Cameras vs Umpires -Consistency & Accuracy

Teaching Elder posted:

... But, man.  Over 90% accuracy.  I can definitely live with that.

 

....

Teach,

Not advocating for either side of this argument but I do have a different view regarding this statement.  The "over 90% accuracy" includes ALL pitches, which means it includes the majority of pitches which are clearly balls or strikes.  What we really want to see is their accuracy on close calls not swung at.  And combine those with calls that were wrong that weren't really close.  I think we would only be only talking about maybe 35-50 pitches per game so when they are often missing 10-17 of those calls (per the stats on the link), that's far less impressive...   particularly for the group that is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

Yeah, I know... right now, the hitters for all four teams aren't exactly performing at a high level right now either, and they are supposed to be the very best.

You make some good points.  And yes, those misses would probably come on close pitches.  However, the Twitter link had some interesting graphics about how close a number of pitches were and the fact that the ump had them called correctly while the fans and such griped about them.  

Also, probably more than 50 or so pitches are really close.  Big League pitchers make a living off of being consistently close.  That would be another interesting factor to look at (at which to look).

Teaching Elder posted:

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.

1^st – Many in the high 90^th percentile means at least some aren’t. But even if they all were, why is it such a crime to want to improve? Who’s getting hurt?

2^nd – No one’s arguing to get rid of anyone and I really get tired of people implying anything different.

3^rd – Yes, there will be a degree of error no matter how it’s done but why not do everything possible to reduce that error as much as possible?

4^th – I don’t know where you get “350 pitches called”. What level of games are you watching where there are 350 pitches not swung at? That’s close to 40 pitches an inning not swung at for both teams. Even in kid pitch there’s less than that. Sure a lot of things other than what the players do can affect the outcome of a game, so what?

5^th – Once again, no one’s advocating getting rid of umpires! All we’re talking about is doing the best possible job of calling pitches not swung at!!!!!!!

You seem to think it’s charming to have something in the game to argue about. While it would certainly cut down if not eliminate any arguing about pitches not swung at, I assure you that there’s plenty of other things to argue about during a baseball game.

Part of any game is the human element.  The more humanness taken out, the less intriguing it becomes.  I don't like it.  And any of you say that umpires should not be part of the game, let the players play.  Well, the game was designed to have umpires...  Umpires - and ALL their calls, good or bad - have always been part of the game.  I still believe that taking away umpire judgement is fundamentally taking away part of the game.  It just wouldn't be the same...

I have no problem with improvement.  I think umpires should constantly seek to improve.  But, this is where we have some fundamental disagreements, and where I think you are myopic in your perspective.  When the human element is removed it has a negative effect on humans.  We are social creatures, designed to interact with one another.  What if I told you right now that I am not a human, rather I am a computer program designed to simply interact with you? I have no feelings, emotions or cares.  I am just rote computer data responding to your inputs.  What if everyone else in here was the same?  Would you still drop by Hsbaseballweb to chat?

When one talks about automated or computer aided strike zones, it is not at all unreasonable, as you imply, to see that people will be taken away.   We are smart people.  We can foresee the repercussions of this.  When Walmart has self checkout kiosks, they don't hire 8 people to run those.  They have one who oversees them all.  The purpose is to get rid of humans.  But again.  That is not as wise as some might think for reasons stated above.

The cascading lust for the perfectly called game inevitably leads to increased dependence upon machinery, computers, etc.  Hence the eventual removal of the human umpire altogether.  Or do you just think that at some point people will have a "charming" affinity for umpires and not let that happen? At what point will that be?  And, why shouldn't it be now?   

We disagree fundamentally on your position that we should "do everything possible to reduce that error as much as possible."    1) I have to ask, would removing humans altogether fall within your range of "everything possible?"  If so, how does this comport with your statement that "No one is advocating removing umpires?"    2)  You seem to be treating baseball as if it's national security or fighting childhood cancer.    No.  We don't need to do everything possible to seek out the perfectly called baseball game.   

As to finding it "Charming to have something in the game to argue about."  I will freely stipulate that I think that emotions and passion are a huge part of fandom.  The more one sterilizes the game the less appeal it has to humans.  Even computer geeks like to go to a game and yell and be passionate.  If we aren't passionate then we aren't human.  And such is why we need to keep humans in the game, and quit complaining because they don't do a 100% accurate job.  

Furthermore, imagine if someone showed up at your job and said, "You do a 90% plus good job.  But it's not quite 100%.  Here's 6 months severance.  We've got a computer to do your job better."  Talk about taking all sense of personal accomplishment and will to improve away.  Talk about sucking the life out of people.  You feel called to a vocation, and you are exceptional at doing it.  But it turns out your not perfect so, in essence, you're worthless and unneeded.  A computer will be replacing you.  This is not a world that we want to enter into.

As I have stated before, I have a high degree of respect and appreciation for the work done by human umpires.  Sometimes they get things wrong.  Sometimes it affects a game.  But that is how life goes.  Until, of course, GPS comes along and insures that there are no injustices or misunderstandings, that no one gets promoted for kissing up to the boss, there's income equity and everybody marries everybody for the right reasons.

bballman posted:

Part of any game is the human element.  The more humanness taken out, the less intriguing it becomes.  I don't like it.  And any of you say that umpires should not be part of the game, let the players play.  Well, the game was designed to have umpires...  Umpires - and ALL their calls, good or bad - have always been part of the game.  I still believe that taking away umpire judgement is fundamentally taking away part of the game.  It just wouldn't be the same...

Of course it wouldn’t be the same!  The game’s not the same now as it was prior to IR, but I doubt you’d find anyone whose team has had a call overturned pitch much of a bitch even though it might have taken a few minutes to get it right. No one’s asking for anything other than getting calls correct, and in this case it would actually shorten games and keep lots of participants from getting tossed.

Teaching Elder - They've made that movie a bunch of different ways.  My favorites are Terminator and War Games.  Machines have been changing and eliminating jobs on people for 200 years. 

The pace is accelerating and with the advent of Artificial Intelligence and nearly human appearance - the robot will become the vessel of immortality.  All it takes is the ability to download memories onto a computer chip and you can live forever.  We are probably much closer to it than anyone really contemplates.  Think about this for a moment - no more children or the need for them.  All the people that will ever be born - have been born when it becomes reality. 

It really is a serious topic for a different forum since it is probably the most important issue in the world's future.  Sorry to the climate change folks - they are wrong.

It is possible Gene Roddenberry will be right about one thing....once people become immortal and no longer have to consider survival - profit and property may no longer have the central place in the affairs of the world.

On a lighter note:

Once the umpires have been replaced - we can begin the process of eliminating the players.  The $6MM Man will eliminate the need for TJ surgeries.

LB.  I will agree with you on the issue of AI.   It is indeed becoming more and more of a reality.  Computers are a lot smarter than humans.  They have the ability to store information, fragment information, compile information in ways that we simply cannot do.  They are the person with a photographic memory.  Once programed to act in certain lifelike ways, they will be very scary.  Computers could dominate us.  

Google and others are already working algorithms to predict people's habits.  Pandora, Spotify, etc., pull in your music preferences, including nuancing out such things as; "You like the Eagles but not Stevie Nix or Poco.  You like 'Already Gone' in the morning, 'Hotel California' in the afternoons and 'Peaceful Easy Feeling' in the late evening."  This is based on us clicking "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" on various songs.

I disagree that a person can live forever through memories downloaded.  Part of living is the soul.  Once it is gone a person is gone.

Elder

Luv B, your AI references are good but quite dated.  The film "Ex Machina" and the TV series "Humans" are much more relevant now. Both really good BTW.  Also good, "Mr. Robot" is not about AI per se but has a lot to say about the risks of computers being in charge of everything.  And the new HBO series "Westworld" may be the new standard very soon.

Teaching Elder posted:

  Computers could dominate us.  

Elder

Personally, I am willing to risk world domination if I can get a consistent strike zone. Small price to pay really.

This has gotten a little out there .

Bottom line, baseball is an athletic contest, not a video game. Part of the perfection of the game is the imperfection of the game. I think people need to quit taking that away piece by piece. JMHO. 

The code of conduct discussion reminded me that I recently read this well reasoned opinion piece from Straight 108 Baseball on this topic.

http://straight108.com/2017/08/21/k/

MidAtlanticDad posted:

The code of conduct discussion reminded me that I recently read this well reasoned opinion piece from Straight 108 Baseball on this topic.

http://straight108.com/2017/08/21/k/

This paragraph from the above article says it perfectly...happens at every level, HS, College and MLB.  When the zone varies 6" from the 1st to 9th innings, that's where the issue comes in.  My son is a pitcher and this could apply to them too.

"As a hitter, the biggest issues with homeplate umpires has nothing to do with the individual missed calls. The problem occurs when an umpire calls the same pitch in the same location differently, more or less making it impossible for a hitter to develop an effective way to approach each pitcher. Hitters can hit balls than are a half-inch or an inch off the plate when they know they need to cover that location. But the minute they’re unsure of how far away they have to go, they leave themselves fully exposed to the inner half of the plate. This is why so often, you’ll see an umpire nod his head after a called-strike early in the game because the hitter, usually looking at the ground to make sure he isn’t “showing up” the umpire, is asking the umpire if that location was the outermost part of the zone."

I think the robot ump will come in the next decade. I don't think the missed calls are a huge issue and baseball is doing well with them but it is a little better if you get it correct. Humanity has always used all available technology. Sometimes that means lost jobs or even lost lives but generally technology makes live easier and more convenient.

