Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm an advocate of automating the strike zone. I really like the idea of balls and strikes being called consistently every game. I would also like to see catcher pitch framing become nothing more than a historical oddity.

 

Exactly, it's not perfection I'm after.  It's consistency.

 

Unless there is one computer who is an automated Joe West, we would immediately have a better system just by replacing guys like him with a system that is more consistent.

[h2oface]

 

Well, it's been going down every year for the past 10 years, so that rate may improve further.

 

But without any clue about their magnitude, I'm not sure the raw percentage of "errors" is that meaningful anyway.

 

I mean, some percentage of pitches are going to be right on the edge. (Maybe a significant percentage, if pitchers are aiming there.) Umpire "errors" on that edge, as compared to Statcast, are going to be virtually imperceptible to the human eye (if they are even umpire errors at all -- they could be Statcast calibration/measurement errors). Why would you care if Statcast thinks a pitch is 2 microns outside, and the umpire calls it a strike?

 

Hypothetically, if those edge cases made up half of the "errors", then you're really looking at a meaningful error rate of 4.6%. Is that still too high?

 

(Keep in mind, these "error rates" are just among called pitches. 46.6% of pitches were swung at last year and thus did not require a call and are excluded from these percentages. If you are considering total pitches, you'll want to cut these error rates in half.)

 

The excercise only involves called strikes. No one needs an umpire if the ball is swung at, unless it is to enforce the rule properly (instead of guessing as at this too) that there was actually a swing or not.

 

Any wrong call is too many. But many times the umpire is just wrong the whole game at different parts of the zone, and many times by NOT microns, but 4 inches and more. And when it is with the bases loaded and two outs ...... it affects the game drastically. Human error is for the players, not the umpires. Especially since there has been a better real time option for over 10 years. Hey, it's not their fault. They are Human with a very poor site angle, and are just making a best guess. And for a catcher to try to have a skill to cheat the game/umpire/pitch with the whole pitch framing crap..... baseball's version of the flop in BB or soccer...... is not in the spirit of the rules or the game.

[h2oface]

 

Exactly, it's not perfection I'm after.  It's consistency.

 

Unless there is one computer who is an automated Joe West, we would immediately have a better system just by replacing guys like him with a system that is more consistent.

 

Ah. Consistency. Even is it is consistently wrong? Where else can you get away with consistently wrong. I can't think of one, except maybe in politics. Make the player adjust daily to a strike zone that is being modified by a person that isn't supposed to modify it? I hate that game. It only happens with humans doing the best they can (unless they have a grudge), and not with tech.

[h2oface]

 

Not all bias is bad. Expanding the zone to hurry a game through bad weather, or in a blowout. Or if two pitches in a row come in right on the edge, is it really that bad if the ump splits the difference and calls the first one a ball and the second one a strike, even if the second one was still 2 microns off the plate?

Also, this new system wouldn't eliminate bias. Most obviously, there would be bias in how the upper and lower bounds of the zone are calibrated for each hitter.

 

Well.... there goes the consistency angle, no?

 

And changing the strike zone just to get home to dinner perhaps? Hurry a game through bad weather? That's what the protocol was/is for little league. And some judges in courts. I hope that isn't happening in professional baseball...... or high school or college for that matter.

[h2oface]

 

Why would you want umpires to be perfect?  There's an entire mythology of umpires stinking at times, it's part of the game.  The umpire is one of the players on the field, just as a shortstop botches the occasional play, so too the umpire.  

 

At what point is the human element acceptable? Where is the line?

 

The line is with umpires. Players are the human element. Umpires are only part of the game because there was no other means. There is now. Umpires are the inhuman element, taking away a perfect strike from a pitcher or a perfect take from a batter. It is the close ones each player deserves the most, as that is were the biggest skills lie. Umpires take away the human element of the players talents unjustly.

[nicksaviking]

 

Merely because something has "survived" doesn't mean it can't be improved.  

 

Ask my wife if you don't believe me.

