Baseball is Bringing the Best Rule Change Yet

[Ted Schwerzler]

It was a rainy and dreary night at CHS Field late last week, but Friday’s regular season game against the Nashville Sounds represented a monumental change for the game of baseball. Although it was only showcased for three innings, the challenge system looked like the greatest rule change yet.

Image courtesy of Image Courtesy of Ted Schwerzler

This season Major League Baseball has made plenty of waves with sweeping rule changes added at the highest level. For years Rob Manfred has been toying with changes in the minor leagues and and the sport’s partner leagues. This year, that resulted in larger bases, a banned shift, and the institution of a pitch clock. None of those have been too entirely intrusive although they do represent a substantial new era in the sport.

As soon as next year, another rule change could make its way from Triple-A, and the challenge system should be something applauded by all.

For years we have heard consternation about the strike zone at the highest level. Major League Baseball umpires have garnered public notoriety through an inability to accurately do their jobs. While not all are poor, and the practice of addressing big league pitches is tough, a sweeping lack of accountability has become problematic.

With technology at the disposal of the sport as a whole, an electronic strike zone (or "robo ump") has been clamored for. While that may seem to be a quick and effective change, it also renders the position behind the plate significantly less useful. Catcher’s have adapted their game to pitch framing, receiving the baseball, and presenting strikes to umpires over recent seasons. Removing that aspect of the game makes them little more than blockers playing catch.

At Triple-A, the ABS system (Automatic Balls and Strikes) is utilized on Tuesday through Thursday games. The umpire remains behind the plate, but basically uses a pitch com system to call the game. There is no framing, there is no nuance. Then Friday rolls around.

With the challenge system, the umpire makes the call, but each team is allowed three challenges to be initiated only on the field, within seconds, from the batter, pitcher, or catcher. Should one of those involved in the at-bat believe the umpire made the wrong call, they can initiate a challenge. The umpire is then made aware of the correct call, and the videoboard indicates the pitch's location. From there, a challenge is either deemed successful or unsuccessful. The latter decreases a team’s challenge pool while the former impacts nothing but the play.

I left Friday’s game convinced I had seen the greatest advancement in recent baseball history. All it took was some accountability.

The first challenge of the game came on a pitch that was called a strike and would have took the count to 3-1 rather than being 2-2. Andruw Monasterio, the batter, was incorrect in his assessment as the ball clipped the zone. He did homer on the very next pitch, but the umpire was officially one-for-one.

Not long after, Saints pitcher Simeon Woods Richardson didn’t like a call that allowed a free pass to the Sounds hitter. He challenged the ball four call and was wrong. The umpire was now two-for-two.

Not all games will favor the umpire, and not all pitches will be worth challenging. At one point, St. Paul outfielder Ryan LaMarre didn’t like a strike three against him, but for whatever reason determined the situation wasn’t worth pushing it.

Therein lies a whole new avenue for analytical advancement. It would behoove the league to track the success of their umpires. How often are they being challenged and losing? Can umpires that perform poorly being suspended or further held accountable. Will teams lean more on their pitcher, catcher, or batter to be right when initiating a challenge? Do certain players always think they know what a call should be? Who will have the best eye across the entirety of the sport?

It remains to be seen when or if the challenge system will be instituted in the majors, but Saints manager Toby Gardenhire has been wanting it for years. He now gets to see it in action on a weekly basis, and you can bet parent clubs across the sport will be inviting feedback.

The sport has been sped up with the pitch clock, and a few 20 second delays to make sure critical calls are right seems worth slowing it down moderately. Allowing catchers to still invoke their full value, umpires to be held accountable, and the most important offerings to be judged correctly seems like a win for all involved. Rule changes aren’t always welcomed, but give me this one with open arms.

View full article

[Doctor Wu]

Very interesting article! I can see the becoming a factor in some games. 

You wrote:

... each team is allowed three challenges to be initiated only on the field, within seconds, from the batter, pitcher, or catcher

So I assume this means that the manager does not have the power to make a challenge? Or is that a separate thing altogether? If it's only up to the players, this could get messy. 