I work in machine technology often with vision systems. I generally do not like to see technology enter into sports. I was mostly against the instant replay in baseball and believe it has absolutely destroyed the flow of football. The last 2-3 minutes of every game is now one big timeout. But calling balls and strikes seems to be extremely difficult for humans and slightly above trivial for electronic vision systems. With the increase in velocity and speed of breaking pitches I feel baseball could lose integrity as a sport if technology is not employed. It could wind up like basketball which has admitted it doesn't really have a game any longer and is best compared to WWE.

Edited to point out that the technology can also be corrupted and may be harder to discern than human error.

Are children going to die if human umps make mistakes on balls and strikes?  Nope.  

Just sit back, relax and enjoy watching people play a game very well.

Teaching Elder posted:

Are children going to die if human umps make mistakes on balls and strikes?  Nope.  

Just sit back, relax and enjoy watching people play a game very well.

You obviously are not taking this seriously enough.

Ted22 posted:

I work in machine technology often with vision systems. I generally do not like to see technology enter into sports. I was mostly against the instant replay in baseball and believe it has absolutely destroyed the flow of football. The last 2-3 minutes of every game is now one big timeout. But calling balls and strikes seems to be extremely difficult for humans and slightly above trivial for electronic vision systems. With the increase in velocity and speed of breaking pitches I feel baseball could lose integrity as a sport if technology is not employed. It could wind up like basketball which has admitted it doesn't really have a game any longer and is best compared to WWE.

 

Edited to point out that the technology can also be corrupted and may be harder to discern than human error.

I would also point out that the last two big controversies involving this (Zobrist and Kinsler) both showed that the umpires were correct.

Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

Matt13 posted: …Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

 Feasible? I guess you forgot they’ve already done it in a pro ball game. And that was with Pitch F/X. With the technology available now, not to mention what’s undoubtedly in the pipe, to question the feasibility of it is akin to shoving one’s head in the dirt.

 Here’s just a few articles written about that game.

 https://www.theverge.com/2015/...me-balls-and-strikes

 http://www.pacificsbaseball.co...mputer-balls-strikes

 https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...ball-game-no-umpire/

 https://arstechnica.com/inform...a-pro-baseball-game/

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted: …Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

 Feasible? I guess you forgot they’ve already done it in a pro ball game. And that was with Pitch F/X. With the technology available now, not to mention what’s undoubtedly in the pipe, to question the feasibility of it is akin to shoving one’s head in the dirt.

 Here’s just a few articles written about that game.

 https://www.theverge.com/2015/...me-balls-and-strikes

 http://www.pacificsbaseball.co...mputer-balls-strikes

 https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...ball-game-no-umpire/

 https://arstechnica.com/inform...a-pro-baseball-game/

I guess that you forgot that we still don't have true three-dimensional strike zones in Pitch F/X, which is why the results have to be modified post-game to determine accuracy ratings. This was merely a test to see if the procedure would work, not a test of its accuracy.

Matt13 posted: I guess that you forgot that we still don't have true three-dimensional strike zones in Pitch F/X, which is why the results have to be modified post-game to determine accuracy ratings. This was merely a test to see if the procedure would work, not a test of its accuracy.

Evidently you’re not getting a look at the latest Pitch F/X capabilities.

https://baseballwithr.wordpres...-using-pitchfx-data/

 https://baseballwithr.wordpres...chfx-data-part-ii-2/

 http://www.hardballtimes.com/a...-dimensional-volume/

 But it’s really all academic because Statcast has replaced Pitch F/X. Like Pitch F/X when it 1^st got started, there are accuracy issues, but like every other such innovation, as time goes by, those issues will be addressed and resolved.

Accuracy issues?  What's the point then??  Leave the umpires and let them make the calls. They're pretty dang good, if you ask me. 

bballman posted: Accuracy issues?  What's the point then??  Leave the umpires and let them make the calls. They're pretty dang good, if you ask me. 

 No one’s saying they don’t do pretty darn well. All anyone’s saying, is pitches not swung at could be called better. Since the technology is already in place for MLB, why not use it?

 If there’s one comment that’s pretty much universal, it’s that consistency is more important than accuracy. What kind of sense does it make when not only would accuracy be improved, but consistency would be almost universal. So what argument is left other than tradition?

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted: I guess that you forgot that we still don't have true three-dimensional strike zones in Pitch F/X, which is why the results have to be modified post-game to determine accuracy ratings. This was merely a test to see if the procedure would work, not a test of its accuracy.

Evidently you’re not getting a look at the latest Pitch F/X capabilities.

https://baseballwithr.wordpres...-using-pitchfx-data/

 https://baseballwithr.wordpres...chfx-data-part-ii-2/

 http://www.hardballtimes.com/a...-dimensional-volume/

 But it’s really all academic because Statcast has replaced Pitch F/X. Like Pitch F/X when it 1^st got started, there are accuracy issues, but like every other such innovation, as time goes by, those issues will be addressed and resolved.

You've just shown what I've said. The three-dimensional aspect is still not being evaluated by any real-time system.

The second issue is touched on in your last article. The reason that the "backdoor strike" isn't being called is because it's rare that it "looks like" a strike and no one considers it a strike. Ejections are abound if you call a high strike that just touches the upper rear edge of the zone.

Matt13 posted:

You've just shown what I've said. The three-dimensional aspect is still not being evaluated by any real-time system.

The second issue is touched on in your last article. The reason that the "backdoor strike" isn't being called is because it's rare that it "looks like" a strike and no one considers it a strike. Ejections are abound if you call a high strike that just touches the upper rear edge of the zone.

MLB has replaced Pitch F/X with statcast.

Backdoor strikes aren’t call because a human being isn’t capable of discerning them accurately consistently, which is one reason why so many don’t consider it a strike. Another reason is, not everyone in the game understands that the strike zone is 3 dimensional.

Sure there would be a lot of argument if the high strike just touching the zone were called. Why? Because everyone knows high and low “float”, and the amount they float changes all the time, even with the same umpire. IOW, not many people believe umpires can accurately and consistently call high or low strikes. If there was no one to argue with, there would be no ejections for arguing pitches not swung at.

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

Stats4Gnats posted:

If there was no one to argue with, there would be no ejections for arguing pitches not swung at.

I know you said this somewhat in jest, but that's just a dumb argument. That's like saying the jails are too full, so let's get rid of the police. After all, if there are no police, there's no one to arrest anyone,  problem solved. 

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

Isn't believing that we're stuck with ball/strike mistakes forever, with no possible solution to that problem being more fatalistic? The humans that make the game wonderful are the ones pitching, hitting and fielding. The very best of the umpires are the ones who we often describe as going unnoticed.

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

As I said earlier, the only argument left is tradition.

 Why on earth would automating the strike zone in baseball be akin to living as a fatalist?

 No one has said anything about removing all human error! Jeez! Why do those who hate to see change try so hard to keep easily correctable errors that affect the game in the game? Why not just do away with umpires entirely and let the players and coaches make the calls, or have the fans in the park vote on it?

 Heck, let’s go back to the original rules since change is such a bad thing!

bballman posted:

I know you said this somewhat in jest, but that's just a dumb argument. That's like saying the jails are too full, so let's get rid of the police. After all, if there are no police, there's no one to arrest anyone,  problem solved. 

Yeah, it was said with tongue-in-cheek, but think about it. If there wasn’t anyone there making the call, who would you argue with? Even Billy Martin and Earl Weaver would pass on shaking their fist at or trying to kick dirt on a camera 100’ up in the air. I scream at my computer all the time, but I know how stupid it is.

Stats4Gnats posted:

bballman posted:

I know you said this somewhat in jest, but that's just a dumb argument. That's like saying the jails are too full, so let's get rid of the police. After all, if there are no police, there's no one to arrest anyone,  problem solved. 

Yeah, it was said with tongue-in-cheek, but think about it. If there wasn’t anyone there making the call, who would you argue with? Even Billy Martin and Earl Weaver would pass on shaking their fist at or trying to kick dirt on a camera 100’ up in the air. I scream at my computer all the time, but I know how stupid it is.

I know you have no respect for tradition, but in my mind, the controversies and arguments are part of the charm of the game. Who didn't like Earl Weaver kicking dirt on the umpires shoes??  Who doesn't like Lou Pinella getting up in the face of the umpire?  Who didn't like Bobby Cox getting kicked out of a game to stand up for his players?  It's been part of the game since the beginning. Players and managers arguing with the umpires is a fun and entertaining part of the game. The game is getting too robotic. If you want to see balls and strikes called by a computer, play MLB2017. JMHO, of course. 

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

Backdoor strikes aren’t call because a human being isn’t capable of discerning them accurately consistently, which is one reason why so many don’t consider it a strike. Another reason is, not everyone in the game understands that the strike zone is 3 dimensional.

No. Not at all. I know plenty of people (myself included) that can. A pitch that's noticeably high at the front of the zone isn't aesthetically a strike. Call it, and have a long night.

The way the de facto zone is right now is because of aesthetics. It's not because of human error. If you go to a computerized zone, it will take cultural change for participants to get used to it--you're going to see a lot of frustration for a few years. Pitches in the dirt that are by definition strikes are going to get called.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just saying that it's not feasible as of now. If it becomes available, it boils down to an argument over where the entertainment value in baseball is (and I believe I've ranted about that on a different thread, and posters have mentioned above.)

