Automated Strike Zone Gets Test Run

Whether one likes it or not, I honestly think the day will come when baseball fans will look back and think it was comical that balls and strikes were a judgment call.  We shall see.

What’s nice to see, is that as we get closer and closer to it actually happening, we’re getting more information. More questions are being answered, like there will be a PU to do the many other things besides call pitches not swung at. We also find out that the umpires association responsible for the game is in favor of it.

I’m positive there’s gonna be glitches, but that’s to be expected with something new. There’s always a learning process. But whatever happens, you know it will be talked about a great deal!

I would love for there to be a wireless device in the umpire's hand for these two games where he could "call" the balls and strikes as he sees them, then compare to the computer at the end of the game to see the difference between the two.

Would be nice to get some actual evidence if this is a significant gain or not in percentage of total pitches called.

As an umpire, my goal is to get the call right, so I would welcome technological assistance as long as:

--It doesn't slow the game.

--It isn't ridiculously over-precise at the expense of rough justice. When a batter takes 0-2 pitch that misses the low outside corner by a hairsbreadth, I'm ringing him up. The pitcher threw the ball darn near exactly where he wanted and there's no way the batter knew it would miss when he took a pitch he should have been coached to swing at. Justice demands I reward the player who did his job better. Same thing for the batter who bails out on a curve and isn't even looking at the ball when it either just misses or nicks the zone. That's a strike, too. Objectivity is not always better than subjectivity.

--It assists umpires rather than commands them. In our association, we have been instructed how to call a larger zone for 13u/14u games, presumably with at least tacit consent from the leagues that hire us. If we didn't expand the zone, these games would be walkathons. I would not welcome a tool that prevents me from calling the game as I've been instructed to do and degrades the quality of the game and the learning experience for the players.

--Its settings (e.g., the top and bottom of the zone for each batter) are determined by a competent umpire.  Adjusting the zone of a crouching batter to a normal stance is a subjective call I'm not willing to delegate to a technician or an algorithm.

--It doesn't make playing baseball less accessible to players with limited financial means.

I'm open to the idea, but I need to be convinced that any new tool yields a better game than we have now.

Interesting perspective for sure.  I have a tough time with a few comments. 

misses the low outside corner by a hairsbreadth, I'm ringing him up.

That's a ball and if you see it out of the zone it should be called a ball in my opinion.

Same thing for the batter who bails out on a curve and isn't even looking at the ball when it either just misses or nicks the zone. That's a strike, too.

Only if it's in the zone.

Your justice seems to be based on a false pretense.  That one player out performed the other.  In your scenario, If the pitcher didn't hit the zone than he didn't out perform the batter.  Many times as a coach, I have commented, "great pitch, and great take!" 

0-2 count, 1 out, runner at first, as a coach I prefer my batter taking a low and away tailing fast ball than swinging.  Ringing him up for pitch you have off the plate is over stepping your roll in my opinion. 

Originally Posted by Nuke83:

I would love for there to be a wireless device in the umpire's hand for these two games where he could "call" the balls and strikes as he sees them, then compare to the computer at the end of the game to see the difference between the two.

Would be nice to get some actual evidence if this is a significant gain or not in percentage of total pitches called.

There’s already plenty of evidence showing ML umpires incorrectly call approximately 15% of pitches not swung at. Every ML game has Pitch f/x. That’s what you’re seeing when they show where the pitch was on TV using something similar to what’s seen on MLB gameday. The only difference is, during ML games the upper and lower zone limits aren’t changed for every batter, which I’m assuming will be happening tonight. If it isn’t, it will definitely have to happen before a system like that will ever be approved by the owners, the players, and the umpires.

The next time you watch a ML game, keep something nearby that you can follow the game on MLB.com’s gameday. Here’s some snaps I took during a game last season. I think it’s pretty plain that there are some pretty sad calls. Lots of good ones to be sure, but stopping or cutting down on those poor calls would really change some games. See attachment.

For anyone interested, I just spoke with someone in the front office of the San Raphael Pacifics to see if there was a video feed anywhere. There isn’t but there is a Listen Live link here. http://www.pacificsbaseball.com/

She told me AP, UP, ESPN, FOX, MLBN among others will all be there, so there should be lots to clips to look at.

