Cameras vs Umpires -Consistency & Accuracy

luv baseball posted:

The entire thread comes down to this:  Would the game be better if the strike zone caused zero bitching?  I believe the answer is yes. 

The path to that is to make it electronic.  It will be more precise than any human being can possibly make it...and far more consistent from pitch to pitch, game to game.  It will not detract from the pace of the game and in fact will speed it up.  And when it happens and the bitching stops....everyone (or nearly so)  is probably going to feel the same as I do. …  

I agree. My feelings are most people have a preconceived idea about technology calling pitches not swung at and that idea is filled with many wrong conceptions because they forget calling pitches not swung at is only a very small fraction of what a PU does.

In that 1^st vid in the article, if no one knew the PU was getting the info through an earpiece they’d never know anything was different, other than the PU’s strike zone was extremely consistent. And what is it almost all baseball people want? A consistent strike zone!

Swampboy showing some polemical chops.

Out with the old and in with the new. 

There's also the issue of what is accepted as a strike and what isn't. The zone is only part of that. Right now, how the pitch is received is also part of it. If electronic balls and strikes were to be implemented, there will be a big shift in what batters have to protect against. I'm not so sure that fans want strikes being called on pitches that start just below the shoulders or end in the dirt (I know batters sure as hell don't.) If the battery gets crossed up and I take a pitch on the inside corner to the midsection, while literally a strike, I'm asking to add insult to injury if I call it one.

Not picking sides, but there's a lot of unforeseen effects for a change such as this that will never be fully understood unless it happens. I'm surprised no one's brought up the security aspect.

This was all we needed when we ere kids ... back to basics.

Swampboy posted:

luv baseball posted:

 

The entire thread comes down to this:  Would the game be better if the strike zone caused zero bitching?  I believe the answer is yes. 

The path to that is to make it electronic.  It will be more precise than any human being can possibly make it...and far more consistent from pitch to pitch, game to game.  It will not detract from the pace of the game and in fact will speed it up.  And when it happens and the bitching stops....everyone (or nearly so)  is probably going to feel the same as I do.  

It will not bleed down to HS or youth ball.  Replay has not for anything else and for football it has been around 20 years.  Maybe some day it will but by then it will probably cost $100.

Three points,

First, you continue to refuse to address the issue of your misplaced confidence in the value of precisely measuring the relationship to an imprecisely defined strike zone. 

Second, you are dreaming if you think electronic strike calling will lead to zero bitching. There will be tons of complaints about how the electronic strike zone rewards and punishes certain hitter body types or stances, and there will be tons of complaints about how it rewards or punishes certain pitches depending on the type and degree of late movement they have, and there will be suspicions of clubs or players figuring out how to game the system. If it is discovered, for example, that the system rewards the top-of-ball/bottom-zone/front-of-zone pitch, you'll hear complaints from hitters about having to swing at spiked curve balls.

Third, your quest to eliminate the human factor is futile because humans will design the system and create the business rules and install and calibrate and operate the equipment. How many times have you heard someone call a computer, smart phone, TV remote, or some other electronic device stupid for doing exactly what it was programmed to do when that doesn't happen to be what the user wants done? 

If your proposal goes through, I guarantee there will be a pitch in a big situation that looks to all the world like a clear ball or a clear strike that the machine calls the other way because of how it defines the zone for that hitter or because of how it converts a 3-d figure into a 2-d image. And there will be no human accountable for the injustice because you thought the human factor was a quaint 19th century relic.

Good luck with that.

 

Here's my issue with your defense of your argument.  You continue to support a view that basically states that in the absence of absolute perfection, there should be no attempt to make incremental strides of improvement. (the crux of points one and three above).

As to point two, I agree, there will always be some element of disdain, but at least with a computerized system, we'll have consistency.  This, more than any other reason mentioned, would be the greatest gain in my opinion.

How many times has a zone changed during a game.  A pitch called for a strike the first three innings suddenly becomes a ball?  Frustrating for hitter and pitcher.  How many times has the bat been taken out of the players hand by a horrendously interpreted zone?  I've watched umpires set up over the left shoulder of a catcher for the first half of a game, then shift to the right shoulder to bear their weight on the other leg (because the first leg got tired the first half of the game).  At least with some computerized system, the zone is known and consistent, not just throughout the entire game, but the entire season.  This will be a great improvement for the game overall.  It will also alleviate an umpire squeezing a pitcher that has drawn his ire, or widening the zone for the batter who has done the same.

