felt horrible about it. And so we do care about, you know, how things go out there. We don't want to miss and it eats at us when we miss plays. But some play again, that's all relative

to if I miss a pitch, a two, two pitch in the second inning with nobody on in Cleveland in April. And I miss that same pitch in October in New York with the winning run on base. Cleveland in April, and I miss that same pitch in October in New York with the winning run on base, there's going to be different reactions, okay? The one in April, you may not even have a reaction. The one in October, they're going to talk about in SportsCenter for the next two days or something. So I guess the motto of the story as an umpire, if you're going to miss one, miss it when it's not a critical call, you know, and it's not that big a deal. You know, we do care. It does eat at you. And that's just a, that's just a fallacy. Well, and you describe in the book, I think probably one of the moments that modern baseball fans remember probably most vividly from the last

couple of years of post-season play, which was that you were a key part of the 2015 ALDS between the Blue Jays and the Rangers. For the folks who have not yet had the opportunity to read the book, do you want to take us through the moment that you had to sort of correct the record and then the bailout that came later with Jose Bautista? Yeah, well, how long do we have? I mean, that was the most bizarre, incredible seventh inning. It all happened in one inning. Yeah.

You know, basically with the tie score in the top of the seventh and a runner at third, Odor for the Rangers at third, Russell Martin throwing the ball back to the pitcher after a pitch, got a little lazy basically, and it skipped off the batter's, the bat, who was doing nothing wrong. I mean, he wasn't trying to get in front of him. There was no intent. There was no interference in any way by the hitter. And the ball, you know, hit the turf, the artificial turf there, and was skipping, you know, down basically on the ricochet down toward third base.

Well, Odor, the runner, he immediately took off for the plate. And the Blue Jays, there was two outs. The Blue Jays were in a shift because of the left-handed hitter who pulls the ball. So there was nobody around the ball. There was nobody there to even attempt to make a play on Oduor. He scored easily. The problem was we had a strange ruling in Milwaukee previously. And basically what it was, there's red at first, less than two outs,

ball in the dirt, the pitch in the dirt that the batter swings at and misses, but the catcher doesn't catch it. It hits his chest and goes out in front of the plate. The hitter, with no intent whatsoever, just he struck out. He starts to walk toward the first base dugout where that's his dugout, and he unintentionally makes contact with the ball, and the ball squirts away, and so the runner runs to the second base.

By rule, when you have no intent that's just balls dead nobody advances you send the runner back the batter's out on strike three and and you know and we move on well when the ball when martin threw the ball and it ricocheted off that that rule i just described was in the forefront and so i i called time and it was the strangest thing because I called time. First of all, you know, somebody said I've called a million pitches or something. I have not seen a catcher hit the hitter like that, you know, on a throwback to the pitcher. But I'm walking out, I'm calling time and kind of waving it off. And then, you know, your mind's going a million miles an hour. And suddenly I thought, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why am I

calling time? Why are my hands above my head? Why am I doing this? And I thought, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Why am I calling time? Why are my hands above my head? Why am I doing this? And I kind of realized at a horrible moment where I realized I think I just killed a live ball. And, you know, which the guy would not have scored because I called time. Okay. So I immediately was thinking that, well, here comes Jeff Bannister, the manager for Texas. He's an ex-catcher. He goes, Dale, why is it time?

He goes, I actually had this happen in the minor leagues. That ball's alive. And at this point, I knew he was right. But now we have a whole set of protocols, especially in a postseason game like that, to go through. So I said, hold on, Jeff. I got the whole crew together, all five umpires. I had made sure that my microphone was off. And I said, guys, I think I screwed up. I explained it. They said, yeah, that should be live. I said, okay. So then I said, and I knew the answer to this. I wanted to make sure we're

on the same page. I said, me calling time had nothing to do with the Blue Jays having a chance to get that guy out. In other words, there wasn't a guy almost ready to get the ball and throw it home, and then I called time and he stopped. They said, no, the ball was not even near a fielder. And the guy, Odur, broke immediately. So if I had not called time or even calling time, didn't prevent the Blue Jays from getting it out.

So I said, okay, this is what we're going to do. I'm going to score this guy, and I'll take care of John, which is John Gibbons, the manager for Toronto, because I had a feeling he may not be happy. So I waved the run home and here comes John. And so now he, you know, he, you know, he, he wanted time obviously. And I explained what I did. I said, I, I, I, I, I should not have called time, but my, but by me doing that had nothing to do with this guy

scoring. He would have scored anyway. And he said, you know, so we're going back and forth. And he said, well, he goes, I want to protest. And I said, well, what do you know? Okay. And what are you protesting? And he goes, all of it. I protest all of it. I said, well, John, you got to specifically tell me what you're protesting. You can't just protest all of it. And he goes, I, you know, I protest you called time. I said, okay. So now that again, part of the protocols have to call into the replay operations center, the rock, make sure that we had the rule that we're talking about is correct, that the ball would be alive. What I'm doing by scoring the run is it used to be a rule 901C. They've redone the rule book. I'm not exactly sure where it's in the section it's in

now because this just happened, the redoing of the rule book. But 901c basically says, you know, anything that's not specifically covered by the rule book, the umpire in chief can, you know, make a ruling. And what I was doing was saying, I am not going to penalize Texas and take a run off the board by my mistake because my mistake had nothing to do with preventing, you know, now, for example, if a Blue Jay was about to throw the ball home and I had called time, I would have to live with that because I killed the ball. Right. But I didn't. So we did that. So finally I got John, you know, back in the dugout and, and, and now the, you know, of course,

during all this now people are throwing stuff on the field. We had a couple of ejections from players from Toronto that were screaming. You know, this took a long time. So finally, we got it all set, and now the Blue Jays come up. And the bottom of the seventh was a strange inning, because I think the Rangers made two errors. They had plenty of time to get out of the inning, but eventually the score was tied and,

and Batista comes up and that's when he hits that mammoth home run and flips the bat and the place erupts. And, uh, uh, loudest, I mean, it was, it was very loud in there. Uh, and, and, you know, sometimes when I, when a guy hits the ball, you immediately go, that's gone, that's gone. You know, he killed them. And other times you think, you know, I don't think it's going to go out and it does or whatever. That one I knew was gone. I mean, he just, he smoked that thing. And of course that by flipping the bat caused a lot of issues. And so it was, it was quite an ending, quite a night in Toronto. As both Ben and Rob can tell you, I am famous for delighting in baseball oddity. And I did not remember all of the craziness and the fracas that came before the bat flip. So if that is any comfort to you, your error is not at least lodged in my mind.

