Robo Umps

[Platoon]

I am agnostic when it comes to robot umps. I guess it depends if the bad call went against or for the Twins. MLB needs to get rid of instant replay if they don't want robot umps. I have always contended that camera angles are a big factor in whether a baseball call is deemed wrong or right by instant replay. Why aren't the same issues relevant with replay as they are with robo umps. From the link, "In the example below, you can see two views of the exact same pitch. From the mound view the pitch looks to be a ball, but a closeup shows it was a strike just barely on the edge of the zone...."

What I detest about instant replay is the delay so the manager can get input from someone on a replay to see if he should challenge. That's BS. If the call is so obviously wrong, throw the flag or beanbag or whatever. If it takes a microscope to determine the difference then you really have no idea what happened. But if you think you were wronged, go for it. One wrong challenge is all you get. That also would speed the game.

[jkcarew]

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.

[Nine of twelve]

they actually already tried this ... and named it bonds, clemens, palmeiro, etc.

Now that we know the whole story about Palmiero we know why he needed Viagra and became a commercial spokesperson for it in the process.

[Sam Morley]

 

Baseball got along just fine without me before 1967. And I'm sure it will continue to flourish without me five minutes after this becomes a rule.

 

I'm with you. 

 

When it comes to video review and pitch clock, I'll grumble endlessly but still watch. The day robo strike zone is introduced, I'm out. 

[nicksaviking]

Correct. It will no longer be baseball. And I have no interest in following broadcast video games.

I played baseball with the neighborhood kids without an umpire of any kind. We used ghost runners too. Seems to me baseball has all kinds of room for flexibility and optimization.

[Sam Morley]

 

I would miss the skills of a good catcher framing the plate, and a good pitcher expanding the zone. I'll understand if that isn't a popular opinion, I just enjoy the added in-game of that combo vs. the umpire vs. the batter. 

 

Add to that list a batter with a reputation for having a good eye shrinking the zone.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Here is Santana's pitch to Gregorius in the wild card game that should have struck him out

 

 

[Sam Morley]

 

So was segregation, smoking in the dugout and actual monuments in the outfield of Yankee Stadium.

The goal of baseball, just as in the rest of life, should be to always look for ways to improve.

 

Segregation is immoral and unjust. Smoking causes cancer. Monuments in the outfield sounds physically dangerous. None of them have anything to do with a fundamental, definitive part of the game. None of them changed the way the game is played. Since basically 1900, there have been very few fundamental changes to the game. Adding cork to the center of the ball in 1910, adding the sac fly in 1931, lowering the mound and shrinking the strike zone in 1969, and adding the DH in the AL in 1973, are, in my opinion, the most significant changes to the game in the 20th century. A person could argue that any of these changes improved the game. Another person could just as easily argue that they did not. I'd say that the cork center was an improvement. The other changes I shrug at.

 

In the past decade, or less, there has been a flurry of significant changes and proposed changes (maybe none that compare in effect to the cork center but they all surpass in significance every other rule change in baseball since 1900). They are: rules about collisions at the plate and catchers blocking the plate, rules about break up slides at second base, the introduction of video review and manager challenges, the proposed pitch clock, and hypothesized computerized strike zones.

 

The changes that involve newly available and developing technology strike at the heart of the fundamental nature of baseball- and of all athletic competition, in my opinion. Baseball should be played, managed, and officiated on the field without artificial/synthetic/technological aids/enhancers. Human beings, wood, leather, resin, pine tar, grass, dirt; no robots, plastic, aluminum, computers, or drugs.

 

I realize that this is my subjective opinion and I respect that other people have a different opinion. I don't think that there is room for subjectivity in the examples of segregation, smoking in the dugout, or even monuments in the outfield. They are all objectively bad. It seems inaccurate and unfair to compare the advocacy for human umpires/resistance of robot umpires to any of those examples. 

[Craig Arko]

I played baseball with the neighborhood kids without an umpire of any kind. We used ghost runners too. Seems to me baseball has all kinds of room for flexibility and optimization.

The last thing I’d want is to change anybody else’s enjoyment. But I’ll state my own position, unless there is a rule against that.

[Sam Morley]

 

I played baseball with the neighborhood kids without an umpire of any kind. We used ghost runners too. Seems to me baseball has all kinds of room for flexibility and optimization.