[dxpavelka]

We continue to overlook the most important aspect with the whole "robo ump" issue.  We see the "strike zone" on the screen and think we have it all figured out.  We don't.  Look at the strike zone on the screen and then pick up a rule book.  Not even close to where the real strike zone is.  The top of the zone the they show us is BELOW the belt of most batters.  Don't know a hitter alive that wouldn't love for that to be the case.  It's not.

 

[Trov]

I believe this will be the first the way MLB gets to "robo" umps.  I like having the full system in the minor, hopefully training the umpires.  I would hope they are testing their own calls with what the machine tells them.  The challenge system will be next up for MLB, no way will they go full robo right away because it will be too much for fans.  The challenge system will add to some things.  Last I read MLB is still trying to figure out how to set the zone for the system as well.  

[Trov]

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

We continue to overlook the most important aspect with the whole "robo ump" issue.  We see the "strike zone" on the screen and think we have it all figured out.  We don't.  Look at the strike zone on the screen and then pick up a rule book.  Not even close to where the real strike zone is.  The top of the zone the they show us is BELOW the belt of most batters.  Don't know a hitter alive that wouldn't love for that to be the case.  It's not.

 

If you actually look, the zone is set as to how they are when in their hitting stance, mostly.  So yes, when they are standing with straight legs it looks like the top is at the belt, but when they crouch and stride, it is much closer to the actual rule book zone.  The ABS system is a work in progress and MLB has stated as such.  They have tinkered with it in the minors to try and get the best they can.  The ABS is coming and will start with the challenge system. 

[Guest]

The next step is to remove the home plate ump entirely from calling balls and strikes.  And as long as the pitchcom strike zone accurately reflects the rule, i.e., "the midpoint between the top of shoulders and belt, and the hollow of the knees," the game will improve.  And we'll have more no-hitters, too. 

(Herein a complaint: the art of hitting as expressed by Arraez is more pleasing and sustainable than that expressed by Gallo.)

[Whitey333]

Great article

[Possumlad]

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

We continue to overlook the most important aspect with the whole "robo ump" issue.  We see the "strike zone" on the screen and think we have it all figured out.  We don't.  Look at the strike zone on the screen and then pick up a rule book.  Not even close to where the real strike zone is.  The top of the zone the they show us is BELOW the belt of most batters.  Don't know a hitter alive that wouldn't love for that to be the case.  It's not.

 

Agreed - but I don't think it should be all that hard to fix. The side to side & back to front components of the strike zone are 100% defined & agreed on. Only high/low need be addressed. What to do?

In my mind there are a couple options:

1) Fixing the upper bound at a specific height. This would clearly benefit taller hitters. And likely also pitchers, as they could learn to groove pitches based on a fixed zone size. Clear losers would be shorter players. 

2) Batter-specific strike zones based on height. Might feel a bit clunky, but not sure it would be all that hard. People grow very little (if at all) past age 18. Batters would be measured by an independent league official prior to joining the league, and their upper-bound would be a simple function of that height. Would assume the robo-ump could easily be tuned to accommodate batter-to-batter? I admittedly don't know the tech well enough. 

Interested in thoughts from others. Downsides to each - but both likely better than the current system.

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

the challenge system should be something applauded by all.

 

It won't be applauded by me. Simply have the electronic system make the calls and that is the final decision.

 

1 hour ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

While (an electronic strike zone) may seem to be a quick and effective change, it also renders the position behind the plate significantly less useful.

 

This is a good thing. An umpire behind home plate still has plenty to do. Among other things: ruling on HBP, catcher's interference, clock violations, check swings, safe/out calls, balks, fair/foul calls. There's more as well. Less useful ≠ useless. If anything, removing pitch calling from the home plate umpire's duties makes it easier for the umpire to correctly rule on everything else.

 

1 hour ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

Catchers (I removed the incorrect apostrophe for you) have adapted their game to pitch framing, receiving the baseball, and presenting strikes to umpires over recent seasons. Removing that aspect of the game makes them little more than blockers playing catch.

