Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#21 cardsfan

cardsfan

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Members
  • 168 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 12:57 PM

What are they using? I mean technology?

Edited by cardsfan, 16 April 2019 - 12:58 PM.


#22 SgtSchmidt11

SgtSchmidt11

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:26 PM

The math in that article was not well done.It stated there was a 20% error rate and yet only 1.6 missed calls an inning.While that's still high, that definetly doesn't add up at all.That'd suggest only 8 pitches an inning (not even half inning!)

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't check out to me.


#23 Shaitan

Shaitan

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:27 PM

I'd rather see 100% robo umps than some of the goofy "time saver" rules proposed for next year.

 

But I also 100% think the human element is essential. Otherwise I might as well just play video game baseball.


#24 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:27 PM

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.)



If there are 100 to 125 pitches called in a game, the umpire is missing 10-12. More than one an inning. So, yeah, I think that’s too many.

As for the accuracy of robo umps, I would imagine whatever system they eventually use will trim accuracy to one centimeter or maybe even less.
  • h2oface and sloopjont like this

#25 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:38 PM

 

The game has survived just fine with human umpires for 150+ years, mistakes and all. Perfect is the enemy of good.  

 

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

 

Ask my wife if you don't believe me.

  • Mike Sixel, nicksaviking, Riverbrian and 6 others like this

#26 sloopjont

sloopjont

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:11 PM

The most important part of automated umps isn't whether they make mistakes or not; it is because it would be the same strike zone for all players, both pitchers and both teams.Take a look at some of the calls on Garver last night to see how his at bats were affected.That made a big difference on a hot hitter and how he approached his at bats..

  • Mike Sixel and h2oface like this

#27 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,755 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:13 PM

If there are 100 to 125 pitches called in a game, the umpire is missing 10-12. More than one an inning. So, yeah, I think that’s too many.


Again, some percentage of those "misses" are edge cases, effectively just coin flips even if called by robots. Are "misses" that are undetectable to human eyes still "misses" that we should care about?

#28 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,755 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:15 PM

The math in that article was not well done. It stated there was a 20% error rate and yet only 1.6 missed calls an inning. While that's still high, that definetly doesn't add up at all. That'd suggest only 8 pitches an inning (not even half inning!)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't check out to me.


I mentioned that in my post upthread (and shared a link directly to the study) -- the 20% error rate is just on 2 strike pitches.

The overall error rate is 9.21% on all called pitches.
  • IMissJoeMauer likes this

#29 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 15,755 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:22 PM

I guess the issue is not only error but bias. The error that the robot could make is related to the limitations of the optics,and presumably there is no bias there (unless somebody rigs the machines, and that can be tested). Humans, all of us, have bias, most of the time unintentional. But all of us pre-judge at some point, because what we thought we saw is different of what we saw. Besides we get tired, annoyed, etc. That doesn't happen with a robot. That is why I am for robocall of balls and strikes.


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.
  • USAFChief, Shaitan, wsnydes and 2 others like this

#30 twins_89

twins_89

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Members
  • 335 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:54 PM

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.

  • Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan, Riverbrian and 3 others like this

#31 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:07 PM

 

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.

  • Mike Sixel, diehardtwinsfan, Riverbrian and 3 others like this

#32 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 4,194 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:10 PM

 

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.

Edited by h2oface, 16 April 2019 - 03:11 PM.

  • Riverbrian likes this

#33 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 4,194 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:14 PM

 

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.

Edited by h2oface, 16 April 2019 - 03:35 PM.

  • TheLeviathan likes this

#34 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 4,194 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:18 PM

 

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.

Edited by h2oface, 16 April 2019 - 03:22 PM.

  • Mike Sixel, Riverbrian and Nine of twelve like this

#35 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 4,194 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:28 PM

 

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.

  • Riverbrian and Nine of twelve like this

#36 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,168 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:28 PM

 

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.

  • Mike Sixel, Riverbrian, h2oface and 1 other like this

#37 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 14,168 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:30 PM

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?
  • Mike Sixel and kenbuddha like this

#38 h2oface

h2oface

    Lifelong since '61

  • Members
  • 4,194 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:39 PM

 

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. 

Edited by h2oface, 16 April 2019 - 03:48 PM.

  • nicksaviking and Riverbrian like this

#39 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:49 PM

 

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...)

  • Mike Sixel, Riverbrian and biggentleben like this

#40 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,418 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:55 PM

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

que-blog.jpg

 

'K. :)

  • Riverbrian, TheLeviathan and wsnydes like this

It is amazing how many eggs one can break without making a decent omelet.