Calling balls and strikes with technology

Everyone would adjust eventually, although I imagine most of the adjusting would be getting the human umpires still at the College/HS/Youth (wherever the technology cutoff falls over time) to call the electronic zone. The technology to automate a significant number of the calls on the diamond really wouldn't be hard that to implement, either.

I think a more interesting discussion might be about what calling the book zone might do to offensive levels. I suspect you'd eventually have to adjust the book zone somewhat to avoid having offense diverge too far from historical norms.

All that said, I really don't mind the human element, it's part of the game. I'd be more inclined to try to improve the umpiring through non-technological means than replace it.

The initial premise is incorrect. Umpires do not decide the interpretations, management does, and they have at times gone against traditional, accepted and even casebook interpretations.

Umpires work as instructed, within room for human error.

quote:

Originally posted by jacjacatk:
Everyone would adjust eventually, although I imagine most of the adjusting would be getting the human umpires still at the College/HS/Youth (wherever the technology cutoff falls over time) to call the electronic zone. The technology to automate a significant number of the calls on the diamond really wouldn't be hard that to implement, either.

I believe the biggest thing would be to have all play on the big field, no matter what the level, all adopt the ML zone. The College and pro zones are the same, but the HS and all other zones are just different enough to cause umpires too much leeway. It would be a whole lot more simple on everyone, that they all knew that once they got to the big field, kiddieball strike zones were gone.

quote:

I think a more interesting discussion might be about what calling the book zone might do to offensive levels. I suspect you'd eventually have to adjust the book zone somewhat to avoid having offense diverge too far from historical norms.

What do you think would happen to the offensive levels?

quote:

All that said, I really don't mind the human element, it's part of the game. I'd be more inclined to try to improve the umpiring through non-technological means than replace it.

I don’t mind the human element either, but then again, I’ve never had any other choice to compare it to. To be honest, as a scorer or a fan, I really couldn’t care less how pitches are being called. I’ve watched and scored games with pitches being called by coaches, catchers, bench players, and random fans, and seen them called from behind the plate and behind the pitcher. I can’t say as I’ve ever noticed much of a change in how the pitchers, pitch, the hitters hit, or pitches are called. I sure the was a difference at some level, but it surely wasn’t that .200 hitters would suddenly hit .500, or pitchers would suddenly see their K/BB rations change 180 degrees.

As far as improving umpiring, speaking for the umpires in our local umpires assn, which is huge, those guys go through one heck of a lot more “schooling”, including book study and tests, and lots of on field evaluations as well. For the HSV and above games, you might an umpire who’s noticeably weaker than most of the others, but that doesn’t mean s/he is bad, by any stretch of the imagination.

Calling the strike zone though, is something that can only be “standardized” so much, because of the physical limitations of the different human beings. It would be great if all umpires at all levels could get “graded” by being handed a DVD of a game they’ve called, the way its done at the MiL level, but technology isn’t quite there yet.

Again, I’m certainly not taking any kind of shot at umpires either in general or specifically, but I am saying human beings can’t perform a task like calling pitches as well as a computer could. Human beings are doing a pretty darn good job, but it could be better.

Here’s a nice article on this topic from the HBT. Just keep in mind that the article was written in 2007. A lot of advances have happened since then.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/m...e-eye-of-the-umpire/

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The initial premise is incorrect. Umpires do not decide the interpretations, management does, and they have at times gone against traditional, accepted and even casebook interpretations.

Umpires work as instructed, within room for human error.

I’m not sure what premise you feel is incorrect.

I agree that for the most part umpires work as instructed. All I’m saying is, that human error could be much improved on.

Stats,
There's two quite separate issues here:
1) Using technology to call balls and strikes.
2) The shape and dimensions of the strike zone.

Technology can easily be adapted to handle any type of strike zone. If we don't want the low outside strike called, technology can do that, and do it consistently.

