Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Bring on the computer, knock off the framing


mikelink45
 Share

There is nothing better than trying to recover from an injury and laying in bed with an oxycodone inside and too much pain to sleep on the outside and the brain runs wild!  Last night my brain said – bring on the robots!  Get rid of the umpire called strike zone that dips, slides from side to side, and sometimes just can’t be found.  No more scouting the umpire tendencies, we would actually have the designated strike zone.  It would be fair, it would be everywhere in the big leads – no differences because one league uses huge chest protectors and the other has a simple bullet proof vest.  No more looking at the umpire because he called a strike and you didn’t like it.  Now it is the computer and the computer does not care how you look.

Of course that means that pitchers like Maddux and Glavine could not train the ump like a puppy dog to move more and more outside and off the plate.  There would no longer be the shrunken zone for the rookie and expanded for the Vet.  You don’t earn a strike zone you pitch to it.  So what are we waiting for?

I know it means that the ump would not have to lean over the catcher the same way, but he would have to know if there was contact with the bat making a foul instead of a clean strike.  He would have to determine if a player scores or not and in between he can relax, provide the catcher with some company, absorb a foul ball or two, and watch for foul pop ups being caught.  It would still be necessary to call strikes on swings and misses regardless of where the ball is pitched, and the base umps would still have to be awake to say whether the batter swung or not.

The catcher’s job would change too.  They still need to call the game, catch the ball, throw out bunters or runners when the strike is not handled cleanly, and run down passed balls and wild pitches, but they no longer have to cheat.  They do not have to fool the umpire.  The magic trick is gone.  To try and frame the ball for the computer would be like a magician trying to do his tricks naked. 

So what could go wrong?  The computer malfunctions – we have a second computer or we have an umpire step in and substitute – the crowd would go wild.  Or the setting is off and the square is not centered correctly – that would just be like the old days of adjusting to the calls. And there is still a human ump in place so that managers can go wild and get kicked out of games. 

But the computer has instant results and can even count the seconds between pitches to move the game along.  If sabermetrics is going to run the way we play the game, use the tools we have to make the game more efficient.

If you don't agree step up and say make your stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

My evaluation of the umpires ....

When they changed from national and American league  to an all inclusive  1 union of umpires for all teams , the umpiring got worse and worse  ....

I'm not infavor of taking away jobs , but they are costing  jobs for the future because of their blown calls and we try and correct them with replay and now soon to be robot umpiring behind home plate ...

Have their eyes and ears checked more frequently   ..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time delay could kill the game entirely. If it takes 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call that's an extra 900 seconds per game - 15 minutes of additional time where nothing is happening. We all know the batter is going to wait until the computer makes the call before he adjusts his batting glove a 35th time and the pitcher is going to wait until the batter steps into the box to argue about the sign with the catcher. 15 extra minutes a game and now I'm going to bed in the 7th inning instead of the 8th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The time delay could kill the game entirely. If it takes 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call that's an extra 900 seconds per game - 15 minutes of additional time where nothing is happening. We all know the batter is going to wait until the computer makes the call before he adjusts his batting glove a 35th time and the pitcher is going to wait until the batter steps into the box to argue about the sign with the catcher. 15 extra minutes a game and now I'm going to bed in the 7th inning instead of the 8th.

Why would it take 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call? The robot umps that have been tested and that the league is looking at putting in place have immediate results and the ump gives the call just as quick as they do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone expects MLB to go to robo calls for balls and strikes sometime relatively soon. Will be interesting to see how that changes the evaluation, and training, of catchers. Will we see more bat first guys behind the plate? Guys who don't have the feet or hands to play 3B, but have the arm, move behind the dish and learn to just block pitches since receiving is no longer important? Will be interesting to see how it changes the catcher position moving forward. If I were a major league team I'd be looking to bring in some bat first youngsters now and get a jump on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The time delay could kill the game entirely. If it takes 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call that's an extra 900 seconds per game - 15 minutes of additional time where nothing is happening. We all know the batter is going to wait until the computer makes the call before he adjusts his batting glove a 35th time and the pitcher is going to wait until the batter steps into the box to argue about the sign with the catcher. 15 extra minutes a game and now I'm going to bed in the 7th inning instead of the 8th.

