Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

[Riverbrian]

 

There is one downside to the robo-umps.....so much of my life watching baseball has been consumed with former players talking about how they "just want the umpires to call it consistently" and about "feeling out the umpire's zone".

 

Whatever will we do with all that dead air?

 

Fill it with interesting out of the box, non traditional content, that both entertains and educates, Provide content that will give major league baseball a fighting chance of reaching demographics that are currently not there and currently scaring the marketing people when they look to the next decade, which has led to the creation of focus groups that are telling baseball powers that be that the game is too slow... when they really mean the game isn't entertaining them. Use this opportunity to... wait a sec... I took your post literally. 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Certainly. Baseball rules define the strike zone to specify what is and isn't a fair offering to expect the batter to try to hit. It's not to record whether the pitcher achieved what he tried to do.

 

The strike zone is all about the batter, not the pitcher. It's even defined in terms specific to the batter, so that Jose Altuve's is different than Aaron Judge's. By contrast the strike zone doesn't depend whatsoever on whether it's Jon Rauch or Johnny Cueto pitching.

 

Not everything about the competition has to be symmetric.

Awesome post!

[biggentleben]

 

Fill it with interesting out of the box, non traditional content, that both entertains and educates, Provide content that will give major league baseball a fighting chance of reaching demographics that are currently not there and currently scaring the marketing people when they look to the next decade, which has led to the creation of focus groups that are telling baseball powers that be that the game is too slow... when they really mean the game isn't entertaining them. Use this opportunity to... wait a sec... I took your post literally. 

 

I miss Vin Scully broadcasts.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

Okay, I'm back. Sorry I sometimes need to step back from these discussions.

 

I just want to clarify, I wasn't trying to "argue" anything in this thread, other than there are flaws in the thread title and linked study (neither of which preclude favoring robo-umps, of course).

 

Beyond that, I was just saying that personally, I don't find human umpires calling balls and strikes to detract from my experience right now, and thus I don't feel a particular need or urgency to implement robo-umps.

 

I understand other people disagree, and I'm not trying to change minds as much as share my point of view. However, I just don't like my point of view being characterized as "enjoying unfair penalties", or that I must derive a lesser form of "entertainment" from the sport than others. I feel that characterizing someone's motivations, on either side of this issue, does a disservice to our discussion. How each person views the entirety of the sport is an incredibly complex matter, and shouldn't be reduced to a sensible/nonsensical divide. It's not a binary issue (unlike perhaps a ball vs a strike. ).

 

We all obviously love discussing the sport, or we wouldn't be here! Hopefully we can continue this discussion on a sunny afternoon at the stadium sometime...

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

There is one downside to the robo-umps.....so much of my life watching baseball has been consumed with former players talking about how they "just want the umpires to call it consistently" and about "feeling out the umpire's zone".

 

Whatever will we do with all that dead air?

You know, I was thinking -- I primarily enjoy baseball in person, or on the radio, or perhaps on MLB.TV with the radio or ballpark audio track. I've pretty much never had cable TV in my life, and have thus largely avoided hearing the TV announcers.

 

Obviously at the park, or with the ballpark audio track, there's not much strike zone commentary to be had. And even on the radio, the announcers can't dwell upon it too much, because they have to keep adding to their "word picture" of the entire game. (Edit to add: during yesterday's game, I actually heard Gladden briefly sound upset about a call on a pitch, but then he saw the replay and concluded the umpire was correct. )

 

I suspect TV announcers are the most likely to fall into this trap, because they can most easily digress from the actual action on the field.

 

Obviously our opinions on the issue go far deeper than the announcers we hear -- but I wonder if this is informing some of my perspective on the issue. I don't even do the game threads much here, where most of the fan strike zone commentary seems to take place.

