Automated Strike Zone Gets Test Run

SK, have you read what Brooks Baseball says about those adjustments?  They have to have human input.  So, in practicality, not ready for a game.  Some of the strikes on the KZone are not strikes per their position to have to adjust.  Recently in a Cards Cubs game, fans on both sides were up in arms about the umpires calls per the KZone on a private website I belong to.  However, the Brooks Baseball site showed that the Umpires were right most of the time.  The, it hacked people off, to add a link to that website.  LOL

Ironhorse,

My comments pertain to situations where I don't know for sure if it's a ball or a strike. I'm not talking about calling a strike on a pitch I know to be a ball. I'm admitting the limits of my perceptual skills and telling one factor that I permit to influence me when there is doubt.

Another way of describing it is to consider what kind of error I'm more willing to make.

In the pitches I described--an 0-2 pitch that might be a strike on the low-outside corner and a curve the hitter bails out on--I know for a fact that the umpires cannot truly see the low-outside corner, and I know for a fact that top of the zone is ambiguous. 

In these circumstances where the pitcher very nearly approached perfection and the batter did not do what batters are normally instructed to do in that situation (hitters are taught to expand the zone slightly with two strikes and hitters are taught to hang in long enough to tell what kind of pitch appears to be coming at them) I am less willing to make the mistake of erroneously calling a pitch that did nick the zone a ball than I am to make the mistake of erroneously calling a pitch that missed the zone a strike. 

If you have better ideas for how to handle calls where it's close enough for genuine doubt to exist in my mind--doubt that I'm not permitted to acknowledge during the game--I'm open to hearing them. 

I suppose I could.pretend I always know the right answer and always call it exactly by the book.  Would you be happier if I lied to you? 

Originally Posted by CoachB25:

SK, have you read what Brooks Baseball says about those adjustments?  They have to have human input.  So, in practicality, not ready for a game.  Some of the strikes on the KZone are not strikes per their position to have to adjust.  Recently in a Cards Cubs game, fans on both sides were up in arms about the umpires calls per the KZone on a private website I belong to.  However, the Brooks Baseball site showed that the Umpires were right most of the time.  The, it hacked people off, to add a link to that website.  LOL

Well, the way the system is right now it is true that it needs human adjustment. So what? The umpire is human and he’s making the adjustment on every pitch on the fly.

I’m gonna make a wild guess here that this call all those people got hacked off about wasn’t an inside/outside call, but rather a vertical call. I’ve always known that what we’re seeing on TV hasn’t been adjusted for vertical accuracy, but how does that explain all the vertical missed calls? Personally, I don’t get too bothered by what I see in the vertical plane on TV unless it’s at least one ball in error. IOW, the ball is either at least one ball inside or outside the zone and incorrectly called.

In the end though it doesn’t really matter. No one disputes that current technology is more accurate. Like you, they only disagree about the degree of accuracy.

Here’s a curious question. Assume a 5’6” player and a 6’6” player. Once they take the stance the vertical zone is supposedly set from, how much of a difference is there really? If the zone were set from pure height of the batter, it would of course be 6” higher both on the top and bottom for the taller player. But that’s not how the zone is supposed to be set. I won’t even try to guess how much a player “crouches” in his/her batting stance as they are prepared to swing at a pitched ball, bit dang sure ain’t the same as it is when they’re standing straight up.

Once the machine starts calling balls and strikes, I can't wait to sit through those inevitable 9-0 games in the 7th or 8th inning when the losing team's 5th reliever can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Will the machine have a "mercy setting" that widens the zone several inches in each direction so that we can all get home before the next day's game begins?

I'm usually on the "early adopter" end of the spectrum; but, the more I think about some of the real life consequences of turning this process over to an unthinking beam of light, the more nervous I become.

Meanwhile, if we end up adopting one, let's make certain that it's accurate for each batter. The old computer adage, "garbage in, garbage out" certainly applies to that dimension.

Finally, if it's clear that the "magic eye's" perimeters are out of whack, how am I going to feel any relief yelling at a machine?  

P.S. I don't want a PA announcer telling me if the pitch is a ball or a strike. We already hear too much from many of them as it is.

Originally Posted by bballman:

Nice. So, now in the name of changing the game of baseball and ridding the umpires of the task of calling balls and strikes, we're going to require all MLB players to get tattooed. Be interesting to see what the MLBPA has to say about that.

