DVRd this last week and watched it last night. Major disparity on calls favoring home teams by umpires. What are your thoughts on technology augmenting the homeplate Umpires in baseball?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Umpires are good but Technology is better. I understand some are entertained by the "human element" (and especially the following arguements) but Baseball does not Need that. the human element of the Players is entertaining enough.
I think if Technology is just as fast and much more accurate it should be used. just don't delay the game as Long as the instant replays, just have a green light indicating a strike within a second of the pitch crossing the plate which should be possible (not sure how fast it is now).
the accuracy is not even Close I think pitch fx is at least 10 times more accurate if not more than that. this has nothing to do with umps being bad. they are better than ever but there just is a Limit to the human eye at 90+ mph.
Our grand father's type of baseball is best I think. No technology just good old honest baseball. Even if it is flawed. I would have preferred no replays at all but I can live with how it's done now.
Automated strike zones would absolutely ruin the game. If people already don't want to watch baseball, try taking away umpires and having a buzzing sound for balls and strikes.
Have an umpire with an ear piece? Holy Rasslin' fakery, Batman! People would revolt. Humans want to watch humans, including human arbiters.
Teaching Elder posted:Automated strike zones would absolutely ruin the game. If people already don't want to watch baseball, try taking away umpires and having a buzzing sound for balls and strikes.
Have an umpire with an ear piece? Holy Rasslin' fakery, Batman! People would revolt. Humans want to watch humans, including human arbiters.
Absolutely agree with Elder automated anything would definitely ruin baseball. Hope it never gets to that or even what football is doing don't like it all.
I like what your coach said about run/pass options and linemen down field.
(I'm a 'Bama grad.)
As an umpire, I have a variety of feelings on the subject:
1. If it's true that hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports, it may also be true that judging whether any part of a pitched ball passes through any part of the strike zone is the hardest call for a sports official to make. In other sports, officials judge where balls land or where feet are positioned in relation to painted lines. In a baseball game, the plate umpire has to make a couple hundred calls a game about the location of spinning, sinking balls in flight when pitchers are trying to pitch as close to the edge as they can and hitters are trying to be as selective as they can about which close pitches nick the zone and which ones don't. Thus, when a writer trying just a little to hard to be hip refers to "lovably blind" umpires, I assume he has no clue about the subject he has undertaken to write about.
2. I have no sympathy for the argument that human error is part of the game to the extent that it encourages complacence with unnecessary inaccuracy. However, I have a lot of tolerance for errors made by trained, prepared, conscientious, objective umpires. I had a professor in business school who often said the job of managers isn't to be right all the time; their job is to decide and to hope enough of their decisions are right to help their companies make money and fulfill their obligations to customers, employees, and the community. This principle applies to baseball, too. There is a game to be played. It can't drag on for days like a cricket match, and it is more important to maintain its rhythms than to adjudicate every fine-as-frog's-hair distinction to scientific precision. As long as the calls are being made conscientiously by an umpire with training appropriate to the level of ball being played, that's almost always good enough to have a fair competition.
3. "Getting it right" has its limits. Although I know I make mistakes every game, probably every inning, I also know my view of the strike zone is better than the batter's, and my ability to tell where the pitch was is almost always better than the batter's ability to predict where it will be in the future. So when it comes down to that hard-to-call pitch, if I mistakenly ring up a batter, the "injustice" is less outrageous than it seems. Sometimes the batter does get hosed, but it's almost never because of his superior perceptual skill: when he takes a close pitch with two strikes, it's usually because he got fooled or frozen or handcuffed by a pretty good pitch. I don't lose sleep over missing a two-strike pitch by a fraction of a ball's radius--that batter had it within his power to overrule my feeble judgment. If he's right and I'm wrong, it's usually a coincidence--unless I really blow it, which I admit can happen from time to time.
4. The object of umpiring is not perfection; it is fair competition and good sportsmanship. If you want perfect, you're missing the point of sports.
5. Despite these observations, if I had the ability and authorization to resort to technological resources on a limited number of important calls and it could be done without tedious delays, I would welcome the assistance.
If you think balls and strikes are inconsistent - the spotting of the ball in football is awful. The idea that a chain is the tool of measurement for first downs is even crazier.
I saw something on Real Sports that MLB umpires miss about 25-33% of pitches within 2 inches of the edge of the strike zone. No doubt many will disagree with that assessment and give you the bromides about the box is the same and therefor wrong. Turns out they can adjust the zone in 2 seconds with a mouse. The camera can see better than the human eye. It is science folks.
So coming soon (within 10 years and maybe 5) - Balls and strikes by machine. Sensors in footballs to measure first downs and if touchdowns break the plane. Pucks will have sensors to see if they cross the goal line. All measured by a guy sitting in a booth anywhere in the world. They do it with the lines in tennis and it works.