 

So maybe if I was forced to listen to TV announcers, Clockwork Orange style, I could see a greater need for robo-umps.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I actually found an article about player/manager support for robo-umps:

 

https://www.sporttechie.com/robot-umpires-advocated-chicago-cubs-ben-zobrist/

 

They also discuss how the technology isn't quite there yet, which is part of the reason why the study that's the topic of this thread should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Perhaps it's inevitable, but in the meantime, it should be interesting to study and follow.

[Riverbrian]

 

Okay, I'm back. Sorry I sometimes need to step back from these discussions.

 

I just want to clarify, I wasn't trying to "argue" anything in this thread, other than there are flaws in the thread title and linked study (neither of which preclude favoring robo-umps, of course).

 

Beyond that, I was just saying that personally, I don't find human umpires calling balls and strikes to detract from my experience right now, and thus I don't feel a particular need or urgency to implement robo-umps.

 

I understand other people disagree, and I'm not trying to change minds as much as share my point of view. However, I just don't like my point of view being characterized as "enjoying unfair penalties", or that I must derive a lesser form of "entertainment" from the sport than others. I feel that characterizing someone's motivations, on either side of this issue, does a disservice to our discussion. How each person views the entirety of the sport is an incredibly complex matter, and shouldn't be reduced to a sensible/nonsensical divide. It's not a binary issue (unlike perhaps a ball vs a strike. ).

 

We all obviously love discussing the sport, or we wouldn't be here! Hopefully we can continue this discussion on a sunny afternoon at the stadium sometime...

 

For the record... I only considered your opinions an expression of your opinion and absolutely fair content at all times.

 

Please continue. I'll stick around to let you know when you're wrong. 

[Nine of twelve]

 

Okay, I'm back. Sorry I sometimes need to step back from these discussions.

 

I just want to clarify, I wasn't trying to "argue" anything in this thread, other than there are flaws in the thread title and linked study (neither of which preclude favoring robo-umps, of course).

 

Beyond that, I was just saying that personally, I don't find human umpires calling balls and strikes to detract from my experience right now, and thus I don't feel a particular need or urgency to implement robo-umps.

 

I understand other people disagree, and I'm not trying to change minds as much as share my point of view. However, I just don't like my point of view being characterized as "enjoying unfair penalties", or that I must derive a lesser form of "entertainment" from the sport than others. I feel that characterizing someone's motivations, on either side of this issue, does a disservice to our discussion. How each person views the entirety of the sport is an incredibly complex matter, and shouldn't be reduced to a sensible/nonsensical divide. It's not a binary issue (unlike perhaps a ball vs a strike. ).

 

We all obviously love discussing the sport, or we wouldn't be here! Hopefully we can continue this discussion on a sunny afternoon at the stadium sometime...

I'll take the blame and issue apologies for the "enjoying unfair penalties" comment. No personal offense intended. That said, I'll still say that I have trouble understanding why improving the fairness of the game by making pitch calling more accurate would be opposed by anyone. And that said, I'm happy to agree to disagree about the whole thing.

[h2oface]

 

Okay, I'm back. Sorry I sometimes need to step back from these discussions.

 

I just want to clarify, I wasn't trying to "argue" anything in this thread, other than there are flaws in the thread title and linked study (neither of which preclude favoring robo-umps, of course).

 

Beyond that, I was just saying that personally, I don't find human umpires calling balls and strikes to detract from my experience right now, and thus I don't feel a particular need or urgency to implement robo-umps.

 

I understand other people disagree, and I'm not trying to change minds as much as share my point of view. However, I just don't like my point of view being characterized as "enjoying unfair penalties", or that I must derive a lesser form of "entertainment" from the sport than others. I feel that characterizing someone's motivations, on either side of this issue, does a disservice to our discussion. How each person views the entirety of the sport is an incredibly complex matter, and shouldn't be reduced to a sensible/nonsensical divide. It's not a binary issue (unlike perhaps a ball vs a strike. ).

 

We all obviously love discussing the sport, or we wouldn't be here! Hopefully we can continue this discussion on a sunny afternoon at the stadium sometime...