SK,

Based on your images and what I have seen it would benefit the pitcher.  Your images show MANY more strikes called balls than balls missed called as strikes.  I wonder if that advantage to the pitcher will be to great and create a downturn in offensive production?

real green,

I respect your point of view.

In each sport I officiated, I started with the same point of view.

In football, I had to learn not to call some technical violations that didn't affect fairness of competition, safety, or sportsmanship.

In baseball, I learned to admit to myself there are more uncertainties than I first realized, and I learned to resolve those uncertainties (and a hairsbreadth or a just-nicked-or-just-missed is within the range of uncertainty of my fallible senses) in favor of the rough justice I just described. 

It's not taking over the game. It's not overstepping my authority. It's taking responsibiliy to make calls within the range of uncertainty that support the most just outcome.  

And I don't agree that the batter who took that 0-2 pitch did a better job than the pitcher who painted the black. Nobody I've umped has an eye that good.  The batter might have frozen. He might have panicked. He might have known he couldn't handle the pitch and just abandoned his fate to my mercy. 

I'm not convinced having micron-level accuracy to justify takes when batters should be swinging would improve games--not at the youth, high school, and amateur adult levels I work.

Originally Posted by real green:

SK,

Based on your images and what I have seen it would benefit the pitcher.  Your images show MANY more strikes called balls than balls missed called as strikes.  I wonder if that advantage to the pitcher will be to great and create a downturn in offensive production?

Those were just some snaps I took during games when a call seemed either obviously wrong or seemed to me to have an impact on the game. They aren’t intended to be in any way a sample that could or should be used for anything other than to show that here is evidence that bad calls are anything but rare.

I misunderstood your position and agree with your statement above.  On bang bang plays that could go either direction you will decide based on the most just outcome. 

You stated earlier that umps miss nonswinging calls 15% of the time.  Do they have a breakdown of what they miss more often- Balls for Strikes or Strikes for Balls? 

I know how much you like to assume, but I would assume it's not a 50 50 split.  I would also assume they miss more strikes.  If that turns out to be true, in essence we would end up with an expanded zone from what is currently called which would favor the pitcher.  How do you think that would impact the game? 

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

…I'm not convinced having micron-level accuracy to justify takes when batters should be swinging would improve games--not at the youth, high school, and amateur adult levels I work.

I don’t know about what crusade anyone else might be on, but to me the issue is simple and limited to pitches not swung at. If the batter doesn’t swing and the pitch touches the strike zone it should be called a strike, otherwise it should be called a ball. It’s just that simple.

Since all anyone’s talking about right now is professional baseball, questions as to whether or not the strike zone is appropriate for every venue isn’t even on my radar. However, fair or unfair, I honestly don’t want the umpire deciding anything on that basis. Not because I think it’s somehow wrong, but because every umpire will have a different sense of what’s fair and what isn’t. Just call what’s seen and be done with it.

But something to consider is, maybe if the pitches not swung at could be called within microns at every level, look how easy it would be for an organization to change the definition of the strike zone for every level! For the little ones who can barely throw a pitch over the plate, make it nose to toes and widen it up by a few inches inside. IOW, the strike zone could be very easily be made venue “appropriate” and still remain consistent, “fair”, and within the rules.

Here’s the thing. Since all anyone’s doing is speculating since tonight will be the 1^st time it’s ever happened, anything’s possible and everything has just as much chance of being good or bad for the game. All I‘m saying is why prejudge it one way or the other? Heck, maybe the answer is to give the manager the opportunity to get a review on a pitch the same way he can get a review on other things. I’m just looking for a way to improve the game.

Originally Posted by real green:

You stated earlier that umps miss nonswinging calls 15% of the time.  Do they have a breakdown of what they miss more often- Balls for Strikes or Strikes for Balls? 

I know how much you like to assume, but I would assume it's not a 50 50 split.  I would also assume they miss more strikes.  If that turns out to be true, in essence we would end up with an expanded zone from what is currently called which would favor the pitcher.  How do you think that would impact the game? 

