Automated Strike Zones MLB

[saevel25]

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.

No, it is just very very hard to call balls and strikes.

A batter has only 0.395 seconds from the time ball leaves the pitchers arm till it reaches the hitting zone for a 95 MPH throw. A Umpire is about another 10 feet behind them.

You have to consider that the strike zone is a 3D area. A pitch has to only barely touch a part of the defined space. This means that a pitch can curve and hit the edge of the zone and end up out of the strike zone by the time the catcher catches the ball and it is considered a strike. The Umpire is standing behind the catcher, who blocks the view of the plate, and the Umpire really never views the pitch from the side to see high and low it is.

Basically the Umpire has to make an educated guess on what the trajectory of the pitch was and if it hit any part of the strike zone. In the end there is a lot going against an Umpire. I am impressed they get 85% right, and are pretty consistent with that.

Giving the manager a challenge on balls and strikes isn't the answer in my opinion.

[Golfingdad]

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.

145 pitches per game??? No way that's correct - perhaps you meant per team per game? Anyways, I agree - giving coaches a challenge flag for balls and strikes is a bad idea.

[saevel25]

145 pitches per game??? No way that's correct - perhaps you meant per team per game?

Anyways, I agree - giving coaches a challenge flag for balls and strikes is a bad idea.

You are right on that. I went with AL & NL totals combined. So that would mean double the games started because it is two teams per game.

It should be about 145 pitches per team per game. I thought that number was low in my head as well.

So yea, 21-22 missed calls per team give or take depending if one team gets more calls going their way.

Could you imagine Tony La Russa or Lou Piniella with a challenge flag. They would try to take the Umpires head off with a throw. It would be hilarious, but MLB doesn't need challenge flags.

[Golfingdad]

You are right on that. I went with AL & NL totals combined. So that would mean double the games started because it is two teams per game.

It should be about 145 pitches per team per game. I thought that number was low in my head as well.

So yea, 21-22 missed calls per team give or take depending if one team gets more calls going their way.

OK, so it doesn't change your point or the percentages.  21-22 "missed" calls per 145 pitches.  I put quotes because I'm curious how many of the missed calls are just screw ups and how many of them are just due to that umps strike zone.  If you could draw a rectangle around all of the pitches he called a strike that excludes all of the pitches he called balls then even if that rectangle doesn't match up with the book definition of the strike zone, then I'd not consider those 21-22 pitches to be missed calls.  Know what I mean?

Of course, once you adjust for the umps strike zone, even though I'm wondering if the 21-22 number would drop significantly, it's also entirely possible that it would go up more.

[saevel25]

OK, so it doesn't change your point or the percentages.  21-22 "missed" calls per 145 pitches.  I put quotes because I'm curious how many of the missed calls are just screw ups and how many of them are just due to that umps strike zone.  If you could draw a rectangle around all of the pitches he called a strike that excludes all of the pitches he called balls then even if that rectangle doesn't match up with the book definition of the strike zone, then I'd not consider those 21-22 pitches to be missed calls.  Know what I mean?

Of course, once you adjust for the umps strike zone, even though I'm wondering if the 21-22 number would drop significantly, it's also entirely possible that it would go up more.

No, Umpires on all pitches miss the call on ball/strike at 15%. So I just took the number of pitches multiplied by that percentage to say they miss this many on average per game.

So lets say 290 pitches per game. There is 43-44 pitches per game that are called wrong.

It would be interesting to see if certain umpires are consistent at a lower or higher rate. I don't know how consistent they are by their own strike zone tendencies. I am just saying in terms of what should have been called by the written rule.

[jamo]

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.

[quote name="David in FL" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/30_30#post_1108332"] 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.[/quote] Maybe I just see sports differently than you guys do. To me, the excitement of human fallibility comes from the actual players, not the guys employed to enforce the rules. I'd rather adapt new technologies to ensure that the mistakes are diminished than rely on fate to even them out. [quote name="Abu3baid" url="/t/80251/automated-strike-zones-mlb/30_30#post_1108337"]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![/quote] I think that would be the absolute worst thing you could do. The rules against arguing balls and strikes are much stricter than arguing other calls for a reason.

[Golfingdad]

A little birdie just said to me in regards to this discussion, and about the possibility of challenge flags in particular:

"[Home plate] umpires are notoriously prickly about being shown up, MLB would never encourage open dissension from coaches."

The reason I mention it is because it brings up a point in favor of automated calls (opposite my current argument) I hadn't previously thought of ...

One of the things I hate more than anything is when certain crappy umpires (COUGH angel hernandez COUGH) get all bent out of shape and escalate arguments with players or coaches rather than diffuse them.  Whatever started it, I want the ump to have really thick skin and be able to calm them down, or just ignore them.  Taking the zone out of their hands would COMPLETELY eliminate this particular (ugly) facet of the game.  The coaches have nobody to scream at if a computer made the call, and thus the ump has nobody to throw out of the game.

