“Robo Umps” Coming to all AAA Ballparks in 2023

[dxpavelka]

15 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Why do you believe this? I assume you were sarcastic in your answer.

You mean you don't think robo umps will be 100% accurate?  Yes I'm being sarcastic. 

[dxpavelka]

14 hours ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

Ok, well after I've been savaging the pathetic Minnesota Vikings since their embarrassing loss yesterday, I do agree that baseless rants are fun. I'm just wondering what you think the details are that are going to be the problems with robot umps. Beyond the league adjusting to a new strike zone and potential technological issues, what are the objections? If the robot ump stops working, you still have the human ump behind the plate to make the calls. I don't think anyone believes it will be a 100 percent seamless transition. There never is with new technology and new projects such as this. It has to be better than what we have and the errors are only highlighted with the strike zone right there on the screen. Pitch framing is a ridiculous "talent" which I'll be happy to see disappear. 

Robo umps will be the best thing that has ever happened to the game.  Robo players not far behind.

[DJL44]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:08 AM, dxpavelka said:

Watch a game on television where they show the "strike zone" and then go read the rule book and see where the strike zone actually is.  This will solve little.  Umpires get the call right about 93% of the time.  Ball players get out about 70% of the time.  Maybe we need robo players........

It is worth debating whether we actually want automated umpires to call the rule book strike zone. Human umpires naturally round off the corners. Robo umps won't do that. Those pitches at the corners are less hittable than the pitches low and over the plate that human umpires typically call strikes. This will give pitchers an advantage and we can expect strikeouts to increase with a robo-zone.

[DJL44]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:30 AM, bighat said:

I'd also like to see All-Star teams picked by an agreed-upon computer algorithm. The fan voting for the MLB ASG is perhaps the biggest joke in all of professional sports and I hope to be alive when it's banned! 

The whole point of fan voting is to get fans interested in watching the All-Star game. I guess we could have robots pick the team and then get a whole bunch of robots to watch it. Robots don't buy a lot of shaving cream so advertisers may be disappointed.

[bighat]

23 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The whole point of fan voting is to get fans interested in watching the All-Star game. I guess we could have robots pick the team and then get a whole bunch of robots to watch it. Robots don't buy a lot of shaving cream so advertisers may be disappointed.

I know WHY they do it, but it produces horrible results for the real fans of the game. It's an embarrassment at best and a dumpster fire at worst. 

I'm telling you, there will come a day when MLB will be letting fans choose "fastball" or "curveball" for each pitch, via TikTok LIVE voting during playoff games. 

[Parfigliano]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:58 PM, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Joe, I too am a trial attorney. I just celebrated 50 years of practicing law in North Carolina. It is a privilege to help people with some of life's most difficult problems.

Ditto trial attorney.  200+ to jury.  Now retired.

[Parfigliano]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:21 AM, theBOMisthebomb said:

Ok, well after I've been savaging the pathetic Minnesota Vikings since their embarrassing loss yesterday, I do agree that baseless rants are fun. I'm just wondering what you think the details are that are going to be the problems with robot umps. Beyond the league adjusting to a new strike zone and potential technological issues, what are the objections? If the robot ump stops working, you still have the human ump behind the plate to make the calls. I don't think anyone believes it will be a 100 percent seamless transition. There never is with new technology and new projects such as this. It has to be better than what we have and the errors are only highlighted with the strike zone right there on the screen. Pitch framing is a ridiculous "talent" which I'll be happy to see disappear. 

I will go to the grave maintaining pitch framing is  agent created BS.  An ump that falls for it shouldnt be behind the plate.

[DJL44]

16 minutes ago, bighat said:

I know WHY they do it, but it produces horrible results for the real fans of the game. It's an embarrassment at best and a dumpster fire at worst. 

Other than the excessive commercials I usually enjoy watching the All Star Game. Guess I'm not a real fan.

[Road trip]

Bring on the robo umps.  I HATE the human error element in officiating.  HATE, HATE, HATE.  If robo umps are wrong, they will be equally and blindly wrong for all, home and road, veterans and rookies, superstars and journeymen, all ethnicities, all uniforms (I will swear to my grave that the Yankee uniform is worth a few calls a year, if not per game).  I've been watching egregiously bad calls ruin close games for nearly 50 years.  We have the technology...fix it!

[Nine of twelve]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It is worth debating whether we actually want automated umpires to call the rule book strike zone. Human umpires naturally round off the corners. Robo umps won't do that. Those pitches at the corners are less hittable than the pitches low and over the plate that human umpires typically call strikes. This will give pitchers an advantage and we can expect strikeouts to increase with a robo-zone.

Another way of putting it is that humans tend to go against the rules with their pitch calling. Why would we want that to continue if it can be eliminated? If your hypothesis regarding rounding the corners is verified your conclusion should be phrased differently. It's not that robo umps would be giving pitchers an advantage, it's that human umps are currently giving batters an advantage.

