Balls and strikes called incorrectly 1 out 5 times

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

Well, it's not a binary good/bad -- the best and worst error rates were ~4% apart.

 

And developments in the game take time. In terms of umpiring, we're ahead of where we were 10 years ago; we're way ahead of where we were 20 years ago. I would expect it to be even better in another 10 years. And again, for me, it's not detracting from my enjoyment in the meantime.

[h2oface]

 

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.

 

I would think it would be just as easy to feed it to a light in the mask, and only the umpire sees it.

 

[biggentleben]

 

I would think it would be just as easy to feed it to a light in the mask, and only the umpire sees it.

 

Certainly, but more worried about the ability for a person to still have some human control over their decisions, and that's what so many against the technology are concerned about. Nowhere that's implemented the technology has required all calls to be made according to the technology.

[Riverbrian]

 

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.

 

You always have my respect Spycake... You've earned it. But... I disagree with "Just Not a Problem" and I suppose that comes down to our individual levels of tolerance. 

 

As I pointed out earlier in the thread. A missed strike call on a two strike count to Didi in the Wild Card game was followed by a 3 run home run and that changed a lot in that game and my Twins season came to an end that day. 

 

That's a big problem in my eyes... I'm as capable as the next guy to declare problems as not fixable and declare it as something that we all must learn to live with... However... this problem is easily fixable and therefore not necessary. 

 

How big is this problem (in my opinion)... Just think about this: We are employing pitch framers over 20 home run hitters... that alone states the size of the issue. We are training our catchers to frame pitches because the data suggests that it is advantageous to do so. We are training our catchers to exploit a human frailty because the data suggests that it is advantageous to do so. The mere notion that we are doing this tells you, there is a serious problem that can be exploited.

 

Pitch Framers are finding work over the guys who can hit 20 home runs just to take advantage of this... well... loophole.   

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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. 

I suspect this tracking/review is already taking place, and increasing.

 

And as I said upthread, I'd love if this kind of analysis factored in the difficulty of calling a pitch accurately, rather than just raw "error rates". A strike 6 inches off the plate isn't the same kind of error, to me, as a fan, as a pitch that's 2 microns from the zone.

[wsnydes]

 

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. 

And I see the umpires as being a part of that human element. That's really the only difference here. By "entertainment" I basically watch for the same reasons as you. I enjoy the stress of it. I enjoy the competition of it. That's all entertaining to me. I don't enjoy the arguing about blown calls either, so I don't partake because to me it's part of the game. I enjoy the (civil) arguing about strategy of the game and the like. The officials don't really interfere with how I watch or enjoy the game. 

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

The human error should be from the players and coaches though.

 

What if the person running the scoreboard accidentally gave the wrong team the runs that scored? Would you just accept this as human error, or would you want it corrected?

[wsnydes]

 

The human error should be from the players and coaches though.

What if the person running the scoreboard accidentally gave the wrong team the runs that scored? Would you just accept this as human error, or would you want it corrected?

I hardly see that as apples to apples. If there's a clock malfunction in football or basketball, it does get corrected and it gets corrected by the officials. Besides, each team knows the score and so do the umpires. They're all keeping score.

 

And again, I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their minds. I'm simply presenting the opposing viewpoint. I realize that I'm not going to change anyone's mind and I'm completely fine with that.

[Platoon]

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.

 

First off, I respect your opinion, and am delighted/amazed at the rational discussion herein. But, lol there's always a but! Secondly I don't think umpires tolerate a missed call. They most likely abhor them. I did. As I do driving errors, and misspeeling. But to get to your personal opinion in your first par. I think it should be noted that if you go to robot umpiring, then the gentleman, or woman, behind the plate is not calling balls and strikes. He is no longer a ball and strike umpire, he is a ball and strike announcer. In the area of balls and strikes he is being replaced by automation and his position, while occupied, will be diminished. I would like to see what MLB umpires think of Robo strikes? And I don't mean the sanitized version the league would hand out either.

