Matt13 posted: Dom is correct.
Are you saying the rule in OB is wrong or that if the batter crouches his strike zone stays the same?
Teaching Elder posted:
Do you read your own stuff? You just accused bballman of not wanting any changes to take place at all to baseball. He never stated such a thing nor has anybody else.
Then you launched into using past changes to baseball to justify current and even future changes. Under your own logic, you literally could not stop baseball from becoming kickball. After all, there have been all of these changes in the past.
Try to calm down and think about things reasonably before you post.
Yes I read what I write. Yes, I did accuse him of not wanting any changes. No, I never said he or anyone else said that.
What I did was point out that baseball’s been changing from day one and that it will continue to evolve.
What I said is only unreasonable to someone who refuses to understand that change is inevitable. The only people who can pick and choose what changes are made are the ML owners. As piaa-ump pointed out, there are others who have a say in rule changes, but anyone who doesn’t believe if the owners really want to have technology call pitches not swung at it won’t happen, is kidding themselves.
Other than tradition, please explain how the game benefits from having a strike zone that isn’t called as accurately as possible.
I'm not averse to ALL change. Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary. What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element. That's different in my book. If you want perfection, play a video game. Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before. They are as much a part of the game as the players. It's not JUST players playing. It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively. It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased. Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game. To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game. Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.
Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for. I'm fine with that. But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.
You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes. I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.
As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate. In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate. I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.
Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go." On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want. However, I would not marry a robot woman. I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her. Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy. Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.
If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves. Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along. I don't hold on to them blindly either. I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.
I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.
Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go." On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want. However, I would not marry a robot woman. I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her. Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy. Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.
Now, what does this have to do with baseball, much less the strike zone? I'd love a robot man in the house that could knock out the honey-do list. Of course, he would have to be a lot overweight and smell poorly at times so as to not show me up.
On a serious note, is there a system out there that does a good job showing the 3-D strike zone and the path the pitch takes? The 2-D system I see during most games, as I understand it, is actually measuring in 3-D but for quick optics presents the pitch location in 2-D.
bballman posted:I'm not averse to ALL change. Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary. What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element. That's different in my book. If you want perfection, play a video game. Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before. They are as much a part of the game as the players. It's not JUST players playing. It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively. It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased. Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game. To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game. Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.
Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for. I'm fine with that. But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.
I agree with all of what you said... that currently umpires are part of the game to provide an objective neutral decision on plays. But if the technology existed that could do the same - call fair / foul - safe / out - ball / strike... and account for the variables for top and bottom of zone ... with as high or higher accuracy than a human ... the transition away from a human to a computer is inevitable. Right, wrong or indifferent... that is human progress. Not much different than robots replacing people on assembly lines, computers replacing accountants, scanners replacing check out clerks, computers replacing switchboard operators. Someone once told me the best umpires are never noticed. Will there always be a need for a human official? Probably. But their role may change. It may be more administrative, less judgmental. Lineup changes / length of time outs / warm up pitches. I don't see the possibility of a computer identifying an illegal slide, or an illegal substance on a ball... but 15 years ago I never would have thought getting a full length movie in HD quality over my phone was possible either. We can argue if change is better or worse for the game ... that is a point of view that may never be proven or dis-proven until the technology is implemented and tested. The only thing that is certain is that change is inevitable. And as this board so often reminds us ... Baseball is a game that teaches life lessons. If this change ever materializes, it is a life lesson... we can adjust to the change, or resist and let the game pass us by.
NEWUMPIRE, I think that's a very real-world take. Thinks are indeed moving quickly. If you go to the large chain grocery store near me, you'll see 6-8 checkers working old style. (well, actually, old style would be working without scanners) You'll also see one person supervising a bank of self-checkout stations. That person's job is secure, for now. The others would be wise to be learning new job skills. Like it or not, this setup is probably analogous to where baseball will be eventually.
BTW, one other thought - read our own IFDad's son's take on robo-umping in his Straight 108 Blog. He's for it. It's his generation that will be making these decisions in the long run, not ours.
