Automated Strike Zones MLB

[saevel25]

I get the cat and mouse game between the umpires and the pitchers. The only problem is that the rules define the strike zone. It isn't, "The umpire can interpret the strike zone as he wishes with in this much leeway". The strike zone is clearly defined and should be called as such. At least that is how I see it when it comes to playing a sport by the rules.

[onthehunt526]

Retrain the umpires then

[tristanhilton85]

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 get that part of it; and it can be entertaining watching a pitcher work to expand the zone and learning the umpire, etc. I just don't like the idea that a third party can be responsible for a call that changes the game. I remember the Angels had a game in Boston a few years back where an umpire made a horrible call, ball instead of strike, that allowed the at bat to continue. It would have been strike three and game over but instead the next pitch ended up a hit and IIRC Boston won. I know that these things supposedly even out over the course of the season, but why depend on that when you can just keep it even from the start. Instead of having a game between the two teams and the umpire, just let it be between the two teams.

Retrain the umpires then

It really has nothing to do with the umpires needing to be retrained or anything like that. They do a pretty good job, but they are human, they are going to make mistakes. The point is there is now an alternative that essentially eliminates the human error.

[onthehunt526]

Agreed... umpires make mistakes...

[saevel25]

Retrain the umpires then

I would bet they go through training every year. They still suck, and actually have gotten worse over the past 5 years.

Another reason is that catchers are really good at framing a pitch and the umpire is biased towards gloves that do not move as much to catch a pitch. A study was done showing that catchers can save a few runs a game by getting more strike outs framing pitches. Basically a walk is worth 0.6-0.7 runs per walk. If a catcher can convert a few walks into a few strike outs that is big.

So not only are Umpires bad at calling balls and strikes they are being manipulated by the catcher because of their own poor tendencies to give a catcher the called strike because he didn't move his glove.

[Bechambo]

I get that part of it; and it can be entertaining watching a pitcher work to expand the zone and learning the umpire, etc. I just don't like the idea that a third party can be responsible for a call that changes the game. I remember the Angels had a game in Boston a few years back where an umpire made a horrible call, ball instead of strike, that allowed the at bat to continue. It would have been strike three and game over but instead the next pitch ended up a hit and IIRC Boston won. I know that these things supposedly even out over the course of the season, but why depend on that when you can just keep it even from the start. Instead of having a game between the two teams and the umpire, just let it be between the two teams.

On a pertinent tangent, people are more sensitive when it comes to things that can hurt them vs. what can benefit them. This might be a case that confirms this about most people.

[dsc123]

Its an interesting discussion because it reveals such a fundamental difference of opinion as far as what is "ideal" for the sport.  For me, "ideal" baseball is keeping it as similar to the original as possible.  That's just what I like about it.

[Golfingdad]

On a pertinent tangent, people are more sensitive when it comes to things that can hurt them vs. what can benefit them. This might be a case that confirms this about most people.

A counter argument to this, though, is that my most bitter baseball fan memory (which at some point I've even recounted on this forum somewhere I think) is a similar situation to what Tristan describes.  If they had automated umpires 20 years ago then the Padres would very likely have won game 1 of the 1998 world series because Tino Martinez would have struck out looking the pitch before he hit his grand slam.  After that, who knows how that series would have turned out? ;)

[dsc123]

A counter argument to this, though, is that my most bitter baseball fan memory (which at some point I've even recounted on this forum somewhere I think) is a similar situation to what Tristan describes.  If they had automated umpires 20 years ago then the Padres would very likely have won game 1 of the 1998 world series because Tino Martinez would have struck out looking the pitch before he hit his grand slam.  After that, who knows how that series would have turned out? ;)

You're opinion is wrong. That was a good memory that helped the good guys to win. And they would have won anyway.

[14ledo81]

Its an interesting discussion because it reveals such a fundamental difference of opinion as far as what is "ideal" for the sport.  For me, "ideal" baseball is keeping it as similar to the original as possible.  That's just what I like about it.

Same here.

For me it only applies with baseball though.

I definitely am happy with the advancements/changes made in hockey, basketball, and football.

[Golfingdad]

You're opinion is wrong. That was a good memory that helped the good guys to win. And they would have won anyway.

Thumbs down!!!

[newtogolf]

The players should decide who wins and loses, not the umpires or officials.  We have a technology that removes human judgment and bias (yes, some umpires have axes to grind) from a part of the game and gives the players more control over who wins.   Umpires unfortunately will still rule on other plays outside of calling balls and strikes which provides a human element for those that are concerned about it.

[saevel25]

You're opinion is wrong. That was a good memory that helped the good guys to win. And they would have won anyway.

It isn't wrong and it might not be right.

