A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[notin]

I see the so-call robo pitch calling as a tool to aid the umpire do his or her job. Clearly, it has the potential to be far more accurate and less controversial. After another year of watching erroneous calls impact games and perhaps even the series outcome last night I have become more in favor. It has already been tested in two minor league applications, so the time for implementation in the majors is getting close.

 

When Lance Barksdale allegedly called a strike a ball solely because he felt the catcher usurped his authority by getting ready to throw it around the infield (something that happens so often, umpires should just be used to it by now), it absolutely was a point in favor or robot umps in my mind...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

A lot of good points made here. The human element will always be important; the game is played by humans, after all. Batters and pitchers just want to know a guy's strike zone early and hope it stays consistent throughout the game. This isn't playoff hockey, when refs swallow their whistles in the third period.

 

As players, we're always adjusting to the zone... is he calling it below the knees? Pitcher's ump. Does it have to be mid-thigh? Hitter's ump (but please don't make me have to swing at something two balls off the corner). Hopefully, everyone can stay respectful to the game; no matter what you may think of Correa, he showed class last night when he got rung up on an inside pitch with the Series on the line.

 

Baseball is all about making adjustments; it's the very essence of the game and we don't want to lose that aspect. Yesterday, some ex-big league pitchers on MLB radio were discussing robo umps used in the minors, and noted that calls fluctuated depending on the release point of a pitcher's delivery. They said sidearmers lost a lot of strike calls. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the premise?

[moonslav59]

The Robo Ump to me seems to kill the authenticity of the game. Its a baseball game based on tradition. Umps will always make a mistake on a call.. it's called human error and no one on this planet is perfect. One ump may give a inch or two in or out. These multimillionaire players and pitchers we have should be good enough to deal with the situation of a difference in one ump from the other. You don't hear any pitchers bitching when they get that called K on a pitch just out of the zone, and you don't see a batter looking back at the ump when ball four was actually a ball that crossed the black and should've been a K saying sorry big guy you missed that and I will not take my base on ball four.... C'mon guys the robo ump isn't how this game was ever intended to be played.

 

Umps should not be part of the game, especially in the sense where teams have to research what calls certain umps make or don't make and adjust your approach accordingly. I doubt any other sport does that.

 

I don't think it will, in any way, ruin the game. It might seem weird for a while, but it should not change anything about the game, except for drunk fans not being able to yell at the ump as much. Is that a bad thing?

[moonslav59]

yes. They're completely different things.

 

Whether or not trained human observers or software judges the defensive capabilities of a player doesn't impact the outcome of a game. That difference is massive. You might disagree with jbj's uzr rating, but how many games did that number cost the red sox?

 

b-i-n-g-o!

[moonslav59]

A lot of good points made here. The human element will always be important; the game is played by humans, after all. Batters and pitchers just want to know a guy's strike zone early and hope it stays consistent throughout the game. This isn't playoff hockey, when refs swallow their whistles in the third period.

 

As players, we're always adjusting to the zone... is he calling it below the knees? Pitcher's ump. Does it have to be mid-thigh? Hitter's ump (but please don't make me have to swing at something two balls off the corner). Hopefully, everyone can stay respectful to the game; no matter what you may think of Correa, he showed class last night when he got rung up on an inside pitch with the Series on the line.

 

Baseball is all about making adjustments; it's the very essence of the game and we don't want to lose that aspect. Yesterday, some ex-big league pitchers on MLB radio were discussing robo umps used in the minors, and noted that calls fluctuated depending on the release point of a pitcher's delivery. They said sidearmers lost a lot of strike calls. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the premise?

 

That can be corrected, and my guess is, they are already working on it.

 

Having one consistent strike zone has to outweigh any negatives, IMO.

 

Pitchers and batters will continue to have to adjust to each other, but they never should have and never should have to adjust to an ump. Plus, even when you adjust to an ump, they still make mistakes- more often than maybe we even know.

[S5Dewey]

b-i-n-g-o!

 

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Basic beliefs.