Ones thing is for certain. After Teaching Elder's post my focus has shifted from automated strike zones to more important emerging technologies.
. LOL!
bballman posted: I'm not averse to ALL change. Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary. What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element. That's different in my book. If you want perfection, play a video game. Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before. They are as much a part of the game as the players. It's not JUST players playing. It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively. It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased. Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game. To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game. Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.
I didn’t even come close to ALL the changes since the 1850’s. I was only giving examples.
The only way it’s any different than IR is that there doesn’t have to be a time out called with a meeting and the final decision made in NY or wherever. No one is getting rid of the umpires!!!!!!! The PU is still there with all his other duties and responsibilities, and in fact will be able to likely do a better job there because he doesn’t have to worry about concentrating on the call.
Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls.
What you force with umpires calling pitches not swung at is the introduction of “adjustments” the players make to take advantage of human error. No longer will a catcher who happens to be better at framing “stealing” calls. In fact, since the call will be made as soon as the ball passes the zone, there won’t be any more “late” calls, nor will any umpire ever get blocked out by the catcher.
The responsibility for calling pitches not swung at isn’t being done away with!!!!!!! It’s just changing from a human being to something else.
Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for. I'm fine with that. But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.
How many times does it have to be said before you understand? The only decision being made is whether a pitch not swung at is in the strike zone or not! That decision is being made right now so what’s the difference? Consistency and accuracy. Evidently you’re advocating inconsistency and inaccuracy.
Teaching Elder posted:
You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes. I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.
Whether or not anyone wants changes or not is really immaterial to the discussion at hand because it isn’t up to anyone other than the ML owners! There have been some changes I haven’t liked much, but it isn’t up to me any more than it’s up to you or bballman! I learn to live with them because the rules have changed.
As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate. In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate. I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.
If you want them accurate, why keep fighting so hard to keep them from being as accurate as possible?
Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go." On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want. However, I would not marry a robot woman. I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her. Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy. Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.
Why are you bring in robot women for Pete’s sake? Have you run out of cogent arguments?
If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves. Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along. I don't hold on to them blindly either. I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.
Of course that happens, but it’s a consequence of change! If change is never attempted there wouldn’t be unintended consequences from change. Sometimes ya just got go for it.
I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.
As I’ve side before, that’s been happening for close to 20 years! It’s definitely helped, but human beings have pretty much reached their limit in being able to accurately and consistently determine whether a pitch not swung at is a ball or strike.
2017LHPscrewball posted:
…On a serious note, is there a system out there that does a good job showing the 3-D strike zone and the path the pitch takes? The 2-D system I see during most games, as I understand it, is actually measuring in 3-D but for quick optics presents the pitch location in 2-D.
https://www.sportsvideo.org/20...ch-for-mlb-coverage/
Stats4Gnats posted:...
Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls.
...
Huh?
An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.
Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact. Safe or out. Fair or foul. Ball or strike. Catch or trap. Swing or no swing. Set or not set. Etc., etc.
Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".
Stats4Gnats posted:Teaching Elder posted:
You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes. I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.
Whether or not anyone wants changes or not is really immaterial to the discussion at hand because it isn’t up to anyone other than the ML owners! There have been some changes I haven’t liked much, but it isn’t up to me any more than it’s up to you or bballman! I learn to live with them because the rules have changed.
As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate. In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate. I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.
If you want them accurate, why keep fighting so hard to keep them from being as accurate as possible?
Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go." On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want. However, I would not marry a robot woman. I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her. Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy. Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.
Why are you bring in robot women for Pete’s sake? Have you run out of cogent arguments?
If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves. Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along. I don't hold on to them blindly either. I also believe in the law of unintended consequences. Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.
Of course that happens, but it’s a consequence of change! If change is never attempted there wouldn’t be unintended consequences from change. Sometimes ya just got go for it.
I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.