Well, you know, my thought was we got the play right. We didn't penalize a team when we should have. And now, did I look good doing it? No, not at all. I wish I had not called time. But the bottom line is we did what we should have happened happened. That's our job. sense to it. And I wondered, you know, you told a story in the book about an argument with Lou Piniella where he was angry because his runner was thrown out by a catcher who blocked the plate without having the ball. And he just plain didn't know that at the time the rule said a catcher

could also block the plate if he was about to receive the ball. And of course, there's disagreement about what does that mean? You're immediately about to receive it. How far away is that, et cetera. But how often were arguments prompted by players and managers just not knowing the rules? So it wasn't about they disagreed with what you saw and what you said, but they just plain didn't know what the rule was. Well, I'll be honest with you. Very few managers and players know the rules, especially the intricacies of the rules. And we always joked as umpires, the most dangerous manager around is a guy that knows part of a rule.

And Mike Socio, it comes to mind. And I like Mike and I've had, you know, run-ins with him, I've rejected him. But there were times that, you know, he'll say, oh, Dale, you know, this and that. I go, yes, but the rest of the rule is this and that. Or, you know, and he'll go yes but the rest of the rule is this and that or you know and and you go oh that's not true and i go i'm pretty sure it's true but uh many times i remember uh ron renegue managing milwaukee uh we had i don't remember the play but i we explained it wow it was i'll tell you the play it was a play i just told you about earlier that where the the hitter inadvertently uh knocked the you know made connor with the ball after the strikeout and so i i explained you know dan isonia and i was working with danny and we explained it to him and he looked at us like you know we're speaking chinese and and finally he just after we explained the whole thing he goes uh well you know what i don't

know the rule i don't know what you're talking about so i'm just gonna go with you guys he just he just walked off you know it's like like we had confused the hell out of him or something. But yeah, most of the time they don't know the rule or they know just a part of the rule or something. And it ends up being quite an education for them. Some take it better than others, for sure. Dale, I wonder about the umpiring personality, if there is an umpiring personality type. And I don't know if yours would be the typical one, even if there is. But I wondered how you got into this, because some of these situations that you describe in the book, you think, why would anyone willingly put themselves into that position? I tried to get Dale to explain this so many times and he could never explain to me how a person like him wound up doing what he did. Maybe I'll have better luck then, because you talk about how you started as a player as a kid and let's say you

didn't maybe have the natural aptitude for playing that you did for umpiring. So was it a case of, well, if you can't play umpire that you just wanted to stay on the field and that this was a way to do it? Or was there something else? Because there are certain traits that make one well equipped for the job or not well equipped for it, but what makes you want to pursue it? Well, first of all, I love verbal abuse, and that's high on my list. You know, absolutely, officiating in general, umpiring, is not for everybody. Just like being a doctor is not for everybody or whatever.

You know, you have to have a lot of, I mean, a lot of times ex-players, especially players that maybe they played, you know, in college and stuff, or even some in the minor leagues, they go to umpire school and they want to be an umpire. Not, you know, not a blanket statement. It's not for everybody. But in most cases, they don't really make good umpires. And the reason is their instincts and their movements and everything are, as an umpire, are almost opposite of the player. For example, when the ball is hit, you know, a player is going toward the ball or they're going, you know, a lot of times we're going away from the ball or we're doing something completely different than what they were so used to doing, you know, for years or whatever. I'm not, you know, Daryl Cousins was a long time in American League and then Major League umpire. He, you know, he was an ex-player and he did well as an umpire. But a lot of times they don't pan out when they go to umpire school and stuff because they just,

it's a different, even though we're on the same field and play's happening, we're doing different things. But when I started umpiring when I was 15, because I, you know, was so horribly bad as a player, I just, you know, I love the challenge every day, every day that I walk on the field and, you know, the rules haven't changed from the last game I had or whatever, but I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen that day. I may have a perfect game. I may have a no hitter. I may have a game where both combined, both teams make seven errors. I, you know, I may have a game like I did in Boston that has two triple plays. You know, I may have a 21 to 20, you know, slugfest. I mean, like, like I had in Cleveland, a 19 inning, six and a half hour game, you never know. And your, your challenge in your job is to whatever presents itself that day,

in your job is to whatever presents itself that day, you have to deal with it within the rules and within the spirit of the game and as an umpire. And that challenge is, I don't know how to describe it. It's just something that you don't know what it's going to be. But the art of umpiring is having it happen and dealing with it as best you can and as fairly as you can. And I just, you know, after I started umpiring when I was 15, a couple of years later, I started football and basketball and, and worked both those sports for 18 years, you know, high school level and, and below, because I just enjoyed officiating. I enjoyed the, you know, the, I, it's hard to explain. And of course, Rob will tell you, I've yet to explain it, but it's just a, it's a, it. But it's just a demeanor. It's a thought process that you're trying to do something that nobody else wants to do. Or people have different agendas, one for one team, one for the other, whatever. And you're trying to be in the middle and make it a fair contest and do it the way it's supposed to be done.

interjecting here to say that Rob has become a ghostwriter now. He had to hop off the call because he is a multi-hyphenate, not just a co-author, but also the commissioner of the West Coast League, and he had a prior obligation. But we're glad he could join us for a while. You can find him, of course, on Sabercast and on Twitter at Rob Nair. But Dale is going to stay with us for a while because we have much more to discuss. So, Dale, you take us through sort of the evolution of the umpire role with respect to technology. And, you know, you share that at various points, you used to have to fax your ejection reports to the league office and mail them before that.

And I think one of the biggest changes that we have seen in the last couple of decades is obviously the institution of replay review. So what was your initial relationship with replay review like, and how did it change for you and potentially change for other umpires as they got used to it? Well, if you'll remember, we, the first time we had replay was what we called boundary calls, which were calls between the foul poles out in the outfield. It was at a home run, was a spectator appearance, was spectator interference? Was it a ground rule double or something like that? And I welcomed that because it seemed insane to me that the four guys that

have to make the decision on what happened, a ball that's hit, covering umpire might be 200 feet away or something. You may have shadows. You may have glare. You may have a bunch of white shirts. You have lines in some ballparks. If it's above this line, if it hits the line, boom, boom, boom, it's different things. And it all happens just like that. And you're the one that's got to make a decision

when both clubs can go up the runways and look on the monitor and see what happened. People in the stands, there's monitors throughout the concourse or whatever, they can see what happens. Obviously, the people watching at home and see what happened. People in the stands, there's monitors throughout the concourse or whatever. They can see what happens. Obviously the people watching at home can see what happens. And the four of us get together and I say, okay,

what do you got? I thought it was a home run. Okay. What do you got? I didn't see it. Okay. What do you got? I thought the fan touched it.

Okay. All right. Well, let's, let's go with home run. Okay. Yeah. I mean,

I mean, it was, it just didn't make any sense that the only four guys didn't see what happened or aren't sure exactly what happened where everybody else sits in several replays and several angles. So we welcomed that, and that was a good thing. But we also understood that once that door was open with replay, that it was going to expand at some point, somewhere, sometime it was going to expand. And, you know, a little leery about how that was all going to expand at some point, somewhere, sometime it was going to expand.

