Automated Strike Zones MLB

[boogielicious]

I wish there were an in-between vote.  While I agree that umpiring is a part of the game, the inconsistencies of umpiring are infuriating to most fans.  MLB does nothing to bad umpires.  They let them show up the players and the game itself.  The visual strike zone on broadcasts show this often.  MLB should use this to improve the umpires, which are full time employees, but they seem reluctant.

I have umpired Little League games, so I know it is not easy.  But these guys are professionals and should be better at it.

To be an effective system, we need to know how the system actually would call the strike.  Are the using "lasers" in a triangular way to insure from above that the ball breaks the plane of the plate?  This is key.  An umpire will call a strike on a curve ball because he believes that the ball crossed the vertical plane of the plate before curving away.

They could do it in a more clandestine way too.  Give the umpire an assist by letting him know that it crosses the plate and signal in his ear.  Let him call it then.

[Golfingdad]

More accurate is more fair, actually completely fair.  I'm for fair and unbiased.

This is a funny discussion because while I'm happy to have my opinion - that is arguing in favor of umpires - I have no rebuttal for the other side. I cannot disagree with this at all. I would like to see them test it out in the preseason. One thing the article pointed out that is an important fact - the umpires would still make the calls. They'd have a buzzer in their ear or something and that's an important distinction I think, because it would still give the appearance of the ump controlling the game. That combined with, in theory, no blown calls might actually allow me to be ok with the idea.

[JonMA1]

I guess I'm too much of a traditionalist but it doesn't matter. Fighting the changes is a losing battle and eventually, technology will become more common. The game is changing. In the end, no one is sticking a gun to my head and making me watch. Man, I sound more and more like an old fart every day.

I think major league umps are incredibly good - the blown call ruining Galaraga's perfect game in 2010 notwithstanding. I would have thought they are better at balls and strikes than the 90% noted in the article. As long as an umpire's strike zone is consistent for both teams (and it usually is), I'm ok with the imperfections.

Still, there are those rare occasions when you see a called ball or strike and you have to wonder what the hell the guy was looking at.

[newtogolf]

Too many games were decided on bad calls at the plate.  Each umpire has their own definition of a strike zone which changes the game for the pitcher who not only has to focus on getting the batter out but also throwing pitches that the umpire will consider a strike.

The strike zone is supposed to be a defined area that is not subject to interpretation but today it is.  It's a great use of technology that makes the game fair and predictable for batters and pitchers.

[JonMA1]

Too many games were decided on bad calls at the plate.  Each umpire has their own definition of a strike zone which changes the game for the pitcher who not only has to focus on getting the batter out but also throwing pitches that the umpire will consider a strike.

There have been games in the history of professional baseball when it came down to two outs in the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, full count and a bad call by the home plate ump. Yes, in those instances a poor call decided the game.

But I think games and, more importantly, series are decided by how well each team is playing at the time.

In my opinion, major league umpires are pretty consistent with their personal strike zones - meaning the pitching staffs of each team know by the end of the 1st or 2nd inning what the strike zone is. For the batters, they should know by their second at bat. With some umpires, that zone favors the batter, for others it favors the pitcher. My point is that bad calls and varying strike zones are part of the game for both teams.

Make no mistake, I believe automating strike zones would decrease bad strike and ball calls. Depending on how good the technology is, it might even eliminate them. Its just that for some of us, we simply accept those imperfections as part of the game.

I think it has been this way for generations.

[newtogolf]

I think it has been this way for generations.

It's been this way because until now there wasn't a better realistic solution.  I think we cheat ourselves when we avoid the use of technology where it's superior to human judgment just because it's been done that way for generations.

I think ultimately it's up to the teams and players, so let them test it out and play some games using the technology in place of the umpire to call balls and strikes and let them vote.

[Golfingdad]

Too many games were decided on bad calls at the plate.  Each umpire has their own definition of a strike zone which changes the game for the pitcher who not only has to focus on getting the batter out but also throwing pitches that the umpire will consider a strike. The strike zone is supposed to be a defined area that is not subject to interpretation but today it is.  It's a great use of technology that makes the game fair and predictable for batters and pitchers.

I'm guessing you and I have a different definition of a bad call. If the ump has a consistent strike zone, regardless of whether or not it tends to be narrower and taller or wider and shorter, if it's consistent, then by the time the game is a couple of innings old, the there are no surprises. And for that matter, these guys have books on the umps so in all cases except the rookie umps they know what to expect before the game even starts. I will acknowledge that there are still bad calls even by both of our definitions, albeit infrequent, and that those would likely be eliminated by this.