From an umpire's perspective, it would make life easier, but at the cost of some job satisfaction. When I have a great game on the dish, it is gratifying. However, it's just like any other job that becomes automated...the output might be more efficient, but the worker is less satisfied.

Will the cameras be adjusted for the height of every player?  Aaron Judge vs. Jose Altuve?

What happens when a guy squats on the last pitch?

MidAtlanticDad posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

Isn't believing that we're stuck with ball/strike mistakes forever, with no possible solution to that problem being more fatalistic? The humans that make the game wonderful are the ones pitching, hitting and fielding. The very best of the umpires are the ones who we often describe as going unnoticed.

No.  And who said there's no possible solution?  I don't dispute that good umpires go unnoticed.

Stats4Gnats posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

As I said earlier, the only argument left is tradition.

 Why on earth would automating the strike zone in baseball be akin to living as a fatalist?

 No one has said anything about removing all human error! Jeez! Why do those who hate to see change try so hard to keep easily correctable errors that affect the game in the game? Why not just do away with umpires entirely and let the players and coaches make the calls, or have the fans in the park vote on it?

 Heck, let’s go back to the original rules since change is such a bad thing!

 There are certainly more arguments than just appealing to tradition.

1) There's the argument that the technology does not allow automated zones.  

2) There's the argument that interacting with actual human beings and watching human beings do jobs and interact with one another is preferable to sitting around watching a machine crunch data and spit it out.  

3) Then there is indeed tradition, which, by the way, is not inherently bad.  

I explained the link to fatalism with the statement in quotations in my original post.  But, I will break it down into more plain terms if needed.  A true fatalist would lack any excitement, meaning or pleasure in life, because everything is just the sterile result of fate.  No personal responsibility.  No moral good or bad.  Not even pleasure in a sublime effort - for all is the result of fated events.  The home run that one hit would not be a matter of talent meets hard work, but simply it was fated to happen.  The strike out would elicit no reaction either.  It is just the movement of fate.   I really don't want to see players walk away from the plate after being called out on a borderline pitch and not care because the ball went through this 100% accurate zone and thus they are really unfazed by having struck out.  That would suck and the game would suck too.

 "No one has said anything about removing all human error! Jeez!"

    I believe that the argument for automated zones is precisely about removing all human error in that realm.

"Why do those who hate to see change try so hard to keep easily correctable errors that affect the game in the game?"  

           You just contradicted your earlier claim that you are keeping human errors in the game.  

          And, who, by the way, hates change?  Are you really making the inference that a person's lack of support for one change means they universally hate all change?  Friend, you do not have the data to be able to make such a deduction.

"Why not just do away with umpires entirely and let the players and coaches make the calls, or have the fans in the park vote on it?"  

           This is a question better directed at you than me.

"Heck, let’s go back to the original rules since change is such a bad thing!"

          Sigh.  Most all of your post/argument has been intemperate, irrational and emotionally driven.  But this is the icing on the cake.

Teaching Elder posted:

Stats4Gnats posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

I don't care if they can call 100% of pitches accurately and give pitchers the benefit of the trickiest of pitches and make hitters feel like they are sitting in a warm bath.  Automated strike zones are a dumb idea.  If folks would like to use them to highlight how good the human umps are, have at it.  Having an automated strike zone would be akin to living as a fatalist; "What is, is and nothing more."  Humans, with all of their errors, make life worth living.

As I said earlier, the only argument left is tradition.

 Why on earth would automating the strike zone in baseball be akin to living as a fatalist?

 No one has said anything about removing all human error! Jeez! Why do those who hate to see change try so hard to keep easily correctable errors that affect the game in the game? Why not just do away with umpires entirely and let the players and coaches make the calls, or have the fans in the park vote on it?

 Heck, let’s go back to the original rules since change is such a bad thing!

 There are certainly more arguments than just appealing to tradition.

1) There's the argument that the technology does not allow automated zones.  

2) There's the argument that interacting with actual human beings and watching human beings do jobs and interact with one another is preferable to sitting around watching a machine crunch data and spit it out.  

3) Then there is indeed tradition, which, by the way, is not inherently bad.  

I explained the link to fatalism with the statement in quotations in my original post.  But, I will break it down into more plain terms if needed.  A true fatalist would lack any excitement, meaning or pleasure in life, because everything is just the sterile result of fate.  No personal responsibility.  No moral good or bad.  Not even pleasure in a sublime effort - for all is the result of fated events.  The home run that one hit would not be a matter of talent meets hard work, but simply it was fated to happen.  The strike out would elicit no reaction either.  It is just the movement of fate.   I really don't want to see players walk away from the plate after being called out on a borderline pitch and not care because the ball went through this 100% accurate zone and thus they are really unfazed by having struck out.  That would suck and the game would suck too.

 "No one has said anything about removing all human error! Jeez!"

    I believe that the argument for automated zones is precisely about removing all human error in that realm.

"Why do those who hate to see change try so hard to keep easily correctable errors that affect the game in the game?"  

           You just contradicted your earlier claim that you are keeping human errors in the game.  

          And, who, by the way, hates change?  Are you really making the inference that a person's lack of support for one change means they universally hate all change?  Friend, you do not have the data to be able to make such a deduction.

"Why not just do away with umpires entirely and let the players and coaches make the calls, or have the fans in the park vote on it?"  

           This is a question better directed at you than me.

"Heck, let’s go back to the original rules since change is such a bad thing!"

          Sigh.  Most all of your post/argument has been intemperate, irrational and emotionally driven.  But this is the icing on the cake.

TE, according to the umpire, you're out.

well, at least i can get pissed about it.

bballman posted: I know you have no respect for tradition, but in my mind, the controversies and arguments are part of the charm of the game. Who didn't like Earl Weaver kicking dirt on the umpires shoes??  Who doesn't like Lou Pinella getting up in the face of the umpire?  Who didn't like Bobby Cox getting kicked out of a game to stand up for his players?  It's been part of the game since the beginning. Players and managers arguing with the umpires is a fun and entertaining part of the game. The game is getting too robotic. If you want to see balls and strikes called by a computer, play MLB2017. JMHO, of course. 

 I didn’t like any of those managers acting like ignorant buffoons, no matter what the reason! What they’ve done is encourage managers and coaches at lower levels to do the same thing, and I hate seeing it. I suppose you think what happened in yesterday’s NY/Det game was great. After all, what took place was based on tradition. If you really do like that kind of drama during games, it must be because you think the game itself is boring.

 Be that as it may, exactly what is it you want to see continue? In the rules you’re not allowed to argue how pitches are called, but it happens all the time. Why is that? It’s because many times the call was not correct, but that’s not the real reason anyone argues balls and strikes. When a manager does it, it’s almost always in some kind of pressure situation. When a player does it, it’s almost always because he’s been embarrassed. But whatever the reason or the situation, it doesn’t matter because arguing isn’t gonna change a damn thing, other than how long it takes to finish the game.

 But here’s the best part. It’s all because it’s known that umpires blow calls. You think it’s great that calls are missed and I think it’s stupid because it doesn’t have to happen. What makes it even more stupid to me, is that probably half of the arguments are BS because the call was correct!

 But all that aside, why are you assuming there wouldn’t be any more childish fits by managers or players? No one’s advocating getting rid of umpires! There will always be an umpire behind the plate because there are a lot more things he’s responsible for other than calling pitches not swung at.

 I’m not at all sure what your or anyone else‘s problem is with making sure the pitches not swung at are called as accurately as possible. Isn’t the game hard enough without having varying strike zones, and aren’t there plenty of other things to argue about during a game? It seems that you want baseball to be more like professional wrestling.

Matt13 posted: No. Not at all. I know plenty of people (myself included) that can. A pitch that's noticeably high at the front of the zone isn't aesthetically a strike. Call it, and have a long night.

The way the de facto zone is right now is because of aesthetics. It's not because of human error. If you go to a computerized zone, it will take cultural change for participants to get used to it--you're going to see a lot of frustration for a few years. Pitches in the dirt that are by definition strikes are going to get called.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just saying that it's not feasible as of now. If it becomes available, it boils down to an argument over where the entertainment value in baseball is (and I believe I've ranted about that on a different thread, and posters have mentioned above.)

From an umpire's perspective, it would make life easier, but at the cost of some job satisfaction. When I have a great game on the dish, it is gratifying. However, it's just like any other job that becomes automated...the output might be more efficient, but the worker is less satisfied.

Well Matt, while I don’t believe a large percentage of umpires can call backdoor strikes accurately on a consistent basis, I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong. And that brings up something different, perceived strike zone vs actual strike zone.

 Until relatively recently, it was virtually impossible to get an accurate reading on where a pitch was relative to the strike zone. Without being able to prove a ball in the dirt could be a strike, it’s easy to understand why umpires wouldn’t want to call them and put up with all the arguments. But this isn’t 1920. It’s easy enough for ML managers to see where every pitch was if they really want to. The problem will continue to be when batters get embarrassed.

SultanofSwat posted:

Will the cameras be adjusted for the height of every player?  Aaron Judge vs. Jose Altuve?

What happens when a guy squats on the last pitch?

They already do that.

Teaching Elder posted:  There are certainly more arguments than just appealing to tradition.

1) There's the argument that the technology does not allow automated zones.  

Who argues that?

2) There's the argument that interacting with actual human beings and watching human beings do jobs and interact with one another is preferable to sitting around watching a machine crunch data and spit it out.  

