Baseball is Bringing the Best Rule Change Yet

[Major League Ready]

40 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

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.

 

What a shock ... An umpire is against taking away something from umpires.  Why should players have to figure out what "strike zone" an umpire is using every game.  When is something like this in any other business where technology could get it right every time accepted?

A wrong call especially in call where it's 2:1 or 1:1 have a very significant impact on that AB.  Why should we accept this when it's going to be relatively easy to rectify.

[h2oface]

I contend that before the advancement of the tech, the human element is removed from the players, and given to the umpires who have always given it their best guess. The umpire is the least human part of the game, or should be, especially for the strike zone. The robo ump gives the human element back to the players, where it has always belonged. The perfect take that rewards the best with the greatest eye instead of the well meaning but incapable umpire calling it a strike. The perfect pitch that only touches the zone or exact corner of it so barely instead of the well meaning but incapable umpire calling it a ball. People excuse the wrong call when it is closest. It is those pictches the batter or pitcher deserves the most. They are the human element of baseball that matter. The players, not the best guess from an umpire that tries his best, but fails way too often. The plate umpires rob the game, in just about every inning, and too many at bats. And the tired "as long as the umpire is consistent" BS? Consistently wrong is just more wrong.

Go robo. This step is just a cop-out. It still misses the wrong calls that even the batter and pitcher are guessing at. The point is to get it as right as we can, and that will never be a human guessing now, and hasn't been for years. You don't see judges telling us who won the swimming race and ingnoring the touch pads. Baseball should not ignore the tech, either. It is, after all, what is used to grade the umpires, and a tool, if their arrogance doesn't prevent them, to help them get better.

[h2oface]

2 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

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.

 

I like this comment a lot for the info, and dislike it as well for its extreme bias, which was very very clear. I never umpired as much as you, but my experience taught me that no matter how much one does it, the most important close calls will always be a guess, and robbing the players of the correct call in the inhuman part of the game. I don't know how one can ever not want to use the best tools possible.

[h2oface]

5 hours ago, Fred said:

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?

Big deal. Then, until the glitch is fixed, we just go back to having the plate umpire guess again for a spell. 

[Nine of twelve]

5 hours ago, NotAboutWinning said:

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?

The speed and movement of pitches was beyond what a human umpire could accurately perceive on a consistent basis 100 years ago.

[Nine of twelve]

5 hours ago, Possumlad said:

Robo-umps will be here full-time soon enough.

Tomorrow is not soon enough for me.

[Nine of twelve]

4 hours ago, python85 said:

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.

I stand corrected. There is a margin of error with electronic pitch calling. It is a much smaller margin of error than that of the current system of using humans. Moreover, this margin of error can be improved upon in the case of electronic systems; the human margin of error cannot be improved upon. The argument that because there is a margin of error with electronic systems they should not be adopted does not hold water. If they are better than humans it's time to make the change. And, if a pitch is within the margin of error a program can either call it a strike every time, call it a ball every time, or use a random number generator of some kind to call a ball or a strike.

I do not know the precise details of how the systems determine the location of the pitch. And it's not necessary to know all the details in order to know that they do that well. I don't know the details of how my phone works either, but it does what I need it to do and it does that well.

 

[Craig Arko]

15 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I stand corrected. There is a margin of error with electronic pitch calling. It is a much smaller margin of error than that of the current system of using humans. Moreover, this margin of error can be improved upon in the case of electronic systems; the human margin of error cannot be improved upon. The argument that because there is a margin of error with electronic systems they should not be adopted does not hold water. If they are better than humans it's time to make the change. And, if a pitch is within the margin of error a program can either call it a strike every time, call it a ball every time, or use a random number generator of some kind to call a ball or a strike.

I do not know the precise details of how the systems determine the location of the pitch. And it's not necessary to know all the details in order to know that they do that well. I don't know the details of how my phone works either, but it does what I need it to do and it does that well.