That 15% number doesn’t come from me. I just repeated what I read in this article. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...ll-balls-and-strikes

I‘m sure there’s more of a breakdown somewhere if you look hard enough, but the one in the article is more than good enough for me. But I don’t really care. I just want the zone called accurately.

What I gather from the chart in the article, 13.2% of the pitches inside the zone were called balls while 15% outside the zone were called strikes. But without knowing how many of each there was, I really wouldn’t want to even guess about whether there were more bad strikes or balls called.

As for whether the net effect of an expanded zone were good or bad or favored the hitter or pitcher, again I don’t know and don’t even have an opinion because I haven’t given it much if any thought. But I can say this. If pitches did start getting called by technology, and there was proof it favored the pitcher, and the powers to be determined something had to be done, it would be simple to correct. All that would have to happen would be to change the rule defining the strike zone.

It’s not like the strike zone hasn’t changed over the years. Here’s a chronology.

http://www.baseball-almanac.co..._rules_history.shtml

So here's why I'm convinced that using this type of technology applied in this instance is a good thing.  I don't intend to convince anyone else, and based on all the points against mine, I don't expect that anyone will convince me otherwise.

You make an example above that batters should be swinging and that micron level accuracy isn't needed.

Isn't the umpires job to call the zone as defined and the coaches job to teach batters when and when not to swing?  You have a perspective which leads to an agenda.  Not anything clandestine or evil, you simply have your thoughts on the matter and they influence how you do things.  We all do this.  The problem in officiating is that all umpires have different perspectives and hence agendas.  Some feel they need to make the game quicker.  Others feel the need to make pitchers throw pitches, some think hitters need to swing.  Many change their perspective based on the game.  How many zones get larger late in the game if one team has a large lead?

Isn't the true role of officials to apply the rules?  Not define and redefine them from game to game or even in game?

I agree that micron level of accuracy isn't necessary, but at some point, whether it's within 1 micon or 10, a pitch ceases to be a strike and becomes a ball.  As long as that defined point is ALWAYS the same and as prescribed by the rules, that's a good thing.

I don't see anything that is honestly bad with having the actual strike zone, as defined, called with 100% consistent accuracy.  If a human can do this, no need for machine.  Stats4Gnats presents that humans do this with 855 consistent accuracy the MLB level.  So the best of the best are at .850.  If a machine drives this to .99999, I fail to see why we wouldn't want this.

No one is redefining the strike zone, just using technology available to more accurately call that which is already prescribed and defined to be called and removing the subjectivity that no human is capable of avoiding.

On the topic, anyone hear any feedback on how the process worked last night?  This is about all I found

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...ifics-baseball-game/

The game began a few minutes late and I listened to every pitch so far. It’s the top of the 2nd now, and I don’t hear anything different than any other ball game. There does seem to be some running interaction between Eric Byrnes, the PU, and the players. All the calls were made over the sound system so there wasn’t any guessing.

Something I’d really like to see is how when any part of the ball touches the strike zone, the monitor somehow illuminates. That’s something they talked about and I hope we all get to see at some point in time. If that is something that’s happens, it would be a pretty simple matter to have a monitor for both team so they can judge when to challenge a call. I got a glimpse of it on SportsCenter. Pretty difficult to miss a strike with that thing flashing in your face.

Seems to be discussion about approach for hitters. Some say need to be more patient, others say need to be more aggressive.

Here’s an account of the game from one of the local papers.

http://www.timesheraldonline.c...-san-rafael-pacifics

It will happen for the most simple reason of all....because it can.  The strike zone is a defined space that technology is capable of identifying and then measuring if the pitch made contact with that space.  Only a matter of time before everyone is satisfied it is effective and it is adopted.  Once perfected it will be a pro ball and Major College ball necessity.

This is totally different than a pass interference or holding penalty in football or a block/charge in basketball.

There will still be an umpire at the plate to make calls for Catchers interference, fair/foul, foul tips and plays at the plate among other things. 

The natural consequence should be less beefing all around by players.  No more rolled eyes and stepping out of the box and other jawing that goes on.  For old timers the technology will be an unwanted intrusion, for kids it will be a natural acceptance. 