Sure. But who would even notice that it was a machine or a human “spitting out the data”? NOTHING CHANGES! There’s still an umpire behind the plate. The only difference is, that umpire won’t be calling the pitches not swung at.

3) Then there is indeed tradition, which, by the way, is not inherently bad.  

True, but it’s also not inherently good either. Think about Jackie Robinson.

I explained the link to fatalism with the statement in quotations in my original post.  But, I will break it down into more plain terms if needed.  A true fatalist would lack any excitement, meaning or pleasure in life, because everything is just the sterile result of fate.  No personal responsibility.  No moral good or bad.  Not even pleasure in a sublime effort - for all is the result of fated events.  The home run that one hit would not be a matter of talent meets hard work, but simply it was fated to happen.  The strike out would elicit no reaction either.  It is just the movement of fate.   I really don't want to see players walk away from the plate after being called out on a borderline pitch and not care because the ball went through this 100% accurate zone and thus they are really unfazed by having struck out.  That would suck and the game would suck too.

Well, in the current game with strikeouts no longer being looked at as something bad as they TRADITIONALLY have been, we’re pretty much seeing players walk away after having struck out unfazed. In fact, I never have liked seeing a player who just swung at a rotten pitch or called out because a pitch froze him, fist bumping as he comes back to the dugout.

In fact, my guess is when the zone is accurate and a player takes a close one, he’s gonna be even more PO’d because it will not only be his mistake, everyone in the world will know it.

I believe that the argument for automated zones is precisely about removing all human error in that realm.

Actually, what it does is place the onus on the hitters. The better their ability to read a pitch’s location relative to the strike zone is, the fewer bad pitches they’ll swing at and the fewer times they’ll strike out.

You just contradicted your earlier claim that you are keeping human errors in the game.  

I didn’t clam any such thing. There will always be human error in the game. The difference would be that it wouldn’t be on the umpires to make or not make that error. It would be on the players.

          And, who, by the way, hates change?  Are you really making the inference that a person's lack of support for one change means they universally hate all change?  Friend, you do not have the data to be able to make such a deduction.

To begin with, I’m neither you friend nor your enemy. Secondly I didn’t say you universally hated change.

This is a question better directed at you than me.

Why? I don’t mind umpires at all. I asked you since you’re the one who wants to see them keep making mistakes.

Sigh.  Most all of your post/argument has been intemperate, irrational and emotionally driven.  But this is the icing on the cake.

No. It hasn’t been irrational or emotionally driven. If anything, someone who argues for unconditional tradition is the one being irrational.

What it boils down to, is you only believe in changes that you think are good.

Besides tradition, I think it is part of the strategy of the game. When my pitcher son would complain that he was not getting calls, While sympathizing with him, I would ask, "What do you need to do?" Answer: Adjust. Same thing for my catcher.  As a hitter, when he complained about the strike Zone. He needs to adjust as a catcher and as a hitter. 

I have seen two different results from a perceived bad Umpire. The team adjusts and takes advantage, Or they don't and they complain. 

By the time my son was a senior in college he knew most the umpires that umped his games. He knew there tendencies, and so did his coach. If the umpire had did not call the low strike, he would not be living at the bottom of the strike zone. 

I like the human element. But I also do not like replay in baseball or football. I find robots boring. 

If they automate Swings what is next. Systems from many angles call out's. Certainly cameras with there multitude of angles can quickly process and determine if a player was caught steeling or if the ball was in the mitt before the runners foot landed on the plate? Certainly they can call foul or fair better. 

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted: No. Not at all. I know plenty of people (myself included) that can. A pitch that's noticeably high at the front of the zone isn't aesthetically a strike. Call it, and have a long night.

The way the de facto zone is right now is because of aesthetics. It's not because of human error. If you go to a computerized zone, it will take cultural change for participants to get used to it--you're going to see a lot of frustration for a few years. Pitches in the dirt that are by definition strikes are going to get called.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just saying that it's not feasible as of now. If it becomes available, it boils down to an argument over where the entertainment value in baseball is (and I believe I've ranted about that on a different thread, and posters have mentioned above.)

From an umpire's perspective, it would make life easier, but at the cost of some job satisfaction. When I have a great game on the dish, it is gratifying. However, it's just like any other job that becomes automated...the output might be more efficient, but the worker is less satisfied.

Well Matt, while I don’t believe a large percentage of umpires can call backdoor strikes accurately on a consistent basis, I’m willing to accept that I could be wrong. And that brings up something different, perceived strike zone vs actual strike zone.

 Until relatively recently, it was virtually impossible to get an accurate reading on where a pitch was relative to the strike zone. Without being able to prove a ball in the dirt could be a strike, it’s easy to understand why umpires wouldn’t want to call them and put up with all the arguments. But this isn’t 1920. It’s easy enough for ML managers to see where every pitch was if they really want to. The problem will continue to be when batters get embarrassed.

 

Let's take it a little further, and go with the hypothetical pitch in the dirt. I chose that because those are pitches that can be seen from the dugouts, and no one disputes that they are technically strikes, as everyone can see very clearly where the pitch crosses the front of the plate. Thus, the reason that those aren't strikes isn't because people think they're low, it's because they think it's an unhittable pitch and unfair to the batter to be expected to defend against them. Again, culture. (And if anyone thinks I'm saying all pitches in the dirt are strikes, I'm not.)

If this happens with no adjustment to the defined zone, you are going to see HUGE decrease in offense, and pitchers will begin to work up (fastball pitchers) and down (others) instead of in and out. Ironically, I would also anticipate an increase in HR as this happens, but more than offset by batters having to defend against the extremely low pitch. So, over time, MLB is going to have to redefine the zone, too, most likely squeezing the upper and lower boundaries a bit.

Matt13 posted:

So, over time, MLB is going to have to redefine the zone, too, most likely squeezing the upper and lower boundaries a bit.

Matt13 posted: Let's take it a little further, and go with the hypothetical pitch in the dirt. I chose that because those are pitches that can be seen from the dugouts, and no one disputes that they are technically strikes, as everyone can see very clearly where the pitch crosses the front of the plate. Thus, the reason that those aren't strikes isn't because people think they're low, it's because they think it's an unhittable pitch and unfair to the batter to be expected to defend against them. Again, culture. (And if anyone thinks I'm saying all pitches in the dirt are strikes, I'm not.)

If this happens with no adjustment to the defined zone, you are going to see HUGE decrease in offense, and pitchers will begin to work up (fastball pitchers) and down (others) instead of in and out. Ironically, I would also anticipate an increase in HR as this happens, but more than offset by batters having to defend against the extremely low pitch. So, over time, MLB is going to have to redefine the zone, too, most likely squeezing the upper and lower boundaries a bit.

LOL. Whenever I’m watching a game and see someone clobber a pitch 6” or more away from the zone, I think about the “unhittable pitch” argument. What’s funny is, it’s a good argument, but only if a batter is looking in a specific spot for a specific pitch. IOW, no one’s catching up to 96 at the top of the zone on the inside corner if he’s looking curve low and away and leaning.

 To tell the truth, I’m not at all sure the pitchers would benefit as much as the hitters. The reason is, as accurate as people think pitchers are, they aren’t. So if someone wants to nibble up and down rather than in and out, I think they’re gonna be surprised. Right now hitters have to guard against a huge zone in order to guard against the real zone plus human error and the different zones umpires have.

 I suspect the better hitters will change their preparation and concentrate on becoming more aware of the strike zone, and that will benefit them over the long run because it’s gonna be the same no matter where they go. It’ll be like having the same umpire behind the plate every game.

So the easiest umpire gig of the evening will change from the rocker to the dish, but the rabbit is going to be plenty busy chasing balls to gaps once hitters adjust.

No longer will pitchers be able to rely upon expanding the zone laterally in order to cause batters to swing off the plate inducing weak ground balls, popups, and bats broken at the handle. If a batter can lay off the high stuff (and assuming the top of the zone shrinks) - there could be plenty of offensive action in the game.

I dunno - while I get the benefit of exacting and consistent strike zone, I really don't believe it'll be a "better" change. I've said it before - some pitcher is going to perfect an eephus pitch that can nip some part of that 3d zone as seen by cameras but currently laughed at by fans, batters, and umpires...  That'll be awful! 

I agree with stats here. Many   sports had the fear that some flair of the game gets lost but  the feedback for  almost all sports that used technology was positive whether it was  IR in baseball, the hawk eye in tennis or now the IR in soccer.

Now it is frustrating if machine calls  you out on a close call (sometimes blaming an ump makes you feel better) and some tennis stars hated that helpless feeling initially but if  you get used to it it is good and you can actually incorporate such a machine for training and get more accurate.

JohnF posted: So the easiest umpire gig of the evening will change from the rocker to the dish, but the rabbit is going to be plenty busy chasing balls to gaps once hitters adjust.

No longer will pitchers be able to rely upon expanding the zone laterally in order to cause batters to swing off the plate inducing weak ground balls, popups, and bats broken at the handle. If a batter can lay off the high stuff (and assuming the top of the zone shrinks) - there could be plenty of offensive action in the game.

 I don’t think it’ll change as much as you might think. The better hitters will take advantage, but that’s not to mean all hitters will.

I dunno - while I get the benefit of exacting and consistent strike zone, I really don't believe it'll be a "better" change. I've said it before - some pitcher is going to perfect an eephus pitch that can nip some part of that 3d zone as seen by cameras but currently laughed at by fans, batters, and umpires...  That'll be awful! 