 

You have me curious. Will the electronic umps also handle checked swings, foul tips, hbp, clock violations, and runners at the plate? If so, how, and if not, why not?

[Nine of twelve]

53 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

You have me curious. Will the electronic umps also handle checked swings, foul tips, hbp, clock violations, and runners at the plate? If so, how, and if not, why not?

I don't think there are systems that have been developed to make those calls. I'm not aware of any. Are you? This is why home plate umpires are still needed and important.

[Jocko87]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

What a shock ... An umpire is against taking away something from umpires.  Why should players have to figure out what "strike zone" an umpire is using every game.  When is something like this in any other business where technology could get it right every time accepted?

A wrong call especially in call where it's 2:1 or 1:1 have a very significant impact on that AB.  Why should we accept this when it's going to be relatively easy to rectify.

 

3 hours ago, h2oface said:

I like this comment a lot for the info, and dislike it as well for its extreme bias, which was very very clear. I never umpired as much as you, but my experience taught me that no matter how much one does it, the most important close calls will always be a guess, and robbing the players of the correct call in the inhuman part of the game. I don't know how one can ever not want to use the best tools possible.

I even said bias in the post sooo, you’re welcome?  To be clear, I have no career aspirations at risk here, I just love baseball and really enjoy working with the kids and most coaches. 

It’s also very important to the topic for me to state that as a very important perspective on this particular discussion.  What I’m telling you is that you have no idea what you are seeing on television. The presentation is horribly inaccurate but only subtly so in that it looks very credible.  Of course errors happen and can be seen but what you think the zone is does not correspond with what is happening on the field. I would be very curious to hear from other umpires in the thread if there are any.  There is a heavy observers bias in many of these responses.

My overarching view on replay is that we have to draw a line somewhere. We cannot have enjoyable sporting events if one shining moment is constantly paused to check the monitor. The personal line I’ve drawn is use replay in cases where an official didn’t have a position to call the play live.  I can live with a miss if the human eyes were in position and called what they saw.  What if I told you a high throw and touch of first base can’t be seen together and must be interpreted from other inputs?  It still works pretty well and it will average out. Are we to pause and verify every touch?  Even though it’s across my personal line I begrudgingly accept the use of replay in those cases. 

I’m also bit perplexed that Ted saw two challenges that confirmed the umpire and thought, this fixes everything!  It only confirms my earlier post that only the umpire actually knows what the pitch did, every time. It is his only primary focus. If hitters knew, they would get a piece of every pitch they swing at. If the catcher did you would never see a ball tick off his glove when he’s trying to steal a strike or throw out a runner. If a pitcher did he couldn’t field his position or follow through properly.  We are taught as umpires that the most important thing in making a good call is stable eyes and it makes perfect sense. You can’t see as well when your eyes are bouncing in your head. That rules the pitchers out. The most glaring tell of bad plate ump is if his head is moving with the pitch.  You don’t see that very often and never in MLB. 

Since all the players that are able to challenge are compromised what are we gaining?  More delays, more controversy, more talking head fuel, less baseball and less flow.  That the machines have errors and are extrapolations from data that can have accuracy effected by environmental factors brings me back to the same place. 

I’m out on this proposal regardless of umpire experience.  My experience helps me understand why I don’t like it.  It’s a be careful what you wish for situation in all kinds of ways. 

[Major League Ready]

11 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

 

I even said bias in the post sooo, you’re welcome?  To be clear, I have no career aspirations at risk here, I just love baseball and really enjoy working with the kids and most coaches. 

My overarching view on replay is that we have to draw a line somewhere. We cannot have enjoyable sporting events if one shining moment is constantly paused to check the monitor.

