"Robot Umpires" Coming to Some Affiliated Parks Next Season

Just finished read in an article about this in the latest Baseball America. I'd encourage anyone and everyone to read it if possible. No way to know if the writer has a bias and only selected quotes/opinions that fit his article...I'd like to think that was not the case...but the consensus amongst both hitters and pitchers was they not only didn't like the loss of the human element, not just umpires but catchers as well.

 

There was a general feeling that the strike zone was actually expanded beyond the normal as the ball clipping even a fraction of the zone was called a strike, even on some pitches that hit the dirt. Steve touched on this in great detail. And while some felt the side to side of the zone may have been expanded, it wasn't entirely inaccurate, in their opinion. In fact, a few hitters felt it gave them an advantage. But those interviewed felt the horizontal plane for calls was not accurate/realistic. Again, Steve's comments touched on this.

 

There was also disparaging comments from both hitters and pitchers in regard to the 4 second delay.

 

I am sure everyone would simply adapt to the change. I'm sure tweaks could take place for more immediacy in the call, as well as plane adjustments for greater accuracy. I see no reason why a computer program couldn't also be adjusted so that a certain percentage of a ball must pass through the zone vs a tiny fraction.

 

But until those adjustments could be made, I'm not in favor of the robot ump and it appears the players are not either.

Josh Norris is very anti-automated zone. My co-worker who was with him down in Arizona said it got to be almost comical to listen to Norris rant on the zone during automated games. I'd trust that article about as far as I can throw it.

 

Not saying all conclusions are biased, but from neutral co-workers that were at the AFL, that's not the overall consensus among players, umpires, and coaches.

They'll make a movie called Robo Ump, where a robotic umpire goes rogue and starts killing batters who complain about the strike zone, but Bio Ump--half man, half machine saves the day by re-inventing the strike zone by making it so small no batter would ever complain. In Robo Ump II the pitchers get their revenge by installing robo pitchers who can throw a 273 mph fastball for a strike every single time. Rob Manfred finally finds the already retired Bio Ump living in a maintenance facility in Olympic Baseball Stadium in Montreal. He agrees to come out of hiding to save baseball once again. Bio Ump realizes he will have to destroy all of the robots and over the next two hours and seven minutes, he does just that and baseball is returned to the brutal sport that it once was.

In RU3 a RoboNator comes back from the future to kill a 14 year old Manfred before he can start his insidious destruction of baseball with replays of shoelaces still touching the bag, a helium filled baseball in 2019, and instigating the original Robo Ump 1. It all started innocently. Simple fair or foul. Then everything was up for review by some faceless nameless and apparently AI dimished human bot in NY. Soon the sight of two guys listening on headsets next to the dugout with a quizzical look on there face caused mass confusion. What took so long? It couldn't be the Nixon tapes, the missing gap was only 18 seconds. The newest long lost Elvis release? The audio book of War and Peace? (I date myself) Eventually as is now obvious Rob survives and RU3 is taken out by by his own lack of awareness. Having transformed himself into a beer vendor on opening day, RU3 discovered what all TD readers and posters already know. Beer, especially spilt beer and electronics don't mix! One slip pouring a double 12 oz. cup ($24.00 at Twins games) was all it took. Once the smoke from the short circuit cleared there was nothing left but a small puddle of warm, stale PBR. And Manfreds campaign to destroy our National Pastime moved forward, unabated by common sense, or the AI it spawned!

Edited November 7, 2019 by Platoon

I can respect that.

Is it the sinking breaking pitch that clips the bottom front of the plate that you don’t like? Would you be ok if the rulebook strike zone was changed, so that that pitch remained a ball, not a strike?

You know... I think it’s more of an old school purist approach. The fact that the tech is still in its developmental infancy doesn’t help any though.

 

I just read a post by (Platoon I think?) that spoke of problems with NFL replays and folks still can’t agree on those either, and I felt it was a good point. The human factor of baseball is one of the things that make baseball... baseball. I love it and I feel that most of us do as well.

 

If we didn’t have the ability to argue and fret over “bad” calls, what else would we talk about during the off-season  . But on a more serious note, I genuinely feel that Robo umps are not going to the great Industrial Revolution that many proponents feel that it will be. In the end all it will do is direct their angst in a new direction.

Edited November 7, 2019 by MN_ExPat

I think if you gave umps 4 seconds to think about a pitch, they'd get more ball/strike calls correct.  They give an immediate call that allows everyone to react.   This comes into play on steals, dropped 3rd strikes, etc.  

If they get that 4 seconds down to less than a second, I'm on board.  (I haven't read all the articles....I'm assuming the current system provides a ball/strike call in less than a second?)

 

Guaranteed to be unintended consequences. Still, might be the right move...we'll see how the tests play out. But, it's way down the list in priority of things that need to be tweaked, IMO.