There will be resistance particularly in baseball because we hang on to our "traditions" but it will work. The idea that an entire game can be played without one bitching episode about balls and strikes is actually very appealing. Nothing detracts more from the game than the endless huffing and puffing by batters, chirping from dugouts and umpires staring guys down. It is really irritating and the game would be better if the ball hit the glove and the call was made immediately and the game moved on.
Can someone tell me what adjustments an "operator" would have to make as each batter steps to the plate? As I understand it, PitchFx or whatever the system(s) are called requires an operator to adjust the upper and lower limits of the strike zone. Maybe they could incorporate something like NASCAR and have a laser inspection - before and after each game - and measure the distance between the hollow beneath the knee cap and whatever the top of the zone is defined as. If you want precision, you will need to have precision on the front end when setting up each individuals strike zone.
Forgot to add - the player cannot change footwear between inspections.
If you think balls and strikes are inconsistent - the spotting of the ball in football is awful. The idea that a chain is the tool of measurement for first downs is even crazier.
I can see it now - the umpire starts to spot the ball. He puts his hand to his ear so he can hear the operator a little better through his earpiece. Th operator tells him "A little more.....a little more....just a bit more.....perfect!" Or maybe the ball lights up like the studfinder and the ump moves it along until the light stays on.
luv baseball posted:It is science folks.
Ok. Fine.
So let's make it good science.
When you make a computation in chemistry or physics, one of the ground rules is that your answer can't be more precise than the least precise element in your equation. If you observe an object travel 173 feet in 3.5 seconds, you can't say it traveled 49.4285714 feet per second because you didn't measure either the distance or the time that precisely. You have to settle for 49 ft/sec because that's the limit of the accuracy of your measurement.
Same thing applies to baseball. When the top of the strike zone is defined as a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the bottom of the strike zone is defined as a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap, it is not scientific to pretend that advanced sensors can judge strikes to the fraction of an inch. The zone isn't defined to that level of precision, so you can't pretend to measure it to that level of precision.
It's just science, folks.
The purpose of the strike zone is to make pitchers throw the ball where batters have a fair opportunity to hit it. The vagueness of the definition of the zone is not a weakness in the rule--rather it assigns responsibility to the umpire to account for the infinite variety of stances, body shapes and uniform preferences to determine a fair zone. That subjectivity does more to protect the fairness of the competition than artificial accuracy would.
And by the way, if you really want to kill baseball in poorer neighborhoods, in poorer school districts, and at smaller colleges, create the expectation that balls and strikes need to be judged by expensive sensors and trained operators.
"And by the way, if you really want to kill baseball in poorer neighborhoods, in poorer school districts, and at smaller colleges, create the expectation that balls and strikes need to be judged by expensive sensors and trained operators."
Swampboy. Swampboy. Swampboy. (Sigh) THIS is what we have the government for!
3. "Getting it right" has its limits. Although I know I make mistakes every game, probably every inning, I also know my view of the strike zone is better than the batter's, and my ability to tell where the pitch was is almost always better than the batter's ability to predict where it will be in the future. So when it comes down to that hard-to-call pitch, if I mistakenly ring up a batter, the "injustice" is less outrageous than it seems. Sometimes the batter does get hosed, but it's almost never because of his superior perceptual skill: when he takes a close pitch with two strikes, it's usually because he got fooled or frozen or handcuffed by a pretty good pitch. I don't lose sleep over missing a two-strike pitch by a fraction of a ball's radius--that batter had it within his power to overrule my feeble judgment. If he's right and I'm wrong, it's usually a coincidence--unless I really blow it, which I admit can happen from time to time.
Very good post, but I want to highlight just this because I wonder how it differs at various levels.
At the highest possible level of the game, if you see Buster Posey, for example, while batting, dispute a strike called by Joe West, for example, I believe that, despite West having the better view from behind the dish, the odds are that Posey's perceptual skill is better, not just because Posey is known as being among the best at what he does and West is known as being among the worst of his peers, but because the natural selection funnel that is baseball has proven that any top-of-the-lineup major league hitter belongs to a tiny elite proven to be the best in the world at recognizing and hitting balls in the strike zone. West has gone through a selection process as well but that process can't have been nearly as rigorous. It's not like all the umpires in the world have been tested competitively and only the best of the best of the best make it to MLB. You couldn't do that. Or could you? Perhaps the way to use technology is not to have it make calls live in games but to use it extensively it select those umpires who truly have a consistently elite ability to perceive tiny increments of space and movement at very high speed.