As to your final comment, yes, there will likely be times where all of the viewing world has an opinion other than what the computer rendered, much like we have with great frequency today with humans making these calls.  My argument is that this will become far less frequent, and the pitch called would be the same call B9, full count, 2 out as it would be in the top of the second with no count.  To me, that's better and if it's better, it's an improvement for the game.

Umpires are going to call the vast majority of pitches, plays at the plate, plays at first base, etc., correctly.   They may miss a call.  They may even change the strike zone inadvertently.  They may favor home teams.  But over the long haul, things are gong to shake out evenly, and no children are going to die.

Shoveit4Ks posted:

Screwball, all great ideas. I was thinking more along the lines of chip implants just above the knees and in the chest that automatically synch with the Fx system. These could also be used for tracking the players, monitoring their intake or ingestion of chemicals and predict future medical issues.

I think they already attach chips to players (maybe not 100% at this point) so as to track their movement/speed.  I would expect something a little more permanent in the near future (maybe we could tag kids starting at around 12 and track them 24/7/365 for the next 5-6 years).  I they attached it to my jersey, I'm thinking my jersey size might suddenly go up to an XXXL that kind of hangs off the shoulders.  That should put the top of the zone around my belly button.

We also forget that there have been times that baseball has asked umpires not to call certain pitches.  Specifically belt-high fastballs.   

In the end, automated strike zones aren't happening.

How many of you guys actually watched the video in the OP?  

I can't imagine why anyone would oppose this technology?  

Will it have a few side effects?  probably

In my opinion, it will favor the pitcher which in turn will reduce runs.  There will need to be an adjustment to the zone to counter the pitcher advantage.  As others have pointed out the zone is 3D.  If a pitcher can rely on the technology to call any pitch that touches the zone they will develop pitches that will be nearly impossible to put in play.  Such as nicking the front edge of the zone and bounces off the back of the plate.  Or a BIG loopy curve that catches the top rear point.  

Teaching Elder posted:

We also forget that there have been times that baseball has asked umpires not to call certain pitches.  Specifically belt-high fastballs.   

In the end, automated strike zones aren't happening.

I would put a lot of money on a bet it will happen.  Imagine how easy it would be for MLB to adjust the zone.  If they find the zone called as written in the rule to be to big of an advantage to one side or the other, all they have to do is amend the rules and make an adjustment.  

Nuke83,

Your characterization of my argument is a total fabrication. I never said anything like your summary of my position, and your summary cannot be inferred from what I did say.

You and Luv baseball have a charmingly naive belief that anything precise and electronic is better than anything that isn't. I raised questions from scientific and an epistemological  perspectives as to whether your proposal is in fact better. 

Neither of you have answered any of my objections. How can you say your concept of accurate and consistent is better when the strike zone itself is imprecisely defined? How can you rule out the value of a trained, experienced professional umpire's subjectivity at translating that imprecision into a fair competition? Why should I believe consistency is better when it consistently ignores the shape and depth of the zone? 

And your defenses of your position contradict each other. Luv Baseball insists his program will never trickle down to high school ball, yet your explanation for its need rests your observations of high school ball. Which is it? If this is only for MLB, your gripes about amateur umpires shifting from one leg to another should be irrelevant to the discussion. 

So how 'bout you guys answer the questions I raised rather than pretend I meant something that you find easier to counter?

Swamp I will repeat my answer to the 'imprecise' strike zone...  Make it precise!   Like I said before, one size fits all.  Here is the zone. Don't care if you are tall, short, crouching, standing on your head or wearing a xxxxxl jersey!  And I for one do believe it will trickle down. Just a matter of when. Once cost makes it efficient it will be done. One man crews will reign in hs ball and travel ball. Eventually gps technology (or something else) will call fair and foul. Safe and out someday as well. Think about explaining this smart phone to a world war 1 era person.  We can't even conceive the technology that will be affordable to every program 50 or 100 years from now.  We can only pry baseball will still be around to meet it. 

