Bring on the computer, knock off the framing

[gil4]

On 12/24/2021 at 4:40 PM, USAFChief said:

(Also, smart assiness is not a word.)

Fort something that doesn't exits, we sure find a lot of it around here. 

I'm just adding to the pile

[gil4]

On 12/24/2021 at 3:19 PM, Linus said:

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

Did you take a wrong turn on the way to the Dodgers forum?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, RpR said:

Too many of the young ones today think life is supposed to be fair; some learn to deal with it and live a satisfying life; the rest pee and moan till they die about how they deserved better.?

Everyone needs to stop meta-arguing about societal ills and strawmanning the opposition. It's so bloody boring. Either argue the subject at hand or just keep quiet.

[gil4]

On 12/25/2021 at 9:03 AM, Heezy1323 said:

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.

 

That is probably true, but I would prefer to get the opinion of an umpire at the MLB level for this.

Calling balls and strikes in high school games is easier than your average 10u game. (A 10u game with good pitchers is easier, but those are few and far between. Most of the time, I tell them 12u and above if they call me for travel ball tournaments. 10u is just brutal.)

[gil4]

 

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

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."

Do you think flopping in soccer makes the game more entertaining? 

[gil4]

On 12/24/2021 at 3:51 PM, gil4 said:

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.

My info may have been a bit out of date. Apparently the system has been tweaked and is much better than in its first season.

 

From 2019:

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/imperfections-and-all-robo-umps-make-significant-impact-on-atlantic-league/

The ABS system is not ready for the major leagues. You can find players who say it's not ready for the Atlantic League. But if Major League Baseball is ever going to switch to a computerized strike zone, it is going to want to have gotten rid of all the bugs ahead of time.

It will want to make sure that the mechanics of getting the pitches called quickly and accurately are cleared up as well. The Atlantic League's players are dealing with issues so big leaguers won't see those problems.

 

From 2021:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/30/invasion-of-the-robot-umpires

[Wally Backman]: “It’s gonna be in the major leagues in a lot shorter time than people think.”

M.L.B. has already concluded that the device is near-perfect, precise to within fractions of an inch. “It’s going to be more accurate, it’ll reduce controversy in the game, and be good for the game,” the M.L.B. commissioner, Rob Manfred, has said. 

 

[mnfireman]

I am not interested in watching baseball games umpired by robots. I think it will lead to even more bad calls on the field because the umpire will not be as involved. Look how many "bad" calls are made because the umpire knows it will be reviewed anyway.

If the umpire isn't making the ball and strike call, he may be disinterested when needed to make the foul tip, hit by pitch, foul ball off the foot, catchers interference or similar call.

And just like those advocating for it, my opinion will not be changed by any amount of lobbying by those in favor.

[Brock Beauchamp]

18 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

I am not interested in watching baseball games umpired by robots. I think it will lead to even more bad calls on the field because the umpire will not be as involved. Look how many "bad" calls are made because the umpire knows it will be reviewed anyway.

You realize that the vast majority of non-ball/strike calls are made by umpires that aren't the home plate umpire, right?

[mnfireman]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You realize that the vast majority of non-ball/strike calls are made by umpires that aren't the home plate umpire, right?

Typical reply from you, cherry pick part of a statement to suit your argument. Of course I know/realize the home plate ump doesn't make all calls on the field. Read the examples I listed. 

[dxpavelka]

On 12/25/2021 at 7:41 AM, mikelink45 said:

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."

Now compare that to the box you see that is alleged to be the strike zone.............

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, mnfireman said:

I am not interested in watching baseball games umpired by robots. I think it will lead to even more bad calls on the field because the umpire will not be as involved. Look how many "bad" calls are made because the umpire knows it will be reviewed anyway.

If the umpire isn't making the ball and strike call, he may be disinterested when needed to make the foul tip, hit by pitch, foul ball off the foot, catchers interference or similar call.

And just like those advocating for it, my opinion will not be changed by any amount of lobbying by those in favor.

I think a number of people here are capable of being objective but you will need to come up with a better argument than the HP umpire will now be disinterested in doing their job.  I don't think they will pout like children.  I think they will adapt to changes just like all of us adapt in our professions.  You think they make bad calls because they can be reviewed?  They are evaluated on every call.  They also don't get to that level without pride in doing the job right? 

We could have figured out that you were not going to be objective by the emotionally based non-sensical rant without you pointing out you would not exercise any objectivity.

