Computerized Vs. Human Strike Zone

[Thrylos]

 

Won't happen due to the MLB umpires union (known now as the World Umpires Association).  

 

 

 

Do you remember how much baseball suffered when MLB umpires decided to strike and the league replaced them with AAA umpires?

 

Neither does any one, including the MLB union that decided to stop their strike after a while

[gunnarthor]

I think a computerized zone would actually be very hard to do.  While Fox track or whatever has a pop up plane and brooks baseball has a similar plane, it's important to remember that the strike zone isn't a plane.  It's a fairly large rectangular area and if the ball crosses any point - either the far front of the plate or nixes the bottom edge, it's supposed to be a strike.  

 

For example, I don't know how to post pictures but if you look at this fangraphs article of the CB Bucknor strike out of Werth and compare it to the picture on the below tweet, you'll see a few things:

 

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/854496081060691969/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwinsdaily.com%2Ftopic%2F25625-kurt-suzuki-pitch-framing-god%2F

 

 

First, fangraphs has the third pitch as a strike while the Nats' strikebox has it as a ball.  So we already have a problem with how pitches are graphed by two of the more common methods we have. 

 

Second, in the fangraphs piece, you can see a gif of the second called strike.  Brooks has it as a ball.  But it moves a lot from the pitching side to the LH hitter's box.  I'm not entirely sure it didn't nix the very front edge of that plate.  We already know that brooks and fox view pitches differently so I'm not sure that Bucknor was wrong on that pitch either.  I'd love to see a direct overhead camera of that pitch.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think a computerized zone would actually be very hard to do.  While Fox track or whatever has a pop up plane and brooks baseball has a similar plane, it's important to remember that the strike zone isn't a plane.  It's a fairly large rectangular area and if the ball crosses any point - either the far front of the plate or nixes the bottom edge, it's supposed to be a strike.  

 

For example, I don't know how to post pictures but if you look at this fangraphs article of the CB Bucknor strike out of Werth and compare it to the picture on the below tweet, you'll see a few things:

 

https://twitter.com/MarkBullockNFL/status/854496081060691969/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwinsdaily.com%2Ftopic%2F25625-kurt-suzuki-pitch-framing-god%2F

 

 

First, fangraphs has the third pitch as a strike while the Nats' strikebox has it as a ball.  So we already have a problem with how pitches are graphed by two of the more common methods we have. 

 

Second, in the fangraphs piece, you can see a gif of the second called strike.  Brooks has it as a ball.  But it moves a lot from the pitching side to the LH hitter's box.  I'm not entirely sure it didn't nix the very front edge of that plate.  We already know that brooks and fox view pitches differently so I'm not sure that Bucknor was wrong on that pitch either.  I'd love to see a direct overhead camera of that pitch.

 

you'll note that there is no technology in parks to do this at all right now.....you think self driving cars will work, but not a strike zone? I don't think we'll agree on that.

[gunnarthor]

 

you'll note that there is no technology in parks to do this at all right now.....you think self driving cars will work, but not a strike zone? I don't think we'll agree on that.

I'm not betting on self driving cars.

 

I think we can get there but I think we're farther away than what is being implied in this thread and I'm not sure it's as needed as some think.  Remember, the zone is supposed to be different for every player.  I think this is the official definition in the rule book -

"The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." 

[cmoss84]

 

I'm not betting on self driving cars.

 

I think we can get there but I think we're farther away than what is being implied in this thread and I'm not sure it's as needed as some think.  Remember, the zone is supposed to be different for every player.  I think this is the official definition in the rule book -

"The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." 

It sounds like people are talking about different variations of "different strike zones." You are implying the actual definition, while others are simply saying certain players get a couple inches of leeway any direction. 

 

On a side note, I just want to say that I still want an umpire behind the plate relaying the calls. And they can be as animated as they want. 

[KirbyDaisy]

How would players heights affect the zone.. They would need an individual zone for every player.

[Winston Smith]

 

.........

 

Golf, btw, has a very even playing field.

Golf lets people in an easy chair act as rules officials by calling in or e-mailing the real officials.