[h2oface]

 

First off, I respect your opinion, and am delighted/amazed at the rational discussion herein. But, lol there's always a but! Secondly I don't think umpires tolerate a missed call. They most likely abhor them. I did. As I do driving errors, and misspeeling. But to get to your personal opinion in your first par. I think it should be noted that if you go to robot umpiring, then the gentleman, or woman, behind the plate is not calling balls and strikes. He is no longer a ball and strike umpire, he is a ball and strike announcer. In the area of balls and strikes he is being replaced by automation and his position, while occupied, will be diminished. I would like to see what MLB umpires think of Robo strikes? And I don't mean the sanitized version the league would hand out either.

 

Yup. Progress. Just as a washed up star gets replaced, so will the plate umpire, or at least some of his duties. The washed up star (and the not stars) won't like it, and will often hold on and try to keep playing, even so far as to play minor league ball at 35. Just as we transitioned from no electricity to electricity, and the torch makers and the candle makers became not needed, so will the plate umpire become an announcer. He still gets to call plays at the plate and such. They could even develop unique styles of announcing the calls that are "entertaining" for those that like to be entertained by umpires. But the game was never, and never will be, about the umpires. They are just an administrator of the rules, and too many times not administering them properly, even if it is their best attempt to, especially the most basic part of the game, correct calling of balls and strikes. 

 

I have no doubt the umpires and their union won't like it. Who does like being phased out for a better option? I have more than once read that many/most don't even do the work to try to get better and review the calls. I know I would if I was umpiring. I would do it between innings even to see how I was doing that game, during the game. But people surely don't like being replaced. But it will happen. Unfortunately, I feel, later than sooner (as it is already 10 years overdue in my opinion), but it will happen.

[pbrezeasap]

 

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.

 

 

I don't think I would want pure robo-umps, but I could get behind something like this. If a catcher sets up down and away on a 2 strike pitch and the pitcher misses by a couple feet, but grazes the up and in corner and gets a strike call by a robo-ump that doesn't seem like the "right" call to me. A strike three call on something like that would annoy me way more than a pitcher getting a call when he hits the catchers glove, but the ball may have been an inch off the plate.

 

My biggest concern is the robo-ump would be an overwhelming advantage to pitchers and result in a significant increase in strikeouts and decrease in scoring. If pitchers are getting every pitch that barely clips a corner called a strike they will be good enough to just pound those areas with unhittable pitches and I don't see how that makes the game more enjoyable.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You always have my respect Spycake... You've earned it. But... I disagree with "Just Not a Problem" and I suppose that comes down to our individual levels of tolerance. 

 

As I pointed out earlier in the thread. A missed strike call on a two strike count to Didi in the Wild Card game was followed by a 3 run home run and that changed a lot in that game and my Twins season came to an end that day.

Despite that call, I don't feel that I saw anything less than a fair competition of baseball skills between the Yankees and my Twins that day (unfortunately ).

 

 

How big is this problem (in my opinion)... Just think about this: We are employing pitch framers over 20 home run hitters... that alone states the size of the issue. We are training our catchers to frame pitches because the data suggests that it is advantageous to do so. We are training our catchers to exploit a human frailty because the data suggests that it is advantageous to do so. The mere notion that we are doing this tells you, there is a serious problem that can be exploited.

 

Pitch Framers are finding work over the guys who can hit 20 home runs just to take advantage of this... well... loophole.   

 

Pitch framing is nothing new, although we've only recently been able to attempt quantifying it.

 

If Jeff Mathis is taking a job away from Chris Carter, is that objectively a bad thing? I find it interesting, frankly -- it's not like there's a shortage of Chris Carter type hitters being represented in the league. And if it's happening now, it's been happening in similar forms for all of baseball history.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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?

It would depend on how MLB implements it, I suppose. It wouldn't be all that surprising if they addressed this issue by adding 3 "strike zone" challenges per team, to be used before the 8th inning...

[wsnydes]

 

It would depend on how MLB implements it, I suppose. It wouldn't be all that surprising if they addressed this issue by adding 3 "strike zone" challenges per team, to be used before the 8th inning...

I cringe just reading that...

[h2oface]

 

I suspect this tracking/review is already taking place, and increasing.

