Obviously this conversation was generated by the calls on Ortiz last Friday night. Did you know umpires screw players they don't like?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That would not let us talk about it after the game was over. Human error makes it fun!
I would like the electronic umpire. Umpires are better than ever but just like players make errors, they can't be 100% correct. Now you can say that is the human element and adds some juice to it but I think the players are enough human elements, I want the calls like it really happened.
however the focus is always on bad pitches called strikes and how it would help hitters but historically umpires have helped hitters since the 1990s and it was pitch fx that caused the zone to increase.
with an electronic umpire there probably will be more called strikes than we have now. If you want less Ks you would need to shrink the official strike zone because the machine calls everything that even just grazes any part of the zone.
Human umpires function on judgment and experience. Electronic umpires would function on programming....performing an exact task they have been told to do There would still need to be humans overseeing the electronic umpires to ensure they are performing as programmed and getting the necessary software fixes or maintenance. Electronic umpires by themselves seems a little extreme to me and takes away from a very human game or sporting event that can require interpretation.
I'm more for having the human umpires and electronic umpires work together just as they do with some of the field calls in baseball, football and tennis. Tennis is a great example because the umpire has another tool at his disposal based on the desires of the athlete to check on a line call. Heck, you've got professional men's tennis players regularly serving the ball 130-150mph between two lines.....very difficult to make a snap call on a blur whizzing by you. But my point is the human element is maintained, athletes are put in the drivers seat to challenge a call, and computers help the humans get it right. This is the path I'd like to see baseball take.
But but if you allow for challenges of strike calls that further delays games and game duration is one of the biggest media complains about the game. I would say couple pitch fx with a green light on the scoreboard and have it make calls immediately.
Dominik85 posted:with an electronic umpire there probably will be more called strikes than we have now. If you want less Ks you would need to shrink the official strike zone because the machine calls everything that even just grazes any part of the zone.
That's the rule -- not just the machine.
And, most of what is shown on your TV screen is not official and not particularly accurate (although it *might* be consistent, depending on how it's set up).
No more 3-0 gift strikes. No more catcher set up inside, reach-across to outside corner balls.
fenwaysouth posted:Tennis is a great example because the umpire has another tool at his disposal based on the desires of the athlete to check on a line call.
What the video offers to viewers is a 2D look at the pitch result, whereas the actual striking zone is a 3D box. Digital offers a means to "see" if any part of the ball touches that 3D zone, and is indisputable.
Called pitches are the core of the game. If the tools are there to get it right (and consistent), use it. The priority is to get it right: all else is secondary.
Nope. The article stated 1) MLB umpires essentially make an A to an A+ grade in most any given game. 2) At most the umpire in this game missed one call (the other disputed pitch is called a strike 94% of the time. What it did not state, though, was that Ortiz griped, whined and showed up the umpire on the sweeping slider called for a strike. He sort of got a little bit of what he deserved in my opinion.
Errors are more likely to happen with a fielder than an umpire. Batters miss perfect wheel-house pitches. We don't come down on them this way. Folks make mistakes, but let's not single out umpires, who work extremely hard to become amazingly good at what they do, for unnecessary demands and scrutiny.
Keep the human ump.
If you go with the computer, you not only get to challenge calls, but you should also get to challenge the designated "box" that has to get set for each batter. I understand with PitchFx or whatever the system is, there is still some manual input as to setting up the strike zone for each particular batter - some person out in centerfield or on some monitor "adjusts" the zone based on the batter. Maybe a team should get 8-10 challenges and must either challenge the initial call (at which point they would use the original "zone" established) or perhaps they could challenge the original "zone" - which if adjusted might result in a different call.
Now, this is not a one-sided affair. If the team batting challenges and gets a strike turned into a ball, the opposing team can then challenge the "zone" (wasn't set up low enough....) and maybe that ball could once again be turned back into a strike. Or maybe every batter would get digitally scanned before the game and their "official" zone would get constructed - maybe this would do away with making oneself small by squatting and trying to trick the umpire into shrinking the strike zone. If we start heading down this path, perhaps we could just feed the lineups into IBM's Deep Blue computer and it could spit out the winner without even having to take the field.