[JonMA1]

I think ultimately it's up to the teams and players, so let them test it out and play some games using the technology in place of the umpire to call balls and strikes and let them vote.

Agreed.

[newtogolf]

I'm guessing you and I have a different definition of a bad call. If the ump has a consistent strike zone, regardless of whether or not it tends to be narrower and taller or wider and shorter, if it's consistent, then by the time the game is a couple of innings old, the there are no surprises. And for that matter, these guys have books on the umps so in all cases except the rookie umps they know what to expect before the game even starts.

I will acknowledge that there are still bad calls even by both of our definitions, albeit infrequent, and that those would likely be eliminated by this.

Umpires have admitted to making bad calls on balls and strikes and then attempting to make up for it later in the game.  This discretion can change the outcomes of games.  I don't see any valid reason for umpires to call balls and strikes beyond that's how it's been done for generations.  Electronic strikes zones;

• Should eliminate discretionary calls or risk of favoritism by umpires.  I don't care how impartial someone claims to be, there is always potential they will give some more of the benefit of the doubt than others.  It will also resolve problem of different strike zones for the AL and NL for interleague games.
• Arguments between coaches, players and umpires for disputing bad calls that could result in ejection and change outcome of game.
• The game will be sped up as some umpires like to be very dramatic in their ball and strike calling.

[iacas]

Arguments between coaches, players and umpires for disputing bad calls that could result in ejection and change outcome of game.

The game will be sped up as some umpires like to be very dramatic in their ball and strike calling.

Neither of those things necessarily change. It's already a rule that arguing a ball/strike call results in automatic ejection, IIRC. Players quibble a bit but instead of doing that they'll just say things like "Man, the machine's off today. Can you believe this garbage?"

The umps would still likely call the balls and strikes with a buzzer or something. Plus they'd have to pay attention in case, for whatever reason, the machine missed the ball.

[jamo]

Of course umpiring is integral to the game. they call balls and stikes.

There's an important distinction there. The calling of balls and strikes is integral to the game, not umpires. [quote name="dsc123" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1107425"]i dont know if your trying to mock me but no, i didnt say bad calls hold a special place in my heart, i said it's an integral part of the game that holds a special place in my heart. [/quote] I wasn't mocking you, I'm just pointing out that a function of having umpires calling balls and strikes is them calling balls and strikes less accurately and less precisely than a computer can. The two go hand in hand. [quote name="dsc123" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1107425"]I think there's a beauty in all of it. I think baseball is a beautiful game. I think the imperfection amd error add something romantic and human to the game. for me, adding computers and replays detract from my enjoyment of the game. My feeling about this is probably rooted in the place the sport holds in my life. Baseball is something I shared with my father and my father shared with his father and that I hope to share with my son when he gets a little older. When i go to yankee stadium theres always a moment when i catch my dad looking distant and i know that hes thinking about past visits with his dad. I'm not looking for improvements or mathematical precision. I want to share the same experience. The great plays, and the errors. The good calls and the bad.[/quote] If your implication is that you don't think I love the romanticism of baseball, I can offer up nothing besides my assurance that I do, in fact, love baseball, and got irrationally giddy the other day when I got an email telling me my MLB gamely audio subscription had renewed. I love baseball, I don't love incorrect pitch calls. [quote name="dsc123" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1107610"] In addition to the beauty/artistic/romantic sort of aspect, I also I think I learned more from the sports I played than the classes I took in high school.  So I tend to view sports as a window into life, an imitation of life, a training ground for life, etc.  And I think learning to deal with bad call is an important life lesson.  I don't get hung up on "fairness" because life isn't always fair.  The lesson is to do enough so that you're not leaving it in someone else's hands, subject to their whim or error.  You can't do just enough that you should get what you want if everyone else does what they're supposed to do.  And you can't just blame the system when someone else fails.  [/quote] Again, that's a nice sentiment for little leaguers, but these are adults playing professionally. The purpose of umpires isn't to teach Miguel Cabrera a lesson in fairness. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1108216"] I'm guessing you and I have a different definition of a bad call. If the ump has a consistent strike zone, regardless of whether or not it tends to be narrower and taller or wider and shorter, if it's consistent, then by the time the game is a couple of innings old, the there are no surprises. [/quote] I know you weren't responding to me, but I believe we do have different definitions. To me, a call that is inconsistent with the rules of the game, rather than the whims of a particular umpire, is a bad call.

[iacas]

Sidney Crosby scored a goal last night that was ruled "not a goal" because the referee - who was on the other side of the goal (the right as opposed to the left) couldn't see the puck go in, and because it was underneath the goaltender's leg/pads, no camera could see the puck as in too, yet there was no other place for it to be…

So just as I support some sort of system that can detect when a puck goes in during a hockey game, I support calling balls and strikes accurately.