 

Sears made it a heck of a long time too.

 

But then they failed to adapt and embrace innovation.

[nicksaviking]

Well.... there goes the consistency angle, no?

 

And changing the strike zone just to get home to dinner perhaps? Hurry a game through bad weather? That's what the protocol was/is for little league. And some judges in courts. I hope that isn't happening in professional baseball...... or high school or college for that matter.

You seriously think a computer is going to be less consistent than a 60-year-old man wearing a face mask, sweating in an all black uniform standing in 95 degree July heat for three hours?

[h2oface]

 

You seriously think a computer is going to be less consistent than a 60-year-old man wearing a face mask, sweating in an all black uniform standing in 95 degree July heat for three hours?

 

???

I guess I didn't communicate well. Of course not. It is 10 years over due that the balls and strikes need to be called by tech. I wan't necessarily responding to the poster, as much as consistency. Many like to say things like "The umpire is calling it consistently...... the same for both teams." Consistently wrong, perhaps. Something a computer will not do. I think the rest of my comments show that I am advocating changing to machines calling balls and strikes. 

 

I understood that spycake was saying it was OK for an umpire to call basically the same located pitch two different things just to even things out, which I think would be horrible. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sears made it a heck of a long time too.

 

But then they failed to adapt and embrace innovation.

 

I think MLB and Sears have more in common than we baseball fans wish to admit.  (Que someone citing revenues in 3...2....1...)

[ashbury]

(Que someone citing revenues in 3...2....1...)

 

'K.

[TheLeviathan]

I can't even blame auto-correct for that one.  

[rv78]

Years ago the umps stood directly behind home plate and the catcher. Now they stand over the inside part of the plate. I would venture to guess, based on the games I watch and the strike zone called that the majority of the "missed" calls are on the outside part of the plate, whether they are over the plate or off the plate. Let's face it... Where the ump is standing he canNOT see the outside part of the strikezone. It's impossible. Try it sometime. Stand over the inside part and see if you can accurately judge the outside zone. That is something that would be easy to correct. Move 'em back over the center of the plate.

 

I heard that on average umps call 14 pitches incorrectly every game. Why not give 'em some help. Have a red and green light on the scoreboard and every time they call a pitch correctly the green light comes on, every time they call it incorrectly the red light comes on. It would let everyone know including the ump if he's calling pitches correctly and if he isn't it would maybe influence him to change it so he doesn't get some of the same pitches wrong over and over again.

[jkcarew]

I’m with the Spy...I think Robo Ump in practice isn’t going to be as easy/“perfect” or as much of a material improvement overall as many here assume.

 

I’m not one to buy that the human umpires exhibit bias over time...not on the basis of what uniform the player is wearing, anyway. And I find the ‘game’ aspects of the game interesting...Framing, pitchers having the command/consistency of location to influnce/stretch the strike zone a couple of inches, stealing/trying to steal signs, etc...not my ‘favorite’ aspects as the game, but still, aspects that add to the overall game in my view.

 

At some threshhold does inconsistency within a game detract or cause material things to happen that you would rather never happen? Sometimes. So, in that regard, I’m not ‘against’ the concept. But I’d want to see how it handles some things first (like the vertical element)...and I think ball/strike calling is improving, not getting worse, and not a top priority.

[Doomtints]

When I read these types of threads all I can think of is the Simpson's "Old Man Yells at Cloud" meme.

 

On another note, if 10% of calls are wrong, how much does that number change when it's not Joe West?

[yarnivek1972]

Years ago the umps stood directly behind home plate and the catcher. Now they stand over the inside part of the plate. I would venture to guess, based on the games I watch and the strike zone called that the majority of the "missed" calls are on the outside part of the plate, whether they are over the plate or off the plate. Let's face it... Where the ump is standing he canNOT see the outside part of the strikezone. It's impossible. Try it sometime. Stand over the inside part and see if you can accurately judge the outside zone. That is something that would be easy to correct. Move 'em back over the center of the plate.