And, you know, a little leery about how that was all going to work. It wasn't, for me personally, I wasn't necessarily against it, but I wasn't necessarily for it. I just wanted to kind of see how it all worked out, you know, how they were going to set this thing up. As it turns out, I'm happy with replay. It's done for the most part what it's supposed to do and that is uh correct obvious mistakes and i learned when they expanded replay to i learned that first year uh that first season uh it was it was like in early may or something we were in miami and the dodgers were there and that's when don manningly was was managing the dodgers and i had done as a as a player and i was at second base it was a tie score top of the ninth inning the leadoff hitter for the dodgers and I had Don as a, as a player. And I was at second base. It was a tie score top of the ninth inning, the leadoff hitter for the Dodgers. I think it was Puig. I'm not

sure. Anyway, he gets on first base. So he attempts to steal a steal second and I call him out. And so this was when, when the, when the team, you know, now they can just stand on up on the top step and hold us up to, you know, figure out if they're going to look at it or not. But then they had to come out, right? So here comes Don running out, and he goes, you know, he goes, Dale, all we're doing is waiting for a signal from his bench coach if we're going to look at it or not. But he's standing there, and he goes, Dale, you know, that was pretty close. We might want to look at it. I said, okay, Don, you know, and so we're just standing.

We're both standing there kind of looking at the Dodger dugout, waiting for a signal, and I, and I, there's a little pause, and I finally go, so Donnie, it's, it's come to this, huh, that we just stand here awkwardly and make small talk, and he goes, yeah, pretty much, you know, it just was so strange, finally gets the signal, yeah, we want to look at it, we go look at it, I was wrong, we, we overturn it, put him back on second base, the next guy hits it off the wall or something, he scores, that ends up being the winning run. And, you know, after the bottom of the ninth game's over, you know, I realized at that point, if we did not have replay and I had called him out when he wasn't and the next guy hits it off the wall and that guy that should have been on second would have scored and everything else played out the way it is. Here's the play that cost the Dodgers the go ahead and would have

been the winning run. And, you know, what a terrible call and blew and saw in every 20 minutes of ESPN and how much I screwed the Dodgers. With replay, we overturned it. We got the play right. Didn't look good doing it, but we got the play right. And it's a sidebar if it's even mentioned at all. A lot of times they don't even say that it went to replay or anything. And the reason that is, is because however you got there, eventually the play was called correctly. And that's all people want. They just want it called correctly, just like we do. So I do like replay.

I think it's doing what it's supposed to do. The robo-ump and the strike zone, that's a whole different thing. So before we get to the automated zone, I was curious about a mechanical change you made after the 87 season, which was a rough one for you. And you had to remake your mechanics, much like a player who struggles, right? You had to do something different too. And maybe it was partly mental and a confidence issue, but also you had come up, as other umpires did in those days, going down to your knee to call strikes and balls, and you change to the crouch. So I was curious about just how much of an adjustment that was after getting to the majors with one set of mechanics. And just generally, how does an umpire's positioning and stance affect their strike zone? You don't see umpires getting down to one knee these days, but you might see someone setting up on this side or that side slightly different. So I wonder if that makes a difference in terms of the kind of zone that you could call. Well, certainly, you know, guys have a little bit different ways of working behind the plate.

I was in the 80s calling pitches from one knee was all in vogue. It was like it was like in the 50s smoking. It was really cool. And then we kind of figured out, maybe that's not so good. But you don't see it happen now at all for several reasons. One is just the mobility factor of getting up or getting out of the way and that kind of stuff. But also it proved over time that you weren't as consistent or didn't see the zone as well as you should have been able to. I was on my knee, and I started working on my knee in double A and then I continued on triple A and two winter ball seasons and things were working fine, obviously, because I was moving up. But it's a strange thing. You

could be doing certain mechanics for years or whatever, and then just one day it's just not working or whatever. And maybe I don't really have an explanation. It's kind of like when you're working behind the plate, there are some days that the baseball looks like a beach ball. It just looks huge. I mean, you're seeing the ball really well. Maybe the back sounds real good. Yeah, yeah.

And then other days it's like a BB. It's like, well, I can't. And there's several factors that could play into that. It could be the background. It could be how you're setting up. It could be your head height. You know, there's a lot of things that we kind of go through this checklist. But anyway, you know, I got to the big leagues in 86, had a semi-uneventful season.

I mean, you know, as a rookie, I didn't have a lot of issues, a lot of problems with teams. I had my, you know, I had my stuff, but it wasn't glaring or anything. And of course they're testing you all the time when you're new. I mean, that's just, you come to the big leagues with zero credibility. They don't, they don't, you know, they want to know what you're made of, so to speak. And, and they will, they will push you to see how you, how you react and that kind of stuff. But my second year, my sophomore year in 87, I just, for whatever reason, I can't pinpoint it like it happened in this game and this, you know year in 87, I just, for whatever reason, I can't pinpoint it. Like, it happened this game and this, you know, but I just was, I was struggling with seeing the pitch.

I was missing pitches. And plus, even when I got pitches right, nobody was believing me. Those close, you know, knee, outside corner knee pitches that, you know, I didn't, I wasn't as bad as they thought I was. I certainly wasn't as good as I needed to be. And just snowball. That season started off and just, you know, I knew I was in a quote-unquote slump. I knew I was struggling. And it seemed like everything that I tried, you know, going out there, it just seemed to get worse.

And the problem with that is you lose confidence. An official has to have confidence. When you're losing your confidence and you start second-guessing yourself, you know, because they're going to second-guess you, you know, that's a given. But when you start doing it, when you just don't have the confidence, and this is for any sports official, when you're losing your confidence, especially when, you know, my second year, I was still, as far as that goes, a rookie. I was still very young in my career.

It just was a combination of things that just deteriorated as the season went on. It wasn't just behind the plate either. I was losing confidence on the bases. You know, I would make a call at second base, a steal play or something, I'd call a guy out and, you know, it was almost like I'd call him out and then just turn around to the dugout and just wait for them to come because they always did. You know, I mean, you just don't believe in yourself and they certainly have lost any belief in you. And it just, it's an awful, awful feeling. And it doesn't mean you're wrong all the time. It's just that you don't, you're not convinced that you're right. And so Marty Springstead

recognized this. He, as I wrote in the book, that was just a low light low for me in my career. But he said, you know, Scotty, you know, call me into his office in July. He said, how do you think you're doing? I didn't want to say to the boss, oh, I had a great year. I just said, you know, I'm not having an all-star year, but I think I'm doing okay. And he said, no, you're not doing okay, Scotty. The reports, the supervisors, they just do not believe you. And he goes, we need to change things. And so he said, I want to get you off your knee. I want you to, what we call the square, there's stances behind the play. One stance is called scissors, of course, the knee. And then the other one's called just square or squared up,

