The elephant in the room - Umpires

[Secondary User]

 

Many of those called strikes outside the box were made by Julio Teheran to Yankees batters after much of the damage was already done. Basically, the ump was saying, "If it is close, you better swing." It is also likely that the catcher was framing the box outside of the plate for that pitcher.

 

No they weren't.  The strike zone was horrible from pitch number one and was consistently horrible throughout the game

[Secondary User]

 

 

Sportsradar

 WAAHHHHH!!!!  SportRadar ftw

[drjim]

WAAHHHHH!!!! SportRadara ftw

Late night typo. I can't get around the name change....

[Secondary User]

 

Late night typo. I can't get around the name change....

 

I started close enough to the name change (after the actual purchase in fact) that it's been easy for me

[Minniman]

 

No they weren't.  The strike zone was horrible from pitch number one and was consistently horrible throughout the game

 

I noted that situation a few posts above. The Yankees pitchers were getting the same pitch earlier, so their batters should have expected it to be a strike later in a blowout game.

 

The ump does not have the benefit of a computer and multiple angle slow motion cameras.

 

I don't like bad calls either, but the worst of it is when one team (Yankees, ... cough) get the calls and another team (Twins for example) do not. It makes it very difficult to win for the latter club.

[DaveW]

Sportsradar

Awesome, great company, greater guys/team.

[jimbo92107]

Twins vs Yankees in the post season.

 

Strike zones and even foul lines get moved.

Ohhhh, I didn't want to think about the Yankee ump's screw job of Joe Mauer's fantastic hit down the line. Now I'm pissed off, and it's almost bed time. Grrr...

[Secondary User]

Just another note. In the fourth inning, Carlos Gomez should have been called out on strike three in the zone but it was called a ball and he hit a single losing the bases, then a couple batters later a two out grand slam was hit, ending the game.

 

Umpires affecting the outcome yet again

[Secondary User]

I noted that situation a few posts above. The Yankees pitchers were getting the same pitch earlier, so their batters should have expected it to be a strike later in a blowout game.

 

The ump does not have the benefit of a computer and multiple angle slow motion cameras.

 

I don't like bad calls either, but the worst of it is when one team (Yankees, ... cough) get the calls and another team (Twins for example) do not. It makes it very difficult to win for the latter club.

The strike zone is what it is for a reason. Bad umpiring that is consistent for both teams is still bad umpiring.

[biggentleben]

 

The strike zone is what it is for a reason. Bad umpiring that is consistent for both teams is still bad umpiring.

 

...but what is it? That's the human element that still needs to be there. If a 6'4 guy and a 5'10 guy due to their stances have the same strike zone, the computer umpiring systems I've seen struggle with that. I've also seen the opposite, when a batter squeezes down on a take, and the system does register the squeeze and basically makes it impossible to give him a strike because he's crouched so much. As long as there are humans playing the game, grading the game will require more than a computer system/software to achieve "perfect".

[Minniman]

 

I've also seen the opposite, when a batter squeezes down on a take, and the system does register the squeeze and basically makes it impossible to give him a strike because he's crouched so much. As long as there are humans playing the game, grading the game will require more than a computer system/software to achieve "perfect".

 

How would Rod Carew or Ricky Henderson have ever received a strike?

 

 

The strike zone is what it is for a reason. Bad umpiring that is consistent for both teams is still bad umpiring.

 

 

So the umps must come from the future, have compound eyes, or have graduated from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry because it is not humanly possible to get all of the calls correct.

 

It was worse in the past when the umpires had the old chest protection than it is today.

 

http://www.e-2m.com/redormsby/redwilliams2.jpg

[Secondary User]

 

...but what is it? That's the human element that still needs to be there. If a 6'4 guy and a 5'10 guy due to their stances have the same strike zone, the computer umpiring systems I've seen struggle with that. I've also seen the opposite, when a batter squeezes down on a take, and the system does register the squeeze and basically makes it impossible to give him a strike because he's crouched so much. As long as there are humans playing the game, grading the game will require more than a computer system/software to achieve "perfect".

 

"an area over home plate extending approximately from the armpits to the knees of a batter when in the batting position. The ball must be pitched through this area in order for a strike to be called."

 

You can not tell me that a billion dollar organization like MLB cannot invest in motion tracking software that can register Where a player's chest is and can track it.And frankly, as I read the rule, squaring to bunt is not part of the batting position.

 

Look....no one's asking for perfect.MLB can surely do a better job than it is now.The idea that just because we can't get to perfect means we should just accept it as part of the game is a false dichotomy.

[Secondary User]

And for the record, The Angels got hosed by the umpire tonight.  Elvis Andrus should have been rung up on a called strike three on an 89 mph sinker that was almost completely inside the zone, and instead it got called a ball.  Next pitch he hits a single that sends the runner to third, and the next batter hits a sac fly for the game winning run.