[DJL44]

6 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

Another way of putting it is that humans tend to go against the rules with their pitch calling. Why would we want that to continue if it can be eliminated? If your hypothesis regarding rounding the corners is verified your conclusion should be phrased differently. It's not that robo umps would be giving pitchers an advantage, it's that human umps are currently giving batters an advantage.

Except human umpires have been going "against the rules" for 150 years. The strike zone has always been rounded off at the corners. Calling the rule book zone exactly would be a huge change. It's the difference between de jure and de facto.

[Nine of twelve]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Except human umpires have been going "against the rules" for 150 years.

What does it matter whether it's been done wrong for 150 years or 150 seconds? It's wrong either way.

[DJL44]

Just now, Nine of twelve said:

What does it matter whether it's been done wrong for 150 years or 150 seconds? It's wrong either way.

If it's always been 'wrong', then it really hasn't been wrong at all. It's how the game has been played. I'm saying the description of the strike zone in the rule book could be considered what's actually wrong. It doesn't describe how the game has been played for 150 years. We have never had a rectangular strike zone, it's always been an oval. Changing to a rectangular strike zone will likely have unintended consequences.

[Nine of twelve]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

If it's always been 'wrong', then it really hasn't been wrong at all. It's how the game has been played. I'm saying the description of the strike zone in the rule book could be considered what's actually wrong. It doesn't describe how the game has been played for 150 years. We have never had a rectangular strike zone, it's always been an oval. Changing to a rectangular strike zone will likely have unintended consequences.

Everyone knows that if (actually when) this change is made it will take time for everyone involved, especially pitchers and batters, to adjust. That doesn't make the change a bad thing. In fact, IMHO a consistent strike zone, no matter how it is defined, would be a good and much-needed change. And I don't see any way to be consistent unless the strike zone is precisely defined.

The current definition of the strike zone, with it being different for each batter, was put in place only because at the time the rule was written there was no technology available to determine the position of the ball as a pitch passed over home plate. The only landmarks an umpire could use were home plate and the batter's body. That is far from ideal because each batter varies in size and stance, because a knee is several inches in height, and because armpits are difficult to see precisely, but it was all we had. Moreover, the human visual system is simply not capable of knowing precisely the position of a pitched ball, but again it's all we had. Today's technology allows us to know very precisely the distance from the ground to the pitched ball, as well as whether any part of the ball passes directly above any part of home plate.

I would be interested to read how, in precise terms, people here think the strike zone should be defined. As for me, I would advocate for defining the strike zone in numerical terms. The width of home plate is fine, and I would also specify the top and bottom of the zone in terms of inches above home plate. I see no good (IMHO) reason that the zone should be different from one batter to another. In no other major team sport does the size and shape of the playing area vary from one player to another and again, I think it would improve accuracy, precision, and consistency of pitch calls.

[Craig Arko]

I foresee another consequence of this is that the strike zone will be adjusted by the Commissioner's office regularly much as the balls have.

Consistency?

[Nine of twelve]

26 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

I foresee another consequence of this is that the strike zone will be adjusted by the Commissioner's office regularly much as the balls have.

Consistency?

A point well taken, but the strike zone can be and has been adjusted from time to time over the years anyway. I guess my point is there would be a large improvement in consistency from pitch to pitch and from game to game within the season. And in fact it would not surprise me if the zone is adjusted at some point during the first years after ABS is adopted depending on how this improvement affects the game.

[Craig Arko]

Just now, Nine of twelve said:

A point well taken, but the strike zone can be and has been adjusted from time to time over the years anyway. I guess my point is there would be a large improvement in consistency from pitch to pitch and from game to game within the season. And in fact it would not surprise me if the zone is adjusted at some point during the first years after ABS is adopted depending on how this improvement affects the game.

And we’re confident the zone in Target Field and the zone in Yankee Stadium will be the same?

[Parfigliano]

7 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

And we’re confident the zone in Target Field and the zone in Yankee Stadium will be the same?

Apparently the baseballs used werent.  Favoring the loathed yankees naturally.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

I see no good (IMHO) reason that the zone should be different from one batter to another. In no other major team sport does the size and shape of the playing area vary from one player to another and again, I think it would improve accuracy, precision, and consistency of pitch calls.

You think Jose Altuve's strike zone should go to his chin? People's knees set the bottom of the zone (and that is surprisingly consistent) but shoulder height is very different between Altuve and Aaron Judge. If you make Altuve's zone the size of Judge's then he can't play MLB anymore; pitchers will throw him nothing but 96 MPH fastballs at eye level. If you make Judge's zone the size of Altuve's he's going to have a big advantage since you'll never be able to throw him a high strike.

The zone is knees to armpits because it is proportional to the players' reach with their arms. A fixed strike zone will select for taller baseball players. Goodbye Luis Arraez, hope you enjoyed his career.