That’s already happened. It’s called slo-pitch softball. If you’ve ever watched a slo-pitch game where bombs regularly hit the stratosphere, you can imagine what it would look like using a baseball.

We should also replace base coaches with computers. A simple algorithm computes known fielder's arm strength, foot speed and glove. A camera calculates the speed at which a ball is hit to outfield. You add in the baserunner's foot speed and any injuries that he might have at the time.  Then the computer continues to monitor the runner's speed down to the hundredth of a second, maybe less, and determines whether to send him home.   Just put a stop light in the coaches box.  No, better idea.  We will put some sort of sensor on the base coach, so that everyone has the illusion that it's real people making real decisions using their own skills.  This way there's no chance for error in base running as to whether a player will get thrown out going from second to home.  

SultanofSwat posted:

Will the cameras be adjusted for the height of every player?  Aaron Judge vs. Jose Altuve?

What happens when a guy squats on the last pitch?

The rules say the height is measured in his normal batting stance so if he  crouches lower than the stance he uses to hit the zone stays the same.

But the upper boundary is the biggest issue and likely has to be set manually on  the Computer screen for each batter. But a non  robo ump has to do the same in his head...

Teaching Elder posted:

We should also replace base coaches with computers. A simple algorithm computes known fielder's arm strength, foot speed and glove. A camera calculates the speed at which a ball is hit to outfield. You add in the baserunner's foot speed and any injuries that he might have at the time.  Then the computer continues to monitor the runner's speed down to the hundredth of a second, maybe less, and determines whether to send him home.   Just put a stop light in the coaches box.  No, better idea.  We will put some sort of sensor on the base coach, so that everyone has the illusion that it's real people making real decisions using their own skills.  This way there's no chance for error in base running as to whether a player will get thrown out going from second to home.  

JEEZIS! No one’s talking about doing anything but trying to make pitches not swung at called more accurately than they are now! MLB spends millions trying to improve how humans call those pitches, and have been doing that for at least 2 decades, and it’s worked! At the professional level the strike zone has never been more accurately called. But it could still be better, and without putting one umpire out of work!

Dominik85 posted: The rules say the height is measured in his normal batting stance so if he  crouches lower than the stance he uses to hit the zone stays the same.

 Close Dom, But no cigar.

 Here’s what the rule actually says.

 OBR: 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.

But the upper boundary is the biggest issue and likely has to be set manually on  the Computer screen for each batter. But a non  robo ump has to do the same in his head...

Actually, both the upper and lower boundaries are issues because they’ll vary for every player. And you’re 100% correct that umpires have to do it too. The difference is, those limits can vary from umpire to umpire and from pitch to pitch, where the computer never changes.

 I believe that right now those limits do need to be manually set, but with the recognition software already out there, it wouldn’t take much to automate the upper and lower boundaries.

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

JEEZIS! No one’s talking about doing anything but trying to make pitches not swung at called more accurately than they are now!

 

For now.

That's what they said about IR. We're just doing it to be more accurate on those really close, game changing calls. It's expanded beyond that to any call a manager wants to protest.

This thread is about the strike zone. And the line is, it won't expand beyond this, we're just talking about pitches not swung at. Although it sounds sarcastic, Teaching Elder is right. If the strike zone deal got implemented, they would move on to something else that could be improved by computer, then something else. It wouldn't stop...

bballman posted: For now.

That's what they said about IR. We're just doing it to be more accurate on those really close, game changing calls. It's expanded beyond that to any call a manager wants to protest.

This thread is about the strike zone. And the line is, it won't expand beyond this, we're just talking about pitches not swung at. Although it sounds sarcastic, Teaching Elder is right. If the strike zone deal got implemented, they would move on to something else that could be improved by computer, then something else. It wouldn't stop...

What you seem to want is for no changes to ever take place in the game! Go back and look at how the game has changed since the 1850’s. The game has changed a great deal in the past and it's gonna change a great deal in the future. That’s just the way it is.

Why allow using pink bats and shoes on special days? Why allow throwback uniform days? Why allow weekends where guys can put whatever name they want on the uniform and wear patches saying who was special to them? Why lower the mound? Why outlaw foreign substances on the ball? Why not go back to the 1 bar catcher’s mask? Why not do away with helmets? Why not go back to 16 ML teams? Heck, let’s do away with the player’s and umpire’s unions and abolish free agency too.

 I don’t think you realize just how much the game has changed, and yet it’s healthier than ever! But who cares about that? Let’s just do away with all changes in the game because of tradition.

 Every single time there’s a change, there are those who claim doomsday for the game, but somehow the game has survived. But the bottom line is, there are 30 owners who control what’s gonna be done, and they’re gonna do whatever makes their bottom line look best. One day the research is gonna tell them to make the change and have technology call pitches not swung at, and its gonna happen no matter what traditionalists believe.

Do you read your own stuff?  You just accused bballman of not wanting any changes to take place at all to baseball.  He never stated such a thing nor has anybody else. 

Then you launched into using past changes to baseball to justify current and even future changes.  Under your own logic, you literally could not stop baseball from becoming kickball.  After all, there have been all of these changes in the past. 

Try to calm down and think about things reasonably before you post. 

Breaking news. Jessica Mendoza wants the electronic strike zone. Its a done deal. What should we debate next?

Just throwing this into the mix....all rules changes have to be approved by MLB and the MLBPA.........

How many Position Players, Pitchers and Pitching Coaches are going to be for an electronic strike zone?.......There are a vocal few yes..., but I'm willing to say that most of them would only agree to the technology being used as a training tool for human Umpires rather than have pitches called by the machine.........

Of course I have no dog in this fight, this technology will never filter down into the level of the games that I do due to Cost and the number of years I have left to Umpire higher level baseball......

I for one would love to have such a tool used to assist in training real umpires.......

Stats4Gnats posted:

Dominik85 posted: The rules say the height is measured in his normal batting stance so if he  crouches lower than the stance he uses to hit the zone stays the same.

 Close Dom, But no cigar.

 Here’s what the rule actually says.

 OBR: 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.

But the upper boundary is the biggest issue and likely has to be set manually on  the Computer screen for each batter. But a non  robo ump has to do the same in his head...

Actually, both the upper and lower boundaries are issues because they’ll vary for every player. And you’re 100% correct that umpires have to do it too. The difference is, those limits can vary from umpire to umpire and from pitch to pitch, where the computer never changes.

 I believe that right now those limits do need to be manually set, but with the recognition software already out there, it wouldn’t take much to automate the upper and lower boundaries.

Dom is correct.

piaa_ump posted:

Just throwing this into the mix....all rules changes have to be approved by MLB and the MLBPA.........

How many Position Players, Pitchers and Pitching Coaches are going to be for an electronic strike zone?.......There are a vocal few yes..., but I'm willing to say that most of them would only agree to the technology being used as a training tool for human Umpires rather than have pitches called by the machine.........

Of course I have no dog in this fight, this technology will never filter down into the level of the games that I do due to Cost and the number of years I have left to Umpire higher level baseball......

I for one would love to have such a tool used to assist in training real umpires.......

No one knows how the players would vote, but my guess is the players will do what they think will put the most $$$ in their pockets. So what it’ll be is purely a matter of marketing.

I think you’re correct that the technology won’t filter down in the near future, but then again ya never know.

Technology has been used to evaluate and train umpires for a fairly long time. I know I saw a Questec CD a Mil umpire had been given on his work in 2004.

Matt13 posted: Dom is correct.

Are you saying the rule in OB is wrong or that if the batter crouches his strike zone stays the same?

Teaching Elder posted:

Do you read your own stuff?  You just accused bballman of not wanting any changes to take place at all to baseball.  He never stated such a thing nor has anybody else. 

Then you launched into using past changes to baseball to justify current and even future changes.  Under your own logic, you literally could not stop baseball from becoming kickball.  After all, there have been all of these changes in the past. 

Try to calm down and think about things reasonably before you post. 

Yes I read what I write. Yes, I did accuse him of not wanting any changes. No, I never said he or anyone else said that.

 What I did was point out that baseball’s been changing from day one and that it will continue to evolve.

 What I said is only unreasonable to someone who refuses to understand that change is inevitable. The only people who can pick and choose what changes are made are the ML owners. As piaa-ump pointed out, there are others who have a say in rule changes, but anyone who doesn’t believe if the owners really want to have technology call pitches not swung at it won’t happen, is kidding themselves.

 Other than tradition, please explain how the game benefits from having a strike zone that isn’t called as accurately as possible.

I'm not averse to ALL change.  Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary.  What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element.  That's different in my book.  If you want perfection, play a video game.  Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before.  They are as much a part of the game as the players.  It's not JUST players playing.  It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively.  It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased.  Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game.  To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game.  Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.

Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for.  I'm fine with that.  But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.

You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes.  I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.  

As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate.  In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate.  I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.  

Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go."  On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want.  However, I would not marry a robot woman.  I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her.  Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy.  Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.

 If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves.  Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along.  I don't hold on to them blindly either.   I also believe in the law of unintended consequences.  Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.

I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.

Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go."  On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want.  However, I would not marry a robot woman.  I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her.  Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy.  Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.

Now, what does this have to do with baseball, much less the strike zone?  I'd love a robot man in the house that could knock out the honey-do list.  Of course, he would have to be a lot overweight and smell poorly at times so as to not show me up.