As noted earlier my grandchildren will see classic baseball games on the Ocho like they will marvel that the umpire called pitches the way my kids look at 70's NFL games and see clotheslines and pounding defenseless receivers and say "That was legal?"    When they see a hockey guy with no helmet they just explode.

The overall impact will be negligible in the long run after a short adjustment period.  Both pitchers and hitters will adjust to the new parameters the same way they do from game to game with umpires.  In fact I would expect since the consistency should be so high, the guys with the most talent should enjoy a larger advantage since all variability on the strike zone is out of the equation. 

Originally Posted by luv baseball: … In fact I would expect since the consistency should be so high, the guys with the most talent should enjoy a larger advantage since all variability on the strike zone is out of the equation. 

I’d love to hear why that wouldn’t be true.

One consequence of such precision may well be that the standard of which hitters and pitchers who get sent forward or passed over changes.

If every pitch is called what it actually is - in my opinion the pitchers are in trouble. First of all hitters WILL KNOW THE STRIKE ZONE. Really good hitters WILL DEF KNOW THE STRIKE ZONE. It is also my opinion that way more balls are called strikes than strikes are called balls. Hitters will not have to adjust to the umpire's strike zone which changes from umpire to umpire. It will just be the same old strike zone every single day. Hitters should love this idea. IMO

After reading and thinking about my post I started looking at it from a pitchers perspective instead of a hitters. And now I am not sure what to think. I can see advantages for both sides which kind of makes me think I should have just stayed quiet on this one. Lol

Whomever wrote the program should be able to adjust and vary the strike zone (program in inconsistencies).  If you know of an umpire that is predictable, a program can be written to mirror his habits.  I do not agree with the automation of Umpires, but if someone has the time, it can be done with software.  You could even have retired umpires added to the game.  Sounds more and more like xbox or virtual reality.  Everyone can sit in a chair and put on a headset and become the catcher (best spot on the field)

I definitely agree that this will favor hitters. Gone will be the Rembrandt pitcher who paints the corner early in the game, and progressively moves the strike zone out during the course of the game with imperceptably more outside pitches so that by the end of the game he's getting two inches off the white. 

That perhaps is a detriment to what some would call the art of the game, and to some extent I agree. But I think this is inevitable. If technology can reliably call strikes and balls, it will (and probably should) happen. 

But it will change the types of pitchers who are successful, I think. Fewer thumbers, more power pitchers. One might argue that this is already happening. 

Coach - understandable quandary but I for one would not encourage your silence on any topic.  Please keep serving them up - this place is better for them.

Sure could have used this in my kids collegiate summer game last night. Zone was very inconsistent and at times terrible.

I think if the technology can be set so that if a pitch touches any part of the white then its a strike and they can adjust the top and bottom of the zone per batter then it should work fine.

At the professional level, I think it expands the zone which would be an advantage to the pitcher. 

I also feel pitchers will develop specialty pitches that would never be called strikes today.  Curve balls that bounce on the plate or clip the back top tip of the zone.  Sinker ball that skims the bottom of the zone.  Sliders that skim the side of the zone.  Training at the MLB will look completely different.  I can see instant feedback to the pitcher on location through the zone.  A 3d image showing were the ball passes over the plate. 

Originally Posted by Coach_May:

If every pitch is called what it actually is - in my opinion the pitchers are in trouble. First of all hitters WILL KNOW THE STRIKE ZONE. Really good hitters WILL DEF KNOW THE STRIKE ZONE. It is also my opinion that way more balls are called strikes than strikes are called balls. Hitters will not have to adjust to the umpire's strike zone which changes from umpire to umpire. It will just be the same old strike zone every single day. Hitters should love this idea. IMO

After reading and thinking about my post I started looking at it from a pitchers perspective instead of a hitters. And now I am not sure what to think. I can see advantages for both sides which kind of makes me think I should have just stayed quiet on this one. Lol

That shows you are approaching the question with an open mind rather than having your feet set in concrete.

I do agree that the hitters SHOULDknow their strike zone, but my experience tells me there would be a wide range just as there is now, with the better hitters knowing their strike zones the best.