If that’s the case. I don’t advocate immediate implementation.

However, I do advocate priority attention to the improvement of a system for implication as soon as possible.

LOL... I’m sick of pitch framing stats.

I am sick of lots of stats........ Why? Because they are simply new ways to emphasize, and yes account for, things that have been baseball staples for years. And I imagine a lot of fans enjoy fine tuning the numbers. Anyone who has ever played, umpired, or even watched with attentiveness has known for years the value of framing. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that some catchers just aren't good at it. Nor do I need exit velocity, launch angle, and spin rate to know that the harder you hit the ball, in the air the further it will go. And the more revolutions you can impact unto a baseball the quicker and further it will change course. Oh, btw, just to be clear none of the above causes me to change my dislike of the Robo ump possibility. Edited November 8, 2019 by Platoon

I am sick of bizarre and frankly wrong and ticky tac penalties in football. What really kills me is the refs in the NFL almost seem worse than the ones on college. I understand reffing or umpiring in any sport is a tough gig. And I'm in favor or quick, decisive replay to get things right. But they can't be quick, nor do they even get a lot of replays right!

 

I understand some calls will always require some interpretation of a rule. I accept judgement is part of the process. But no even standard is the problem, and at some point, you have to let the players actually play and see what happens.

 

In baseball, while there seems to be a lack of standards from one ump to another, or even during a game for bad umps, at least there isn't a replay and debate every few plays. Pitchers and hitters all benefit from bad calls, or no calls.

 

Don't misunderstand, I WANT the home plate umpire to call it right, or at least consistent. But IMO opinion, rules and criteria are not enforced. I get different hitters have different parameters physically, so the strike zone itself will change, at least on the vertical plane. In other words, Altuve will have a smaller strike zone than Judge on a vertical plane. Regardless, the criteria is written down in the rule book for the top and bottom of that zone. Further, you have a standard 17" wide plate that marks the horizontal plane. A hard breaking pitch can move a ton, but can the umpires really not see it crossing the plate in or out???

 

Unlike the NFL, MLB umpires are professional and not part time. I've always felt there was a lack of education and standards and legitimate grading system in place. If you can't perform your job consistently, then you shouldn't be doing that job!

 

If and when the robot ump can be tweaked to be faster in it's call, and logorhyms can be enhanced for an accepted and true "norm", I could be in favor of the change. From reading comments from batters and pitchers both, it appears they generally agree the computer interpreted zone is not fully accurate. Makes me wonder, again, is it possible a certain percentage of the ball must pass through the zone "window" to be called a strike. I'd like to think technology could allow for that in the future.

 

Until then, MLB needs to hold human umpires to a harder grading criteria for accuracy as it is spelled out.

I asked Kiley in his chat yesterday at FanGraphs how long he saw the robot umps being implemented in minor league ball before making their MLB debut, and his response was a few years.

Catchers are compensated for their ability to fool umpires.

 

That sentence alone can't be beaten in any argument for the human element. 

Well if they are I feel Mitch Garver will be one of the lower paid catchers in baseball year after year. I wish that we would put as much expectation on the players as we do on the officials. Don't get me wrong, I have barked at many an umpire in my life, way many. But that does not change the fact that we expect perfection from them, and at the same time seem quite enthralled with an entire infield that can do only one half of their proscribed duties, the offensive half, with any apparent proficiency. We are enthralled with a catcher who can hit, but couldn't block a four year old from getting into the candy drawer. A cleanup hitter who swings at pitches in a different zip code. But have an umpire miss some close pitches, even say 10 out of 250, and we want to mechanize it? For the players we cheer lustily for their successes and excuse their faults. For the officials we ignore their abilities, and demean their mistakes.

 

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred... went on to say, "I only would go to an automated strike zone when we were sure that it was absolutely the best it can be."
 

This is either really poor logic on Manfred's part or an excuse to never implement automated strike calling.

Technology improves. Continuously. The automated systems available 5 years from now will be better than the systems available now. The systems available 10 years from now will be better than the systems available 5 years from now. Ad infinitum. It's just like phones and computers. If you wait for it to be "absolutely the best it can be" then you will never do it.

To contrast, the ability of humans to call strikes will never improve. Moreover, that ability will always vary from one human to another and from one situation to another, leading to inconsistencies and injustices.

If I were commissioner I would go to an automated system when it surpasses the ability of the average MLB umpire. Without doing any research of the data I would expect that that moment in time has already occurred. That means this change is overdue.

Do these automated umpires take into account crouching? I would stay crouched to shrink my strike zone unless I saw a great pitch to hit. Whereas a human umpire determines strike zone when I am at the point of swinging and applies it to when I stay crouched.