[mikelink45]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I think a number of people here are capable of being objective but you will need to come up with a better argument than the HP umpire will now be disinterested in doing their job.  I don't think they will pout like children.  I think they will adapt to changes just like all of us adapt in our professions.  You think they make bad calls because they can be reviewed?  They are evaluated on every call.  They also don't get to that level without pride in doing the job right? 

We could have figured out that you were not going to be objective by the emotionally based non-sensical rant without you pointing out you would not exercise any objectivity.

We maintain umpires on the base paths that have nothing to do for the majority of the game and still expect them to be alert when the occasion arises.  The home plate ump has to watch each swing - to see if the batter swung, he has to watch for ball and bat contact - the the slightest, he has to watch for foul balls and if they are caught, he has to watch the base like the other umps to see if the runners are safe.  Don't worry about boredom. Major League is right about the adjustment we all make in our lives and work.  

[mikelink45]

I think we need a lesson in umpiring for this conversation to continue - Baseball began with only one umpire to watch all the bases and balls and strikes.   They chose William McLean to be the first ump.  Without saying so much, they chose a former professional boxer, what does that say about umpiring?
 

By 1878 it was decided that volunteer umps were not working so they each got $5.00 a game.  In 1882, Richard Higham advertised to gamblers that they should bet on games in managed - Richard was removed.  At that same time the AL formed and they hired a group of umpires at $140 a month and would rotate them at games and locations on the diamond.  In 1909 they decided to have four umpires per game. 

An excellent history Steve the Ump and an historic timeline Umpire timeline can be found at these two sites. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

computers can recognize features and landmarks additional to a ball traveling through space. a dynamic strike zone is certainly feasible, but would open up arguing balls and strikes again. Fixed strike zone would lead to a faster game,

I'm in firm support of the OP

[TheLeviathan]

Well, if this conversation is any indication: The rampant fallacies on the part of the "don't let it get automated" crowd only add to the argument for it.  Not only are there no good reasons against implementing it, the crowd against it is so incapable of generating a good argument we need not even have the discussion.  We can just proceed.

I'll add though, I think as pitchers get more and more dynamic in their offerings (93 mph sliders were once thought to be impossible to throw for example.) it only gets harder and harder for the humans behind the plate to accurately use just their eyes to tell the movement of a pitch relative to the strike zone.

[mnfireman]

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/mlb-robot-umps-are-bad-red-sox-astros-human-error-01fjez51ne91

[bean5302]

On 12/26/2021 at 11:52 AM, Brock Beauchamp said:

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.

It's not a strawman. Equations are not fun to watch. Analytics are not fun or remotely entertaining and the desire to make baseball more analytically pure is the opposite direction the sport needs to take.

You are wrong. 

[Nine of twelve]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Equations are not fun to watch. Analytics are not fun or remotely entertaining and the desire to make baseball more analytically pure is the opposite direction the sport needs to take.

You are wrong. 

I like math, and I enjoy seeing analyses. Therefore you are wrong.

I say this partially sarcastically. Someone disagreeing with your opinion does not make them wrong.

[Nine of twelve]

On 12/26/2021 at 8:13 PM, gil4 said:

But if Major League Baseball is ever going to switch to a computerized strike zone, it is going to want to have gotten rid of all the bugs ahead of time.

I know this is from nearly three years ago, but I want to make two points.

First, there will almost certainly alway be some bugs. The issue is whether these bugs are major or minor, and it's my understanding that only minor bugs remain at this point in time.

Second, there are many bugs with using human umpires as well, and these bugs will never be gotten rid of because of the limitations of the human visual system and related judgement abilities.

Considering these two points, I believe that electronic pitch calling has become superior to human pitch calling. Moreover, further improvements will almost certainly be made in the electronic method but almost certainly not in the human method. If getting calls right is the most important thing, and I believe it is, there's no question that the electronic systems should be implemented now.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, bean5302 said:

It's not a strawman. Equations are not fun to watch. Analytics are not fun or remotely entertaining and the desire to make baseball more analytically pure is the opposite direction the sport needs to take.

You are wrong. 

Analytics have advanced our understanding of how to be effective.  That’s not really our problem with the game, IMO.   The root cause of the problem that the players have changed and the rules have not been adapted to counteract the changes in players.

1) The ave velocity and number of high velocity pitchers have gone up considerably.  There are also a lot more pitchers with absolutely nasty breaking balls.  It’s much harder to make contact now.
2) We have a lot of very strong / power hitting players at every position.  They are focused on HRss not putting the ball in play.
3)  There is a lot more money in the game and the players who hit HRs get paid more as do pitchers who strike them out.
4)    A variety of influences have made the games much longer.