 

No problem. I don't take ideas personally. I hope you don't. 

 

I miss the sounds of the ballpark. The silence between innings. The chatter. I hate the excessive volume crap and the music and the idiotic promotions and the intentional walk being a hand wave. I love the change from cowardly take out of the fielder at second base and home plate. I love getting the call right, and having the game about the players and not the umpires wrong calls that drastically have affected all games throughout the history of the game. I have seen 4 man rotations and no real pitch counts, and not just read about them. I think extra innings and a long game is a bonus, not a problem. I adore using new innovations, as they come available, to get things more correct, especially the most subjective part of the game with the most errors, balls and strikes. I think any great players worthy that were involved with PEDs should still be in the HOF, just in a special room that they are all together, in their shame and glory. I think Pete Rose should be in there, in a hallway to that room, with Joe Jackson (the ball player, not the musician, but with Joe Jackson music playing from the speakers). I love traditions of baseball, but I like changes that make the game more true to it's purpose, and balls and strikes being called wrong according to the zone by rule, DRIVES ME NUTS!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Also, the last strike called to end the game against Tellez looked to be inside according to the box on the tv, but when I pull up the chart on Baseball Savant it shows the ball split the line on the inside of the plate. That makes me further question the accuracy of the technology.

That is interesting.

 

On that pitch, Gameday (which I thought was Statcast-based now) seems to match the broadcast zone.

 

Baseball Savant (which I also thought was Statcast-based now) seems to match Brooks Baseball, which I think still uses PitchF/X (the Statcast predecessor).

[h2oface]

 

That is interesting.

 

On that pitch, Gameday (which I thought was Statcast-based now) seems to match the broadcast zone.

 

Baseball Savant (which I also thought was Statcast-based now) seems to match Brooks Baseball, which I think still uses PitchF/X (the Statcast predecessor).

 

Graphics used to represent the pitch seem to vary, greatly, and some worse than others. The one on MLB gameday has a ball way too large. If only the umpire had so many angles on the pitch and could process it so fast. 

[wsnydes]

Really? Nothing here seems to hint at invalidating one's opinion that doesn't fit your own? It's productive discussion promoting a civil conversation? Intent or not, that's not how it came across.

 

 

 

           

 

 

I guess I should take a half-step back from this comment. I suppose there are people who watch baseball in part because they enjoy it when players and teams are unfairly penalized as the result of umpires making incorrect calls. And I suppose that's their right. I just fail to understand why someone would feel that way.

 

These are just from this page of the thread. I'm with spycake on this one. I mentioned several times in my responses that I was only providing my opinion and not arguing or trying to convince anyone of anything. I felt that I HAD to say it, repeatedly, because responses I was getting were going beyond what I considered civil debate. And then when that got thrown back in my face, I backed out of the thread entirely because it was clear that my opinion and how I enjoyed the game was simply going to get ridiculed because others couldn't accept it. Frankly, I think it killed an otherwise good discussion on a pretty good topic.

 

I also mentioned, repeatedly, in my responses that I understand what the opposing opinion is and I was completely fine with the stance. It makes sense to me. I just happen to have a differing opinion.

 

I don't take any of this personally, but it's not something I enjoy partaking in either. I come here to discuss baseball and the Twins, not get backed into a corner because someone else can't accept another person's opinion. I don't need an apology, only that my opinion be accepted and respected as I respect and accept anyone else's opinion. 

 

With that out of the way, I'd love to continue to talk about baseball!

[h2oface]

Ha! "An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definate proposition". Some call it an opinion.

 

 

At least it's 12A instead of room 12.

[ashbury]

If only the umpire had so many angles on the pitch and could process it so fast. 

It's almost as if all that electronic gadgetry had an unfair advantage, or something.