I don't like this interim step because of the delay but calling the strike zone electronically would be instantaneous, so this is a really poor foundation on which to argue against an automated strike zone.   We all love baseball just like you and we are all aware of how different the outcome is ahead or behind in the count.   A bad call often significantly changes an AB and that diminishes the product.  These bad calls punish a pitcher or batter for taking a good AB or making a great pitch.  It changes the game.  So, for some of us, this is just unacceptable if the technology is available to get it right, especially given this form of review would require absolutely no delay.

[Nine of twelve]

.

[Nine of twelve]

The foundation of this challenge rule is that when the electronic call differs from the human call the electronic call will be enforced. This is because the electronic call is far more likely to be correct than the human call. By putting this challenge rule in place baseball executives are acknowledging that fact. So there is no reason to even bother with the challenge rule when the electronic system can make the call as quickly as humans and more accurately than humans. It simply reinforces how silly it is to use an inferior method of calling pitches when a superior method is available.

[Craig Arko]

9 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

The foundation of this challenge rule is that when the electronic call differs from the human call the electronic call will be enforced. This is because the electronic call is far more likely to be correct than the human call. By putting this challenge rule in place baseball executives are acknowledging that fact. So there is no reason to even bother with the challenge rule when the electronic system can make the call as quickly as humans and more accurately than humans. It simply reinforces how silly it is to use an inferior method of calling pitches when a superior method is available.

And when a pitching machine is made that has both command and control superior to human pitchers? And never needs Tommy John surgery?

That shouldn't be so hard to do, it's just ballistics.

[Nine of twelve]

42 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

And when a pitching machine is made that has both command and control superior to human pitchers? And never needs Tommy John surgery?

That shouldn't be so hard to do, it's just ballistics.

 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Craig Arko said:

And when a pitching machine is made that has both command and control superior to human pitchers? And never needs Tommy John surgery?

That shouldn't be so hard to do, it's just ballistics.

What if we could find 15 humans that could call the balls and strike perfectly.  Would you remove all others and put the 15 people who did it perfectly behind the plate for every game?

[Craig Arko]

46 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

 

More like the slippery slope fallacy, I think. Still, what I’m interested in is where people draw their line(s) and why. I do worry about the human element in the game (and a lot of other endeavors, too) fading in the quest to maximize efficiency at the expense of humanity.

[Craig Arko]

24 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What if we could find 15 humans that could call the balls and strike perfectly.  Would you remove all others and put the 15 people who did it perfectly behind the plate for every game?

I’d probably want the 15 most entertaining to do it. That is, in the end, the point of professional sports. Think Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun.

[Nine of twelve]

42 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What if we could find 15 humans that could call the balls and strike perfectly.  Would you remove all others and put the 15 people who did it perfectly behind the plate for every game?

I would, yes.

[chaderic20]

17 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

You have me curious. Will the electronic umps also handle checked swings, foul tips, hbp, clock violations, and runners at the plate? If so, how, and if not, why not?

No, the ABS system would not handle those things. No one has suggested it will or should. In fact, multiple people have stated that the home plate ump will still need to be there specifically for these things. Why? Because there is currently no technology that does these things, like there is for determining ball/strike.

2 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

And when a pitching machine is made that has both command and control superior to human pitchers? And never needs Tommy John surgery?

That shouldn't be so hard to do, it's just ballistics.

Well, those machines do exist, but again, no one is arguing for them to be used instead of pitchers, so I'm not sure what your point is here. You're talking about replacing the actual players, we're talking about automated enforcement of one specific rule, which are completely different things.

[Jocko87]

4 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I don't like this interim step because of the delay but calling the strike zone electronically would be instantaneous, so this is a really poor foundation on which to argue against an automated strike zone.   We all love baseball just like you and we are all aware of how different the outcome is ahead or behind in the count.   A bad call often significantly changes an AB and that diminishes the product.  These bad calls punish a pitcher or batter for taking a good AB or making a great pitch.  It changes the game.  So, for some of us, this is just unacceptable if the technology is available to get it right, especially given this form of review would require absolutely no delay.

