Automate ball and strike calls?

"I never thought I'd find myself in favor of this, but I've come around to the idea."

 

I'm about to fall reluctantly off the fence to the same side. The thing I struggle with is the home plate ump's role after this happens. Obviously he still has a job to do: check-swings, plays at home, etc. And I guess he would still "call" balls and strikes, using a hand-held device or something? Maybe he dons Google Glass some day

 

 

I just wish that rather than go this route, umps would change. But as you say, that isn't happening.

 

 

Then all pitchers would have to always remain in the zone and that is almost impossible.  Most pitchers who throw very hard are usually not accurate.  A big part of the pitchers job is deception and to either have the ball put in play or produce swing and misses.  Not everyone has the same method of achieving that.  Sometimes you will see an outside pitch thrown out of the zone because experienced pitchers know how to expand that zone, and in most cases the dominant guy will get the call and he probably deserves it.

I actually think that they do a good job of calling balls and strikes, if you take out the human element than you might lose lots of folks to the game ,just the opposite.  Just as the pitcher can't always stay within the zone, the umpire can't always get the call within it.

Balls don't slow down the game, the batter in and out of the box is what does it, take that away and you will see a faster game. I know of one manager who has informed his players to stop with the in and out of the box, as per the owners instructions.

Here is MO,  MLB owners do not want to slow down the game by taking out the human element longer games is more beer sales, more food sales, higher ratings and big cable contracts.

 

When you mention Eric Gregg is that for HIS no hitter?Joe West is that for the perfect game that Milt Pappas did not get?

not sure where i stand on this, but you can all add impact of catchers framing pitches to influence balls/strikes.  They did study of this and found how much it impacted the calls and it has an impact.  Kinda cool for the catcher, but what about the hitter who basically just got hosed for not swinging at a ball...

Eric Gregg (RIP) for his three foot off the outside corner, IDGA$ anymore, strike calls.

 

Believe it was a rookie ump Bruce Froeming (sp?) who blew Papas's perfect game...and went on to be a great umpire.

 

My point isn't to focus on any particular ump.  Point is human nature of umps in general specifically in calling balls and strikes

 

And another reason for automating ball and strike calls. 

I think I would go for it, if the technology was proven. But the lower levels need it so much more than MLB, where most guys do a very good job.   And BTW everybody should squat in the slot and call balls and strikes at least once.  It's not as easy as it looks. In fact, it's not easy at all.

 

The bigger problem for me is the guys calling balls and strikes in HS and youth. Many are great, but many are truly  terrible, and they too often have a huge impact on the game.

But unfortunately it's hard to imagine a technology that would be good enough yet cheap enough to permeate down to those levels anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

If just getting in there and trying(lower levels) counts for something then I guess.I don't feel anywhere near most are pretty good,OK. or whatever.I say its just the opposite most aren't any good.I can count on one hand umps that will consistently call a strike at or just above the knee every year.Above the belt isn't much better.Why are the lower level guys like this most of the time?They watch too much TV.

I can't wait until this game turns into real life video game. Be the manager for a game and set your lineup, call in pitches and put on offensive plays all from your couch. All for a low low price of $15k a game. WHAT A DEAL!

I’ve been an advocate of calling pitches not swung at, with technology since I first saw Questec up close and personal, let alone with the technology Pitch(f/x) uses. For me its never been anything other than wanting to see the field as level as possible whether the pitcher is a 20 year veteran who’ll no doubt be in the HOF on the 1^st ballot, or a rookie called up in August because one of the pitchers on the roster went down with an injury.

 

IMHO there are gonna be a lot more people switching sides of the fence because they’re seeing IR having a definite impact on the game because the umpires are only human. When MLB decided it would rather have a call be made correctly, and they allowed IR even in the very narrow situations of fair/foul and HRs, rather than to keep living in the past on the tradition that umpires judgment can’t be challenged, the wheels of change began to spin. And I truly believe as more and more calls are shown to have been made in error, the wheels of change will spin faster and faster.

