Who would benefit most if technology called pitches?

Good question. I would lean toward hitters because each strike zone would be based on the height/stance of the hitter. Having said that - the pitch at the bottom of letters which is now a ball would be called a strike. But hitting that pitch is a lot easier than hitting a pitch just below the knees that they often call a K now.

Would love to see it personally - they subjective strike zone is annoying.

Depends on the ump the machine is replacing......

I believe pitchers always have the upper hand. Since hitters can only guess at the pitch being thrown to them. Although every once in a while the hitters guess correctly and/or the pitcher makes a mistake. Either way the pitcher always knows where and what he wants to throw.

This right here is an example of the way people misconceive the zone. A pitch below the knees is often a strike. 

Maybe some fans...........

 

Pitchers, Hitters and Pitching Coaches would hate it........

 

Pitchers wouldn't want the "on the black" called a ball...

Hitters wouldn't want the upper and lower extremes called a strike...

Pitching coaches would be out of jobs...throw it over the plate is not valuable advice...

 

An electronic strikezone would seem extremely tall and narrow to todays player....a floating strike zone based on height would drive the dugouts crazy....(dugouts see up and down better than anyone)

 

If pressured, I guess  I'd say that ultimately, once they adjusted, the batter would have some advantage,,,,,all they would have to do is swing at strikes....the number of walks would soar.....

 

The best pitchers I've had the pleasure to call, throw few true pitches deliberately in the strike zone....most are intended to "look" like strikes until they arent....getting a batter to chase a bad pitch would be lost.....

 

I have no dog in the fight, at the levels of baseball I do, and the # of years I have to left to effectively umpire, this will never find its way to me..... 

 

 

 

I've wondered the same thing because of the effect technology has made in professional tennis specific to calling the lines.

 

I think keeping umps is the right call, I would just like to see them call the zone as it is written. From my untrained eye and what I see on TV from when they display pitch tracks, the called zone is belt to a ball below the knee and a ball either side of the plate. It seems calling the upper part of the zone would cause one of several options, either of which may be good for the game. Putting more balls in play and/or more k's would move the game along. I don't care if runs scored goes up or down but this may also lessen pitch counts and save some arms.

I don't have to worry, because while it may find its way to me, I don't miss pitches anymore. 

you the man!

First, It's important to not conflate the dimensions or shape of the strike zone with having technology call the pitches.  Technology can use any shape of strike zone, can call the pitch at the hollow below the knee a strike or a ball.  It can deal with a defined strike zone that corresponds to the written rule or to any other shape, width, depth or height. You could even increase the size of the zone on a 3-0 count, if desired.

 

The question here is who would benefit more if the strike zone were stable and accurately called?

 

I think the benefit would fall to the better players--both hitters and pitchers, Differences in ability would become more pronounced if the players have confidence in a reproducible strike zone.  A less stable strike zone blurs the difference between good and lesser players.

Very thoughtful and insightful post. It hadn’t occurred to me to think about it from the perspective of the quality of the player, but I have no doubt your conclusion is correct.

Stats, you have a PM dialog. Of course, if you read it and thought "WTF?" I don't blame you.

My point is the pitch below the knees is not a strike according to rule book but IS often called a K.  The pitch at bottom of knees is a K according to rule book.

No misconception.

I don't know about whether pitchers or hitters would benefit much - but programmers would most certainly do well.

 

 

 

You need a new rulebook.

Not my rule book - its MLB rulebook. The hollow at bottom of knee cap is lowest line according to rule book. When I say below the knee - that is what I mean - below the rule book definition of a K. Look up rule 2.00 under strike zone. They give diagram of it on MLB.com if you care to look (page 22)
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloa...l_baseball_rules.pdf

 

We all know that the low pitch is often called a K - not arguing that. My point is that if they used technology to call a Strike and they used the rule book definition of the strike zone - many of those lower pitches would not be a K. If you look at diagram - many of the high pitches that are never called a K now would be strikes.

 

My position is that a hitter will have an easier time to adjusting to hitting the higher pitch than the lower pitch - that is why I think the hitter would benefit more that a pitcher.

 

 

I am not knowledgeable regarding umpire training but I can see where using this technology to train umpires when calling balls and strikes would be a benefit especially when it comes to consistency. At the moment everything is subjective about this subject. I can see a facility where an umpire assumes the position and calls pitches balls and strikes. The umpire's calls are then checked against the technology and adjustments can be made.  

You said a pitch below the knees is not a strike. The hollow below the knees is--you guessed it--below the knees. Thus, pitches below the knees can be strikes.

 

Also, if technology called pitches strictly by the zone, you would see the opposite effect of what you think. There would be significantly more low strikes called, since the bottom front edge of the zone is generally about 12" above the ground, and a breaking ball that just clips that is never called. That's precisely why QuesTec was removed; it was not able to adjust to "expected" balls and strikes. Umpires that were rated the best by qualitative standards were ranked the worst, because they weren't calling those strikes.

Originally Posted by snowman:

I am not knowledgeable regarding umpire training but I can see where using this technology to train umpires when calling balls and strikes would be a benefit especially when it comes to consistency. At the moment everything is subjective about this subject. I can see a facility where an umpire assumes the position and calls pitches balls and strikes. The umpire's calls are then checked against the technology and adjustments can be made.  

 

I remember back in 2004 I was at a game and chewing the fat with a couple of MiL umpires. They were talking about having the league send them a CD of games they were behind the plate, measured by Questec. So technology has been right in the middle of umpire training, at least in the professional ranks for over 10 years.