At the 14U level, for another example, yeah I'm going to agree that the average ump sees the zone better than the average player. But at the level I've watched the most over the past few years, HS Varsity, well, I wish I could agree that most batters who are mistakenly rung up on a 2 strike count are frozen or handcuffed, because I've seen far too many rung up on balls 6" or more outside the zone. But the variation is incredibly wide. Some games, the guy behind the plate has the best set of eyes on the field. Some games he has the worst. Maybe it would be good to use technology for testing at that level too.
If the game could go on as shown in the 1st vid in the article, what about the game would be affected negatively? Remember, the only pitches being called by technology would be pitches not swung at.
Swampboy posted:luv baseball posted:It is science folks.
Ok. Fine.
So let's make it good science.
When you make a computation in chemistry or physics, one of the ground rules is that your answer can't be more precise than the least precise element in your equation. If you observe an object travel 173 feet in 3.5 seconds, you can't say it traveled 49.4285714 feet per second because you didn't measure either the distance or the time that precisely. You have to settle for 49 ft/sec because that's the limit of the accuracy of your measurement.
Same thing applies to baseball. When the top of the strike zone is defined as a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the bottom of the strike zone is defined as a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap, it is not scientific to pretend that advanced sensors can judge strikes to the fraction of an inch. The zone isn't defined to that level of precision, so you can't pretend to measure it to that level of precision.
It's just science, folks.
The purpose of the strike zone is to make pitchers throw the ball where batters have a fair opportunity to hit it. The vagueness of the definition of the zone is not a weakness in the rule--rather it assigns responsibility to the umpire to account for the infinite variety of stances, body shapes and uniform preferences to determine a fair zone. That subjectivity does more to protect the fairness of the competition than artificial accuracy would.
And by the way, if you really want to kill baseball in poorer neighborhoods, in poorer school districts, and at smaller colleges, create the expectation that balls and strikes need to be judged by expensive sensors and trained operators.
Here is the full quote:
The camera can see better than the human eye. It is science folks.
It is important not to change the context. There are no eyes that can see better than a camera...that is science and an unalterable fact. FWIW I would take any electronic measurement to that of the human eye or hand as superior 99.99999% of the time.
We are talking pro and college ball. There is no replay in HS or youth sports and there doesn't need to be. That is a red herring.
As for the argument that rules should be vague and defined with a certain amount of randomness by human beings is a very quaint 19th century thought in a time before the movie camera was invented. Does that apply to out/safe calls? How about fair or foul? That boat has sailed and the answer is no it does not apply we can and should do better. Why? Because camera's see better than the human eye...there is that pesky science thing again. Darn it works every time!
This is like batting helmets. When we finally do it we'll wonder two things: 1) What took us so long to do it? 2) What was the big deal?
Supplying the context about cameras doesn't address my point. I don't care how many 9's you stick to the right of the decimal point, precisely measuring the ball's relation to an imprecise point still produces an imprecise result.
My comment about youth and high school ball was not a red herring because these things do trickle down, as seen by the cool stuff they do at PG events.
However, if you want to talk about red herrings, you dragged several across the trail: batting helmets (this discussion has nothing to do about safety); fair/foul calls and safe out calls (exactly the sort of help I welcomed in my initial post).
And you appear to have distorted my point about the role of the umpire. It had nothing to do with quaint ideas about how the game may or may not have been played in the 19th century. It had to do with understanding the relative limits and advantages of subjective and objective knowledge. A blind spot of our age is to disparage subjective knowledge and to falsely equate it with randomness.
Subjectivity refers to something being determined by the peculiar condition of an individual mind. If the individual mind is one conditioned to know the game, its rules, its customs and if it is determined to promote fair competition and good sportsmanship, subjectivity is the best guarantor against randomness.
Meanwhile, your camera will give you false confidence in its precise comparison to an imprecise standard and it will be objectively fooled whenever subjective decisions are needed to correct for players who wear their pants artificially low or to decide where the shoulder ends and the neck begins or to determine where the zone should be for a player who does not have a normal stance.
We have some common ground. I agree that fair/foul calls invite precise objective measurement like on a tennis court. And I agree that safe/out and catch/no catch calls often invite scrutiny from better angles or replay at slower speeds. However, I continue to believe that the strike zone inherently requires subjective judgment--and there's nothing quaint or archaic or unscientific about my reasons.
As the dad of a pitcher, I hate the idea of a camera replacing a human. After all, this is a game, not life or death. I think the umps are pretty darn good at what they do. Of course they make mistakes, but for the most part, when slow motion replay is shown, they are correct more often than not it seems. Maybe I am just old fashion, but that is how I see it. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't really matter what I think as "they" have never asked for my opinion.
Stats from the Real Sports Episode - Professor Toby Moskowitz at Yale University evaluated every pitch in the last 3 years aobut 1M in all.
