Automated Strike Zones MLB

[saevel25]

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/automate-the-strike-zone-unleash-the-offense/

It is an interesting proposition, not from MLB but from the analytic guys.

I personally don't mind balls and strikes being called by a computer. Video and Radar detection could easily create a much more accurate calling of balls and strikes.

It would cut down on managers and players being thrown out. Though I admit I do enjoy a good manager ejection from time to time.

Really it takes out the biased nature in which umpires calls balls and strikes. From either being risk aversion were umpires do not want to make the bad called strike out, or bad called walk over having the batter making a hit or an out on is own. Or, you have the umpire who are just show boating, trying to be the center of attention.

[Abu3baid]

But who will monitor the operators who set the strike zone? The Pitch f(x) system is able to handle this with the help of its operators. The operators set the height of the strike zone for each individual according to their stance, so they can stretch it for tall guys or guys that standupright, and shrink it for short guys or crouching Tigers.

[jamo]

But who will monitor the operators who set the strike zone? The Pitch f(x) system is able to handle this with the help of its operators. The operators set the height of the strike zone for each individual according to their stance, so they can stretch it for tall guys or guys that standupright, and shrink it for short guys or crouching Tigers.

Throw an umpire in the booth. Takes 2 seconds per batter.

[Patch]

Yeah, I would like to see automated strike zones. The plate umpire would still need to stay behind the plate for calling folks out, safe, and to make sure they touch the plate. The ump would also have to hold some sort of electronic gizmo in his had that would tell him what the pitch count was, balls/strikes, and outs for the offense.

I use to umpire at kids' games. Various ages, and mostly girls' fast pitch. Parents were the worst. My favorite retort was "Can you see the game from where your car is parked?" My claim to fame was that I never charged the league for my time. Paid my own way just like the kids had to do.

[Golfingdad]

I can't say for sure until I see it in action, but as I imagine it in my head, I am vehemently in the NO category.

It's not the same thing as tennis where it's just in or it's out.  There is a whole game within a game between pitchers and batters and umpires and I think that going to robots and computers would completely eliminate that game.  No more Greg Maddux's who test the batters patience and the umpires resolve by throwing a ball on the outside corner and then over the course of the game attempting to expand that corner by a fraction of an inch at a time until he's got the upper hand.  No more learning over the course of the first few innings and hopefully faster than the other team that this ump has a lower strike zone today so try and lay off the high stuff.

I'm not automatically against change, and I'm certainly not for mistakes, so I'd be happy to test it out and see how it would work - but I think I'm not going to like it.

[14ledo81]

I'm with @golfingdad on this as well. When I played (actually we called it ragball) a few years back, we all took turns calling balls and strikes. Some guys had different zones and tendencies. Part of the fun was learning it. I was always more apt to call third strikes. I told hitters that if they had two strikes against them, they should be protecting.

[dsc123]

+1 to @Golfingdad . the umpires are as much a part of the game as the players.

[jamo]

It's not the same thing as tennis where it's just in or it's out.  There is a whole game within a game between pitchers and batters and umpires and I think that going to robots and computers would completely eliminate that game.  No more Greg Maddux's who test the batters patience and the umpires resolve by throwing a ball on the outside corner and then over the course of the game attempting to expand that corner by a fraction of an inch at a time until he's got the upper hand.  No more learning over the course of the first few innings and hopefully faster than the other team that this ump has a lower strike zone today so try and lay off the high stuff.

I would rather the battle be between the pitcher and the hitter instead of between the pitcher and the umpire. Simple as that.

[dsc123]

I would rather the battle be between the pitcher and the hitter instead of between the pitcher and the umpire. Simple as that.

Responses like this worry me. Not because there's a right or wrong to any of this, but because I think younger generations will feel this way more and more and eventually it will happen. then I will lose what I view as an integral part of a sport that holds a special place in my heart. :/

[jamo]

Responses like this worry me. Not because there's a right or wrong to any of this, but because I think younger generations will feel this way more and more and eventually it will happen. then I will lose what I view as an integral part of a sport that holds a special place in my heart. :/

Umpiring is "integral?" Incorrect calls hold "a special place in your heart?" I umpired at several different levels for six years and consider it completely unnecessary because there's a more accurate alternative. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1107326"] There is a whole game within a game between pitchers and batters and umpires and I think that going to robots and computers would completely eliminate that game.  No more Greg Maddux's who test the batters patience and the umpires resolve by throwing a ball on the outside corner and then over the course of the game attempting to expand that corner by a fraction of an inch at a time until he's got the upper hand.  No more learning over the course of the first few innings and hopefully faster than the other team that this ump has a lower strike zone today so try and lay off the high stuff. [/quote] I know I'm re-quoting the same post, but I just want to add that I think a robot-called strike zone would have made Greg Maddux even better to watch. Could you imagine his accuracy if he actually could go into a game knowing there would be a defined strike zone? It would be like painting the black, only with the aid of that blue painter's tape. [quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/0_30#post_1107405"]Part of the fun was learning it. I was always more apt to call third strikes. I told hitters that if they had two strikes against them, they should be protecting.[/quote] That's a great lesson to teach to little leaguers, but it doesn't apply to major leaguers. A strike should be a strike should be a strike.

[dsc123]

Umpiring is "integral?" Incorrect calls hold "a special place in your heart?"