 

I can hardly believe a baseball writer would say this. The catcher has always been and still will be the most important defensive player on the field.

2 hours ago, Ted Schwerzler said:

a few 20 second delays to make sure critical calls are right seems worth slowing it down moderately.

 

Nope. The electronic system makes a quick correct decision every time, better than any human can do. The call is final, no challenge needed and no delays.

[Craig Arko]

I can live with this.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Even without pitch framing, catchers are much more than "blockers playing catch". Most pitch selection is done by catchers. I contend that is vital to a pitcher's success. 

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, dxpavelka said:

We continue to overlook the most important aspect with the whole "robo ump" issue.  We see the "strike zone" on the screen and think we have it all figured out.  We don't.  Look at the strike zone on the screen and then pick up a rule book.  Not even close to where the real strike zone is.  The top of the zone the they show us is BELOW the belt of most batters.  Don't know a hitter alive that wouldn't love for that to be the case.  It's not.

The box we see on TV is probably pretty accurate for inside/outside but it is just an approximation for high/low. And keep in mind that the top and bottom of the zone are determined by where those landmarks are when the batter is in his batting stance.

[Nine of twelve]

15 minutes ago, Possumlad said:

Would assume the robo-ump could easily be tuned to accommodate batter-to-batter? I admittedly don't know the tech well enough.

I'm not tech-literate either, but it's my understanding that each batter's individual strike zone is measured ahead of time and programmed into the system.

[danielp19653]

The challenge system doesn't seem much better than the current system to me, just as many pitches called incorrectly with a slight chance of 1 or 2 getting overturned but adding in scattered mid at bat delays the pitch clock just got rid of. I'd rather have the current system or the fully automated. 

[South Dakota Tom]

One of the great things about baseball is how human it is.  Players, umps, all make mistakes, and that is part of the game.  We can all recall situations in which a team will (forever) claim "we was robbed!" because of a close call on a ball/strike or safe/out decision.  I like that frailty, that lack of certainty.  Bad calls can fire up a team, change the momentum of the game, get the crowd engaged.  Imperfect, sure, but aren't we all?  Isn't that life?

[PDX Twin]

Quote

Catcher’s have adapted their game to pitch framing, receiving the baseball, and presenting strikes to umpires over recent seasons.

In simpler words, cheating.

[Fred]

1 hour ago, Possumlad said:

Agreed - but I don't think it should be all that hard to fix. The side to side & back to front components of the strike zone are 100% defined & agreed on. Only high/low need be addressed. What to do?

In my mind there are a couple options:

1) Fixing the upper bound at a specific height. This would clearly benefit taller hitters. And likely also pitchers, as they could learn to groove pitches based on a fixed zone size. Clear losers would be shorter players. 

2) Batter-specific strike zones based on height. Might feel a bit clunky, but not sure it would be all that hard. People grow very little (if at all) past age 18. Batters would be measured by an independent league official prior to joining the league, and their upper-bound would be a simple function of that height. Would assume the robo-ump could easily be tuned to accommodate batter-to-batter? I admittedly don't know the tech well enough. 

Interested in thoughts from others. Downsides to each - but both likely better than the current system.

I read (or heard) the lower limit will be set at 27% of a batters height. It made me wonder if they'll have to work up a bio on every player. Talk about an unwieldy database. I can see guys trying to get measured with "elevator" shoes, etc.

[Fred]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm not tech-literate either, but it's my understanding that each batter's individual strike zone is measured ahead of time and programmed into the system.

I'm all for robo-umping, but, you know how inconvenient it gets when a simple computer develops a "glitch"? What could possibly go wrong with a database that size?

[AceWrigley]

10 minutes ago, PDX Twin said:

In simpler words, cheating.

I consider it more "persuasion" than cheating. Cheating would indicate that it's against the rules . . . it is not.