 

Umpires regularly affect the outcomes of games, and not players.  That is a huge problem, and one that MLB should be working to fix.  The whole "gosh golly gee umpires can't be perfect" argument is garbage (coming from a guy who umpires).

[walt-o-meal]

Point 1:  The "human element" argument is highly dubious.  Nobody ever sees a lousy call and says "Gee, that's terrific.  Every blown call adds to the beauty and perfection of the game, because Human Element".  Bad calls are undesirable, and robots would reduce them.  If you really want  unpredictability, you can program in an x% error rate, and then it'll at least be unbiased, so Greg Maddux doesn't get every bull**** call.

 

Point 2:  For whatever reason, umpires like to bait players into ejections.  A robot will not take off his mask and follow an unhappy hitter back to the dugout, talking like a sailor all the way to show the crowd what a big man he is.

 

Point 3:  I don't get it, but some people seem concerned with how long it takes to play baseball games.  (Total speculation, but:) I predict that robot umpires would cut game times by an appreciable amount, as follows:

 

Scenario A:  Close pitch is called a ball.  Pitcher stomps around mound in protest to let umpire know he's full of it.  Catcher walks out to mound to talk him down.  Eventually umpire walks out to break up the conference, and catcher chews on him the entire slow walk back to the plate.

Scenario A with robot umpire:  Close pitch is called a ball.  Catcher throws ball back to pitcher for next pitch, because there's nothing to argue with the umpire about.

Scenario B :  Close pitch is called a strike.  Batter curses, steps out and mutters something about a blind pig.  Umpire takes off mask and asks player what his problem is.  Batter turns his back so as not to be ejected and walks in a circle.  (optional:  manager comes out, kicks some dirt around, throws hat, and gets crowd all fired up).  Batter adjusts gloves, ankle guard, and crotch, spits in general direction of ump, and eventually steps back in for the next pitch. 

Scenario B with robot umpire:  Close pitch is called a strike.  Batter steps back into box for next pitch, because while an MLB hitter in the prime of his life could reasonably believe his vision is better than a fighter pilot (much less a 60-year old man standing 5 feet away and behind another man), the local community college can put together a sensor with better visual acuity than any MLB player that ever lived.

[biggentleben]

 

Point 1:  The "human element" argument is highly dubious.  Nobody ever sees a lousy call and says "Gee, that's terrific.  Every blown call adds to the beauty and perfection of the game, because Human Element".  Bad calls are undesirable, and robots would reduce them.  If you really want  unpredictability, you can program in an x% error rate, and then it'll at least be unbiased, so Greg Maddux doesn't get every bull**** call.

 

Point 2:  For whatever reason, umpires like to bait players into ejections.  A robot will not take off his mask and follow an unhappy hitter back to the dugout, talking like a sailor all the way to show the crowd what a big man he is.

 

Point 3:  I don't get it, but some people seem concerned with how long it takes to play baseball games.  (Total speculation, but:) I predict that robot umpires would cut game times by an appreciable amount, as follows:

 

Scenario A:  Close pitch is called a ball.  Pitcher stomps around mound in protest to let umpire know he's full of it.  Catcher walks out to mound to talk him down.  Eventually umpire walks out to break up the conference, and catcher chews on him the entire slow walk back to the plate.

Scenario A with robot umpire:  Close pitch is called a ball.  Catcher throws ball back to pitcher for next pitch, because there's nothing to argue with the umpire about.

Scenario B :  Close pitch is called a strike.  Batter curses, steps out and mutters something about a blind pig.  Umpire takes off mask and asks player what his problem is.  Batter turns his back so as not to be ejected and walks in a circle.  (optional:  manager comes out, kicks some dirt around, throws hat, and gets crowd all fired up).  Batter adjusts gloves, ankle guard, and crotch, spits in general direction of ump, and eventually steps back in for the next pitch. 

Scenario B with robot umpire:  Close pitch is called a strike.  Batter steps back into box for next pitch, because while an MLB hitter in the prime of his life could reasonably believe his vision is better than a fighter pilot (much less a 60-year old man standing 5 feet away and behind another man), the local community college can put together a sensor with better visual acuity than any MLB player that ever lived.

 

Glavine I can get, but you're complaining about Maddux's calls? Really?!

 

You lost credibility going forward in your comment after that cursing quip.

[sane]

Umpires MUST remain the elephant in the room.

It is detrimental to think or speak of them, because you can't do ANYTHING about them. Everyone one should concern themselves EXCLUSIVELY with factors that THEY can control and NOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE DISTRACTED by independent factors, including umpires!

[walt-o-meal]

 

Glavine I can get, but you're complaining about Maddux's calls? Really?!

 

You lost credibility going forward in your comment after that cursing quip.

 

A Braves fan defending the Maddux strike zone...  What's next, Patriots fans claiming Tom Brady isn't a cheater?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHpupwqmSY

[biggentleben]

It has nothing to do with me being a Braves fan. I've been posting with many here for over 15 years, so I would think my objective view of my favorite team has been well established.