[Bellhorn04]

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Kimmi knows the umpire's eye test isn't more reliable, though.

[moonslav59]

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Basic beliefs.

 

It's totally different. I played the game for many years. I totally believe in the "human element" of the game as from a player's perspective. I might disagree on some things like comfort in a batting slot, but the human element is real and significant.

 

I just don't think we need a human element (translated to mistakes being made) by umps. They shouldn't be "part of the game," unless there is no way around it.

 

Technology can call balls & strikes way more consistently.

 

Trained observers who watch every game not just a few can judge better than I how good the CF'er of the padres is on D.

 

I don't see a disconnect.

[oldtimer]

A lot of good points made here. The human element will always be important; the game is played by humans, after all. Batters and pitchers just want to know a guy's strike zone early and hope it stays consistent throughout the game. This isn't playoff hockey, when refs swallow their whistles in the third period.

 

As players, we're always adjusting to the zone... is he calling it below the knees? Pitcher's ump. Does it have to be mid-thigh? Hitter's ump (but please don't make me have to swing at something two balls off the corner). Hopefully, everyone can stay respectful to the game; no matter what you may think of Correa, he showed class last night when he got rung up on an inside pitch with the Series on the line.

 

Baseball is all about making adjustments; it's the very essence of the game and we don't want to lose that aspect. Yesterday, some ex-big league pitchers on MLB radio were discussing robo umps used in the minors, and noted that calls fluctuated depending on the release point of a pitcher's delivery. They said sidearmers lost a lot of strike calls. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the premise?

 

From what I read of the result of the Arizona league, the side of the strike zone calls were good but where the difference occurs is balls that dive down and catch the front of the strike zone and wind up in the dirt at the catcher. With human decision making, those would be balls. The players who were interviewed indicate that pitch would require more adjustments. It seems that the high tech approach is at least consistent and wouldn't be impacted by hurt feelings or dizziness, blinking or other human frailties.

[notin]

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Basic beliefs.

 

Oh outside of the umpire's union, I doubt anyone thinks umpire's are more reliable than the technology. I am in favor of human umpires making calls because that is the tradition.

 

But the one problem with umpires is that when you start noticing them, it means they are not doing their jobs properly. And when they start making calls a matter of flexing authority, that is an issue baseball will not have to deal with.

 

You say you do not like UZR because it is an argument-ender. Well. nothing in baseball will stop arguments more than robotic strike zone calls. That's what the majority of arguments are about (despite it actually being illegal)...

[notin]

From what I read of the result of the Arizona league, the side of the strike zone calls were good but where the difference occurs is balls that dive down and catch the front of the strike zone and wind up in the dirt at the catcher. With human decision making, those would be balls. The players who were interviewed indicate that pitch would require more adjustments. It seems that the high tech approach is at least consistent and wouldn't be impacted by hurt feelings or dizziness, blinking or other human frailties.

 

As a former player, coach and umpire, I get how difficult the job is for a human. My daughter used to complain about umpire ball and strike zones. I've had to tell her "look, that guy's job is to decide whether or not any part of the ball passed through any part of an imaginery box while it's traveling about 40 miles per hour. It's not easy so cut him some slack."

 

And that's with pre-teen girls playing softball. With MLB umpires, that ball can be traveling upwards of 100mph. If you have ever faced am 80mph fastball, you know how quick it gets on top of you. And in MLB, a pitch that slow won't ever make it to the catcher, and all the ump has to do is decide what side of the foul pole it was on...

[moonslav59]

We'd still need an ump behind home plate, so no umps jobs are in danger.

 

Question, do robo umps detect foul tips?

[notin]

We'd still need an ump behind home plate, so no umps jobs are in danger.

 

Question, do robo umps detect foul tips?

 

True. Someone has to tell the batter what the robot umps call was...

[moonslav59]

True. Someone has to tell the batter what the robot umps call was...

 

They also will call plays at the plate or around it. They will call runner out of the baseline at key moments in World Series games. They may have to call foul tips and foul tips caught or not.

