Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

[Otto von Ballpark]

How do people react here when they see one of these "errors" on a close pitch? I usually don't think much of it, I honestly can't tell the difference in real-time for pitches on the edge. If I'm really invested in a team or outcome, I might wince a little when a call goes against me, or let out a sigh of relief when a call goes for me. I guess those parts wouldn't change whether we have human umps or robo-umps. In terms of balls and strikes, I usually don't even notice the umps, much less feel that they are impeding the game. I generally only notice umps when other issues come up (rule interpretations, arguments), and often it's in a positive light -- they've got a tough, interesting job back there.

 

Has anyone here ever tried umpiring? It's virtually impossible for most people. I was like Frank Drebin back there -- slow, unsure, highly questionable accuracy. I am actually very impressed that there are humans who only have a strict 9.21% (and improving!) error rate versus a machine at the highest level of the game. I think it's kind of cool that major league baseball not only incorporates the best player talent, but also the best umpire talent in this way -- especially now that we have technology to find and develop that umpiring talent even more.

 

To the extent that errors/disagreements happen, I find it's interesting to watch for patterns and try to use those to my advantage, or help my teammates use those. (Or when I'm watching, hope that my team has the awareness to use those.) I pretty much never detect any anti-team or anti-player bias, so I kind of welcome the opportunity for me or my team to use the information to get ahead. At worst, I consider the human attempt to process this information as more interesting than simply wondering if a machine is calibrated to a particular player's strike zone correctly.

 

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but that's the game I've played and watched since I was a kid. At best, it feels kind of unnecessary to switch to robo-umps. I like getting the call right, but we've already used technology to create a new micro-game within baseball that never existed before -- around the challenge system of replay. Now, with robo-umps, we could potentially eliminate part of the game and definite skills that have been part of the game for virtually its entire history. I'm really not sure how I feel about that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

On another note, if 10% of calls are wrong, how much does that number change when it's not Joe West?

From the study:

https://www.bu.edu/today/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/

 

Average was 9.21%, best was 7.28%, worst was 11.54%. Joe West was second-worst, at 11.43%.

 

The study notes a general trend of worse error rates among longer-tenured umpires. Which could mean that new umpires are getting selected/trained better.

 

Perhaps umpires could be promoted/relegated based on this performance?

[ashbury]

ultimately, this is the problem that I have with tech in sports. Replay has ruined sports for me. Delays of any sort ruin the flow the game. They ruin key parts of a game.

How exactly will automated balls-and-strikes calls delay games?

 

Taking five seconds to jaw at the umpire before turning toward the dugout after a called third strike is a tiny delay that would go away, though.

[wsnydes]

 

I don't understand or accept the argument that automated calling of pitches takes something good away from the game. To me, the most accurate method of officiating is the best because it rewards what should be rewarded, specifically superior performance by the players. A pitcher should be rewarded for throwing a pitch that goes through the strike zone, and a batter should be rewarded for taking a pitch that does not go through the strike zone. If humans do the best job of calling pitches then that's how it should be done. If automated systems are better than humans then that's how it should be done.

I don't want to speak for others, but I think the point is that we don't necessarily see missed calls as being "bad". We see it as a part of the game. It's not about taking something good away. Do we want them to occur, no but we also don't want errors and mental lapses to happen either. We see it as a part of the game just like anything else the players do. We figure that breaks one way or another even out over the course of a season.

 

Players often don't get rewarded for things they do well. Berrios got tagged for a HR on a brilliant pitch in Philly. HR's get robbed fairly routinely by a defender. Sometimes they get rewarded for things they do poorly but it somehow works out anyway.

 

Obviously that's not how you and others look at it, and that's fine. To each their own. Others simply enjoy the game in a different way.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You could also leave big rocks on the infield for the occasional unpredictable bounce. 

 

The technology is there or at least close to there to get the calls right... It's no different than the field crew taking the rocks off the infield. 

Except that rocks on the infield would be a safety concern, unlike issues with umpiring. And that there haven't been big rocks on the infield for most of MLB history. And that there's no special skill in taking big rocks off the infield, like there is in good umpiring. (And new technology can't train better rock removal in any meaningful way either.) And umpiring technology couldn't be applied over all levels of the game equally, like rock removal (insert joke about poor amateur field conditions here), thus separating the MLB game a bit more from its lower levels.

