Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

[Riverbrian]

We just got a missed strike call victory. 

 

Rogers should have just walked in the game tying run. Ump missed the call and the batter is eventually retired F9 for a Twins win. 

 

I am absolutely in favor of an automated strike zone but if the calls from an umpire will consistently benefit the Twins... Then I am in favor of umpires. 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

We just got a missed strike call victory. 

 

Rogers should have just walked in the game tying run. Ump missed the call and the batter is eventually retired F9 for a Twins win. 

 

I am absolutely in favor of an automated strike zone but if the calls from an umpire will consistently benefit the Twins... Then I am in favor of umpires. 

 

I instantly thought of this thread too when I saw that pitch,

[ashbury]

I am absolutely in favor of an automated strike zone but if the calls from an umpire will consistently benefit the Twins... Then I am in favor of umpires. 

Let it not be failed to be said that you are not a man of absolute integrity, my friend.

[Riverbrian]

 

I instantly thought of this thread too when I saw that pitch

 

I watch a lot of baseball on TV. I see it happen all the time. I'm at the point where I can't un-see it anymore.

 

Then I come to Twinsdaily to discuss it and I end up feeling like Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense. 

[ashbury]

Then I come to Twinsdaily to discuss it and I end up feeling like Haley Joel Osment in the Sixth Sense. 

You call umps Stuttering Stanley?

[pbrezeasap]

 

We just got a missed strike call victory. 

 

Rogers should have just walked in the game tying run. Ump missed the call and the batter is eventually retired F9 for a Twins win. 

 

I am absolutely in favor of an automated strike zone but if the calls from an umpire will consistently benefit the Twins... Then I am in favor of umpires. 

 

Funny thing is baseball savant shows that it was a strike.

 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/gamefeed?game_pk=564939&game_date=2019-4-21&type=home_batters&chart_view=pitch&chart_type=sbp&inning=9&count=&batter_hand=&pitcher_hand=&filter=&player=home-pitchers_571710&view=Umpire&coloring=Pitch%20Type

 

I thought the system used for the tv broadcasts was the same one MLB was getting their data from, maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Funny thing is baseball savant shows that it was a strike.

 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/gamefeed?game_pk=564939&game_date=2019-4-21&type=home_batters&chart_view=pitch&chart_type=sbp&inning=9&count=&batter_hand=&pitcher_hand=&filter=&player=home-pitchers_571710&view=Umpire&coloring=Pitch%20Type

 

I thought the system used for the tv broadcasts was the same one MLB was getting their data from, maybe I'm wrong.

 

I think Gameday uses Statcast, and they have the ball slightly overlapping the edge of the line, which is what I though I saw on TV too:

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs-orioles/2019/04/21/564939#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=play-by-play,game=564939

 

Brooks Baseball uses PitchF/X (Statcast predecessor) and mysteriously doesn't show pitch #4 of the at-bat right now:

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?s_type=3&sp_type=1&year=2019&month=4&day=21&pitchSel=573124&game=gid_2019_04_21_minmlb_balmlb_1/&prevGame=gid_2019_04_21_minmlb_balmlb_1/&pnf=&prevDate=421&batterX=79

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

No worries.

 

I'd view accuracy and fairness as two separate things. Fairness, to me, is relative; even without 100% perfect accuracy or consistency in every condition (and not just human umps, but also field dimensions, weather, etc.), I still think the game is virtually 100% fair among teams and players right now.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with also pursuing more accuracy. But if it doesn't impact my view of the fairness of the game, I think it's also "fair" to consider other factors in that pursuit.

[jimbo92107]

Here's a compromise: Just have the machine call strikes.

 

Not quite a Yogi-ism.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.  

 

Just to re-iterate: my observation, that some players may not want to make the adjustment to a strict Statcast zone, was meant as nothing more than that. It was not a statement of advocacy for those players relative to other players.

 

Perhaps there is an exaggeration of players who benefit from the current system too -- there's been plenty of skepticism about the pitch-framing value estimates, for example.