MLB claims 97% correct calls by Umps
Since 2013 Moskowitz found that Umps are only 88% accurate - 1 of 8 calls wrong and about 30,000 mistakes a year.......including the easy calls right down the gut or way off the plate not requiring a decision
When the balls are around the plate within a +/-2" or 4" border of the zone, inside averaging about 32 pitches per game......they miss at a higher rate - incorrect calls are 31.7% of the time. Just under 1 of 3 calls in that tight zone
When they are given another 1" of coverage to a 6" border total they miss about 25.9%
Also discovered bias in games favoring the home team, 8 more mistakes a game, up and inside the zone and a strike on home team...will be called ball, but visitor called a strike
Also Cubs beat Cardinals in on last call which was a strike, not a ball & run was walked in on that call. Cubs were home team the night after Moskowitz completed his study.
Playoff baseball - 2011 Game 7 Cardinals vs Rangers : Umps missed 14 calls in favor of Cardinals and only 3 in favor of Rangers - Cardinals advanced.
MLB uses the technology to grade Umpires and improve their performance
Pitches were also evaluated by a 3rd party independent expert and all the math checked out and confirmed Yale's findings.
Things that make you go hmmm...........
One thing that I have found is that those who go to critiquing the judges are usually wrong. The other night the MLB network hosts were about to blow a gasket over a missed ground-rule double that ended up scoring a winning run. The talking-head went on-and-on about it and how they were going to have to come back and finish the game, and the umpires had done the team wrong by leaving the field and refusing to make the two teams come back out and play. Turns out, the umpires had done their jobs correctly according to the rules as laid out. Can one argue that the rules pertaining to end of game situations weren't well thought out? Perhaps. But the accuser wound up with egg on his face, because the umps were right.
I would imagine that MLB, if consulted, would have something else to say about Mr. Moskowitz's position on what is a ball or a strike, and that they would likely be right.
But, if one wanted to remove the home team bias, a rule could be instituted that does not allow fans to yell at or critique the umps.
Crazy, you say? I would agree with you. I just also think it's crazy to take away human umpires. Who wants to go to a game where they either a) aren't allowed to work an ump (per my hypothetical), or b) don't do so because some computer system has sterilized the game?
End the end, we are not talking about children's lives here. It's a game...a pastime. The human element makes it more enjoyable. I can understand some replay. But turning officiating over to computers is not the way to go.
Something that makes me go hmmmm . . .
If you go to the PITCHf/x site or watch the televised depiction of the pitch locations, they represent the strike zone as a two-dimensional rectangle.
But we know the strike zone has both depth and shape. It is a rectangular solid for the first 8-1/2" of its depth, then it becomes increasingly narrow until it reaches the point of the plate.
I see lots of pitches become strikes that are not strikes at the front of the plate, such as the bottom-of-ball/top-of-zone/back of zone pitch. And I see lots of pitches that appear to be strikes based on where they are received that didn't fall within the 17-inch breadth of the plate until after they reached the depth where the plate narrows.
I work hard to keep my face in the zone to see those pitches.
When I see academic certainty that relies on two dimensional representations of the zone, I remain skeptical.
I'm thinking I read somewhere once that the PITCHf/x or some other similar product was in fact two dimensional at the front edge of the plate. I can only assume the current technology can model the 3-D strike zone and track the path of the ball through the entire length (depth?) of the zone. At a minimum, you could get away with maybe 3-4 two dimensional cuts through the zone and get a pretty good 3-D representation without using any additional technology.
Shoveit4Ks posted:Stats from the Real Sports Episode - Professor Toby Moskowitz at Yale University evaluated every pitch in the last 3 years aobut 1M in all.
MLB claims 97% correct calls by Umps
Since 2013 Moskowitz found that Umps are only 88% accurate - 1 of 8 calls wrong and about 30,000 mistakes a year.......including the easy calls right down the gut or way off the plate not requiring a decision
When the balls are around the plate within a +/-2" or 4" border of the zone, inside averaging about 32 pitches per game......they miss at a higher rate - incorrect calls are 31.7% of the time. Just under 1 of 3 calls in that tight zone
When they are given another 1" of coverage to a 6" border total they miss about 25.9%
Also discovered bias in games favoring the home team, 8 more mistakes a game, up and inside the zone and a strike on home team...will be called ball, but visitor called a strike
Also Cubs beat Cardinals in on last call which was a strike, not a ball & run was walked in on that call. Cubs were home team the night after Moskowitz completed his study.
Playoff baseball - 2011 Game 7 Cardinals vs Rangers : Umps missed 14 calls in favor of Cardinals and only 3 in favor of Rangers - Cardinals advanced.
MLB uses the technology to grade Umpires and improve their performance
Pitches were also evaluated by a 3rd party independent expert and all the math checked out and confirmed Yale's findings.