 

My brothers and I played baseball in our country driveway with a tennis ball and a broom handle. We 've all played various versions and forms of the game. MLB is the standard. With every rule change reliant on technology that is introduced to the game by MLB, the less like those beloved childhood versions it becomes.

[Sam Morley]

 

Now those of us who want a fair and consistent zone get it, and those who don't like aesthetic changes can keep everything looking the same.

And for what it's worth, if they had robots in 1880, they'd have been calling balls and strikes. I think personal traditions are great. Some family traditions are fun too, but with a large community, the essential aspects of an institution should not be reliant on tradition. EVERYONE shouldn't be beholden to and obligated by some quirky gimmick based on some antiquated premise of years past.

 

 

Aesthetic change is a small part of the objection to it. That the strike zone changes subtly from one ump to the next is a very interesting and dynamic part of baseball. It's interesting as a spectator and as a player. Learning each umpires tendencies and acting to use them to your advantage or being forced to adjust to avoid disadvantage (for both hitters and pitchers) takes skill, intelligence, and experience. The relationship between pitcher, batter, and umpire is integral to the uniqueness of baseball. By replacing human umpires with robot umpires, you are removing a very compelling layer of complexity from the way players prepare for, and adjust in, the game.

 

To refer to umpires, who have been an integral and definitive part of baseball for over 150 years, as "some quirky gimmick based on some antiquated premise" is recklessly inaccurate and so far beyond hyperbole that it's offensive.

[ashbury]

It's interesting as a spectator and as a player.

The players don't have much say, but as a spectator the next time I tell someone "I'm going to the game, Gary Cederstrom's behind the plate tonight" will be my first.

[Sam Morley]

 

The players don't have much say, but as a spectator the next time I tell someone "I'm going to the game, Gary Cederstrom's behind the plate tonight" will be my first.

 

That's funny, and I don't really pay that much attention to who the umpire is either. But that doesn't mean that the umpire's role isn't an interesting part of the game. I think having an umpire adds another level complexity and challenge for the players. It makes what they do more interesting and impressive. 

 

As long as I've played, I've always paid attention to what the umpire's tendencies are. Sometimes there's an advantage to be gained and exploited. Sometimes you have to decide not to let an umpire beat you. If you are adept and fast at recognizing and adjusting to what an ump is doing, you have a competitive advantage. It's a skill, just like having a good eye and plate discipline are a skill, just like having lightning fast hands is a skill, and just like having tremendous power is a skill. All skills are not equal, and umpire management might not be nearly as important as the others I listed, but it can be used to make up for a lack of one of the others, and it's definitely something that combines to set the very best apart from the very good. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

That's funny, and I don't really pay that much attention to who the umpire is either. But that doesn't mean that the umpire's role isn't an interesting part of the game. I think having an umpire adds another level complexity and challenge for the players. It makes what they do more interesting and impressive. 

 

As long as I've played, I've always paid attention to what the umpire's tendencies are. Sometimes there's an advantage to be gained and exploited. Sometimes you have to decide not to let an umpire beat you. If you are adept and fast at recognizing and adjusting to what an ump is doing, you have a competitive advantage. It's a skill, just like having a good eye and plate discipline are a skill, just like having lightning fast hands is a skill, and just like having tremendous power is a skill. All skills are not equal, and umpire management might not be nearly as important as the others I listed, but it can be used to make up for a lack of one of the others, and it's definitely something that combines to set the very best apart from the very good.

 

So, working the umps? Can you offer some examples?

[Platoon]

While I am sure Sam will have his own answer to the above, a couple general points come to mind in several sports. Basketball crews are well known for having different tendencies in how close they call a game, or even a half. If it gets too rough they tighten it up, later in a game they often "let you play". Some football officials call holding endlessly, others don't as often. Some baseball umpires have a low zone, or a big outside corner. All that said, I highly doubt that the results of many games will change. But I think the way the game is played, viewed, discussed, and appreciated will. Far more than many think.

[Mr. Brooks]

While I am sure Sam will have his own answer to the above, a couple general points come to mind in several sports. Basketball crews are well known for having different tendencies in how close they call a game, or even a half. If it gets too rough they tighten it up, later in a game they often "let you play". Some football officials call holding endlessly, others don't as often. Some baseball umpires have a low zone, or a big outside corner. All that said, I highly doubt that the results of many games will change. But I think the way the game is played, viewed, discussed, and appreciated will. Far more than many think.

And yet, as far as I can tell, baseball is the only sport in which a segment of fans actually enjoy the fact that calls are often inconsistent, unpredictable, and even intentionally wrong.