 

But also perhaps players exaggerate the umpire zone adjustments they have to make under the current system. This study pegs the umpire-Statcast disagreement rate at 9.21% for 2018. There were an average of 79 called pitches per team game, so each team experiences just over 7 such disagreement pitches per game. That's 0.8 such pitches per lineup spot, per game. The best umps lower that to under 0.6; the worst raise it to 1.0. And again, that's not considering the magnitude of the disagreements, or that players won't agree 100% with Statcast either in real time -- for some (most?) of those 0.6-1.0 pitches per game, the disagreement will be virtually undetectable to players.

 

None of that really strikes me as absurd. Perhaps it was a bigger concern for former players, as the study suggests this disagreement rate has been dropped considerably in recent years.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Here's a compromise: Just have the machine call strikes.

 

Not quite a Yogi-ism.

90% of calls are half strikes, maybe?

[wsnydes]

 

Here's a compromise: Just have the machine call strikes.

 

Not quite a Yogi-ism.

Albert Pujols?

[Otto von Ballpark]

It would be interesting to see how well players can accurately judge the strict zone in real time.

 

I suspect they'd be no better, on average, than the average MLB umpire. Chiefly, because MLB umpires are largely selected for this one specific ability, while players are selected for this plus many other abilities (like reflexes, coordination, strength, etc.) -- heck, there are probably some players like Astudillo or Vlad Guerrero who could be relatively poor at it, but it doesn't really matter given their other abilities and approach. Plus players would seem to have a disadvantage of perspective -- the batter stands off to one side looking away from the plate most of the time, while the pitcher is much farther away from the plate. (The catcher might have the best view, I suppose. I wonder how they'd agree with Statcast? Although they would seem to be an example of the differences of perspective too -- I don't think that catchers generally have a better eye when batting.)

 

Anyway, it seems to me that players would have their own disagreements with a strict Statcast zone -- and many of these would overlap with the umpire's. For example, let's say there is a ball clipping the edge of the zone, a spot where the umpire generally calls it a strike 75% of the time, and a ball 25% of the time. Even with a 100% accurate robo-ump, calling it a strike 100% of the time, a player still won't be able to detect it as anything that close to 100% a strike, in real time from their vantage point -- they may have the same 75/25 split as the ump. In which case, you may not see any "true performance" difference in that situation under a robo-ump system.

 

And extending that to something like the umpire's "two strike bias" referenced in the study -- players could have their own similar "two strike bias", because 25% sure may not always be sure enough to take with two strikes.

[Riverbrian]

 

Funny thing is baseball savant shows that it was a strike.

 

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/gamefeed?game_pk=564939&game_date=2019-4-21&type=home_batters&chart_view=pitch&chart_type=sbp&inning=9&count=&batter_hand=&pitcher_hand=&filter=&player=home-pitchers_571710&view=Umpire&coloring=Pitch%20Type

 

I thought the system used for the tv broadcasts was the same one MLB was getting their data from, maybe I'm wrong.

 

Looked like Ball Four on TV... It looks closer to the line on Savant but still Ball-ish. 

 

It's a win for my team so I'm declaring a one day moratorium in my advocacy for automation because it benefited me. 

 

I'll be back with usual stance after Midnight tonight. Unless something happens that is not to my benefit during the current game in which case I reserve the right to immediately end the moratorium. 

[RatherBeGolfing]

Totally random but they took away the strike zone on the TV last night for one pitch and it tells you how used to it I've become because I felt uncomfortable without it there.

[Otto von Ballpark]

"Baseball’s ‘robot umpires’ are here. And you might not even notice the difference."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/07/10/baseballs-robot-umpires-are-here-you-might-not-even-notice-difference/

 

 

 

The Atlantic League, an independent circuit with seven teams on the East Coast and one in Texas, will become the first American professional baseball league to let a computer call balls and strikes at its All-Star Game on Wednesday night in York, Pa.

...

