Robo Umps

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 I'd add to it, the relationship between catchers and umpires. I've spent enough time as a catcher to know how important it is. When an ump calls a borderline pitch a ball that you felt should've been a strike, and you quietly, questioningly go, "ohhh" and the ump responds, just as quietly, "just missed." - I don't know, it almost chokes me up, imagining that disappearing from the game.

We would lose that interplay between catcher and umpire. I hadn't seen it quite that way. Even with a radar strike zone I would always want the home plate umpire to have the final call. There could be interference or the buzzer could stop working for whatever reason. I wonder if the catcher could cultivate that relationship in other ways, if the ump was no long calling the balls and strikes.

[Sam Morley]

 

Shouldn't we want the best umpires to call pitches? Why does it matter whether they are automated or human?

 

It matters in that one is more fun than the other. People calling pitches is more fun than machines calling pitches. It's important that the people calling pitches do their absolute best to make the right call, but getting the call right 100% of the time is not so important that people should be replaced by machines.

[Nine of twelve]

I'd like that too. Use the robo ump results to help train the real umps and demote the umps who miss the most calls.

If you are going to use automated pitch calling systems to train umpires it means that the automated systems are more accurate than the humans. So why do that? Just use the automated systems instead. Don't we all want the best possible umpires? What difference does it make whether they are human or not?

[Sam Morley]

 

We would lose that interplay between catcher and umpire. I hadn't seen it quite that way. Even with a radar strike zone I would always want the home plate umpire to have the final call. There could be interference or the buzzer could stop working for whatever reason. I wonder if the catcher could cultivate that relationship in other ways, if the ump was no long calling the balls and strikes.

 

It would just be a benign, friendly relationship. The relationship would cease to have any bearing on the game. What's unique about the relationship is that it has elements of both comradery and adversary. 

[Platoon]

We would lose that interplay between catcher and umpire. I hadn't seen it quite that way. Even with a radar strike zone I would always want the home plate umpire to have the final call. There could be interference or the buzzer could stop working for whatever reason. I wonder if the catcher could cultivate that relationship in other ways, if the ump was no long calling the balls and strikes.

I don't think so. Rightfully or not, catchers and umpires end up with a "relationship". They get beat up together, and each have the same view of the game. A good catcher will never tell his pitcher a ball was a strike, it makes the pitcher upset, and the umpire more so. I showed up to do a game once for the same team the third time in about 2 weeks. I mentioned to the coach that we sure seem to see a lot of each other. He said, "makes no difference to me, my catcher likes you, that's all I care about".

[ashbury]

I guess I'm too much an engineer by nature. I'll never see the romance in getting a call wrong.

[Craig Arko]

 

I guess I'm too much an engineer by nature. I'll never see the romance in getting a call wrong.

Baseball is a performance art, not a well-defined form of computation.

[ashbury]

Baseball is a performance art, not a well-defined form of computation.

I get the romance of the game. Not of the wrong calls by someone not vying to win.

 

Overcoming adversity is a mainstay of the human condition. I just got done reviewing Kirk Gibson's home run video. You know the one. A lot of baseball packed into that one at-bat. (A good case study for the pace-of-game discussion of another thread - I don't mind an eight-minute plate appearance with the batter fiddling around a lot, in the right situation.)

 

The plate umpire didn't figure into that bit of heroic narrative at all.

 

Indeed I'm trying to remember any of Baseball's big moments where overcoming a questionable umpiring call figures into it. All I can come up with is Don Denkinger, or Galarraga's almost-perfect game, and nobody overcame those - quite the reverse, actually. While those aren't balls-and-strikes as discussed here, I wouldn't want to see a perfect game marred by a terrible ball-four call (or even ball-one, followed by three wide ones) either. Is there a good instance of a big moment to tell our grandchildren about, set up for instance by a terrible called strike that put the batter in an 0-2 hole which he overcame?

[Platoon]

I get the romance of the game.

 

Overcoming adversity is a mainstay of the human condition. I just got done reviewing Kirk Gibson's home run video. You know the one. A lot of baseball packed into that one at-bat. (A good case study for the pace-of-game discussion of another thread - I don't mind an eight-minute plate appearance with the batter fiddling around a lot, in the right situation.)