[Original_JB]

I don't see a way past the Umpire's Union with this, even though it shows true accountability. Let's say in the game Ted watched, the umpire ended up being wrong in all the challenges; Put up there on the big screen in glorious HD color, probably with multiple showings. The crowd (especially if the initial call was against a 'home' player) would eat him alive. If they can toss players for 'arm waving', yelling, and articulating as "showing up the umpire", how is repeated replays of their mistake not looked as that?

[Major League Ready]

21 minutes ago, South Dakota Tom said:

One of the great things about baseball is how human it is.  Players, umps, all make mistakes, and that is part of the game.  We can all recall situations in which a team will (forever) claim "we was robbed!" because of a close call on a ball/strike or safe/out decision.  I like that frailty, that lack of certainty.  Bad calls can fire up a team, change the momentum of the game, get the crowd engaged.  Imperfect, sure, but aren't we all?  Isn't that life?

Hell No.  Blown calls sway the outcome of games.  Blown calls on pitches dramatically alter a plate appearance.  I want the players to control 100% of the outcome not umpires.  No way will I prefer an unfair result if it can be corrected to a significant degree.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

They will get the tinkering done on strike zone specifics relatively soon.  I am surprised that there has been no discussion of wearable tech through this process.  Something sewn and visible on the outside of the uniform should make the high-low calls easier to make.

The argument against that would be the possibility of cheating, but I think there would be ways around that, especially if you made the punishment extremely harsh (like automatic 2 year suspension first offense, massive fines to the team, etc.).

You will neve see public accountability on umpires.  It doesn't happen in any of the major sports.

[chaderic20]

Fully automated seems like a no-brainer to me. Why waste time challenging calls when we have the technology to just get it right the first time? "We need the human error element!" Please. Where else would we accept such a ridiculous argument, when again, we have the technology to get it right? Catchers will be reduced to "just playing catch"? Except for calling games, blocking pitches, throwing out runners, fielding bunts and short hits, guarding the plate, etc, etc, etc. "It makes the home plate ump useless!" The ump behind the plate still has plenty to do, and now doesn't have to worry about looking foolish making a bad strike/ball call anymore. And God knows umps could use the PR boost. They should be jumping at the chance to make less bad calls. "But computers don't know an individual batter's zone!" Neither do human umpires! A computer can be programmed to specific parameters and can be trusted to call the zone exactly by those parameters consistently, every. single. time. Whether that's something pre-defined based on a player's height and stored in a database, or whether it uses some sort of optical recognition to "see" the batter's body position and calculate the zone on the fly. This can't come soon enough.

[NotAboutWinning]

56 minutes ago, South Dakota Tom said:

One of the great things about baseball is how human it is.  Players, umps, all make mistakes, and that is part of the game.  We can all recall situations in which a team will (forever) claim "we was robbed!" because of a close call on a ball/strike or safe/out decision.  I like that frailty, that lack of certainty.  Bad calls can fire up a team, change the momentum of the game, get the crowd engaged.  Imperfect, sure, but aren't we all?  Isn't that life?

Tom, I totally agree about the nature of the game. My question is whether the increased speed and movement of pitches is now beyond what a human umpire can accurately perceive on a consistent basis?

[USAFChief]

I loathe the upcoming robo-ump traveshamockery, but this challenge system is worse.

Holy cow what a stupid idea.

[Possumlad]

9 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I loathe the upcoming robo-ump traveshamockery, but this challenge system is worse.

Holy cow what a stupid idea.

Absolutely - the worst of all possible solutions. Robo-umps will be here full-time soon enough... hopefully we just fully bypass this ill-conceived interim step. 

[Jocko87]

4 hours ago, Doctor Wu said:

Very interesting article! I can see the becoming a factor in some games. 

You wrote:

... each team is allowed three challenges to be initiated only on the field, within seconds, from the batter, pitcher, or catcher

So I assume this means that the manager does not have the power to make a challenge? Or is that a separate thing altogether? If it's only up to the players, this could get messy. 