So what's the percentage of incorrect calls from umpires on balls and strikes?
From http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...ll-balls-and-strikes.
13-15% error rate?
Don't ever let data get in the way of rhetoric.
Get. It. Right.
Attachments
Images (1)
You're on to something there 2017, and it got me thinking. There's really no need for any umpires, are there? With camera angles and metrics we can adjudge whether a batter was thrown out at first, if the first baseman pulled early or if he made a swipe tag on a bad throw. Certainly, there will be no debates anymore as to whether a runner was thrown out or not at second. Oh, and how much easier to make balk calls? We put a timer, down to the nearest thousandth of a second, on the pitcher. If he doesn't come completely set, bam! we got 'im.
With simple apparati in gloves and bases, we will be able to without doubt know if a runner leaves early on a fly ball.
But here is where it gets really interesting. We will be able to get rid of base coaches! With cameras and metrics, all the guess work is taken out. Get the release velocity of each outfielder. Couple that with the speed of the ball traveling to the outfield, and depth of the fielder. Measure that against the known speed of the baserunner, factoring in any injuries or fatigue, and then all you need is a traffic light type of device to immediately tell the runner when he leaves the base whether to go home or stay at third.
The possibilities are exciting and endless.
It's the end of the world as we know it!
Let Blue interpret the rules, e.g., sliding, blocking, interference, etc. Lots of gray areas.
Let the electronic eye get the call right. Unless, of course, everyone can live with a 15% error rate.
Speed the game along while significantly reducing the error rate? Terrible idea.
Blue = anachronistic.
2017LHP,
If by every account and measurement a pitch not swung at called by current technology is called more accurately than any human being, and currently the calls on pitches not swung at cannot be challenged, what is the rationale behind challenging the calls if they’re made by technology? At the very worst the accuracy rate will improve. 
Even the worst umpire, Tim Welke has improved to 85%. The average since Pitch f/x was introduced has gone from 83% up to 86%, with the best getting nearly 90% of calls correct. I suspect they will continue to get better and possibly replace those who under perform.
The bottom line, 1) Some calls are simply given to a pitcher or hitter in certain counts. These will largely even out.
2) Missed calls are almost always going to be border line in or out of the zone. Pitchers and hitters will both get their share. It evens out.
3) At certain times MLB has told umpires not to call certain strikes, strikes. In the 90s a pitcher could not beg for a strike anywhere above the belt - even though technically the bottom of the letters is a high strike. It is not fair to blame the umpires for this.
4) Pitch f/x in the past has not been altered for different strike zones, and that is still a difficult thing to control for. Again, it is unfair to blame umpires for Pitch f/x's lack of capabilities. If pitch f/x calls a strike a ball, the umpire is the one who gets doubted.
5) Umpires may not call what some would like to be a strike, but most all are consistent, and players are able to know what to expect and adjust accordingly.
6) Errors and mistakes happen. Some go against you. You deal with it and move on. It's a part of life.
7) Limited replay is one thing. To take an umpire out of the game and replace him with an automated system sterilizes the game.
8) I reject the notion that the only human element of baseball is the players. Human umpires are a fixture. Try hearing a loud buzz sound out when a ball is thrown and a bing when a strike is thrown, and you'll soon feel like you're in a hospital ICU.
9) Why expect perfection from the umpires when no one else is going to be asked to rise to that level? If you do expect this, then, please ask for more accountability at work, so that you can be dealt with accordingly when you fail to perform 100%. If you believe 100% accuracy is non-negotiable, then please work with your employer to see that computers or machine with 100% accuracy can replace you on the job as soon as possible.
I accept 85% -90% accuracy. Considering that the missed calls end up evening out, that differing umpires add a valid facet to the game as well as halting the sterilization of baseball and keeping it a human sport, the answer is an emphatic yes. It's been a great sport as played and called by humans for over 150 years. I, for one, would like to see it stay that way.