Things that make you go hmmm...........
Little hard to give or deny credence to this without his methodology. For example, if he's using a strike zone that is 17" wide, it's incorrect. The strike zone is actually about 20" wide.
When you say about 33% of umpire calls are incorrect, you're assuming the computer models are 100% accurate. I don't completely trust it due to many of the factors Swampboy pointed out.
For those of you who've been around a while, you know I'm old school and don't like technology applied to baseball. I really think it would lessen the enjoyment of the game. Just as players are human and make mistakes, so are umpires. Umpires are as much an integral part of the game as players are and to take away from that human element of the game detracts from the character of the game - in my opinion.
While current replay rules seem ok, I still don't really like it. Mistakes are still made, even with replay... it's not perfect because you have humans interpreting what they see, or the angle isn't right or whatever the case might be. I also don't like the time it takes. Can't tell you how many times I've seen a replay and it is obvious within 15 seconds what the right call is. Yet we sit around waiting or 2 or 3 or 5 minutes for the call to be made. Really takes away from the flow of the game.
If you want 100% perfection on balls and strikes, play MLB 2016 on Xbox. If you want the real deal, keep the human element.
It does suck to be on the wrong end of a bad call. But being on the fortunate end of a bad call is like having a birthday cake for the whole team. Those ups and downs make sports interesting. Unfortunately strike zones judged by machines is coming and there isn't anyone who can do to stop it...except for maybe John Connor.
hsbaseball101 posted:It does suck to be on the wrong end of a bad call. But being on the fortunate end of a bad call is like having a birthday cake for the whole team. Those ups and downs make sports interesting. Unfortunately strike zones judged by machines is coming and there isn't anyone who can do to stop it...except for maybe John Connor.
Here's the thing...when it comes to this, baseball fans fall into two categories: those that view a baseball game as a continuous form of entertainment in its totality, and those that view a baseball game as a means to an outcome. The former is akin to someone watching a movie for the cinematography, for the character development, for all the pieces that contribute to a given moment of entertainment, and the latter watch a movie for the plot development and the ending.
The trouble is that if this is indeed inevitable, it will be a bell that can't be unrung. And if the fans in the first group find that their entertainment value in baseball is significantly diminished, then MLB will lose fans, and I see no way of fixing that after the fact. At least if it's still hypothetical, both groups can maintain interest--those that enjoy baseball now, and those that pine for that perfection in the future.
How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
Like I told my brother-in-law, if they put a sensor on my knees and mid-section, my body will be so scrunched up that the pitcher will be trying to hit a 6 inch vertical zone.
In the just my opinion category... The strike zone should be a set area regardless of the batter. Right now the strike zone is completely biased against tall hitters - another reason you see so few of them. They still call the low strike but they do in fact increase the height of the zone. And somebody crouching does NOT deserve a lower strike zone. And if a shorter batter has to hit a chest high fastball so be it. Maybe then he will know how the tall guy feels getting strikes called at the shins.
I thought the show was interesting and the data was something to think about. Umpires calling balls and strikes is the holy grail in baseball, otherwise technology has been used to augment/improve the game over the years and has helped get many calls right. Umpires are human and humans will make mistakes and continue to do so. I would argue that the depth of field or 2D argument while valid to inquire on is no less an issue the an umpire trying to determine the low point or outside part of the zone on the opposite side of where he sets up behind the catcher.
They can also add 2 more cameras, one for lefties and another for righties to get that 3rd dimension and alternate per batter. Once they do that, the argument that it isnt accurate or as accurate goes on the window.
Wondering if this technology would be accurate is a little like thinking you can hit the inside too if the ball and magically hit a line drive in the left center gap. Baseball people have to embrace technology and quit sticking their head in the sand. We have technology that can calculate spin rates - do we doubt that? If we believe in tracman and pitch fx and all that stuff this seems pretty basic to me. And why would we enjoy mistakes? Nobody cares about the umpires. If the whole game could be done electronically somehow rendering umpires obsolete it would be a better game.
Shoveit4Ks posted:DVRd this last week and watched it last night. Major disparity on calls favoring home teams by umpires. What are your thoughts on technology augmenting the homeplate Umpires in baseball?
The key word for me is "augmentation". If we have augmentation, then I'm all for umpire and computer working together behind home plate. Any tool that can be used to help with accuracy or clarification is a step in the right direction. There is no doubt in my mind, I will see this happen in my lifetime. The stakes and money are too big in MLB for it not to happen.