That would be a refreshing change.

[saevel25]

The coaches have nobody to scream at if a computer made the call, and thus the ump has nobody to throw out of the game.

That would be a refreshing change.

Unless they make a terrible call like this one screwing over Gallaraga in a perfect game on the last out.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v8616789/cledet-donald-breaks-up-perfect-game-in-the-ninth

[Golfingdad]

Unless they make a terrible call like this one screwing over Gallaraga in a perfect game on the last out.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v8616789/cledet-donald-breaks-up-perfect-game-in-the-ninth

This doesn't apply though because we're only talking about ball and strike automation, not the rest of the calls.  And I'm specifically talking about that situation you see a couple of times a year where nobody except the players on the field and the fans in the first couple of rows even know that the ump is being yelled at.  If he didn't react, nothing would happen.  But what does he do?  Calls time, yanks off his mask, makes a big show of walking towards the dugout pointing and yelling back at whoever was yelling at him in the first place, and then throwing somebody out of the game.  That situation would be eliminated once the balls and strikes calls were taken out of their hands.

Plus, don't they now already have replay for calls like that?  Third, this isn't that big of a deal to me because it's only a milestone.  It's not something that actually matters, like a win or loss.

Fourth ... having that call blown actually turned out BETTER for Galarraga than if it was called correctly.  Do you know how many perfect games have been thrown in the last 6 years?  The answer: 6.  Now, how many people remember ANY of those 6?  How many people remember Galarraga?  See my point?

[iacas]

Maybe I just see sports differently than you guys do.

To me, the excitement of human fallibility comes from the actual players, not the guys employed to enforce the rules.

I'd rather adapt new technologies to ensure that the mistakes are diminished than rely on fate to even them out.

I think that would be the absolute worst thing you could do. The rules against arguing balls and strikes are much stricter than arguing other calls for a reason.

That's my take as well.

[Golfingdad]

Maybe I just see sports differently than you guys do.

To me, the excitement of human fallibility comes from the actual players, not the guys employed to enforce the rules.

I'd rather adapt new technologies to ensure that the mistakes are diminished than rely on fate to even them out.

That's my take as well.

I don't disagree with either of these.

[JonMA1]

I didn't see the details in the link (I apologize if its there and I missed it). How would the technology accommodate/compensate for the different heights of individual batters? While the perimeter of the plate doesn't change, the vertical dimension of the zone could not be static.

[InTheRough]

Maybe I just see sports differently than you guys do.

To me, the excitement of human fallibility comes from the actual players, not the guys employed to enforce the rules.

I'd rather adapt new technologies to ensure that the mistakes are diminished than rely on fate to even them out.

I think that would be the absolute worst thing you could do. The rules against arguing balls and strikes are much stricter than arguing other calls for a reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

That's my take as well.

The point is that the umpires are as much a part of the game as the players.  You can play to an umpire as much as you can play an opponent.   The fact that it is possible to automate a strike zone doesn't mean that you should because it removes a fundamental part of the game.  MLB teams have a file on every umpire in the league just like they have a file on every pitcher and hitter.

I do agree with you both however that giving the coaches challenges to balls and strikes would be a huge mistake.  Instant replay has slowed down the game enough already and giving them more challenges would make it painful

on a side note...watching managers getting tossed out of a game is fun anyway. It's similar to fights in hockey, It's not directly part of the game but its still fun to watch.

[Golfingdad]

I didn't see the details in the link (I apologize if its there and I missed it). How would the technology accommodate/compensate for the different heights of individual batters? While the perimeter of the plate doesn't change, the vertical dimension of the zone could not be static.

Hmmm, that is a good question.

[jamo]

I didn't see the details in the link (I apologize if its there and I missed it). How would the technology accommodate/compensate for the different heights of individual batters? While the perimeter of the plate doesn't change, the vertical dimension of the zone could not be static.

The same way the Pitchf/x system does.

[JonMA1]

The same way the Pitchf/x system does.

Just looked it up - pretty interesting. I watch Gameday at work and didn't realize this is the same technology used.

Now of course, I'll have to start keeping track of umpire calls vs the technology when watching.

How the strike is defined (since 1996):

1. The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap.
2. Makes calling balls and strikes interesting when a knuckleballer is on the mound.

[onthehunt526]

Hey, I voted "NO", Umpires are only human... 3 years ago I was the Home Plate Umpire some Little League games, and sometimes it's hard to distinguish where the ball is where it crosses the plate and when it hits the catcher's mitt, especially with Catcher's who try to frame pitches... The MLB umpires are trained and experienced...and sometimes they can't even tell.

[jamo]

Hey, I voted "NO", Umpires are only human... 3 years ago I was the Home Plate Umpire some Little League games, and sometimes it's hard to distinguish where the ball is where it crosses the plate and when it hits the catcher's mitt, especially with Catcher's who try to frame pitches... The MLB umpires are trained and experienced...and sometimes they can't even tell.

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