How Bad Are the Umps?

[User Name]

Flat-eartherism is not a fair label. If I were arguing that the technology would not be more accurate than humans, then that would be one thing. How can you tell me that my preference to have humans calling balls and strikes is wrong?

 

IMO, increasing the accuracy of balls/strikes while dehumanizing the game, and it would dehumanize the game to an extent, would take some of the enjoyment out of the game. You feel otherwise, and I respect that. Do not disrespect my preference because it differs from yours.

 

Because it directly collides with the objective rules of the game of baseball. If my preference was to have every inside-the-park homer be worth two runs, it's my preference, but it's against the rules.

[mvp 78]

It's not that an imperfect strike zone appeals to me. I just don't like the idea of the game becoming automated or dehumanized in any way. If my choices are to have technology call the game with 99% accuracy or have humans call the game with 86% accuracy, I'm going with the latter.

 

As I've said before, I think baseball, with all of its quirks, is a beautiful and great game the way it is. Leave it alone.

 

Since you like quirks, will you help me tear down the moster seats and reinstall the net? Max can help me reinstall the troughs in the mens' room.

[a700hitter]

When someone talks about the 140 years of baseball tradition ... it is fun to note that there were 71 years of national league baseball (a bit less than the 88 year Sox curse) before integration. It's okay to try to make things better. Obviously the level of social justice is not comparable.

Oh okay-- that I get, but tying non-integration to the curse at all lost me, and tying it to most of the length of the curse was not accurate at all.

 

The Yankees integrated only 4 years before the Red Sox and they won a ton of championships. I don't think our lack of integration played much of a roll in our 86 year drought, but I get your point about progress.

[illinoisredsox]

That is incorrect. 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. The actual reason for most of the missed calls is a bunch of umpires having strike zones that are different than the one presented by the official rulebook.

 

Question, does pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone detect in 3-D or in 2-D?

[User Name]

Question, does pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone detect in 3-D or in 2-D?

 

It's a fully scaled 3d model adjusted to batter height on an ab to ab basis. I am on my phone but I will post the link to the specs and description later.

[Emp9]

Question, does pitchFX/Gameday's strike zone detect in 3-D or in 2-D?

 

That's a good question. Setting aside a catcher's pitch framing, i've seen where both the umps & Pitchfx may rely too heavily on where the pitch ultimately ends up. I always find myself asking, was that pitch at any point a strike? Of course the height & width of the strike zone would have to be hit, but I'm talking more about the depth.

[illinoisredsox]

It's a fully scaled 3d model adjusted to batter height on an ab to ab basis. I am on my phone but I will post the link to the specs and description later.

 

That's okay. I was just curious. Most people think of the strike zone as a square at the front of the plate when the reality is it is a pentagonal cube (for lack of a better description).

 

In theory, if a pitcher could throw a breaking pitch that just crosses the back point of the triangle going sideways, it would be a strike. Now I know that's not a pitch that could really be thrown (although some of those lefty specialists seem to come close) and I doubt an ump would call it a strike, but it should be.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen it, but the Toronto home team broadcasts have a strike zone graphic that they can rotate to show depth. It's pretty cool.

 

It really is amazing how much the ball can sink over the length of home plate.

[User Name]

You can actually rotate the gameday strike zone just like that, and with even more in-depth pitch trajectory/velocity data if you have the premium At-Bat package.

[User Name]

That's a good question. Setting aside a catcher's pitch framing, i've seen where both the umps & Pitchfx may rely too heavily on where the pitch ultimately ends up. I always find myself asking, was that pitch at any point a strike? Of course the height & width of the strike zone would have to be hit, but I'm talking more about the depth.

 

I answered that just above this question. It's a 3d model with included pitch trajectory. It not only shows where the pitch "ended up" but how it traveled to/through the zone (if it's a strike in this case).

[a700hitter]

You can actually rotate the gameday strike zone just like that, and with even more in-depth pitch trajectory/velocity data if you have the premium At-Bat package.

And what happens if the system malfunctions, e.g. power outage, or a calibration malfunction etc? Baseball doesn't need another reason to have game delays. I am not seeing the burning need for this. If an ump gets injured, they roll another ump out immediately. It would be a nightmare if the system went down mid game.

[sk7326]

Flat-eartherism is not a fair label. If I were arguing that the technology would not be more accurate than humans, then that would be one thing. How can you tell me that my preference to have humans calling balls and strikes is wrong?

 

IMO, increasing the accuracy of balls/strikes while dehumanizing the game, and it would dehumanize the game to an extent, would take some of the enjoyment out of the game. You feel otherwise, and I respect that. Do not disrespect my preference because it differs from yours.

 

I do understand the quirks - baseball fans are funny. An entire half of them want to watch pitchers hit after all. (a professional athlete doing something which is impossible for him to do well while working on his primary craft) I respect your view - I am all about the human element ... but I'm not there to watch the umpshows.

[sk7326]

And what happens if the system malfunctions, e.g. power outage, or a calibration malfunction etc? Baseball doesn't need another reason to have game delays. I am not seeing the burning need for this. If an ump gets injured, they roll another ump out immediately. It would be a nightmare if the system went down mid game.

 

If the system went down, you'd have human umps again. I'd actually advocate for human umpiring through other levels of baseball because you don't want the skill - such as it is - to completely atrophy.

[Spudboy]

Since you like quirks, will you help me tear down the moster seats and reinstall the net? Max can help me reinstall the troughs in the mens' room.

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

I miss that net!

 

But those troughs!!!!!