Neither of you have answered any of my objections. How can you say your concept of accurate and consistent is better when the strike zone itself is imprecisely defined? How can you rule out the value of a trained, experienced professional umpire's subjectivity at translating that imprecision into a fair competition? Why should I believe consistency is better when it consistently ignores the shape and depth of the zone? 

The strike zone would have to be more precisely defined.  I would propose the top/bottom to read something along the lines of "72% of that height between the hollow below the knee (further defined below) and the top of the skull, assuming such 72% is at a minimum 4.3 times the distance between the ground and the hollow below the knee.  If the 72% falls below the 4.3x factor, the top shall be that distance as express by .788(HBK)(TOS)(Z) where HBK represent distance from ground to Hollow beneath the Knee, TOS represents distance from ground to Top of Skull) and Z equals the zenith of the sun as recorded precisely 24 hours prior to current game start at the GPS coordinates of the stadium at which the game is played (attached)."

No idea how the zenith of the sun affects the calculation, but needed something off the wall.  While there are some anatomical differences among players (some have proportionately shorter shin bones than others), we wouldn't have to worry about where the player cinches up their pants.  The problems you mentioned could be solved, but certainly not a path I think the game should go down.  

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Neither of you have answered any of my objections. How can you say your concept of accurate and consistent is better when the strike zone itself is imprecisely defined? How can you rule out the value of a trained, experienced professional umpire's subjectivity at translating that imprecision into a fair competition? Why should I believe consistency is better when it consistently ignores the shape and depth of the zone? 

The strike zone would have to be more precisely defined.  I would propose the top/bottom to read something along the lines of "72% of that height between the hollow below the knee (further defined below) and the top of the skull, assuming such 72% is at a minimum 4.3 times the distance between the ground and the hollow below the knee.  If the 72% falls below the 4.3x factor, the top shall be that distance as express by .788(HBK)(TOS)(Z) where HBK represent distance from ground to Hollow beneath the Knee, TOS represents distance from ground to Top of Skull) and Z equals the zenith of the sun as recorded precisely 24 hours prior to current game start at the GPS coordinates of the stadium at which the game is played (attached)."

No idea how the zenith of the sun affects the calculation, but needed something off the wall.  While there are some anatomical differences among players (some have proportionately shorter shin bones than others), we wouldn't have to worry about where the player cinches up their pants.  The problems you mentioned could be solved, but certainly not a path I think the game should go down.  

 

Correct it wouldn't be that hard and would prevent players from gaming the zone.  Something like the bottom of the zone is 25% of the players height and the top of the zone is 75% of the players height.  

I just saw Swampboy's response.  So here I go on the three points:

1)  The width of the plate can be precisely measured since it is fixed.  The low end and high end need to be adjusted based on the current definitions when a batter steps into a box.  I agree that it is impossible to perfectly set them based on an imperfect definition.  I would also contend that once set they are fixed and consistent which is not so today.  Beyond that once the zone is established - the camera sees better than the eye. 

2)  The zone can and should be communicated to batters and pitchers.  So a batter can learn in spring training over 50-75 AB's where the bottom and top are for them.  Over 162 games it won't move much and they will value that consistency.  As noted all complaining in and out is over.  Maybe they bitch a few times early - but eventually probably by the All-Star break of the first year it stops and never returns.  Beyond the burn in - every player coming through the minors will have adjusted to the system and will never know any different.  Once established the consistency will become so valued by pitchers and hitters that it will drown out naysayers.  From a transparency standpoint the zone obviously can be communicated openly so put it on the big screen.  Everybody in the ballpark can see it - end of bitching.

3)  No quest to eliminate human factor any more or less than happens in every day life.  When was the last time someone wrote you a letter?  You probably got 50 texts today.  Poor postman is out of a job and no one cares because life is better without him.  Job of Home Plate umpire is still to call plays at the plate (and other bases), run the game, fair and foul.  He becomes another base umpire in other words.  He'll have to take his $200k and deal with the blow to his ego that the machine does his job better than he does....just like billions of us it has already happened to.