In my opinion, the rules should be the rules, and they should be enforced as fairly, and as accurately as reasonably possible. The rules shouldn't vary based on which official is making the call.

 

And where do we draw the line? What if one umpire decides that, to him, anything 4 inches or less foul, is actually fair? What if another umpire decides that a baserunner has to occupy the base for a full second before he's tagged, otherwise he's out?

 

I think the rulebook states what the strike zone is. I don't think it says anywhere that a strike is supposed to be anywhere the ump decides it is.

Because of that, I think it's the traditional way that is wrong, not any future attempt to correct it.

[RegularJoe62]

All we hear is that both pitchers and batters just want consistency.

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. 

[Craig Arko]

 

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. 

I could live with this.

[RegularJoe62]

 

So, working the umps? Can you offer some examples?

I don't know if I'd call it "working the ump," but rather "knowing the ump." When I've coached I always told players to be sure to watch every pitch in every at bat so that when they get to the plate they know where this particular ump's strike zone is. If the ump is calling strikes five inches below the knee, you better not be surprised to get a strike called when you don't swing at that. Maybe you take that pitch with no strikes or one strike, but if you have a two strike count, you better be swinging. 

[Dantes929]

 

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. 

That sounds reasonable but then I think "we want to train the umps to call a game the same way a robo ump would so why not just use the robo ump?"    All calls affect a game and regardless of the training there are still going to be calls like the one where Santana deserved a strikeout and instead gave up a 3 run jack.  That is not a subtle result.    I also get that there is a human element that you want to save but there is also one that I would like to see eliminated.     Leslie Nelson umping is an absurd extreme example of how applause affects the calls of the ump but I have been playing, officiating and spectating for nearly 50 years and know that working the ref or ump whether it be by fans, coaches or players has an effect that it should not have.     Umpires are human and have bias.    That is the problem I have.   Maybe there is a coach or player that is intimidating, maybe there is a player the ump doesn't like and maybe there is a team that the ump was a childhood fan of.    Do the Twins get exactly the same calls in New York that they would get in KC or in Minnesota?    If you believe they do then ok.    If you think they don't because of outside factors and  there is bias then why would you be ok with that?     When I used to play basketball there was a school that had a very passionate crowd and a very intimidating coach and we knew when we went there we were going to come out on the short end of the officiating.    This is a home field advantage that I believe exists that I would prefer to get rid of if possible.    Maybe robo umps is the answer and maybe it is not but I would not mind seeing it tried out.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

While I am sure Sam will have his own answer to the above, a couple general points come to mind in several sports. Basketball crews are well known for having different tendencies in how close they call a game, or even a half. If it gets too rough they tighten it up, later in a game they often "let you play". Some football officials call holding endlessly, others don't as often. Some baseball umpires have a low zone, or a big outside corner. All that said, I highly doubt that the results of many games will change. But I think the way the game is played, viewed, discussed, and appreciated will. Far more than many think.

a general comment is fine, and if umpires were more consistent I don't think this would be an issue for me. I also think this is a different issue than guys like Mauer getting borderline calls go their way (at least he used to).

 

Maybe arguing balls and strikes should be permitted again.

 

The one specific example of exploiting the umps I can think of was Maddux in 1997 against the Marlins. I can't think of anything else more recent so that's why curious. I don't know why an inconsistent strike zone or exploiting umpires is entertaining or good for the game. My opinion, of course.

[Platoon]

There is a difference between accepting the fact that human beings officiating sporting events are not perfect, and contending that a segment of the fans enjoy that fact, or embrace it. To the contrary. I don't enjoy watching a crappy job, whether it be a touch foul basketball referee, or an inconsistent plate ump, or someone who cuts me off on the freeway and then drives 57 mph. Accepting the fact that the preceding issues happen in the course of a day is a lot less stress. And trying to remedy each to the point of perfection will in all likelihood make all of them worse.

[Ebby Calvin Laloosh]

There is a great scene in the book The Brothers K that fits into this discussion. The father and one son are setting up a bullpen in the back yard and drawing the strike zone on the back stop. The father can't get it right and ends up drawing a bunch of different strike zones that he remembers from different umps he pitched to. He eloquently pontificates about figuring out an umps zone and then trying to make it bigger or change the shape with some mind games and body language. He then goes on to talk about hitters doing the same thing with an anecdote about Ted Williams and an interview he gave. 