As I’ve side before, that’s been happening for close to 20 years! It’s definitely helped, but human beings have pretty much reached their limit in being able to accurately and consistently determine whether a pitch not swung at is a ball or strike.
Are you like 20 years old or something?
Stats, you are VERY deceptive with your replies by twisting what people say. Your response to my post is totally off base and completely dishonest.
#1 - I gave examples of how I am not averse to ALL change. You twisted it to mean I was only talking about the ones you mentioned. Just because I don't like THIS change doesn't mean I don't like ANY change. That was my point.
#2 - I never said or even implied that umpires would not be part of the game. I specifically said that one of their responsibilities would be taken away. I said it that way on purpose because I knew you would come back to say umpires will still be around. Despite my efforts, you twisted what I said anyway.
#3 - I never even used the word "objective" in my description of the umpire's calls. I said they are a third party UNBIASED participant. That's different than objective vs subjective.
Do do you even read my posts, or do you just spit out the same tired arguments you always do? Come on stats. Get your stuff together. At least come up with a relevant response to what I actually posted.
bballman posted:Stats, you are VERY deceptive with your replies by twisting what people say. Your response to my post is totally off base and completely dishonest.
#1 - I gave examples of how I am not averse to ALL change. You twisted it to mean I was only talking about the ones you mentioned. Just because I don't like THIS change doesn't mean I don't like ANY change. That was my point.
#2 - I never said or even implied that umpires would not be part of the game. I specifically said that one of their responsibilities would be taken away. I said it that way on purpose because I knew you would come back to say umpires will still be around. Despite my efforts, you twisted what I said anyway.
#3 - I never even used the word "objective" in my description of the umpire's calls. I said they are a third party UNBIASED participant. That's different than objective vs subjective.
Do do you even read my posts, or do you just spit out the same tired arguments you always do? Come on stats. Get your stuff together. At least come up with a relevant response to what I actually posted.
He's getting pretty tiresome with his schtick, and I for one am about done with it. What was once a healthy conversation about whether certain technologies are good for the game has become an exercise in watching Statsforgnats regurgitate baseless, unequivocal and uncharitable claims against those who disagree with him.
I guess he's shooting to save face by posting rebuttals to every post. I hope that no-one is foolish enough to believe that he's acquitted his position well with his antics.
Stats4Gnats posted:Matt13 posted: Dom is correct.
Are you saying the rule in OB is wrong or that if the batter crouches his strike zone stays the same?
If the batter crouches, his zone stays the same.
Matt-
Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game. I am curious. And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question. When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it. Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick? Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game. And I sucked.
As for the computer umping. I am old school. Taking the human element out of balls and strikes takes more than just the ump out of it. Takes a really good receiving catcher out of it too. His ability to make a ball look like a strike is something that makes a good catcher a great catcher. Separates a crafty veteran from a rookie. The ability to hit corners (and utilize the gray area off the plate). We all know a good veteran can get stuff off the plate called a strike before a rookie can. Its almost a respect thing from the umps. You take the drama of a dug out chirping at an ump out of the game. The nose to nose jawing and eventual toss of a skipper arguing balls and strikes.
ALL this changes when a computer flashes red or green for a ball or strike. To me, its not evolving like a no catcher take out rule has evolved the position. Its changing the game entirely.
Just my opinion.
Kevin A.
Matt's credentials in levels umpired and skill well exceeds your request for this answer
Kevin A posted:Matt-
Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game. I am curious. And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question. When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it. Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick? Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game. And I sucked.
As for the computer umping. I am old school. Taking the human element out of balls and strikes takes more than just the ump out of it. Takes a really good receiving catcher out of it too. His ability to make a ball look like a strike is something that makes a good catcher a great catcher. Separates a crafty veteran from a rookie. The ability to hit corners (and utilize the gray area off the plate). We all know a good veteran can get stuff off the plate called a strike before a rookie can. Its almost a respect thing from the umps. You take the drama of a dug out chirping at an ump out of the game. The nose to nose jawing and eventual toss of a skipper arguing balls and strikes.