Response to your final comment.  Tonight a guy blows a call on a pitch 3 inches outside the plate on a 3-2 pitch with the bases loaded and two outs - argue and the batter is still out.  He has no meaningful accountability in reality since he has probably graded highly and won't get fired.  Just like Don Dekinger who didn't get fired for blowing the 1985 World Series.  So nothing changes from today which should make the traditionalists happy.   

Swampboy posted:

Nuke83,

Your characterization of my argument is a total fabrication. I never said anything like your summary of my position, and your summary cannot be inferred from what I did say.

You and Luv baseball have a charmingly naive belief that anything precise and electronic is better than anything that isn't. I raised questions from scientific and an epistemological  perspectives as to whether your proposal is in fact better. 

Neither of you have answered any of my objections. How can you say your concept of accurate and consistent is better when the strike zone itself is imprecisely defined? How can you rule out the value of a trained, experienced professional umpire's subjectivity at translating that imprecision into a fair competition? Why should I believe consistency is better when it consistently ignores the shape and depth of the zone? 

And your defenses of your position contradict each other. Luv Baseball insists his program will never trickle down to high school ball, yet your explanation for its need rests your observations of high school ball. Which is it? If this is only for MLB, your gripes about amateur umpires shifting from one leg to another should be irrelevant to the discussion. 

So how 'bout you guys answer the questions I raised rather than pretend I meant something that you find easier to counter?

 

You clearly make the case that unless there is absolute precision, make no change.  Not inferred at all, it's in your claim.

You can clearly make the same case in zones changing throughout a game, and even between umpires at every level, including MLB.  I never once mentioned HS.  I re-read my post and still don't see it.  I asked how many times have you seen . . . .   You inferred I was referencing HS.  The same examples apply to every level of baseball.

I never once mentioned that the zone itself would be any more precisely or accurately defined.  Not any more than it is today with human umpires.  What I stated is that once the zone is defined, accurately or not, it will consistently be the same zone for that batter and pitcher for all of that game.  Emotion removed from the element of making a call.  The zone is the same in the first as in the ninth, whether or not it's accurate.

And forgive me, but I'm too tired to go back and read but I believe your posted that you're fine with replay for fair and foul.  How about the subjectivity of drawing the baselines (done by humans), and placement of the foul poles (do they lean somewhat over time, does temperature affect expansion and therefore the accuracy of the pole?).  Really, that's all irrelevant to my point.  If the ball lands on one side or the other of the prescribed boundary, it is either fair or foul.  Nobody defines where those lines and poles are on each pitch.  It is agreed that where they are is where it will be called.  Much like a computerized zone.  Once defined, absolutely precise or not, that's where it will be called, with absolute precision from that point forward.

If an umpire blows a call and the batter knows its not a strike, along with the whole stadium and the replay shows its a strike...the Ump will not and certainly cannot rescind that call and take responsibility for missing the call, perpetuating the lie/mistake that was the inaccurate call. It's part of the game but i would like to see inconsistent Umps be graded after every game and lose status and definitely not get important games if their zones/calls arent improved.

I have two words for you that IMHO is the essence of why more consistency is required and that, IF uttered in Atlanta may get you punched in the face....Eric Gregg  (j/k for the anti-violence trolls). That was a travesty and downright theft of a baseball game from the Braves.

One hint that your technological solution is going off the rails is when you have the change your rules to accommodate it. At that point, technology has stopped being a tool and has started being your master.

The fact of the matter is that the strike zone is subjective. That's how it's written. 

Where is the top of shoulder? Where the shoulder seam of the shirt connects to the sleeve? Where does the shoulder stop and the neck start? At the intersection of a vertical line from the outside of the ear and the shoulder? What about muscular players with over developed trapezius muscles? Which shoulder counts when one is higher than the other? 

What about the pants? What if the pants are higher in the back than the front? What about the player who wears hip huggers? 

Factoring in these and other variables is inherently subjective work. When faced with a subjective problem like the strike zone, you have at least three options:

1) Acknowledge the subjective nature of the determination and try to recruit and train people to make it is fairly as possible; 

2) Ignore the subjective nature of the determination (Luv baseball and Nuke 83's preference) and measure something, anything as precisely as you can so you can pretend it's objective;

3) Change the game to change nature of the determination by re-writing the subjective rule as a technical standard (2017LHPScrewball's proposal).