On a serious note, is there a system out there that does a good job showing the 3-D strike zone and the path the pitch takes?  The 2-D system I see during most games, as I understand it, is actually measuring in 3-D but for quick optics presents the pitch location in 2-D.

bballman posted:

I'm not averse to ALL change.  Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary.  What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element.  That's different in my book.  If you want perfection, play a video game.  Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before.  They are as much a part of the game as the players.  It's not JUST players playing.  It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively.  It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased.  Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game.  To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game.  Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.

Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for.  I'm fine with that.  But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.

 

I agree with all of what you said... that currently umpires are part of the game to provide an objective neutral decision on plays.   But if the technology existed that could do the same - call fair / foul - safe / out - ball / strike... and account for the variables for top and bottom of zone ... with as high or higher accuracy than a human ... the transition away from a human to a computer is inevitable.  Right, wrong or indifferent... that is human progress.  Not much different than robots replacing people on assembly lines, computers replacing accountants, scanners replacing check out clerks, computers replacing switchboard operators.   Someone once told me the best umpires are never noticed.  Will there always be a need for a human official?  Probably.  But their role may change.   It may be more administrative, less judgmental.  Lineup changes / length of time outs / warm up pitches.  I don't see the possibility of a computer identifying an illegal slide, or an illegal substance on a ball... but 15 years ago I never would have thought getting a full length movie in HD quality over my phone was possible either.  We can argue if change is better or worse for the game ... that is a point of view that may never be proven or dis-proven until the technology is implemented and tested.  The only thing that is certain is that change is inevitable.  And as this board so often reminds us ... Baseball is a game that teaches life lessons.   If this change ever materializes, it is a life lesson... we can adjust to the change, or resist and let the game pass us by.

NEWUMPIRE, I think that's a very real-world take. Thinks are indeed moving quickly.  If you go to the large chain grocery store near me, you'll see 6-8 checkers working old style.  (well, actually, old style would be working without scanners) You'll also see one person supervising a bank of self-checkout stations. That person's job is secure, for now. The others would be wise to be learning new job skills.  Like it or not,  this setup is probably analogous to where baseball will be eventually.

BTW, one other thought - read our own IFDad's son's take on robo-umping in his Straight 108 Blog. He's for it. It's his generation that will be making these decisions in the long run, not ours.

Ones thing is for certain. After Teaching Elder's post my focus has shifted from automated strike zones to more important emerging technologies.

.  LOL!

bballman posted: I'm not averse to ALL change.  Most of the changes you posted have to do with adjustments to the game involving the players and umpires themselves or celebrations/awareness efforts that are temporary.  What we are talking about with a computer calling balls and strikes is completely taking out a human element.  That's different in my book.  If you want perfection, play a video game.  Umpires, with all their warts, have been part of the game since the advent of the modern era, and before.  They are as much a part of the game as the players.  It's not JUST players playing.  It's players playing with umpires making decisions objectively.  It's a 3rd party to the game paid to make decisions on plays from a non-biased basis, since the players really couldn't make those decisions themselves without being biased.  Like it or not, umpires ARE a part of the game.  To eliminate responsibilities they have would be changing the nature of the game.  Not just making adjustments to the play of the game.

I didn’t even come close to ALL the changes since the 1850’s. I was only giving examples.

The only way it’s any different than IR is that there doesn’t have to be a time out called with a meeting and the final decision made in NY or wherever. No one is getting rid of the umpires!!!!!!! The PU is still there with all his other duties and responsibilities, and in fact will be able to likely do a better job there because he doesn’t have to worry about concentrating on the call.

Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls.

What you force with umpires calling pitches not swung at is the introduction of “adjustments” the players make to take advantage of human error. No longer will a catcher who happens to be better at framing “stealing” calls. In fact, since the call will be made as soon as the ball passes the zone, there won’t be any more “late” calls, nor will any umpire ever get blocked out by the catcher.

The responsibility for calling pitches not swung at isn’t being done away with!!!!!!! It’s just changing from a human being to something else.

Use the computers to train umps on the strike zone and what to look for.  I'm fine with that.  But to substitute computers for umpires in making on field decisions is beyond what I would consider normal adjustments/changes to the game.

How many times does it have to be said before you understand? The only decision being made is whether a pitch not swung at is in the strike zone or not! That decision is being made right now so what’s the difference? Consistency and accuracy. Evidently you’re advocating inconsistency and inaccuracy.

Teaching Elder posted:

You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes.  I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.  

Whether or not anyone wants changes or not is really immaterial to the discussion at hand because it isn’t up to anyone other than the ML owners! There have been some changes I haven’t liked much, but it isn’t up to me any more than it’s up to you or bballman! I learn to live with them because the rules have changed.

As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate.  In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate.  I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.  

If you want them accurate, why keep fighting so hard to keep them from being as accurate as possible?

Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go."  On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want.  However, I would not marry a robot woman.  I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her.  Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy.  Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.

Why are you bring in robot women for Pete’s sake? Have you run out of cogent arguments?

 If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves.  Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along.  I don't hold on to them blindly either.   I also believe in the law of unintended consequences.  Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.

 Of course that happens, but it’s a consequence of change! If change is never attempted there wouldn’t be unintended consequences from change. Sometimes ya just got go for it.

I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.

As I’ve side before, that’s been happening for close to 20 years! It’s definitely helped, but human beings have pretty much reached their limit in being able to accurately and consistently determine whether a pitch not swung at is a ball or strike.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

…On a serious note, is there a system out there that does a good job showing the 3-D strike zone and the path the pitch takes?  The 2-D system I see during most games, as I understand it, is actually measuring in 3-D but for quick optics presents the pitch location in 2-D.

https://www.sportsvideo.org/20...ch-for-mlb-coverage/

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

...

Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls.

 

...

Huh?

An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.

Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact.  Safe or out.  Fair or foul. Ball or strike.  Catch or trap.  Swing or no swing.  Set or not set.  Etc., etc.

Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".

Stats4Gnats posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

You don't have enough information to accuse bballman or anyone else of wanting NO changes.  I am quite sure that if you knew him better you might find that he is fine with many past changes and would be amenable to some additional future changes.  

Whether or not anyone wants changes or not is really immaterial to the discussion at hand because it isn’t up to anyone other than the ML owners! There have been some changes I haven’t liked much, but it isn’t up to me any more than it’s up to you or bballman! I learn to live with them because the rules have changed.

As to the matter of accurate strike zones, I certainly want them to be accurate.  In fact, I love seeing real human beings be very accurate.  I also think that human beings doing things in the world and human interaction is very important. I think that people should look up from their phones and acknowledge and interact with one another.  

If you want them accurate, why keep fighting so hard to keep them from being as accurate as possible?

Somebody might be able to put together a robot woman who knows all of my desires and serves my every need and is constructed to my personal preferences for physical attractiveness and is always "ready to go."  On paper, these things seem optimal, I'm getting everything I want.  However, I would not marry a robot woman.  I would choose a human, and step up and do my part to serve her and support her.  Even if she gets a little overweight and has times that she's tired or even grouchy.  Yes, I love my wife even when she's grouchy.

Why are you bring in robot women for Pete’s sake? Have you run out of cogent arguments?

 If I were overly wed to tradition then I would resent expansion teams and would refuse to root for the Dodgers or Giants or Braves.  Traditions are often quite good and I don't simply dismiss them out of hand or because something new comes along.  I don't hold on to them blindly either.   I also believe in the law of unintended consequences.  Sometimes we decide to change things "For the better," but end up worse off in the long run.

 Of course that happens, but it’s a consequence of change! If change is never attempted there wouldn’t be unintended consequences from change. Sometimes ya just got go for it.

I would support using automated strike zones to help train umpires to be better at what they do.

As I’ve side before, that’s been happening for close to 20 years! It’s definitely helped, but human beings have pretty much reached their limit in being able to accurately and consistently determine whether a pitch not swung at is a ball or strike.

Are you like 20 years old or something?

Stats, you are VERY deceptive with your replies by twisting what people say. Your response to my post is totally off base and completely dishonest. 

#1 - I gave examples of how I am not averse to ALL change. You twisted it to mean I was only talking about the ones you mentioned. Just because I don't like THIS change doesn't mean I don't like ANY change.  That was my point.

#2 - I never said or even implied that umpires would not be part of the game. I specifically said that one of their responsibilities would be taken away. I said it that way on purpose because I knew you would come back to say umpires will still be around. Despite my efforts, you twisted what I said anyway. 

#3 - I never even used the word "objective" in my description of the umpire's calls. I said they are a third party UNBIASED participant. That's different than objective vs subjective. 

Do do you even read my posts, or do you just spit out the same tired arguments you always do?  Come on stats. Get your stuff together. At least come up with a relevant response to what I actually posted. 

bballman posted:

Stats, you are VERY deceptive with your replies by twisting what people say. Your response to my post is totally off base and completely dishonest. 

#1 - I gave examples of how I am not averse to ALL change. You twisted it to mean I was only talking about the ones you mentioned. Just because I don't like THIS change doesn't mean I don't like ANY change.  That was my point.

#2 - I never said or even implied that umpires would not be part of the game. I specifically said that one of their responsibilities would be taken away. I said it that way on purpose because I knew you would come back to say umpires will still be around. Despite my efforts, you twisted what I said anyway. 

#3 - I never even used the word "objective" in my description of the umpire's calls. I said they are a third party UNBIASED participant. That's different than objective vs subjective. 

 

Do do you even read my posts, or do you just spit out the same tired arguments you always do?  Come on stats. Get your stuff together. At least come up with a relevant response to what I actually posted. 