The calls of most balls and strikes will not slow anything down, I agree there.  But almost definitionally the replay will only happen at big moments if you only have three chances.  So we will see standing around waiting to leave the field quite often.  I'm thinking back to the Ohtani/Trout AB in the WBC.  The discussion was how many pitch clock violations there would have been called, ruining the moment.  While there wasn't a controversial pitch I'm sure looking forward to a pause for replay next time. 

In that way I agree as well.  If they are going to do it, they better do it all.  The transition will be horrible. 

I still haven't got an answer to my question from earlier.  How wide is the strike zone, without looking it up?  It's an important question for everyone who is so sure about this topic.

Also, rate the accuracy of this screen box from a random Bally's broadcast snip.  Camera on the shortstop side.

[Paul]

Technology called balls and strikes can’t come soon enough for me. Incorrect calls influence the outcome of games. Getting rid of incorrect calls will usher in a renaissance in the sport. To have a stopgap system where a “challenge” has to be issued to access the correct call seems ridiculous to me.

[jimbo92107]

Nah, I vote for robo-ump. Don't pressure players or pitchers to get just three chances right. In a typical mlb game I watch, there are a lot more than three bad calls at the plate. Only a couple times have I seen an ump get it right the whole game. I was shocked.

If you are going to have a challenge system, the penalty for a failed challenge should be an added strike, not some arbitrary countdown. Also, it must also incorporate a count of how many calls are blown by each plate umpire, so that the worst of them can be culled from the herd. Umpires are there to ensure fair play. If they can't call balls and strikes, they should find a different job.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, jimbo92107 said:

Nah, I vote for robo-ump. Don't pressure players or pitchers to get just three chances right. In a typical mlb game I watch, there are a lot more than three bad calls at the plate. Only a couple times have I seen an ump get it right the whole game. I was shocked.

If you are going to have a challenge system, the penalty for a failed challenge should be an added strike, not some arbitrary countdown. Also, it must also incorporate a count of how many calls are blown by each plate umpire, so that the worst of them can be culled from the herd. Umpires are there to ensure fair play. If they can't call balls and strikes, they should find a different job.

 

1 hour ago, Paul said:

Technology called balls and strikes can’t come soon enough for me. Incorrect calls influence the outcome of games. Getting rid of incorrect calls will usher in a renaissance in the sport. To have a stopgap system where a “challenge” has to be issued to access the correct call seems ridiculous to me.

These are important distinctions and two completely different discussions.

The replay thing would suck the biggest suck that ever sucked a suck. 

The ABS? Meh, I don't care as long as the general fan won't really see the implementation and the technology is actually there.  There are high speed ballistics type cameras that can do this, but Trackman ain't it.  They still struggle with golf balls.  I need 99.9% rather than roughly equal to a human ump to change it over. 

[h2oface]

On 5/8/2023 at 10:29 AM, python85 said:

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.

Please provide documentation of this belief. I just spent a half hour looking for an article about the actual tech at that level and am still looking. This is the first I have heard that it is not where the pitch crosses the plate, and it is quite a claim to just throw out there with no support. 

I did find this to clarify how the strike zone is set for each individual batter:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/robot-umpires-how-it-works-and-its-effect-on-players-and-managers-in-the-atlantic-league-plus-whats-to-come/

"TrackMan, or "robot ump," sits up above home plate (at all eight Atlantic League ballparks), and looks like a black box from afar. In reality, the box is a 3-D Doppler radar dish that analyzes each pitch thrown. Using a three-dimensional strike zone, TrackMan is able to calibrate each batters' size and stance, adjusting the strike zone accordingly. So, the system works so that it doesn't allow a 6-foot-7 player to have the same strike zone as a 5-foot-7 player."

......and this is really interesting, even if it is a couple years old:

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/

"MLB Umpires Missed 34,294 Ball-Strike Calls in 2018.