For my part, I use my experience in studio art classes where I practiced figure drawing and spent some time studying proportions. Also, I have actually measured people at home to ascertain where I think the midpoint is. When a batter steps in, I notice whatever idiosyncrasies he presents, decide where the top of his zone should be, and make an informed judgment as to where the top of that batter's zone is, endeavoring to comply with the rules and be fair to both the batter and the pitcher.

It is subjective, but that doesn't make less conducive to a fair contest than anything I've seen proposed in this thread.

The technology is in every MLB park and has been since 2007. It is a matter of time until the Dark Side takes over....where's Luke Skyywalker? Oh yeah, Miami of course.

Swamp,

To your reference to me in point 2 above, I'll say that I have no expectation that the zone itself will be precise.  It will be close to precise, but the precision I seek is in the consistency of calling what is defined, precise or not.

To that point, I'll concede that your mind is fixed and that's fine, but I do have one question for you.

Why not? What is lost in this change that is so crucial to a fair contest? I've read your posts and it seems that you want continued subjectivity.  If you're a purist to that point, that's fine, everyone chooses what they want to take from the game and I respect that.  But what is it that you feel is "lost" in the game if this were to become implemented?  I just don't see anything other than nostalgia and romance that is truly sacrificed.  If that's it for you, that's fine, I get it, but if not, what is it?

Swamp - when I acknowledge the rules for top and bottom are not precise it is not ignoring the subjective nature of the strike zone.  This is the 2nd time you have changed context or misrepresented my statements.  My quote below:

The low end and high end need to be adjusted based on the current definitions when a batter steps into a box.  I agree that it is impossible to perfectly set them based on an imperfect definition.

Here is the good news for you though:  The top and bottom is going to be set by a human being just like today which happily will be a satisfactory solution for you.  I also do not want to change the rules.  

We clearly disagree on the expected results and value added.  It is OK if we do.  Time will tell which of us is correct.  Will we continue with a 19th century approach or evolve?  I am suggesting we will evolve and have explained why.  

I am intrigued by your Studio Art experience.  It seems to me there is a direct correlation to the graphic arts that would drive the setting of the strike zone in the computerized models. 

FWIW,  I have no doubt of your earnestness and it is apparent that you are out there working as hard as you can to do a job right and with as much quality in the result as you can offer.  I have also called balls and strikes but probably not nearly as many as you have so I do have some idea of how hard it is.  I have also implemented technology that obsoleted people and the work got done, faster, better and cheaper. 

The machines are winning and if you want to have a discussion about if that is a good thing - that is much different than if they can do jobs better than people.  They do work better than people and I won't have to try hard to site countless examples.  Seeing better than we do is one of them.

Enough said...

https://youtu.be/QOOLX9R8Ncc

Swampboy posted:

One hint that your technological solution is going off the rails is when you have the change your rules to accommodate it. At that point, technology has stopped being a tool and has started being your master.

The fact of the matter is that the strike zone is subjective. That's how it's written. 

Where is the top of shoulder? Where the shoulder seam of the shirt connects to the sleeve? Where does the shoulder stop and the neck start? At the intersection of a vertical line from the outside of the ear and the shoulder? What about muscular players with over developed trapezius muscles? Which shoulder counts when one is higher than the other? 

What about the pants? What if the pants are higher in the back than the front? What about the player who wears hip huggers? 

Factoring in these and other variables is inherently subjective work. When faced with a subjective problem like the strike zone, you have at least three options:

1) Acknowledge the subjective nature of the determination and try to recruit and train people to make it is fairly as possible; 

2) Ignore the subjective nature of the determination (Luv baseball and Nuke 83's preference) and measure something, anything as precisely as you can so you can pretend it's objective;

3) Change the game to change nature of the determination by re-writing the subjective rule as a technical standard (2017LHPScrewball's proposal).

For my part, I use my experience in studio art classes where I practiced figure drawing and spent some time studying proportions. Also, I have actually measured people at home to ascertain where I think the midpoint is. When a batter steps in, I notice whatever idiosyncrasies he presents, decide where the top of his zone should be, and make an informed judgment as to where the top of that batter's zone is, endeavoring to comply with the rules and be fair to both the batter and the pitcher.

