Automated Strike Zones MLB

[onthehunt526]

So if it's so hard for them, why not make it easier?

I see where it would make sense to do that to make it easier... but up until two years ago, you couldn't even challenge out/safe of a runner... it takes the human error out of the game.... umps miss calls yes, but I believe it evens out in the end

[jamo]

I see where it would make sense to do that to make it easier... but up until two years ago, you couldn't even challenge out/safe of a runner... it takes the human error out of the game.... umps miss calls yes, but I believe it evens out in the end

[ESPN 30 for 30 voiceover] What if I told you ... there was a way to ensure that it evened out? (By not having anything to even out in the first place.)

[onthehunt526]

I understand your point of view, but making a judgment call on the spot is part of the game. Umpires are only human, they will make mistakes. That's just life I suppose, next thing you know we will have automatic scoring in hockey and basketball, golf will have a replay booth for various rule infractions, and there will be a sensor on the goal line and the football In the NFL... Baseball would be opening the door with technology, which the NFL did with on field replay...

[tristanhilton85]

I understand your point of view, but making a judgment call on the spot is part of the game. Umpires are only human, they will make mistakes. That's just life I suppose, next thing you know we will have automatic scoring in hockey and basketball, golf will have a replay booth for various rule infractions, and there will be a sensor on the goal line and the football In the NFL... Baseball would be opening the door with technology, which the NFL did with on field replay...

Look, I kind of get the "it's part of the game" point of view, however, it's only part of the game because when the game was invented, it had to be part of the game. Now that there are ways to get it right every time why wouldn't we want that?

[JonMA1]

Is the technology error-free? Is there any lag or chance of a delay in even a few instances? Anything slower than the present system could cause additional problems.

You'd still have to use judgement calls for check swings - unless those become automated as well. Batters hit-by-pitch, foul tips - these are potential missed calls by umpires. They'd have to be automated.

Work all these out so that the margin of error is ridiculously low, do a boatload of R&D; during spring training or another league, then see how the players, coaches and officials assess the system.

If the proposed system is way-better than it is now, sure... why not make the change? But if it's only marginally better or introduces other problems, then maybe not.

If left up to me, I'd leave it alone. But I'm not so adamant that I wouldn't still enjoy the game when the make the change. Hell, I might even admit I was wrong. C'mon, it's baseball!

[saevel25]

Is the technology error-free? Is there any lag or chance of a delay in even a few instances? Anything slower than the present system could cause additional problems.

You'd still have to use judgement calls for check swings - unless those become automated as well. Batters hit-by-pitch, foul tips - these are potential missed calls by umpires. They'd have to be automated.

Work all these out so that the margin of error is ridiculously low, do a boatload of R&D; during spring training or another league, then see how the players, coaches and officials assess the system.

If the proposed system is way-better than it is now, sure... why not make the change? But if it's only marginally better or introduces other problems, then maybe not.

If left up to me, I'd leave it alone. But I'm not so adamant that I wouldn't still enjoy the game when the make the change. Hell, I might even admit I was wrong. C'mon, it's baseball!

Would it be error free. I am sure in some instances it might have a few hick-ups. I would say it would be much more accurate then the 85% the current Umpires have.

Check swings would be easier to detect than balls and strikes.

[JonMA1]

Is the 15% error rate a proven statistic? The reason I ask is that I watch a lot of baseball and while I don't keep track (nor am I there in person behind the plate), the umpires seem better than that. If that 15% includes very tight pitches that could go either way, then it's probably higher.

A fastball traveling 90+mph with a lot of late movement through a 3 dimensional space - the height of which varies depending on the batter - and even on slow motion replay, you'll still have people arguing whether it touched the paint or not. Add to that off-speed junk which breaks tremendously a short distance from the batters box from different arm slots. So you often have pitches that enter outside that 3D space but catch a corner before it gets past it (or vice versa). I have to wonder how "they" get those error stats.