-------------------

Graphing performance results also highlighted a natural divide—umpires with at least 20 years of experience made more incorrect calls than those with 10 years or less of experience. For 2018, Ted Barrett and Joe West were the top poor performers, making 495 and 512 incorrect home plate calls, for an average of 17.7 and 16.5 errors per game, respectively. 

---------------------

MLB is simply ignoring valuable, available data. Despite the hard evidence, each season, MLB continues to keep questionable performers, some past their prime, on the job. The past three World Series were only the most recent examples. Game by game, season by season, poor-performing umpires remain on the field.

-----------------

It is unrealistic to assume that home-plate umpires, unassisted, can collectively achieve the accuracy rates increasingly demanded by the sports industry and deserving fans."

 

[2wins87]

On 5/8/2023 at 1:25 PM, Jocko87 said:

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.

 

I agree with a lot of your points.  In particular I agree that the umps in the majors are actually really good at their jobs and are much much better than they used to be thanks to the evaluation with technology that we have today.

I'd also agree that a "wrong" zone that is consistent is better than an inconsistent zone.  But at the same time, if you just showed me the zone from Umpire Scorecards and nothing else I'd probably predict about 2 or 3 total runs scored in the entire game. Sure it was consistent and established early, but it gave hitters a terrible time having to try to adjust to strikes being called several inches off the plate and below the knees.   I am a fan of USC's work so I have perused their scorecards from time to time and it's often not hard to spot the high and low scoring zones.  You can say the hitters have to adjust, but I don't see any reason that it needs to be the hitters who adjust and not the umpires.

I think I have less of a negative reaction to all the Ks in today's game than your average fan, but it is easy to see how a game like that one is counter-productive to the style of baseball that the MLB is trying to create right now, and I think it's fair to at least test how some sort of automated system might address that.

I don't know how that game would have played out with a challenge system.  I don't know what happens if the ump "loses" a few challenges on outside pitches early on.  Is he able to adjust in game?  Does his zone become more erratic as he tries to make the adjustment?  I think it's probably worth trying to figure out these and other questions.

I'm pretty sure that a more consistent zone from game to game would have more benefit to the hitters than the pitchers though, which is what the MLB wants right now and honestly what I'd like to see as well. 

I'm sure we have been getting closer to the ideal consistent zone, but I don't know how close we can get only through retrospective performance evaluation, especially when the worst performing umps can't simply be removed from their MLB jobs.  I'm still not entirely sure where I fall on ABS systems, but I think a challenge system is interesting in keeping things essentially the way they are, but providing a more immediate feedback systems for umps.  I want to have an open mind on it; if the umps found it too hard to adjust or too intrusive in some other way I'd probably want to reconsider, but I see a lot of potential upside so I think the minor league experiment is a good idea.

[Jocko87]

48 minutes ago, 2wins87 said:

I agree with a lot of your points.  In particular I agree that the umps in the majors are actually really good at their jobs and are much much better than they used to be thanks to the evaluation with technology that we have today.

I'd also agree that a "wrong" zone that is consistent is better than an inconsistent zone.  But at the same time, if you just showed me the zone from Umpire Scorecards and nothing else I'd probably predict about 2 or 3 total runs scored in the entire game. Sure it was consistent and established early, but it gave hitters a terrible time having to try to adjust to strikes being called several inches off the plate and below the knees.   I am a fan of USC's work so I have perused their scorecards from time to time and it's often not hard to spot the high and low scoring zones.  You can say the hitters have to adjust, but I don't see any reason that it needs to be the hitters who adjust and not the umpires.

I think I have less of a negative reaction to all the Ks in today's game than your average fan, but it is easy to see how a game like that one is counter-productive to the style of baseball that the MLB is trying to create right now, and I think it's fair to at least test how some sort of automated system might address that.

I don't know how that game would have played out with a challenge system.  I don't know what happens if the ump "loses" a few challenges on outside pitches early on.  Is he able to adjust in game?  Does his zone become more erratic as he tries to make the adjustment?  I think it's probably worth trying to figure out these and other questions.