[illinoisredsox]

If the system went down, you'd have human umps again. I'd actually advocate for human umpiring through other levels of baseball because you don't want the skill - such as it is - to completely atrophy.

 

Ugh. Breakdowns aren't going to happen all that often. A veteran could go a few years without calling a live pitch, and some young guy just up out of the minors would have to adjust on the fly to major league pitching, especially the filthy breaking stuff. And let's not kid ourselves, just as players have to adjust when they first come up, so do umpires.

[User Name]

And what happens if the system malfunctions, e.g. power outage, or a calibration malfunction etc? Baseball doesn't need another reason to have game delays. I am not seeing the burning need for this. If an ump gets injured, they roll another ump out immediately. It would be a nightmare if the system went down mid game.

 

In 2016? And with a system that has been in place for 10+ years and has never malfunctioned? Yeah, find another excuse.

[User Name]

If the system went down, you'd have human umps again. I'd actually advocate for human umpiring through other levels of baseball because you don't want the skill - such as it is - to completely atrophy.

 

This too.

[Emp9]

I answered that just above this question. It's a 3d model with included pitch trajectory. It not only shows where the pitch "ended up" but how it traveled to/through the zone (if it's a strike in this case).

 

Sorry, I was talking more about the Amica Strike zone. Having MLB Premium on my phone, I never really use the Gameday feature. I'd rather just watch the game.

[mvp 78]

Sorry, I was talking more about the Amica Strike zone. Having MLB Premium on my phone, I never really use the Gameday feature. I'd rather just watch the game.

 

I think you mean the "Ameeker Strike Zone."

[Spudboy]

I think you mean the "Ameeker Strike Zone."

 

Thanks Jerry.

 

And booainose nachose.

[Kimmi]

But in the JBJ at-bat that I posted the GameDay screen freeze of, there were two pitches clearly well outside the strike zone that were both called strikes. Not borderline at all. Those are the ones that are really aggravating.

 

I get that. Believe me, I get just as frustrated as you with the missed calls. There are some bad calls, but I still think the majority of the missed calls are borderline.

[Kimmi]

That is incorrect. 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. The actual reason for most of the missed calls is a bunch of umpires having strike zones that are different than the one presented by the official rulebook.

 

I don't think that's right. I don't think Pitch/FX gives umpires a significant leeway on missed calls.

 

Also, my understanding is that Pitch/FX measures marks each pitch using the center of the ball. It is quite possible that the center of the ball does not hit the plate but the edge of the ball does.

[Kimmi]

Because it directly collides with the objective rules of the game of baseball. If my preference was to have every inside-the-park homer be worth two runs, it's my preference, but it's against the rules.

 

Well that is the fault of MLB for allowing umpires to create their own strike zones. If an umpire is creating his own zone, or not performing up to standards in other ways, including "spite" calls, he should be replaced.

[Kimmi]

Since you like quirks, will you help me tear down the moster seats and reinstall the net? Max can help me reinstall the troughs in the mens' room.

 

Yes, because those things have a large impact on the actual game.

[Kimmi]

That's okay. I was just curious. Most people think of the strike zone as a square at the front of the plate when the reality is it is a pentagonal cube (for lack of a better description).

 

In theory, if a pitcher could throw a breaking pitch that just crosses the back point of the triangle going sideways, it would be a strike. Now I know that's not a pitch that could really be thrown (although some of those lefty specialists seem to come close) and I doubt an ump would call it a strike, but it should be.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen it, but the Toronto home team broadcasts have a strike zone graphic that they can rotate to show depth. It's pretty cool.

 

It really is amazing how much the ball can sink over the length of home plate.

 

Pitch/FX is 3D, but the images that are shown on the tv during games is the 2D box at the front of the plate. This can be misleading to fans because what looks like a ball in that graphic might have come back over the plate.

 

That said, a study has shown that most umpires tend to focus on the front of the zone. Their accuracy is much better if a pitch crosses the plate at the front of the zone. Accuracy is not as good on back door strikes or strikes that start high but drop into the zone at the back of the plate.

[User Name]

I don't think that's right. I don't think Pitch/FX gives umpires a significant leeway on missed calls.

 

Also, my understanding is that Pitch/FX measures marks each pitch using the center of the ball. It is quite possible that the center of the ball does not hit the plate but the edge of the ball does.

 

Check out gameday yourself. It shows the "gray area" given to leeway for the umpires.

[User Name]

Well that is the fault of MLB for allowing umpires to create their own strike zones. If an umpire is creating his own zone, or not performing up to standards in other ways, including "spite" calls, he should be replaced.

 

Or he could be given the tools to improve his strike zone, while MLB uses the same tools to measure his effectiveness.

[mvp 78]

Yes, because those things have a large impact on the actual game.

 

They have a large impact on my enjoyment of it. Isn't that what we're talking about? A robot ump would have no impact on the game other than a consistent strike zone.

[a700hitter]

Three things:

 

1. It would be a big change to the tradition of the game.

2. I am also sure that the umpires' union might have something to say about it.

3. Finally, I see no burning issue that needs to be addressed.

[User Name]

1) No, it would be enforcement of rules that have been in place since the middle of the 20th century.

2) The umps' union is weaksauce.

3) Umps suck because they have an impossible task, we have the technology to help them. The issue is reaching cinder status.

[a700hitter]

1) No, it would be enforcement of rules that have been in place since the middle of the 20th century.

2) The umps' union is weaksauce.

3) Umps suck because they have an impossible task, we have the technology to help them. The issue is reaching cinder status.

I disagree with 1 and 3.