If this new technology can reduce that type of error to let say below 5%, it would be worth it. But the experience I have with new technology is that it isn't always as good as advertised.

I apologize if I'm coming off as argumentative, but I have to ask the question. Much of this is just my ignorance of how they gather the data.

Personally, I love technology - it makes my job so much more precise and often removes subjective opinions which is exactly what we're taking about here.

[saevel25]

Is the 15% error rate a proven statistic? The reason I ask is that I watch a lot of baseball and while I don't keep track (nor am I there in person behind the plate), the umpires seem better than that. If that 15% includes very tight pitches that could go either way, then it's probably higher.

http://baseballsavant.com/apps/umpires.php

Also Fangraphs has some great data,

Here are the called balls and strikes and total number of pitches in the MLB for the past 5 years. The actual location percent of pitches in the zone (Zone% (pfx)). It is really easy to just find what was called versus what is actual. Umpires have averaged about 14% error over the past 5 years and have gotten worse.

If this new technology can reduce that type of error to let say below 5%, it would be worth it. But the experience I have with new technology is that it isn't always as good as advertised.

I apologize if I'm coming off as argumentative, but I have to ask the question. Much of this is just my ignorance of how they gather the data.

Personally, I love technology - it makes my job so much more precise and often removes subjective opinions which is exactly what we're taking about here.

This technology has been around for about 8 years or so. The company that produces PITCH F/x (pfx data) can track a ball to with an inch of its trajectory. No way an Umpire is that accurate.

[JonMA1]

I was wrong!

I glanced over this before and it's pretty cool ( @jamo referenced it). The technology uses two cameras to gather the information and I assume processes it in near real-time.

Since this has been around for 10 years and they would have conducted plenty of testing, I have to concede it's accurate to within an inch. And they use this technology to gather statistics on umpires. Please forgive my ignorance on determining stats, but would it be safe to say they've corrected the data for the slight imperfections of PITCH F/x ? If part of that 14% error rate includes pitches that are on or off the plate by .5", then it seems like they would have to.

As far as an umpire not being able to determine an inch of deviation from a 95mph fastball, I'll take your word for it because it seems reasonable. I know I couldn't. The vertical dimension of the strike zone seems especially hard.

For the sake of being open-minded (not because I fully understand statistics or physics), I'll assume this technology can get within a 5% error rate. So long as it provides the results instantly, I'd have to agree it would provide a more accurately called game at the plate and might even improve it from the fans viewpoint. I'd still like to see it tested in real game situations.

[onthehunt526]

15% error rate is pretty shocking... however my point is simple... Over the course of a season... don't the BORDERLINE calls even out, your chart doesn't say anything about that... Would an automated strike zone help the errors? Sure. Is it 100% necessary. No. So you're telling me, that umpires are perfect, when you have 0.26 seconds on a 90 mph pitch to determine a ball and strike... especially on a borderline pitch? Especially on breaking balls and fastballs to be perfect? I think if you can get the errors down to under 10%, with without technology interfering by retraining Home Plate Umpires that would be better... If you must add an automated strike zone... only allow its use for BORDERLINE pitches... those corner pitches low or high inside or outside on edge, obvious called strikes and obvious balls outside the zone would be called by the plate umpire... is that a good compromise?

[saevel25]

15% error rate is pretty shocking... however my point is simple... Over the course of a season... don't the BORDERLINE calls even out, your chart doesn't say anything about that...

Is that the correct logic to have. "Oh we missed this one on the outside but we'll just give him a ball that is a strike and it will even out". First that is two wrongs making a right. Second, that is just being a bad umpire.

Look at the graph from that link. You can see they miss 15% on balls outside the zone, and 10% on strikes inside the zone. There are two graphs on that website I posted. There is a 5% difference. So it does not equal out over a season. Equaling out doesn't mean anything.

