Computerized Vs. Human Strike Zone

[cmoss84]

When this was first brought up, I was against having a computerized strike zone. I was firmly holding onto my traditional baseball beliefs and thought that anything besides having an ump back there would be a bucket of yuck. But the more and more I think about it and watch players complain, I have changed my views. I wouldn't mind having an umpire remain back there, maybe with an earpiece in with someone/something relaying balls and strikes. With pitch counts being so relevant in today's game, wasted pitches can be a big deal. For hitters, the difference between hitting in a 2-1 or 1-2 count is enormous. Pitchers and hitters shouldn't have to adapt to each umpires individual strike zone. I really hope this happens in the next year or two. 

[Vanimal46]

If they move to a computerized system, that would eliminate all of Jason Castro's value as a pitch-framing God. I'm not ready for that to happen. 

They did resize the strike zone this year, so maybe the complaining we're seeing are players that haven't adjusted to the new zone yet. Just a guess on my part. 

[Winston Smith]

Sterilize the game until the human element is gone. Really no need to have any umpires at all with all calls done by replay.

 

I hope I don't see it.

[Craig Arko]

Sterilize the game until the human element is gone. Really no need to have any umpires at all with all calls done by replay.

 

I hope I don't see it.

Use robotic players as well. Then no worries about those pesky shows of emotion.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sterilize the game until the human element is gone. Really no need to have any umpires at all with all calls done by replay.

 

I hope I don't see it.

 

how does each player playing by the same rules sterilize the game? is it a fair competition if players "earn" a different strike zone?

 

To me, it's about the players.

[Vanimal46]

how does each player playing by the same rules sterilize the game? is it a fair competition if players "earn" a different strike zone?

 

To me, it's about the players.

In theory, every player is supposed to have the same strike zone. Then I thought that's where pitch framing comes into play, where Castro frames things so brilliantly that the fringe calls go the Twins way.

[SweetOne69]

 

If they move to a computerized system, that would eliminate all of Jason Castro's value as a pitch-framing God. I'm not ready for that to happen. 

They did resize the strike zone this year, so maybe the complaining we're seeing are players that haven't adjusted to the new zone yet. Just a guess on my part. 

I believe the "new" strike zone goes into effect next season.

[Mike Sixel]

 

In theory, every player is supposed to have the same strike zone. Then I thought that's where pitch framing comes into play, where Castro frames things so brilliantly that the fringe calls go the Twins way.

 

I don't mind "close" calls going one way or the other randomly or thru the players actions in the moment.

 

I mind Tom Glavine strike zones. Or hitters who "earn" a tighter zone. Or umps holding a grudge, or just being inconsistent in a game, or being bad at the zone.

[Steve Lein]

This is something I am unilaterally against. Always will be. This is why:

 

The interaction between hitter/pitcher/umpire in every plate appearance of the game, is the biggest and most basic part of strategy in the game of baseball. If you take this away, you are altering the very core of how the game is played and what it is.

 

Pitchers realizes throughout game that maybe they're getting a little more space on some side of the plate, so they start utilizing that to their advantage.

 

The skill of a catcher (since we're so enamored with Jason Castro now) would be neutralized. You would literally eliminate a large part of why that position is so important on the defensive side of the game.

 

You would also see hitters universally swing less, as they know a pitcher will have to be exact on getting strikes and would reduce (quite significantly, in my opinion) the idea that they need to protect with two strikes. This would lead to more walks (boring), lengthen games (what they're trying to curb), and furthermore, eliminate a large portion of talking points about the game.

 

You want to make baseball LESS FUN? This is how that happens.

[Ben Noble]

 

Use robotic players as well. Then no worries about those pesky shows of emotion.

 

The KBO did try those robotic fans a few years back...

 

[bizaff]

I fundamentally don't understand the argument FOR umpires calling balls and strikes.  The strike zone is explicitly called out in the rules.  Umpires introduce a lot of uncertainty about how to interpret that.  The reason the "skill" and "strategy" of a catcher and the strike zone exist is because umpires can't be that accurate.

 

Yes it's history, yes it can be interesting how pitchers and batters have to adjust to this umpire, or even how this umpire is calling today.  But I don't see that as a benefit to the game.  Hitters and pitchers both complain about bad calls.  Why let the most neutral (by definition) people involved in the game have such an impact on the outcome?

[Mike Sixel]

 

This is something I am unilaterally against. Always will be. This is why:

 

The interaction between hitter/pitcher/umpire in every plate appearance of the game, is the biggest and most basic part of strategy in the game of baseball. If you take this away, you are altering the very core of how the game is played and what it is.