[Mike Sixel]

 

In last nights game I think it was Polanco batting and the catcher set up down and away and the pitcher missed down and in with a breaking pitch and the catcher has to reach across the plate and grab the ball with his mitt on the ground. The box on the tv shows it grazed that bottom corner of the strike zone but it was called a ball. Do you really think the pitcher should be rewarded with a strike call in that situation?

 

Also, the last strike called to end the game against Tellez looked to be inside according to the box on the tv, but when I pull up the chart on Baseball Savant it shows the ball split the line on the inside of the plate. That makes me further question the accuracy of the technology.

 

yes, if they threw a strike, yes. Why not? The job is to throw a strike (or better yet, a pitch not hit at all), not to hit the catcher's glove. The rulebook doesn't say "a strike isn't a strike if the pitcher misses his target".

 

According to research....most pitches miss the glove by multiple inches (I just saw this on Twitter, trying to find it now).....

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

So maybe if I was forced to listen to TV announcers, Clockwork Orange style, I could see a greater need for robo-umps.

 

Listening on the radio is still my preference, but that's why I bristled at your observation so hard.  Every former player I've ever heard on a broadcast (in my fifth different market now and I'm including TV and radio) has repeatedly stated the challenge it is adjusting to the umpire's zone.  It isn't a positive thing, it's something they talk about adjusting to all the time.  Some were more obviously negative on that aspect than others (see: Hawk Harrelson) but every single guy would talk about it.  And every single guy would talk about wanting "consistency".

 

That's why I want the robo umps too.  It's not about "Getting it right" per se, it's just about eliminating the absurd inconsistency umpires subject players to every night.  You commented that it will reward those who can adjust to the "new" zone, but I'd argue those players are already too richly rewarded.  The players we want to reward are the ones that can be consistently excellent, not those that can manipulate one person behind the plate on one given night.  

[wsnydes]

Listening on the radio is still my preference, but that's why I bristled at your observation so hard. Every former player I've ever heard on a broadcast (in my fifth different market now and I'm including TV and radio) has repeatedly stated the challenge it is adjusting to the umpire's zone. It isn't a positive thing, it's something they talk about adjusting to all the time. Some were more obviously negative on that aspect than others (see: Hawk Harrelson) but every single guy would talk about it. And every single guy would talk about wanting "consistency".

 

That's why I want the robo umps too. It's not about "Getting it right" per se, it's just about eliminating the absurd inconsistency umpires subject players to every night. You commented that it will reward those who can adjust to the "new" zone, but I'd argue those players are already too richly rewarded. The players we want to reward are the ones that can be consistently excellent, not those that can manipulate one person behind the plate on one given night.

I'd really like to know what players think of this. Obviously the ones on TV or radio or whatever have the platform, but do they actually represent the majority? I'd be interested in knowing what that split would really be. It would be fascinating to know opinions even between pitchers, catchers and position players. Even generations of players could be an interesting study.

 

I know plenty of players talk about adjusting to the zone, but not all of them talk about it in a negative context. I do wonder how many don't necessarily mind that aspect.

[TheLeviathan]

Wsyndes, I thought the article spycake posted was helpful on that. Not definitive of course, but helpful.

[wsnydes]

Wsyndes, I thought the article spycake posted was helpful on that. Not definitive of course, but helpful.

That's right! I forgot about that...I started but haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

[Nine of twelve]

 

No problem. I don't take ideas personally. I hope you don't. 

 

I miss the sounds of the ballpark. The silence between innings. The chatter. I hate the excessive volume crap and the music and the idiotic promotions and the intentional walk being a hand wave. I love the change from cowardly take out of the fielder at second base and home plate. I love getting the call right, and having the game about the players and not the umpires wrong calls that drastically have affected all games throughout the history of the game. I have seen 4 man rotations and no real pitch counts, and not just read about them. I think extra innings and a long game is a bonus, not a problem. I adore using new innovations, as they come available, to get things more correct, especially the most subjective part of the game with the most errors, balls and strikes. I think any great players worthy that were involved with PEDs should still be in the HOF, just in a special room that they are all together, in their shame and glory. I think Pete Rose should be in there, in a hallway to that room, with Joe Jackson (the ball player, not the musician, but with Joe Jackson music playing from the speakers). I love traditions of baseball, but I like changes that make the game more true to it's purpose, and balls and strikes being called wrong according to the zone by rule, DRIVES ME NUTS!