 

When I watch a game and recognize that this is going on I think it's fantastic. It's another nuanced layer to a game that seems relatively simple on it's face. That being said, I wont stop watching baseball if the balls and strikes are automated. Everyone seems to hang up on consistency and this is the best way to get it.

 

I think all you regular TwinsDailyers would love this book. Great book about life and philosophy revolving around baseball...sort of. Check it out and let me know what you think. The Brothers K by David James Duncan.

[Sam Morley]

 

There is a great scene in the book The Brothers K that fits into this discussion. The father and one son are setting up a bullpen in the back yard and drawing the strike zone on the back stop. The father can't get it right and ends up drawing a bunch of different strike zones that he remembers from different umps he pitched to. He eloquently pontificates about figuring out an umps zone and then trying to make it bigger or change the shape with some mind games and body language. He then goes on to talk about hitters doing the same thing with an anecdote about Ted Williams and an interview he gave. 

 

When I watch a game and recognize that this is going on I think it's fantastic. It's another nuanced layer to a game that seems relatively simple on it's face. That being said, I wont stop watching baseball if the balls and strikes are automated. Everyone seems to hang up on consistency and this is the best way to get it.

 

I think all you regular TwinsDailyers would love this book. Great book about life and philosophy revolving around baseball...sort of. Check it out and let me know what you think. The Brothers K by David James Duncan.

 

Brothers K is a great novel. It's my favorite baseball novel by far. Awesome reference. 

[ashbury]

Brothers K is a great novel. It's my favorite baseball novel by far. Awesome reference. 

I just requested it at my neighborhood library. Thanks for the tip.

[Sam Morley]

 

So, working the umps? Can you offer some examples?

 

I can try. I've never been a pitcher, so my perspective is that of a hitter. And, it's complicated because it's layered with having to battle the pitcher as well. Also, it's not just about "working" the umps, but also adjusting to them. And, it's not really just about working the ump in the sense that somehow you can influence them to get a pitch that is a strike called a ball; it's more about using the way an ump is calling the zone to 'work' the pitcher, and to work the count to your favor. 

 

Let's start with this: 

 

The best hitters have: a mechanically flawless swing (in my opinion best described by Ted Williams in the Science of Hitting- contemporary analysts have built on what Ted wrote about, but his theory is the base); they have balance; patience; great vision; fast hands/hips; power; excellent plate/zone coverage; excellent awareness of the strike zone; awareness of individual pitchers strengths/weaknesses; excellent pitch recognition; awareness of individual umpire tendencies; and determination. 

 

Now, let's talk about plate/zone coverage. very few hitters have total zone coverage. Almost everyone has a weak spot in their zone. For Ted Williams, it was low and away. That is a pretty common weak spot. I'd say the same for myself. It's interesting because I know that with a balanced, patient swing, I can cover the low, outside part of the plate without altering my natural swing. I can do it in BP all day and shoot line drives to the triple alley in right center. But against live pitching, when I don't know what is coming, a pitch in that location just looks bad to me. One strategy to deal with this, is to eliminate certain parts of the zone. Because it's so difficult to cover the whole zone with authority, just eliminate the part of it that you like the least. You do this by first knowing what part of the zone you can cover reliably on reaction alone- what you call your sweet spot. You don't have to think about this area in your mental preparation because you know you can cover it no matter what. The more naturally gifted and polished you are, the bigger this area is and the better off you are. The next thing is to pick an area that is outside of your sweet spot and look for the ball there. This area will likely move around based on the pitcher, and also possibly based on the umpire. It will move or be disregarded altogether from pitch to pitch depending on the count, and or the situation (number of outs, runners on, score, inning, etc). The final thing is to just eliminate a part of the zone that you don't want anything to do with no matter what. If the pitch is in your sweet spot, you react to it and hit it. If it's in the spot that you are looking, you're ready to hit it there. If it's in the spot you eliminate, you don't swing.

 

So let's say you eliminate down and away. I would say that close to 90% of the time I eliminate down and away. Here is where the umpire can start to become a part of your approach and strategy as a hitter. First of all, in order to have any reliable influence over an umpire as a hitter, you have to develop a reputation for having a good eye, for know the strike zone, for patience and discipline. Others in this thread have mentioned Joe Mauer. He is a great example. You develop a reputation over the course of a career, a season, and I'd say you can even develop a reputation in the course of a single game. I'm 34 and play once a week in the TCMABL. Do any umpires remember me as a hitter over the course of a season? I highly doubt it, but I believe I can develop something of a reputation within the course of one game. Ted Williams talks about preparing for your third at bat (hopefully it will be against the same pitcher). You gather information in your first two at bats, and you establish yourself in your first two at bats. You gather information about the pitcher and the umpire, and you establish yourself to them. 