 

Pitchers realizes throughout game that maybe they're getting a little more space on some side of the plate, so they start utilizing that to their advantage.

 

The skill of a catcher (since we're so enamored with Jason Castro now) would be neutralized. You would literally eliminate a large part of why that position is so important on the defensive side of the game.

 

You would also see hitters universally swing less, as they know a pitcher will have to be exact on getting strikes and would reduce (quite significantly, in my opinion) the idea that they need to protect with two strikes. This would lead to more walks (boring), lengthen games (what they're trying to curb), and furthermore, eliminate a large portion of talking points about the game.

 

You want to make baseball LESS FUN? This is how that happens.

 

so you are in favor of strike zones that are vastly different for different players, and having an uneven playing field? That's more fun?

[drjim]

 

so you are in favor of strike zones that are vastly different for different players, and having an uneven playing field? That's more fun?

 

Vastly different strikes me as a big stretch. There is certainly variance game to game because of a different umpire, and certain pitchers may exploit that better than others, but does it really vary that much player to player?

 

It is telling that the example usually cited is a pitcher from 8 years ago.

[Respy]

I say, let's give it a test in some minor league games and maybe spring training.  I was going to humorously suggest making the home plate light up green or red for the call, but then remembered how many people are colorblind...

 

In all seriousness, I think the best thing has been having an awareness of how non-perfect the umpires really are, and using the technology to show certain umpire how they can improve their manual ball/strike calling.  An improvement from 83% to 86% accuracy over just 7 years (below) is a huge improvement.  At 292 pitches per game, that's 8 to 9 more pitches called correctly.  Still 41 being called incorrectly though.

 

[cmoss84]

I don't understand why you would want balls to be called strikes or strikes to be called balls, especially in a scoring or late-inning opportunity (let alone the playoffs). Don't you want these situations to be fair and to be 100% accurately determined by the players? 

 

Steve-you also brought up a point about hitters swinging less. I'm not saying that you're not right, but I see it differently. I think pitchers will start to work different areas of the strike zones (let's say top left/right) that don't get called very often...ultimately leading to hitters acting MORE aggressively. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Vastly different strikes me as a big stretch. There is certainly variance game to game because of a different umpire, and certain pitchers may exploit that better than others, but does it really vary that much player to player?

 

It is telling that the example usually cited is a pitcher from 8 years ago.

 

I literally stopped actually watching on tv because of it....I could not stand the uneven playing field. It's also why I gave up on the NBA.

[bizaff]

 

I don't understand why you would want balls to be called strikes or strikes to be called balls, especially in a scoring or late-inning opportunity (let alone the playoffs). Don't you want these situations to be fair and to be 100% accurately determined by the players? 

 

Steve-you also brought up a point about hitters swinging less. I'm not saying that you're not right, but I see it differently. I think pitchers will start to work different areas of the strike zones (let's say top left/right) that don't get called very often...ultimately leading to hitters acting MORE aggressively. 

 

I agree completely.  And if it turns out hitters are swinging less, then adjust the strike zone to be what it really should be. 

 

If hitters swing less because it's hard for pitchers to hit the strike zone, then that shows that the specification of the strike zone is broken and/or has been broken for a long time, not that this new, correct enforcement of the rules is a problem.

[Thrylos]

Look at Tennis as an example.  For a good decade or so, they are using computerized systems to aid the refs to make the correct calls, without taking anything from the game, other than disputes.

 

There is no reason in 2017 and with the technology there, esp. in a time that the league wants to speed up the game, not to give umpires the tools to make the correct calls (balls and strikes, and fair vs foul, checked swing or not, or HR or not, etc.) before and not after replay.

 

Just don't get it.

[a-wan]

If it means Joe West, Angel Hernandez and CB Bucknor have less chance to ruin a game I'm all for it.

[drjim]

 

I literally stopped actually watching on tv because of it....I could not stand the uneven playing field. It's also why I gave up on the NBA.

 

Is there any good data on a specific pitcher or hitter getting a noticeably different zone than others? I think Fangraphs or somewhere like that would be all over it if it was true.

[drjim]

 

Look at Tennis as an example.  For a good decade or so, they are using computerized systems to aid the refs to make the correct calls, without taking anything from the game, other than disputes.

 

There is no reason in 2017 and with the technology there, esp. in a time that the league wants to speed up the game, not to give umpires the tools to make the correct calls (balls and strikes, and fair vs foul, checked swing or not, or HR or not, etc.) before and not after replay.

 

Just don't get it.

