The elephant in the room - Umpires

[Thegrin]

We have computers. They can tell the difference between a tall batter and a short batter.  Once a players strike zone has been established, it makes no difference if he changes his stance.  He must own his personal strike zone.  

[mnfireman]

A batters strike zone does not change. Their stance may change, but their strike zone is supposed to remain the same as if they were standing straight up at home plate, getting ready to swing. If an umpire changes it, he is wrong. Read the rule book.

[Secondary User]

 

A batters strike zone does not change. Their stance may change, but their strike zone is supposed to remain the same as if they were standing straight up at home plate, getting ready to swing. If an umpire changes it, he is wrong. Read the rule book.

 

 

Rule 2.00: The Strike Zone

    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.

 

I would interpret that standing straight up, you are not prepared to swing at a pitched ball. The load point in a swing is a point of reference that is commonly used.  Shoulders are even, weight is distributed fairly evenly so the body isn't at an angle making midpoints and what not easy to determine.

[Thegrin]

Camera's and Computers can determine what a players strike zone is at any part of the pitch.  If they want to choose the time before the pitch or the time when the batter "loads".  I personally would choose the time when the batter loads, because that would change the least regardless of his batting stance.  

 

[spinowner]

 

Camera's and Computers can determine what a players strike zone is at any part of the pitch.  If they want to choose the time before the pitch or the time when the batter "loads".  I personally would choose the time when the batter loads, because that would change the least regardless of his batting stance.  

I suppose it's possible, but I'd like to see someone who has intimate knowledge of the technology discuss whether this would be easy or difficult to do on a consistent basis. My guess as a layman is that it would be extremely difficult. Multiple cameras would be required and the software would have to determine the exact loading point in a player's preparation to receive the pitch, which will be different depending on the situation and the pitcher. For example, compare a batter squaring to bunt against a knuckleball pitcher to the same batter preparing to swing away at a 98-mph fastball. Moreover, to make this work the system would have to be extremely fast to determine a strike zone for a pitch, load it, and then detect whether a pitch is in that zone. I'm sure there are even more issues that I'm not thinking of. I have a lot of doubt that it would be feasible.

[drjim]

This does strike me as a little of:

 

1. We have cameras and technology!

2. .......

3. Perfect strike zone!

[ashbury]

This does strike me as a little of:

 

1. We have cameras and technology!

2. .......

3. Perfect strike zone!

4. Profit!

[h2oface]

 

This is a screenshot of the very first batter Duffey faced in the game on Monday, September 14th. The home plate umpire, Chris Conroy, seemed to be having a bit of a problem warming up. Only 2 of 5 calls were correct. I guess we give him some slack, eh? After all, he is just guessing, and doing the best he can, regardless of whether it is fair to the pitcher, batter, fans, or the "game".

 

[Eris]

And then you have this.  A really bad non-strike call.  You need to have vision problems to miss this.   I also think that Jordan Baker makes the situation worse by ejecting Lackey and Contreras.  Sometimes umpires need to acknowledge they messed up, let the player vent and move on.

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-cubs-go-crazy-after-call/c-1833592183?tid=11493214

 

 

[big dog]

Terrible call, but Lackey was totally out of control.  You let a player rant and yell and physically confront like that for very long and then not only is it ridiculous, but then you have other players and eventually fans getting out of control.  Baker let him go farther than I could imagine after the walk, and then Lackey escalated after the hit.  Completely unacceptable and unsafe.

 

Bad umpiring does not excuse players going completely nuts, or we'd have George Brett pine tar incidents every night.

 

Lackey would probably try to beat up a robot, too.

 

 

[gil4]

 

I think umps are too easy a target and are unfairly blamed for losses by far too many fans.

And MLB probably has the best refs/umps of the four major sports.

Yeah, not all umps are awesome and sometimes they get something so completely wrong you can't believe it happened but I rarely see an ump unfairly call a game. If they squeeze one pitcher, they generally squeeze the other just as hard (though it may impact one style of pitching more than another).