If we want umpires to call the high strike, they can do that. Very few stakeholders in baseball want a pitch at the letters called a strike.

Convolving the two issues needlessly complicates the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Stats,
There's two quite separate issues here:
1) Using technology to call balls and strikes.
2) The shape and dimensions of the strike zone.

Technology can easily be adapted to handle any type of strike zone. If we don't want the low outside strike called, technology can do that, and do it consistently.

If we want umpires to call the high strike, they can do that. Very few stakeholders in baseball want a pitch at the letters called a strike.

Convolving the two issues needlessly complicates the discussion.

I don’t disagree that there is more than one minor issue, but my only MAJOR issue is, technology can do a more accurate and consistent job. There shouldn’t be anyone who questions technologies ability to do it. This isn’t the early days of cameras tied to computers, early QuesTec, or even early pitch(F/X). The technology is now pretty darn sound, and gets better every day.

So the only real “issue” there is, whether there’s more decision makers who want to use it, or more who want to say with traditional methods. I have absolutely no doubt that sooner or later, $$$ will tip the balance toward technology calling the strike zone, the same way $$$ tipped the balance to IR.

The shape and dimensions of the strike zone is definitely something different, and to tell the truth, I’ve never cared one way or the other about it. Over the years, the “black and white” zone has changed a few times, as has the way umpires are told to call that zone. The only real difference is, one way, thousands of umpires have to be communicated to, then train to make any change in what’s wanted, and the other, is that a minor algorithm will be changed by some parameter, and every system in use will be changed automatically in just a few nanoseconds. The result will be, rather than having to wait weeks, months, or possibly even years for a change to take effect, it will happen in the blink of an eye.

The great thing about it is, the changes will be able to be made very rapidly, or as slowly as desired to let everyone adjust, Also, it will be easy for the powers to be to make adjustments to the game to balance out other things. FI, if some new PED comes out that can’t be detected, and everyone wants to take it, press a button and suddenly the strike zone goes from nose to toes, and all the PEDs in the world won’t do hitters any good.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
What do you think would happen to the offensive levels?

I don't really know what would happen to offensive levels. I suspect they'd decline if the strict rule book zone was enforced primarily because the high strike would dominate the loss of the corner.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:Again, I’m certainly not taking any kind of shot at umpires either in general or specifically, but I am saying human beings can’t perform a task like calling pitches as well as a computer could. Human beings are doing a pretty darn good job, but it could be better.

We'll probably reach a point some day where we can automate playing the game, too, but doing so wouldn't make it better (IMO). Effectively, PEDs are somewhere on the spectrum of automating playing the game, and it's clear that most people fall on the side of less there, for instance. To be clear, I don't think automating ball/strike calling would destroy the game, I just don't think it's especially worthwhile relative to improving the umpires ability to do it themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
...but my only MAJOR issue is, technology can do a more accurate and consistent job. There shouldn’t be anyone who questions technologies ability to do it.

As of right now, it can't in real time.

You know sometimes when I am watching a ML game I get the idea that someone is trying to make it perfect. The infield dirt, the playing surface. Its so nice. So almost perfect. We dont want any bad hops. We dont want the players to have to play on a surface that is not as absolutely perfect as we possibly can make it.

Now we have those that want to make the strike zone perfect. Or as perfect as they possibly can make it. Getting every call right. No mistakes. We want to make it perfect. Somehow this idea that we can take away the human element and get it right and the game will be better eludes me.

I want the human element in the game. I want the umpires in the game. I like the game the way it is right now. What happens when we create this "Perfect" game. No offense Jerry your's is great. What happens when we have created the perfect field, perfect stadium, perfect strike zone, no questions on calls, no arguments or discussions on calls? What a freaking boring game we will have. Just crank up the electronics and run the guys on the field and get ready for the in between inning circus routines.