 

They also have to get in the way of the catcher, annoy some pitchers and eject people from time to time.

 

All the fun stuff stays.

[moonslav59]

Red Sox Claim Josh Osich

By Mark Polishuk | October 31, 2019 at 1:04pm CDT

 

The Red Sox have claimed left-hander Josh Osich off waivers from the White Sox, as per a team announcement.

 

Originally claimed off waivers from the Orioles last March, Osich posted a 4.66 ERA, 4.07 K/9 rate, and 8.1 K/9 over 67 2/3 relief innings for the White Sox last season. Osich’s effectiveness was limited to same-sided batters, as he held left-handed hitters to only a .551 OPS (115 plate appearances) while right-handed hitters mashed him to the tune of a .903 OPS (157 PA).

 

These numbers largely match Osich’s rather lopsided splits for his career, making him one of many specialist relievers (particularly lefties) whose careers could be altered by the three-batter minimum rule coming into effect in 2020. From Boston team in need of bullpen reinforcements, however, clearly the team sees value in exploring Osich’s potential. The 31-year-old does possess a mid-90’s fastball, and he has a solid 48.5% grounder rate over his 188 career MLB innings.

 

The waiver claim will shave a little bit of money off Chicago’s book, as Osich was projected to earn $1MM in his first year of arbitration eligibility.

 

The Bloom era has begun.

[moonslav59]

Sox Management:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/10/red-sox-front-office-notes.html

 

[Nick]

Red Sox Claim Josh Osich

By Mark Polishuk | October 31, 2019 at 1:04pm CDT

 

The Red Sox have claimed left-hander Josh Osich off waivers from the White Sox, as per a team announcement.

 

Originally claimed off waivers from the Orioles last March, Osich posted a 4.66 ERA, 4.07 K/9 rate, and 8.1 K/9 over 67 2/3 relief innings for the White Sox last season. Osich’s effectiveness was limited to same-sided batters, as he held left-handed hitters to only a .551 OPS (115 plate appearances) while right-handed hitters mashed him to the tune of a .903 OPS (157 PA).

 

These numbers largely match Osich’s rather lopsided splits for his career, making him one of many specialist relievers (particularly lefties) whose careers could be altered by the three-batter minimum rule coming into effect in 2020. From Boston team in need of bullpen reinforcements, however, clearly the team sees value in exploring Osich’s potential. The 31-year-old does possess a mid-90’s fastball, and he has a solid 48.5% grounder rate over his 188 career MLB innings.

 

The waiver claim will shave a little bit of money off Chicago’s book, as Osich was projected to earn $1MM in his first year of arbitration eligibility.

 

The Bloom era has begun.

 

Wait, wait, wait. They've ratified the three-batter minimum rule for 2020? Really?

[moonslav59]

Wait, wait, wait. They've ratified the three-batter minimum rule for 2020? Really?

 

Yup, and 26 man rosters until SEPT when everyone has to have 28- no more or less.

[Kimmi]

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Basic beliefs.

 

One has nothing to do with the other.

[moonslav59]

So, here is a look at the pitchers still under team control as of right now:

 

SP'ers

Sale, ERod, Price, Eovaldi

Hart, Kent, Reyes, Mata, Crawford

TWard, J Groome, J Diaz, A Scherff,Y Padron-Artiles

 

SP/RP'ers

Johnson, Velazquez, Weber, Shawaryn

Houck, Bello

 

RP'ers

Workman, Barnes, DHern, Taylor, Walden, Osich

Brasier, Hembree, Brewer, Lakins, Poyner, Kelly

Gorst, Feltman, Bazardo, Y Abar

 

[notin]

To me it's all about basic beliefs. If you believe you don't want the human element involved in baseball then you've got to believe in robo-umps and UZR.

 

If you want the human element involved then you believe in the 'eye test' - which is what every umpire uses in determining balls/strikes.

 

And, in fact, the umpire's eye test has more influence on the outcome of the game than does UZR, WAR, or any other statistically derived number. Therefore if one believes in technology and statistics how can they believe that the umpire's "eye test" is more reliable than the technology?

