Bring on the computer, knock off the framing

[Rosterman]

So how fast does it adjust to every batter for height differences, or leaning too far in with butt back? 

[Nine of twelve]

2 hours ago, RpR said:

That is illogical beyond description.

That is illogical beyond description.

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, Rosterman said:

So how fast does it adjust to every batter for height differences, or leaning too far in with butt back? 

Each player's strike zone dimensions are measured before the games are played. Those numbers are entered each time the player bats. Simple.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

Each player's strike zone dimensions are measured before the games are played. Those numbers are entered each time the player bats. Simple.

Conceivably, something stitched onto the uniform, which the sensor can pick up? The plate umpire, who will still have a role, would visually check periodically to ensure no team (*cough* Astros *cough*) is pulling any malarkey.

[dxpavelka]

Oh hell no.  Just watch a game where they show that alleged strike zone and then go read the rule book.  Not even close.

[mikelink45]

12 hours ago, RpR said:

That is illogical beyond description.

According to the rule book we do have one now - we just have not implemented it.  

According to rule 2.00 of the Major League Baseball rule book, a strike zone is defined as "that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap" and is determined by "the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

[Major League Ready]

18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

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.

How about the time they won't spend between pitches either asking the ump about the pitch or walking outside the batters box  grumbling about the call.

[Heezy1323]

I propose a thought exercise. 

I believe most would agree (regardless of position on robo umps) that calling balls and strikes in a game of 10-year-olds is easier than at the MLB level. What is the reason, exactly? Presumably, it is because the pitches are coming in much more slowly, and are breaking a much smaller distance.

For the sake of argument, let's take this to an extreme. Let's pretend that the ability of pitchers to continue to improve their velocity knows no limit. Let's pretend that, say, 20 years from now it is routine to have pitchers throwing 110-115mph. Perhaps with even more break. 

What is the upper limit of human ability to make ball/strike calls with reasonable accuracy? Clearly if a baseball is coming in at 200mph, and breaking 30" or something, a human brain has no shot at telling if the ball goes through a defined box- particularly on borderline pitches. 

And logically, there is also a gradient along the way, such that with increasing velocity and break, the ability of even the best umpires to delineate balls from strikes goes down. 

Where, precisely, is the threshold at which this becomes 'unacceptable'? 

We already use computers in thousands of scenarios every day where the ability of the human senses is unable to reasonably discern one situation from another. I view this as no different. I don't believe it's because the umpires are necessarily 'bad' at their job. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect even those most skilled to be able to do this correctly 100% of the time. 

We've all seen games, series or even careers turn on ball/strike calls that were bad. We either have, or soon will have, the ability to be better. It's time. I can't imagine a scenario where a human is calling balls and strikes even 10 years from now. 

Merry Christmas TD. All the best to each of you.

 

[RpR]

11 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

That is illogical beyond description.

I am glad you agree with me.

[AceWrigley]

Human umpires are part of the sport and I hope we never remove them from the game.

[Craig Arko]

I wonder how many zero-day exploits would be created for this?

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 12/24/2021 at 4:28 PM, 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.

I never thought of this. That is interesting. 

[ashbury]

On 12/24/2021 at 9:42 AM, USAFChief said:

We should have robot players, too. Eliminate errors and such.

I had a good time at the Arizona Fall League, focusing on prospects like Wallner and Laweryson and Sisk.  I don't recall the names of any of the umpiring prospects I watched.  Do you?

Merry Christmas, Chief.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Mike, I'm sorry you had an accident and were injured.  I hope your recovery is swift and 100%.  The only time I had to take Oxycodone was after knee surgery resulting from being over 70 years old and pitching baseball with my grandson. After surgery I took an oxycodone before going to bed and saw snakes on my bedroom ceiling every time I closed my eyes until the medicine wore off.  I was terrified for several hours.  

[Nine of twelve]

20 hours ago, ashbury said:

Conceivably, something stitched onto the uniform, which the sensor can pick up? The plate umpire, who will still have a role, would visually check periodically to ensure no team (*cough* Astros *cough*) is pulling any malarkey.