ALL this changes when a computer flashes red or green for a ball or strike. To me, its not evolving like a no catcher take out rule has evolved the position. Its changing the game entirely.
Just my opinion.
When I ump it is all off the batter. I set up with my eyes at the top inside corner of the zone when the batter is in his stance. Anything higher or more inside is a ball. 17" (width of the plate) is about the distance from my center line to the outside of my arm when at my side. Anything outside of that is a ball. Lower zone tracked by eyes ... my weak point but trying to get better. Now if a batter tries to "shrink" the zone by crouching later in the count... he is not getting a lower top line. A batter that starts crouched and then comes up to hit the ball will have a top line start higher than a batter that stands more erect at the plate. (think Mickey Rivers). But that top line should be in the same place relative to his body as all other batters.
In all honesty ... my zone changes by skill level. Local Rec Ball 8-9 YO... it is pretty large. HS varsity ... by the book. But it does not change mid game or by count.,,, at least not intentionally.
Kevin A posted:Matt-
Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game. I am curious. And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question. When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it. Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick? Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game. And I sucked.
It's an iterative process. Very few batters go into the box doing a duck walk, so as he gets set in his stance, I make a mental note of where the bottom and top of the zone are. This is where experience comes in...there are many things that we can use to keep those consistent, and it varies from situation to situation. Where is the top in relation to my eyes in my stance? Where is the bottom in relation to the top of the catcher's bent knee? How does the batter have his front elbow? Over time, these benchmarks become subconscious, and with practice, then obsolete. At this point in my life, I know where my eyes are, I know where the plate is (it hasn't moved in 160 years,) and I can see where the top and bottom of the zone are in relation to all of that, and those benchmarks are simply sanity checks.
matt and new- Good info! As a parent and by default of my catching son, coach,I like learning stuff from the Umps!
One COMPLETELY side question. Any difference on how you approach or feel behind a catcher who sits high in his stance or one who sits really tight and low to the ground?
The approach is basically the same ... but if a "high" catcher is blocking that outside / low part of the plate ... I need to raise up and adjust. If I am 6" higher with the eyes ... then I need to adjust ... the top zone will then be my chin... 12" ... my shirt pocket ... etc...As Matt said ... just reference points that become second nature.
Kevin A posted:matt and new- Good info! As a parent and by default of my catching son, coach,I like learning stuff from the Umps!
One COMPLETELY side question. Any difference on how you approach or feel behind a catcher who sits high in his stance or one who sits really tight and low to the ground?
Only if his height plus positioning means I'm getting blocked out. The bigger thing for me is a catcher that likes to move side to side after the pitch has started.
again...love the info. I honestly think Umpires should have their own "You should know.." section on here....
cabbagedad posted:
Huh?
An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.
Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact. Safe or out. Fair or foul. Ball or strike. Catch or trap. Swing or no swing. Set or not set. Etc., etc.
Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".
You’ve got to be kidding! If umpire calls are objective, why is there ever any question? Why are so many calls overturned?
Look. In general I really like umpires and greatly respect what they do, but they aren’t perfect, any more than coaches, players, or even scorekeepers are. Mistakes are made, but even though they aren’t intentional, they are still mistakes. Why object to doing away with as many mistakes as possible, especially when it takes no longer?
Matt13 posted:If the batter crouches, his zone stays the same.
WHEW! I was praying there wasn't going to be an argument about whether OBR was right or wrong. 
It's sad that there is such widespread misunderstanding about whether or not crouching alters the strike zone.
If the batter crouches too much, then call a high strike, if he turns around to ask/check with you I'm thinking he probably won't do it crouched down ;-)...
Some more recent experience during lower than HS level games is that only the short batters seem to crouch down a lot - probably because their coach told them to or they're looking for a walk and don't necessarily want to swing.
Stats4Gnats posted:cabbagedad posted:
Huh?
An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.
Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact. Safe or out. Fair or foul. Ball or strike. Catch or trap. Swing or no swing. Set or not set. Etc., etc.
Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".