 

Even though the lower the levels the more the need because the pitch calling skills of the umpires is generally not as good, of course its gonna take the longest for the change to technology to get there. Its all about the $$$, but where a need is shown to exist, someone will come up with a low cost “system” virtually any Little League, High School, or College team can afford. The travel type teams or showcase promoters will be able to afford it simply because they can most easily get the $$$, and if everyone else has that capability, it will be demanded by the guys and gals with the wallets.

 

And when anyone thinks much about it, what could be better for the players? Isn’t it a little stupid for a hitter or pitcher to work for hours and hours to learn the strike zone and hone his mechanics to it, then in games a lot of that work goes down the tubes because of some umpire who simply has a bad “zone”?

 

The game is having issues because its not as glamorous as football or as action packed as basketball. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad game, but it does mean it has to offer something the other sports don’t, which in this case would be “fairness”. I know that’s a dirty word to some who believe life ain’t fair, but it gives credibility, and that means a great deal.

 

I truly believe its gonna at least be experimented within the next decade, and I look forward to it with great anticipation.

I don't have a horse in this race, as I do not believe that technology will be common at my levels in the remaining years of my career.There is a sad reality to some HS baseball in that oftentimes the Umpires scheduled for the contest are not the best umpires, just the most available ones....

 

In a reality where there is a chronic shortage of umpires for all levels its just not possible to have enough Umpires to be able to do games at 3-4 PM while holding regular jobs. Assignors, understandably, will then use umpires whose schedules can accommodate the start times.

 

I have been a HS certified umpire for many years, but working a full schedule of HS games has never been possible due to the scheduling difficulties with my full time job. There are very few HS fields in my area who have lights to do night games, or the ground crew assets to get a field ready in any adverse weather conditions.

 

I have seen top varsity games go to retirees and rookies while Saturday am JV ball be done by NCAA level umpires.....all because of starting schedule timing.....

 

I encourage everyone to use the search feature here on  the HSBBW and search for the thread "borderline Pitches".......its not the "100% clear cut" answer to any zone issue questions, but it features a dynamic dialog about the zone and a has a number of excellent responses by many of the umpires who post here and many good contributors from the site........

Now to the reality of it all....I am taking much of this response from that thread....

 

Being an umpire is parts art and science....the science part is learning the rules........the art part is calling balls and strikes,...calling balls and strikes in the real game world is a skill..... and being judged by a black and white definition in the rule book can be a challenge.....what is written, isn't often what is seen out there behind the dish......

 

I have my own zone....

My zone is just what happens when I am behind the plate attempting to judge a 3 dimensional strike zone that changes based on the batters height.

If you can imagine an invisible floating column, 17 and a half inches wide that extends from a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and at the lower level is the hollow beneath the knee cap. The zone is determined by from each batters stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball....the strike zone changes for a 5'6" batter to a 6' batter......

All of this adds to each umpire having their own zone....even as we all try to adhere to the rule book definition. Given that, in games with umpires of my experience, you will get different zones...much of it based on such things as the umpires height, his stance and the quality if the catchers.....I have seen recently injured umpires behind catchers of dubious quality jump around like cats on a hot tin roof.....not surprisingly the zone was jumping as well......

I believe that most trained umpires do try to call the strike zone as described in the rule book. Going back on my training, again, I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....

Its a condition of the above factors....... but I keep working to refine my zone to fit into the rule book, but truth be told, I probably won’t ever get it book rule perfect.....

I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the child’s way out, but I will offer that it isn’t as easy as it seems or looks….

But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better......I attend clinics every year, where I will get cage work in....and I get evaluated every year…..

Despite all our efforts, I feel there will always be some variance..if at any time I feel I am doing "good enough" and fail to work on refining my game......I will call it a career.......

Hope this helps explain my view…Calling a good strike zone is where an umpire makes his reputation and it is something I work hard on.........