 

I heard that on average umps call 14 pitches incorrectly every game. Why not give 'em some help. Have a red and green light on the scoreboard and every time they call a pitch correctly the green light comes on, every time they call it incorrectly the red light comes on. It would let everyone know including the ump if he's calling pitches correctly and if he isn't it would maybe influence him to change it so he doesn't get some of the same pitches wrong over and over again.

Most people can’t see through other people. Right behind home plate is where the catcher is.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I understood that spycake was saying it was OK for an umpire to call basically the same located pitch two different things just to even things out, which I think would be horrible. 

For some percentage of pitches, you won't be able to distinguish this result from the robot's.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I heard that on average umps call 14 pitches incorrectly every game. Why not give 'em some help. Have a red and green light on the scoreboard and every time they call a pitch correctly the green light comes on, every time they call it incorrectly the red light comes on. It would let everyone know including the ump if he's calling pitches correctly and if he isn't it would maybe influence him to change it so he doesn't get some of the same pitches wrong over and over again.

This study has found the error rate has been dropping steadily and significantly over the last 10 years. I'd guess that is due to technology giving better training/feedback to the human umps.

 

I'd be curious to see how good we could get it.

[Riverbrian]

 

Why would you want umpires to be perfect?  There's an entire mythology of umpires stinking at times, it's part of the game.  The umpire is one of the players on the field, just as a shortstop botches the occasional play, so too the umpire.  

 

At what point is the human element acceptable? Where is the line?

 

You could also leave big rocks on the infield for the occasional unpredictable bounce. 

 

The technology is there or at least close to there to get the calls right... It's no different than the field crew taking the rocks off the infield. 

 

Shortstop botching the occasional play is a determining factor in who we cheer for and who gets playing time. Nobody is cheering for the ump... only boos when they blow the call. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd assume any of us in favor of automated balls and strikes calls is basing it on the assumption that the veracity of the technology is vetted and perfected to acceptable terms.

 

If it's not 100% accurate it would be easy to find out. I doubt any switch would happen without significant testing to the technology that would be used.

 

And I'd guess Statcast wouldn't be given this golden ticket; the new system would probably be based on a similar but different tech proprietary to the MLB.

 

I'm not sure if it would be easy to find out.

 

What system would you use to determine if the system is perfect? 

[Riverbrian]

 

if two pitches in a row come in right on the edge, is it really that bad if the ump splits the difference and calls the first one a ball and the second one a strike, even if the second one was still 2 microns off the plate?

 

 

Yes it is.

 

One of those calls may come with 3 balls or 2 strikes. Bias is something to remove from the equation. 

[h2oface]

 

This study has found the error rate has been dropping steadily and significantly over the last 10 years. I'd guess that is due to technology giving better training/feedback to the human umps.

 

I'd be curious to see how good we could get it.

 

How is it assessed that the umpires are calling it wrong or right? Oh.... that's right... the tech. So the tech is the standard. That could be used anytime, immediately if not sooner. Instead of getting humans to guess better, we could just use the thing that checks them. Hmmmmmm.

 

Plus, how does one know that umpires even review the game and see how many mistakes had been made. I have read more than one report that they don't, and despise that the fans get to see how wrong they are, and take the same pompous stance that is often exhibited on the field.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes it is.

 

One of those calls may come with 3 balls or 2 strikes. Bias is something to remove from the equation. 

 

Nothing irritates me more in sports than the "make up call" and players having to "earn" calls.  The robo-umpire eliminates both.

 

Whatever other imperfections or tepid improvements.....it takes those both out.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And changing the strike zone just to get home to dinner perhaps? Hurry a game through bad weather? That's what the protocol was/is for little league. And some judges in courts. I hope that isn't happening in professional baseball...... or high school or college for that matter.

 

 

Nothing irritates me more in sports than the "make up call" and players having to "earn" calls.  The robo-umpire eliminates both.