Nothing on the uniform is needed. A network of cameras provides information on the position of the ball. The system then determines whether the ball passes through the strike zone. It works the same whether anyone is standing in the batter's box or not.

[TheLeviathan]

10 hours ago, AceWrigley said:

Human umpires are part of the sport and I hope we never remove them from the game.

No one is firing them.  Just removing a responsibility from their taska that they are demonstrably worse at than the alternative.

Keep testing and fine-tuning it and I hope it's in big league parks by 2025.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

It works the same whether anyone is standing in the batter's box or not.

I was responding to the idea that the strike zone should resemble what we have now.  I have no interest in a standardized strike zone for tall and short players alike. 

[AceWrigley]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

No one is firing them.  Just removing a responsibility from their taska that they are demonstrably worse at than the alternative.

Keep testing and fine-tuning it and I hope it's in big league parks by 2025.

And eventually they will remove all umpiring tasks from human decision making because they've developed a better camera, faster replay, a better algorithm to determine whether a fielder bobbled the ball or caught it, etc., etc. It's a game, designed by humans, played by humans, arbitrated by humans. As imperfect as we are . . that's baseball. Bad calls? Yes, they happen. That's baseball. What are we going to do when artificially endowed androids or whatever can play baseball better than humans?

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, AceWrigley said:

And eventually they will remove all umpiring tasks from human decision making because they've developed a better camera, faster replay, a better algorithm to determine whether a fielder bobbled the ball or caught it, etc., etc. It's a game, designed by humans, played by humans, arbitrated by humans. As imperfect as we are . . that's baseball. Bad calls? Yes, they happen. That's baseball. What are we going to do when artificially endowed androids or whatever can play baseball better than humans?

We already have instant replay to assist determining if a ball was caught or fair.  Accounting was designed and practiced by humans.  Should we go back to an abacus?  Bad calls impact the game unfairly.  To accept these errors and the unfair impact on the game is irrational if a system can be designed to completely eliminate them.  Sure seems like that would be holding on to an antiquated practice because we don't like change.  The world has changed which necessitates change in any organization.  Those that don't adapt go away or are greatly diminished.

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 hours ago, AceWrigley said:

And eventually they will remove all umpiring tasks from human decision making because they've developed a better camera, faster replay, a better algorithm to determine whether a fielder bobbled the ball or caught it, etc., etc. It's a game, designed by humans, played by humans, arbitrated by humans. As imperfect as we are . . that's baseball. Bad calls? Yes, they happen. That's baseball. What are we going to do when artificially endowed androids or whatever can play baseball better than humans?

The “what about robot players?” point is nonsensical and nothing more than a distraction. The literal point of baseball is human competition. Last I checked. the point of baseball was not gifting/punishing those players due to unnecessary human error. 

[Dave The Dastardly]

On 12/24/2021 at 8:50 PM, Rosterman said:

So how fast does it adjust to every batter for height differences, or leaning too far in with butt back? 

Milliseconds. I have a brother-in-law that used to build robots for manufacturing companies. He told me his robots could "read" if a part was slightly off line, automatically adjust the laser used to burn a hole in the part and put it smack dab where it needed to be so fast if you weren't staring at it you'd never notice. A robot ump could theoretically adjust the strike zone box for every pitch, depending if the batter changed his stance between pitches or not. If his butt was too far back, the robot could even singe his butt to move him back into the batter's box. Hell, it could even singe his butt if he stepped out to adjust his gloves, batting helmet or cup... Kinda like to see that, not his cup, him getting singed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Google has taxis driving around Phoenix without a human being sitting in the driver’s seat. Let’s not pretend there are significant technological hurdles with automated umpires that the tech sector didn’t already solve a decade ago. 

