How Bad Are the Umps?

[mvp 78]

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.

 

Barely improving.

[Kimmi]

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

 

I agree that the public outcry exists. I am sure that we will eventually see the day where automated strike zones are used because of the outcry.

[mvp 78]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-automated-strike-zone-20150810-story.html

 

The games progressed smoothly and the technology was well-received — even by the umpires. "Since we found out more about it — how it's going to work, where it's going to work — I've had more positive feedback than I have negative," Dean Poteet, who worked behind home plate in one of the games, told the Associated Press.

 

Poteet was still busy even without making judgments on balls and strikes. He was responsible for fair or foul calls on balls in the infield, watched for balks, and made safe or out calls on plays at the plate.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I am sure that I would not have liked the DH either had I been alive back then.

 

I'm a huge fan of data and stats, and using available information to improve. I think the available information should be used to improve the umpiring, and it has been used to improve the umpiring. But I don't think it should be used to allow technology to replace humans. Humans are not meant to be perfect. If 85% is the best that humans can be, then so be it.

[mvp 78]

IF there was only public outcry on the matter...

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/strike-zone-umpires-automation-automatic-computer-hal-questec-091214

 

My first choice would be to automate the strike zone – again, assuming that it’s actually a practical thing – but only with a new strike zone, subject to adjustment in future seasons as data warrants. My second choice would be to leave things alone, and just wait for that inevitable tipping point. And my third choice is just to automate the strike zone without any real thought about those good ol unintended consequences.

[Kimmi]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-automated-strike-zone-20150810-story.html

 

The games progressed smoothly and the technology was well-received — even by the umpires. "Since we found out more about it — how it's going to work, where it's going to work — I've had more positive feedback than I have negative," Dean Poteet, who worked behind home plate in one of the games, told the Associated Press.

 

Poteet was still busy even without making judgments on balls and strikes. He was responsible for fair or foul calls on balls in the infield, watched for balks, and made safe or out calls on plays at the plate.

 

This is not a question of whether it will work in improving the accuracy. It's the principle of having technology doing the job in place of a person. The fact that the umpire still has plenty to do is irrelevant.

[mvp 78]

Is the technology even reliable?!?!?

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14599589/re-imagining-baseball-robot-umpires-home-plate

 

MLB has had the ability to implement this for years now. One of the common arguments against automatic balls and strikes is that we still can't count on the technology, which is a rather strange argument. We have planes that make thousands of imperceptible course directions accurately and without human contact. We have machines that fabricate transistors for CPUs so small that they are only a few atoms wide. We have mapped out the human genome, the very building blocks of our existence. Yet somehow, in baseball, identifying where a white sphere crosses a white pentagon a couple of feet away is some monumental technological challenge? Poppycock.

[User Name]

If 85% is the best that humans can be, bring on our robot overlords.

[mvp 78]

This is not a question of whether it will work in improving the accuracy. It's the principle of having technology doing the job in place of a person. The fact that the umpire still has plenty to do is irrelevant.

 

So I guess you are picketing against auto manufacturers then?

 

As an accountant, should I no longer use Excel and only do all my calculations by hand?

 

People still need to be employed to actually run the system and act as a fail safe.

[mvp 78]

If 85% is the best that humans can be, bring on our robot overlords.

 

And they can all be designed to look like Grady Sizemore so that VA can be happy with it.

[mvp 78]

Based Speier:

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/05/09/can-computers-call-better-than-umps/NALM25cSoZB8KLevTSrUPN/story.html

 

The technology isn’t perfect. PITCHf/x has a margin of error of up to about an inch — though as Byrnes notes, that pales in comparison to a call that misses by nearly six times that amount. Byrnes suggests that while umpires will be skeptical of potential job loss from a change, crews could be expanded not just to preserve a plate umpire responsible for all calls not related to the strike zone, but also a fifth member who would work with a technician on the strike zone and also provide an on-site arbiter of other plays subject to replay.

 

Good news if you keep ranting that baseball's beauty is in it's imperfection. PITCHf/x still has a margin of error of an inch!!!

 

Check mate anti-robot movement!

[User Name]

The robot element!

[User Name]

 

This picture from the last article MVP posted clearly outlines the leeway zone umpires get in the Pitch/Fx system used by MLB gameday.

[mvp 78]

IF the only errors made were in the gray zone, I'd never complain. The fact that there are erroneous calls made like that Papi K is just embarrassing.

[mvp 78]

How is a batter supposed to know what to swing at when umps can be all over the place? Isn't that the crux of the issue? Doesn't it make the most sense to have a standardized strike zone?

