Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

    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

    Twins Video

    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.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Cedar Rapids Kernels - A+, SS
    The 22-year-old went 2-for-5 on Friday night, his fourth straight multi-hit game. Heading into the week, he was hitting .246/.328/.404 (.732). Four games later, he is hitting .303/.361/.447 (.808).

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    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?

    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. 

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...