which is, that's the one that's taught in umpire schools. Anyway, he said, you know, when the season's over, and for me, the season was over in September because I was still a call-up umpire, so I didn't really work in September. He said, I'm going to have you come down to Sarasota instructionally. We're going to get you off your knee. We're going to work with different stances, try to get you comfortable with it in an atmosphere that has no pressure and all that stuff. So then next spring when you come and, you know, we start up again, you'll have this new stance and we'll go from there. So, okay, you know, and I knew there was a problem. Okay, I had to swallow a lot of pride, a lot of ego, and again, be honest with myself. And, you know, I could have said,

you know, you know, that's, that's BS. I don't need to do that. You know, they're just whining or whatever, but I, you know, I knew something had to change. And so that's was the plan. Well, then in August, uh, Dick Butler, who, who used to be the head supervisor now, he was still working, but Marty was, but he said, I got a message. I was saw him in Oakland. He said, I have a message for you. Uh, uh, Marty, you know, you're going to instructionally for a week to work on that he said and then marty wants you to go to the dominican winter ball and i was like oh man mentally i i couldn't have done it i mean i i i needed to check out of baseball for a while and i couldn't go year round again and work you know 45 out of 60 games behind the plate in in the dominican i mentally i

don't think i could have done that. And I don't think Marty knew how it worked in the Dominican, how many plate games you actually worked. And so I called him and I explained that to him. And he said, I'll tell you what, Scotty, you go down at the beginning of the Dominican Winter Ball, which is around the 20th of October, I'll have you home by Thanksgiving. And I said, that I can do.

So I was down there basically a month. But in a month, like I said, when you can do. So I was down there basically a month. But in a month, like I said, when you're working three games out of four behind the plate, you're getting a lot of plate work in. And he came down for a part of that. You know, I got comfortable with my squared stance and, was put with a crew that was just a better crew for a younger guy. And I started my rehabilitation, basically. I even changed my number. That winter, there was some numbers open.

I used to be 39. And Marty called me and said, hey, I've got number five open. Yes, I want it. He goes, why are you so quick to take five? I said, well, a couple of things, Marty. First of all, 39 on a 32-person staff. I'm not a math major, but I'm just saying that doesn't seem right. And I said, second of all, 39 is not on the roulette wheel.

I need something on the roulette wheel. And I said, basically, I'm in the umpire protection program after my last couple of years. So give me a new number. I'll have people call me Sean and maybe, uh, maybe they will forget all about it. But in all, in all seriousness, that was the beginning of getting back my confidence, getting back some credibility. And it was all because Marty Springstead, uh, knew there was a problem, saw there was a problem, didn't throw up his hands and say, man, what a bad pick Scotty is.

We're just gonna have to get rid of him. He said, I, I see potential in this guy. He just needs to get back on the right track. Scotty, if you put your faith in me, I'm putting my faith in you and we're going to get this fixed. And he did. So Ben and I are pitch framing enthusiasts, which might sound like it's putting us on the other side of umpires, but I think that we can find common ground here, which is that we are all opposed to the robo zone. This is a safe place for those who are not robot umpire enthusiasts. And so we said we would talk about the seeming impending robo zone. What are your thoughts? Well, my first thought is be careful what you ask for. You know, I'm just not sure, just in the practical aspect of it,

the RoboCop or the automated zone, you still have a plate umpire who still is going to go down and watch the pitch just like he would have done without the automated strike zone, has an earpiece, and then when the pitch comes in and he is informed by the technician upstairs, striker ball, then he signals striker ball. But if there's some kind of technical glitch or something and they don't record that pitch, then he's told, you got to call it.

So first of all, that sounds a lot easier than in real life. first of all, that sounds a lot easier than in real life. I mean, to think that you would have to focus and just like a regular plate game, but knowing that you may not even call a pitch the entire game, but when you might have to is when you'll never know when that might happen, and you have to be prepared for that. That's, quite frankly, not very fair to the umpires. Second of all, there is a time situation

here what what if you have runners at first and second you know one out three two count and they're running on the pitch is the catcher you know if it's ball four obviously you don't need to make a throw but when is he going to know that he got he has to know what you what you have and that that little even if it's almost instantaneous when you get the verbal strike ball or whatever from the technician, there's still, it's not normal timing. So does that mean the catcher just always has to throw it under the guise that it might be strike three? Well, that's dangerous because what if he throws it away and it was ball four and you didn't have to throw it at all and now you have two run scores. I mean, there's a lot of stuff right there that just doesn't make sense to me in the mechanics of it all.

Then you get the technical part of it. I'm not sure if, you know, by rule, any pitch that crosses over the plate, any part of the ball that crosses over the plate in the high-low, it's in the strike zone, it's not too high, not too low, is technically a strike by rule. So the strike zone, it's not too high, not too low, is technically a strike by rule. So the strike zone, which is three-dimensional, starts at the front edge of the plate all the way to the back point of the plate. And a plate that's 17 inches wide, but a baseball, the diameter, if I'm using my math

terms right, but it's like two, almost three inches in width. I'm using my math terms, right? But it's like two, almost three inches in width. So in other words, if the ball, by rule, goes over any part of the plate within the high-low zone, that's a strike. So that means the 17-inch plate now suddenly has almost three inches on each side because just a little sliver of the ball

might go over the plate, right? So it's a wider plate than people think. Then you have the fact that, for example, a pitch that is right at the front edge of the plate, right? So it's a wider plate than people think. Then you have the fact that, you know, for example, a pitch that is right at the front edge of the plate on the very outside corner, you know, with the ball just touching the outside corner at the lowest point of the strike zone, right at the knee, but the ball is going, traveling and going away from the hitter and toward the ground and the catcher catches it two or three inches outside and just above the ground. Technically, by rule, that is a strike.

In theory, in reality, we rarely call that a strike. Why? Because it's not accepted as a strike. Even though technically it is, it's not accepted as a strike. The automated zone is only going to do what it's programmed. And if it's programmed to call any pitch that, you know, over the plate and all the stuff we're talking about, it will say that's a strike. Okay. So if people are okay with that, if hitters are okay with that, you know, have at it. And that's just one example. But I've always said that there's a science to umpiring and there's an art to umpiring. The science is the nuts and bolts.

It's the rules. It's, you know, the bases are this big and the ball is this big and this, that, and, you know, force out is this. And that's the basics, the nuts and bolts of baseball. But the art of umpiring is taking those rules and adapting them to the game. In other words, by rule, the base coach has to be in the coaching box. Do we enforce that? Rarely do we enforce that unless the other team says, hey, we think he might be stealing signs or something.