I don’t know what the numerical breakdown would be for the ML, but if we use those numbers from that article showing 2008 thru 2013 and assume that the same number of balls and strikes were called, more than 20,000 more pitches not in the zone were called strikes than pitches in the zone called balls. I’d say 20,000 would be “way more”, but that’s only if the same number of balls and strikes were called.

I agree that the hitters should love the idea of the same old zone being called every day, but I also believe the pitchers should love it as well.

Originally Posted by 2forU:

Whomever wrote the program should be able to adjust and vary the strike zone (program in inconsistencies).  If you know of an umpire that is predictable, a program can be written to mirror his habits.  I do not agree with the automation of Umpires, but if someone has the time, it can be done with software.  You could even have retired umpires added to the game.  Sounds more and more like xbox or virtual reality.  Everyone can sit in a chair and put on a headset and become the catcher (best spot on the field)

The strike zone is variable from what I’ve been able to find out.

I don’t understand why you’d want to build in an error though.

No one’s talking about automating umpires! All we’re talking about is automating the calling of pitches not swung at.

Originally Posted by real green:

At the professional level, I think it expands the zone which would be an advantage to the pitcher. 

I also feel pitchers will develop specialty pitches that would never be called strikes today.  Curve balls that bounce on the plate or clip the back top tip of the zone.  Sinker ball that skims the bottom of the zone.  Sliders that skim the side of the zone.  Training at the MLB will look completely different.  I can see instant feedback to the pitcher on location through the zone.  A 3d image showing were the ball passes over the plate. 

Do you really believe pitchers will ever become accurate enough to consistently throw rule book strikes with “specialty” pitches?

Yes.  The art of pitching doesn't mean they have to be called strikes.  If a pitcher can throw them for strikes often enough than batters will have to adjust. 

I am not sure knowing the zone helps a batter much.  I think back to Ted Williams location chart. 

True,  50 years from now a minor league team will be playing a two game fundraiser where the umpire actually makes the ball/strike calls.  

.....And there will be great debate on this forum about whether this is a good thing or bad thing

Pitchers try to do this today.  Guys like Glavine and Maddox are HOF'ers because they were the best at it. 

It cracks me up is when I see the highlights and how much they "miss" by when a pitch drifts 3" back over the plate instead of being 3" off the plate and gets deposited 400 feet away. 

A major league pitcher has amazing control and it goes to show that greatness is to be able to throw 100+ pitches exactly where you want them to go and miss with only a few per game and getting away with them.  If 10-15 of them miss by the length of your hand and two or three of those get hit a mile than it is the difference between a sub 3 ERA and 4+ ERA the same way 1 hit a week is .250 vs..300 at the plate.

The differences at that level are very thin.  Makes me wonder how well guys like Maddox and Glavine might have done if they didn't get that extra bit they got by popping the middle of the target as regularly as they did.  I think they would have been just fine but it would have taken something away from them and made them more hittable.  Not that they would have been crushed - they still would have been great but some of the dominance might not have been there.

I think knowing the zone is an extremely valuable skill for a hitter. Not swinging at balls is a great way to get on base. In Ted Williams location chart, what were the batting averages of pitches outside the zone?

The problem with the technology as it is now is that it has to be adjusted for accuracy.  Some of those pitches that we view on the KZone are not as accurate as we believe that they are.  Some sites like Brooks Baseball take the date and refine it.  Here, hopefully, is Lance Lynn from his game a few nights ago:

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/...e=727&league=mlb

Originally Posted by CoachB25:

The problem with the technology as it is now is that it has to be adjusted for accuracy.  Some of those pitches that we view on the KZone are not as accurate as we believe that they are.  Some sites like Brooks Baseball take the date and refine it.  Here, hopefully, is Lance Lynn from his game a few nights ago:

I don’t see the problem with adjusting it, since that’s what an umpire has to do on every pitch. The only adjustment has to be for the upper and lower limits. The size of the plate never changes. And it would be possible for the computer to “remember” the alterations so the zone would be exactly the same from at bat to at bat.

The ability to make it completely automatic is available but crude and untested. But I’m sure it would be improved upon if the system went into effect full bore, as would the entire system. Better cameras, better software, and faster computers would all take place and very quickly.