I like the fact players have to adjust to the umpires strike zone. I like the human element. I like the fact that it is not "Perfect." You know there was a day when people used to talk to other people. There was a day when you could drive down the road and not have to worry about someone texting and looking at an I Pad as they were driving. You could jump in your truck and go fishing and escape this world for a couple of hours. Now you can't. You have to have your cell phone on because someone might need you. And it goes on and on.

Sometimes in our quest to make something perfect we destroy what made it perfect to start with. Sometimes in our quest to improve something with technology we give up those things that we had forgotten were "Pretty Nice." I am sure that the technology is there to make sure every call is perfect. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it and be sorry you did. JMHO

Let me just add this. Others will have their own opinion and I respect that. So don't come back and try to convince me that I am wrong. I am not going to change my position on this. And I am not trying to change yours. You can want what you want. I will continue to like the game with umpires and the human element in the game. Have a Merry Christmas.

Agree 100% Coach May

I'm with Coach May on this.

Start with the definition of baseball as it appears in Rule 1.01: "Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires."

At its heart, the fairness of a baseball game depends on the mature judgment of a skilled and experienced umpire. The umpire's subjective judgments offer better insurance of honest competition than the objective accuracy of technology.

Even with the best technology, you would still need umpires to apply the information derived from that technology in accordance with the rules to ensure a fair competition. They would still need to be in position to see the action and make the calls. If I were an umpire, I would be unwilling to assume jurisdiction over a game if the game was really being controlled by the people who programmed and calibrated the equipment.

From an aesthetic perspective, I don't believe the game would be enhanced by micron-level accuracy in ball-strike calls. In fact, it would be a distortion of the basic relationship between pitcher and batter. The whole point of a strike zone is to require pitchers to throw balls that can be hit and to require batters to swing at balls that can be hit. The original standard was not jeweler's precision; it was reasonable opportunity to hit the ball. At every level of baseball, batters are instructed not to take that two-strike pitch if it's close enough that it might be a strike. Every youth batter who acts surprised and offended when a third strike is called is admonished not to leave his fate in the hands of the umpire.

The strike zone called by an umpire is an expression of justice: whether the pitcher fulfilled his obligation to give the batter a reasonable pitch to hit. Justice is increased in a football game when replays show whether a foot touched the four-inch wide painted side line. Justice would not be increased in baseball by electronically determining whether a ball touched a zone whose infinitely fine boundaries are not visible to any of the participants. The judgment of whether a batter should have swung should be made a another human operating in the same time dimension with the same perceptual limits. Applying divine standards of accuracy to human reflexes does not increase justice.

I am open to suggestions for making some technology available to provide additional information to umpires when they desire it and when it can be done unobtrusively. But I want the umpire in charge of administering justice.

Another factor that sways me is the consequence that making this technology a standard part of MLB, then MiLB, then college, then travel, then high school and pre-high school baseball would add to the costs of the game, making it less accessible to poorer kids and more of a country club sport. I do not regard it as healthy for the game that so many U.S. players are middle class and above.

Merry Christmas to all!

quote:

Originally posted by jacjacatk:
I don't really know what would happen to offensive levels. I suspect they'd decline if the strict rule book zone was enforced primarily because the high strike would dominate the loss of the corner.

Are you saying that hitters couldn’t hit the high strike, or that just having more area to have to cover would be the cause of a decline?

quote:

We'll probably reach a point some day where we can automate playing the game, too, but doing so wouldn't make it better (IMO). Effectively, PEDs are somewhere on the spectrum of automating playing the game, and it's clear that most people fall on the side of less there, for instance. To be clear, I don't think automating ball/strike calling would destroy the game, I just don't think it's especially worthwhile relative to improving the umpires ability to do it themselves.

I don’t see how anyone could equate calling balls and strikes with technology to automating the game. It wouldn’t do anything to eliminate pitchers or hitters, or change the skills they’d need to play the game.