I'm falling on the other side of the fence.  Although I realize it is contrarian to my other technology focused thoughts on umpiring a game.   Balls and strikes should be a human activity with greater emphasis on umpire accuracy.   I believe everything else in the field should be technology reviewable by umpires (technology is a tool)  and challengeable by managers.  I realize this may not be a popular position, but baseball is a subjective game played by humans.  Judgement of whether something is a ball or strike is equally played out by pitcher, catcher, hitter and umpire. Preserving this human part of the game is important for the legacy & history of the game.   JMO. 

 

PS...No, I'm not an old fart yet!

Keep in mind, when technology is used in any capacity there are those out there looking to influence, hack, ...  I would venture to say that if this technology became the norm, there would be those out there hacking systems and influencing games and they'd be long gone before anyone knew that they were there.  Just ask the banking system or some chain stores. 

What you outline has been essentially my position too for a long time whenever this subject has come up... Until maybe the past year or two.  What I've grown tired of in MLB are close pitches not called. I believe that much of what the avg. fan doesn't like about the game... namely slow pace and lack of consistent action... would be greatly improved by calling a full and fixed strike zone.  

 

Between MLB network's wall to wall coverage of all games and the pitch trackers on broadcasts... Just to name two factors... MLB umps are under the microscope unlike anything ever before.  It has to effect them.  The fact that the technology clearly exists now to definitively call pitches makes even an old school guy like me ask "why not use it?".

 

Automation has the potential to improve things, I believe, so long as the strike zone is defined properly.  So it's not only a matter of automating a fixed zone across all of baseball, but more importantly setting that automated zone to reflect something closer to the actual definition of a strike... ie calling strikes from the knees up to a set point somewhere above the belt... maybe not the letters, but close. Split the difference between the letters and the belt and would be all good.  That's a strike and/or hittable pitch up there... The game was designed for batters to put the ball in play.  OBP is for stuffed shirts!

Originally Posted by CoachB25:

Keep in mind, when technology is used in any capacity there are those out there looking to influence, hack, ...  I would venture to say that if this technology became the norm, there would be those out there hacking systems and influencing games and they'd be long gone before anyone knew that they were there.  Just ask the banking system or some chain stores. 

 

How would a system be hacked that isn’t on the web?

piaa ump,

 

You make some excellent points, and I have no doubt that you do your job very well.

 

I just want to address one thing:

 

I believe that most trained umpires do try to call the strike zone as described in the rule book. Going back on my training, again, I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book.

zone....

 

IMHO based on watching lots of umps and doing a little bit myself:  I think since umps got rid of the "biscuit",  went to interior protector, and began working from the slot, most umps see the inside ball well.  They call the inside high pitch very well, assuming their zone is defined correctly for whatever level they work.   Only really bad umps miss these pitches with any regularity.   Inside low pitches are harder to see. They require using the path of the ball, where it's caught, and depth perception to extrapolate where the ball crosses the lower line relative to the batter. High and outside is similarly difficult to call. Only good umps get these two corners of the zone consistently right.  Low and outside is the most difficult pitch to call.  The ball is away from the ump's eyes on two axes.  Only really good umpires call this pitch consistently with accuracy.

stats, doesn't this involve a computer?  If it involves a computer, there are ways to do things not unlike the technology that exist to shut down cars. 

If this machine calls balls and strikes, will it also call fair and foul, HBP, adjudge check swings, catchers obstruction, batter interference, BOO, take the double switch, rotate to third on plays, call Infield fly....

 

I don't know much about it other than reading a couple of articles here and there, but no doubt you'll always need an ump behind the plate.  For all the reasons you listed, plus to stay on top of whatever automation system is in use.  If the thing isn't working properly or at all, the ump would prevail... No interruption of games.  