I don't see the point in getting too upset about it. It's the nature of sports and you're going to win some bad calls and lose some others. As long as attempts are made to keep everyone honest and accurate, I can get over the occasional screw up.

Nice try, but I still don't like Phil Cuzzi.   

[IndianaTwin]

 

It's kind of amazing when only half the calls are overturned and the team gets to do a quick video review of the play before calling the challenge. That speaks volumes about the quality of umpiring in MLB.

 

Exactly. If you expanded the number of "close" plays to include all those where 1) the baserunner or fielder or on-field coach looks to the dugout and 2) the video person says, "Nope, not worth challenging," the percentage of overturns would be much lower. And the ump had to make the call instantaneously. 

 

[IndianaTwin]

 

And then you have this.  A really bad non-strike call.  You need to have vision problems to miss this.   I also think that Jordan Baker makes the situation worse by ejecting Lackey and Contreras.  Sometimes umpires need to acknowledge they messed up, let the player vent and move on.

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-cubs-go-crazy-after-call/c-1833592183?tid=11493214

 

 

I think that Baker did let Lackey vent after the initial pitch. Lackey's reaction to that call would have gotten himself ejected on many other occasions. Maddon even apparently came out on to the field to talk to Baker, which is often an automatic ejection, and he didn't get run either. To me that's an umpire letting a player vent and moving on.

 

Lackey didn't get ejected until he reacted to the umpire WHILE THE BALL WAS STILL IN PLAY after the following pitch.

 

Baker blew the call, but I think he handled the follow-up as well as possible. Letting a player vent doesn't give a free pass for the rest of the game.

(And sorry, but I think Contreras deserves a fine and possible suspension for throwing the mask that bounced and hit Baker. I don't care that the mask "took a bad bounce" and that there was no intent. If he knew better than to throw it at Baker, he has to know to consciously throw it in another direction, not just straight down.)

[IndianaTwin]

 

With all due respect to the discussion, this graph sums up all you need to know on umpires

 

http://i.imgur.com/O3SUhTg.png

 

Yankess @ Braves, 8/30

(Link to the fangraphs GameGraphs page if you want)

 

Like DrJim, I work in a job where I log each play/pitch and I had the misfortune of drawing this game umpired by Ed Hickox.  Red circles out of the box (strikes called on pitches out of the zone) and black circles inside the box (balls called on pitches in the zone) are mistakes.  The couple balls directly in the middle of the zone are mistakes (PitchF/X treats balls in the dirt funny).

 

 

So what the you're saying with the last sentence is that we don't yet have the technology for the computer to get them all? 

[USAFChief]

So what the you're saying with the last sentence is that we don't yet have the technology for the computer to get them all?

Not to mention it's amazing to me an entire baseball game had the exact same strike zone, top and bottom. I guess each hitter for both teams was the exact same height with the exact same stance.

 

And the technology, without question, accurately reflects exactly where a pitch crossed a three dimensional strike zone....except the ones in the dirt. "Mistakes." We can safely assume the rest are dead on perfect though.

[jimmer]

 

And then you have this.  A really bad non-strike call.  You need to have vision problems to miss this.   I also think that Jordan Baker makes the situation worse by ejecting Lackey and Contreras.  Sometimes umpires need to acknowledge they messed up, let the player vent and move on.

 

https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-cubs-go-crazy-after-call/c-1833592183?tid=11493214

Yes, the umpire made a ball call, obviously, but the catcher was crossed up and he caught it with a downward motion making it look low.

 

In any case, you HAVE to toss Lackey and Contreras out when they act like little children.  Lackey has deserved to be tossed out so many times and hasn't that I was glad to see it this time.

[drjim]

I read about the ejection before seeing the video and thought ot would be especially egregious, but I was sympathetic to the umpire in that play. While clearly a strike, Contreras could have easily fooled him. And the ump absolutely seemed to allow quite the response after the pitch.

 

I really wonder what set Contreras off, he screwed up the play initially. 2 games seems like a fair suspension.

[drjim]

Unrelated, and I don't have a link, but I heard on a podcast recently that Rob Manfred was quoted as saying computer strike zone is actually somewhat close. Going to take a couple of years still.

