Balls and Strikes?

I guess M Cabrera was tossed out of the game last night for arguing balls and strikes.  (I only watch a few games and I certainly can't stay up for a 10:00 PM start!)  When I read that this AM, I thought, "What took so long?"

No, not "so long" for Cabrera, although from what I've seen a case could be made for it.  "So long" for more and more players and managers.  As noted, I don't watch many games, but those I have show the umpires to be pretty bad on balls and strikes, not to mention consistency.  I guess I'm surprised there haven't been more ejections.

Even that, I think, unscientific strike box demonstrates how far off the umpires are.  They miss pitches by inches.  It's not even "it's on the black" any more.  Up and down, in and out--far too many strikes are called.

Granted, I'm not nor ever was a pitcher, but a hitter (maybe "batter" would be more accurate?).  I see things from that perspective.  No doubt pitchers like having an extra few inches with which to work.

But consider the batter.  It's not just "Strike Three," which, of course, ends the at-bat.  It's also the earlier pitches that put a batter in a hole.  He then must swing at more marginal pitches:  because he has the extra strike and can't take the knee-high, outside corner pitch; because he doesn't know if the next pitch, perhaps even a ball, will be called a strike.  Calling bad pitches changes the whole dynamic of batting/hitting.

And, MLB umpires are supposed to be "the best," aren't they?  If so, how can they miss so many pitches, esp as verified by the "strike boxes?"  Are they not that good?  Is it that they look over the catchers' inside shoulders, now with the inside chest protectors and, therefore, don't get a good look at the outside pitches (but that doesn't explain the low ball calls)?  I don't know....

Of course, also in the back of my mind, almost assuming they are "the best" and "how" no longer becomes the issue, is then the question of "why?"  Maybe this is it.  Maybe MLB has become the NBA.  Perhaps the umpires are told what to call and what not to call.  I don't know.  I'm just speculating.  (How many people have begun to equate the NBA with WWF??????)  There is a lot of money involved with who wins and who losses.  No, I'm not talking about betting/gambling.  That's not it, I don't think.  But who looks better on a national playoff scene??????  Who attracts a bigger national audience?  And who, then, commands more advertising dollars?  Now, does that translate to the regular season? Again, I don't know.

In the NBA, the superstars get favorable treatment.  Can anyone, with a straight face, deny that?  (At least Hulk Hogan sometimes lost!)  A rookie from Podunk U can breathe on a superstar and it's free throw city.  The superstar can take 10 or 15 steps and no whistle.  But, why wouldn't, if MLB is becoming the NBA, would umpires make lousy calls on balls and strike to Miggy Cabrera?  To be honest, other than when Verlander might be pitching (although not at 10 PM!), I watch the Tigers only to see Cabrera hit--he's the best I've seen except for Ted Williams (yeah, I saw him play!).  So why would umpires take the bat out of his hands?  Why might MLB instruct (or not instruct?) the umpires in this regard?

The solution, as usual, is just to get good people (maybe a change in technique is necessary; maybe accountability is inorder) and be honest.  But, like so much in so many venues today, perhaps that's not reality.  I would like to see, however, more batters and managers put up stinks, even get bounced, if that's what it takes to get better ball-and-strike umpiring.