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.

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.

Sorry to resuscitate this one, but I just saw this video and could not resist:

https://www.facebook.com/Kicks...eos/952298008144927/

.... that poor kid probably turned into a lacrosse player after that.

The kid couldn't have hit that if he was standing on top of the plate! LOL! Painted the corner, Blue!

The scary thing is that the Little League World Series umps are supposed to be the best of the best.

Originally Posted by JCG:

The scary thing is that the Little League World Series umps are supposed to be the best of the best.

No, ML umpires are supposed to be the best of the best, plus their starting pay is $120K! What does a volunteer LL umpire get?

This may not be quite as bad, but considering the relative differences between the two, IMHO it’s much worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTuFDlyJfso

And how about this one?  Not only did the 4 umpires on the field get it wrong, the guys in NY got it wrong as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddncpu9gd84

That's not possible.  Either the 4 on the field got it right or NY got it right. 

That's the type of pitch I feel an automated system will pick up as strikes.  Nasty if that pitch just nicks the zone.  The angle of the video is bad, but I have that pitch much closer than it appears to the zone. 

I agree with real green on the strike call.  Hard to tell from the angle of the camera, but that could possibly have nicked the zone.

On the second video - horrible, horrible call by the replay officials.  Not only was it a horrible call, but it took 6 minutes to make it?  Come on man....  There in lies part of the problem with IR.  Humans still have to look at the video and interpret, but they take FOREVER to do it.  Put a time limit on it, at the least - 1 minute max for review. If you can't decide in 1 minute, the call stands.  I know I'll catch some flack about it, but that's the way I feel...

I would argue that the problem in this particular case is with the rule, not IR. Did the throw pull the C across the 3rd base line or did he step over on his own. It's a poorly written rule, and I think it will be changed soon. Most of the IR calls I've seen take less time than a manager coming out to argue.

I do miss some of the nuanced calls, like the SS toe dragging behind the 2nd base to protect himself.

Is it not true that once the catcher has the ball, he can block the plate?  Maybe not, I don't profess to be totally clear on the nuances of the rule.  If the catcher CAN block the plate once he has the ball, then I don't even see a violation here.  The ball was caught by the catcher while the runner was still 2 or 3 strides up the line.

.. and I'll go against the grain on this one.  The first several times I saw this a while back, I agreed that the call was aweful.  After seeing it more and more and understanding the new rule where the C cannot set up in the basepath without the ball, I agree with the call.  C definitely set up there.  Yes, the runner was still a good two to three full strides from the plate but that is when the runner has to decide whether he is sliding inside or outside.  In this case, he had no option.

I do agree the rule is worded poorly and needs more adjusting.

"7.13.2 Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score."

The catcher was clearly straddling the 3rd base line before he had the ball. I think MLB has attempted to make some "clarifications" to the rule to bring in some common sense, but that's easier said than done.

OK, but at what point does it become blocking?  This catcher moved into the basepath to catch the ball.  And the runner was still a considerable distance from the plate when he did so.  When he gained possession of the ball, the runner was still at least 2 or 3 strides from the plate.  Was he REALLY impeding the runner's path before he had the ball?  I guess it's all pretty subjective...

That's the problem with the way the rule is written. Are you sure that the ball pulled him into the base path, or did he consciously move into the path to catch the ball and block the plate. Too subjective.