How Bad Are the Umps?

[sk7326]

Helping them is one thing. They already get lots of feedback on every call they make. What you guys want to do is relegate them to the outhouse. And how can you be so certain that umpires are ignoring the rule book just because you don't like their calls? They all know where the strike zone is even though the strike zone in my opinion is ill-defined because it changes for each player. We think the bottom of the zone is the knee, but what part of the knee? And where is the top of the zone? Armpits? And how do we know those computerized images are adjusted precisely to every player's size and stance?

 

No, no, no - they are not ignoring the strike zone - they flat out cannot see it. It's like a blind person driving. He's going to probably hit a mailbox or seven - it's not someone blithely ignoring Garmin - it is a guy doing something that is way way way over his head.

[User Name]

Helping them is one thing. They already get lots of feedback on every call they make. What you guys want to do is relegate them to the outhouse. And how can you be so certain that umpires are ignoring the rule book just because you don't like their calls? They all know where the strike zone is even though the strike zone in my opinion is ill-defined because it changes for each player. We think the bottom of the zone is the knee, but what part of the knee? And where is the top of the zone? Armpits? And how do we know those computerized images are adjusted precisely to every player's size and stance?

 

This is bogus, and has been refuted several times. The 3d model can and does make the adjustment.

 

Also, you keep telling me "what I want to do", yet it directly contradicts what I've been saying needs to be done. Seems like a strawman to me.

[User Name]

No, no, no - they are not ignoring the strike zone - they flat out cannot see it. It's like a blind person driving. He's going to probably hit a mailbox or seven - it's not someone blithely ignoring Garmin - it is a guy doing something that is way way way over his head.

 

Also, this.

[Maxbialystock]

Also, this.

 

And you accuse me of exaggerating. sk7326 similes about umpires are way over the top. If the data are true--and I'm not sure they are--the umpires are 87% accurate, and we don't know that that is a fair percentage because there should be grey area around the strike zone where a ball or a strike could fairly be called.

 

As for the 3D model, what is it using to define the top and bottom of the strike zone?

 

But my real point remains the same. Umpires have been calling balls and strikes for 150 years without damaging the game. Indeed, to any true baseball fan, they are an essential part of the game even when they make mistakes. If they are 87% accurate, that's pretty good. Given the new methods of providing feedback, they could get even better. Better that than sending them to the trash heap.

[Spudboy]

 

 

streeeeeerike!

[Maxbialystock]

No, no, no - they are not ignoring the strike zone - they flat out cannot see it. It's like a blind person driving. He's going to probably hit a mailbox or seven - it's not someone blithely ignoring Garmin - it is a guy doing something that is way way way over his head.

 

If they can't see it, how is the average ump accurate 87% of the time and some of them accurate almost all the time? There are no blind people driving, by the way, and anyone who hits a mailbox does so for other reasons besides vision.

 

You want to know what blindness is? It's wanting to change the fundamental nature of baseball because of what we see on the TV screen. You guys need to grow up and recognize that baseball needs umpires not robots.

[Bellhorn04]

If they can't see it, how is the average ump accurate 87% of the time and some of them accurate almost all the time? There are no blind people driving, by the way, and anyone who hits a mailbox does so for other reasons besides vision.

 

As sk7326 has already pointed out, the umps rely heavy on the catchers and their mitt placements to determine balls and strikes for them. That's why pitch-framing is now a measurable skill!

[Kimmi]

For me, a lot of being against robot umps is with the fundamental idea of humans being replaced by robots/automated systems. I understand that times have changed and that technology can do things better, faster, and in most cases, cheaper. I get that. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

I am willing to give up 13% in accuracy in order to keep human umpires.

 

What is so wrong with that being MY preference?

[Bellhorn04]

For me, a lot of being against robot umps is with the fundamental idea of humans being replaced by robots/automated systems. I understand that times have changed and that technology can do things better, faster, and in most cases, cheaper. I get that. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

I am willing to give up 13% in accuracy in order to keep human umpires.

 

What is so wrong with that being MY preference?

 

There's nothing wrong with that at all in my books.

[Kimmi]

There's nothing wrong with that at all in my books.