In fact, if the poll simply said " Do you support a system which allows umpires to call balls and strikes accurately 99.9% of the time? " I think a lot of people would vote "yes."

[InTheRough]

I wish i could vote NO a hundred times on this.  I played the game my entire life and was a pitcher in college and can say that Baseball is as much a mental battle between the pitcher, hitter, and umpire as it is a physical battle.  Baseball is a sport with a human element which adds a different dynamic to the game, and adding technology fundamentally changes the game and not for the better.

[Golfingdad]

Sidney Crosby scored a goal last night that was ruled "not a goal" because the referee - who was on the other side of the goal (the right as opposed to the left) couldn't see the puck go in, and because it was underneath the goaltender's leg/pads, no camera could see the puck as in too, yet there was no other place for it to be…

So just as I support some sort of system that can detect when a puck goes in during a hockey game, I support calling balls and strikes accurately.

I know you don't agree that there's a grey area here, (a wrong call is a wrong call) but I think there is a giant difference between a goal/no goal and balls and strikes.  Goals are only really comparable to runs, and there really isn't any redeeming quality to incorrect safe/out calls at home plate, so I wouldn't disagree with that comparison.

But umps having different strike zones I would see as a lot more comparable to coming into a game knowing that the ref that particular day is a little more lenient on his calls with hooks and slashes, or knowing he will give you the extra second or so to finish a check after the puck is gone.  In those cases, as with the different plate umps, you consider that as part of your game plan going in and build your game strategy around it.

In fact, if the poll simply said "Do you support a system which allows umpires to call balls and strikes accurately 99.9% of the time?" I think a lot of people would vote "yes."

Yeah, it would be hard to say no to the question were it worded this way. ;)

[David in FL]

I wish i could vote NO a hundred times on this.  I played the game my entire life and was a pitcher in college and can say that Baseball is as much a mental battle between the pitcher, hitter, and umpire as it is a physical battle.  Baseball is a sport with a human element which adds a different dynamic to the game, and adding technology fundamentally changes the game and not for the better.

I agree. The human fallibility element is part of the game. I feel the same about instant replay and challenges in football too. Let the refs and umps do the jobs they're damn good at. There will always be some mistakes, and some controversies, but overall they tend to even out and I find the game more fun for it.

[Abu3baid]

I have an idea. Instead of letting the computer make all the decisions why not do exactly what the NFL did and give the coach something similar? 3 strike/ball challenges every 9 innings.. If it goes into extra innings you get one more challenge? This way the ump continues to do his thing, but now you add the variable of a coach able to send the call to the booth for a challenge where the answer comes from up stairs. Or, you give the manager one challenge per game, if he is right he gets another, if he is wrong well he's SOL. Doesn't always have to be all or nothing!

[saevel25]

I have an idea. Instead of letting the computer make all the decisions why not do exactly what the NFL did and give the coach something similar? 3 strike/ball challenges every 9 innings.. If it goes into extra innings you get one more challenge?

That wouldn't be a very good idea.

Think about it this way. There were145 pitches thrown per game last year. During a game an umpire gets about 21-22 pitches wrong on balls and strike.

Not sure 3 challenges is worth giving to the umpire when he makes over 20 bad calls a game on balls and strikes. I do not think that the NFL has that many blown calls. I get the no calls in NFL, like missing a holding call. Plays like the Dez Bryant catch or over turning a fumble. 3 is about the right number for the NFL.

Challenges just do not mesh with MLB in my opinion. I think this would be exactly the opposite of what MLB is trying to do now, speed up the game. No need to add this extra variable.

[Abu3baid]

That wouldn't be a very good idea.

Think about it this way. There were145 pitches thrown per game last year. During a game an umpire gets about 21-22 pitches wrong on balls and strike.

Not sure 3 challenges is worth giving to the umpire when he makes over 20 bad calls a game on balls and strikes. I do not think that the NFL has that many blown calls. I get the no calls in NFL, like missing a holding call. Plays like the Dez Bryant catch or over turning a fumble. 3 is about the right number for the NFL.

Challenges just do not mesh with MLB in my opinion. I think this would be exactly the opposite of what MLB is trying to do now, speed up the game. No need to add this extra variable.

It doesn't have to be 3.. It could be that they only get 1 challenge per game, or 1 and 1 more if you get it right?  They already implemented instant reply in some instances didn't they?  sort of the same thing, its just initiated by the manager instead of upstairs.

if you are right about them blowing 15% of the strikes/ball calls then they should pick up a new profession.