The most important point, however, is that it's a stinking game, not national defense. Not rocket surgery. Nobody's dying here. Chill on the, "Anything less than 100% accuracy is unacceptable" stuff. Really!
I would love to see automated ball/strike calls and fully expect we'll get there some day, though the umpires' union may exert some pressure in this area as their CBA comes up for renegotiation from time to time.
What you're going to need are MLB rules that specify where 2 transponders should be located on player uniforms -- one in the knees area and the other at the sternum. These would establish your upper and lower limits on each player.
4 more transponders would be needed to establish the vertical posts, or side walls if you will, of the zone, using the 4 side corners of the plate.
A loud speaker or color-coded light system would let everyone know the calls instantaneously.
You'd still need the HPU to make all judgment calls including safe/out at the plate, catcher's interference, foul balls, etc., plus HPU would need to have his own ball/strike call ready in the event of a sudden system malfunction. HPU would also keep the count, or at least have the ability to override the machine if, e.g., it logs a ball but one of the umpires rules that a swing occurred. Also the HPU would have to brush home plate regularly to keep the plate's four transponders clear. (HPU should probably get some sort of alert whenever any one or more of those transponders might get obscured.)
It sounds more complex in writing than it would be for any software code writer. Most software has to address thousands more variables than this would present. This would actually be simple and it would solve a TON of problems with HPU's who like to talk about "THEIR" zone (a personal pet peeve), or favoritism/retaliation situations.
BTW, does anyone else get tired of hearing former player commentators say, "All you can ask is that the umpire be consistent"?
It's just not true. If a throw beats a runner to first, we expect the ump to make the out call. We don't say, "well, as long as this ump always rules the same way, it's OK." And we don't let a first base ump talk about "MY safe/out margins."
Here's what I expect from an HPU: Read the rule book, and enforce the strike zone as the rule book specifies it. Take your ego out of it. No one cares what YOU think the strike zone OUGHT to be. There was a meeting, this was discussed, the people in charge came to this conclusion, and you are not authorized to undermine their decision by substituting your own judgment for theirs.
Anything short of that should be grounds for termination. These guys are paid at an elite level and there's no reason not to expect that they shall perform at that level. And if they can't, it's not like there isn't a long line of qualified people just waiting for their shot.
That's the standard players and coaches live with. Why not umpires?
Teaching Elder,
I understand your point of view and feel it has substance. A few things to consider. The game has changed over the last 150yrs. It has changed a lot and it will continue to evolve. Your argument regarding work performance and if an employer would change from human to technology to improve results happens every day. Technology is at a point or close to where it could call balls and strikes at 100% accuracy. I am sure at some point it will be implemented. If it proves to be too big of an advantage to the pitcher than the game will evolve and the zone will be smaller. Think about that for a second. MLB implements the technology. Runs drop the first year. MLB has the ability to change the zone and apply it to a point they are happy with the balance between batter and pitcher.
I don't think they "need" it in the MLB but I sure would like to have it in HS ball lol.
I also think pitchers would learn a new art form of how to throw strikes. The zone is 3D, a pitcher could "find" strikes that would never be called today. Balls that bounce on the plate that nick the front lower edge on the break or nicking corners. It would/will be fun to watch it evolve.
real green posted:Teaching Elder,
I understand your point of view and feel it has substance. A few things to consider. The game has changed over the last 150yrs. It has changed a lot and it will continue to evolve. Your argument regarding work performance and if an employer would change from human to technology to improve results happens every day. Technology is at a point or close to where it could call balls and strikes at 100% accuracy. I am sure at some point it will be implemented. If it proves to be too big of an advantage to the pitcher than the game will evolve and the zone will be smaller. Think about that for a second. MLB implements the technology. Runs drop the first year. MLB has the ability to change the zone and apply it to a point they are happy with the balance between batter and pitcher.
Yes, green, the game has changed in some ways over the years, but it is still pretty much the same game. Human beings throw the ball, hit the ball with a bat, run to one of four bases in sequential order, etc. We haven't had changes such as, "No longer will the guy at the plate try to hit the ball. Instead, he will call whether it's a ball of strike. If he gets three calls correctly then he gets his base." That would be a pretty fundamental change.