I agree with everything except for the part about players and managers who gambled on games they were involved in being allowed in the HOF.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Ha! "An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definate proposition". Some call it an opinion.

 

 

At least it's 12A instead of room 12.

The best Monty Python sketch ever.

[ashbury]

The best Monty Python sketch ever.

No it isn't.

 

 

_{^{/ stupid git}}

[Nine of twelve]

 

No it isn't.

 

 

_{^{/ stupid git}}

Best comment on this thread.

[Ebby Calvin Laloosh]

Can someone quote the rule book for me as to the top and bottom of the zone? I seem to remember something about the "letters" and the "hollow below the knee" as to the upper and lower bounds. I'm not sure if this is still how the rule book reads, but those definitions seem vague. I think the upper limit was changed to be more specific, it's the "hollow below the knee" I take umbrage with. I know everyone's knee hollow is not the same height off the ground, but are all hollows the same width? Is it the top or the bottom of the hollow?...what the hell is the hollow anyway?

 

I'm not sure I've thought this all the way through but if there is some subjectivity to the bottom of the zone don't we have an issue setting the electronic strike zone? Does the human ump set the upper and lower bounds of "Robo-ump's" strike zone for each batter? The official scorer? Some new MLB strike zone czar? Maybe it's just a simple rule change to clarify the bounds of the strike zone, but I feel like that's where we should start. You know, actually figuring out where the strike zone is.

 

Am I alone on this? Feels like I might be.

 

[ashbury]

Can someone quote the rule book for me as to the top and bottom of the zone?

Yes.

 

 

... oh, and you want to see? Here is the passage from the section on definitions in the official rules:

 

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.

[ashbury]

[Mr. Brooks]

Can someone quote the rule book for me as to the top and bottom of the zone? I seem to remember something about the "letters" and the "hollow below the knee" as to the upper and lower bounds. I'm not sure if this is still how the rule book reads, but those definitions seem vague. I think the upper limit was changed to be more specific, it's the "hollow below the knee" I take umbrage with. I know everyone's knee hollow is not the same height off the ground, but are all hollows the same width? Is it the top or the bottom of the hollow?...what the hell is the hollow anyway?

 

I'm not sure I've thought this all the way through but if there is some subjectivity to the bottom of the zone don't we have an issue setting the electronic strike zone? Does the human ump set the upper and lower bounds of "Robo-ump's" strike zone for each batter? The official scorer? Some new MLB strike zone czar? Maybe it's just a simple rule change to clarify the bounds of the strike zone, but I feel like that's where we should start. You know, actually figuring out where the strike zone is.

 

Am I alone on this? Feels like I might be.

I don't know why a human would have to set the zone for each batter.

I would think that the same type of scanning and mapping technology used in autonomous driving could be used to set the upper and lower boundaries for each player.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Yes.

 

 

... oh, and you want to see? Here is the passage from the section on definitions in the official rules:

 

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.

The answer here, as I see it, is to stand in the batter’s box with your pants dropped down around your ankles

[wsnydes]

The answer here, as I see it, is to stand in the batter’s box with your pants dropped down around your ankles

Hide the women and children!

[wsnydes]

I don't know why a human would have to set the zone for each batter.

I would think that the same type of scanning and mapping technology used in autonomous driving could be used to set the upper and lower boundaries for each player.

I was thinking about that too. Does anyone know how the Byrnes experiment set the boundaries? Did that have to be set manually?

 

And does anyone know how statcast or other similar automated zone systems set their boundaries?