Baseball is Bringing the Best Rule Change Yet

[Jocko87]

56 minutes ago, chaderic20 said:

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.

I don't ask to be obtuse, it is relevant in that I'm trying in several ways to say that what we see on TV is not accurate in several different ways.  It wasn't obvious to me until I got into more serious plate work either.

Your answer is correct except that to note crosses home plate is any touch of the edge of the white part, the black is not part of the plate.   So the width of the zone is 17" plus two baseballs, I use 23 5/8" just for good margin.  I can't see that 3/8" so I want to be sure.  Its a question I use sometimes with coaches and parents that won't shut up, as fans we really think we know the rules but its mostly only high level.  Unfortunately all the TV boxes are 17" which really skews the view, the ump score cards presentation etc.  Our minds would do much better with a box where the the line is out and everything inside it is a strike, like the sideline in basketball. 

[chaderic20]

4 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

...I'm trying in several ways to say that what we see on TV is not accurate...

...as fans we really think we know the rules...

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure what's shown on TV is completely separate from the ABS system that would actually be used to make the calls. It's just a simple graphical overlay added to the broadcast. So, whether or not what's shown on TV is accurate, is irrelevant.

Again, it doesn't matter whether we as fans know the specifics of the rules or not, what matters is whether the computer or the umpire is more consistently correct in determining balls/strikes as defined by the rules. We the fans, and our knowledge and interpretation of the rules, and our vantage point as provided by the broadcast, is completely beside the point.

The ABS system can be programmed to know the exact specifics of the rule, and can more accurately tell whether or not the pitch met the specific criteria to be a strike than a human can. So, why should it not be used?

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chaderic20 said:

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure what's shown on TV is completely separate from the ABS system that would actually be used to make the calls. It's just a simple graphical overlay added to the broadcast. So, whether or not what's shown on TV is accurate, is irrelevant.

Again, it doesn't matter whether we as fans know the specifics of the rules or not, what matters is whether the computer or the umpire is more consistently correct in determining balls/strikes as defined by the rules. We the fans, and our knowledge and interpretation of the rules, and our vantage point as provided by the broadcast, is completely beside the point.

The ABS system can be programmed to know the exact specifics of the rule, and can more accurately tell whether or not the pitch met the specific criteria to be a strike than a human can. So, why should it not be used?

It's relevant as its what trained our eyes.  If the ABS is different it will cause more issues.  I'm meh on the ABS but the tech has to be rock solid.  I have issues with Trackman in general and issues with one vantage point above the plate.  How would it call Rizzo standing over the plate blocking the corner?

Part of my point is also that what we know is absolutely beside the point but we talk like we are the experts. 

[Craig Arko]

5 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

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.

Sure, although refuting the specific argument was never the point. I have no idea what will ultimately work best. I’m interested in how far people are willing to go, since technology has this habit of growing out of its original, intended, purpose.

You seem to be the only person willing to have a discussion, and not simply get defensive, so I talk to you.

[h2oface]

6 hours ago, python85 said:

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."

I think what all want is for the balls and strikes to just always be called correctly. I think that those that quest to be a part of baseball and be umpires are trying their best to get it right (I hope). I also feel that some unintentional bias and pride can get in the way as they defend the best that they can humanly do, which is a trained best guess. I also struggle to understand the options, and try the best I can to. I thank you very much for the link to the article. It presented new information that I can learn from, and that is very beneficial to a curious mind.

I don't really know that I have the expertise to understand exactly what this math you quoted is saying. I do understand pretty clearly that this discussion in the article is about the machine/tech/camera/method/software that is grading the accuracy of actual systems in place at the ball parks, and is not one of the systems in use, of which TrackMan is the current one held in favor by MLB and being used.

"Ground-truth testing refers generally to the independent on-field evaluation of the in-stadia ball-tracking systems. The goal of this testing is to validate accuracy and assess tracking health using a precise and independent method. Ground-truth testing is done after a tracking system is installed and calibrated at a stadium while the field approximates game-ready conditions. It can also be performed periodically as a health check for stadium tracking or when field changes or tracking issues present an opportunity to benefit from an independent assessment."

"The ground truth method relies on the frame-synchronized filming of a ball passing over the plate by two high-speed cameras. "

And I understand the summary:

"This post briefly explains MLB’s ground-truth measurement method and shares some example videos. This program allows us to measure with high precision where the ball is when it crosses the plate or when it’s released. We compare this data to a stadium’s ball tracking system to assess accuracy and precision. This ground-truth testing exercise has been performed annually across all 30 MLB parks. Additional tests are scheduled to validate new tracking system installations and to conduct in-season health checks. The ground truth testing program is important to MLB as a broad quality control tool for ball tracking but also as a foundational assessment of the many metrics derived from pitch positional data."

The article doesn't seem to tell us how the systems they are grading work, just if they are accurate. So I am still looking for that info, and particularly from/about TrackMan. Thanks again for posting this great and informative article.

[h2oface]

.

(Caught in a glitch. Best I can do with no delete option.)

 

[h2oface]

.

 

[Paul]

I think the strike zone will probably have to be refined somewhat before instituting technology to call balls and strikes. With the current 3-dimensional strike zone pitchers with excellent control of a big 12 to 6 curveball will be almost unhittable. They can clip front bottom of the zone and bounce it before it reaches the catcher. Or throw high and come down to clip the back edge of the top of the zone. This will probably need to be adjudicated before introducing the technology.

[Nine of twelve]

6 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

It's relevant as its what trained our eyes.  If the ABS is different it will cause more issues.

The ABS may be different, but if it's correct and our eyes are not (which is almost certainly the case) then our eyes are what causes the issues, not the ABS.

[python85]

3 hours ago, h2oface said:

The article doesn't seem to tell us how the systems they are grading work, just if they are accurate. So I am still looking for that info, and particularly from/about TrackMan. Thanks again for posting this great and informative article.

No problem. Glad we can have a good discussion about the technology. Agreed that it doesn't talk specifically about the system, but my assumption was if the system to measure accuracy can't get an image as the ball crosses the plate then the TrackMan probably can't either, but I don't know for sure. We both of the same goal of making ball and strike calls as accurate as possible. Personally I think with the current tech the best we can do is the challenge system, but I hope it gets to the point where it gets the whole game. I just don't think we are there yet.

[h2oface]

.