This whole strike zone thing is a bunch of sound and fury over something that is really nothing.
As far as technology replacing workers, this is correct. But I am not so sure that we are really all the better for it. We praise technology, but then try to go on vacation without your office calling your cell a half dozen times, and also asking you to work several hours remotely during the time that your kids wanted some time with their parent and you wanted to relax. We replace workers with machines and then wonder what happened to the middle class and why we have huge income disparities even in the U.S.
I appreciate your thoughts and comments and hope that I don't come off as harsh or overbearing. That's not my intention.
Oh I agree, with you regarding technology and the negative impacts, but it's just a tool. The game would not fundamentally change. I remember as a kid when my dad brought home a gas weed eater. It was the holy grail. This was going to make life so much easier! Nope.. I was just expected to cut a larger area of weeds with the better tool. Same amount work.
I would guess umps didn't wear much if any protective gear in the beginning. Adding these "tools" have helped him become more accurate. That is all the technology would do. Just another tool to help him be more accurate.
Scotty83 posted:I don't think they "need" it in the MLB but I sure would like to have it in HS ball lol.
Agreed Scotty the place we need it the most we will never get it. Also it would be nice to just have one strike zone. One size fits all. The strike zone is incredibly biased against tall hitters. First of all the umps consistently still call the low strike which is so low on a talk hitter as to be just about unhittable. So they get no advantage for higher knees but you can bet mr umpire extends that zone up for the big guys. Totally totally unfair. If you named pitchers 6'5" and above you would be here forever. Start naming hitters and it will go something like, frank Howard, Dave Winfield, uh... Uh... Ok so there are another what couple dozen? Probably more counting those we never really heard of. But you get the point. It's really really hard to be a tall hitter and the umps are largely responsible for this. Make a one size fits all slightly above the short players knees and ever so slightly below the tall players knees. The short player may have to extend up a little more and crouching will no longer work either. FAIR!!
Midlo - have to call you out on placing transponders on the uniforms. I'm thinking Hunter Pencesque-type batters would love this - squat down in a ball with you chest transponder touching your knee transponder and magically your strike zone goes to zero. Again, I would say they each have to be digitally scanned - maybe a 3-d printout made of them at the beginning of the season. I could see the guy getting called up from AAA ball - fly to xyz city, check the spelling on your new jersey and drop by the local Kinko's and get a 3D printout of yourself. Not top mention that most guys' jersey size would go up 1-2 sizes (allowing for some extra sag) and pant size probably goes down 1-2 sizes where the knee kind of creeps up (don't even want to think about Bartolo wearing a medium so he can improve his on-base percentage).
On a related note, I heard they were doing away with prizes in the Cracker Jack's boxes - something about getting a redemption code so you can send away for one.
real green posted:Oh I agree, with you regarding technology and the negative impacts, but it's just a tool. The game would not fundamentally change. I remember as a kid when my dad brought home a gas weed eater. It was the holy grail. This was going to make life so much easier! Nope.. I was just expected to cut a larger area of weeds with the better tool. Same amount work.
I would guess umps didn't wear much if any protective gear in the beginning. Adding these "tools" have helped him become more accurate. That is all the technology would do. Just another tool to help him be more accurate.
There have been aspects of the game that have changed, but not many have really affected the game. I don't see umpires getting gear as tantamount to all together removing the umpire's judgement on balls and strikes. I think that we would notice an uncomfortable and rather fundamental change once the human element of calling balls and strikes was removed. Some have already stated on here that the strike zone would get more broad in ways, necessitating yet another rule change to answer the problems from the first rule change.
It is not rational to argue, "There have been changes before" to justified further rule changes. Where does it stop? Yes, there have been changes, but that doesn't mean if someone wants to move to using ping-pong balls such is automatically valid because there have been rules changes before.
The issue is really just driven by emotionalism. People get angry and demand changes that will make things go their way. Ortiz was hoping mad about a strike call that everybody on earth thinks was a ball, but the umpire AND pitch f/x new was a strike. Now why should that umpire have to suffer for our ignorance?