 

This may be a good idea for calling strikes. Fans can go online watching the game, check strike or ball on the screen and the majority wins. Make the game an interactive umpiring game with the fans. Should increase fans interest.  

[ScrapTheNickname]

 

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

I imagined when I was a younger person that it would come to that. Why pay real humans to do a job that robots can do just well, or just poorly? Input errors, quirks, abilities, and mannerisms into them and watch them play. Full-sized 3-D robots in our headsets while Rome burns. Unintended consequences anyone?

[bizaff]

 

How would players heights affect the zone.. They would need an individual zone for every player.

 

I believe this is a very solvable problem.

 

From ze rules:

 

 

The  STRIKE  ZONE  is  that  area  over home  plate  the  upper  limit  of  which  is  a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

 

I think it's safe to round the strike zone off to a rectangular solid.. I suppose a breaking ball could clip the point at the back, so for argument's sake, keep it a 5 sided solid, which a single camera from above can easily detect.

 

A computer can determine where knees, shoulders, and pants are fairly easily with various image recognition.  The only trick I can think of is when to capture the upper and lower bounds of the strike zone, and a warm body can do that if you sync a camera to the pitcher.

 

Even if a computer can't figure the height automagically, let the warm body do that for each player.. at the beginning of the at bat, or game, or once a year.  With the right definition, it's no longer subjective.

[gunnarthor]

 

How would players heights affect the zone.. They would need an individual zone for every player.

Dave Winfield's strike zone was a bit bigger than Jose Altuve's strike zone.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Golf lets people in an easy chair act as rules officials by calling in or e-mailing the real officials.

 

This may be a good idea for calling strikes. Fans can go online watching the game, check strike or ball on the screen and the majority wins. Make the game an interactive umpiring game with the fans. Should increase fans interest.

 

They've abolished this, btw.....mostly.

 

As they should. It's either caught by the player, opponent, or official, or it didn't happen.

 

But, that pretty much totally ignores the main question about even playing field. 

[drjim]

 

They've abolished this, btw.....mostly.

 

As they should. It's either caught by the player, opponent, or official, or it didn't happen.

 

But, that pretty much totally ignores the main question about even playing field. 

 

I very much enjoy playing and watching golf, but not sure a comparison to baseball makes much sense on this issue. The difference between the games is so vast.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I very much enjoy playing and watching golf, but not sure a comparison to baseball makes much sense on this issue. The difference between the games is so vast.

 

The question was, is there a sport where the refs treat everyone and every play the same, wasn't it? That the issues with human officials had virtually no impact on the sport.....that was golf. I answered the question asked. Nothing more or less than that.

[drjim]

 

The question was, is there a sport where the refs treat everyone and every play the same, wasn't it? That the issues with human officials had virtually no impact on the sport.....that was golf. I answered the question asked. Nothing more or less than that.

 

Fair enough. Seems a stretch to call golf a sport that is actively officiated.

[Craig Arko]

The question was, is there a sport where the refs treat everyone and every play the same, wasn't it? That the issues with human officials had virtually no impact on the sport.....that was golf. I answered the question asked. Nothing more or less than that.

When I GM a role-playing game I treat all the participants exactly equally.

 

Except for the ones I don't.

[Mike Sixel]

 

When I GM a role-playing game I treat all the participants exactly equally.

Except for the ones I don't.

 

Then you might want to reconsider playing in my game.....which might be back on, btw. I do give small rewards for good RPing....which I guess does treat you all the same based on performance. Of course, we are on the 10th version or so of the rules, so I tend not to enforce them correctly....

[Twinsbar107]

 

Bowling?

Sport, not activity.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sport, not activity.

 

Interesting. How so? I argue if it takes physical exertion/movement, and has objective scoring, it is a sport.

 

Therefore, gymnastics is not a sport.....

[Twinsbar107]

 

Interesting. How so? I argue if it takes physical exertion/movement, and has objective scoring, it is a sport.

 

Therefore, gymnastics is not a sport.....