 

What I mean by establish yourself is: let's say you decide not to swing at anything low and away in your first two at bats, even if it looks close or like it might be a strike, even if it means taking strike three. If you take the first pitch thrown in that location, whether or not its called a strike, the pitcher thinks he won't be able to expand, and also isn't sure if it's worth trying to repeat (depending on how confident he is in his control). If it is called a strike, you have learned it's possible the umpire will call it a strike again in the future; the pitcher has learned the same, as well as the possibility that you are not willing to swing there- he has to choose whether or not to attack that spot; the umpire has learned that you did not think that it was a strike- how that affects him consciously and/or subconsciously is a mystery. I think that if I take a pitch that is a borderline strike, just the act of my having taken the pitch tilts the likelihood that it will be called a ball in my favor. I think if it is called a strike, it still tilts the likelihood that a future pitch in the same location will be called in my favor.

 

Whether or not you are 'allowed' to argue balls and strikes, there are ways to communicate your disagreement with a call. Generally, you want to express your disagreement with respect, as respect given generally begets respect returned, and is a part of the reputation you are trying to develop. I think that if an umpire respects you or even likes you, that is another thing that can subconsciously tilt calls in your favor. The more you develop your reputation to the umpire for having a good eye, good discipline, and for being generally respectful and affable, the more weight the occasional forceful expression of disagreement will carry. (I think that if you are a catcher, you have an added, special advantage as a hitter because of the relationship you develop with the umpire when you are behind the plate with him.)

 

When an umpire calls a pitch a strike that is a ball, I think every hitter goes, 'okay, fine. now when am I going to get that one back?' You put it in your back pocket, and if you're smart/lucky you play it when you're behind in the count and are trying to get back into an at bat. 

 

Maybe all of that can be described as 'working' the ump, and I could go on about that aspect of it, but it's just one part of the challenge. All of that gamesmanship applies best when you have a consistent umpire behind the plate, when you can trust his zone to be true to the standard or at least to his version of it. Then you can be patient; you can attempt to work the count to your favor, when you can eliminate all of the zone except your sweet spot if you want. But if you have an inconsistent ump, one who isn't trustworthy, you have to be able to adjust to that as well, and the challenge of having to make that adjustment is part of the fun. Sometimes, in the TCMABL, we get an ump whose zone is big and all over the place. In that case, I just go up there looking to swing. It's the challenge of not letting an unreliable umpire beat me. Obviously, in MLB, the umps are generally reliable, and they have documented reputations. Maybe you know an ump doesn't call the low strike, so that's more zone you can eliminate. Maybe in your first two at bats, and in watching your teammates' at bats, you learn that just tonight, he doesn't seem to be calling the low strike, and when you go up for your third at bat, you know you can eliminate that spot.

 

What the pitcher is pitching plus what the ump is calling, and how you're responding to it (taking, swinging and hitting well or poorly, swinging and missing) can set you up to fool the pitcher in a later at bat. Maybe you've been taking low and away all night, and the ump has been calling it a strike all night; now the pitcher thinks he can throw it low and away, you won't swing, and the ump will call it a strike; but this time you decide to look low and away, and because you're ready for it, because you've worked both the umpire and the pitcher to a point where you can reliably expect to see a borderline strike down and away, when the pitcher throws it there, this time you hit it in the triple alley and the pitcher is furious.

 

Every layer of uncertainty adds drama, intrigue, and challenge. The batter is uncertain what pitch is coming. The pitcher is uncertain what the batter is ready for. Both are uncertain how a pitch taken will be called by the umpire. When a called pitch goes against you, it can be infuriating. When it goes your way, it can be gleeful. 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I can try...

 

Great post. We can disagree. Just to spin it around, pitchers can work counts, too. Best example again being Greg Maddux. The story goes that he would work batters across entire seasons -- throwing pitches to certain batters in games early in the year, so that he could plant expectations in their minds that could be exploited later in the year if necessary. Sounds far fetched, but hey it's Maddux, no reason to disbelieve it.