 

The plate umpire didn't figure into that bit of heroic narrative at all.

 

Indeed I'm trying to remember any of Baseball's big moments where overcoming a questionable umpiring call figures into it. All I can come up with is Galarraga's almost-perfect game; while it's not balls-and-strikes as discussed here, I wouldn't want to see a perfect game marred by a terrible ball-four call (or even ball-one, followed by four wide ones) either. Is there a good instance of a big moment to tell our grandchildren about, set up by a terrible called strike that put the batter in an 0-2 hole which he overcame?

The plate umpire didn't figure into that bit of heroic narrative at all.>>>>>>>>. And that is the goal of the very good umpire.

[ashbury]

The plate umpire didn't figure into that bit of heroic narrative at all.>>>>>>>>. And that is the goal of the very good umpire.

If robots have aspirations, they probably share that.

[Craig Arko]

If robots have aspirations, they probably share that.

Or at least dream of electric sheep.

[Platoon]

If robots have aspirations, they probably share that.

If robots have aspirations, whether they are used for plate umpiring will be the least of our problems.

[Nine of twelve]

Not yet.  Seems there's a long way to go with regard to accurately, fairly, consistently, establishing the top and bottom of the zone...or even how you should solve for that.  Current (from the article) technology relies on human operators establishing the top and bottom for each plate appearance.  Until that's solved...and it's not going to be easy...I'm not too excited about implementing something  that really wouldn't solve for the real and perceived problems of inconsistency and bias.

Solving the problem of establishing the top and bottom of the zone is very easy. Use the same strike zone for all players regardless of height and stance.

[Nine of twelve]

It matters in that one is more fun than the other. People calling pitches is more fun than machines calling pitches. It's important that the people calling pitches do their absolute best to make the right call, but getting the call right 100% of the time is not so important that people should be replaced by machines.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. To me it's no fun for wrong calls to be made. It's not fair to the pitcher, it's not fair to the batter, and it's not fair to the fans.

[Nine of twelve]

Baseball is a performance art, not a well-defined form of computation.

Who says robots can't do performance art?

[Craig Arko]

 

Who says robots can't do performance art?

Indeed.

 

[Sam Morley]

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. To me it's no fun for wrong calls to be made. It's not fair to the pitcher, it's not fair to the batter, and it's not fair to the fans.

 

If I'm batting, and the count is let's say, 1-1, and a pitcher throws a pitch- which I take- on the outside corner, it's in the zone, but the umpire calls it a ball, and now the count is 2-1- that's fun. 

 

It is fair. It's fair because everybody gets calls in their favor and calls against them. It comes out in the wash. In one of the worst calls in Twins history, a ball Joe Mauer hit was called foul even though it was fair. It sucked. In one of the worst calls in Twins history, Kent Hrbek pulled Ron Gant off first base and he was called out. It was and still is tremendous fun.

 

Occasional blown calls are fair and fun!

[Sam Morley]

 

Solving the problem of establishing the top and bottom of the zone is very easy. Use the same strike zone for all players regardless of height and stance.

 

you think Jose altuve and Richie sexon should have the same strike zone?

[Sam Morley]

"You believe a computer can beat me?" - MLB umpire, Dwight Schrutt

[Platoon]

It seems our closest proximation to Robo Umps would be instant replay. I think tennis may have something closer for line calls, but I kept getting a kink in my neck from watching it, so I quit. And even with the aid of instant replays, tags and foul balls and HR poles shown to the N-th of a degree, we still cannot always agree on the result.

[Mr. Brooks]

It seems our closest proximation to Robo Umps would be instant replay. I think tennis may have something closer for line calls, but I kept getting a kink in my neck from watching it, so I quit. And even with the aid of instant replays, tags and foul balls and HR poles shown to the N-th of a degree, we still cannot always agree on the result.

Unlike the umpires, whose calls are universally agreed to be correct?

 

If your argument is that you can't do it if it's not going to be 100% accurate, then it reminds me a bit of the automated car opponents who say, "there would still be some accidents, so no way", even if millions of accidents could be prevented.