You’ve got to be kidding! If umpire calls are objective, why is there ever any question? Why are so many calls overturned?
Look. In general I really like umpires and greatly respect what they do, but they aren’t perfect, any more than coaches, players, or even scorekeepers are. Mistakes are made, but even though they aren’t intentional, they are still mistakes. Why object to doing away with as many mistakes as possible, especially when it takes no longer?
Once again, keep things in context if you can...
First, I never objected to doing away with anything in this thread. No idea where you came up with that.
Second, I was simply disagreeing with, and clarifying my reason via definition, your comment... "Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls."
Umpires, as a general rule, don't make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion. I don't think their assignors, evaluators and supervisors would like that much. They make calls based on the black and white (usually) objective letter of the rules.
To steal a phrase, what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned? I'm pretty sure that number is quite low.
There is a big difference between close calls/mistakes and making decisions objectively vs subjectively.
Again, I never entered the debate or discussion as it relates to whether there should be electronic ball/strike calls.
cabbagedad posted:
Once again, keep things in context if you can...
First, I never objected to doing away with anything in this thread. No idea where you came up with that.
Second, I was simply disagreeing with, and clarifying my reason via definition, your comment... "Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls."
Umpires, as a general rule, don't make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion. I don't think their assignors, evaluators and supervisors would like that much. They make calls based on the black and white (usually) objective letter of the rules.
To steal a phrase, what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned? I'm pretty sure that number is quite low.
There is a big difference between close calls/mistakes and making decisions objectively vs subjectively.
Again, I never entered the debate or discussion as it relates to whether there should be electronic ball/strike calls.
If you don’t want to see pitches called more accurately, by definition you want mistakes kept in.
As soon as you say “as a general rule”, what you’re really saying is, “umpires sometimes make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion”. And try as they may not to, every umpire calls pitches not swung at slightly different than anyone else. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is normal and if it can be done better, why not do it?
The percentage of calls on pitches not swung at that get overturned is zero. That is against the rules.
OBR 8.02 Appeal of Umpire Decisions
(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.
But, here’s a link that shows the percentage of calls that get challenged that get overturned. As you can see 48.4% of the challenges result in overturned calls. Still pretty dang good, but there’s no way that percentage could be characterized as “low”.
Whether it’s subjective or objective really has nothing to do with anything other than being picayune. But since you did enter the debate/discussion, other than to maintain tradition, shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?
Stats4Gnats posted:...
If you don’t want to see pitches called more accurately, by definition you want mistakes kept in.
Again, I never said a word, either way, about not wanting to see pitches called more accurately. Not sure how many times I have to say that. And you are stretching quite a bit with your definitions again.
As soon as you say “as a general rule”, what you’re really saying is, “umpires sometimes make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion”.
No, that's not "what I'm really saying". Not even close. Words in mouth again. I see you are regaining your old form.
And try as they may not to, every umpire calls pitches not swung at slightly different than anyone else. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is normal and if it can be done better, why not do it?
Never said either way. That clearly was not what I commented on.
But, here’s a link that shows the percentage of calls that get challenged that get overturned. As you can see 48.4% of the challenges result in overturned calls. Still pretty dang good, but there’s no way that percentage could be characterized as “low”.
I said "what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned? I'm pretty sure that number is quite low." I did not say"what percentage of calls that get challenged..." Once again, a complete twisting of my words on your end. I think you've set a new record.
.... But since you did enter the debate/discussion, other than to maintain tradition, shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?
And, now, you want me to comment on a question from you? ... as if there's some chance that whatever I said wouldn't get twisted again, unless it is in perfect agreement with your position....
Nah. Later.
cabbagedad posted:
Again, I never said a word, either way, about not wanting to see pitches called more accurately. Not sure how many times I have to say that. And you are stretching quite a bit with your definitions again.
I get it. You don’t care one way or the other if pitches not swung at are called more accurately. Of course anyone is entitled to comment on any thread, but if you don’t care I’m at a loss as to why you bothered.