 

Lots of good pitchers work counts and adjust on the fly like you do as a batter. I come at it from the pitcher point of view. I blogged about Ervin Santana working counts once after one of his complete games last spring. Then Santana had Gregorious struck out in the Wild Card game. Sure, it looked like he missed his spot, as Castro was set up "outer half" and then stabbed back in at the pitch rather than receiving it properly, which did not help. #framing

 

But maybe at the last moment Santana's instinct told him "no, not outer half" on that pitch, and so he changed location during his delivery. Not likely, but not impossible. It shouldn't be the umpire's job to think "Castro was over there, Gregorius isn't biting, so this pitch that's still only half way to the plate should be called a ball." The umpire's thinking should be "did this pitch pass through the strike zone?" That's all. Leave the cat and mouse games to the pitchers and hitters.

[Sam Morley]

 

Great post. We can disagree. Just to spin it around, pitchers can work counts, too. Best example again being Greg Maddux. The story goes that he would work batters across entire seasons -- throwing pitches to certain batters in games early in the year, so that he could plant expectations in their minds that could be exploited later in the year if necessary. Sounds far fetched, but hey it's Maddux, no reason to disbelieve it.

Lots of good pitchers work counts and adjust on the fly like you do as a batter. I come at it from the pitcher point of view. I blogged about Ervin Santana working counts once after one of his complete games last spring. Then Santana had Gregorious struck out in the Wild Card game. Sure, it looked like he missed his spot, as Castro was set up "outer half" and then stabbed back in at the pitch rather than receiving it properly, which did not help. #framing

But maybe at the last moment Santana's instinct told him "no, not outer half" on that pitch, and so he changed location during his delivery. Not likely, but not impossible. It shouldn't be the umpire's job to think "Castro was over there, Gregorius isn't biting, so this pitch that's still only half way to the plate should be called a ball." The umpire's thinking should be "did this pitch pass through the strike zone?" That's all. Leave the cat and mouse games to the pitchers and hitters.

 

Greg Maddux, my god. 

 

Maybe you, or someone else will write more about the ways pitchers respond to/interact with umpires to gain advantage/avoid disadvantage. I think there's even more to be said about the dynamic between pitchers and umpires than there is about that between hitters and umpires. 

 

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.

 

I agree with this: "It shouldn't be the umpire's job to think "Castro was over there, Gregorius isn't biting, so this pitch that's still only half way to the plate should be called a ball." The umpire's thinking should be "did this pitch pass through the strike zone?""

 

I don't like it when umpires consciously assert themselves on the game. I want them to be as unbiased, as objective, and as true to the rules as they are written as is humanly possible.

 

It bothers me as a Twins fan that that umpire go that call wrong. It doesn't bother me at all as a baseball fan. I think the umpire was fooled by the combination of Castro's positioning and Santana's control. I think it's ironic that it was a combination of the catcher's and the pitcher's actions that confused the umpire into calling the pitch a ball. I think it's interesting. I mean, it's so interesting that we're talking about it now.

[Platoon]

I will have to paraphrase somewhat since its been a long time since I heard this. Maddux once was asked after a game about his pinpoint control. He said something to this extent: If I throw 100 pitches in a game, I hit my spot about 80 times. I will miss badly enough on around 15 which you won't be able to hit anyway. That leaves you 5 pitches to hit in a game.

[Heezy1323]

I appreciate the opinions voiced by everyone. I enjoy seeing topics such as this that don't have a clear 'right or wrong' answer discussed on TD. 

 

I agree that the up/down of the strike zone being changed from batter to batter could create a challenge for robo umpires. But the in/out of the strike zone should be the same for everyone, correct? What if there were a buzzer or something similar in the umpires hand, and if the ball caught the corner based on Pitchf/x, it 'buzzed'. If it didn't, no 'buzz'. We leave the up/down calls to the umpire, but give him/her some help on the corners. 

 

You could, alternately, structure it similar to tennis, where they use 'hawkeye' to see if balls are in or out. (As an aside, I believe I remember reading somewhere that this has some measure of inaccuracy as well, around 1/4" if I remember right). So the umpire could continue calling balls and strikes as we do now, and the batter or manager would have 1 challenge per inning or something similar, in which case we could use the robot.

 

My basic point is, most of the discussion here seems to be centered around going completely to robots or not using them at all. I think there is room for discussion of some type of marriage of the two.

 

IMHO, the objective should be the accurate calling of balls and strikes, regardless of method.

 

Again, enjoy the discussion.