What do you see as a way to improve the ability of umpires at the ML level to call pitches with a higher degree of accuracy, and to be more consistent from one umpire to another? Personally, having a pretty good idea about how hard they have to work to get to that level, I suspect they’re pretty much at the upper limits of human capabilities.

I tend to look at the whole thing as making it easier for umpires to look at other things, like checked swings or balks, since they wouldn’t have to concentrate on pitch locations. It may be that the PU would be able to get out from behind the catcher, and take up a position opposite of the batter to get a much better view of what was going on.

In any case, its always fun to talk about such things, especially at his time of the year. Merry Christmas to all!

I really do understand those who want the traditions of the game to stand and go on forever. What I don’t understand is, why there’s such a willingness to believe the very worst of all possible outcomes, without even trying the alternative.

I can see how it would be possible to have technology make the call and relay it to the PU so for all intents and purposes no one would know he wasn’t making the call, and I submit that if that were to happen, most of the arguments against it would disappear on the wind. Because of that, as well as other things, I reserve my final judgment until I actually see it in action.

Perhaps I’m wrong, and it would end up being so clunky, it would actually detract from the game. But what we’re talking about here isn’t IR in any way , shape or form. No challenge flags, no timeouts, no using it depending on the situation, the way football does. I just like to keep my mind open to all possibilities.

Stats no problem what so ever. I often wonder if the game is better right now than it was in the 50's or 60's? Yes the players are bigger, stronger, better at what they do. But is the game itself better? The stadiums are much nicer. The playing surfaces are much nicer. But is the game actually better? More fun to watch? More exciting for the fans at the games? I don't know. Does advancement really makes things better? In some ways I am sure. But isn't there a trade off somewhere along the way? For everything you gain isn't there something to be lost? Or is it?

At what point does it become so modern and updated that it becomes something that we don't even recognize? I don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by jacjacatk:
I don't really know what would happen to offensive levels. I suspect they'd decline if the strict rule book zone was enforced primarily because the high strike would dominate the loss of the corner.

Are you saying that hitters couldn’t hit the high strike, or that just having more area to have to cover would be the cause of a decline?

It's just a guess on my part, but I think that the hitters would be giving up a lot if letter-high fastballs were a strike and it's more than they'd get back from the ball 2 inches off the plate being a ball. Inside strikes also become a lot more viable when you can't hang in the strike zone to get hit.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
I don’t see how anyone could equate calling balls and strikes with technology to automating the game. It wouldn’t do anything to eliminate pitchers or hitters, or change the skills they’d need to play the game.

What do you see as a way to improve the ability of umpires at the ML level to call pitches with a higher degree of accuracy, and to be more consistent from one umpire to another? Personally, having a pretty good idea about how hard they have to work to get to that level, I suspect they’re pretty much at the upper limits of human capabilities.

Eliminating human umpires for ball/strike calls is clearly automating the game, in much the same way that using replay to govern HR calls is now.

The easiest way to improve umpiring at the MLB level would be to start evaluating umpire performance more strictly and replacing the incompetent ones. I don't know if that's especially likely to happen any time soon, but I'd much prefer that to calling the zone electronically. There are some umpires with really terrible reputations at the MLB level, and I suspect there are plenty of hungry MiLB umpires that would be happy to get a shot sooner in exchange for having to meet some better defined standards of performance to keep it, especially given how often MiLB umpires are already evaluated.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
Stats no problem what so ever. I often wonder if the game is better right now than it was in the 50's or 60's? Yes the players are bigger, stronger, better at what they do. But is the game itself better? The stadiums are much nicer. The playing surfaces are much nicer. But is the game actually better? More fun to watch? More exciting for the fans at the games? I don't know. Does advancement really makes things better? In some ways I am sure. But isn't there a trade off somewhere along the way? For everything you gain isn't there something to be lost? Or is it?

At what point does it become so modern and updated that it becomes something that we don't even recognize? I don't know.

