How Bad Are the Umps?

[SoxnCycles]

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.

 

 

Because you obviously skipped it the first time Kimmi posted it:

"Use the hot/cold zones to find the pitch locations in which the current batter and pitcher perform their best, and where they struggle. The strike zone is divided into nine regions and balls are grouped into four regions, with each zone color-coded to indicate whether the batter or pitcher is hot or cold in that zone."

 

I know it's not as "productive" as "posts like "it's the human element!", but I'll work on it.

[Spudboy]

lol.

[User Name]

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.

 

I actually get where the discrepancy lies: You pulled that up from the "About Gameday" part of the mlb.com site, correct?

 

Well what they define as the "ball zone" is actually a zone right outside the 3x3 grid where pitches should be called balls but can realistically be called strikes.

 

In this image:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/components/gameday/v4/images/about/3d2.jpg

 

You can clearly see the implementation of a "greyed out" area to illustrate this very point.

 

Remember that this discussion started because of the measurement of of umpire accuracy:

https://www.umpirebible.com/blog/?p=542

 

This is an interesting read on the methodology used by people who use pitch/fx to gather strike zone data ( As I have stated before, there is a margin for error applied to the umpire, they call them "true strikes"). Even better, and this is going to be right up your wheelhouse (and MVP's) there's a large-scale discussion on clear umpire biases here. Recommended reading.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

So having a properly called strike zone wouldn't be more productive?

[User Name]

Because you obviously skipped it the first time Kimmi posted it:

"Use the hot/cold zones to find the pitch locations in which the current batter and pitcher perform their best, and where they struggle. The strike zone is divided into nine regions and balls are grouped into four regions, with each zone color-coded to indicate whether the batter or pitcher is hot or cold in that zone."

 

I know it's not as "productive" as "posts like "it's the human element!", but I'll work on it.

 

I did not, and that's not the point. This is exactly what YOTN called you out on the other day, and it might be a good idea to cut that s*** out. I may f*** around every so often, but I make actual baseball-related posts on here instead of constantly looking to create flame wars. Again, the infamous "ball zone", for the purposes of measuring pitcher accuracy, is used as a leeway point for umpires, because while everything that falls on there is supposed to be called a ball (per the rulebook) they are semi-consistently called strikes if they even touch the zone.

 

But don't take my word for it, read the article I posted above which presents some studies on both strize-zone accuracy and umpire bias. I'm not the one doing these studies.

[SoxnCycles]

So having a properly called strike zone wouldn't be more productive?

 

To whom?

[mvp 78]

To whom?

 

Games would be quicker. Fans win.

 

Players would have a better idea at when to swing as there isn't an amoeba blob of a zone to contend with. Players win.

 

Umps would be under less scrutiny. Umps win.

 

This conversation would die. We all win.

[mvp 78]

My favorite part so far "The data covers 4,914 games, 313,774 at-bats, and 756,848 pitches (non-swinging pitches only). That’s over three-quarters of a million pitches.

[User Name]

My favorite part so far "The data covers 4,914 games, 313,774 at-bats, and 756,848 pitches (non-swinging pitches only). That’s over three-quarters of a million pitches.

 

The part about umpire errors, measurements and true strikes is really deep into the study analysis. Have fun!

[mvp 78]

The part about umpire errors, measurements and true strikes is really deep into the study analysis. Have fun!

 

Do you want me to read the study too? Or just the blog post?

[User Name]

Do you want me to read the study too? Or just the blog post?

 

The study's huge. Read the blog spot

[User Name]

His conclusion is annoying, but the data is right in line with the fact that umpires should be doing a better job.

[SoxnCycles]

I did not, and that's not the point. This is exactly what YOTN called you out on the other day, and it might be a good idea to cut that s*** out. I may f*** around every so often, but I make actual baseball-related posts on here instead of constantly looking to create flame wars. Again, the infamous "ball zone", for the purposes of measuring pitcher accuracy, is used as a leeway point for umpires, because while everything that falls on there is supposed to be called a ball (per the rulebook) they are semi-consistently called strikes if they even touch the zone.

 

But don't take my word for it, read the article I posted above which presents some studies on both strize-zone accuracy and umpire bias. I'm not the one doing these studies.

 

You're the one that stated "The analysis uses pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone system which, as presented before on this very thread, gives umpires a significant leeway (about the size of the baseball) to all quadrants of the strike zone."

 

 

Eveyone knows there has to be some sort of leeway, but it's not specified in Pitch\Fx Gameday.

It's impossible for the human eye to tell if a pitch is in or out of a K zone by a fraction of an inch.

 

And I don't give a flying f*** what you think of my posts.

[SoxnCycles]

Games would be quicker. Fans win.

 

Players would have a better idea at when to swing as there isn't an amoeba blob of a zone to contend with. Players win.

 

Umps would be under less scrutiny. Umps win.

 

This conversation would die. We all win.

 

That's a list of "make me happy"s, not an improvement of productivity or the game's bottom line.

Keep stretching.

[mvp 78]

His conclusion is annoying, but the data is right in line with the fact that umpires should be doing a better job.

 

So the MLB umpires we watch and model on aren’t so damn bad after all — or so I say.

 

It was funny. What else would you expect from an umpiring blog?

[mvp 78]

That's a list of "make me happy"s, not an improvement of productivity or the game's bottom line.

Keep stretching.