 

FWIW, the set up that seemed best of the ones I've read was for the ump to hold a devise in hand... Something that buzzes or whatever when the zone is penetrated.  Some scenarios have the ump simply calling that buzz... Unless he feels strongly enough about it to not concur.  Another scenario is that "the buzzer" would only indicate the plate, and the ump would still determine up and down.  I'm sure there are other scenarios out there.  It sounds a little crazy to talk about it now, but I do believe it's coming to MLB at some point.  Hopefully anything that comes to pass will have umpire buy in... A tool for the trade, not a replacement for what they do.  JMO

Personally, I hope it never comes. It's an abomination of the game in my mind.

Interesting analysis by Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern who researched every pitch in the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  I think to consider going to an automated umpire system we have to know how much umpires are missing ball and strike calls. And is there any bias, here are some numbers.

 

700,000 pitches analyzed,   14 percent of non-swinging pitches were called erroneously, that’s 98,000 pitches called wrong

 

Umpires tended to favor the home team by expanding the strike zone, calling a strike when the pitch was actually a ball 13.3 percent of the time for home team pitchers versus 12.7 percent of the time for visitors.

 

Umpires were 13 percent more likely to miss an actual strike in the bottom of the ninth inning of a tie game than in the top of the first inning, on the first pitch.

 

When the count was 3-0, and another ball would end the at-bat, the umpires mistakenly called a strike 18.6 percent of the time, compared with a 14.7 percent error rate when the count was 0-0. But when the count was 0-2, with another strike yielding a strikeout, the umpires expanded the strike zone only 7.3 percent of the time, half the error rate for 0-0. The umpires, in other words, appeared biased against ending an at-bat

 

Umpires were 10 percent less likely to expand the strike zone for African-American pitchers than for Caucasian pitchers, but race did not seem to influence whether an umpire called a pitch a ball when it was actually a strike.

 

An umpire was about 16 percent more likely to erroneously call a pitch outside the zone a strike for a five-time All-Star than for a pitcher who had never appeared in an All-Star Game.

 

An umpire was about 9 percent less likely to mistakenly call a real strike a ball for a five-time All-Star. The strike zone did actually seem to get bigger for All-Star pitchers and it tended to shrink for non-All-Stars.

 

All the above are quotes from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...pires-get-wrong.html

...and those numbers are flawed, because they used raw data from a system that relies on an approximation of the strike zone, and made no adjustment for what "should" be a ball or strike (i.e. curveballs catching the bottom of the zone and dirt are considered missed pitches if called balls in this analysis.)

Originally Posted by CoachB25:

stats, doesn't this involve a computer?  If it involves a computer, there are ways to do things not unlike the technology that exist to shut down cars. 

 

Of course it involves a computer, but in order to hack it, there has to be access. If the computer is hooked up to the WWW, then it can be hacked. As far as I know, the only thing hooked to the web is on the output side. Of course there’s always gonna be a way to corrupt any system, but are the chances of that any higher than they are right now?

 

To me its all a matter of plusses and minuses, and the plusses are so overwhelming to me, it isn’t even close.

Originally Posted by piaa_ump:

If this machine calls balls and strikes, will it also call fair and foul, HBP, adjudge check swings, catchers obstruction, batter interference, BOO, take the double switch, rotate to third on plays, call Infield fly....

 

1^st things 1^st. If pitches not swung at can be called with superior accuracy, and that can be done now, that would be step 1. Those other things can certainly be programmed, but are one heck of a lot more complicates. Calling pitches is pretty simple because it only requires a computer to do what it does best, determine true/false. Once the strike zone is determined, then its just a matter of a legally pitched ball touching any part of that zone.

Originally Posted by Matt13:

...and those numbers are flawed, because they used raw data from a system that relies on an approximation of the strike zone, and made no adjustment for what "should" be a ball or strike (i.e. curveballs catching the bottom of the zone and dirt are considered missed pitches if called balls in this analysis.)

 

Ii sounds like that data came from Questec not Pitch(f/x), and there’s no doubt Questec is the inferior system, but it ain’t rotten. But even it if was hopelessly riddled with flaws, is it possible every call it made was in error? So what if the human calls were in error only 5% of the time instead of 14%? Wouldn’t it be better to make it 2%?