It is subjective, but that doesn't make less conducive to a fair contest than anything I've seen proposed in this thread.

There are rule changes all the time.  Also you can still have your subjective zone it would just be set by humans  prior to the game.  

Swamp wins the argument b/c he used epistemological in a sentence.

Go44dad posted:

Swamp wins the argument b/c he used epistemological in a sentence.

Yeah Go I glossed over that one.  No way somebody like me gonna know what somethin' like dat means!

Swampboy posted:

… How can you rule out the value of a trained, experienced professional umpire's subjectivity at translating that imprecision into a fair competition? Why should I believe consistency is better when it consistently ignores the shape and depth of the zone?...

Who do you think would be setting the upper and lower limits of the zone? Some bum off the street or a completely trained umpire? If it was a bum off the street I’d agree there was a problem. But if an umpire was doing it, wouldn’t he likely be more accurate setting those upper and lower limits by looking at a picture of the hitter rather than trying to do it from behind with a pitch coming in that was moving both vertically and laterally?

I can tell you unequivocally that if the computer is programmed to take into account the shape and depth of the zone, it will. I can’t remember which channel does it, but I‘ve seen the strike zone during the game represented as a heptagon. I believe it was on Fox.

The best thing about this argument is that 15 years ago 99% of those in the discussion would be vehemently against it, but as time passes that percentage is dropping quickly.

One interesting side effect of automating the calling of balls and strikes, is that pitch framing by a catcher should become irrelevant. You won't have situations like this -- what Fangraphs calls the "The Worst Called Ball on Record" -- caused by the catcher:

www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-wo...lled-ball-on-record/

About 35 years ago I had a job on a ship that placed the buoys that mark ship channels. This was before GPS and before satellite navigation. The most accurate means of positioning available to us was observing horizontal sextant angles from known charted objects on shore like smoke stacks and radio antennas and occasionally a lighthouse.

If we knew all the angles and distances of the triangle defined by the two objects and the assigned position, we could calculate the direction and rate of positive gradient, so that if the observed angle was smaller than the desired angle, we'd know which direction and how far we had to go to get the desired angle. We used hand drawn grids to combine the solutions from simultaneously observed angles to produce very accurate and very quick fixes of our position.

The sextant angles were much more accurate than lines of position using the ship's gyrocompass because those lines of position were accurate only to a half degree. Depending on the distances and angles involved, a half degree could induce an error almost as wide as the channel we were marking, which was obviously unacceptable. With horizontal sextant angles, however, we could measure degrees, minutes, and tenths of minutes. When conditions were right, we could often position a buoy within 5 yards of its assigned position at the moment we let it go (unfortunately, the sinker could drift outside a circle whose radius equaled the depth of the water as it sank to the bottom, but that's another problem).

From time to time, the objects we wanted to use for our positioning would be obscured by haze or background lights, and we'd have to find other suitable objects ashore to use as our reference points.

Once in a while, if there was nothing suitable available we'd joke around and say things like, "I've got 35 degrees, 14. 2 minutes from the large fluffy cloud to the seagull on the end of the refinery pier."

It was funny because we all knew that a precise measurement to an imprecise object was meaningless.

Not sure everyone on this board would get that joke.

  Epistemology is a philosophical term as well as school of thought that asks the question, how do you know what you know?  For example, how do you know that this world is real and that you are not a part of some grand illusion, a la, the Matrix....or Hinduism/Buddhism?  Raw secular epistemology cannot fix an objective point of reference for anything.  Desecrate thought he'd solved the problem in, "I think, therefore I am."  Seem convincing, but it's actually not true.  Epistemological foundations are circular.  Only most epistemological foundations are viciously circular.

Anyone watch Giants vs Mets game?  The blue could of used some help last!  It was painful to watch and a coin flip if he was going to call a ball or strike.  Seemed very inconsistent.  I think the 8th inning he called a ball that was mishandled by the catcher that was basically dead red.  Split the plate mid thigh high.  

Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter.   Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter?  Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes.  A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket?  Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?

I understand this could be a slight disadvantage to extremely short players/hitters.  However, the shorter player and smaller strike zone becomes a disadvantage to the pitcher.