 

And god forbid if a player or manager complains about an ump closing his eyes during a pitch...

[Kimmi]

This picture from the last article MVP posted clearly outlines the leeway zone umpires get in the Pitch/Fx system used by MLB gameday.

 

That is not a leeway zone. It is a ball zone.

 

Now there is a "called zone" that Brooks uses, but that is not it.

[User Name]

That is not a leeway zone. It is a ball zone.

 

Now there is a "called zone" that Brooks uses, but that is not it.

 

It's not a "ball zone" It's literally a gray area where strikes may be called. Hell, they've even incorporated it into current-gen videogames, and that's exactly what they call it!

[Kimmi]

So I guess you are picketing against auto manufacturers then?

 

As an accountant, should I no longer use Excel and only do all my calculations by hand?

 

People still need to be employed to actually run the system and act as a fail safe.

 

I'm not picketing against anything. It's just something I prefer. I would not stop watching baseball if they automated the strike zone, just like I did not stop watching when they instituted instant replay, which I was against.

 

Manufacturing automobiles and entering numbers into an Excel spreadsheet are not tasks that rely on human interaction. The sport of baseball does.

[Kimmi]

It's not a "ball zone" It's literally a gray area where strikes may be called. Hell, they've even incorporated it into current-gen videogames, and that's exactly what they call it!

 

The definition from the MLB site about Pitch/FX used in MLB Gameday says it's a ball zone. I posted that definition to you. And it's not literally gray. The color varies depending on the batter hot zones.

[mvp 78]

I will often change the channel when they go to a replay. I think the replay system is a big blunder.

 

Manufacturing automobiles and entering numbers into an Excel spreadsheet are not tasks that rely on human interaction. The sport of baseball does.

 

At one point they were, which was my point.

[Kimmi]

http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/components/gameday/v4/images/about/hotcoldzone.jpg

[Kimmi]

I will often change the channel when they go to a replay. I think the replay system is a big blunder.

 

Manufacturing automobiles and entering numbers into an Excel spreadsheet are not tasks that rely on human interaction. The sport of baseball does.

 

At one point they were, which was my point.

 

I don't think it's the same thing.

 

That said, it could be that 30 years down the road, I will not be able to imagine that I was at one point against robot umpires.

[mvp 78]

How is it not the same thing? The auto industry went from humans on an assembly line to robots monitored by humans. Accountants went from writing out all their work and doing the calculations themselves to data entry in a spreadsheet.

[Bellhorn04]

How is it not the same thing? The auto industry went from humans on an assembly line to robots monitored by humans. Accountants went from writing out all their work and doing the calculations themselves to data entry in a spreadsheet.

 

Sport does fall in a different category though. If sport was only about optimum performance PED's would be a good thing.

[sk7326]

This is not a question of whether it will work in improving the accuracy. It's the principle of having technology doing the job in place of a person. The fact that the umpire still has plenty to do is irrelevant.

 

Now this is interesting. Your previous defense as a jobs program to give Angel Hernandez something to do I am pretty cool with. The Dickensian nightmare of unemployed umps bums me out. But the principle here - that a person should do this job which can be done with technology better, in a manner that would be easy to implement, just because - is harder to go with. Now this is not something like kiosks replacing workers at a restaurant - we are talking about roughly 12% of an umpires workload over a season - it's simplify a human task. Since the home plate umpire will be there, and be solidly busy - I am not sure how idiot-proofing a part of the job violates the spirit of the endeavor.

[sk7326]

Sport does fall in a different category though. If sport was only about optimum performance PED's would be a good thing.

 

Yes, although the players playing vs the rule enforcement seem like distinct deals.

[mvp 78]

Sport does fall in a different category though. If sport was only about optimum performance PED's would be a good thing.

 

If PED's helped the umps, I'm all for it. We're talking about umpiring not player performance. The umpires are not athletes. They are there just to do a job, the same as an auto worker or accountant.

[SoxnCycles]

It's not a "ball zone" It's literally a gray area where strikes may be called. Hell, they've even incorporated it into current-gen videogames, and that's exactly what they call it!

 

Well, if video games call it that, I'm convinced!

 

Geez...

[SoxnCycles]

If PED's helped the umps, I'm all for it. We're talking about umpiring not player performance. The umpires are not athletes. They are there just to do a job, the same as an auto worker or accountant.

 

What we're talking about is productivity (trans: money) vs fan entertainment.

 

Not even close to being the same, no matter how much you try to stretch it.

[User Name]

Well, if video games call it that, I'm convinced!

 

Geez...

 

How about posting something productive for once, like making an actual point? They added the system because it's gained legitimate use by the MLB.