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

[Golfingdad]

I think there's a beauty in all of it. I think baseball is a beautiful game. I think the imperfection and error add something romantic and human to the game. for me, adding computers and replays detract from my enjoyment of the game.

I'm with you on this.  As a former player (shortstop mostly), I do romanticize about the nuances involved in the game.  One of my favorite memories from high school baseball was during a big game my senior year.  Speedy runner on first takes off for second, I wait as long as I can and break for second, catcher makes a great throw, I catch it, swipe at his leg, then start to hold my glove up in a confident manner to show the ump that I got him as I start to jog towards the dugout.  But out of the corner of my eye, I see that the runner overslid the base, and a quick wave of indecision washes over me - "did I tag him?  I think I did.  But did the ump see it?  I don't know.  Let's just make sure" - and I lunge for him to get him out for certain.  However, I'm farther away from the base than he is, so he easily gets there before me.  Umpire yells "safe!"  I jump up and say "But I got him the first time!!!"  To which he replies, as you might guess "Then why'd you try to tag him again?"  My response was just a blank stare, then a slight smile and nod.  He told me after that he was going to give it to me until I lunged the second time.  Lesson learned.

I realize that the pro-automation crowd is against bad calls, and I have no beef with that, because I'm not for bad calls.  I am, however, for nuance.  And there are a lot of little nuances involving umpires that have helped to make baseball beautiful in my eyes.

Things we'd lose if we went to automated balls and strikes:

• The fact that it's more important to hit the catchers target than the strike zone.  Pitchers know that it's better to throw it right at the mitt, even if the mitt is an inch outside, than it is to throw a strike on the inside corner while the catcher is set up outside.
• The fact that you almost never get a called third strike if the catcher drops it.  Doesn't matter where it crossed the plate.
• Pitchers being able to "move" the strike zone over the course of the game, a la Greg Maddux, with their precision.
• The benefit of the doubt on borderline calls given to pitchers with good control, and likewise, taken away from pitchers with bad control.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying losing those are all necessarily bad - but it would be part of my concern.

[14ledo81]

Things we'd lose if we went to automated balls and strikes:

The fact that it's more important to hit the catchers target than the strike zone.  Pitchers know that it's better to throw it right at the mitt, even if the mitt is an inch outside, than it is to throw a strike on the inside corner while the catcher is set up outside.

The fact that you almost never get a called third strike if the catcher drops it.  Doesn't matter where it crossed the plate.

Pitchers being able to "move" the strike zone over the course of the game, a la Greg Maddux, with their precision.

The benefit of the doubt on borderline calls given to pitchers with good control, and likewise, taken away from pitchers with bad control.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying losing those are all necessarily bad - but it would be part of my concern.

How about the catchers that are good at pitch "framing"?  That would not be a necessary talent anymore.

[dsc123]

I'm with you on this.  As a former player (shortstop mostly), I do romanticize about the nuances involved in the game.  One of my favorite memories from high school baseball was during a big game my senior year.  Speedy runner on first takes off for second, I wait as long as I can and break for second, catcher makes a great throw, I catch it, swipe at his leg, then start to hold my glove up in a confident manner to show the ump that I got him as I start to jog towards the dugout.  But out of the corner of my eye, I see that the runner overslid the base, and a quick wave of indecision washes over me - "did I tag him?  I think I did.  But did the ump see it?  I don't know.  Let's just make sure" - and I lunge for him to get him out for certain.  However, I'm farther away from the base than he is, so he easily gets there before me.  Umpire yells "safe!"  I jump up and say "But I got him the first time!!!"  To which he replies, as you might guess "Then why'd you try to tag him again?"  My response was just a blank stare, then a slight smile and nod.  He told me after that he was going to give it to me until I lunged the second time.  Lesson learned.

I realize that the pro-automation crowd is against bad calls, and I have no beef with that, because I'm not for bad calls.  I am, however, for nuance.  And there are a lot of little nuances involving umpires that have helped to make baseball beautiful in my eyes.

Things we'd lose if we went to automated balls and strikes:

The fact that it's more important to hit the catchers target than the strike zone.  Pitchers know that it's better to throw it right at the mitt, even if the mitt is an inch outside, than it is to throw a strike on the inside corner while the catcher is set up outside.

The fact that you almost never get a called third strike if the catcher drops it.  Doesn't matter where it crossed the plate.

Pitchers being able to "move" the strike zone over the course of the game, a la Greg Maddux, with their precision.

The benefit of the doubt on borderline calls given to pitchers with good control, and likewise, taken away from pitchers with bad control.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying losing those are all necessarily bad - but it would be part of my concern.

Well said.  And obviously, I agree with this 100%.

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.

Golf is the perfect example of this.  I like that players are responsible for calling penalties on themselves.  Even if that means the rules aren't always applied perfectly.  I don't want a crew of referees with HD cameras making sure there is absolute precision in every way.  And I think we all learn a lot, even weekend hackers, by playing a game that enforces the rules this way.  I hope my kids pick up golf not only because I want to play with them but also because I think they can learn a lot about character.

[phan52]

The strike zone is whatever the umpire says it is today. Players adjust. It's all part of the game.

[Golfingdad]

Visiting my parents this weekend and if you want to imagine what the guy in my story above looked like, you now don't have to

[jamo]

Visiting my parents this weekend and if you want to imagine what the guy in my story above looked like, you now don't have to

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

[No Mulligans]

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