Would an automated strike zone help the errors? Sure. Is it 100% necessary. No. So you're telling me, that umpires are perfect, when you have 0.26 seconds on a 90 mph pitch to determine a ball and strike... especially on a borderline pitch? Especially on breaking balls and fastballs to be perfect?

I think if you can get the errors down to under 10%, with without technology interfering by retraining Home Plate Umpires that would be better...

If you must add an automated strike zone... only allow its use for BORDERLINE pitches... those corner pitches low or high inside or outside on edge, obvious called strikes and obvious balls outside the zone would be called by the plate umpire... is that a good compromise?

How did I ever say the umpires are perfect. They are far from it. Also how does the logic, "Oh well it is tough to call balls and strikes let give them the benefit of the doubt and keep it business as usual when we have a better more accurate method". That is just bad business as usual.

Well apparently you can't. This data has been tracked the past 8 years and Umpires are consistently poor at making these calls. Why not use a method that can actually track the ball for the entire length of the pitch?

It would be stupid to split up the duty. Here is the thing, umpires can miss a ball and strike by up to half a foot off the plate. Their margin of error is bad. So if an umpire can't even tell a ball and strike on a pitch that is clearly (not borderline) a ball then why should we just leave calls inside the strike zone for them. Umpires make big mistakes on not borderline pitches.

[onthehunt526]

What's next a robot as an umpire? If MLB does it, then college, then high school, then Babe Ruth, then Little League, it's a downward spiral... I'm one that's okay with technology to a point, when it gets invasive which this would, then I'm against it... Last thing I want to hear at a baseball game is Johnny Five saying, "Strike Three, you're out." As much as I love SHORT CIRCUIT

[saevel25]

What's next a robot as an umpire? If MLB does it, then college, then high school, then Babe Ruth, then Little League, it's a downward spiral... I'm one that's okay with technology to a point, when it gets invasive which this would, then I'm against it... Last thing I want to hear at a baseball game is Johnny Five saying, "Strike Three, you're out." As much as I love SHORT CIRCUIT

No robot. The umpire would still be there. He would probably be mic'd up to hear the call to make. He would also be needed for plays at the plate.

[onthehunt526]

No robot. The umpire would still be there. He would probably be mic'd up to hear the call to make. He would also be needed for plays at the plate.

I still think it is invasive... okay maybe if they have someone in NY or in a booth buzzing down If a human is watching this system in real time I might be swayed, So basically you'd have five umpires for regular season games, and seven for postseason games saevel25?

[saevel25]

I still think it is invasive... okay maybe if they have someone in NY or in a booth buzzing down If a human is watching this system in real time I might be swayed, So basically you'd have five umpires for regular season games, and seven for postseason games saevel25?

Umm, they would just need one extra guy in a booth to watch the automated system.

[onthehunt526]

Ok, I would test it in the minors first, to see if it would do anything to the pace of the game... after all they are emphasizing speeding up the game...

[Bechambo]

I'm against it. An automated system would make the game more equitable, but the home plate umpire is another factor, point of strategy, that played into the game. I was a pitcher/ hitter (no DH for me) and learning about the hp umpire was a way to gain an advantage. It played into how aggressive I went after corners and edges of the strike zone. As a hitter, same with how it played into aggressiveness at the plate. They are the extra man on the field, who could make or break a game, and I liked that part of it, even though he wasn't always my advantage. That's just how I feel. I wouldn't be too upset if it did change though. Absolute fairness is boring by the way.

[Golfingdad]

I'm against it. An automated system would make the game more equitable, but the home plate umpire is another factor, point of strategy, that played into the game. I was a pitcher/ hitter (no DH for me) and learning about the hp umpire was a way to gain an advantage. It played into how aggressive I went after corners and edges of the strike zone. As a hitter, same with how it played into aggressiveness at the plate. They are the extra man on the field, who could make or break a game, and I liked that part of it, even though he wasn't always my advantage. That's just how I feel. I wouldn't be too upset if it did change though. Absolute fairness is boring by the way.

I knew I liked you for some reason.