Professional tennis has been using computerized line calls for years. It amazes me how often the players are wrong and the line judges are right. Love him or hate him, we have John McEnroe to thank for the early "hawkeye" system of the early 1990s. Now it is a computerized representation from many cameras. It is a great tool to call upon for a player (and umpire) who thinks they've been "hooked". The technology is similar between tennis and baseball, however how they implement in MLB is the key challenge. Once they figure that out, I think we'll be good to go.
JMO.
CaCO3Girl posted:How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
No inside info, just logical hypothetical thinking.... each player gets his pic taken once before season - in a normal stance. Measurements are made and his zone is determined. Or, there can be a variety of sizes of zones to choose from based on player height... each player is assigned a S, M, L, XL or whatever. Then, that appropriate 3D zone is applied electronically. Not really rocket science. Ball touches zone = strike.
Batter moving does not affect zone now and it wouldn't then.
They set up the strike zone when each player approaches the plate and its saved for that batter. If another batter comes up in his place, they adjust the zone by dragging the upper and lower lines as required to adjust the zone.
CaCO3Girl posted:How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
Shoveit4Ks posted:They set up the strike zone when each player approaches the plate and its saved for that batter. If another batter comes up in his place, they adjust the zone by dragging the upper and lower lines as required to adjust the zone.
CaCO3Girl posted:How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
Yeah, I just don't know how "correct" the computer would be when it comes to these guys:
http://www.thesportster.com/ba...stances-of-all-time/
EDIT: Also...would this cause a generation of hitters to change their batting stance to hunched over so the scientific zone could be tricked? I'm having a picture in my head of a person being very hunched over, having a very small strike zone according to the computer, then straighten up and hit the perfect pitch.
cabbagedad posted:CaCO3Girl posted:How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
No inside info, just logical hypothetical thinking.... each player gets his pic taken once before season - in a normal stance. Measurements are made and his zone is determined. Or, there can be a variety of sizes of zones to choose from based on player height... each player is assigned a S, M, L, XL or whatever. Then, that appropriate 3D zone is applied electronically. Not really rocket science. Ball touches zone = strike.
Batter moving does not affect zone now and it wouldn't then.
Did you guys forget about my recommendation to use NASCAR's laser inspection? Had some time to think about it and now think having each player get modeled in 3-D would be an even better idea. TV could trot out the 3-D image along with the assigned strike zone and replace those stupid real life PITCHf/x replays with something that looks like MLB 2016. Come to think of it, MLB 2016 could actually use the actual 3-D imaging for their game simulations. Maybe TV could also have the 3-D image react appropriately given the call.
How about using the heads up display used by fighter pilots. I heard the F35 helmet syncs up with exterior cameras so when the pilot looks at the floor between his feet, he actually see the ground below him. Pipe in the strike zone to the heads up display and maybe have it light up with the path of the ball and you've got this thing figured out.
Again I could care less what stance the hitter uses. The zone would be the zone if I were in charge. Same if you stood straight as an arrow. Same if you hunched like Oscar gamble. Same if you are 6'11" and same if you are 5'3". Like 20" off the ground to 44" off the ground. If it were different by a couple inches one way or another so be it. But the exact same size for every hitter. Because 6'3"+ represents only a couple percent of society nobody really cares how hard it is for the tall guy. constantly called upon to hit balls at their shins. But heaven forbid the short guy have to go up and get one at his chest! Yes this is personal for me. I plead 100% guilty. My sons chances of being a college positional player are slim even if travel ball had an accurate electronic strike zone. He kind of just ain't good enough. But in the meantime he is good enough to have some fun as a kid and get some hits. But where do you think a kid is going to pitch a 6'4" hitter? And if he legit punches him out at the knees then kudos to the pitcher. But when umpires CONSISTENTLY ignore where the knees are and call strikes like they would for a 5'4" kid and he is asked to hit a ball on the outside corner (or 4" further out) and at his shins??? I realize this kind of change would be further down the road for youth ball and it will never benefit him but for all the talk kids who follow I say go electronic and get rid of mr biased (or just plain ignorant as in not thinking about it - not as in rude) umpire.
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.
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.
CaCO3Girl posted:
How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. (For diagram of STRIKE ZONE see Appendix 5.)
There are likely a lot of different ways to interpret “the batter’s stance as s/he’s prepared to swing at a pitched ball” so I’m fairly sure everything from having the zone based strictly on a player’s height to having it adjusted for every pitch would eventually be backed by someone.
That being said, something that can’t be argued is that once programmed, a computer will make the correct “adjustments” much more consistently than any human. Remember, the computer will make the same “adjustment” no matter what, while those same “adjustments” will be made differently for every umpire and every differing set of conditions.
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.
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 1st 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.
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.
Stats4Gnats posted:
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.
I think you're missing the point of competition in this case. With any skill, if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. For officials, the ends aren't to be the best simply for being the best; it's to be the best possible official because that's what we want to be. This is no difference than being a Dr. Andrews or something like that...he's not putting the time into his craft to win awards; he's doing it to provide the best possible service and to be in demand.