He's getting pretty tiresome with his schtick, and I for one am about done with it.  What was once a healthy conversation about whether certain technologies are good for the game has become an exercise in watching Statsforgnats regurgitate baseless, unequivocal and uncharitable claims against those who disagree with him.

I guess he's shooting to save face by posting rebuttals to every post.  I hope that no-one is foolish enough to believe that he's acquitted his position well with his antics.

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted: Dom is correct.

 

Are you saying the rule in OB is wrong or that if the batter crouches his strike zone stays the same?

If the batter crouches, his zone stays the same.

Matt-

Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game.    I am curious.  And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question.   When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it.  Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick?  Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game.  And I sucked.

As for the computer umping.  I am old school.  Taking the human element out of balls and strikes takes more than just the ump out of it.  Takes a really good receiving catcher out of it too.  His ability to make a ball look like a strike is something that makes a good catcher a great catcher.  Separates a crafty veteran from a rookie.  The ability to hit corners (and utilize the gray area off the plate).  We all know a good veteran can get stuff off the plate called a strike  before a rookie can.  Its almost a respect thing from the umps.  You take the drama of a dug out chirping at an ump out of the game.  The nose to nose jawing and eventual toss of a skipper arguing balls and strikes.

ALL this changes when a computer flashes red or green for a ball or strike.  To me, its not evolving like a no catcher take out rule has evolved the position.  Its changing the game entirely.

Just my opinion.

Kevin A.

Matt's credentials in levels umpired and skill well exceeds your request for this answer  

Kevin A posted:

Matt-

Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game.    I am curious.  And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question.   When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it.  Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick?  Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game.  And I sucked.

As for the computer umping.  I am old school.  Taking the human element out of balls and strikes takes more than just the ump out of it.  Takes a really good receiving catcher out of it too.  His ability to make a ball look like a strike is something that makes a good catcher a great catcher.  Separates a crafty veteran from a rookie.  The ability to hit corners (and utilize the gray area off the plate).  We all know a good veteran can get stuff off the plate called a strike  before a rookie can.  Its almost a respect thing from the umps.  You take the drama of a dug out chirping at an ump out of the game.  The nose to nose jawing and eventual toss of a skipper arguing balls and strikes.

ALL this changes when a computer flashes red or green for a ball or strike.  To me, its not evolving like a no catcher take out rule has evolved the position.  Its changing the game entirely.

 

Just my opinion.

When I ump it is all off the batter.  I set up with my eyes at the top inside corner of the zone when the batter is in his stance.  Anything higher or more inside is a ball.  17" (width of the plate) is about the distance from my center line to the outside of my arm when at my side.  Anything outside of that is a ball.   Lower zone tracked by eyes ... my weak point but trying to get better.    Now if a batter tries to "shrink" the zone by crouching later in the count... he is not getting a lower top line.  A batter that starts crouched and then comes up to hit the ball will have a top line start higher than a batter that stands more erect at the plate.  (think Mickey Rivers).  But that top line should be in the same place relative to his body as all other batters.

In all honesty ... my zone changes by skill level.  Local Rec Ball 8-9 YO... it is pretty large.   HS varsity ... by the book.  But it does not change mid game or by count.,,, at least not intentionally.  

Kevin A posted:

Matt-

Since it seems like the zone starts at the belt and to the knees, a player crouching will bring his lower chest to the ball, which is technically a strike still but is seldom called in todays MLB game.    I am curious.  And I hope we have a high level (college or better) ump on here to answer my question.   When your umping, do you try to gauge how high a pitch is off of the batter or where a catcher catches it.  Like do you use the catchers helmet as a measuring stick?  Just curious as I never have umped before past a 8/u all star game.  And I sucked.

It's an iterative process. Very few batters go into the box doing a duck walk, so as he gets set in his stance, I make a mental note of where the bottom and top of the zone are. This is where experience comes in...there are many things that we can use to keep those consistent, and it varies from situation to situation. Where is the top in relation to my eyes in my stance? Where is the bottom in relation to the top of the catcher's bent knee? How does the batter have his front elbow? Over time, these benchmarks become subconscious, and with practice, then obsolete. At this point in my life, I know where my eyes are, I know where the plate is (it hasn't moved in 160 years,) and I can see where the top and bottom of the zone are in relation to all of that, and those benchmarks are simply sanity checks.

matt and new-   Good info!  As a parent and by default of my catching son, coach,I like learning stuff from the Umps!

One COMPLETELY side question.  Any difference on how you approach or feel behind a catcher who sits high in his stance or one who sits really tight and low to the ground?

The approach is basically the same ... but if a "high" catcher is blocking that outside / low part of the plate ... I need to raise up and adjust.    If I am 6" higher with the eyes ... then I need to adjust ... the top zone will then be my chin... 12" ... my shirt pocket ... etc...As Matt said ... just reference points that become second nature.

Kevin A posted:

matt and new-   Good info!  As a parent and by default of my catching son, coach,I like learning stuff from the Umps!

One COMPLETELY side question.  Any difference on how you approach or feel behind a catcher who sits high in his stance or one who sits really tight and low to the ground?

 

Only if his height plus positioning means I'm getting blocked out. The bigger thing for me is a catcher that likes to move side to side after the pitch has started.

again...love the info.  I honestly think Umpires should have their own "You should know.." section on here....

cabbagedad posted:

Huh?

An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.

Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact.  Safe or out.  Fair or foul. Ball or strike.  Catch or trap.  Swing or no swing.  Set or not set.  Etc., etc.

Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".

You’ve got to be kidding! If umpire calls are objective, why is there ever any question? Why are so many calls overturned?

 Look. In general I really like umpires and greatly respect what they do, but they aren’t perfect, any more than coaches, players, or even scorekeepers are. Mistakes are made, but even though they aren’t intentional, they are still mistakes. Why object to doing away with as many mistakes as possible, especially when it takes no longer?

Matt13 posted:

If the batter crouches, his zone stays the same.

WHEW! I was praying there wasn't going to be an argument about whether OBR was right or wrong.

It's sad that there is such widespread misunderstanding about whether or not crouching alters the strike zone.

If the batter crouches too much, then call a high strike, if he turns around to ask/check with you I'm thinking he probably won't do it crouched down ;-)... 

Some more recent experience during lower than HS level games is that only the short batters seem to crouch down a lot - probably because their coach told them to or they're looking for a walk and don't necessarily want to swing.

Stats4Gnats posted:

cabbagedad posted:

Huh?

An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.

Umpire calls are based primarily on objective fact.  Safe or out.  Fair or foul. Ball or strike.  Catch or trap.  Swing or no swing.  Set or not set.  Etc., etc.

Yes, there is occasional interpretation ruling but nowhere close to "if there was ever something subjective it's umpire calls".

You’ve got to be kidding! If umpire calls are objective, why is there ever any question? Why are so many calls overturned?

 Look. In general I really like umpires and greatly respect what they do, but they aren’t perfect, any more than coaches, players, or even scorekeepers are. Mistakes are made, but even though they aren’t intentional, they are still mistakes. Why object to doing away with as many mistakes as possible, especially when it takes no longer?

Once again, keep things in context if you can...  

First, I never objected to doing away with anything in this thread.  No idea where you came up with that.

Second, I was simply disagreeing with, and clarifying my reason via definition, your comment...  "Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls."

Umpires, as a general rule, don't make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion.  I don't think their assignors, evaluators and supervisors would like that much.  They make calls based on the black and white (usually) objective letter of the rules.  

To steal a phrase, what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned?   I'm pretty sure that number is quite low.  

There is a big difference between close calls/mistakes and making decisions objectively vs subjectively.

Again, I never entered the debate or discussion as it relates to whether there should be electronic ball/strike calls.

cabbagedad posted:

Once again, keep things in context if you can...  

First, I never objected to doing away with anything in this thread.  No idea where you came up with that.

Second, I was simply disagreeing with, and clarifying my reason via definition, your comment...  "Since when is any umpire’s call objective? If there was ever something subjective it’s umpire calls."

Umpires, as a general rule, don't make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion.  I don't think their assignors, evaluators and supervisors would like that much.  They make calls based on the black and white (usually) objective letter of the rules.  

To steal a phrase, what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned?   I'm pretty sure that number is quite low.  

There is a big difference between close calls/mistakes and making decisions objectively vs subjectively.

Again, I never entered the debate or discussion as it relates to whether there should be electronic ball/strike calls.

If you don’t want to see pitches called more accurately, by definition you want mistakes kept in.

 As soon as you say “as a general rule”, what you’re really saying is, “umpires sometimes make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion”. And try as they may not to, every umpire calls pitches not swung at slightly different than anyone else. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is normal and if it can be done better, why not do it?

 The percentage of calls on pitches not swung at that get overturned is zero. That is against the rules.

 OBR 8.02 Appeal of Umpire Decisions

(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.

 But, here’s a link that shows the percentage of calls that get challenged that get overturned. As you can see 48.4% of the challenges result in overturned calls. Still pretty dang good, but there’s no way that percentage could be characterized as “low”.

 Whether it’s subjective or objective really has nothing to do with anything other than being picayune. But since you did enter the debate/discussion, other than to maintain tradition, shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

...

If you don’t want to see pitches called more accurately, by definition you want mistakes kept in.

Again, I never said a word, either way, about not wanting to see pitches called more accurately.  Not sure how many times I have to say that.  And you are stretching quite a bit with your definitions again.