 

I think what’s being missed in all this is that no one is knocking the umpires! Anyone who’s ever tried to call pitches knows how difficult it is, and knows there will be calls made in error. The point that should be examined is, does it make the game better? I think it does because it makes the game much more the same for everyone. Whether the batter is in Yankee Stadium or Chavez Ravine, and if he’s facing Clayton Kershaw or Joe Podunk, he’ll see the same strike zone. The same thing will happen for the pitchers, and to me that makes the game better.

Do these systems adjust for the height of the batters knees or their stance and their height?  There is a big difference between a low batting stance 5'8" player than a 6'6" batter with an upright stance.  

 

Perhaps some of the discrepancy in the data could be attributed to these things.  The width of the plate will be the same no matter what, the height of the strike zone could be affected by the batter.

 

Would these systems be able to adjust for this from batter to batter?

Tom Glavine just called in to vote against a machine-based strike zone. 

 

Call me a fuddy-dud, but I will always happen to believe that part of what makes baseball great...and a lot more interesting to watch and talk about...is that it depends upon a number of human frailties like the umpire's eye. Because of the irregularities that creates, it forces both batters and pitchers to make adjustments; adjustments that add to the challenge they face in becoming better players.

 

I understand that the strike zone is a defined area...and I'm a strong believer in providing the best umpiring possible...but, before we turn over such an important contributor to the game's color and history to automation, can't we consider making a conscious decision to accept human error as being a fundamental part of the game when it comes to this dimension?

 

In this case, given a choice between vanilla and neapolitan, I choose the latter.

+1 Prepster.  My feelings exactly.

QuesTec is indeed rotten...that's why it isn't the same anymore. That 14% in the study isn't coincidence, I don't think--that also happens to be about the differential (IIRC) in the accuracy rate of the top-rated ball-and-strike umpire in MLB (Tim McClelland) the year before it was introduced (measured by sample evaluation) and then under QuesTec.

Originally Posted by bballman:

Do these systems adjust for the height of the batters knees or their stance and their height?  There is a big difference between a low batting stance 5'8" player than a 6'6" batter with an upright stance.  

 

Perhaps some of the discrepancy in the data could be attributed to these things.  The width of the plate will be the same no matter what, the height of the strike zone could be affected by the batter.

 

Would these systems be able to adjust for this from batter to batter?

 

Right now there’s absolutely no reason to adjust the vertical size and position of the strike zone because nothing is riding on it other than for television viewer entertainment. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. All that has to be done is to have an umpire in a booth someplace set the bottom and top of the zone.

 

I really can’t figure out where I stand on replay or the automated strike zone possibilities.  I really was willing to live with human error as it stands with the things that are reviewed now in the replay system, in other words live with the umpires mistakes.  But conversely, I lean towards wanting to see balls and strikes being taken away from the umpire and go with an automated system.    Especially if more data shows bias and not just error.

Originally Posted by Matt13:QuesTec is indeed rotten...that's why it isn't the same anymore. That 14% in the study isn't coincidence, I don't think--that also happens to be about the differential (IIRC) in the accuracy rate of the top-rated ball-and-strike umpire in MLB (Tim McClelland) the year before it was introduced (measured by sample evaluation) and then under QuesTec

 

As far as I know, the QuesTec is still the same as it was in 2008. Pitch(f/x) is now used in ML stadiums, but I’m pretty sure QuesTec is still used to evaluate umpires in MiL settings. But as bad as you might think it is, there’s no proof its less accurate than humans. Its definitely not as accurate as Pitch(f/x) though.

 

I dug this old article up, and it does a fair job of explaining things for the layman.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...t-tech-disserve-game

 

Here’s a more cryptic article that shows just how accurate pitch(f/x) is and the problems that arise.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.....php?articleid=13109

 

Here’s a fairly comprehensive article by Alan Nathan, one of the leading authorities on the Physics of Baseball.