So, HBO has been running a special in my area and I was able to actually see the full Real Sports segment with my oldest son. A couple thoughts as I watched the segment:
1) Eric Byrnes is hell-bent on making this happen a la John McEnroe in tennis 30 years ago. Based on Byrnes comments and the interviewed minor league coach, this is something they would like to at least try. Byrnes comments about current players (not) speaking out for something like this is understandable.
2) MLB is using the technology already for various purposes. However they had no comment for the segment. I'm willing to guess this has a lot to do with the umpiring union.
3) Former MLB umpire Jerry Crawford's attitude & comments blew me away especially when they referenced the DVD disk used for postgame umpire self evaluation....helps them improve their umpiring skills. Crawford said he throws it in the trash. Really? That is the kind of attitude that is going to get people fired up about the technology. That was not a smart comment to be making.
4) The big data analysis of all the pitches called correctly and incorrectly in a typical game and season was interesting. That is a lot of pitches. The Yale professor had it narrowed down to approximately 22 pitches (I think that was the number) over the course of any one game could have an influence on the outcome. How those 22 pitches got called in a 2 inch area inside/outside the strike zone had an impact on the game. His comments about the home team getting the benefit of strike zone calls was also extremely enlightening.
5) Bryant Gumbel is still a tool.
JMO.
fenwaysouth posted:
5) Bryant Gumbel is still a tool.
JMO.
+1
Matt13 posted:
I think you're missing the point of competition in this case. With any skill, if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. For officials, the ends aren't to be the best simply for being the best; it's to be the best possible official because that's what we want to be. This is no difference than being a Dr. Andrews or something like that...he's not putting the time into his craft to win awards; he's doing it to provide the best possible service and to be in demand.
Wanting to be the best at one’s endeavor has nothing to do with anything other than one’s internal makeup and pride in self. The “best” don’t need rewards to prove they’re the best. That proof comes from their peers and their own honest self-evaluation. But how does any of that bear on the topic?
No one would lose their job, in fact if anything it would create jobs for more umpires. The outcome of games wouldn’t hinge on someone’s honest mistake, purposeful wrongful call, the fans in the stands, or other things that right now have an effect.
The entire purpose, at least for me, is to make the “playing field” more even and provide rewards and penalties for what actually takes place. It’s not an indictment on anyone. It’s just that technology can do a much better job than human beings.
bballman posted:When you say about 33% of umpire calls are incorrect, you're assuming the computer models are 100% accurate. I don't completely trust it due to many of the factors Swampboy pointed out.
For those of you who've been around a while, you know I'm old school and don't like technology applied to baseball. I really think it would lessen the enjoyment of the game. Just as players are human and make mistakes, so are umpires. Umpires are as much an integral part of the game as players are and to take away from that human element of the game detracts from the character of the game - in my opinion.
While current replay rules seem ok, I still don't really like it. Mistakes are still made, even with replay... it's not perfect because you have humans interpreting what they see, or the angle isn't right or whatever the case might be. I also don't like the time it takes. Can't tell you how many times I've seen a replay and it is obvious within 15 seconds what the right call is. Yet we sit around waiting or 2 or 3 or 5 minutes for the call to be made. Really takes away from the flow of the game.
If you want 100% perfection on balls and strikes, play MLB 2016 on Xbox. If you want the real deal, keep the human element.
I think 33% is a Little high and Computers are not right 100% of the time either but I think at the current stage pitch fx is something like 99% correct.
So if umpires are wrong 10-20% but Computers only 1% it is an easy decision.
CaCO3Girl posted:How would the computer account for the batter that moves? While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created?
well a real umpire Needs to do that too.
the rule is specified as normal batting stance I think. if you crouch lower on a take that does not Count it is the stance where you hit from. MLB could Review 10 game swings of a Player and set the upper border accordingly.
maybe Review this every half season or so (or by request of the Team in case a hitter changes.
still a Little potential for error but if you make that public and open for Review of all Teams you should be able to be quite accurate.
I am not a big fan of replay either and I strongly dislike the challenge aspect of deciding if a call will be reviewed. However, I think the greater resolution of the viewing experience requires an improvement in balls and strikes called in order to protect the appearance of integrity in the game. Calling balls and strikes can be a purely objective task with current technology. It is much easier than the play review going on now, which at some level is still subjective.
IMO there is a much greater need at the lower levels where umpiring is almost never good.
PGStaff 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 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.
Exactly what I have been saying all along! Strike zone should be what it is period. A measurement from the ground to the bottom and ground to the top. Short or tall no matter. Stance? Who cares. A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. And do it electronically.