Yeah, I can see where the players, probably 99% of whom are already tattooed would pitch a bitch about a tattoo the size of a pinhead. But JEEZ! That’s just an option, just like the tattoo being made from non-permanent ink would be an option. Having something affixed to the uniform is another option, as is a stick on device. IOW, we’re in the infancy of even considering this thing and already there are all kinds of options. What’s it gonna be like in just a year or two?

So, now we're not looking for perfection, but only a less inaccurate way of calling pitches?  Man, this gets better and better...

And it's not a matter of some baseball players already having tattoos.  It's a matter of being told they HAVE to get a tattoo.  You just can't go around forcing people to do something like that just because you want to use technology to play a game.

SB, I think your take is refreshing.  It's good to see an umpire admit that there is a level of uncertainty to what they do, especially since the flow of the game and the behavior of the participants and fans seems to require umpires to act like their calls of low outside strikes are carved in stone by the almighty.  And your idea of which way to lean when you are uncertain is well thought out, intellectually nuanced, and, here's a rare word in baseball -- just. You'd probably have made a good judge.  But the guys who call balls and strikes around here at 3pm on a weekday are sometimes not all, to be perfectly frank, candidates for the local judiciary, IOW they are not to a man the most intelligent, clear thinking, intellectually disciplined, morally upright folks around town. Assuming they also admit at least to themselves that there is some uncertainty about the top of the strike zone and the low outside corner, I have no idea how they choose to shade that. I'm not hopeful that they all have thought it through as closely as you. and worry they're more influenced by who yells the most, or how they're feeling that day, or what they had for lunch.   Most are at least doing their best, but sometimes their best is just not that good.

But that's baseball, and up to now, present day included having a human umpire calling balls and strikes is still the best solution we have. But when there's a better solution available -- and it will no doubt be available fairly soon -- I think MLB will adopt it, and then it will begin to trickle down.

Swampboy,

I honestly don’t think Ironhorse is doing anything but saying the same thing a lot of us are saying. We’re not saying umpires suck or purposely making inaccurate calls. We’re just saying there shouldn’t even be a discussion about it for an umpire. All we want is for you to make the most accurate call you can without taking anything into account.

If you think the pitch is in the strike zone, call it a strike, and if you think it isn’t, call it a ball. Don’t try to justify or rationalize your call, just make it. That’s why I find having technology making the calls so compelling. The call is made one way or the other then it’s time for the next pitch.

The computer program doesn’t factor in the situation or anyone’s effort. This is the kind of decision computers do much better than humans because there are only 2 possibilities, true and false. Even if they don’t realize it or want to, humans will always allow things having nothing to do with the situation to affect it. Things like getting the stink-eye from a pitcher or hearing the hitter whine after the previous pitch don’t bother a computer, any more than does the weather, the state of its home life, the time of day, or whether or not the call was fair.

Originally Posted by Prepster:

Once the machine starts calling balls and strikes, I can't wait to sit through those inevitable 9-0 games in the 7th or 8th inning when the losing team's 5th reliever can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Will the machine have a "mercy setting" that widens the zone several inches in each direction so that we can all get home before the next day's game begins?

Why should it? The umpires always have the power to stop a game.

I'm usually on the "early adopter" end of the spectrum; but, the more I think about some of the real life consequences of turning this process over to an unthinking beam of light, the more nervous I become.

What are some of those “real life consequences”?

Meanwhile, if we end up adopting one, let's make certain that it's accurate for each batter. The old computer adage, "garbage in, garbage out" certainly applies to that dimension.

I agree but find it disconcerting that you’re willing to continue a system already proven inaccurate for each batter over one that would be an overall improvement even if not perfect.

Finally, if it's clear that the "magic eye's" perimeters are out of whack, how am I going to feel any relief yelling at a machine?  

Now that’s a good reason to be worried! Didja ever wonder how many times an umpire called a game under the influence or without all his faculties due to some illness?

P.S. I don't want a PA announcer telling me if the pitch is a ball or a strike. We already hear too much from many of them as it is.

The PA announcer in those two games only did it because it was a promotion done to draw fans, have a little fun, and make something new easier on everyone.

Fair enough. Our first vote is for umpires to deny the existence of uncertainty on close ball/strike calls. Others?

Originally Posted by bballman:

So, now we're not looking for perfection, but only a less inaccurate way of calling pitches?  Man, this gets better and better...