No, that's not "what I'm really saying". Not even close. Words in mouth again. I see you are regaining your old form.
Do you deny that it’s true?
Never said either way. That clearly was not what I commented on.
Again, if you truly don’t care, why comment at all?
I said "what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned? I'm pretty sure that number is quite low." I did not say"what percentage of calls that get challenged..." Once again, a complete twisting of my words on your end. I think you've set a new record.
As far as I know, Reviews may be initiated either by a team's manager with limitations or by the umpires themselves. If a call isn’t reviewed, how does it get overturned?
And, now, you want me to comment on a question from you? ... as if there's some chance that whatever I said wouldn't get twisted again, unless it is in perfect agreement with your position....
Nah. Later.
WOW! Talk about one way. All it takes is a simple yes or no. Here’s the question again.
“shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?”
It’s simple. Either they should or they shouldn’t. If you choose to try to qualify your answer, that’s up to you. If you just answer they should or they shouldn’t, there’s no way to “twist” it.
I think they should.
Okay. This guy is a troll.
“shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?”
A resounding NO. MLB should spend it's time, money, power, etc promoting the game, making it accessible for the average fan, and ensuring the game continues. IMO, IR is not that important or high up on the list of things that should be done. Players, Managers, and Fans disagreeing with a call is part of the game - has been for ages.
I think IR has shown already that it is not possible to be both accurate and not affect the flow of the game. Pace of play is a more recent focus - IR absolutely kills pace of play. I've watched games where IR is not conclusive, but it takes 3-5 minutes for that decision. It shouldn't take that long - if someone watching in super slow motion on multiple 5' wide televisions from 5 different angles cannot tell what an umpire couldn't tell from 5 feet away in less than 1/2 a second, then how can it be deemed IR is making the game more accurate and keeping the flow of the game in tact. Sure strike/ball calls made by a machine would be relatively quick/instantaneous as long as there's power. What happens in a power outage - during a day game, baseball can still be played! Why waste a beautiful day?
One can interpret stats any way they want - you point out 48.4% of calls that are challenged and overturned, but what's not included in that number are the number of calls that aren't challenged in a game. So someone could write that because 48.4% of challenged calls are overturned that means the umpires are right only 51.6% of the time in "close plays". That's an absurd statistic because there are a number of "close plays" that managers walk to the top step, hold their hand up, but then walk back down because some other coach/player/person in charge of helping the manager make the decision to challenge or not already decided that the call won't be overturned. BTW: that whole process takes perhaps 15-30 seconds. If there's 20 close calls in a game we've had what 7-10 minutes of delay time just to decide that we're not going to go to IR? That surely helps pace of play...
What is the distribution of time each IR play takes? What's the percentage of plays where there is no conclusion - that is upheld because it was impossible to make a determination? How much time is wasted waiting on this technology panacea to provide a definitive answer?
Go with the flow... accept that players, coaches, managers, and umpires are not going to be 100% accurate and let the game flow on the field, between the lines, without interruption from external forces.
JohnF,
I hate to keep harping on this, but we’re not talking IR. Also, I don’t know if you missed the subtly of it, but I said “while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game”. If you watched that Mil game where they had pitches not swung at called by technology, if you didn’t know they were doing it, you’d never have seen any difference. It was that fast and unobtrusive.
There will always be plenty to argue about during a game whether because all we’re talking about here is pitches not swung at. That leaves a heck of a lot of other things to argue about.
Again, this isn’t IR we’re talking about. The game doesn’t stop. If power was lost, the umpires could still call pitches not swung at, but more likely every stadium has a stand-alone generator already that could be used to power whatever is necessary.
All I did was point out what percentage of challenges are upheld, but those aren’t challenges on called pitches because that’s not allowed in the rules. There is plenty of research showing the calling accuracy of pitches not swung at. Granted, it’s pretty damn good, but it’s a far cry from been perfect.