There are only 2 people that know if it was a ball or strike.  Catcher and Umpire know with the pitcher and batter getting partial credit.  Why?  The batter and pitcher both have a primary focus other than laser focus on the strike zone.  If the catcher has something else taking his attention (runner stealing) it leaves only the ump.  Coaches have the worst view, as I have to remind at least one every weekend. 

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

Nope. The electronic system makes a quick correct decision every time, better than any human can do. The call is final, no challenge needed and no delays.

This is the fallacy of replay - "it's correct every time".  It's not.  

Every time expanded replay is discussed in any sport, it's always "this will take 20 seconds and never be wrong".  It never, ever works out that way - it always takes far longer and incorrect calls still happen.  Hard, hard pass on slowing the game down further.  I don't watch baseball to witness perfectly accurate ball/strike calls, I watch to be entertained - which, given that my team is the Twins, means I'm not watching much baseball these days :)  Gradually removing the human element from baseball - both in terms of replays but also intensive sabermetrics that treat players as strat-o-matic robots - has gradually removed humans from the stands and TV screens and perhaps most importantly, little league fields.  

[Jocko87]

Quote

For years we have heard consternation about the strike zone at the highest level. Major League Baseball umpires have garnered public notoriety through an inability to accurately do their jobs. While not all are poor, and the practice of addressing big league pitches is tough, a sweeping lack of accountability has become problematic.

This is an insanely disingenuous framing.  Without looking it up, can you tell me the width of the strike zone?

Umpscorecards.com is baseball savant but for umps, they have a great twitter feed.  Please spend a little time here and compare some of the worst things you can remember to the actual data.  There is plenty of accountability, feedback mechanisms and training going on.   These guys are flippin good.  I would wager they are much better at their jobs than we are at ours.  One of the great things about the recent replay everything craze is that it has brought a spotlight to just how good these guys and gals are in all sports.  Do they miss?  Sure, but consistency is the key.  The scorecard from Sundays game is a great example of that.  I don't particularly like that his zone was that far off from the true zone and would work to correct that were I in that position but the consistency rating means that no one should complain about the "missed calls" in the 7th and 8th.  I re-watched the Kepler AB and he can be a little gruntled over the call but knowing that has been the zone all day means its on him to adjust.  Bremer's comments are just asinine, like he wasn't even watching the game.

 

If I were Manfred, I'd take the box off all the broadcast screens.  It's not official, not accurate and causes nothing but confusion.  It's not even the correct width.  There is a good explainer on the umpire scorecard website that explains which broadcasts do what with their boxes.  Summation is that they are different.  Add an imperfect camera angle and our view on TV is almost as bad as the manager in the dugout.

In case you hadn't picked up on my bias, I work 6-8 games a week behind the plate.  I'm all for using technology to improve and would love to have access to the data on my strike zone to check and adjust but I'm firmly against an electronic zone or replay challenges of balls and strikes.  Use the data to train and adjust and demote the umps as required.  I suspect most of us wouldn't like a game called to the true textbook zone anyway.  It would be a completely different experience. 

To answer another question asked in the thread, MLB umpires can absolutely track and see the nasty stuff Duran and others are throwing now.  I can't, but could if I worked up to it, just like hitters.  I would also probably wash out, like most hitters🤷‍♂️.   I had a couple 14 yo throwing 90 this weekend, 10+ mph higher than most.  I noticed in warmups, geared up for it and it wasn't a problem.  The difference is stark but fairly easy to adjust to.

 

[python85]

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

The electronic system makes a quick correct decision every time

This is not true. MLB admits there is a margin of error on their system. What do you do when the pitch is within the margin of error? Call it a no pitch and move on the next one? Flip a coin? This is where the challenge system shines. The umpire makes a call, if it's very wrong a challenge can fix it. If it is in the margin of error call stands and we play on. Everything works great.

 

Also please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe the system doesn't actually record where the pitch crossed the plate. It takes a sample of position, spin, velocity, etc, at a point on the way to the plate and calculates where it will end up. Though probably more accurate than the umpire this still seems like an imperfect system.