I was being facetious. I wasn't taking anything away from bowling, meant it more as a joke.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I was being facetious. I wasn't taking anything away from bowling, meant I more as a joke.

 

Damn, I hate when I miss a good joke. stupid internet (note, it can't be me.....)

[PDX Twin]

The top level of English football has successfully introduced goal-line technology in the last two years. The referee wears a watch that shows whether or not the ball fully crossed the goal line inside the frame of the goal. Easy, quick, and it keeps the referee in charge, but augments his personal vision (and that of the assistant referees) with a new tool.

 

The home-plate umpire could have such a device and use it as needed, perhaps only on close calls.

[Twinsbar107]

 

Damn, I hate when I miss a good joke. stupid internet (note, it can't be me.....)

Now, I'm not sure if you are joking. But it is hard to tell if one is being sarcastic over the internet.

[Dman]

The more fair you can make the game the better it will be for everyone.  Baseball purists are like the Amish they want to live in the 1800's while the modern world moves forward.  The shot clock was supposed to hurt basketball.  The three point shot was going to kill the game.  Those changes only made the game better and more exciting as players adapted to rule changes.  Change is good it happens everyday no reason to be afraid of it.

 

Use the technology where it makes sense and I guarantee you will enjoy the game as much if not more than before.  Don't let the fear mongers scare you away from something that will improve the game.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Now, I'm not sure if you are joking. But it is hard to tell if one is being sarcastic over the internet.

 

both....I am annoyed when I miss a good joke....

[drjim]

The more fair you can make the game the better it will be for everyone. Baseball purists are like the Amish they want to live in the 1800's while the modern world moves forward. The shot clock was supposed to hurt basketball. The three point shot was going to kill the game. Those changes only made the game better and more exciting as players adapted to rule changes. Change is good it happens everyday no reason to be afraid of it.

 

Use the technology where it makes sense and I guarantee you will enjoy the game as much if not more than before. Don't let the fear mongers scare you away from something that will improve the game.

I guess I see baseball umps as very fair, they just aren't perfectly accurate.

 

There are tradeoffs in the pursuit of perfect accuracy, not all of them are necessarily for the better.

 

For example, I don't think baseball is a better game because we can now spend 5 minutes reviewing a play enough to see if someone sliding into second broke contact with the base for 0.1 second. It might be more accurate tho.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I guess I see baseball umps as very fair, they just aren't perfectly accurate.

There are tradeoffs in the pursuit of perfect accuracy, not all of them are necessarily for the better.

For example, I don't think baseball is a better game because we can now spend 5 minutes reviewing a play enough to see if someone sliding into second broke contact with the base for 0.1 second. It might be more accurate tho.

 

I agree with this sentiment. But I don't think that's a good reason to resist all change on this front.

[Dman]

 

I guess I see baseball umps as very fair, they just aren't perfectly accurate.

There are tradeoffs in the pursuit of perfect accuracy, not all of them are necessarily for the better.

For example, I don't think baseball is a better game because we can now spend 5 minutes reviewing a play enough to see if someone sliding into second broke contact with the base for 0.1 second. It might be more accurate tho.

While I understand the sentiment I doubt the veracity of your statement.  If that replay determined whether your team won or lost that game I bet you would be very happy to wait five minutes for the result of replay.  While I can't say I love waiting for replay in any sport I really, really do appreciate that we get the chance to get it right so that no team gains an unfair advantage due to a bad call.

 

While I see some argument in the robot theory that perfection isn't everything I don't think that argument truly applies here as I believe the issue is more about creating an equal playing field or fairness instead of unbiased and sometimes I believe biased error.  For me personally I don't like a strike three call on ball 4 and I don't like ball 4 when it should have been strike three.  Too often an element of judgement that shouldn't have anything to do with the game determines the game and that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

I believe umps mostly try to be fair but when questioned I also think they hold grudges and biases for the team or player who questioned them.  So I don't see umps in the rosy light you do.

 

Personally I think the players should win or lose the games themselves and if technology can help make a consistent strike zone free of bias and human error then I think that makes the game better and the outcome more true.