Originally Posted by luv baseball:

…The differences at that level are very thin.  Makes me wonder how well guys like Maddox and Glavine might have done if they didn't get that extra bit they got by popping the middle of the target as regularly as they did.  I think they would have been just fine but it would have taken something away from them and made them more hittable.  Not that they would have been crushed - they still would have been great but some of the dominance might not have been there.

That post and some others show that this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as questions and possibilities go, and I think that’s great! Asking questions and looking for answers is how progress is made.

I think that computerized balls and strikes are coming, like it or not, but that it will take a while.   (Just like all cars will be self-driving eventually)

If the computers or robots or whatever you call them can get calls right that the humans can not, why would you not want that?

As to the question of how many microns there are between a strike that's really a strike, and a strike that ought to be a strike in the mind of an umpire, I think we have a problem.  In and out is one thing, but up and down is another.

OBR defines the top of the strike zone as being "a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top  of the uniform pants", and the bottom as being "a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap".

No way that can be parsed to microns by a machine.  For starters, what if a player wears his pants like hip-huggers to alter the zone?

I don't think the it's coming until that's resolved. It would probably take a program that could read the exact height of a hitter and extrapolate the strike zone from there.  Or maybe some kind of sensor would need to be added to the uni.

Maybe what's more likely to happen is something like the current system, where obviously bad calls can be appealed and overturned if the computers say so.  Then after people get used to that, and the tech advances, we'll go to full balls and strikes.

Originally Posted by JCG:

… OBR defines the top of the strike zone as being "a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top  of the uniform pants", and the bottom as being "a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap".

No way that can be parsed to microns by a machine.  For starters, what if a player wears his pants like hip-huggers to alter the zone?

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that if someone really wanted to, technology could fairly easily do it. But at the very least technology would be more accurate in making the decision than a human being. What does an umpire do when a batter wears his uniform in a strange manner or has an abnormal setup? He has to make that same judgment.

I don't think the it's coming until that's resolved. It would probably take a program that could read the exact height of a hitter and extrapolate the strike zone from there.  Or maybe some kind of sensor would need to be added to the uni.

Maybe what's more likely to happen is something like the current system, where obviously bad calls can be appealed and overturned if the computers say so.  Then after people get used to that, and the tech advances, we'll go to full balls and strikes.

I’m glad to see that more and more people are at least discussing this without “screaming” at one another. When that happens, many of the stupid arguments on both sides can be eliminated so time isn’t wasted on them.

I want to like all umpires, I promise. But y'all make it difficult sometimes with comments like this.

Unless the "most just outcome" is discussed at the plate meeting, you are in fact taking over the game. Your job is not to judge who did their job better or what someone should have been coached to do. You call balls and strikes. 

Looking at ways that would allow a computer to accurately determine a strike zone, here’s one available right now. See ====>http://gizmodo.com/the-freaky-...f-tattoos-1494169250

In case you don’t want to read the entire thing, here’s a couple sections that caught my eye.

It's possible, for instance, to use ferromagnetic ink in tattoos, ink that responds to electromagnetic fields. A couple years ago, Nokia patented a technology that would enable the ink in a tattoo to interact with a device through magnetism. With this technology, your phone could ring and you could literally feel it through your tattoo. …

…Materials scientist John Rogers is doing some pretty incredible work with flexible electronics that stick to your skin like a temporary tattoo. These so-called "epidural electronics" can do anything from monitoring your body's vital signs to alerting you when you're starting to get a sunburn. Rogers and his company MC10 are currently trying to figure out ways to get the electronics to communicate with other devices like smartphones so that they can start building apps.

There’s no reason why a player couldn’t have a minute tattoo setting the upper and lower limits that could be read electronically, or a temporary tattoo that could not only define the vertical limits of the strike zone, but would be able to do other things as well such as measuring stress, fatigue, or pain.

In short, it isn’t a matter of if it could be done, it’s a matter of having the will to do it. I suspect that with all the $$$$ in it, some entrepreneur will find a way to fill that niche, the same way the folks at Sportvision came up with Pitch and Hit fx and MLBAM came up with the new defensive system.