Evidently you failed to see that I used the word “personally”. I said it because I’m aware of the current issue with the vertical zone. But be that as it may, what’s the matter with an improvement, even if it’s a small one?

And it's not a matter of some baseball players already having tattoos.  It's a matter of being told they HAVE to get a tattoo.  You just can't go around forcing people to do something like that just because you want to use technology to play a game.

Again, that was just an example you’re jumping on because you hate the very idea of change. But to be honest, if I were making millions and the guys making that possible asked me if I’d be ok having something the size of a pinhead tattooed on my body with non-permanent ink, I’d be sayin’ yes all day long. But even more important, you’re trying to cross a river that hasn’t even been reached, and it looks like feeble attempts to keep something from happening.

But, s’ok! I get it, I really do. You’re just one of those folks who wants more answers before jumping into something, and I’m on your side!

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

Fair enough. Our first vote is for umpires to deny the existence of uncertainty on close ball/strike calls. Others?

That’s not at all what I meant, and I think you know it. There’s uncertainty in just about any decision made during a baseball game that has an effect on it. MLB proved that when they approved IR. They didn’t question the umpire’s effort, but they did admit the possibility of them making a decision that was in error.

That’s all this is! People are realizing that humans have pretty much reached the upper limit of accuracy when it comes to calling pitches not swung at, and there’s a growing movement that feels that upper limit isn’t good enough. If that movement becomes one embraced by the ML owners, the next step will be how to most effectively deal with it.

I won’t care if it’s done by allowing challenges like they do with IR, if they use Pitch fx or some other technology like it, of if they make the PU wear some kind of heads-up display and allows him to be the only one making the final decision. I just want to see the current rate of correct calls on pitches not swung at improved.

Stats,

I honestly do not know what you meant.

My discussion was about one factor I use on pitches that I know are within my acknowledged margin of error.

Your reply--to call it a ball if I think it's a ball and a strike if I think it's a strike--struck me as reductive and not at all helpful in deciding how to call the close pitches under discussion.

Wow.

I should have listened to my "better judgment" voice and resisted the temptation to post...even in a light-hearted way.

This is the last time I take this sort of "bait." 

I don't know about you, but I tend to yell at my computer multiple times a day and about all it does is give me relief.  Sure as hell doesn't do anything to fix Windows 8.

The tech press says that Windows 10 is a big improvement.  We should see very soon. (free upgrade, in case you didn't know)

Originally Posted by Swampboy:

Stats,

I honestly do not know what you meant.

My discussion was about one factor I use on pitches that I know are within my acknowledged margin of error.

Your reply--to call it a ball if I think it's a ball and a strike if I think it's a strike--struck me as reductive and not at all helpful in deciding how to call the close pitches under discussion.

I didn’t know we were trying to help you call pitches. Unlike most, I’m quite satisfied to accept whatever the umpire calls, because that’s my job as a scorer, and as a fan, I would prefer that all called pitches were called correctly. I’ve been around long enough to know the guy calling pitches is doing his best, good or bad. I just want his best to be better.

What I’m saying is, use your best judgment and call it like you see it. Knowing the very best in the world at doing that have a 10-15% error, I’ll assume your error rate and the error rate of every umpire at any level lower than MLB is somewhat higher and I’d like to see it a low as possible.

Evidently you’re making more out my saying just call it what it is as something more than that. No digging on the blue’s here. I don’t rag on someone when I know I couldn’t do any better.

Originally Posted by Prepster:

Wow.

I should have listened to my "better judgment" voice and resisted the temptation to post...even in a light-hearted way.

This is the last time I take this sort of "bait." 

I resent you’re implication that I was trolling! If you want to make “lighthearted” posts in the middle of a serious discussion and not make sure everyone understands that, you’[re the one trolling.

This article by Mike Fast is from 2011 so the process may have changed, but he says that a "PITCHf/x operator" (a human) marks the top and bottom of each player's zone using a video feed. He notes, "We also found that the PITCHf/x-operator measured zone boundary heights are unreliable on a pitch-by-pitch basis and unhelpful even when aggregated over a larger sample for determining the boundaries of a particular batter’s strike zone."

http://www.baseballprospectus.....php?articleid=14098

So current state appears to be that imperfect umpires are being evaluated against imperfect PITCHf/x data. I also find it interesting that PITCHf/x uses belt height + 4 inches to approximate a realistic top of the strike zone, instead of taking measurements at shoulder and belt.