[Nine of twelve]

If I'm batting, and the count is let's say, 1-1, and a pitcher throws a pitch- which I take- on the outside corner, it's in the zone, but the umpire calls it a ball, and now the count is 2-1- that's fun. 

 

It is fair. It's fair because everybody gets calls in their favor and calls against them. It comes out in the wash. In one of the worst calls in Twins history, a ball Joe Mauer hit was called foul even though it was fair. It sucked. In one of the worst calls in Twins history, Kent Hrbek pulled Ron Gant off first base and he was called out. It was and still is tremendous fun.

 

Occasional blown calls are fair and fun!

Your opinions are not the same as mine. Blown calls are neither fair nor fun. And if you look at the replay of the Gant/Hrbek play you'll clearly see that Gant was out because his foot came off the base as he lost his balance BEFORE Hrbek lifted Gant's leg up.

[Nine of twelve]

you think Jose altuve and Richie sexon should have the same strike zone?

Yes. Having a different strike zone for every batter requires readjustment by the pitcher with every plate appearance, whereas the batter has the same strike zone every time. This is not fair for the pitcher. Having the same zone every time for every batter means no readjustment. I'll talk more about this in another post when I have more time. Gotta go.

[Sam Morley]

 

Your opinions are not the same as mine. Blown calls are neither fair nor fun. And if you look at the replay of the Gant/Hrbek play you'll clearly see that Gant was out because his foot came off the base as he lost his balance BEFORE Hrbek lifted Gant's leg up.

 

Wait, there's a replay?! This whole time I've been basing my opinion of that play on my memory of seeing it live as a seven year old, and you're telling me there's a replay?! Stand by...

 

In any other context, I'd argue the same point. It's my duty, and it's fun. I've never met or heard a non Twins fan who thought that Hrbek didn't pull Gant off the bag.

[bizaff]

 

Yes. Having a different strike zone for every batter requires readjustment by the pitcher with every plate appearance, whereas the batter has the same strike zone every time. This is not fair for the pitcher. Having the same zone every time for every batter means no readjustment. I'll talk more about this in another post when I have more time. Gotta go.

 

I posted this a while ago in another thread (http://twinsdaily.com/topic/26786-automate-the-strike-zone/):

 

For the sake of example, more on the set height/size strike zone:

The strike zone of Jose Altuve (5ft 5 in) is smaller than that of Jon Rauch (6ft 11 in) - that's an 18 inch spread.If you center the zone between those two (which isn't average, but it's the probably the best case for batters), a player is up to 9 inches away from the average zone.They don't need to adjust that whole height, since you're only taking the area between the knees and armpits.. let's say that's half (in reality it's worse as it's not at the waist, it's at the armpits and knees).A tall/short player needs to adjust their swing vertically up to 4 inches to deal with a batter-independent strike zone.That seems pretty significant.That moves the strike zone from the knees down to the shins, or the armpits up to the shoulders.

Now the pitchers - assume the strike zone is as it is today.If a pitcher releases around 55 feet from home plate and has to adjust 4 inches for different players, they need to adjust the angle of the delivered pitch by about half a degree.That's a pretty tiny adjustment.They need to deal with wind which already affects it in that neighborhood (best source I could find - https://jmcdonaldmedia.com/2011/03/18/how-does-weather-affect-baseball/), and they "calibrate" that out with warmup pitches every inning.

A batter-independent strike zone would least affect an average sized batter, but would hamper anyone not of average size, far worse the less "average" the batter is.The adjustment a pitcher has to make today in a batter-dependent strike zone is half a degree, which they already do.

I can't see a world I'd ever support a batter-independent strike zone.

[Platoon]

Unlike the umpires, whose calls are universally agreed to be correct?

If your argument is that you can't do it if it's not going to be 100% accurate, then it reminds me a bit of the automated car opponents who say, "there would still be some accidents, so no way", even if millions of accidents could be prevented.