If someone asked me in passing whether I thought the game was better “now” or “then”, I’d prolly say then. My affiliation with the game was much closer when I was young and playing it, and of course most of us tend to see the past through those rose colored glasses. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed the MLB network playing “Baseball” the last couple days, but if you have, and you’ve watched the early ones, the reality that the game at the highest levels wasn’t exactly something to be proud to be associated with, really comes home to roost.

But, between all the stories of what went on in professional baseball, were some neat little vignettes about what was going on for kids, and the contrast between then and now is pretty stark. In most part, the only organization for kids, was what existed from neighborhood to neighborhood, and with literally no adult involvement what-so-ever. To me, those were truly the days where baseball was teaching life lessons, unlike today where adults literally run everything, churning out player after player with little sense of how to do such basic tasks as choosing teams from a group of kids. So for me personally, I already don’t recognize the game for youths as the one I played.

Luckily though, the game is much more than that. It has a spirit, that no matter what those who would purposely or accidently make it better or worse do, the game endures. It continually changes in ways the participants don’t recognize, but someone would who went to sleep and woke up as little as 10 years later.

Yep, the changes continue with advancements in technology and knowledge, but the game keeps chuggin’ away. And that’s why when I see a change that’s virtually transparent, like calling balls and strikes without all the baggage humans bring to it, I yearn to see its effect.

To me, the greatest advance would be that so much energy wasted on complaining about the call, would be available to be directed in a more positive direction. Pitchers wouldn’t have to throw a pitch they THOUGHT was a strike, then stare down the umpire and have their BP go up 20 points when its called a ball. The same thing would happen for the hitters, where when they take a pitch that’s called a strike, there’d be no reason to step out and stare at the ump, or bother asking where the pitch was. And how about those coaches and managers pitching a bi**h when a ball they’re sure should have been called one way is called another.

In short, a whole lot of excuses and rationalizations would disappear like a **** in a hurricane, and I think that might be the most positive thing that could happen to the game. Oh how I’d love to see all the dads forced to shut up, who blame their kid’s loss or failure on the inadequate pitch calling ability of the umpire.

So maybe it not so much that I’m not a traditionalist, as is it that I love seeing more ways to make everyone fess up to the truth of their own actions.

quote:

There are some umpires with really terrible reputations at the MLB level, and I suspect there are plenty of hungry MiLB umpires that would be happy to get a shot sooner in exchange for having to meet some better defined standards of performance to keep it, especially given how often MiLB umpires are already evaluated.

MiLB umpires are not evaluated that often, twice a season at lower levels, four times at AA.

It takes so long to make it to MLB for an umpire, (12 years and longer is not unusual) that we lose some very good people who self release because they cannot afford the pay to stay. MLB could help, at least at the AAA level by contributing to both training and salaries instead of relying of MiLB to provide them trained umpires for free.

Then, they should require MLB umpires to actually train at spring training instead of just working games. Mechanics are changed frequently and the umpire, in my opinion, would be better off practicing them on the field instead of reading a memo.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
To me, the greatest advance would be that so much energy wasted on complaining about the call, would be available to be directed in a more positive direction. Pitchers wouldn’t have to throw a pitch they THOUGHT was a strike, then stare down the umpire and have their BP go up 20 points when its called a ball. The same thing would happen for the hitters, where when they take a pitch that’s called a strike, there’d be no reason to step out and stare at the ump, or bother asking where the pitch was. And how about those coaches and managers pitching a bi**h when a ball they’re sure should have been called one way is called another.

In short, a whole lot of excuses and rationalizations would disappear like a **** in a hurricane, and I think that might be the most positive thing that could happen to the game. Oh how I’d love to see all the dads forced to shut up, who blame their kid’s loss or failure on the inadequate pitch calling ability of the umpire.

Our experience with Questec and now FX tracking proves otherwise. Players ***** as much when the technology identifies the low strike as a strike and inside strike as a strike and high strike as a strike and, and.....