Is there any other sport that adjusts important playing dimensions based on the size of participants?  And seeing they adjust the strike zone, maybe they should adjust the bases so the shorter player with shorter strides doesn't have to run as far.  The shorter pitcher has to throw from the same distance and mound as the extremely tall pitcher throws from.

Probably doesn't make sense, plus it just accounts for high and low.  Out or in is the same for everyone.  Wait, why isn't size or arm length considered for inside or outside?  Most pitches seem to be missed inside or outside.  Most often outside!  Umpires are taught to set up inside, between the catcher and hitter.  I'm not an umpire, but that has to make calling the outside edge the most difficult to get right.  Especially when so many are on the edge or close to it.

At some point, maybe many years from now, I think technology will be used more and more to help officiate all sports and that might even involve calling balls and strikes.  Good umpires or officials want to be right every time.  Problem is, that is impossible even for the very best umpires because they are human.  The way it is now, they are actually players in a way.  If they have a bad day it can affect who wins or loses, almost like a player or pitcher having a bad day.

Many will fight the changes, but sooner or later I think it is going to happen.  Umpires will still be needed to maintain control of things.  There will still be many plays that need to be called on the field.  But when they figure out a way to utilize technology to actually move the game along quicker, it might happen.

Then again, here's a question.   Being that all the technical advances would probably only happen at the Major League level, do MLB organizations want shorter games?  Wonder how much additional revenue is brought in during a 4 hour game vs. a 2 1/2 hour game?  I've never seen numbers that show the difference in actual income or profit between a fast game and a slow game. Most seem in favor of faster games,  MLB has done some things to move the games along faster, but wonder what the owners think?

I know all the above is a bunch of nothing, but we have 250 teams "safe and sound" playing ball with a ton of college coaches watching them in Florida right now, and so far, most of East Florida escaped the worst of the hurricane,  that makes me feel extra good.  Hoping that those farther north  can also escape the worst.

Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter.   Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter?  Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes.  A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket?  Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?

I think the strike zone rule is applicable to most, if not all, levels of play.  If you try to go to a fixed zone at earlier ages, you run into problems with kids having wider ranging heights (I'm assuming each "level" is going to have to determine is own top/bottom dimensions).  I think one problem very young kids have is having to go after the outside ball ("better protect the plate...") and invariably hitting that weak grounder to 2nd base when the ball goes off the last 2 inches of the bat - the really small guys should get a skinnier plate.  As kids get a little better, the aggressive ones end up leaning over the plate and the dad invariably screams bloody murder when the pitcher delivers one on the inside of the plate - forcing the batter to hit the dirt (that almost hit him.....you're missing a nice game")  I can only assume the umps at early ages are not real keen calling the outside strike when the batter's bat might not even reach out that far in the first place.  I am not an ump and not real sure how most of them do their job, but I'd almost want a zone top to bottom that I could envision with a particular batter (the batter gives you a reference point - such reference point gets skewed once they get into a crouch).  If I had to imagine a fixed zone and had tall guys and short guys interchangeably, not sure I'd call the zone as well as currently defined.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter.   Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter?  Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes.  A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket?  Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?

I think the strike zone rule is applicable to most, if not all, levels of play.  If you try to go to a fixed zone at earlier ages, you run into problems with kids having wider ranging heights (I'm assuming each "level" is going to have to determine is own top/bottom dimensions).  I think one problem very young kids have is having to go after the outside ball ("better protect the plate...") and invariably hitting that weak grounder to 2nd base when the ball goes off the last 2 inches of the bat - the really small guys should get a skinnier plate.  As kids get a little better, the aggressive ones end up leaning over the plate and the dad invariably screams bloody murder when the pitcher delivers one on the inside of the plate - forcing the batter to hit the dirt (that almost hit him.....you're missing a nice game")  I can only assume the umps at early ages are not real keen calling the outside strike when the batter's bat might not even reach out that far in the first place.  I am not an ump and not real sure how most of them do their job, but I'd almost want a zone top to bottom that I could envision with a particular batter (the batter gives you a reference point - such reference point gets skewed once they get into a crouch).  If I had to imagine a fixed zone and had tall guys and short guys interchangeably, not sure I'd call the zone as well as currently defined.