Those guys do a job that is worth watching and respecting in its own right. 85% - 90% correct calls over the course of a game - with many pitches being on the corner and moving in all sorts of ways. Three cheers for these guys! Keep them around just for that!
Gas weed eaters were always breaking down. I got a batter powered one for just that reason. Wasn't going to deal with it. But, I did think they were the bomb when they came out.
I think umps do a great job! There are many ways the technology could be added without it having any other impact than improving their accuracy to 100%. Maybe the ump has an indicator inside his mask or an ear phone. Who knows what the side effects could be if any?? Some possible side effects could be, less emotion from the fans and players over calls. Maybe that is a bad thing. If the tool is available than I believe it should be used.
Having the ump to blame may not be all that bad of a thing.
1) a pitcher who misses the zone can give himself the emotional consolation that the ump screwed him.
2) the hitter who is called out can give himself the emotional consolation that the ump screwed him.
These things are necessary, as athletes, and really all of us, need to avoid a complete sense of failure.
3) Without an umpire, fans in the stands won't have anyone to blame.
I do think that having a human behind the plate making real judgement calls adds to the intensity and excitement of the game. Picture this, Pitcher throws the ball. It's right on the border for an impossible to hit strike. Buzzer sounds. Fans sit there and say, "Oh, the machine said it was a strike. Must have been." How fun would that be? Talk about sterile. LOL.
Interesting debate for sure. I don't see it as sterile. I hear in my head, the fans exploding in celebration supporting their pitcher throwing the perfect strike!
I know someone who played in the Independent Game last summer in which they had a computerized strike zone, all of the hitters hated it. The strike zone was generated from the front of the plate and did not take into account where the hitters were standing in the box and they had the feeling that it did not take into account size of the player.
I did think PitchFx or some other program had the capability to track the pitch throughout the entire strike zone (3D) and not just some 2D cross section. I thought I had seen on TV the 3D representation.
Maybe they could design a hologram application that illuminated above the plate moments after the pitch where everyone could see the path the ball traveled along with the 3D representation of the strike zone. Anyone ever watch target shooting? The anticipation is immense. you see some guy squeeze the trigger - nothing really happens - then you get a close up of the target and you see a little hole. As other folks have said - boring. Last time I saw this was in the early 80's on ESPN late night. Lets draw some other analogies. Lebron driving down the lane getting ready to monster dunk and some poor guy steps in front of him. Lebron throws down, the other guy goes skidding across the floor and nobody cheers - silence - everybody turns towards the scorer's table where the play is recreated (using those fancy transponders) and the computer decides - based on some algorithm - whether it was charging or blocking. Again, sounds kind of boring. As Bryce Harper says, baseball needs to be fun again. Taking away part of that fun (i.e. umpires) so those guys making millions of dollars don't get "cheated" on a called strike (for which they really do not suffer any loss in the long run) is not something I would deem fan friendly. If the fans don't show up - either in the seats or in front of the screens - then these guys aren't going to get paid like they are today. I think they can handle a few misses during a season.
I know someone who played in the Independent Game last summer in which they had a computerized strike zone, all of the hitters hated it. The strike zone was generated from the front of the plate and did not take into account where the hitters were standing in the box and they had the feeling that it did not take into account size of the player.
Standing in the box??? Please explain how this alters one's strike zone.
IEBSBL posted:I know someone who played in the Independent Game last summer in which they had a computerized strike zone, all of the hitters hated it. The strike zone was generated from the front of the plate and did not take into account where the hitters were standing in the box and they had the feeling that it did not take into account size of the player.
I agree it would add an advantage to the pitcher. Regarding the strike zone, it is over the plate and has nothing to do with where the batter is standing in the box according to the rules.
I think one of the fundamental changes in having an automated ump would be in batters knowing that when they have 2 strikes on them, they should rely more on their ability to foul off a close pitch than an umpire seeing the pitch exactly the way the batter sees it. To me, that's one of the keys to being a good hitter.
