bizaff

For the sake of example, more on the set height/size strike zone: The strike zone of Jose Altuve (5ft 5 in) is smaller than that of Jon Rauch (6ft 11 in) - that's an 18 inch spread. If you center the zone between those two (which isn't average, but it's the probably the best case for batters), a player is up to 9 inches away from the average zone. They don't need to adjust that whole height, since you're only taking the area between the knees and armpits.. let's say that's half (in reality it's worse as it's not at the waist, it's at the armpits and knees). A tall/short player needs to adjust their swing vertically up to 4 inches to deal with a batter-independent strike zone. That seems pretty significant. That moves the strike zone from the knees down to the shins, or the armpits up to the shoulders. Now the pitchers - assume the strike zone is as it is today. If a pitcher releases around 55 feet from home plate and has to adjust 4 inches for different players, they need to adjust the angle of the delivered pitch by about half a degree. That's a pretty tiny adjustment. They need to deal with wind which already affects it in that neighborhood (best source I could find - https://jmcdonaldmedia.com/2011/03/18/how-does-weather-affect-baseball/), and they "calibrate" that out with warmup pitches every inning. A batter-independent strike zone would least affect an average sized batter, but would hamper anyone not of average size, far worse the less "average" the batter is. The adjustment a pitcher has to make today in a batter-dependent strike zone is half a degree, which they already do. I can't see a world I'd ever support a batter-independent strike zone.

To me, this is the quintessential example of why we must do better in all aspects. The official call did not reflect the reality of what happened. This is an umpire manipulating the outcome of the game - be it intentionally or unintentionally - which they have no business doing. Blown ball/strike calls make pitchers pitch more than they should need to, or batters see fewer balls than they have a right to. This has a real effect on the outcome of games. "It all evens out in the end." Of course it does - by definition one team benefited and the other is hurt by it. It does NOT necessarily average out for a team in a game.. or a series.. or a week.. or a month.. or a season. A standard distribution shows every individual event is not average. Take umpiring to the extreme - get rid of them completely. Go back to the origins of the game, and how kids often play growing up. Let the teams on the field figure it out. Why don't we do this? Because you want an impartial and fair third party with no investment in the outcome of the game to settle disputes. What's more impartial and fair than automated systems?

Thanks for this post.. this helps illustrate to me why some people prefer human calls over automated calls. So the part you enjoy is the fact that umpires are a little different and you have to adjust to which umpire you have and what he's calling that day? I guess can see how there's some strategic interest in that. It's another level of adjustment one has to make. If what I've said is correct, I understand it.. but I hate it Umpires generally pick a side of the plate to watch closely, and they're more accurate calling on that side vs the side they're not lined up with. Height on breaking balls is even trickier because they can't line up with the bottom of the zone. On top of that, when a pitcher is "on" they tend to get more calls.. and 0-2 pitches are much more likely to be balls, and 3-0 pitches are much more likely to be strikes. I don't agree that umpires are part of the game. The only time they're truly part of the game is by accident, like when a passed ball bounces off the ump or sticks in his gear, or a hot liner hits an umpire in the field. They are there to referee and enforce the rules of the game, not be a part of it. Are they involved? Yes. Are they part of the game? No. I suppose "part of the game" is a squishy term that's not very well defined. The strike zone is called out in the rules. Let's use the best tools we have, be them umpires or automated technology, to call that zone out correctly.

If you say it's a constant place, people too tall or too short are at a disadvantage. If you have it the same vertical distance but it shifts to be around the center of knees and armpits, taller guys have an advantage because their sweet spot comprises more of the zone. If you adjust the vertical size of the zone with the knees and armpits, taller guys have a slight disadvantage because the bat path will cover less of the strike zone. I'm guessing this is a very tiny disadvantage. I don't think it's a reasonable argument to have a single strike zone for all players. The whole game is built around the pitcher throwing the ball to the zone where a player can hit it. I'd argue AGAINST the idea that the only reason it was chosen is because of the umpire visual aides. That part of the rules has been around for a while and I see no solid reason to change the size of the zone because we're introducing technology. It would also shift a pretty significant advantage to the pitcher, where pitching already enjoys a pretty significant advantage. If someone out there would please lay out detailed reasons why they prefer human umpiring, please post them - I'd love to hear them. All I've gotten to this point are vague arguments about the human element.

I agree with automated strike zones. There's no reason in this day and age with the technology we have to have a human continue to screw up these calls. Either institute the technology or change the strike zone rules to add a clause like "or whatever the umpire will give you". Heh, I like the "All years" note.

Dick Bremer tweeted out, "Video shows Lance Barrett looking at Paul Molitor's adjusted lineup card. Seems inexcusable for the umpire to misunderstand intended move." Molitor said in the post-game his card was marked right. The only two conclusions I can come to are that the umpire screwed up, or Molitor is lying about his lineup card. I highly doubt Molitor is lying.

Credit to Molitor with managing Mejia and Vargas/Escobar.

I don't think sending Gibson out for the 7th was a bad decision. He was dealing in the 5th and 6th.