I don't think we need to get hung up on tattoos and how the automated strike zone will be calibrated in the future when this technology actually gets adopted. Rules can be changed. The current rule is already ignored at the top of the zone. And why should I get a smaller zone if I crouch in the batter's box? Change it to something simple like a height chart.

The day is probably not far off when our kids or grandkids will throw three wireless pods down around the plate in the backyard, pitch into a net, and check their balls/strikes, velo, spin rate, etc. on their mobile.

So, the next logical question.  Stats states that the percentage of missed calls at balls not swung at is 15%, right?  How many of those 15% of missed calls involve the top and bottom of the zone?  Because if the computer is wrong, how do we really know the umpires are wrong?  If 80% of the 15% of "missed calls" involve pitches up or down in the zone, maybe the umps are correct MUCH more than 85% of the time.  

Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:

This article by Mike Fast is from 2011 so the process may have changed, but he says that a "PITCHf/x operator" (a human) marks the top and bottom of each player's zone using a video feed. He notes, "We also found that the PITCHf/x-operator measured zone boundary heights are unreliable on a pitch-by-pitch basis and unhelpful even when aggregated over a larger sample for determining the boundaries of a particular batter’s strike zone."

So current state appears to be that imperfect umpires are being evaluated against imperfect PITCHf/x data. I also find it interesting that PITCHf/x uses belt height + 4 inches to approximate a realistic top of the strike zone, instead of taking measurements at shoulder and belt.

I don't think we need to get hung up on tattoos and how the automated strike zone will be calibrated in the future when this technology actually gets adopted. Rules can be changed. The current rule is already ignored at the top of the zone. And why should I get a smaller zone if I crouch in the batter's box? Change it to something simple like a height chart.

The day is probably not far off when our kids or grandkids will throw three wireless pods down around the plate in the backyard, pitch into a net, and check their balls/strikes, velo, spin rate, etc. on their mobile.

No one has ever once said Pitch fx was perfect, and as far as I know, no system will ever be. But let’s look at the whole process. Do you believe an umpire behind the plate is better at choosing an upper and lower zone, and once he establishes that zone, is he better at measuring the pitch relative to it?

An umpire could certainly be used as the operator, and that would stop any question about someone unqualified. But more likely would be some new technology that would eliminate the need for adjustments entirely, as would it be likely the strike zone definition would change again, just as it has many time through the years.

You don’t get a smaller zone if you crouch in the batter’s box. At least the way I understand it you shouldn’t. But, let’s assume I’m wrong and you’re right. In that case I’m not the guy you should be asking because I didn’t write the rules. And if the current rule is already ignore at the top of the zone, why worry about it if the calls were automated?

The fact is, human beings calling pitches not swung at is not a very accurate nor consistent proposition and should be upgraded. Pitch fx is one way to do that, and even assuming it does a crappy job of calling the vertical zone, it for sure calls the in and out more accurately, and very likely calls up and down at least as well.

I’m just very happy that it’s being discussed as a real possibility rather than something that couldn’t work under any circumstances. AC

Originally Posted by bballman:

So, the next logical question.  Stats states that the percentage of missed calls at balls not swung at is 15%, right?  How many of those 15% of missed calls involve the top and bottom of the zone?  Because if the computer is wrong, how do we really know the umpires are wrong?  If 80% of the 15% of "missed calls" involve pitches up or down in the zone, maybe the umps are correct MUCH more than 85% of the time.  

You’re doing it again just to try to make me look foolish and to win an argument. If I stated that, I was repeating what I read in a study that I supplied a link to.

Fine! Let’s say the umpires are wrong only half as often. Isn’t that still too many, especially if there’s a more accurate way to do it?

You’re shooting the messenger here. MLB has been using technology to grade umpires for well over 10 years now, so are they doing that to prove how good they are or acknowledging that they could be better?

Just a few minutes more research found this.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/37468304/

http://www.questec.com/q2001/index.htm

I think you missed my point. Change the rules. Assign a strike zone to each player based on his height. Let PITCHf/x, or the next generation strike calling technology, use that for his vertical top and bottom. Simple.

I'm not doing anything to make you look foolish.  I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument.  Are you flawless Stats?  And are you telling me that you are not presenting all your points of view in order to win an argument?  Are you not trying to convince people to "keep an open mind"?  