[wsnydes]

 

How exactly will automated balls-and-strikes calls delay games?

 

Taking five seconds to jaw at the umpire before turning toward the dugout after a called third strike is a tiny delay that would go away, though.

That particular comment was more general in nature rather than aimed at balls and strikes, but you're correct in that there wouldn't be much. I'm not sure there would be any real pace impact by it. But that isn't my quarrel in this particular case. I do see it as a type of gateway to larger rolls though, which would (potentially) lead to delays.

[ashbury]

That particular comment was more general in nature rather than aimed at balls and strikes, but you're correct in that there wouldn't be much. I'm not sure there would be any real pace impact by it. But that isn't my quarrel in this particular case. I do see it as a type of gateway to larger rolls though, which would (potentially) lead to delays.

But we already have replay/appeals, without the automation of balls-and-strikes.

[wsnydes]

 

But we already have replay/appeals, without the automation of balls-and-strikes.

And I don't like those either. That's what the previous comment that you quoted was related to. I don't think the automation will stop until umpires are ultimately removed from the game and/or everything is reviewable. I won't find that entertaining at all. That's ultimately my point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't understand or accept the argument that automated calling of pitches takes something good away from the game. To me, the most accurate method of officiating is the best because it rewards what should be rewarded, specifically superior performance by the players. A pitcher should be rewarded for throwing a pitch that goes through the strike zone, and a batter should be rewarded for taking a pitch that does not go through the strike zone. If humans do the best job of calling pitches then that's how it should be done. If automated systems are better than humans then that's how it should be done.

 

Well said.

[Nine of twelve]

 

I don't want to speak for others, but I think the point is that we don't necessarily see missed calls as being "bad". 

Well, missed calls are certainly not good, and to me that equals bad.

[h2oface]

 

I understand the argument for Robo umps, even though I don't want to see them. But, I would bet that you won't find any umpires that want a "break". Umpiring is not simply a job. It's more a vocation. And one of the joys of that vocation is calling balls and strikes. Frankly I always considered base umpiring boring, but loved being behind the plate. And yes, I missed calls. Everyone does. Consistency, effort, and fairness make you a good umpire. A perfect Robo ump may be possible. The question is does it make the game more entertaining? And that is the essence of sport, entertainment!

 

I did some umpiring myself. I might be the rare former umpire that does not like umpires and never liked the guessing, and admits that is all I was ever doing. My best guess. I hate wrong calls. I welcome all inovations that take it out of the umpires guessing and into reality. Just like I like the touch pad to determine who won the swimming race. I like it true and right, and not just a best guess.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Players often don't get rewarded for things they do well. Berrios got tagged for a HR on a brilliant pitch in Philly. HR's get robbed fairly routinely by a defender. Sometimes they get rewarded for things they do poorly but it somehow works out anyway.

But this is not the point. Not at all. If a player's good play is counteracted by another player's good play, that's part of what makes the game great. If a player's good play is counteracted by an inaccurate call by an umpire that could be eliminated with technology, that's unacceptable.

[Riverbrian]

 

This is a fair point, but I'd rather see them use the tech to show them where or even how to improve rather than make/fix the call for them. Use information to make yourself better, not do it for you.

 

I understand... however, perfection is probably not attainable in the end. Improvement is just improvement but yet not enough most likely. 

 

 

[h2oface]

 

ultimately, this is the problem that I have with tech in sports. Replay has ruined sports for me. Delays of any sort ruin the flow the game. They ruin key parts of a game. The micoranalysis of everything gets blown out of proportion. I don't want to wait 30 seconds for a manager to decide whether to challenge a call or not. I then don't want to wait 3 minutes to see if the call is overturned or not. Sitting around and slowing a play down to 1/10 second/frame isn't entertaining. At that point, I don't even care what the right call is. If I wanted perfection and robots umpiring, I'd quit watching real baseball and just flip on a video game simulation. If the point of adding robots calling balls and strikes to get things right, then why are people not clamoring for every potential play to be reviewable? Because that's what it's going to take to eliminate the human element from officiating. A game, in any sport, full of endless replays is not something I'm interested in. That's a big reason why I quit watching the NFL. People also seem all too accepting that the tech is right. It very well might be, I can't dispute any of it, but I'm not really willing to just fully accept something just because it's a fix to something I don't like.