I don't remember saying we can't do it. I do remember saying that even after we went to the base and foul ball version of Robo, we still don't eliminate the disagreements. But what we did do is extend the game time, and allow more free time for bathroom breaks. And we made the game just a little less liveable in some people's minds. My argument against Robo umps has nothing to do with their inability to be perfect. I accept that. I just don't think the difference will warrant upsetting a long time component of the game. By the by, if I was a proponent of, or insistent on perfection, I highly doubt I would be on TD! . .

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't remember saying we can't do it. I do remember saying that even after we went to the base and foul ball version of Robo, we still don't eliminate the disagreements. But what we did do is extend the game time, and allow more free time for bathroom breaks. And we made the game just a little less liveable in some people's minds. My argument against Robo umps has nothing to do with their inability to be perfect. I accept that. I just don't think the difference will warrant upsetting a long time component of the game. By the by, if I was a proponent of, or insistent on perfection, I highly doubt I would be on TD! . .

True about replays. But, unlike replays, robot umps wouldn't add any delays to the game.

[Nine of twelve]

I promised (threatened?) to post more about the batter-independent strike zone and I'm following through on that now.

I already mentioned that it's unfair to the pitcher to have to adapt to different sized strike zones while the batter has the same strike zone every time. The size of the adjustment may be small, but pitching is a finely-tuned skill as it is. Seemingly small adjustments are not necessarily easy ones.

With a uniform strike zone very tall and very short batters would be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to a batter of average height. That's obvious. But the variation in physical characteristics among players is not compensated for in any other aspect of the game. I don't think it would be right to use a large first base for a short first baseman and a smaller one for a tall first baseman to compensate for the height difference. I don't think the pitcher's mound should be higher for a short pitcher and lower for a tall pitcher. I've never heard anyone advocate for either of those rules. The same logic should apply to the strike zone. (IMHO, of course.)

So why is the strike zone different under the rules? Here's why. The strike zone needs to have upper and lower boundaries. However, it's not feasible to have a measuring stick protruding from home plate to give the human umpire a reference point. The only thing that was feasible way back when was to use the batter as a surrogate measuring stick. That's how the strike zone came to be defined as it is. We now have the ability to determine the location of the ball as it crosses home plate without interfering with the pitched ball or the batter's bat.

Automated pitch calling systems give us the opportunity to correct an anomaly that was only there because mathematically inclined primates had yet to develop the technology to make the strike zone the same for all players, just like ***every*** other aspect of the rules of play, LIKE GOD INTENDED! (OK, so I got a little carried away. Sorry.)

[Nine of twelve]

(OK, so I got a little carried away. Sorry.)

[Craig Arko]

I promised (threatened?) to post more about the batter-independent strike zone and I'm following through on that now.I already mentioned that it's unfair to the pitcher to have to adapt to different sized strike zones while the batter has the same strike zone every time. The size of the adjustment may be small, but pitching is a finely-tuned skill as it is. Seemingly small adjustments are not necessarily easy ones.With a uniform strike zone very tall and very short batters would be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to a batter of average height. That's obvious. But the variation in physical characteristics among players is not compensated for in any other aspect of the game. I don't think it would be right to use a large first base for a short first baseman and a smaller one for a tall first baseman to compensate for the height difference. I don't think the pitcher's mound should be higher for a short pitcher and lower for a tall pitcher. I've never heard anyone advocate for either of those rules. The same logic should apply to the strike zone. (IMHO, of course.)So why is the strike zone different under the rules? Here's why. The strike zone needs to have upper and lower boundaries. However, it's not feasible to have a measuring stick protruding from home plate to give the human umpire a reference point. The only thing that was feasible way back when was to use the batter as a surrogate measuring stick. That's how the strike zone came to be defined as it is. We now have the ability to determine the location of the ball as it crosses home plate without interfering with the pitched ball or the batter's bat.Automated pitch calling systems give us the opportunity to correct an anomaly that was only there because mathematically inclined primates had yet to develop the technology to make the strike zone the same for all players, just like ***every*** other aspect of the rules of play, LIKE GOD INTENDED! (OK, so I got a little carried away. Sorry.)

In much the same way as Shaquille O’Neal and Peter Dinklage should wear the same shoes.