 

It’s a way to make the game better.

Originally Posted by Matt13:…

Also, if technology called pitches strictly by the zone, you would see the opposite effect of what you think. There would be significantly more low strikes called, since the bottom front edge of the zone is generally about 12" above the ground, and a breaking ball that just clips that is never called. That's precisely why QuesTec was removed; it was not able to adjust to "expected" balls and strikes. Umpires that were rated the best by qualitative standards were ranked the worst, because they weren't calling those strikes.

 

I always wondered why Questec was done away with. I just thought it was that Pitch f/x was so much better.

Based on what you stated above I would think that these umpires requesting cds of their games (I applaud them being proactive) would likely mean this wasn't a standard practice. If it was league wide policy to view the cds then the umpires would automatically receive them without asking. Since your date is 2004 do we know if it is policy in any of the pro leagues for umpires to receive such training? Additionally, I would think instant feedback on each call as it's made would be the most beneficial.  

You said a pitch below the knees is not a strike. The hollow below the knees is--you guessed it--below the knees. Thus, pitches below the knees can be strikes.

 

Matt,

 

I did not say the hollow BELOW the knee is the lower level of strike zone. The rule book says the hollow at the BOTTOM of knee cap is the lower end of strike zone. And the knee cap is technically the patella which does not cover the whole knee joint.

 

However, I understand your argument about Questec - I am not familiar with that but I can see the logic of your position.  I watch a lot of games with the 3D strike zone graphic they put up there and I see a lot of misses by the umpire. I see more misses on the upper end than I do on lower end but that is just my experience.

 

It would be an interesting study to find out among all the "misses" by the umpires over all the cames what % where at high end/outside end/lower end/inside end of K zone.

I think fans would benefit the most.

 

I get tired of having the umpires become deciding factors in games.  And since we have the tech to do it, I don't know why we wouldn't use it. 

 

HPU still needed for other things and would be available in case the system went down.

If the umpire technology is replacing is Angel Hernandez, Everybody , lol

The top of the zone is called more accurately, IMHO, than the bottom but there's little agreement on where the top  of the zone is, despite what the rule books say.   I think that there are far more misses on the lower, outside corner than anywhere else.  It's just hard to call. I've been watching a lot of 17u legion games this summer from a booth located right on the fence behind the plate and up 10' or so, and I'm seeing pitches 4"-6" inches off the black routinely called strikes.  Well, by "routinely" I mean that a bunch of those get called strikes and a bunch of those do not.  That seems very much in keeping with what I see watching MLB on TV, and particularly at lower levels like the college WS and, worst of all, the LLWS.

A. There has never been a game decided by an umpire.

B. The technology doesn't exist as of yet.

You cannot see how far it is off the plate from that vantage point.

Originally Posted by Matt13:

You cannot see how far it is off the plate from that vantage point.

 

Why is it that so many people, many of whom have never tried to call pitches as an umpire, believe they have a better view of the relation of a pitch to the strike zone from 60’ away and someplace not directly behind the plate than an umpire less than 5’ away and having called thousands of pitches?

 

 

That's a fair point if you're referring to some hypothetical fan on the fence down the line, but I've called pitches myself.  Thousands?  Maybe a couple thousand. Not particularly well, and not at a high level, but I know how it's done.  

 

Anyway, Matt, why do you say that's not a good vantage point for on and off the plate? 

Because you're blocked by everyone. Plus, unless you are at a very steep angle, you cannot reasonably assume where the ball crosses. 

 

Angel Hernandez is fantastic at calling balls/strikes

Matt,

 

Do you really believe there has never been a game decided by an umpire?  There is actual proof that several Major League games were decided by the wrong call.  If it happens at that level surely it happens at lower levels.  The replays show that umpires are wrong at times.  Without replay some of these missed calls could determine the outcome of a game. One missed call cost a pitcher a perfect game.  It actually bothered that umpire enough to make an apology.

 

Umpires are human, aren't they?  It is a very difficult job.  But even the best are wrong at times.  

No game has ever been decided by one call, one play, one error, or any "one" thing. Even a game that's won on a walkoff solo HR for the only run of the game has more to do with the factors that made it 0-0 to that point and not so much the HR.

 

I'm going to add this: I'm a Packer fan. If there ever was a game in pro sports where the argument could be made that an official decided it, it was the Fail Mary game. Even then, in a situation where the outcome hinged on the call, the call didn't decide the game--the lack of protection the Packers OL gave Rodgers played a far greater role. It shouldn't have been a low-scoring game.

Wonder if you could convince Bill Buckner that no one game was ever lost because of one error?

I don't know...I know he took it hard and tried to kill himself. He jumped out in front of a bus, but it went between his legs.

The Win Expectancy of the Dodgers in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series prior to Kirk Gibson's plate appearance was 13%, and the Leverage Index was 4.83 (layman's terms: really high leverage). That's the highest combination of Win Probability Added (87%) and Leverage Index that I've been able to find on any single postseason event in my quick perusing of Baseball-Reference.

 

The Red Sox and the Mets were tied and the Mets had runners on base when Buckner made the error. While it was certainly impactful (40% Win Probability Added), it's not really in the same stratosphere as many other single plays that had significant impact on the outcome of a single game.

 

NOTE: I'm aware the Buckner comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the nerd inside me was curious about the actual numbers. 

 

And that is more than okay.