They should be able to make it faster, not slower.  And with the Robot I would also say no one can step out of the box too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I think everyone expects MLB to go to robo calls for balls and strikes sometime relatively soon. Will be interesting to see how that changes the evaluation, and training, of catchers. Will we see more bat first guys behind the plate? Guys who don't have the feet or hands to play 3B, but have the arm, move behind the dish and learn to just block pitches since receiving is no longer important? Will be interesting to see how it changes the catcher position moving forward. If I were a major league team I'd be looking to bring in some bat first youngsters now and get a jump on things.

I agree, but maybe we will get some base running in the future and the arm will be important again.  However, calling the game is still the most important so brains and arm will both be important.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Why would it take 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call?

Is the home plate umpire looking at something to make the call or does it just end up on the scoreboard somewhere? If the umpire has to look at something and make the call there will be a time delay to send the data to the umpire and have him relay the result. 3 seconds is conservative in that scenario. 

The home plate umpire is still going to have judgement calls beyond balls and strikes. Check swings, foul tips, hit batters, etc. He will need to overrule the computer occasionally.

I don't see ball/strike calls as the biggest issue MLB needs to fix. The biggest issues are pace of play and the lack of balls in play. If there are any rule changes they should be to address making the game more interesting. I see instant replay as an "improvement" that backfired. The calls are more accurate but the time spent making the calls more accurate makes the game take even longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Is the home plate umpire looking at something to make the call or does it just end up on the scoreboard somewhere? If the umpire has to look at something and make the call there will be a time delay to send the data to the umpire and have him relay the result. 3 seconds is conservative in that scenario. 

There's some irony here, as you clicked send and sent this message to a server in Texas, and then back to you (probably in Minnesota) in milliseconds. People all over the world are sending and receiving data to each other, usually in under a second.

These aren't carrier pigeons. The time delay for an umpire to receive the ball/strike is instantaneous to human perception, either through an ear piece or a buzzer. The only delay is the umpire literally saying "ball" or "strike", which already exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Is the home plate umpire looking at something to make the call or does it just end up on the scoreboard somewhere? If the umpire has to look at something and make the call there will be a time delay to send the data to the umpire and have him relay the result. 3 seconds is conservative in that scenario. 

The home plate umpire is still going to have judgement calls beyond balls and strikes. Check swings, foul tips, hit batters, etc. He will need to overrule the computer occasionally.

I don't see ball/strike calls as the biggest issue MLB needs to fix. The biggest issues are pace of play and the lack of balls in play. If there are any rule changes they should be to address making the game more interesting. I see instant replay as an "improvement" that backfired. The calls are more accurate but the time spent making the calls more accurate makes the game take even longer.

I don't get how you think 3 seconds is realistic, let alone conservative. Do you watch games on TV? They have instant ball strike calls there so I'm not sure why it'd take 3 seconds to get the information to the ump. Count 3 seconds out loud. It's a long time (relatively speaking). As Brock pointed out, there are way more complicated technological events happening instantaneously in our world already. It's not even a 3 second delay when I video chat with friends on the other side of the planet.

Yes, the homeplate umpire will need to make judgement calls still. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Just because something isn't the biggest issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. We have the technology, and have been testing it already, so why would we say "no, don't address this challenge because lack of balls in play is a bigger concern?" We have the ability to have a more accurate strikezone without adding any extra time to the game so why wouldn't we do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

There's some irony here, as you clicked send and sent this message to a server in Texas, and then back to you (probably in Minnesota) in milliseconds. People all over the world are sending and receiving data to each other, usually in under a second.

These aren't carrier pigeons. The time delay for an umpire to receive the ball/strike is instantaneous to human perception, either through an ear piece or a buzzer. The only delay is the umpire literally saying "ball" or "strike", which already exists.

Did you read my message and respond in less than 3 seconds? That's the time delay. Not sending the message.

It takes the brain about 1/4 second to process a visual stimulus. That's the absolute least amount of delay and that's when it's only processing that stimulus.