 

I do think it's hilarious that you post a video from the 1997 NLCS, where possibly the best argument against human umpires can be found, and it wasn't in Maddux for sure.

[Hrbowski]

 

A Braves fan defending the Maddux strike zone...  What's next, Patriots fans claiming Tom Brady isn't a cheater?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHpupwqmSY

Tom Brady isn't a cheater.

 

Sincerely,

A Vikings Fan

[Minniman]

 

A Braves fan defending the Maddux strike zone...  What's next, Patriots fans claiming Tom Brady isn't a cheater?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHpupwqmSY

 

That is so bad.

 

[drjim]

If you think the Maddux zone was bad, you should see the Livan Hernandez zone from the same game.

 

Eric Gregg was probably the worst umpire of the era. It's gotten better.

[Thegrin]

 

...but what is it? That's the human element that still needs to be there. If a 6'4 guy and a 5'10 guy due to their stances have the same strike zone, the computer umpiring systems I've seen struggle with that. I've also seen the opposite, when a batter squeezes down on a take, and the system does register the squeeze and basically makes it impossible to give him a strike because he's crouched so much. As long as there are humans playing the game, grading the game will require more than a computer system/software to achieve "perfect".

This is a poor excuse for the "human element". Technology can establish each individual's strike zone in spring training. A player's strike zone does not vary from game to game,  There is absolutely no reason for balls and strikes to be left to the "human element". Hitters still have to hit and pitchers still have to pitch. Let there be an accurate and unbiased call of the balls and strikes.  

[biggentleben]

 

This is a poor excuse for the "human element". Technology can establish each individual's strike zone in spring training. A player's strike zone does not vary from game to game,  There is absolutely no reason for balls and strikes to be left to the "human element". Hitters still have to hit and pitchers still have to pitch. Let there be an accurate and unbiased call of the balls and strikes.  

 

You must never have seen Cal Ripken, who was well known for adjustments to his batting stance from one at bat to the next, let alone from one game to the next. George Brett was known for having changed his batting stance as part of getting out of slumps. There have been others. Is it frequent and common? No, but it happens enough to ruin accuracy for those players, and then you have a legit reason for the players to never approve such a system.

[drjim]

I just watched a Doug Eddings behind the plate game. I take back what I said before...

 

Though in his defense it was Atl-Phil and he probably wanted to get the heck out of there like everyone else.

[Secondary User]

Elephant in the room update:

 

Miguel Sano should have been called out on strike three.  Two pitches later, he goes yard for a go ahead home run in the top of the 12th in a game with two playoff bound teams playing.

 

#UmpiresAffectingOutcomes

[Thegrin]

I love the result. Hate the process. The KC Royals got screwed...not that I care. 

[Secondary User]

I should have said with two teams in playoff races. My inner optimist got the better of me

[Secondary User]

And one thing. Players may adjust there pre-swing stance, but they all come to almost identical phases when they actually start their swing. This whole 'different stance' is a non-issue

[h2oface]

 

It was the same zone for the Yankees pitchers earlier. That edge was already being called a strike, so taking pitches later in a blowout isn't a good idea.

 

The catcher actually moves his body to set the frame. The umpire cannot look down at the plate while the pitch comes in, so that affects his reference slightly.

 

We are talking a human eye watching a 80-90 mph pitch coming in on an arc into an estimated three dimensional area that changes with each player or stance.

 

MLB players used to protect the plate with close pitches deep into the count. Has that changed?

 

So..... I think you just supported the statement that the umpires just guess, and they are just not able to do the job they are supposed to do... correctly. It is possible to now do it correctly, and, as you say, we are talking a human eye watching a 80-90 (even 100) mph pitch........ and they just are not capable, not unlike calling the winner of a swimming race in multiple lanes. Thankfully, swimming embraced the touch pad and the tech to get it fair and right. Did that radically change swimming? Not for the athletes. They just really know who won now.

 

Sure, the batter can protect the plate. But it is even more awesome if they can have such a good eye, and not be cheated, that they get the very close ball call. If they are that good, they deserve it, as does the pitcher that can hit the very corners of the zone, which are mostly erroneously called balls by the presents employed guessers.

[spinowner]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the idea of having a uniform strike zone regardless of a batter's height and/or stance. Why should a tall batter be penalized by having a larger strike zone simply because he's tall? A tall batter can probably hit a pitch near the upper boundary of a uniform strike zone more easily than a short batter, but a short batter can probably hit a pitch near the lower boundary of a uniform zone more easily than a tall batter. It would seem to me that it would more or less even out.

My assumption is that the current definition of the strike zone was put in place because the batter's body was the easiest reference point to use in determining whether a pitch was high or low. If (or when?) electronic pitch calling is put in place a uniform strike zone would probably be necessary.