 

 

[drjim]

 

While I understand the sentiment I doubt the veracity of your statement.  If that replay determined whether your team won or lost that game I bet you would be very happy to wait five minutes for the result of replay.  While I can't say I love waiting for replay in any sport I really, really do appreciate that we get the chance to get it right so that no team gains an unfair advantage due to a bad call.

 

While I see some argument in the robot theory that perfection isn't everything I don't think that argument truly applies here as I believe the issue is more about creating an equal playing field or fairness instead of unbiased and sometimes I believe biased error.  For me personally I don't like a strike three call on ball 4 and I don't like ball 4 when it should have been strike three.  Too often an element of judgement that shouldn't have anything to do with the game determines the game and that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

I believe umps mostly try to be fair but when questioned I also think they hold grudges and biases for the team or player who questioned them.  So I don't see umps in the rosy light you do.

 

Personally I think the players should win or lose the games themselves and if technology can help make a consistent strike zone free of bias and human error then I think that makes the game better and the outcome more true.

 

I would absolutely not want a game determined either way by one of those split second plays at 2b that can only be spotted going frame by frame. I'm not against replay, I think it is especially valuable for home runs and fair/foul balls.

 

Personally, I would only allow challenges if called for within 5 seconds or if umps wanted another look themselves. Too much standing around, not even great outcomes when used.

 

For me, it is about fairness, not perfection. And it is not like computer zones won't have problems, there is enough of an error margin that will exist that it is not especially clear it will be that much more accurate overall.

 

And on a final point, while I do like technology, I also like to occasionally get away from it. Baseball is still a sport, played outdoors. Waiting for a red/green light after every pitch would not enhance the experience for me, no matter how "accurate" it claimed to be. There would be unintended consequences to this that really aren't being thought through enough. Replay right now is not a finely tuned machine, and the fixes aren't obvious either.

[bizaff]

 

I would absolutely not want a game determined either way by one of those split second plays at 2b that can only be spotted going frame by frame. I'm not against replay, I think it is especially valuable for home runs and fair/foul balls.

 

Personally, I would only allow challenges if called for within 5 seconds or if umps wanted another look themselves. Too much standing around, not even great outcomes when used.

 

For me, it is about fairness, not perfection. And it is not like computer zones won't have problems, there is enough of an error margin that will exist that it is not especially clear it will be that much more accurate overall.

 

And on a final point, while I do like technology, I also like to occasionally get away from it. Baseball is still a sport, played outdoors. Waiting for a red/green light after every pitch would not enhance the experience for me, no matter how "accurate" it claimed to be. There would be unintended consequences to this that really aren't being thought through enough. Replay right now is not a finely tuned machine, and the fixes aren't obvious either.

 

I don't like the split second off the base thing either.  I think the spirit of the rule is that you can't overslide.   So amend the rule such that if the guy pops up and off, he's safe.  Make it objective.

 

I like the 5 second limit to replay also.. or something so fast that you don't have someone else walking through a DVR frame by frame to see if he's safe.

 

I agree, fairness is the the goal.  Someone posted earlier that something like 40 pitches per game are called incorrectly - I assume these do NOT break evenly in the short term, which can affect a game or a season.

 

I'll stray a bit in the last one.  I don't want to wait for a red or green light either - put an earpiece in the home plate ump and have it relay him the signal.  You still need a guy there to understand and enforce other rules.

[spinowner]

There is only one reason the strike zone is different for each player: it's so the umpire has easily visible reference points to determine whether a pitch is a strike or not. Home plate defines inside and outside and the player defines high and low. Is it fair that Jose Altuve has a smaller zone than Kennys Vargas? There are good arguments to be made both ways, but IMHO it is unfair, both to the taller player and to the pitcher. I think the zone should be the same for all players.

The most important thing is to maximize the integrity of the game. We found out earlier in this thread that the best umpire in the world calls pitches correctly only 90% of the time. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that electronic strike calling systems are at least that accurate and there's every reason to think that this will improve. And having a uniform zone would improve accuracy even further. If electronic is better then that's what should be done.