 

Thank you. To be honest with you, I think you're the only one in this thread who disagrees with my opinion but has accepted and respected it. This post was more directed at 'The Others'.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm more like the guy in the Monty Python sketch who's just looking for a good argument. (I wish they had better smileys here. The selection of emoticons they have on the music forum I just joined a while ago is beautiful LOL)

[Spudboy]

For me, a lot of being against robot umps is with the fundamental idea of humans being replaced by robots/automated systems. I understand that times have changed and that technology can do things better, faster, and in most cases, cheaper. I get that. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

I am willing to give up 13% in accuracy in order to keep human umpires.

 

What is so wrong with that being MY preference?

 

Good point.

[User Name]

And you accuse me of exaggerating. sk7326 similes about umpires are way over the top. If the data are true--and I'm not sure they are--the umpires are 87% accurate, and we don't know that that is a fair percentage because there should be grey area around the strike zone where a ball or a strike could fairly be called.

 

As for the 3D model, what is it using to define the top and bottom of the strike zone?

 

But my real point remains the same. Umpires have been calling balls and strikes for 150 years without damaging the game. Indeed, to any true baseball fan, they are an essential part of the game even when they make mistakes. If they are 87% accurate, that's pretty good. Given the new methods of providing feedback, they could get even better. Better that than sending them to the trash heap.

 

A) I have already presented several times that the strike zone used to gather data on the umpires gives them a leeway zone about the size of the baseball itself. That argument is incorrect.

 

B ) It uses the myriad cameras used to gather the data itself in order to adjust the strike zone to batter height, and stance. In 3d. In real time. This argument does not fly.

 

c) So what? Baseball did not have a DH, instant replay, or divisional/championship rounds for 100 years. All of those have changed the game for the better while actually changing fundamental parts of the game, which is your argument. Helping umpires enforce a strike as defined by the game's rulebook is, by definition, defending a fundamental part of the game.

[User Name]

For me, a lot of being against robot umps is with the fundamental idea of humans being replaced by robots/automated systems. I understand that times have changed and that technology can do things better, faster, and in most cases, cheaper. I get that. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

I am willing to give up 13% in accuracy in order to keep human umpires.

 

What is so wrong with that being MY preference?

 

The problem is, that you (and others) and this is directed to all of you, are misunderstanding my argument and lumping me in with the others. I'm advocating giving the umps gear which helps them improve their accuracy, not replacing them. In fact, the only guy balls-to-the-walls for replacement is MVP. At least argue the idea I'm actually presenting.

[Maxbialystock]

A) I have already presented several times that the strike zone used to gather data on the umpires gives them a leeway zone about the size of the baseball itself. That argument is incorrect.

 

B ) It uses the myriad cameras used to gather the data itself in order to adjust the strike zone to batter height, and stance. In 3d. In real time. This argument does not fly.

 

c) So what? Baseball did not have a DH, instant replay, or divisional/championship rounds for 100 years. All of those have changed the game for the better while actually changing fundamental parts of the game, which is your argument. Helping umpires enforce a strike as defined by the game's rulebook is, by definition, defending a fundamental part of the game.

 

I would need to read something definitive on your a and b. As for c, I think the DH is moot because the NL eschews it. The playoffs are about money, nothing more, and hardly a refinement to the basic game. Heck, they were copies from the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Instant replay is a mixed blessing to me. Overall, it speeds up the game by preventing managers from racing onto the field every time they don't like a call. But instant replays also interrupt the flow of the game, and half the time they only confirm what the umpire called.

 

As for you later point about goggles to assist umpires, I'm not so sure, but will at least reserve judgment.

[Youk Of The Nation]

The problem is, that you (and others) and this is directed to all of you, are misunderstanding my argument and lumping me in with the others. I'm advocating giving the umps gear which helps them improve their accuracy, not replacing them. In fact, the only guy balls-to-the-walls for replacement is MVP. At least argue the idea I'm actually presenting.

 

I'm with you on this. I have no problem with a system that gives umpires the correct information, as long as that information is then presented to the players and fans through the umpire, much like instant replay.

 

I just hate the idea of replacing the ball/strike calls with a computer, or any other change that gradually phases out human interaction. If you replace the HP ump with a camera-computer, why not replace the base umpires with them as well? Install wireless sensors in the bases and gloves to determine safe/out calls. Replace managers with a computer that cycles through data two or three million times faster than a human, and let it make pitching changes and baserunning decisions. Replace the first and third base coaches too. Eventually, we won't need players at all! Or stadiums, for that matter. We can just have each player's career stats plugged into a central database (or in the case of new players, allow them to play 20 or 30 games against each other to establish a baseline and plug that in). Then we can let the computer extrapolate from that data and give us the "results" of all 162 games for each team and the results from the playoffs. The entire season could be scaled down to the click of a button and ten minutes of processing. Then we could have an Amazon delivery drone drop off the World Series Trophy to...wherever. Probably still not the Cubs.