League officials have quietly tested software, created by sports data firm Trackman and provided by Major League Baseball, for weeks during real games in New Britain, Conn., and Bridgewater, N.J. For a few innings or an entire game, umpires have heard “ball,” “strike” or “did not track” through the earpiece, then conveyed Trackman’s call, only overturning the software on a technical glitch. Home plate umpires continue to rule on check swings, foul tips, catcher’s interference and plays at the plate. (While the program has been provisionally tested, with managers being informed before the game when Trackman would be used, Wednesday’s All-Star Game begins the league’s formal rollout.)

...

The Atlantic League is set to install the system, run via a small panel placed in an elevated position behind home plate, in each of its club’s ballparks for use in the second half of its 140-game regular season.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Wow.

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Wow.

https://twitter.com/octonion/status/1187166426433544192?s=09

Can someone translate this Tweet into English? (No pun intended.)

[Mike Sixel]

Can someone translate this Tweet into English? (No pun intended.)

If you were born in the US, and are a hitter, you have a better strike zone than if you were born outside the US.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

If you were born in the US, and are a hitter, you have a better strike zone than if you were born outside the US.

Sure. I just can’t tell how much better that is, or how that advantage plays. What is an x % better strike zone?

[Hrbowski]

 

Sure. I just can’t tell how much better that is, or how that advantage plays. What is an x % better strike zone?

Exactly. This probably isn't statistically significant. The tweet deserves no credibility until he cites his sources and methods, and provides the actual data.

[wabene]

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

Simple set up an umpiring baseball academy on Krypton.

[ashbury]

Simple set up an umpiring baseball academy on Krypton.

Foolproof plan unless someone mixes Kryptonite in the rubbing mud.

[Mike Sixel]

Exactly. This probably isn't statistically significant. The tweet deserves no credibility until he cites his sources and methods, and provides the actual data.

Did you read the thread? Did you find his website, if he has one? Or are you just assuming he's got an agenda?

[Hrbowski]

 

Did you read the thread? Did you find his website, if he has one? Or are you just assuming he's got an agenda?

He has no website. In his thread, he does say you cannot arrive at any conclusions from his analysis, so...

 

He does provide an equation that looks like it was designed to be run through a R program, but then again, he does not share his actual results. His equation did not account for the nationality of the umpire, which should be included.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Did you read the thread? Did you find his website, if he has one? Or are you just assuming he's got an agenda?

First of all, I really do appreciate you linking and sharing new information like this.

 

But mostly I just don’t know what he is saying. I don’t know what it means to compare the strike zone to home field advantage.

 

...not to mention the validity, as mentioned by the previous poster.

[Mike Sixel]

I only skimmed this....so I'm not sure how BIG the effect is...

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-home-field-advantage-becoming-endangered/

 

There are a few other links....I think it is small, but meaningful, especially because umpires are more likely to give the home team an advantage at important parts of the game......

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

A report from the Arizona Fall League about robo-umps:

 

"MLB’s top prospects deal with good, bad of ‘robot’ umpires"

 

https://apnews.com/2972799c8928483c92156c182909625b

 

One of the growing pains appears to be strike calls on pitches that no human has ever called a strike before (breaking pitches that barely clip some low or high point of the three-dimensional zone).

 

But I think this AFL test signals some serious interest from MLB. I think it's only a matter of time now, and I'm not opposed.

[JW24]

 

One of the growing pains appears to be strike calls on pitches that no human has ever called a strike before (breaking pitches that barely clip some low or high point of the three-dimensional zone).

Just because it hasn't been called a strike does not mean it isn't a strike (sorry for the triple negative).

 

Once it becomes the new norm, hitters will adjust to whatever the zone calls a strike. Expanding the zone might actually lead to hitters being more aggressive early in counts, creating more balls in play, and more excitement. I would love to see a zone that captures the low breaking pitches more accurately. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Just because it hasn't been called a strike does not mean it isn't a strike (sorry for the triple negative).

 

Once it becomes the new norm, hitters will adjust to whatever the zone calls a strike. Expanding the zone might actually lead to hitters being more aggressive early in counts, creating more balls in play, and more excitement. I would love to see a zone that captures the low breaking pitches more accurately. 

Yeah, I was just pointing out the adjustment. Personally I don't think I'd mind an effectively expanded zone, within reason.