At the upper levels, a static zone would be pretty simple to call because of the experience and practice of the umpires there. If you had to call just one zone, then it becomes pretty simple once your mental picture is established, because it never changes.

Lower-level umpires just don't have the experience nor the off-season practice opportunities to calibrate their eyes and mind. I use college fall ball to work on counterproductive habits that I may have acquired throughout the season, and spring scrimmages to knock the rust off, make sure I'm seeing things the way they are, and adjust to any new directives that may have happened. This would just be another part of that tune-up.

Started thinking about it and there really are several instances where a sport "adjusts" based on the "height" of the player.  The most notable would probably be blocking rules in NFL - do not have the  wording but I assume the rules incorporate the player's body parts as a reference (below the waist, below the knees, etc).  Going in a little different direction, look at boxing.  Why doesn't top level boxing just let all folks participate?  I assume anyone can box heavyweight, but why bother with all those lower classifications?  I personally think the NBA should institute a cumulative height maximum on the court at any time - maybe 32.5 feet so the average is 6' 6" - would really give a boost to some short point guards.

There is not going to be an automated strike zone - ever.

  Football could be called via video, with refs., umps, back and line judges almost entirely taken out.  A quick review of the play could call holding, illegal man down-field, pass interference, offsides, illegal procedure, illegal participation, etc.  How many people scream about holding or a block in the back that has been missed?  They say it happens on every play.  Refs and line judges let a lot of it go as part of the game.  Sometimes it might even impact the game.  But, thankfully, people with foresight realized that doing this would be ruinous for the game.  People would absolutely hate that sterile condition.   So, humans do the job.  

Sometimes those humans make mistakes, miss calls, etc.  Sometimes those missed calls cause 'Bama to lose games and even potential national championship births.  But in the end, so what?  It's a game.  It's something for amusement.   

If you are hell-bent on computer precision, then perhaps 'Bot-fighting is for you.

I agree... It is just a game!

Now all we need to do is convince 30 MLB organizations that it is just a game.  There can be gigantic financial implications between winning and losing.

I will admit, I'm old school and wouldn't like to see things change that much.  I like umpires running the game.  I like that umpires aren't the same, just like players.  I like our game just the way it is.  I just think it will happen at some point.  It has already started and it has expanded.  No reason to think it stops now.

Maybe that technology for calling balls and strikes will be something that hasn't even been thoughts of yet.  So the technology is not noticed by spectators, but just becomes helpful to umpires.

I still wouldn't like that, because it would make all home plate umpires equal at calling strikes and balls.  I think umpires should have the ability to show they are the best and most talented.  There is a certain competition that goes on among umpires.  There are a lot of them that have pride and want to be the best.  In some cases it's even a team thing, where they want to be the best crew.  Some don't get it and are more interested in just the money or having some power.  Guess they are all needed, but I respect those umpires that want to be the best.

PGStaff posted:

…I still wouldn't like that, because it would make all home plate umpires equal at calling strikes and balls.  

But isn’t consistency what everyone wants?

I think umpires should have the ability to show they are the best and most talented.  There is a certain competition that goes on among umpires.  There are a lot of them that have pride and want to be the best.  In some cases it's even a team thing, where they want to be the best crew.  Some don't get it and are more interested in just the money or having some power.  Guess they are all needed, but I respect those umpires that want to be the best.

Frankly I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for sports officials, but the game isn’t about them and shouldn’t be. In the case of baseball, there’s a Hell of a lot more the umpires have to do to win some BS competition about who’s the best umpire or crew than calling pitches not swung at.

Teaching Elder posted:

…If you are hell-bent on computer precision, then perhaps 'Bot-fighting is for you.

It’s got nothing to do with precision for me. It’s about making sure every player has the same opportunity. That makes it about the game, not the personalities playing it.

Typically those that are outstanding at anything or want to be the best at anything, are involved in competition.  BTW, that often includes sports officials.  They don't just pick names out of a hat to see who officiates the biggest professional events.    

It might not be called competition, but really it is.          

I'm not sure there is an official in any sport that has more control over what happens than the Plate Umpire.