 As soon as you say “as a general rule”, what you’re really saying is, “umpires sometimes make calls based on their personal feelings or emotion”.

No, that's not "what I'm really saying".  Not even close.  Words in mouth again.  I see you are regaining your old form.

And try as they may not to, every umpire calls pitches not swung at slightly different than anyone else. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it is normal and if it can be done better, why not do it?

Never said either way.  That clearly was not what I commented on.

  But, here’s a link that shows the percentage of calls that get challenged that get overturned. As you can see 48.4% of the challenges result in overturned calls. Still pretty dang good, but there’s no way that percentage could be characterized as “low”.

I said "what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned?   I'm pretty sure that number is quite low."    I did not say"what percentage of calls that get challenged..."  Once again, a complete twisting of my words on your end.  I think you've set a new record.

   ....  But since you did enter the debate/discussion, other than to maintain tradition, shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?   

And, now, you want me to comment on a question from you?   ...  as if there's some chance that whatever I said wouldn't get twisted again, unless it is in perfect agreement with your position....

Nah.  Later.

cabbagedad posted:

Again, I never said a word, either way, about not wanting to see pitches called more accurately.  Not sure how many times I have to say that.  And you are stretching quite a bit with your definitions again.

I get it. You don’t care one way or the other if pitches not swung at are called more accurately. Of course anyone is entitled to comment on any thread, but if you don’t care I’m at a loss as to why you bothered.

No, that's not "what I'm really saying".  Not even close.  Words in mouth again.  I see you are regaining your old form.

Do you deny that it’s true?

Never said either way.  That clearly was not what I commented on.

Again, if you truly don’t care, why comment at all?

I said "what percentage of calls made during the course of a game do you think get overturned?   I'm pretty sure that number is quite low."    I did not say"what percentage of calls that get challenged..."  Once again, a complete twisting of my words on your end.  I think you've set a new record.

As far as I know, Reviews may be initiated either by a team's manager with limitations or by the umpires themselves. If a call isn’t reviewed, how does it get overturned?

And, now, you want me to comment on a question from you?   ...  as if there's some chance that whatever I said wouldn't get twisted again, unless it is in perfect agreement with your position....

Nah.  Later.

WOW! Talk about one way. All it takes is a simple yes or no. Here’s the question again.

“shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?”

It’s simple. Either they should or they shouldn’t. If you choose to try to qualify your answer, that’s up to you. If you just answer they should or they shouldn’t, there’s no way to “twist” it.

I think they should.

Okay. This guy is a troll.  

“shouldn’t MLB do everything in its power to make sure every call made in a game is made as accurately as possible while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game?”

A resounding NO.  MLB should spend it's time, money, power, etc promoting the game, making it accessible for the average fan, and ensuring the game continues. IMO, IR is not that important or high up on the list of things that should be done. Players, Managers, and Fans disagreeing with a call is part of the game - has been for ages. 

I think IR has shown already that it is not possible to be both accurate and not affect the flow of the game. Pace of play is a more recent focus - IR absolutely kills pace of play. I've watched games where IR is not conclusive, but it takes 3-5 minutes for that decision. It shouldn't take that long - if someone watching in super slow motion on multiple 5' wide televisions from 5 different angles cannot tell what an umpire couldn't tell from 5 feet away in less than 1/2 a second, then how can it be deemed IR is making the game more accurate and keeping the flow of the game in tact. Sure strike/ball calls made by a machine would be relatively quick/instantaneous as long as there's power. What happens in a power outage - during a day game, baseball can still be played!  Why waste a beautiful day?

One can interpret stats any way they want - you point out 48.4% of calls that are challenged and overturned, but what's not included in that number are the number of calls that aren't challenged in a game. So someone could write that because 48.4% of challenged calls are overturned that means the umpires are right only 51.6% of the time in "close plays".  That's an absurd statistic because there are a number of "close plays" that managers walk to the top step, hold their hand up, but then walk back down because some other coach/player/person in charge of helping the manager make the decision to challenge or not already decided that the call won't be overturned. BTW: that whole process takes perhaps 15-30 seconds.  If there's 20 close calls in a game we've had what 7-10 minutes of delay time just to decide that we're not going to go to IR?  That surely helps pace of play...

What is the distribution of time each IR play takes? What's the percentage of plays where there is no conclusion - that is upheld because it was impossible to make a determination? How much time is wasted waiting on this technology panacea to provide a definitive answer? 

Go with the flow... accept that players, coaches, managers, and umpires are not going to be 100% accurate and let the game flow on the field, between the lines, without interruption from external forces. 

JohnF,

 I hate to keep harping on this, but we’re not talking IR. Also, I don’t know if you missed the subtly of it, but I said “while doing its best not to affect the flow of the game”. If you watched that Mil game where they had pitches not swung at called by technology, if you didn’t know they were doing it, you’d never have seen any difference. It was that fast and unobtrusive.

 There will always be plenty to argue about during a game whether because all we’re talking about here is pitches not swung at. That leaves a heck of a lot of other things to argue about.

 Again, this isn’t IR we’re talking about. The game doesn’t stop. If power was lost, the umpires could still call pitches not swung at, but more likely every stadium has a stand-alone generator already that could be used to power whatever is necessary.

 All I did was point out what percentage of challenges are upheld, but those aren’t challenges on called pitches because that’s not allowed in the rules. There is plenty of research showing the calling accuracy of pitches not swung at. Granted, it’s pretty damn good, but it’s a far cry from been perfect.

 You keep referring to IR and how much time it takes. Believe me, I get it, but this isn’t IR. As far as I can tell from what information is available, the flow of the game on the field, between the lines, would still be without interruption from external forces. In fact, right now there’s often an interruption in the flow because someone doesn’t agree with the call of a pitch not swung at. Although it’s very seldom anyone actually questions the call of a pitch not swung at because they know it would get them run, there are ways to interrupt the game flow.

 So believe it or not, I actually agree that it would be nice to streamline the IR process because it its truly disruptive. The only thing about it is, with such a high turnover rate, it’s hard to believe the owners will do a lot to improve it.

 But just to make sure you and I are on the same track, calling pitches not swung at has nothing to do with IR, other than they could check it again if they wanted to. I also agree there’s a lot of things MLB should be doing to promote and improve the game, but those things should be done regardless of anything else that happens.

Why dont they just remove the pitcher and have a pitching machine stand at the mound?  Coach selects the type of pitch and presto......instant pitch.

Baseball is a HUMAN game.  Why the hell do you want to take out the HUMAN element?  You take away a human ump and strictly use the zone, as actually called today, and your walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.  

IR is one thing.  To challenge a bang bang play fine.  But the day they use computers to do an umps job, is the day I stop watching baseball.

Frankly I have a few choice names for those who WANT that......and none of them are good nor polite.

The more you tinker with something the better it gets? Can we get someone to touch up the Mona Lisa? Good grief. The umpires are a part of the game. They are not just people who call balls and strikes. They are a part of the game itself. They are not perfect. Thank God. Players make errors on routine plays. They are not perfect. Thank God. Imagine how much fun it would be to never see an error on a routine play? Never see a bone headed play? Never see a mistake? Never see a controversial call or questionable ball? No more bad hops - ever! No it needs to be perfect for it to be great.

What makes baseball - baseball? Its played by people who are not perfect they are just really good. Sometimes they do things and you are reminded they are not that much different than you are. You can relate. Umpires add so much to the game. In so many ways. They do an amazing job.

The human element, the elements, the fact it is not perfect is what makes it perfect. Once you make it perfect only the perfect people will be happy.

I say leave it alone. Stop. But then again I am just an imperfect guy who likes imperfect things. I can relate very well to that.

im-per-fect

not perfect; faulty or incomplete

faulty, flawed, defective, shoddy, unsound, inferior, second rate, below standard, substandard.  Yes that's me. And I like keeping company with those who are like me.

Kevin A posted:

Why dont they just remove the pitcher and have a pitching machine stand at the mound?  Coach selects the type of pitch and presto......instant pitch.

Baseball is a HUMAN game.  Why the hell do you want to take out the HUMAN element?  You take away a human ump and strictly use the zone, as actually called today, and your walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.  

IR is one thing.  To challenge a bang bang play fine.  But the day they use computers to do an umps job, is the day I stop watching baseball.

Frankly I have a few choice names for those who WANT that......and none of them are good nor polite.

What in the world are you talking about, removing the pitcher? Seems to me you’re the one wanting to remove humans.

 Why are you so sure walks will increase, pitch counts, etc.? It seems to me just the opposite will happen.

 Why are you making a difference of opinions so personal?

 They already use computers to do an ump’s job with IR, but you’re still watching.

 Like all other changes, if it comes to be, a portion of folks will be like me and welcome it, a portion will be like you and hate it, and a portion won’t care one way or the other. But if it does come about, once everyone gets used to it, in a short time everyone will wonder what all the kerfuffle was about.

Guys.  This dude is obviously a troll.  We've got a small and tight enough community here, that we can all just ignore him until he goes back to lurker status.

Holy cow Coach_May! It’s really hard for me to understand why supposedly intelligent people can’t understand that no one’s talking about getting rid of umpires! This is about forcing the game to be about the pitcher and the hitter, not the umpire who tries his best but makes mistakes.

 Do umpires work their a$$es off to do the best job they can, and feel bad when they blow a call? Of course they do! If they could call pitches not swung at perfectly, do you think they’d want to? If not, why do they spend so much time working on it?