Can robots hit, throw, run, and field better? Maybe we should all play XBOX. Part of the fun of the game is human error.
2forU posted:Can robots hit, throw, run, and field better? Maybe we should all play XBOX. Part of the fun of the game is human error.
The umps are not playing the game. No one goes to a game to watch the umps...
Umps are part of the game, consistent or not. Who does not watch the ump for calls? We are watching the outcome, good or bad, each makes a great conversation until the next game, the next batter, or even the next pitch. Even with instant replay being used in sports. The agony of defeat, via human or machine error, provides more discussion topics. Technology has put too many people out of jobs, leave sports alone (JMO).
joemktg posted:So what's the percentage of incorrect calls from umpires on balls and strikes?
From http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...ll-balls-and-strikes.
13-15% error rate?
Don't ever let data get in the way of rhetoric.
Get. It. Right.
I'm all for the electronic zone but you have to consider that the pitch fx zone has a hard cut off. That means a pitch missing 1/100th of an inch is treated equally to a miss of 10 inches. I'm sure the rate is drastically down on pitches that are in and out a ball width or more, most wrong calls are on very close misses and I doubt anyone has a problem with a ball just grazing being called a ball or a ball an inch outside being a strike.
Teaching Elder posted:Having the ump to blame may not be all that bad of a thing.
1) a pitcher who misses the zone can give himself the emotional consolation that the ump screwed him.
2) the hitter who is called out can give himself the emotional consolation that the ump screwed him.
These things are necessary, as athletes, and really all of us, need to avoid a complete sense of failure.
3) Without an umpire, fans in the stands won't have anyone to blame.
I do think that having a human behind the plate making real judgement calls adds to the intensity and excitement of the game. Picture this,
That is true I think many tennis players miss that aspect, against the machine you are really helpless and missing a channel for letting out the frustration. Sometimes it is good psychologically if you can blame someone. Easier to justify a looking k with full count if you can blame the ump
.
However overall I think it is still better if you don't have to adapt to different umpires and just have one zone. Yeah it sucks more to be called out on strikes by a machine but at least you can adjust to a fixed thing.
So I'm watching the Tigers @ Nats, with Zimmermann pitching to Murphy, men on 1st and 2nd, no outs in a 1-1 game bot 5. First pitch is at least 6 inches off the plate, called strike. That bad call changes the complete AB in a critical situation in the game. Now Murphy has to defend against stupidity, and fouls off the next pitch which was low in the zone. Now 0-2, and way behind one of the best hurlers in the AL.
One bad call can change the reflection of the game. Just one.
You HAVE to get it right.
P.S. Murphy pokes a single to LF to score 1. Nothing can stop this guy right now.
joemktg posted:So I'm watching the Tigers @ Nats, with Zimmermann pitching to Murphy, men on 1st and 2nd, no outs in a 1-1 game bot 5. First pitch is at least 6 inches off the plate, called strike. That bad call changes the complete AB in a critical situation in the game. Now Murphy has to defend against stupidity, and fouls off the next pitch which was low in the zone. Now 0-2, and way behind one of the best hurlers in the AL.
One bad call can change the reflection of the game. Just one.
You HAVE to get it right.
P.S. Murphy pokes a single to LF to score 1. Nothing can stop this guy right now.
You're about 4 inches off in the placement of that pitch, according to PitchF/X.
Matt13 posted:joemktg posted:So I'm watching the Tigers @ Nats, with Zimmermann pitching to Murphy, men on 1st and 2nd, no outs in a 1-1 game bot 5. First pitch is at least 6 inches off the plate, called strike. That bad call changes the complete AB in a critical situation in the game. Now Murphy has to defend against stupidity, and fouls off the next pitch which was low in the zone. Now 0-2, and way behind one of the best hurlers in the AL.
One bad call can change the reflection of the game. Just one.
You HAVE to get it right.
P.S. Murphy pokes a single to LF to score 1. Nothing can stop this guy right now.
You're about 4 inches off in the placement of that pitch, according to PitchF/X.
Called Ball confirmed.
With the technology available today, this shouldn't be tolerated.