Interesting quote from the article you just posted:

"There's a whole other entity for balls and strikes: the Zone Evaluation system. That was put in every park in 2009 to replace QuesTec, and it measures practically every pitch called by an umpire; batted balls are discarded. Cameras record the pitch in flight more than 20 times before it reaches the plate.

As of mid-August, umpires were calling pitches correctly at an average rate of more than 95 percent, by the league's numbers. Marsh said about a dozen umpires had called every pitch in a game correctly."

More than 95% correct - according to the MLB evaluation of the umpires using the Zone Evaluation System.  I'm pretty satisfied with 95% accuracy.

Why not have a standard strike zone size - 1.5 x 4 feet for everybody. 

That would be too easy and for some guys be a true disadvantage.  The shorter guys might get pitches riding pretty high called strikes and the flip side with the shins on taller guys.

Another random thought?  Who controls and maintains the machines?  Would it make cheating a possibility?  If the Patriots are in on it - you have to watch for it.....

Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:

I think you missed my point. Change the rules. Assign a strike zone to each player based on his height. Let PITCHf/x, or the next generation strike calling technology, use that for his vertical top and bottom. Simple.

That’s one option, but it seems to me all that will do is create more of a system that will penalize creativity and force players to become clones than we already have.

But I really believe available software could pretty accurately determine how far off the ground the hollow beneath the kneecap is to determine the lower limit. And there wouldn’t be much difficulty in detecting where the top of the uniform pants and the top of the shoulders is to determine where the upper limit is either.

Originally Posted by bballman:

I'm not doing anything to make you look foolish.  I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument.  Are you flawless Stats?  And are you telling me that you are not presenting all your points of view in order to win an argument?  Are you not trying to convince people to "keep an open mind"?  

What flaw is it that you’re point out? I know I’m far from flawless, but the one you’re trying to point out isn’t plain to me.

Interesting quote from the article you just posted:

"There's a whole other entity for balls and strikes: the Zone Evaluation system. That was put in every park in 2009 to replace QuesTec, and it measures practically every pitch called by an umpire; batted balls are discarded. Cameras record the pitch in flight more than 20 times before it reaches the plate.

As of mid-August, umpires were calling pitches correctly at an average rate of more than 95 percent,by the league's numbers. Marsh said about a dozen umpires had called every pitch in a game correctly."

More than 95% correct - according to the MLB evaluation of the umpires using the Zone Evaluation System.  I'm pretty satisfied with 95% accuracy.

That whole article was “interesting”, but let’s not forget its 3 years old, and that MLB has replaced that system with something it feels is “better”. Why would they do that? Hmmmm.

You’re happy with a 5% error rate eh? Since there were 4,317,210 pitches in the ML from 2008 thru 2013, you’re saying you’re satisfied that by using the values in that article, there were at very best 215,860 incorrect calls during that time. Your standard of excellence is far below mine.

But I will ask again, if MLB believed that system was the mast accurate available, why is pitch and hit fx now being used?

Originally Posted by luv baseball:

… Another random thought?  Who controls and maintains the machines?  Would it make cheating a possibility?...

Good thought! Judging by all the BS going on in the world today, I think it’s safe to say cheating in some form will never be eliminated. But as to the other question, I would ASSUME the same entity responsible for accuracy of field dimensions like the height and slope of the mound, would be responsible for the “machine” maintenance. That would be the umpires assn.

I'm out of here.  This has become another exercise in futility.  I should have known better - again...

Stat,

Why use such inconceivable numbers? 

How about they miss 1 out of 20 calls.  A little less dramatic and much more understandable?   Also, it's my understanding that it's 95% correct on called balls/strikes NOT all pitches. 

SK, I support the move towards technology but your communication style is tough to say the least. 

Originally Posted by real green:

Stat,

Why use such inconceivable numbers? 

How about they miss 1 out of 20 calls.  A little less dramatic and much more understandable?   Also, it's my understanding that it's 95% correct on called balls/strikes NOT all pitches. 

SK, I support the move towards technology but your communication style is tough to say the least. 

I used the numbers provided in that article. Inconceivable or not, they’re real. Here’s something I’ve learned about trying to communicate with people in this kind of venue. Using things like 1 out of 20 or 5% doesn’t have much meaning unless the entire dataset is known. Why? Because the 1^st thing you’ll likely hears is about sample size. I skipped all that garbage and gave the bare facts, not caring how “dramatic” it came across.