 

Other's opinions obviously vary and that's fine, but automated officiating not something I find entertaining at all. Life isn't fair, so I don't see anything inherently flawed about umpires making mistakes. they're humans, it happens. players make mistakes, it happens.

 

Sorry about the soap box...

 

{sheepishly steps off soap box}

 

In the end, the real time decisions can get to the point where there is no need for any delay because we are not needed to correct the wrong call, and review it. Players can make mistakes. Umpiring by humans was the only option. Was. We have better now. Let the players make the mistakes, and the rules be inforced without. At least balls and strikes. Plays on the field might need some delays. At least it will be more true to the spirit of the game. 

 

I don't recall anywhere in the rules a disclaimer that umpiring errors will be acceptable and part of the game.

[wsnydes]

 

But this is not the point. Not at all. If a player's good play is counteracted by another player's good play, that's part of what makes the game great. If a player's good play is counteracted by an inaccurate call by an umpire that could be eliminated with technology, that's unacceptable.

But it is my point and it is the way I view the game. I'm not debating you, I'm pointing out an opposing point of view. I'm not asking you to side with me. I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm simply conveying the opposing view. Not everyone views this in the same light as you do. We're entitled to our opinion, just as you are. That's all I'm saying.

 

In your mind the umpire error is unacceptable, to me it's just another facet of the game. There's no right or wrong answer here, it's an opinion.

[h2oface]

 

How do people react here when they see one of these "errors" on a close pitch? I usually don't think much of it, I honestly can't tell the difference in real-time for pitches on the edge. If I'm really invested in a team or outcome, I might wince a little when a call goes against me, or let out a sigh of relief when a call goes for me. I guess those parts wouldn't change whether we have human umps or robo-umps. In terms of balls and strikes, I usually don't even notice the umps, much less feel that they are impeding the game. I generally only notice umps when other issues come up (rule interpretations, arguments), and often it's in a positive light -- they've got a tough, interesting job back there.

 

Has anyone here ever tried umpiring? It's virtually impossible for most people. I was like Frank Drebin back there -- slow, unsure, highly questionable accuracy. I am actually very impressed that there are humans who only have a strict 9.21% (and improving!) error rate versus a machine at the highest level of the game. I think it's kind of cool that major league baseball not only incorporates the best player talent, but also the best umpire talent in this way -- especially now that we have technology to find and develop that umpiring talent even more.

 

To the extent that errors/disagreements happen, I find it's interesting to watch for patterns and try to use those to my advantage, or help my teammates use those. (Or when I'm watching, hope that my team has the awareness to use those.) I pretty much never detect any anti-team or anti-player bias, so I kind of welcome the opportunity for me or my team to use the information to get ahead. At worst, I consider the human attempt to process this information as more interesting than simply wondering if a machine is calibrated to a particular player's strike zone correctly.

 

I don't consider myself a traditionalist, but that's the game I've played and watched since I was a kid. At best, it feels kind of unnecessary to switch to robo-umps. I like getting the call right, but we've already used technology to create a new micro-game within baseball that never existed before -- around the challenge system of replay. Now, with robo-umps, we could potentially eliminate part of the game and definite skills that have been part of the game for virtually its entire history. I'm really not sure how I feel about that.

 

I again submit that the tech be used to do the act of calling them then..... instead of trying to make an admitted inferior option closer, but still not as good as the better option. If the tech is the standard to help the humans get better, but never as good as.... then it is our best option, we all know it, and the change is overdue.

[Riverbrian]

 

I wouldn't know, my microwave is not large enough to get a dinasaur inside. I also did about that level of umpiring. Not only did I get into it late, my paying job never would have allowed the flexibility to move upwards, even if I had the inclination. I did it for the enjoyment of the game. That said, while all umpires fear making a "fatal" call, I don't know many who would give up the chance to make that call. I am not talking about some show off, see West, Joseph. I am referring to a good umpire who looks forward to the responsibility and the challenge. It's part of the allure of the position. IMHO.