 

I didn't mean to imply that this bias was conscious. No MLB ump really thinks "eh, I called the last close one a strike, so I'll call this close one a ball", nor do they actually think "I'm calling this a strike because I want to go to dinner." But there's unconscious bias.

 

It's like "tie goes to the runner". Everyone knows the concept, but it doesn't really exist -- not in the rulebook, not in umpire training, not in reality -- there's no such thing as a tie. (You may have to get down to fractions of a millisecond to see the difference, but no two separate events occur at the exact same time.)

 

So, when a play at 1st is super close, to the point where human eyes can't discern the difference in real time, our brain unconsciously feeds us information that might favor one result over another. Same with really close pitches at the plate.

 

And I don't really care about that bias, on those edge cases. Of course we should always keep trying to improve umpire performance, human or otherwise, but I think it would be worthwhile to know how many of these human "errors" are occurring around those edge cases in a study like this, more than just the raw error rate.

[Platoon]

I think the umpires do an amazing job calling balls and strikes but with the job they are tasked with, perfection is impossible.

 

However there is serious potential gravity on any missed call.

 

Case in point: 2017 Wild Card Game: Twins vs. Yankees. Twins jump out to a 3-0 lead. Ervin Santana has two strikes on Didi... He throws a pitch that is clearly a strike that should have rung him up and it wasn't even that close. It was undoubtedly a strike... Ump calls it a ball. Next pitch... Didi parks a 3 run shot to RF and the game is tied 3-3. If the ump makes the right call on that pitch... the Twins could have walked out of the first inning with a 3-0 lead and possibly advanced. It was a big moment decided by a wrong call.

 

Automate it... give the umps a break.

 

I understand the argument for Robo umps, even though I don't want to see them. But, I would bet that you won't find any umpires that want a "break". Umpiring is not simply a job. It's more a vocation. And one of the joys of that vocation is calling balls and strikes. Frankly I always considered base umpiring boring, but loved being behind the plate. And yes, I missed calls. Everyone does. Consistency, effort, and fairness make you a good umpire. A perfect Robo ump may be possible. The question is does it make the game more entertaining? And that is the essence of sport, entertainment!

[Riverbrian]

I understand the argument for Robo umps, even though I don't want to see them. But, I would bet that you won't find any umpires that want a "break". Umpiring is not simply a job. It's more a vocation. And one of the joys of that vocation is calling balls and strikes. Frankly I always considered base umpiring boring, but loved being behind the plate. And yes, I missed calls. Everyone does. Consistency, effort, and fairness make you a good umpire. A perfect Robo ump may be possible. The question is does it make the game more entertaining? And that is the essence of sport, entertainment!

I’m not sure... if I was an ump (I have been an umpire at the high school level which is not the same) I would appreciate the tools to get the call right. An umpires worst nightmare is blowing a call and the call changing the outcome.

 

If the umps are afraid or resistant to improvements or change... they can go in the dinosaur pile with the same folks who thought the microwave couldn’t cook food.

[wsnydes]

 

I understand the argument for Robo umps, even though I don't want to see them. But, I would bet that you won't find any umpires that want a "break". Umpiring is not simply a job. It's more a vocation. And one of the joys of that vocation is calling balls and strikes. Frankly I always considered base umpiring boring, but loved being behind the plate. And yes, I missed calls. Everyone does. Consistency, effort, and fairness make you a good umpire. A perfect Robo ump may be possible. The question is does it make the game more entertaining? And that is the essence of sport, entertainment!

ultimately, this is the problem that I have with tech in sports. Replay has ruined sports for me. Delays of any sort ruin the flow the game. They ruin key parts of a game. The micoranalysis of everything gets blown out of proportion. I don't want to wait 30 seconds for a manager to decide whether to challenge a call or not. I then don't want to wait 3 minutes to see if the call is overturned or not. Sitting around and slowing a play down to 1/10 second/frame isn't entertaining. At that point, I don't even care what the right call is. If I wanted perfection and robots umpiring, I'd quit watching real baseball and just flip on a video game simulation. If the point of adding robots calling balls and strikes to get things right, then why are people not clamoring for every potential play to be reviewable? Because that's what it's going to take to eliminate the human element from officiating. A game, in any sport, full of endless replays is not something I'm interested in. That's a big reason why I quit watching the NFL. People also seem all too accepting that the tech is right. It very well might be, I can't dispute any of it, but I'm not really willing to just fully accept something just because it's a fix to something I don't like.