We want him in the box. And then we say, okay, both teams now have to stay in the box for the rest of this game. But another example that doesn't pertain now because they have a different rule when you're trying to break up a double play, you know, you have to have a legal slide. But remember the old neighborhood play, right? You know, if the throw was true and the timing was good,

if the middle infielder that is receiving the ball and about ready to throw it to first is just a little bit off the base, we would give them an out. Why? Because it was accepted at the major league level. I'm not talking about college. I'm not talking about high school or little league. They needed to touch the base. We get that. But at the big league level, both teams accepted that. Why? Because they don't want their middle infielders getting creamed. So again, by rule, maybe he just didn't quite touch the base, but the throw was there, everything was there, and the guy was definitely before the runner. But in the art of umpiring, in the art

of adapting rules to the level of play, that was still an out. You don't get that with any type of an automated system because it's rigid. Whatever it's programmed, that's what it's going to do. And it doesn't look at a catcher crossed up and diving and maybe the pitch hit a corner of the zone, but the catcher is diving for the baseball. Yeah, most of the time we're going to call that a ball because it's just not accepted as a strike. I don't know if that explains it to you,

but I'm afraid that, like I said before, be careful what you wish for. If people are perfectly fine with that, and I've heard people say, I don't care if it's in the zone the way the zone is, the definition of a strike, if it is, then by God, it should be a strike. And I don't care what it looks like. Okay, that's good. I mean, if that's what we want, that's what you'll get. But again, I don't know if the timing stuff when I talked about earlier with the catcher throwing and that kind of stuff, I don't know how that plays out. And I'm not sure if how this machine, so to speak, calls pitches is exactly what people want. Yeah. One thing along those lines I've always been curious about that probably wouldn't be replicated by an automated system is the fact that the zone does shrink and expand a bit,

depending on the count, or it has historically with most umpires at least, so that the zone tends to be a little smaller maybe on some counts than others, on 0-2 than 3-0, let's say. maybe on some counts than others, on 0-2 than 3-0, let's say. And there are various theories out there about why that is. But I wonder what your perspective is. Is that a subconscious thing? Is that a conscious thing? Because a lot of people think it's, well, it's unfair. It's a strike on this count. It should be a strike on that count or not. I think maybe there is some advantage to it in that if you're the one who's behind in the count, you almost get a little boost or a little advantage there. And maybe it makes the plate appearance more competitive, helps the person

prolong that plate appearance a little longer. But what do you think is responsible for that? Well, you know, ever since about 2003, I believe, that's when we started to get evaluated on every pitch that we called by a tracking system to your point is, is, is well taken a three Oh pitch. A lot of times it was a strike when it was, eh, maybe not the greatest pitch, but you know, it was, that was just kind of a thing, not always, but it was, you know, if you had a, if you had a 10 to two game in the fifth inning and a major storm is on its way, you might want to, you might be a little liberal with the strike zone to try to get

that game in because it's a 10 to 2 game. And, you know, if we don't get it in and the rains come and we lose the game, we lose the game. Of course, we have suspended rules and all that. Anyway, but the point is, yes, there were times that you could be a little more liberal with the strike zone or whatever. That all ended in the early 2000s because we're graded on every pitch that we call regardless of the score, the inning, the count, or anything. And yeah, I could go ahead on that 10-2 game with the rains coming call, a pitch that I know is a ball, a strike.

It's outside, but I need to get this inning over. But I'm going to be graded down on it. And they don't say, oh, I see why you did that. Okay, we'll give it to you. No, they grade you down on it. So that has changed that philosophy. You know, again, the automated zone has none of that. It's just going to call it.

My thoughts, and this is entirely my opinion, I've not heard anything or anything, but I think what may happen is, well, first of all, if they go ahead and have the automated strikes, which they fully intend to do if they can get enough accuracy with it, they may have to kind of tweak the definition of a strike. They did that when this tracking system first started in the early 2000s. They actually, the strike zone used to say that the top of the zone was the, you know, just under the shoulders. Well, nobody called a strike up there. Nobody wanted a strike up there. So they redefined the strike zone in the early 2000s where it's the midpoint between the waist and the shoulders, which is much more in reality. But with the automated zone, again, I don't know this, but they may have to tweak the definition of a zone to try to prevent those pitches that I was telling you about that might just hit the very front edge of the plate and look horrible from being strikes. That I don't know if they're going to do that or not. But my theory, my opinion is that you may have a situation where umpires still call pitches, but managers have a couple challenges.

Maybe you have a couple challenges between whatever it is up to the seventh inning. Then from the seventh through the ninth, you have a couple more or something. But where you can challenge a particular pitch. In other words, pitch that's called a ball that, you know, was ball four with the bases loaded and a 3-2 count, and you think it's a strike. You can challenge that pitch, and we can look at it and, you know, possibly reverse it or stay the same, whatever.

But have a challenge system with pitches so that umpire is still doing what he's been doing forever, is calling pitches, and then it gives the managers and the teams a possibility of having something change by a challenge. Again, I don't know if that's going to happen. That brings up a whole other set of events that could happen. But just to have an automated system called the entire game, have some poor umpire that has to act like he's going to call every pitch

but never call a pitch, but then once in a while he will have to call a pitch and you never know when that's going to happen. And you still need to play an umpire. I mean, hit batsmen, catcher interference, batter interference, you know, it plays the play, brushing off the play. I mean, there hit batsmen, you know, catcher interference, batter interference, you know, it plays the plate, you know, brushing off the plate. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff you still have to do.

So I just don't know how it's all going to work. I just don't know. I just don't know the nuts and bolts of a automated system with the timing, with the catcher, with the, you know, timing with the plate umpire

having to call something once in a while. I just don't know how that works and makes the game better and seamless. I'm just not sure. Right. They're testing a challenge system in the Florida State League this year. And thus far, at least from what I've read, the success rate, it's maybe right around 40%, a little higher than that of those calls have been overturned. So usually the umpire has been right, I guess, thus far, but still correcting

some calls that were incorrect initially. Right. And you got to remember too, when something's challenged, it's going to be borderline. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So you're not challenging obvious pitches. So you're going to have a percentage of miss. Right. And even though we have some misgivings about the automated zone, I'm not anti-technology. And I think that the quality of umpiring and the accuracy and the consistency have improved as a result of these grading systems and have made things more uniform. And you talk about that a bit in the book, how, you know, when you came up, everyone kind of had their own style and their own zone, and those things have been brought into closer agreement.

And you spanned that era of having really no grading system, going to Quest Tech and then PitchFX and then StatCast and the zone enforcement system. So often you see if you look at leaderboards, let's say, and the public and internal ones can differ. internal ones can differ. As Jeff Passan of ESPN wrote about just this week, the MLB's own enforcement system gives a little more leeway, a couple inches on each side of the plate, as you were talking about. And so the percentage accuracies from that system will be a little higher than most of the public systems. But regardless of which system you use, I think things have improved. And often you see that the umpires with the highest accuracy ratings are the younger umpires, the more recent arrivals, because they came up in that system, right? They didn't develop their own zone and then have to conform. Right.

They not only came up in that and have done that in, you know, instructional ball or fall ball or leagues that they've worked in, but they've also, they're in an era that, you know, they played video. A lot of these guys played video games as a kid or whatever. They just, they see and their mind is, you know, their brain is a little bit different than old folkies like myself. But, you know, the first, you know, video game I played was Pong. Have you remember Pong? I mean, that thing was so, you know, it's like, hey, ace to pong. Well, really, I'm really happy for you.