We all want the completely dominant high 90s pitchers and 40 HR guys but the fact there are so many of them has changed the game.  I don’t know how we change the emphasis on velocity or hitting home runs but we could change the rules to speed up the game.  We could start by banning batting gloves with Velcro.  I am kidding a little but the stepping out on every pitch to adjust batting gloves is something I could live without.
 

[DJL44]

On 12/26/2021 at 6:51 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

the "umpire's zone" clearly favored one pitcher over the other.

You don't think that will still happen with an automated strike zone? There will be pitchers it favors and others, who used to be gainfully employed in MLB, that will wash out of the league. It will kill careers.

I am not convinced we will even want the strike zone called as it is defined in the rule book. Humans naturally round off the corners and produce a more oval shaped zone. A human umpire will give more leeway at the top and bottom of the strike zone if the ball is over the middle. Likewise they will give the inside and outside edges if the ball is belt high. This makes sense intuitively - those balls are easier to hit than a ball that hits the corners of the rule book strike zone.

Calling the strike zone as defined in the rule book is going to favor pitchers as there are places in the rule book strike zone that are unhittable. Do we want to make rule changes to make things easier for pitchers when the league is hitting a collective .244/.317/.411 and strikeout totals are setting records?

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I don’t know how we change the emphasis on velocity or hitting home runs

That's actually pretty easy. Make the ball 1/4 ounce heavier and you will reduce both pitch velocity and home runs. It will also  reward foot speed.

[wsnydes]

On 12/25/2021 at 8:21 AM, Major League Ready said:

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.

I bet this still happens anyway.  The ire just gets aimed elsewhere.

[wsnydes]

I'm against an automated zone, but that's largely because I enjoy the gamesmanship involved with such things.  Everyone else's mileage varies considerably apparently, however. ?

[Nine of twelve]

20 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I'm against an automated zone, but that's largely because I enjoy the gamesmanship involved with such things.  Everyone else's mileage varies considerably apparently, however. ?

It seems that the word gamesmanship is just another way of saying "trying to get the umpires to make calls in your favor that you are not entitled to under the rules."

[Nine of twelve]

20 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I bet this still happens anyway.  The ire just gets aimed elsewhere.

When people are angry that they made a mistake they often aim the ire elsewhere.

[Nine of twelve]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

You don't think that will still happen with an automated strike zone? There will be pitchers it favors and others, who used to be gainfully employed in MLB, that will wash out of the league. It will kill careers.

I am not convinced we will even want the strike zone called as it is defined in the rule book. Humans naturally round off the corners and produce a more oval shaped zone. A human umpire will give more leeway at the top and bottom of the strike zone if the ball is over the middle. Likewise they will give the inside and outside edges if the ball is belt high. This makes sense intuitively - those balls are easier to hit than a ball that hits the corners of the rule book strike zone.

Calling the strike zone as defined in the rule book is going to favor pitchers as there are places in the rule book strike zone that are unhittable. Do we want to make rule changes to make things easier for pitchers when the league is hitting a collective .244/.317/.411 and strikeout totals are setting records?

One, the pitchers it favors are the ones who throw strikes, especially in parts of the zone that makes pitches less hittable. I think that's a good thing.

Two, the problem you lay out is not with how the pitches are called, it's with the strike zone itself. That can easily be changed by the rules committee.

[Nine of twelve]

On 12/24/2021 at 4:40 PM, USAFChief said:

(Also, smart assiness is not a word.)

Doesn't this site have a policy discouraging participants from pointing out errors in spelling, grammar, etc? Shouldn't a good moderator intervene in a case like this? (I freely and enthusiastically admit smart-assedness on my part, of course!)

[wsnydes]

58 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

It seems that the word gamesmanship is just another way of saying "trying to get the umpires to make calls in your favor that you are not entitled to under the rules."

It's not against the rules though.  Gamesmanship happens all over the field.  And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  You enjoy the game your way, I'll enjoy it mine.

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

One, the pitchers it favors are the ones who throw strikes, especially in parts of the zone that makes pitches less hittable. I think that's a good thing.

Two, the problem you lay out is not with how the pitches are called, it's with the strike zone itself. That can easily be changed by the rules committee.

If we change the strike zone to better match what the human umpires are already calling as the strike zone, why go through the effort of automating the strike zone?