I'm pretty sure that a more consistent zone from game to game would have more benefit to the hitters than the pitchers though, which is what the MLB wants right now and honestly what I'd like to see as well. 

I'm sure we have been getting closer to the ideal consistent zone, but I don't know how close we can get only through retrospective performance evaluation, especially when the worst performing umps can't simply be removed from their MLB jobs.  I'm still not entirely sure where I fall on ABS systems, but I think a challenge system is interesting in keeping things essentially the way they are, but providing a more immediate feedback systems for umps.  I want to have an open mind on it; if the umps found it too hard to adjust or too intrusive in some other way I'd probably want to reconsider, but I see a lot of potential upside so I think the minor league experiment is a good idea.

I would certainly work with that ump referenced to bring his zone closer to the true zone were I the UIC. He made Quantrill look like a stud. His consistency is what makes him one to work with as he obviously has a good eye. Just adjust it a bit. Over a period of time. 

Another problem with the replay is that it’s a cardinal sin to adjust your zone during a game. Umpires can and do get flustered by coaches, it’s a sickening feeling if they can get under your skin. When I get one wrong I want to crawl in a hole. I realize this is an argument for the ABS but it’s also one firmly against the replay aspect.  I’m not changing my zone mid game and you can challenge 3 pitches but after that I’m in charge again. I always want to get my calls right but I’m not sure how I’d react to my work being ant f-ed on the Jumbotron. It would lead to more blown calls in the long run and not out of spite.

I’d love to see some fans TPS reports being graded up there.  Amazing as always that we can be so comfortable and confident in proclaiming someone who is among the top 100 in the world at their craft all sorts of incompetent. Go back to your shoe store, Mr Bundy. 

[Nine of twelve]

22 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

More like the slippery slope fallacy, I think.

To make the difference clear to myself I watched this video.

I conclude that you are probably correct. BTW, I notice that the Straw Man fallacy and the Slippery Slope fallacy have a word in common because they have in common the attribute of not actually refuting an argument.

[python85]

18 hours ago, h2oface said:

Please provide documentation of this belief.

This article gives a good explication of the process. https://technology.mlblogs.com/mlb-ground-truth-testing-ec87c73450b9
Although it is slightly old I couldn't find anything that says the technology at it's core has changed. 

Here is the paragraph to support my assertion.

"Since we would be very lucky to have a frame timed exactly as the ball crosses the front face of the zone, the ball position at y=17 inches is interpolated from trajectory data before and after the ball crosses into the zone. Here, the side (x) and height (z) vectors are regressed to the y direction (toward pitcher) and a linear equation is used to interpolate the side and height position when directly over the leading edge, at y = 17 inches. Pitch location at the front face of the strike zone (y=17” plane) is the central data product of each pitch during a ground truth test."

[chaderic20]

22 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

I still haven't got an answer to my question from earlier.  How wide is the strike zone, without looking it up?  It's an important question for everyone who is so sure about this topic.

Whether not we can define the exact dimensions of the zone has no relevance on the discussion. We can still be for automated enforcement of the rule without being able to quote the rule exactly. We're not saying we can do better than the umps, we're saying the ABS system can. So, I don't need to know the zone, only the computer does.

Analogy: I don't need to know the speed limit of a road to be in favor police (the rule enforcers) using a radar gun (technology) to get my speed instead of just eyeballing it and saying "looked like 80 to me, here's your ticket". In the same way, I don't need to know the exact definition of the zone to be for umpires (the rule enforcers) using ABS (technology) to determine ball/strike instead of just saying "looked like a strike to me, you're out!".

But since you've challenged twice, here's my shot without looking it up. I believe the strike zone is defined along the lines of, "if any part of the ball crosses any part of home plate between the batter's knees and a midpoint between his shoulders and belt, it shall be called a strike". And given home plate is 17" wide, the zone would therefore be 17" wide.