How did you have to change your zone personally in 2003 or 2008 or whenever it was when you started getting those readouts and they said, hey, you're missing on this call consistently? Did you adjust a certain type of call that you were making or not making? Oh, yeah. I mean, almost to a guy, we were all calling pitches too far off the plate on the outside court, not so much inside, on the outside. Almost to a man, that was a common something that we had to clean up. As far as the low pitch and the high pitch, I mean, especially the low pitch, there was here and there.

Especially the low pitch that there was here and there. But most of the cleaning up I had to do in that time period was bringing my zone in on outside pitches on either side, lefty or righty. And there was a quite an adjustment. I mean, pitchers quickly learned that those pitches that they threw outside, you know, Greg Maddux, a great example, who lived on that outside and was getting those pitches, suddenly they weren't getting those pitches. You're going to have to bring the ball in because I'm going to get graded down calling those strikes like I used to. Hitters had to adjust.

They weren't used to the new quote-unquote zone was a tad bit lower. The hollow of the knee was a tad bit lower than what had been called traditionally. And they also, it wasn't just pitchers that had to adjust and, oh, my God, we're getting screwed here. The hitters also felt like that all of a sudden this pitch that was usually called a ball was now a strike down on the knee and that kind of thing. So everybody had adjustments to make. And that first, in 2003, I believe that was the year, the first several months, well, you know, spring training, but more specifically, the first several months of the season was an adjustment for everybody. I mean, umpires were trying to adjust to that new zone. The pitchers were trying,

the hitters were trying, quite frankly, the media and the fans are trying because they, you know, I look at, it's so funny. I look at, at, uh, you know, games that I umpired back in the nineties, you know, it's a classic game or something. And I watched for a few innings and my God, I was calling pitches outside, but, and and no but nobody was reacting because that was that was accepted then i'm not saying it was right but it was accepted and there was no box on the screen exactly and and it's just it's just amazing but but and and it really did the other the other reason mlb did this is because that's when uh the umpire crew or uhs were combined in 2000. We were working both leagues. You know, it used to be when I when I came up in the American League, there was

I would see the teams a lot more because you're just working the American League. I mean, I would go to Seattle three or four, sometimes five times a year. Now, nowadays, I might get there twice. Maybe the teams are seeing a lot more umpires now. And so they wanted to have a much more consistent zone league-wide by everybody. And Quest Tech and the evolving technologies like that have done that. I mean, the strike zone is much more to the definition of it, and it's also much more consistent league-wide than we used to have with individual umpires. So that accomplished that. It's just the worst.

Guys, I can't tell you how much the on-screen K-zone or whatever you want to call it is just, it kills us because that's people's reality. And I understand why. I mean, they're looking right at it, but they don't maybe understand the nuance of, like I talked about, the baseball and the diameter of it. They don't understand the nuance of how the high-low line of a hitter can change not only with each hitter, but with each pitch.

Because if a guy squares to bunt, his strike zone high-low is different than if he's, you know, swinging away because he's lower. high-low is different than if he's, you know, swinging away because he's lower. And, you know, by definition, the strike zone is when he, you know, the ball is in the, you know, striking area, the zone area, and the hitter, I'm paraphrasing here, but then the hitter is about to, you know, offer at the pitch or strike at the pitch. That's when you determine the high-low. And so, obviously, it's different when you're in a, you know, you're crouched in a bunt type situation than when you determine the high-low. And so obviously it's different when you're in a – you're crouched in a bunt-type situation than when you're up. So there's a lot of variables that happen in a very short amount of time in a three-dimensional zone.

And that on-screen strike zone, I just don't know what criteria they're using. I don't know what data or how they're – are they giving you the almost three inches width of the ball? Are they, you know, the high-low zone, part of the zone, when we get our information, I call a game on a Tuesday night. I don't get that information until Wednesday morning. Why? Because every pitch that that system says I missed, the technician goes in and makes

sure that the high and low lines are correctly set for that pitch. Well, you know, in real time, the networks, they don't have time to do that. I mean, they're just, you know, so I'm not even sure where their high, low lines are even set for each hitter and each pitch. So there's a lot of variables. Yeah. I was going to ask sort of what the process of actually receiving that feedback is, whether, you know, sort of how much opportunity there is to course correct when grades are delivered that suggests that you're perhaps missing something or missing something with some consistency. current mechanisms that the league and the umpires have in place to promote or demote umpires, identify the best and worst ones are sort of sufficient to the purpose? Well, the first part of that question is, you know, we didn't get that information, you know, right after a game because they would go through and make sure that any missed pitches

by the machine or whatever the system saying that was missed, making sure that, you know, like I said, the lines are drawn correctly and that kind of stuff. As far as what we have internally, we have a system within our working agreement that if a umpire, and it's not just a plate work, you know, let's say, let's say I, over the course of the first few months of the season, I have six plays at second base, steel plays, and I missed five of them. So the supervisor will identify, okay, we have an issue here. Now, were they misses because it was just a, once again, that word nut cutter, you know, that that that, you know, just a close, close play. And that's not as bad a miss as if, you know, was this guy obviously safer out and you just missed it.

And what they try to do is if there's a trend, if there's something that is a trend of a certain play or a certain pitch, for example, it seems to be inconsistent with or missed, that sets off this protocol to, you know, work with the umpire, work with that umpire's crew chief, and try to identify. It might be like, for example, a steal play that I was talking about. Maybe his position, maybe he's getting too close to the play, or maybe he's too far from the player. Maybe his positioning as the throw is coming from the catcher, maybe he's picking up the, or not getting his, you know, you watch the throw to make sure it's not at you. It's, you know, it's not a bad throw, but once you've done that,

you need to get your eyes ahead of the throw to the glove because that's where everything's going to happen. And that's, you know, you pick it up. Maybe he's following the ball too long. And so when it, when it gets to the glove, it's what we call it, it blows up on you because it explodes on you and it, and it's all one big just mess or whatever. These are all little umpire in the grass turn in the weeds terms. But those are the things that if a trend is detected, then they work with the umpire and all these things. There's all these steps that you go through and there's several different levels of the steps to,

you know, to finally where, you know, if it just continues to happen. And to be honest with you, they've never gotten all the way to where it's termination because the guy can't call certain plays or whatever. One thing I want to say, though, you know, you have a staff of 76 umpires and you rate the staff. There's always going to be a guy that's 76th, okay? There's always going to be a guy at the bottom of that list. Now, does that mean he's not a major league caliber umpire? You know, even though he's 76th, he may have gotten, you know, 96.8% right on his plate work all year or whatever, whatever the numbers are. What I'm trying to say is just because you, anytime you rate something, you're going to have a last place.

And just because your last place does not just because you're last place does not necessarily mean you don't deserve to be still in that league or in that category. You know, it all depends on the metrics of the numbers overall. I mean, if that makes any sense. So, you know, a lot of people think, well, he's in the bottom five of the umpires, so he's terrible. Well, he's in the bottom five of major league umpires who, quite frankly, are the best in the world. So it doesn't, again, doesn't necessarily mean he's not major league quality. It just means of the major league quality umpires, he happens to be in the bottom five. It also may mean that he's not major league quality if you have the trends and the consistencies of that.