Who said anything about “all pitches”? I don’t even have a clue why an umpire would call any pitch not swung at.

I honestly don‘t care if you support the movement or not! What I care about is that you haven’t dismissed like some because of some kind of bias against me or some infantile resistance to change just because it’s change. As far as my communication style, I’m sorry if you don’t like it. I’ve been burned on this site so many times for not being precise, for beating around the bush, or for being argumentative for the sake of arguing, now all I try to do is give the facts as I know them and not worry about it.

FWIW, I had occasion to speak with a representative of Sportvision earlier. All I can say is, those people have their s*#t together. I found out that not only is Pitch fx in all 30 ML parks, is in over 40 MiL parks as well, and beginning to enter the college venue. It isn’t cheap, but there are ways a college team for instance could mitigate the costs to where it could conceivably cost a lot less than 5 figures every year. That’s pretty much out of the range of most HS and below venues, but well within range of a lot of college programs.

Maybe it's comments like this.  Just because people don't agree with you, doesn't mean that their opinion about the change is infantile.

In regard to this, if you read the article - and the quote from the article I posted above - you will see that the Zone Evaluation System IS the current system that replaced QuesTec in 2009.  The 95% accuracy rate is using the current system (from 2009 thru 2012) that is still in place.  The Zone Evaluation System uses PITCHf/x.

That is my last post here (I hope...Ugh...)

You stated earlier, "Since there were 4,317,210 pitches in the ML from 2008 thru 2013"  and than you went on to say 215,860 were called incorrectly.  

That is not even close to being a true statement.  Maybe I am missing something, I didn't review all the articles.  Only a percentage of those 4,317,210 pitches were not swung at so the amount of pitches umps had to make a call on is much less.  Which means over the 5 years they were wrong much less than 215,860 calls. 

Originally Posted by real green:

You stated earlier, "Since there were 4,317,210 pitches in the ML from 2008 thru 2013"  and than you went on to say 215,860 were called incorrectly.  

That is not even close to being a true statement.  Maybe I am missing something, I didn't review all the articles.  Only a percentage of those 4,317,210 pitches were not swung at so the amount of pitches umps had to make a call on is much less.  Which means over the 5 years they were wrong much less than 215,860 calls. 

 S’ok. Since you didn’t read the article, you wouldn’t know what it said. I added up the total number of pitches for 2008 thru 2013, and that total was indeed 4,317,210. Over 700,000 pitches for 6 years. Then I took the percentages given for number of pitches called during that period and it came to 2,280,354. 15% of that number is 342,053 and 5% is 114,018. I chose a value in between that in order to give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires which was less than 10%. In hindsight I should have just used the 5% number or 114,018 number bballman is satisfied with.

So since you didn’t look at the data I was using which came from the article, I can see why you don’t believe the numbers, but I suggest you go back and take a closer look at that article. They aren’t mine.

Originally Posted by bballman:

…That is my last post here (I hope...Ugh...)

No matter what the numbers, be it 5% or 15% in error, IMHO its far too high a percentage, especially when one looks at the number we’re talking about. No problem, we simply have different standards.

So now you have cut the number down to 114,018 incorrect calls over six years.  Which wasn't my point, my point was your sensationalism in the way presented. 

Originally Posted by real green:

So now you have cut the number down to 114,018 incorrect calls over six years.  Which wasn't my point, my point was your sensationalism in the way presented. 

I haven’t cut the number at all! I still believe the 15% number from MLB which would be 342,053 bad calls based on the data in the article. I was commenting on bballman’s acceptance of any erroneous calls, no matter what the percentage. Mistakes of all kinds are going to take place, but more often than not, not a lot can be done to mitigate them. In this case everybody agrees umpires make bad calls, even umpires. So no matter if the number is 5%, 15% or 95%, even if only 10% of the bad calls can be eliminated, I think the game would be better for it, which is exactly what MLB did when it approved IR. Automating the strike zone is just the next logical step.

So, you can dispute the number all you wish, but the fact still remains one heck of a lot of bad calls are made just in the ML, which means it’s can only be much worse in MiL and College where there are many times more pitches being called by umpires who don’t have near the training ML umpires do. If you think that’s a good thing, then we’’ just have agree to disagree.