 

I realize that this is more than slightly hyperbolic, but my point remains that turning any sport into one that is so heavily dependent on computers and cameras turns it from a cherished and personal tradition for millions into an assembly line, churning out "games" for the entertainment of a mindless public. Giving gear to the umps to help them be a little better at their jobs keeps baseball relevant without losing what baseball is fundamentally about: people. Getting rid of the homeplate umpire and letting the batter and catcher stand in front of a machine turns it into an antiseptic bore.

[User Name]

I would need to read something definitive on your a and b. As for c, I think the DH is moot because the NL eschews it. The playoffs are about money, nothing more, and hardly a refinement to the basic game. Heck, they were copies from the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Instant replay is a mixed blessing to me. Overall, it speeds up the game by preventing managers from racing onto the field every time they don't like a call. But instant replays also interrupt the flow of the game, and half the time they only confirm what the umpire called.

 

As for you later point about goggles to assist umpires, I'm not so sure, but will at least reserve judgment.

 

Check out the pitch/fx primer. A google search would yield it immediately, if not, I will post it later.

[mvp 78]

In fact, the only guy balls-to-the-walls for replacement is MVP.

 

I'm not arguing that the homeplate ump should be completely replaced by a computer. I'm arguing that a computer should take over the balls and strikes calls only. The ump can still call plays at the plate, check swings, foul tips, allow for time to be called, etc. As long as umps continue to miss 13% of their calls, a change should be made. Could you imagine the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1b?

[User Name]

I'm not arguing that the homeplate ump should be completely replaced by a computer. I'm arguing that a computer should take over the balls and strikes calls only. The ump can still call plays at the plate, check swings, foul tips, allow for time to be called, etc. As long as umps continue to miss 13% of their calls, a change should be made. Could you imagine the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1b?

 

Well but you do want a computer to replace the umpire in the pitch calling aspect? That's what I actually meant. I don't think anyone wants to replace the umpire with an actual robot

[User Name]

http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/pitchtracker.html

 

This is a bit older, but has links to articles that explain every little nuisance of the pitch/fx system (the pure one, as both it and the gameday system have undergone improvements) but everything pertaining the system core is present.

[mvp 78]

Well but you do want a computer to replace the umpire in the pitch calling aspect? That's what I actually meant. I don't think anyone wants to replace the umpire with an actual robot

 

I'm just taking it step by step.

 

Robot Umps 2020!

[Maxbialystock]

I'm not arguing that the homeplate ump should be completely replaced by a computer. I'm arguing that a computer should take over the balls and strikes calls only. The ump can still call plays at the plate, check swings, foul tips, allow for time to be called, etc. As long as umps continue to miss 13% of their calls, a change should be made. Could you imagine the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1b?

 

If you take umpires out of calling balls and strikes, you have effectively put them on the sidelines. Balls and strikes are uniquely central to the game of baseball. I love your point about "the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1B." I love it because everybody watching games on TV knows that umpires miss calls on balls and strikes--call it 13% of the time if you will--and there has been no public outcry because it's an expected part of the game. As I keep saying, missed calls on balls and strikes do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out and bad pitchers from getting hit.

[User Name]

The public outcry is there right now, and it's gaining steam, not just from fans, but from sportswriters as well.

[mvp 78]

If you take umpires out of calling balls and strikes, you have effectively put them on the sidelines. Balls and strikes are uniquely central to the game of baseball. I love your point about "the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1B." I love it because everybody watching games on TV knows that umpires miss calls on balls and strikes--call it 13% of the time if you will--and there has been no public outcry because it's an expected part of the game. As I keep saying, missed calls on balls and strikes do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out and bad pitchers from getting hit.

 

Missed calls affect my enjoyment of the game. That's my point. You can bloviate about whatever, but it doesn't change how I feel about it.

 

Balls and strikes are central to baseball, so let's get the calls right. The more you talk about how important ball and strike calls are to baseball, the more I realize that a change should be made.

[S5Dewey]

If you take umpires out of calling balls and strikes, you have effectively put them on the sidelines. Balls and strikes are uniquely central to the game of baseball. I love your point about "the outrage if the 1b ump missed 13% of the plays at 1B." I love it because everybody watching games on TV knows that umpires miss calls on balls and strikes--call it 13% of the time if you will--and there has been no public outcry because it's an expected part of the game. As I keep saying, missed calls on balls and strikes do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out and bad pitchers from getting hit.