 

Frequently... I'd look at the pitch coming in and I'd say to myself... that might be a strike before calling it a strike or ball.  

 

The job is just plain hard and impossible to get always correct... I believe the MLB Umps are amazing so they get my full Kudo's. My advocacy of automation is no way a slam against the boys in blue. 

 

It's my personal opinion... If I was an umpire that I would want as much as help as I could get. I would look at automation as a tool to help and not a replacement of duties. 

 

Honestly... If I knew of umpire that was willing to tolerate the occasional missed call just for the privilege of being able to make the determination. I'd ask him to explain the virtue of the missed call when it is no longer necessary while pointing at a calendar with the year 2019 and condescendingly explaining how everything from umpiring to Chicken Nuggets should advance/improve over time. 

[wsnydes]

 

In the end, the real time decisions can get to the point where there is no need for any delay because we are not needed to correct the wrong call, and review it. Players can make mistakes. Umpiring by humans was the only option. Was. We have better now. Let the players make the mistakes, and the rules be inforced without. At least balls and strikes. Plays on the field might need some delays. At least it will be more true to the spirit of the game. 

But that's what I'm afraid of - everything being reviewable and/or being made by a computer. That's not entertaining to me and sports are entertainment. Having things automated to the point of eliminating human elements is not my idea of entertainment. It may be yours, but it is not mine. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

But that's what I'm afraid of - everything being reviewable and/or being made by a computer. That's not entertaining to me and sports are entertainment. Having things automated to the point of eliminating human elements is not my idea of entertainment. It may be yours, but it is not mine. 

 

I'm with you that replays can bog down games and be obnoxious.  I don't think this particular issue has that concern though....does it?

[Riverbrian]

 

Except that rocks on the infield would be a safety concern, unlike issues with umpiring. And that there haven't been big rocks on the infield for most of MLB history. And that there's no special skill in taking big rocks off the infield, like there is in good umpiring. (And new technology can't train better rock removal in any meaningful way either.) And umpiring technology couldn't be applied over all levels of the game equally, like rock removal (insert joke about poor amateur field conditions here), thus separating the MLB game a bit more from its lower levels.

 

I admit the rocks on the infield are worse because of the added safety concerns. However, in terms of influence on the outcome of the game.... they would have similar random results that have are seperate from players skill. 

 

The training has become a theme... I'm all for better training everywhere but in this case... I still don't understand the virtue of any missed calls if they can be avoided. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I again submit that the tech be used to do the act of calling them then..... instead of trying to make an admitted inferior option closer, but still not as good as the better option. If the tech is the standard to help the humans get better, but never as good as.... then it is our best option, we all know it, and the change is overdue.

Yes, I've read this from you. It's obviously an option. Whether it's the best option is subjective.

 

I, for one, don't feel like human umpires detract from my enjoyment of playing or watching baseball. So I don't really admit that human umpires are an inferior option.

 

And I would find it more interesting to see how good human umpires can get, as opposed to seeing what MLB players can do playing within robo-ump parameters.

[Mike Sixel]

Replays are not the same as real time ball/strike calls.....red herring......

 

I want the calls to be as correct as we can make them. I'm betting that is with technology....just like in tennis. I want the players actions to be the thing, not bad umpiring to be the thing. No one on this thread is stating that robo calls will be perfect, another distraction. The question is, for me, will it be more correct? Yes, yes it will.

 

I watch to see what players do, nothing turned me off the game more than the Braves pitchers back in teh day getting calls that no other pitchers got.

[wsnydes]

 

I'm with you that replays can bog down games and be obnoxious.  I don't think this particular issue has that concern though....does it?

This particular issue, no. Assuming the call is instantaneous as if it were the umpire making it, I don't see there being a delay. What I've said in other posts is that I just see this is a gateway to more automation. People seem to want perfection, so why wouldn't that perfection eventually spread to all plays? It seems somewhat illogical to me that one would expect to eliminate human error at the plate but not in other aspects. When replay was first introduced, many poo pooed the snowball effect that technology would play. Well, that snowball is getting larger.

 

Aside from not having an issue with the human error in sports, I'm simply saying that I'd like the snowball to stop rolling before it gets too big.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I watch to see what players do, nothing turned me off the game more than the Braves pitchers back in teh day getting calls that no other pitchers got.