So, again, it's not just as cut and dry as, well, he rated low, so they should get rid of him. It's just, how is it in the overall scheme of things? How are those numbers? And are they still outstanding numbers? It's just, there's a lot of outstanding umpires, so they're rated lower. I think it's just so easy.

It's so easy to just blame and just say, well, he's terrible, he's horrible, he should be out of there. You know, Don Denkinger was an unbelievably outstanding good umpire, one that I think should be in the Hall of Fame. You look at his resume, he had huge games that he worked. He had the plate for the Bucky Dent home run in Fenway in 78. You look at his resume, he's had a ton of big games and big situations. What's he remembered for?

One play in game six of the 85 World Series. And again, if that's the only prism that you see Don Denkinger, you think this guy is horrible. But when you look at the entire body of work and all the big games and big situations that he's been in and how competent he was in those situations, you realize that was the exception and not the rule. And so sometimes I think the, and fans are fans. I get it. They see everything from their heart, but they have, there is a tendency to write somebody off because of maybe a real or maybe even perceived mistake here or there without looking at the overall body of work.

Yeah. That said, there are certain umpires who achieve a certain notoriety, let's say, and we don't have to name any names necessarily, but people know the names. I guess that's the point. And I wonder whether other umpires within their own conversations ever say, you know, this guy's given us a bad name, you know, not necessarily because of bad calls always, but maybe just because of ump shows, as people call it, right, which is a little less common these days that the umpire really gets into it, right? Usually they just kind of sit there and take it. But there are some umpires who maybe go beyond where others go in terms of commandeering the spotlight or ending up in the spotlight. And as you note in the book, when one umpire bears the brunt of that, every umpire does to some extent. So I wonder if there's a certain frustration with some current or past umpires

where other umpires are kind of, you know, not publicly, but privately saying, you know, get your act together here because it's going to affect our reputations too. Well, there's no doubt that there have been times where somebody has, you know, maybe handled something or had something that he did correctly, but he did it in such a, I don't want to say flamboyant, but just in such a big way that it could have been handled correctly in a different way, which didn't cause as much turmoil with, you know, with the fans and the media and everything else. You know, the thing about baseball in general with players and whatever, but with umpires also is if you get a label, if you get a label in baseball, a good label or a bad label, you could be,

you know, it's tough to get rid of that label. So for example, if, if my first playoff series I ever worked, I, I, I missed a steel play a pretty big steel play in game two or game three or whatever. And a lot of people are pissed off and, you know, it was a mistake and you made a mistake. Suddenly, Dale Scott is, you know, that guy's not very good. He always misses plays, or he always misses pitches because you miss one in a key situation.

Again, your body of work might be much different, but when people are focused in on something, when it's a big game or something, and so you get this label that you're not very good, he's a bad plate umpire or this or that. Well, maybe I was that game or that particular inning or whatever, or for a couple games in a span that stood out. But that label, unfortunately, stays with you for years, even though maybe it's not even true anymore, right?

And it can go the opposite way. You could have a guy that seems to be in the big games and just is knocking it out. He's got, you know, he hardly ever makes a mistake and this and that. And now down the road, you know, he does screw up here or does something in a big game and people say, well, you know, that's Dale Scott. You know, he's a pretty good umpire. That's not, you know, he missed that one. But, you know, he rarely does that. He's really good. So that good label sticks, even though, you know, maybe maybe it shouldn't so my point is you have certain personalities in baseball umpire personalities that have been around a long time or have been in some big game situations

that have had situations that uh real or perceived were handled right or wrong or whatever but they're going to get labeled and all of a sudden, they're this and that and the other thing. Oh, it's all about him, and all he wants to do, they think we're coming to pay to see him and this and that. And, you know, maybe 20% of that's true, but it's labeled, and all of a sudden, that's just fact. That's just fact.

Oh, that's who it is. You know, I worked with a guy for five years who had a reputation of not being a very good umpire. And without naming names, I was, most of the time, the way our rotation worked, I was at second base when he was behind the plate. So I had a pretty good shot of his strike zone. And the guy was solid behind the plate. I mean, solid. Did he miss pitches once in a while? Yeah, so do I.

So does everybody. But he was very solid. And then on the bases, every once in a while, maybe he just needed a quick little reminder to focus. He might daydream just for a second or so. But overall, this guy was a solid. He certainly wasn't the reputation that was in the media and beyond that this guy was just incompetent. But again, he had gotten labeled and, you know, when people are watching, especially if, you know, they're watching their home team, their team all the time,

and some of these announcers, well, that's so-and-so, you know, boy, he's, he screwed the giants the other day. And then, you know, and, and so it's just, it's just kind of absorbed by everybody. Well, you know, he, this guy's awful. Everybody thinks he's awful. And I just think sometimes it's not, it's just not, it's just not that cut and dry. It's just not that it's pretty unfair. Do they bring some of it on themselves? Every once in a while, yeah, they do. pretty unfair. Do they bring some of it on themselves? Every once in a while, yeah, they do.

But again, to make a decision on a couple instances that overall this guy's incompetent and shouldn't even be there, quite frankly, Major League Baseball is not going to put somebody, especially in a postseason situation, where they're as terrible as everybody thinks they are. I mean, they don't want to be embarrassed. They don't want to be putting somebody in a situation that they think is not up to the task. And so, I mean, still stuff may happen, but they're not going to do that. Oh, look at this guy. His numbers are terrible. Let's put him in the World Series.

They just don't do that. And that's another thing that we talked about earlier about how the internal numbers that we are evaluated on are different than these facsimiles of strike zones that are on the monitors. So last question, we've barely talked about the personal side of the story, which is really, I think, one of the best parts of the book. So everyone should go get it. We are talking a lot here, but hardly covering all of it. But you go through how and when you realized you were gay and how you came out to your family and then decades down the road came out publicly and just all of the steps in between there, how you met your now husband, Mike. living as a gay man and as a major league umpire back in the 80s and the 90s was difficult and how you felt pressure to keep that side of your life separate and secret and had to go through all sorts of steps and come up with cover stories and how in some ways you regret aspects of that or

found it difficult at the time. But you also, and this is something I hadn't really thought of, but you mentioned that there were ways in which these two parts of your life kind of gelled or supported each other in some ways in the sense that as an umpire, you're kind of always keeping a different public face and a different internal monologue, right? And your job is almost to keep that side of yourself from coming out during a game. And that's kind of what you were doing in your personal life at that time. And you also talk about how just the travel and the lifestyle of an umpire in some ways made it easier for you to sort of keep that part of your life to yourself, right? Because you're traveling around