I'm not sure I agree about the "no public outcry" part of your post. IMO you're seeing a public outcry in these posts. The problem is that there's no venue for people to express their frustration with the umpiring. We have each other.

Last year during the playoffs one of the networks did an ongoing segment about the umpires, how difficult their job is, and what MLB is doing to improve the quality of umpiring. Basically a puff piece to give credibility to umpires. That in itself tells me that MLB sees that there's a problem. They're just trying to get out ahead of any outcry.

[sk7326]

For me, a lot of being against robot umps is with the fundamental idea of humans being replaced by robots/automated systems. I understand that times have changed and that technology can do things better, faster, and in most cases, cheaper. I get that. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

 

I am willing to give up 13% in accuracy in order to keep human umpires.

 

What is so wrong with that being MY preference?

 

I think you make a lot of sense here. I envision it more as the home plate ump gets a signal (or in Joe West's case, perhaps the home bat boy can come from the on-deck circle with a cattle prod) when the pitch is a strike and he makes the call - or something like that. The guy at the plate still has more than enough to do. Having the officials fully computerized would detract from the game, although I don't really see that as a meaningful end state to talk about - it's a practical impossibility.

 

I have some traditionalist views (don't like 6 division format or interleague play, and I imagine I would have hated the DH if I were alive in 1974, although now I am amazed people want to watch pitchers hit), but I think the state of balls and strikes compared to publicly available information is so comical that at some point it will be hard to keep talking about the emperor's clothes.

[Kimmi]

I'm more like the guy in the Monty Python sketch who's just looking for a good argument. (I wish they had better smileys here. The selection of emoticons they have on the music forum I just joined a while ago is beautiful LOL)

 

I'm always looking for a good argument/debate also. That's why I come here.

 

I agree about the smileys here. They stink.

[mvp 78]

I think 11 smiley options are perfectly cromulent.

 

There used to be more here (Papi specific emojis), but they tend to get overused.

[Kimmi]

The problem is, that you (and others) and this is directed to all of you, are misunderstanding my argument and lumping me in with the others. I'm advocating giving the umps gear which helps them improve their accuracy, not replacing them. In fact, the only guy balls-to-the-walls for replacement is MVP. At least argue the idea I'm actually presenting.

 

I have understood what your argument is. To me, equipping the umpires with the technology that will determine whether a pitch is a ball or a strike, and then having the umpire call ball or strike based on the determination made by the technology, is still replacing the human aspect. The technology is still doing the work for the umpire. That's no different to me than getting rid of the umpire altogether.

 

I would have no problem with the umpires looking at data after each 1/2 inning to see how they did, and trying to make improvements during the game on calls that they were missing. They are already using this data in between games, and they are improving.

[Kimmi]

I'm with you on this. I have no problem with a system that gives umpires the correct information, as long as that information is then presented to the players and fans through the umpire, much like instant replay.

 

I just hate the idea of replacing the ball/strike calls with a computer, or any other change that gradually phases out human interaction. If you replace the HP ump with a camera-computer, why not replace the base umpires with them as well? Install wireless sensors in the bases and gloves to determine safe/out calls. Replace managers with a computer that cycles through data two or three million times faster than a human, and let it make pitching changes and baserunning decisions. Replace the first and third base coaches too. Eventually, we won't need players at all! Or stadiums, for that matter. We can just have each player's career stats plugged into a central database (or in the case of new players, allow them to play 20 or 30 games against each other to establish a baseline and plug that in). Then we can let the computer extrapolate from that data and give us the "results" of all 162 games for each team and the results from the playoffs. The entire season could be scaled down to the click of a button and ten minutes of processing. Then we could have an Amazon delivery drone drop off the World Series Trophy to...wherever. Probably still not the Cubs.

 

I realize that this is more than slightly hyperbolic, but my point remains that turning any sport into one that is so heavily dependent on computers and cameras turns it from a cherished and personal tradition for millions into an assembly line, churning out "games" for the entertainment of a mindless public. Giving gear to the umps to help them be a little better at their jobs keeps baseball relevant without losing what baseball is fundamentally about: people. Getting rid of the homeplate umpire and letting the batter and catcher stand in front of a machine turns it into an antiseptic bore.

 

Good post.