By Pete Grathoff, pets.edu.vn Expert
The ongoing saga of umpire Angel Hernandez and his contentious calls in Major League Baseball (MLB) continues to be a hot topic, sparking debate among fans, managers, and even legal circles. Recently, Kansas City Star’s Pete Grathoff reported on the latest chapter in this long-running narrative, highlighting an incident involving Cleveland Guardians manager Terry Francona and a questionable call at a Royals game. This incident serves as yet another example in a career punctuated by controversial moments, leading many to question Hernandez’s consistency and decision-making on the field.
In a game against the Kansas City Royals, a seemingly routine play turned controversial when Hernandez, positioned at first base, made a call that left both teams scratching their heads. With runners in scoring position, Salvador Perez of the Royals hit a deep fly ball. Hernandez, unable to clearly see the ball land, initially signaled an out based on a guess. While the call was eventually corrected, awarding Perez a single, the initial misjudgment fueled further criticism and frustration, as Grathoff meticulously reported for The Kansas City Star.
Francona’s exasperated question to Hernandez, “Why’s it always happening when you’re here?” as reported by Pete Grathoff, encapsulates the sentiment shared by many in baseball. It’s a question that resonates with years of accumulated incidents involving Hernandez, prompting observers to wonder if there’s a pattern to the controversies. This isn’t just about a few isolated incidents; it’s about a perceived trend that has drawn scrutiny from various corners, including the legal system.
Alt Text: Veteran MLB umpire Angel Hernandez in a heated discussion with a baseball manager, highlighting his controversial on-field interactions.
Pete Grathoff’s reporting also delves into the significant context of Hernandez’s lawsuit against Major League Baseball. Hernandez alleged racial discrimination, claiming that he had been unfairly denied World Series assignments and promotions. However, as Grathoff notes, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the suit, citing a lack of concrete evidence supporting Hernandez’s claims of systematic discrimination.
Judge Oetken’s ruling, as highlighted in Pete Grathoff’s article, pointed to a critical factor in MLB’s umpire promotion decisions: leadership and situation-management skills. The judge stated that MLB’s rationale for not promoting Hernandez was based on his demonstrated lack of consistent leadership ability and situation-management skills in high-pressure situations. This judicial perspective, reported by Grathoff, underscores the league’s emphasis on these crucial, yet sometimes subjective, aspects of umpiring beyond just call accuracy.
The evidence presented against Hernandez’s case, and reported by Pete Grathoff, included numerous examples of questionable calls and on-field conduct. Just last month, in an Angels-Astros game, Hernandez reportedly missed 20 calls while behind the plate. Even in the less consequential environment of spring training, Hernandez drew criticism for missing strike calls, as Grathoff detailed.
The list of incidents extends beyond just missed calls, encompassing questionable ejections and displays of what some perceive as arrogance. Pete Grathoff’s article reminds us of instances like the ejection of a Yankees third-base coach over a strike call and the spring training ejection of then-Astros manager A.J. Hinch for arguing balls and strikes. Hinch’s comment to MLB.com, quoted in Grathoff’s piece, about Hernandez’s “arrogant attitude” further fuels the narrative of an umpire who may be resistant to feedback and correction.
Alt Text: Close-up of MLB umpire Angel Hernandez signaling a call behind home plate during a baseball game, capturing the critical moments of his umpiring decisions.
Going back further, Pete Grathoff’s article references a 2017 spring training game where Hernandez ejected a player simply for getting a base hit, an incident that defies conventional understanding of umpire-player interactions. The article also includes a scathing tweet from former Braves star Chipper Jones from 2013, expressing his refusal to watch any game officiated by Hernandez due to his perceived “incompetence.” These anecdotes, compiled and presented in Grathoff’s report, paint a picture of a long history of dissatisfaction and controversy surrounding Hernandez.
Perhaps the most damning indictment, also highlighted by Pete Grathoff, comes from former Yankees pitcher C.C. Sabathia. Following a 2018 American League Divisional Series game, Sabathia didn’t mince words, stating unequivocally that Hernandez should not be umpiring playoff games, labeling his performance as “absolutely terrible.” Sabathia’s strong words, as reported by Grathoff, carry significant weight, coming from a respected veteran player in the heat of a high-stakes playoff series. The Washington Post, as Grathoff points out, even reported that Hernandez had three calls overturned in a single game during that series, further substantiating Sabathia’s criticisms.
In conclusion, Pete Grathoff’s reporting effectively summarizes the complex and often contentious career of Angel Hernandez. From frustrated managers like Terry Francona to scathing player critiques from C.C. Sabathia and Chipper Jones, and even a judge’s dismissal of his lawsuit citing leadership concerns, the narrative is clear. While call accuracy is paramount, the consistent criticisms leveled against Hernandez, as documented by Grathoff, suggest deeper issues related to judgment, communication, and overall effectiveness as an MLB umpire. The question remains: how long will MLB tolerate this level of controversy surrounding one of its umpires, and what steps, if any, will be taken to address the persistent issues highlighted by Pete Grathoff and countless others?