 

http://baseball.physics.illino...du/pitchtracker.html

 

Taking everything into consideration, if MLB decides to use technology to call pitches not swung at, everyone can rest assured that at worst that technology will be no less accurate than human beings, and at best will be significantly more accurate.

Don't really know where I stand on replay. The only thing I do know is that TELEVISION COMMERCIALS have to be one of if not the leading cause of games going long at the MLB level. Not the batter out of the box. Hey, he gets a chance to get signs just like he waits as the catcher peers into the dugout for 45 seconds to get the pitch call to then relay to the pitcher who we hope gets the sign right and doesn't step off and start the whole process over!

That's the thing with PitchF/X, though...the technology only tracks the ball, not the zone. Some guy assigns the zone for each batter by hand.

Major league catchers call their own games.

       
       

The reason to consider it now is because people are using it to evaluate the calls by the umpires. And I could just imagine around 30 umpires (1for each game) sitting in a control center adjusting a virtual box for each batter as they come to the plate. What if they make it from the knees to the armpits by mistake for a batter and a pitch around his shoulders is called a strike. Anything can happen. It would be a disaster in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Matt13:

That's the thing with PitchF/X, though...the technology only tracks the ball, not the zone. Some guy assigns the zone for each batter by hand.

 

According to the rules , isn’t that what the umpire is supposed to do for every batter? It would be fairly simple to come up with a “general” vertical strike zone for every player, but with the way players change swings, there would have to be a way to adjust it on the fly, which is what they do already. And wouldn’t it be much more accurate seeing the vertical zone with a view of the batter from a camera looking from the perspective of the opposite batter’s box?

 

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

Originally Posted by Prepster:

Major league catchers call their own games.

 

Well, that’s true for the most part, but more and more signals are being sent in for all kinds of things. But even so, I don’t see how commercials add even small amounts of time to a game. Baseball isn’t like football and basketball where there are TV time outs. Commercials are inserted when there are breaks in the game like pitcher changes, injuries, and side changes ever half-inning. If the teams are ready to go and the commercial isn’t over, that’s too bad.

Originally Posted by bballman:

The reason to consider it now is because people are using it to evaluate the calls by the umpires. And I could just imagine around 30 umpires (1for each game) sitting in a control center adjusting a virtual box for each batter as they come to the plate. What if they make it from the knees to the armpits by mistake for a batter and a pitch around his shoulders is called a strike. Anything can happen. It would be a disaster in my opinion.

 

The only people evaluating umpires’ calls that make any difference is MLB, and they’ve been doing it for many years.

 

Well I think you’re exaggerating how big the problem would be, but let’s assume that someone did stick in an improper zone. In most scenarios I’ve seen, the PU always has the option of overriding any call, so why wouldn’t he just do that if the called pitch was crazy bad? But even if that did happen and wasn’t caught, would it be worse overall than it is now?

 

Don’t get me wrong here. I know computers, software, hardware, and cameras are all fallible. but it isn’t as though umpires aren’t. In fact, umpire fallibility is precisely why replay is being used and we’re talking about extending it to calling pitches not swung at.

Uhhh, yeah.  How likely do you think the umpires will be paying close attention to every pitch if they know they are not making a call on pitches?  You don't think their attention will wander?  And what are they going to do, review the call of the computer on instant replay if the ump disagrees with the computer?  If that is the case, they will be reviewing the computers call, which it made in the first place.  It would be a freaking disaster.

 

This whole idea of computers calling pitches is just stupid in my opinion.  Every college level player I have ever talked to is against instant replay to start with.  I haven't even had the courage to ask them how they would feel about a computer calling pitches for them.  They would think it was the most ridiculous thing they ever heard of.

 

Umpires are and always have been part of the game.  I still say when you start trying to take them out of the equation, you are fundamentally changing the game of baseball.  I'm not for it.