[jimbo92107]

Right now bad umpires are denying credit to great pitches on multiple occasions in every game. This is just wrong, and that's just when the umpires are screwing up by accident. We all know they also get pissed off at a pitcher, a catcher, or at a batter, or an entire team, and make bad calls in anger. 

 

It has to stop, and the technology is right there. It is time for the league to install automatic strike zone tech. The ump can still stand back there (farther back, so as not to interfere with the catcher), so he can screw up calls on check swings, foul tips and such. 

[jimmer]

The very telling statement from Lackey was him whining about being denied a win. The team won, but the me first Lackey complains about being denied a win himself.

He cost himself a win by acting like a petulent child.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So what the you're saying with the last sentence is that we don't yet have the technology for the computer to get them all? 

 

or, that they have not actually put in the proper technology yet, since pitchfx is not meant for that work, and if you put in technology, it would be more advanced.....

[Craig Arko]

You could even add facial recognition technology, so it knows which players to treat differently.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

You could even add facial recognition technology, so it knows which  players  robotic player facsimiles to treat differently.

fixed that for you

[Platoon]

Say this does improve, or perfect, balls and strikes. Will this make the game better, or just the strike zone?

[Craig Arko]

Say this does improve, or perfect, balls and strikes. Will this make the game better, or just the strike zone?

Define 'better.'

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Say this does improve, or perfect, balls and strikes. Will this make the game better, or just the strike zone?

If implemented properly, the game will look exactly the same, except with a home plate umpire who is really good at calling balls and strikes.

[Platoon]

Define 'better.'

It's pretty subjective. But, to me it means will the game become even more sterile. We no longer pitch inside. Catchers have to stay off the plate. We are looking for perfection, and if we ever achieve it, it won't be a game. Players swing at pitches that bounce in the dirt, and complain about a pitch that may or may not have clipped 1/2" of the corner. I would like to see umps continue to be a part of the game. If it takes a guy in the clubhouse to review a play on slo mo before the manager drops his hankie, and then we run to the headsets, we might as well use the puter for all calls. Ugh. No that doesn't define "better", but it does define my better.

[Riverbrian]

I think the Umpires do an amazing job and I still believe strongly that the Strike Zone should be automated. 

 

I also believe the umpires want to get the call correct and will be alright with it if it does indeed get the call correct. 

[Mike Sixel]

It's pretty subjective. But, to me it means will the game become even more sterile. We no longer pitch inside. Catchers have to stay off the plate. We are looking for perfection, and if we ever achieve it, it won't be a game. Players swing at pitches that bounce in the dirt, and complain about a pitch that may or may not have clipped 1/2" of the corner. I would like to see umps continue to be a part of the game. If it takes a guy in the clubhouse to review a play on slo mo before the manager drops his hankie, and then we run to the headsets, we might as well use the puter for all calls. Ugh. No that doesn't define "better", but it does define my better.

Wut? Why are players no longer pitching inside? Why are catchers moving? Why is complaining about a call entertaining to you? Why would the game be sterile? Lots of statements that I don't understand to be true at all.

[Platoon]

Wut? Why are players no longer pitching inside? Why are catchers moving? Why is complaining about a call entertaining to you? Why would the game be sterile? Lots of statements that I don't understand to be true at all.

No one really pitches in hard off the plate. Good grief, Toronto swung like it was a slow pitch league. Why not? No one was gonna move them off the plate. Catchers have to give a route to the plate, and if you don't think computers are sterile, what exactly would be. Whoops, I forgot about complaining about a call. I didn't say it was entertaining. My point should have been more clearly made. Players kick balls, they run bases stupidly, they swing at a ball that bounces in the dirt, but then they, and the fans wonder why an umpire calls a strike the could or may not be 1/2" or less of the corner. I will add this though. If we go to computerized strike zones, then let's do the whole thing. Base calls, foul balls, home runs, everything. We use the replay for calls on the bases now, why waste time with challenges, lets just let technology do it. I prefer to keep umpires, but if Joe West was driven from the field, my view might change. .