[TheLeviathan]

10 hours ago, AceWrigley said:

And eventually they will remove all umpiring tasks from human decision making because they've developed a better camera, faster replay, a better algorithm to determine whether a fielder bobbled the ball or caught it, etc., etc. It's a game, designed by humans, played by humans, arbitrated by humans. As imperfect as we are . . that's baseball. Bad calls? Yes, they happen. That's baseball. What are we going to do when artificially endowed androids or whatever can play baseball better than humans?

Clearly this argument is foolproof.  You have boxed me with your completely fair, not-in-any-way-ridiculous hyperbolic approach.

Unless......

Keeping the human umpires over a demonstrably superior technology may lead the human race to conclude that Umpires are a superior kind of human, thus installing them as our new overlords.  El Presidente Joe West sounds like a real dystopian future to me.  

[bean5302]

Why not run simulated games of MLB the Show instead of actual baseball games?

Umpires are 91-96% accurate on their calls, but they're even more consistent at 93-98% with an average consistency of 96%. It adds value to the game. A hitter or pitcher not sure they're going to get the call. Frustration is added, but nuance is added. Eliminating the work catchers do to become better at receiving pitches. Eliminating the art of framing. Eliminating all the nuance in favor of robots makes the game less entertaining. Blame the umps/blame the refs is a major part of gameday culture in the United States. Attempts to take advantage of rules, like faking contact by flopping in soccer are pervasive through the the entire sports world. Sterilizing the games does not make them more entertaining. It makes the games less entertaining, even if they are more "accurate."

I see value in the pitch clock, but I don't see a lot of actual entertainment value in robot umps and the only thing which is valuable about baseball is the "entertainment value."

[Brock Beauchamp]

36 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Why not run simulated games of MLB the Show instead of actual baseball games?

Could we just cut it out with these arguments already? These kind of statements have been used against analytics for 2+ decades. They were wrong and used in bad faith about analytics, they're wrong and being used in bad faith about automating the strike zone.

Baseball, like pretty much every sport, is about human competition. No one, and I mean no one, has seriously advocated for the removal of human competition. No one is making this point so stop trying to strawman the opposition with it.

[Nine of twelve]

On 12/25/2021 at 12:04 PM, AceWrigley said:

Human umpires are part of the sport and I hope we never remove them from the game.

In other words, players being unfairly and unnecessarily penalized by human umpires is part of the sport and he hopes that this unfair practice continues.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

In other words, players being unfairly and unnecessarily penalized by human umpires is part of the sport and he hopes that this unfair practice continues.

I don't understand what is "unfair". Both sides have to deal with human umpires. It's completely fair.

How far down the chain are we propagating robot umps? Amateur baseball will never implement it. If the highest level implements it they probably have to go all the way to rookie ball. You're not going to train players with one strike zone and then spring a different zone on them when they get to the big leagues.

Quote

How about the time they won't spend between pitches either asking the ump about the pitch or walking outside the batters box  grumbling about the call.

You are delusional if you think an automated strike zone will keep players from getting upset about a call. Did you ever watch McEnroe when they first put in the automated line detectors in tennis?

[ashbury]

On 12/25/2021 at 10:04 AM, AceWrigley said:

Human umpires are part of the sport and I hope we never remove them from the game.

Part of the sport?  In the early days of baseball, the umpire was typically a local dignitary enlisted to settle any disagreements the sporting fellows on the field couldn't resolve, and seated off to the side of the playing field.  Sure, once money entered the picture in a big way, a more active ump was necessary.  The role of the umpire(s) has evolved over time.  The role can continue to change, as far as I'm concerned.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I don't understand what is "unfair". Both sides have to deal with human umpires. It's completely fair.

In the aggregate, sure.

In any single game, like game seven of a postseason series, not so much. I can't count how many times I've watched a game where the "umpire's zone" (which it's hard to defend as a thing that should ever exist whilst using a straight face) clearly favored one pitcher over the other.

Why do we allow that to be a thing? How is that fun?

[old nurse]

On 12/24/2021 at 3:15 PM, 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.

Sone times it is not hard at all.