 

The replay system already sucks in my mind. Adding significantly more calls to the system would not be a positive.

[Thrylos]

 

The replay system already sucks in my mind. Adding significantly more calls to the system would not be a positive.

 

This will reduce replay calls.  Automatic detection of foul balls (just like tennis), checked swings, HRs and balls and strikes will reduce replays as well as arguments..

[Respy]

 

Is there any good data on a specific pitcher or hitter getting a noticeably different zone than others? I think Fangraphs or somewhere like that would be all over it if it was true.

 

Regarding the proposed change to raise the strike zone, the below article notes that Pirates and Cubs pitchers were the most favored for getting low strikes called, they suggest due to pitch-framing ability of catchers like Cervelli.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/129540/inside-mlbs-potential-new-strike-zone

[Steve Lein]

 

so you are in favor of strike zones that are vastly different for different players, and having an uneven playing field? That's more fun?

 

If you think of it that way, that's your prerogative. I don't.

 

The term "vastly" is an extremely poor choice of words for what it actually is. It's not like guys known for good eyes or pitchers known for good control get 6 more inches from umpires. If you were able to research it, I'd bet it's like an inch at the most, which if we're being honest, are callable pitches either way anyway.

 

I think this idea of thinking about it is blown way out of proportion.

[Winston Smith]

 

I literally stopped actually watching on tv because of it....I could not stand the uneven playing field. It's also why I gave up on the NBA.

So what sport can you watch that doesn't have some kind of human official element that can cause an uneven field?

[Vanimal46]

 

So what sport can you watch that doesn't have some kind of human official element that can cause an uneven field?

 

Bowling?

[Craig Arko]

 

So what sport can you watch that doesn't have some kind of human official element that can cause an uneven field?

Video game sports.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So what sport can you watch that doesn't have some kind of human official element that can cause an uneven field?

 

In general, it is harder to do it in the NFL, but I do believe some teams' DBs get away with more than others. I pretty much only watch the Vikings now.

 

I am not opposed to human officials, I'm opposed to human officials when a: they intentionally call things differently for different people, and they do; b: they are really, really bad at their job, and some are and they still have jobs; c: they are hard to replace with automation, like most football or basketball calls. 

 

Calling balls and strikes is very, very, very different than calling holding or interference. IMO, of course.

 

I actually watch less and less sports every year, partly over the enforcement of the rules being so uneven that it frustrates me.

 

Golf, btw, has a very even playing field.

[bighat]

Won't happen due to the MLB umpires union (known now as the World Umpires Association).  They've already let a ton of power slip with the replay stuff, I don't think they're prepared to give away any more territory to robots. 

 

I for one do enjoy a good "steeee-rriiike threeeee" with a fist pump as opposed to some robotic BEEP.  In my head I'm thinking of that noise that you hear during the Olympics when swimmers are at the starting blocks.  Maybe if they made a big gong noise on the 3rd strike, I'd be up for checking it out though. Or that sad trombone on the Price is Right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[bizaff]

 

So what sport can you watch that doesn't have some kind of human official element that can cause an uneven field?

 

 

In general, it is harder to do it in the NFL, but I do believe some teams' DBs get away with more than others. I pretty much only watch the Vikings now.

 

I am not opposed to human officials, I'm opposed to human officials when a: they intentionally call things differently for different people, and they do; b: they are really, really bad at their job, and some are and they still have jobs; c: they are hard to replace with automation, like most football or basketball calls. 

 

Calling balls and strikes is very, very, very different than calling holding or interference. IMO, of course.

 

I actually watch less and less sports every year, partly over the enforcement of the rules being so uneven that it frustrates me.

 

Golf, btw, has a very even playing field.

 

Citing that most sports have human officiating is not an argument to oppose automated officiating, in my opinion.

 

In the sports that do use automated officiating, it systematically overrules human officiating.  Why is this?  Because the automated officiating is more reliable.

 

If it's more reliable, why not use it more?

 

I don't watch baseball for the umpires.  The only thing I like to see umpires do is get animated when delivering a close call THAT'S CORRECT.

 

I'd be perfectly ok if all the umpires were in a booth with slow motion available to make sure everything's right.  With the right equipment, that should take an extra 2-5 seconds per call.  It helps to have an extra warm body on the field to make a call that the fans can see, so be it - put a wire in his ear to talk to the boys upstairs.

 

I don't necessarily want to eliminate people making these calls, I just want them to get it right.  If getting it right means using technology, it's a no-brainer.  If the technology means you don't need a person making the call, what good does the warm body do?