[ashbury]

Once we have robot umpires, it won't be long until we're watching robot players, amirite.

I realize some of you may think this to be a strawman argument. But this is the 21st century, and we have the technology: I have constructed a robotman argument.

[Nine of twelve]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

You think Jose Altuve's strike zone should go to his chin? People's knees set the bottom of the zone (and that is surprisingly consistent) but shoulder height is very different between Altuve and Aaron Judge. If you make Altuve's zone the size of Judge's then he can't play MLB anymore; pitchers will throw him nothing but 96 MPH fastballs at eye level. If you make Judge's zone the size of Altuve's he's going to have a big advantage since you'll never be able to throw him a high strike.

The height of a basketball hoop is not adjusted depending on the height of the shooter. The size of a soccer goal is not adjusted depending on the height of the keeper. The distance of a footrace is not adjusted depending on the leg length of the runner. The size of a football is not adjusted depending on the size of the quarterback's hand. Etc, etc, etc. Why should the strike zone change depending on the size of the batter? As I said before, the top and bottom of the strike zone were defined as they are for the sole reason that the parts of a batter's body were the only landmarks an umpire could use to determine the top and bottom of the strike zone. It's not 1880 any more.

[DJL44]

1 minute ago, Nine of twelve said:

The height of a basketball hoop is not adjusted depending on the height of the shooter. The size of a soccer goal is not adjusted depending on the height of the keeper. The distance of a footrace is not adjusted depending on the leg length of the runner. The size of a football is not adjusted depending on the size of the quarterback's hand. Etc, etc, etc.

And that's why baseball is better than those other sports.

[Nine of twelve]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

And that's why baseball is better than those other sports.

Oh, well I guess that definitively answers my question.

[Nine of twelve]

3 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

And we’re confident the zone in Target Field and the zone in Yankee Stadium will be the same?

That's something that should be very easy to verify.

[DJL44]

7 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

Oh, well I guess that definitively answers my question.

It does. You don't have to be 270 pounds to play baseball like you do if you want to play football. You don't have to be 7 feet tall like you do to play basketball. The diversity of athletes that can play the sport is part of what makes it fun and part of what makes it accessible for younger athletes. I like that Altuve and Judge can both be good in different ways. The strike zone adapts to the athlete, not the other way around.

[ashbury]

35 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

The height of a basketball hoop is not adjusted depending on the height of the shooter. The size of a soccer goal is not adjusted depending on the height of the keeper. The distance of a footrace is not adjusted depending on the leg length of the runner. The size of a football is not adjusted depending on the size of the quarterback's hand. Etc, etc, etc. Why should the strike zone change depending on the size of the batter? As I said before, the top and bottom of the strike zone were defined as they are for the sole reason that the parts of a batter's body were the only landmarks an umpire could use to determine the top and bottom of the strike zone. It's not 1880 any more.

Why isn't the runner on first declared offside if he arrives at second base before the catcher can throw the ball there and let the second baseman attempt the tag? That's how it is in soccer - the defense has to be given a chance to attempt the play, a rule that evolved in the spirit of fair play.

One sport is not automatically a comp for another sport.  You assert that it is, but it is not.  You have to think about why each particular rule exists.  The burden is on the person drawing a parallel between the sports and their rules, not on the person responding.

So of course my connection of the offside rule in soccer is silly, for exactly the same reason. As for my dislike of the offside rule, I am invited to go root for a different sport, and recognize that a different spirit of fair play exists that I don't happen to subscribe to.

And as with many rules, a spirit of fair play is behind allowing a smaller batter to have a smaller strike zone.  That's a rule for no discernible reason I happen to like.

[Nine of twelve]

3 hours ago, ashbury said:

.

 

[Nine of twelve]

27 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

 

 

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

One sport is not automatically a comp for another sport.  You assert that it is, but it is not.

I didn't assert that. I did assert that baseball is the only major sport that I know of that has a field of play that varies depending on the size of the player. I merely used examples from other sports showing that the field of play does not vary depending on the size of the player in those sports.

 

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

You have to think about why each particular rule exists.

I did exactly this, and in my 3-paragraph post of about 8 hours ago I explained why the strike zone is defined in the way it currently exists.

 

4 hours ago, ashbury said:

And as with many rules, a spirit of fair play is behind allowing a smaller batter to have a smaller strike zone.

The burden of proof is on you to show that this is true, which I don't think is the case.

[Nine of twelve]

And by the way, I don't like that we can't delete our own posts.😡

[Nine of twelve]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It does. You don't have to be 270 pounds to play baseball like you do if you want to play football. You don't have to be 7 feet tall like you do to play basketball. The diversity of athletes that can play the sport is part of what makes it fun and part of what makes it accessible for younger athletes. I like that Altuve and Judge can both be good in different ways. The strike zone adapts to the athlete, not the other way around.

You don't have to be 270 pounds to play football. You don't have to be 7 feet tall to play basketball.