 

And as I said upthread, I'd love if this kind of analysis factored in the difficulty of calling a pitch accurately, rather than just raw "error rates". A strike 6 inches off the plate isn't the same kind of error, to me, as a fan, as a pitch that's 2 microns from the zone.

 

You love your microns! 1 millionth of a meter. That would be sooooo cool to have something instantaneous that accurate.

 

This fan is always disturbed by the close call being wrong. That is were the most talent is displayed from a hitter or a pitcher, and they are being robbed. The perfectly thrown pitch location, or the perfect take. They bother me the most. The obvious ones...... it just shows how horrible the system that continues to be used is, and the tragedy of that. But the close ones really rob the players the most. And there are way more of them being called wrong than the obvious ones.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This fan is always disturbed by the close call being wrong. That is were the most talent is displayed from a hitter or a pitcher, and they are being robbed. The perfectly thrown pitch location, or the perfect take. They bother me the most.

I don't think the players can even tell whether the pitches are balls or strikes within an inch, in real time. Much less have a repeatable skill to do it.

[yarnivek1972]

Some excerpts from the article:

 

In 2018, a total of 55 games were ended when umpires made incorrect calls.

 

 

Based on the 11 regular seasons worth of data analyzed, almost one third of batters called out looking at third strikes had good reason to be angry.

 

 

 

I don’t understand how anyone could consider either of these facts acceptable.

[pbrezeasap]

 

Some excerpts from the article:

In 2018, a total of 55 games were ended when umpires made incorrect calls.


Based on the 11 regular seasons worth of data analyzed, almost one third of batters called out looking at third strikes had good reason to be angry.



I don’t understand how anyone could consider either of these facts acceptable.

 

 

The article isn't transparent enough that I would consider those facts. I want to see a spray chart of the location of those 55 so-called missed calls. If 50 of them are belt to thigh high and within 1 inch of the plate then I would say they are within the error band of the tracking system and shouldn't be considered missed calls. Same thing for all the third strike calls. With all the other information they provide, it would seem if this data supported their argument they would have included it to solidify their conclusions. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I hardly see that as apples to apples. If there's a clock malfunction in football or basketball, it does get corrected and it gets corrected by the officials. Besides, each team knows the score and so do the umpires. They're all keeping score.

 

And again, I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their minds. I'm simply presenting the opposing viewpoint. I realize that I'm not going to change anyone's mind and I'm completely fine with that.

Right, those things get corrected, they aren't shrugged off as human error that is an enjoyable part of the game.

The umps sole purpose should be to ensure that the humans actually playing the game do so by the rules, IMO.

[h2oface]

 

I don't think the players can even tell whether the pitches are balls or strikes within an inch, in real time. Much less have a repeatable skill to do it.

 

So what? They did do it that time. Shouldn't it be properly rewarded? Isn't that what the game is all about anyway. They certainly meant to throw it there or not swing because of their talent and intuition.

 

And.... some are really very good at it. Many better than the umpire.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The article isn't transparent enough that I would consider those facts. I want to see a spray chart of the location of those 55 so-called missed calls. If 50 of them are belt to thigh high and within 1 inch of the plate then I would say they are within the error band of the tracking system and shouldn't be considered missed calls. Same thing for all the third strike calls. With all the other information they provide, it would seem if this data supported their argument they would have included it to solidify their conclusions. 

 

If the error bar is 1 inch, it will be worse than humans.....I'd be shocked if it was that bad. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think the players can even tell whether the pitches are balls or strikes within an inch, in real time. Much less have a repeatable skill to do it.

Then you are essentially saying that ball/strike recognition isn't a skill, because anyone can recognize that a pitch 6 inches off the plate is a ball. The skill IS on the margins.

[pbrezeasap]

 

If the error bar is 1 inch, it will be worse than humans.....I'd be shocked if it was that bad. 

 

Also from the article

 

"Ball location can be tracked up to 50 times during each pitch and accuracy is claimed to be within one inch."

[Mike Sixel]

 

Also from the article

 

"Ball location can be tracked up to 50 times during each pitch and accuracy is claimed to be within one inch."

 

well, that's not impressive.....and would be worse than humans. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Some excerpts from the article:

 

In 2018, a total of 55 games were ended when umpires made incorrect calls.