Remember when F1 took a bat to the Questec camera?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Our experience with Questec and now FX tracking proves otherwise. Players ***** as much when the technology identifies the low strike as a strike and inside strike as a strike and high strike as a strike and, and.....

Remember when F1 took a bat to the Questec camera?

I wasn’t aware that pitches were being called anywhere in games by technology. When did that start, and how wide spread is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Our experience with Questec and now FX tracking proves otherwise. Players ***** as much when the technology identifies the low strike as a strike and inside strike as a strike and high strike as a strike and, and.....

Remember when F1 took a bat to the Questec camera?

I wasn’t aware that pitches were being called anywhere in games by technology. When did that start, and how wide spread is it?

My post was in reference to the suggestion that players would respect the "decisions" of technology called balls and strikes. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary when umpires first conformed to the standards of questec and in post game comments regarding FX. I apologize if I was not clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
My post was in reference to the suggestion that players would respect the "decisions" of technology called balls and strikes. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary when umpires first conformed to the standards of questec and in post game comments regarding FX. I apologize if I was not clear.

Now its my turn to apologize for not being clear. I wasn’t at all trying to suggest anyone would respect the decisions or anyone or anything when those decisions went contrary to their benefit. Its only natural for human beings to go into the “It wasn’t my fault” mode when things don’t go their way. After all, it wouldn’t project very well for a player to take a pitch he could have clobbered if only it was in the strike zone, or for a pitcher to admit he’d thrown a pitch in a crucial situation that wasn’t very good.

What I was trying to get across, was that all those glares, stares, jawing, and body language indicating they were somehow grievously wronged, would carry a lot less weight than they do. IOW, there’d be no reason to posture. It doesn’t show a lot of intelligence to argue with an inanimate object.

Its interesting that there would be many who would argue that a picture they could see with their own eyes was wrong, and they were right. I’d suspect that came because of habit, not high intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
My post was in reference to the suggestion that players would respect the "decisions" of technology called balls and strikes. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary when umpires first conformed to the standards of questec and in post game comments regarding FX. I apologize if I was not clear.

Now its my turn to apologize for not being clear. I wasn’t at all trying to suggest anyone would respect the decisions or anyone or anything when those decisions went contrary to their benefit. Its only natural for human beings to go into the “It wasn’t my fault” mode when things don’t go their way. After all, it wouldn’t project very well for a player to take a pitch he could have clobbered if only it was in the strike zone, or for a pitcher to admit he’d thrown a pitch in a crucial situation that wasn’t very good.

What I was trying to get across, was that all those glares, stares, jawing, and body language indicating they were somehow grievously wronged, would carry a lot less weight than they do. IOW, there’d be no reason to posture. It doesn’t show a lot of intelligence to argue with an inanimate object.

Its interesting that there would be many who would argue that a picture they could see with their own eyes was wrong, and they were right. I’d suspect that came because of habit, not high intelligence.

Because of "weaknesses", technology would call pitches strikes that MLB does not want called strikes. The advent of a robot umpire would have to coincide with a change of the definition of a strike.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Because of "weaknesses", technology would call pitches strikes that MLB does not want called strikes. The advent of a robot umpire would have to coincide with a change of the definition of a strike.

The nice thing about technology is, when a decision is made as to what MLB does and doesn’t want to be called strikes, it would be a simple matter to change it, and have it take effect almost instantaneously. The way it is now, every time there’s a change, there’s a lot of lag time before it takes effect, and even then, its never exactly the same for everyone.

To tell the truth though, I’m not so sure MLB would be so quick to say one pitch shouldn’t be a strike, even though the rule says it is. You, I, and everyone else can opine all we like, but the truth is, until it actually happens, no one knows what the reaction will be. I don’t think it would be much of a big deal for the players to adjust to correct calls made consistently, any more than it is for them to adjust to a bad umpire who has a lot of inconsistency or a “different” zone.