I can see how that would be frustrating! But I think such situations have already become a thing of the past -- the league can monitor umpire performance like never before. So we see virtually zero team/player bias. The remaining bias is relatively small, neutral, and speaking personally, it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game at all.

[wsnydes]

 

Replays are not the same as real time ball/strike calls.....red herring......

 

I want the calls to be as correct as we can make them. I'm betting that is with technology....just like in tennis. I want the players actions to be the thing, not bad umpiring to be the thing. No one on this thread is stating that robo calls will be perfect, another distraction. The question is, for me, will it be more correct? Yes, yes it will.

 

I watch to see what players do, nothing turned me off the game more than the Braves pitchers back in teh day getting calls that no other pitchers got.

I'm not arguing that they are the same thing. They are two very different things. I've actually stated that a few times in this thread already. 

 

My issue with automated strike zones is that I don't have a problem with the human error element. My other point is that I see automating the strike zone as a gateway to more automation. Once error is eliminated from home plate, it'll be desired elsewhere - leading to more replays in all likelihood.

[h2oface]

 

But that's what I'm afraid of - everything being reviewable and/or being made by a computer. That's not entertaining to me and sports are entertainment. Having things automated to the point of eliminating human elements is not my idea of entertainment. It may be yours, but it is not mine. 

 

I guess i see the players being the human element, and the administration of the rules inhuman. I see the umpire as not part of the game. A human used to be the only way to do it. They can still stand there and do their dance of calling the right call that is instantaneously fed to them. Now we have better options. It will showcase the humans that play the game more properly, and hence be more entertaining, and the game more human. I don't really find all the arguments about the wrong call entertaining, but a waste of time. Humans arguing like children, stomping on the ground, throwing dirt, kicking bases, throwing bases & hats, fake fighting....... not what I come to the game for. 

 

I don't come to sports for "entertainment", as if that is just what I want.... to be entertained. I like the stress of competition, and watching people compete. Sometimes it is entertaining. Many times not. But for me, very interesting and worthy of my time. People compete, always have, and always will, regardless of whether someone is watching. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I admit the rocks on the infield are worse because of the added safety concerns. However, in terms of influence on the outcome of the game.... they would have similar random results that have are seperate from players skill. 

 

The training has become a theme... I'm all for better training everywhere but in this case... I still don't understand the virtue of any missed calls if they can be avoided. 

As a fan, I wouldn't say missed calls are a "virtue" -- just not a problem, at the current level.

 

 

Players might like the current system too, if they see a chance to leverage it to their advantage. As long as it's not egregious, I find that kind of interesting too.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I can see how that would be frustrating! But I think such situations have already become a thing of the past -- the league can monitor umpire performance like never before. So we see virtually zero team/player bias. The remaining bias is relatively small, neutral, and speaking personally, it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game at all.

 

fair.....but the fact demonstrably bad umpires work that post season.....well, I don't like that one bit. There is no actual accountability for getting better when that happens.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I don't really find all the arguments about the wrong call entertaining, but a waste of time. Humans arguing like children, stomping on the ground, throwing dirt, kicking bases, throwing bases & hats, fake fighting....... not what I come to the game for. 

I would agree with you on this, except I generally don't see that at games. Certainly nowhere near any frequency where it would detract from my enjoyment as a fan.

[biggentleben]

With the system Byrnes tried out, it was a dual-colored light in centerfield that flashed for either a ball or strike (they actually changed which light indicated ball and which indicated strike now and then so fans wouldn't know for sure and couldn't just ride the ump by seeing the light). The umpire was under no obligation to call exactly what the light had flashed, but rarely did they go away from it.

 

What you could absolutely do with the technology in the stadium is let the ump still make his/her calls but also have that indicator of a strike or ball given to them. If they choose to go against the system, you track that. Much like with defensive statistics, you could grade your umpires based on their times going against the system and what the "difficulty" of getting the pitch called accurately was. To put this in perspective of defense, if Buxton ranges halfway across the outfield and misses a play, it doesn't hurt his defensive rating as bad as when Eddie Rosario forgets it's game day and drops a liner right at him.

 

The implementation of the system would not have to take away the human element as much as supplement that element.