 

 

Based on the 11 regular seasons worth of data analyzed, almost one third of batters called out looking at third strikes had good reason to be angry.

 

 

 

I don’t understand how anyone could consider either of these facts acceptable.

Again, if those pitches were so close that even the batters themselves would be unable to determine the "correct" call, I am not sure it matters. In those cases, the batter taking the pitch is no more demonstrating his skill than predicting the result of a coin flip.

 

The two-strike bias is interesting and worth looking into further, although the numbers as presented here may overstate the case, if close pitches/takes are more likely to occur in two-strike counts.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Then you are essentially saying that ball/strike recognition isn't a skill, because anyone can recognize that a pitch 6 inches off the plate is a ball. The skill IS on the margins.

Baseball is nowhere near a 100% type game. No batter or pitcher has to be anywhere close to 100% pitch recognition skill to be successful.

 

The best batters can probably recognize pitches early that will likely fall in a small zones (a couple inches, maybe?), and know their percentage odds in each zone, and can make a informed decision whether to swing or risk a take depending on the count.

[ashbury]

In 2018, a total of 55 games were ended when umpires made incorrect calls.

I assume this number includes cases like where a called strike ends an 8-3 game. I'd be surprised if 55 outcomes were materially affected - that would be something like 4 bogus outcomes per team in the season.

[wsnydes]

 

Right, those things get corrected, they aren't shrugged off as human error that is an enjoyable part of the game.
The umps sole purpose should be to ensure that the humans actually playing the game do so by the rules, IMO.

A scoreboard operator has no direct impact on the game or its rules and how they're enforced though. Even the official scorer has no impact on the outcome of a game or how the rules are enforced. That's not even close the same thing. Apples to apples would be the beer vendor selling beer at the incorrect price. Neither has any direct bearing on the outcome of the game. Umpires are directly involved with the game - whether they're robotic or human. We can debate whether that should or should not be the case, which is what we're doing.

 

Again, I'm not here to try to convince anyone how to enjoy the game. I'm simply providing the opposing view point. If you don't like umpires being part of the human element, fine with me. All I ask is that others don't try to tell me how to enjoy the game. You can tell me that broccoli is good until your face turns blue, but that won't make me think it tastes good!

[Otto von Ballpark]

So what? They did do it that time. Shouldn't it be properly rewarded? Isn't that what the game is all about anyway. They certainly meant to throw it there or not swing because of their talent and intuition.

.

Worth noting that players don't learn the game or train based on the Statcast strike zone. So taking a Statcast ball, that the ump calls a strike, isn't really an unexpected or unjust outcome, if they've seen it regularly called a strike their entire lives.

 

If anything, switching to a strict Statcast zone could be an unwelcome adjustment for most players! You'd more be rewarding those players who could adapt to the new Statcast zone, than you would be rewarding any kind of "natural" baseball skill.

[Platoon]

A scoreboard operator has no direct impact on the game or its rules and how they're enforced though. Even the official scorer has no impact on the outcome of a game or how the rules are enforced. That's not even close the same thing. Apples to apples would be the beer vendor selling beer at the incorrect price. Neither has any direct bearing on the outcome of the game. Umpires are directly involved with the game - whether they're robotic or human. We can debate whether that should or should not be the case, which is what we're doing.

 

Again, I'm not here to try to convince anyone how to enjoy the game. I'm simply providing the opposing view point. If you don't like umpires being part of the human element, fine with me. All I ask is that others don't try to tell me how to enjoy the game. You can tell me that broccoli is good until your face turns blue, but that won't make me think it tastes good!

I agree with this, and I happen to like broccoli. As for an inch off the plate. If it's clears the plate by an inch and the Robo ump calls it a strike, or vice versa I imagine, that's not worth the change to the games history at all. As for recognizing balls and strikes by hitters, a good umpire once told me any hitter who can tell you if a ball missed or caught the outside corner is lying. Frankly I tend to believe that theory I know when you ump, and sit on the inside corner, which is very common, the outside corner isnt as clear. Is that an argument for robo? Not if Robo has an inch to play with.