2020dad posted:PGStaff 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 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.
Exactly what I have been saying all along! Strike zone should be what it is period. A measurement from the ground to the bottom and ground to the top. Short or tall no matter. Stance? Who cares. A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. And do it electronically.
2020 and PGStaff -- wait just a minute here, you guys are both, what, 6'5"?? And your kids are/were pitchers, right? LOL
The idea behind the strike zone is to give the batter a decent chance of hitting the ball (Heck, in the early days of baseball (circa 1860s) the batter could specify where he wanted the ball pitched). With all the strikeouts nowadays, the last thing baseball needs is rule changes to advantage pitchers. Plus, it would be a trivial thing for an electronic system to be adjusted slightly for the height of the batter (and store that setting for all of the future at bats of that hitter). If spin rate, etc. can be tracked, a hitter's strike zone ought not to pose a problem.
Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure... But in favor of the hitter! The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter? Of course was the reply. I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball. Try it tall guys! And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees. Darn near impossible. Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+. And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter. Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair.
2020dad posted:Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure... But in favor of the hitter! The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter? Of course was the reply. I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball. Try it tall guys! And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees. Darn near impossible. Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+. And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter. Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair.
The strike zone doesn't end at the knees.
Swampboy posted: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.
Partially deleted for brevity by Luvbaseball
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.
Swamp - This was funny...especially the part about now we have GPS and can find spots the size of a dot anywhere on the planet....except in the Strike Zone...or at least so it seems. The Burmuda Triangle of Sports!
2020dad posted:Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure... But in favor of the hitter! The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter? Of course was the reply. I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball. Try it tall guys! And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees. Darn near impossible. Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+. And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter. Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair.
Well the kneecap of a 6"5 hitter is maybe half an Inch or so higher than the kneecap of a 6"0 hitter but the middle of the upper Body of that 6"5 hitter is at least 3 inches higher.
that means a one size fits all K Zone would be a big disadvantage for a short hitter. it also will actually promote lower strikes for tall batters because it uses a Standard kneecap height (probably would use a 6"1 guy or so as a model).
BTW if there is computerized umping of an adapted K Zone there will be no shin high strikes since the lower border is adapted.
and lastly in MLB short hitters are in a disadvantage too, because the MLB umps do at least partially call a standardized Zone against short hitters
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-altuve-strike-zone/
your Notion that the K Zone is biased against tall hitters specifically is not really true.
What you could say is that it is biased out of norm sized batters (6"-6"3 which is the height of most elite hitters).
BTW I'm all for the robo ump but would that mean that framing and receiving skills become obsolete? I would assume that with robo ump it would not matter how a catcher receives that ball as Long he prevents it from rolling to the backstop. he would still Need to catch the ball and throw out runners as well as signaling pitches but robo ump could really Change how catching is taught and scouted. catchers would lose some defensive value (it still wouldn't be an easy Position but it would Change).
I am not sure that the value of catching would diminish significantly. While the whole business of framing might go away - the job of keeping the ball in front and throwing out base runners will always be there.
You know when baseball has turned real when the catcher can stop a walk from turning into a triple. That will never change.
If you are on Twitter check out this page. https://twitter.com/UmpireEjections They post the pitch f\x ball strike calls per game.
Wow, those guys are good! 90% plusses all over the place. Some in high 90s. That's impressive. I am as impressed by a guy being able to routinely call MLB pitches correctly as I am a guy whose able to throw them or a guy who can hit them out of the park. These guys are amazing.
I've always felt that "misses" are often misses by degrees. There are big misses and there are small misses. I would love to see some stats on the "margin of error" for umps and maybe some indication of biases (maybe they are more apt to call the low strike). Any data like that floating around?
Teaching Elder posted:
Wow, those guys are good! 90% plusses all over the place. Some in high 90s. That's impressive. I am as impressed by a guy being able to routinely call MLB pitches correctly as I am a guy whose able to throw them or a guy who can hit them out of the park. These guys are amazing.
Of course they’re good! That’s never been at issue. The issue is, they could be a lot better and a lot more consistent without affecting the game adversely.
A lot better? Many are already in the high 90th percentile.
These guys are amazing in their own right, and deserve a place in baseball. Guys who are really bad, yeah, get rid of them. But, man. Over 90% accuracy. I can definitely live with that.
Any automated system will have it's degree of error. It may be smaller, so not as noticeable, but it will still be there. We aren't going to find an air-sealed perfectly called game. Can't happen.
To me it is just protesting too much to quibble over 10 out of 350 pitches called. Could one make a difference in a game? Yes. That's possible. But so can a lot of other things, including a computer that misses by 1/25th of an inch one way or another.
Let the humans do the work that they already do very-very well.