New Measure of Human Brain Processing Speed | MIT Technology Review

Quote

Just because something isn't the biggest issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed

How much bandwidth do you think they have to implement changes? Only so much works gets done at one time. Why start with the 50th priority item on the list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

but they no longer have to cheat.

I agree that it’s time for robo-umps, but not because catchers are cheating. I don’t consider framing cheating. I think both sides of this is flawed. I think framing came out of a necessity of missed strike calls. Maybe it’s gone too far, but I think there was evidence enough to use robo-umps before framing was a thing. Missed strike calls, missed ball calls … maybe framing evened the scales … either way, all I think exemplifies why it’s time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Did you read my message and respond in less than 3 seconds? That's the time delay. Not sending the message.

It takes the brain about 1/4 second to process a visual stimulus. That's the absolute least amount of delay and that's when it's only processing that stimulus.

New Measure of Human Brain Processing Speed | MIT Technology Review

And how long do you think it takes the umpire to physically see the pitch and make a decision? That's what I'm saying, the technological delay is basically non-existent from a human perspective, which leaves only the reaction time, and that already exists in the game.

In the end, the net difference should be negligible and automation could actually be faster in some circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dave The Dastardly said:

Makes perfect sense to me and I'm only on Advil. The difficulty will be getting the fans to give up arguing strikes and balls as well as denigrating the umpires. For some it's the main reason they watch baseball.

Makes perfect sense to me and I'm not on any mood-altering chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DJL44 said:

The time delay could kill the game entirely. If it takes 3 extra seconds to make a ball/strike call that's an extra 900 seconds per game - 15 minutes of additional time where nothing is happening. We all know the batter is going to wait until the computer makes the call before he adjusts his batting glove a 35th time and the pitcher is going to wait until the batter steps into the box to argue about the sign with the catcher. 15 extra minutes a game and now I'm going to bed in the 7th inning instead of the 8th.

You make it to the 8th?  I usually hang in there until the fourth pitching change meaning the 6th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RpR said:

I am curious how do they adjust it for player size or batters jumping around while batting changing stance?

I'm sure it would not be difficult to program the pitch calling system for individual batters, but I think it's time to have a uniform strike zone for all batters.

There is only one reason that the strike zone was defined as it is. That reason is because the batter provides the only points of reference for high and low pitches for a home plate umpire. With pitch calling systems I question why the strike zone should not be uniform. I can think of no other example in team sports where the playing field (the strike zone is part of the playing field) is different for individual players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm sure it would not be difficult to program the pitch calling system for individual batters, but I think it's time to have a uniform strike zone for all batters.

There is only one reason that the strike zone was defined as it is. That reason is because the batter provides the only points of reference for high and low pitches for a home plate umpire. With pitch calling systems I question why the strike zone should not be uniform. I can think of no other example in team sports where the playing field (the strike zone is part of the playing field) is different for individual players.

So do we make pitchers throw between the shins and the waist to Judge or from mid-thigh to the nose for Altuve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RpR said:

I am curious how do they adjust it for player size or batters jumping around while batting changing stance?

That is the biggest issue with the technology right now. The answer is "not very well."  

The calculated balls/strikes are not used for the umpire evals until after the upper and lower limits of the zone are recalculated for each batter.
 

I think it's a hurdle that can be overcome, but I don't think we are there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

There is a fine line between sarcasm and smart-assiness. It is so fine that sometimes I'm not sure which one applies to certain comments.

 I am strongly opposed to an automated strike zone. It will do nothing to improve the game. 

 

Also, for the record, it was smart assedness, all the way. (Also, smart assiness is not a word.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

 I am strongly opposed to an automated strike zone. It will do nothing to improve the game. 

 

Also, for the record, it was smart assedness, all the way. (Also, smart assiness is not a word.)

Sentences 1, 3, and 4 are facts. Sentence 2 is an opinion that is far from universally shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm sure it would not be difficult to program the pitch calling system for individual batters, but I think it's time to have a uniform strike zone for all batters.

 

That is illogical beyond description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...