 

Other's opinions obviously vary and that's fine, but automated officiating not something I find entertaining at all. Life isn't fair, so I don't see anything inherently flawed about umpires making mistakes. they're humans, it happens. players make mistakes, it happens.

 

Sorry about the soap box...

 

{sheepishly steps off soap box}

[wsnydes]

 

I’m not sure... if I was an ump (I have been an umpire at the high school level which is not the same) I would appreciate the tools to get the call right. An umpires worst nightmare is blowing a call and the call changing the outcome.

If the umps are afraid or resistant to improvements or change... they can go in the dinosaur pile with the same folks who thought the microwave couldn’t cook food.

This is a fair point, but I'd rather see them use the tech to show them where or even how to improve rather than make/fix the call for them. Use information to make yourself better, not do it for you.

[Platoon]

ultimately, this is the problem that I have with tech in sports. Replay has ruined sports for me. Delays of any sort ruin the flow the game. They ruin key parts of a game. The micoranalysis of everything gets blown out of proportion. I don't want to wait 30 seconds for a manager to decide whether to challenge a call or not. I then don't want to wait 3 minutes to see if the call is overturned or not. Sitting around and slowing a play down to 1/10 second/frame isn't entertaining. At that point, I don't even care what the right call is. If I wanted perfection and robots umpiring, I'd quit watching real baseball and just flip on a video game simulation. If the point of adding robots calling balls and strikes to get things right, then why are people not clamoring for every potential play to be reviewable? Because that's what it's going to take to eliminate the human element from officiating. A game, in any sport, full of endless replays is not something I'm interested in. That's a big reason why I quit watching the NFL. People also seem all too accepting that the tech is right. It very well might be, I can't dispute any of it, but I'm not really willing to just fully accept something just because it's a fix to something I don't like.

 

Other's opinions obviously vary and that's fine, but automated officiating not something I find entertaining at all. Life isn't fair, so I don't see anything inherently flawed about umpires making mistakes. they're humans, it happens. players make mistakes, it happens.

 

Sorry about the soap box...

 

{sheepishly steps off soap box}

Sadly this site doesn't allow multiple "likes".

[Platoon]

I’m not sure... if I was an ump (I have been an umpire at the high school level which is not the same) I would appreciate the tools to get the call right. An umpires worst nightmare is blowing a call and the call changing the outcome.

If the umps are afraid or resistant to improvements or change... they can go in the dinosaur pile with the same folks who thought the microwave couldn’t cook food.

I wouldn't know, my microwave is not large enough to get a dinasaur inside. I also did about that level of umpiring. Not only did I get into it late, my paying job never would have allowed the flexibility to move upwards, even if I had the inclination. I did it for the enjoyment of the game. That said, while all umpires fear making a "fatal" call, I don't know many who would give up the chance to make that call. I am not talking about some show off, see West, Joseph. I am referring to a good umpire who looks forward to the responsibility and the challenge. It's part of the allure of the position. IMHO.

[Nine of twelve]

I don't understand or accept the argument that automated calling of pitches takes something good away from the game. To me, the most accurate method of officiating is the best because it rewards what should be rewarded, specifically superior performance by the players. A pitcher should be rewarded for throwing a pitch that goes through the strike zone, and a batter should be rewarded for taking a pitch that does not go through the strike zone. If humans do the best job of calling pitches then that's how it should be done. If automated systems are better than humans then that's how it should be done.