the country and you're in hotels and you had a little more freedom and anonymity in that way. So I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the ways in which it was difficult. I mean, you're in this high profile public world that is at the very least heteronormative and often homophobic. And yet there were ways, I guess, in which being an umpire prepared you for that side of things or that side of things maybe prepared you for being an umpire. certainly helped to keep people off the track, so to speak. You know, I have a cousin who is a hairdresser, and when I was in the minor leagues and then for several years in the big leagues, she always would, you know, used to say, oh, Dale, I've got this one girlfriend of mine. You'd love her. And I'd always say, i i'd always say well you know sherry i you know it's a tough it's tough to have a relationship i mean just about the time you get to know

somebody and and all of a sudden you say oh hey by the way uh next week i'm leaving for six months you know i won't be home and and so it's kind of a built-in excuse why i wasn't in a relationship or why i i didn't necessarily want to start one because it was just really and it made sense you know i mean it wasn't totally out of the question like oh yeah that's a stupid excuse or why I didn't necessarily want to start one because it was just really, and it made sense. You know, I mean, it wasn't totally out of the question. Like, oh, yeah, that's a stupid excuse. I mean, it did make sense, especially when I was not only working in the minor leagues, but, you know, I'd have an instructional league or I'd have, of course, winter ball.

So I was gone a lot during that time. So that helped. You know, the other thing is because, you know, when I was 19, I figured out who I was and I was gay and I finally had figured it all out for myself. I also figured out that, you know, I told myself I'm going to look in the mirror and I tell them, you're gay. Okay, now I get it. You're gay. All right. So what are you going to do about it? And one of the things that I said to myself is I'm not going to look in the mirror for the rest of my life every day and lie to myself. I know who I am. This is me. And I'm perfectly fine with it. But I do also realize that I may have to be deceitful or lie or whatever with situations in society because of what was going on. In a way, that helped me to be able to live my baseball life over on this side and my personal life.

Now, I wasn't a closeted gay man. I was, you know, I had Mike as a partner, now a husband. I had gay friends. I had, you know, eventually, you know, my family knew, his family knew. So it wasn't like I was never, you know, completely discreet about everything. But I was able to separate the baseball life from the personal life. And part of that was, like I said, because my baseball life was never in Portland where I lived, you know. And it just made it a lot easier. And then I had that building excuse, like I said, with my cousin that I'm always gone. It's tough to have a relationship when you're always gone.

So all those things helped keep it separate. And I was able to compartmentalize and be able to keep things separate almost too well. It's like, am I a psycho? I mean, I do this so well. Is there something wrong with me? But it's just, it's what you do. You're living your life and you're living it at that time. Like I said, two weeks before my very first came in professional baseball in the Northwest League was this strange, rare cancer affecting these young, normally healthy young men in San Francisco and New York. And what's going on? Well, of course, that was the HIV AIDS epidemic, which started right when I was starting my baseball career.

So I was very concerned, first of all, just having anybody know that I was gay because I would never get promoted. I would, you know, I would die in the minor leagues because they're not going to let a gay guy, you know, move up the ranks. Now I was concerned that not only I wouldn't be able to move up the ranks, there would be guys who wouldn't want to work with me at all because of the fear that was going on in the 80s over HIV. You know, you share the same hotel room, you're driving miles together, you're in the locker room, you're in the, you know, on the field.

So I had a very, in my mind, a very legitimate concern to have none of this come out or my career in baseball would certainly be over. And so that's, you know, as I write, I took a lot of steps to hide that, including using Mike's sister as a beard one time. Right. Well, as you can tell, Dale has a great radio voice and podcast voice. Maybe you should start a podcast. But as you learn in the book, he was a DJ. And I guess the great tragedy is that you retired before they finally miked up the umpires,

because that would have been your time to shine. Yes. Can I say something about that? I said earlier in this podcast that I'm just not a real bitter person. I'm bitter about that. I would have loved that. It was supposed to start the 2020 season, but, of course, that season was blown up. But Danny Isonia, who I worked over 1,000 games with and stuff, I remember he would call me because they have scripts and how they're supposed to say stuff and this and that. And he would run it by me.

He would say it, and I'd say, well, yeah, maybe you should do this. And I was like a voice coach. But it was funny because all my crews the guys I worked with and can tell you um you know during the season I was always using my radio voice and and so so guys on the crew started using their radio voice you know we just do that naturally as just kind of a joke and have fun with it and I remember at one time Danny told me he goes uh yeah he goes I the season was over I got home about about a week and a half after I'd been home. Denise's wife said, okay, enough with the damn radio voice, okay?

You're not with Dale anymore. Let's go. But yes, I am very bitter that I could not announce what's going on on the field because I would have killed it. Yes, yeah. And you say in the book, I think 1980, you went off to umpire school from your radio station, KBDF, and they told you that there'd always be a job waiting for you. So I guess KBDF is now KVRM, an NPR station, but maybe you should try to take them up on that. All right, I'm ready. Can I have my old gig back?

And I've been practicing my radio voice, so I'm sure we can do that. Well, thank you very much, Dale. It's been a pleasure talking to you and also reading about you. The book, again, is The Umpire Is Out, Calling the Game and Living My True Self. And The Umpire Is Out is out. So you can go get it. It is out. And I've got a few events, book signings and stuff.

If you go to umpiredalescott.com, there's information there. All right. And you can find Dale on Twitter as well at DaleScottMLB5. Dale, thank you very much. Thank you so much. I enjoyed myself. It was a lot of fun. All right. That will do it for today. Thanks to Dale and Rob, and thanks to you for listening. I saw after we finished recording that the Padres had signed Yusmero Petit to a minor league contract. I was happy to see that. I was wondering when he would get signed. He's been a favorite of mine for a while, and I love the deception he brings, which I wrote a big story about last year. If there's anyone who can get by with the Zach

Greinke stat line and the Zach Greinke approach, it's Yusmero Petit, who doesn't throw hard either and doesn't miss a lot of bats. But he, at least over the course of his career or in the last several seasons, really has induced weak contact and defied FIP because he's got great command and he's extremely deceptive, which is something I think teams are coming to value and potentially teach more and more. So hope he makes it back to the majors sometime soon. In the meantime, you can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild.

The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going and get themselves access to some perks. Kevin Warwick, Jason Conklin, Josh Bleich, Kyle Turk, and Chewbacca. Thanks, Chewie. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group, Discordantly Wild, and a couple of playoff live streams later in the season, and monthly bonus pods hosted by me and Meg. And we actually released our last one over the weekend, where we did some rants. We just went on some rants, much like my zombie runner rant, except that these were non-baseball rants about

low-stakes subjects. It was fun. Of course, anyone can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. Keep your questions and comments for me and Meg coming via email at podcastatfangraphs.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWPod.

You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing and production assistance, and we will be back with another episode a little later this week. Talk to you then. I think it's about time someone discovered the way

things really are. I think it's about time someone thought about the way things ought to be. Me. Me. Ah, would you come out tonight? We'll fly through the sky in its splendor.