The opinion is should umpire's bias and opinions if the pitch is a ball or a strike dictate a game. Should the rules be enforced as they are written in the best possible way? I get the nuance and the whole figuring out an umpire. In the end the rules are the rules, they should be enforced. Any umpire who has a different opinion is out for his own gain and is wrongly influencing the outcome of the games. Basically having umpires call balls and strikes bring in outside factors that deteriorate the game's outcomes because they rather be outside the rules. Catchers framing pitches to influence the umpire. Umpires who use the position as a way to garner attention, or project their own bias in how the game should be called. Heck, I've seen umpires call a stricter strike zone because they got pissed off at a manager. That is totally out of bounds and should be taken out of the game.

[Golfingdad]

It isn't wrong and it might not be right.

The opinion is should umpire's bias and opinions if the pitch is a ball or a strike dictate a game. Should the rules be enforced as they are written in the best possible way? I get the nuance and the whole figuring out an umpire. In the end the rules are the rules, they should be enforced. Any umpire who has a different opinion is out for his own gain and is wrongly influencing the outcome of the games. Basically having umpires call balls and strikes bring in outside factors that deteriorate the game's outcomes because they rather be outside the rules. Catchers framing pitches to influence the umpire. Umpires who use the position as a way to garner attention, or project their own bias in how the game should be called. Heck, I've seen umpires call a stricter strike zone because they got pissed off at a manager. That is totally out of bounds and should be taken out of the game.

I think Dan was just joking with me, BTW.

But in regards to your statement here, its a bit of a strawman.  Specifically each of the bold parts.  Who's arguing in favor of biased umpires who are out for their own gain and to garner attention and who hold grudges against coaches?

Your point stands that these are all things that would be eliminated with automated balls and strikes, but still, these are not things that anybody here is arguing in favor of.  All of us would like to see those types of umpires out of the game.

[dsc123]

I think its a really rare case that the umpire has much of a say in who wins and loses.  And even in those cases, the players had more of an influence.  For example, who was more at fault for the Padres' getting sweeped by the Yankees in 1998?

1. The umpire who blew the call against Tino (I dont remember the call, but I'm giving @Golfingdad the benefit of the doubt on this one)?
2. Mark Langston, who put the next pitch right over the middle of the plate?
3. Donnie Wall, who gave up a 3-run home run to Chuck Knobloch that same inning (which was a slightly bigger play than the grand slam by win probability added)?
4. The 9 guys that batted for the padres in the 8th and 9th but only scored 1 run?
5. The guys padres players that had 26 at bats before Tino's home run but didn't score more runs?
6. Andy Ashby, who gave up 7 runs the next day?

There's just so much that goes on in a game that I don't buy the argument that it ever really comes down to a blown call.  It just seems that way.

Its like the cubs blaming Bartman.

And yes, I was I was kidding with my comment about GD's "bad opinion." But really, why would we want to lose a moment like this?

We already have lost moments like this:

I think we all remember that Galaraga would be perfect game more because of what happened, and how Galaraga reacted.  That's baseball lore!

[newtogolf]

Your point stands that these are all things that would be eliminated with automated balls and strikes, but still, these are not things that anybody here is arguing in favor of.  All of us would like to see those types of umpires out of the game.

Unfortunately kicking umpires out of the game isn't easy given the unions and unwillingness of players and teams to pursue their removal.  Teams don't want to suffer any possible retaliation from the other umpires who feel the need to stand up for their own.

Given the huge sports gambling industry I'm for anything that removes the human element from the officiating.

[Golfingdad]

I think its a really rare case that the umpire has much of a say in who wins and loses.  And even in those cases, the players had more of an influence.  For example, who was more at fault for the Padres' getting sweeped by the Yankees in 1998?

The umpire who blew the call against Tino (I dont remember the call, but I'm giving @Golfingdad the benefit of the doubt on this one)?

Mark Langston, who put the next pitch right over the middle of the plate?

Donnie Wall, who gave up a 3-run home run to Chuck Knobloch that same inning (which was a slightly bigger play than the grand slam by win probability added)?

The 9 guys that batted for the padres in the 8th and 9th but only scored 1 run?

The guys padres players that had 26 at bats before Tino's home run but didn't score more runs?

Andy Ashby, who gave up 7 runs the next day?

There's just so much that goes on in a game that I don't buy the argument that it ever really comes down to a blown call.  It just seems that way.

Its like the cubs blaming Bartman.

And yes, I was I was kidding with my comment about GD's "bad opinion."     But really, why would we want to lose a moment like this?

Well that is just mean!

All kidding aside, I'm mostly facetious and "fake" bitter when I bring this up.  I usually do it to get a laugh from my wife and/or the rest of her family (all Yankees nuts).  In this case, it was just to point out to Bechambo that even some of us who would have theoretically benefitted from the automated strike calls aren't necessarily for them.

And, BTW, in regards to your point number 2, the previous pitch was (called as) ball 3, so the count was full.  Here you go:

[jamo]

What's next a robot as an umpire?

For crissakes Joe Buck, show a little enthusiasm. That's a World Series grand slam you just yawned your way through!