 

Well, I've already stated numerous times that baseball is currently a game that is beloved by an aging core. Once the boomers die out, we can expect contraction. In order to reach a younger market share, they should attempt to modernize parts of the game that are antiquated. Will it fix the bottom line tomorrow? Nope. Could modernizing the game prevent the bottom line from crashing in the future? Maybe.

[mvp 78]

And Kimmi's original point had nothing to do with productivity. It was more about fears concerning the workforce changing, which is constantly happening regardless of what we post on here.

 

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.

[SoxnCycles]

Well, I've already stated numerous times that baseball is currently a game that is beloved by an aging core. Once the boomers die out, we can expect contraction. In order to reach a younger market share, they should attempt to modernize parts of the game that are antiquated. Will it fix the bottom line tomorrow? Nope. Could modernizing the game prevent the bottom line from crashing in the future? Maybe.

 

I'd love it if the umps did a better job, but I think it's way down on the list of why baseball is having trouble pulling in new fans.

Think the average 14 year old is waiting for the umps to boost their accuracy rates to 6-8% before they invest their time into a game?

[mvp 78]

I'd love it if the umps did a better job, but I think it's way down on the list of why baseball is having trouble pulling in new fans.

Think the average 14 year old is waiting for the umps to boost their accuracy rates to 6-8% before they invest their time into a game?

 

It might be way down on the list, but it's on the list. It would speed up the game for certain. If you can make a simple change to improve the game, why hesitate?

 

I've never said it's the most important issue affecting the game today. It is "an" issue affecting the game.

[SoxnCycles]

It might be way down on the list, but it's on the list. It would speed up the game for certain. If you can make a simple change to improve the game, why hesitate?

 

I've never said it's the most important issue affecting the game today. It is "an" issue affecting the game.

 

Considering that players can't stand there and argue balls and strikes, I don't see where it speeds up the game any appreciable amount.

That could be done much easier by enforcing the existing rules that pitchers pitch in a timely manner.

 

Investing ina system that assists an ump in calling balls and strikes better is probably not worth the money.

They can't even be bothered to install cameras sighting down the foul lines.

[User Name]

You're the one that stated "The analysis uses pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone system which, as presented before on this very thread, gives umpires a significant leeway (about the size of the baseball) to all quadrants of the strike zone."

 

 

Eveyone knows there has to be some sort of leeway, but it's not specified in Pitch\Fx Gameday.

It's impossible for the human eye to tell if a pitch is in or out of a K zone by a fraction of an inch.

 

And I don't give a flying f*** what you think of my posts.

 

Then you don't know what you're responding to. Kimmi's initial point was that most of the umps' errors (per the studies) were done on borderline calls. What I argued was that that's not the case. Apparently you agree.

 

And whether you care what I think of your posts or not, you could stand being a little less of an argumentative douche, and a little more active on actual discussions, which you can proven you're pretty decent at.

[User Name]

So the MLB umpires we watch and model on aren’t so damn bad after all — or so I say.

 

It was funny. What else would you expect from an umpiring blog?

 

The study he analyzes very much argues otherwise. Umpire bias is pretty noticeable.

[SoxnCycles]

Then you don't know what you're responding to. Kimmi's initial point was that most of the umps' errors (per the studies) were done on borderline calls. What I argued was that that's not the case. Apparently you agree.

 

And whether you care what I think of your posts or not, you could stand being a little less of an argumentative douche, and a little more active on actual discussions, which you can proven you're pretty decent at.

 

So, you didn't post the above statement?

 

"I missspoke".

See? It's not that hard.

 

I'm not changing the way I post for you or anyone else. Time to get over it.

[User Name]

So, you didn't post the above statement?

 

"I missspoke".

See? It's not that hard.

 

I'm not changing the way I post for you or anyone else. Time to get over it.

 

Where did I misspeak? You jumped into the argument without knowing what you were responding to. Clearly my definition of the outside quadrants in gameday was wrong, but that doesn't invalidate the point. The studies consider the gray area, meaning the error rate determined by said studies is correct.

 

And feel free to continue being a jerk then. Whatever bro.

[SoxnCycles]

"Clearly my definition of the outside quadrants in gameday was wrong".

 

Which was what I've been saying.

 

"The studies consider the gray area, meaning the error rate determined by said studies is correct."

 

I agree.

 

"And feel free to continue being a jerk then."

 

Thanks, I will. Seems to work well for the majority of posters here.

[mvp 78]

The study he analyzes very much argues otherwise. Umpire bias is pretty noticeable.

 

LHH and RHH are clearly called differently. Not so damn bad!

 

Home pitchers are called more favorably than visitors. Not so damn bad!

 

9th inning calls are worse than 1st inning calls. Not so damn bad!

[User Name]

LHH and RHH are clearly called differently. Not so damn bad!

 

Home pitchers are called more favorably than visitors. Not so damn bad!

 

9th inning calls are worse than 1st inning calls. Not so damn bad!

 

And don't forget: The more of a superstar you are, the more favorable calls are to you. Not so damn bad!

[mvp 78]

And don't forget: The more of a superstar you are, the more favorable calls are to you. Not so damn bad!

 

That's every sport though. From protecting Tom Brady to giving Lebron extra free throws to Yaz saying "that's not a strike for me." That almost goes with the territory. It's the least surprising thing to me.

[Bellhorn04]

I love it when an announcer says something like this about a pitcher: 'When you're around the plate all the time, you're more likely to get the benefit of the doubt on borderline calls...'

 

That's great stuff!

[Bellhorn04]

Tonight's ump has a very interesting strike zone...Gameday is disagreeing with him quite a bit. I'm not bitching, just observing...