I hope Buxton stops running into things. One of the catches he made in the last week or two where he stretched and landed on his back, the back of his head hit the ground pretty hard. I want him to keep playing all out, I just hope he can stay uninjured.

Awesome game summary.. love the charts, love the clips, love the links.

I've read a number of times through the past years about speed gun inaccuracies.. how is this not a solved problem? It's all of a few hundred bucks.. you'd think a major league affiliate would stamp this out immediately.

It's in the SI link in the original article - https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/04/24/hunter-greene-mlb-draft

I read somewhere that the off days of a starting pitcher are a big deal for recovery and that it's not necessarily a good idea for a starting pitcher to play in the field the off days. Does anyone know the specifics on this? LIke what the pitcher does on the off days, when he ices, etc.

Most aren't, I agree.. it seems like there's a few posters that regularly fan the flames. I get frustrated with all the "cut this guy, cut that guy" talk - a lot of those moves are one way. If you make a mistake, you often don't get to take it back. I think teams SHOULD err on letting people play too long. On the other hand, in some cases it's been way too long

I agree with the first part. I don't think the original argument is that they're always right and that's the end of it. I think the original point is that they know more and have information they're not sharing with us. Given that, making extreme accusations that they're doing the wrong thing doesn't really make sense. Of course it's worth discussion, that's why we're all here - we can try to figure out what they're thinking. We can not like it and come up with better plans, but saying they don't know what they're doing is kind of silly.

I think it's lots of different things weighing against each other. Some of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", some of he's still got some things to work on, some of roster issues as you start to shuffle people around. I think it's less of "if this happens, that's it, we're going to pull the trigger". I think getting to the "why" of a lot of these things is key. It's not so much that he's been bad lately, it's WHY has he been bad? Yes, you can say Gibson is "broken" and that should be good enough, but if they're seeing things where he's a small adjustment away from being effective, it makes sense to give pause. That's becoming less and less likely with every start. I'm still guessing they see something with Berrios that needs a little more work. Back to Brock's point, if you think the coaches and management don't have any information you don't, things appear to get clearer. I think that's awfully arrogant unless you're in the inner circle or have been heavily involved in baseball for many years.

If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*! And you should know that!

Last night Dick mentioned Berrios in the broadcast. He said something along the lines they're concerned that some of the strikeouts he's getting there wouldn't fly in the majors. I'm guessing he got that from the coaching staff. That gives me hope they're doing the right thing. I'm guessing they want him to improve some of those pitches so he doesn't come up and get rocked again.

I like that Dick just mentioned why Berrios isn't up. I buy it. If you're not watching, it amounted to a lot of the strikeouts might be on chased pitches that MLB batters won't chase.

I've seen a few things that give me hope, maybe it's trying to be too optimistic. In the last week there's been 2 hard hit balls pulled to right field. If he can keep doing that, the outfield will have to spread out again and more of his line (ish) drives to left-center will drop. He also hit a hot grounder to the 1st base side of second base through a hole there. If he can keep adjusting to the fielding adjustments, he may at least head in the right direction.

Would you please explain to me why you're so against it? I really don't understand why one prefers the human called version. Is it the strategy introduced by needing to figure out what the ump gives you? Is it adjusting to some game conditions that the computerized version couldn't do?

Hmm, not sure I agree with this. If the strike zone is a fixed distance high, the taller batter has to adjust less relative to his height, putting more strikes in the "sweet spot". Where do you center the zone, on the batter's belt? I get the argument that for a taller batter there's more distance to cover with the current strike zone which means he needs to be more accurate with his swing. I'd be curious if anyone's ever studied the trade-off. (I'm guessing no) I prefer the zone height adjusting with the batter - that's one issue I'm willing to stick with history on. Very much with you on maximizing the integrity of the game. I don't see how it could possibly be less accurate. It's certainly more objective. Look at how much detail is shown on tennis replays. It's not the same game, but the technology wouldn't be all that different.

Which goes to the heart of the issue - if his fastball has all this great movement, why is it so hitable? If Falvey/Levine see something there that they think they can work with, he absolutely should remain on the roster. Once they decide there's nothing more they can do for him or someone far better is ready and he's at the bottom of the list, cut him.

I don't like the split second off the base thing either. I think the spirit of the rule is that you can't overslide. So amend the rule such that if the guy pops up and off, he's safe. Make it objective. I like the 5 second limit to replay also.. or something so fast that you don't have someone else walking through a DVR frame by frame to see if he's safe. I agree, fairness is the the goal. Someone posted earlier that something like 40 pitches per game are called incorrectly - I assume these do NOT break evenly in the short term, which can affect a game or a season. I'll stray a bit in the last one. I don't want to wait for a red or green light either - put an earpiece in the home plate ump and have it relay him the signal. You still need a guy there to understand and enforce other rules.

I agree. I also think it makes a ton of sense to start the season with Tonkin and make sure he's not worth keeping before you cut him. That's a one way street. Falvey's a pitching guy - let him do his thing with evaluation and what not.