You keep referring to IR and how much time it takes. Believe me, I get it, but this isn’t IR. As far as I can tell from what information is available, the flow of the game on the field, between the lines, would still be without interruption from external forces. In fact, right now there’s often an interruption in the flow because someone doesn’t agree with the call of a pitch not swung at. Although it’s very seldom anyone actually questions the call of a pitch not swung at because they know it would get them run, there are ways to interrupt the game flow.
So believe it or not, I actually agree that it would be nice to streamline the IR process because it its truly disruptive. The only thing about it is, with such a high turnover rate, it’s hard to believe the owners will do a lot to improve it.
But just to make sure you and I are on the same track, calling pitches not swung at has nothing to do with IR, other than they could check it again if they wanted to. I also agree there’s a lot of things MLB should be doing to promote and improve the game, but those things should be done regardless of anything else that happens.
Why dont they just remove the pitcher and have a pitching machine stand at the mound? Coach selects the type of pitch and presto......instant pitch.
Baseball is a HUMAN game. Why the hell do you want to take out the HUMAN element? You take away a human ump and strictly use the zone, as actually called today, and your walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.
IR is one thing. To challenge a bang bang play fine. But the day they use computers to do an umps job, is the day I stop watching baseball.
Frankly I have a few choice names for those who WANT that......and none of them are good nor polite.
The more you tinker with something the better it gets? Can we get someone to touch up the Mona Lisa? Good grief. The umpires are a part of the game. They are not just people who call balls and strikes. They are a part of the game itself. They are not perfect. Thank God. Players make errors on routine plays. They are not perfect. Thank God. Imagine how much fun it would be to never see an error on a routine play? Never see a bone headed play? Never see a mistake? Never see a controversial call or questionable ball? No more bad hops - ever! No it needs to be perfect for it to be great.
What makes baseball - baseball? Its played by people who are not perfect they are just really good. Sometimes they do things and you are reminded they are not that much different than you are. You can relate. Umpires add so much to the game. In so many ways. They do an amazing job.
The human element, the elements, the fact it is not perfect is what makes it perfect. Once you make it perfect only the perfect people will be happy.
I say leave it alone. Stop. But then again I am just an imperfect guy who likes imperfect things. I can relate very well to that.
im-per-fect
not perfect; faulty or incomplete
faulty, flawed, defective, shoddy, unsound, inferior, second rate, below standard, substandard. Yes that's me. And I like keeping company with those who are like me.
Kevin A posted:
Why dont they just remove the pitcher and have a pitching machine stand at the mound? Coach selects the type of pitch and presto......instant pitch.
Baseball is a HUMAN game. Why the hell do you want to take out the HUMAN element? You take away a human ump and strictly use the zone, as actually called today, and your walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.
IR is one thing. To challenge a bang bang play fine. But the day they use computers to do an umps job, is the day I stop watching baseball.
Frankly I have a few choice names for those who WANT that......and none of them are good nor polite.
What in the world are you talking about, removing the pitcher? Seems to me you’re the one wanting to remove humans.
Why are you so sure walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.? It seems to me just the opposite will happen.
Why are you making a difference of opinions so personal?
They already use computers to do an ump’s job with IR, but you’re still watching.
Like all other changes, if it comes to be, a portion of folks will be like me and welcome it, a portion will be like you and hate it, and a portion won’t care one way or the other. But if it does come about, once everyone gets used to it, in a short time everyone will wonder what all the kerfuffle was about.
Guys. This dude is obviously a troll. We've got a small and tight enough community here, that we can all just ignore him until he goes back to lurker status.
Holy cow Coach_May! It’s really hard for me to understand why supposedly intelligent people can’t understand that no one’s talking about getting rid of umpires! This is about forcing the game to be about the pitcher and the hitter, not the umpire who tries his best but makes mistakes.
Do umpires work their a$$es off to do the best job they can, and feel bad when they blow a call? Of course they do! If they could call pitches not swung at perfectly, do you think they’d want to? If not, why do they spend so much time working on it?