 

Basic beliefs.

 

Well, many people believe that nothing captures the human element worse than a human, due to our inherent cognitive biases.

 

For example, the belief that an individual can better evaluate defense than trained experts and software is a form of the common cognitive bias called the IKEA Effect, which is the tendency for people to place disproportionately high value on their own accomplishments regardless of actual quality - and so named after the crappy do-it-yourself furniture from IKEA. (And yes, it’s really called that.)

 

And of course, there is the tendency for a person to believe they are immune to cognitive biases, which itself is a cognitive bias called the Bias Blind Spot.

 

Umpires also naturally have their own set of cognitive biases as well, which can make an already crazy difficult job even worse...

[TylerD]

So, here is a look at the pitchers still under team control as of right now:

 

SP'ers

Sale, ERod, Price, Eovaldi

Hart, Kent, Reyes, Mata, Crawford

TWard, J Groome, J Diaz, A Scherff,Y Padron-Artiles

 

SP/RP'ers

Johnson, Velazquez, Weber, Shawaryn

Houck, Bello

 

RP'ers

Workman, Barnes, DHern, Taylor, Walden, Osich

Brasier, Hembree, Brewer, Lakins, Poyner, Kelly

Gorst, Feltman, Bazardo, Y Abar

 

Looks bad without Porcello in there. Unless we get Cole lol.

[S5Dewey]

Well, many people believe that nothing captures the human element worse than a human, due to our inherent cognitive biases.

 

For example, the belief that an individual can better evaluate defense than trained experts and software is a form of the common cognitive bias called the IKEA Effect, which is the tendency for people to place disproportionately high value on their own accomplishments regardless of actual quality - and so named after the crappy do-it-yourself furniture from IKEA. (And yes, it’s really called that.)

 

And of course, there is the tendency for a person to believe they are immune to cognitive biases, which itself is a cognitive bias called the Bias Blind Spot.

 

Umpires also naturally have their own set of cognitive biases as well, which can make an already crazy difficult job even worse...

 

Then since we've done away with all these biases through computer modeling to determine DWAR, UZR, etc. it would also make sense to do away with the last bastion of biases by replacing umpires with robo-umps.

 

All I'm asking for here is for people to be consistent. Either we want to do away with those biases or we don't, but it's a bit hypocritical to say that we want to use the technology for determining DWAR but not use it for balls/strikes, especially since we're already using it for umpiring in many situations.

 

If we're going to use technology then let's use it. Let's not say, "Well, we'll ignore the biases for this but not for that."

[notin]

Then since we've done away with all these biases through computer modeling to determine DWAR, UZR, etc. it would also make sense to do away with the last bastion of biases by replacing umpires with robo-umps.

 

That is an argument many are making and MLB might even be considering.

 

All I'm asking for here is for people to be consistent. Either we want to do away with those biases or we don't, but it's a bit hypocritical to say that we want to use the technology for determining DWAR but not use it for balls/strikes, especially since we're already using it for umpiring in many situations.

 

If we're going to use technology then let's use it. Let's not say, "Well, we'll ignore the biases for this but not for that."

 

It's absolutely not hypocritical.

 

While baseball hs embraced using technology to influence game play in the past - like the adoption of instant replay, that doesn't mean everything has to be an "either or" scenario. And the decision that "people need to be consistent" is immaterial. MLB doesn't mandate the use of software and experts for the calcualtion of UZR. That's an after-the-fact analytical tool used by the statistics companies. The changing to robot umps absolutely has some benefits, but to call the in-game decisions be made using MLB must meet the exact standards of the analytics afterwards is two completely different things.

 

Maybe a good parallel is our election process. We do maintain human exit polls and allow humans to do the actual voting. But many people have devised statisitcal models to predict elections with surprising accuracy, notably Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com (and formerly of Fangraphs.com). Just because we have the ability to predict elections with surprising results doesn't mean we need to dump the entire electoral process and replace human voting with statistical analysis....

Edited November 1, 2019 by notin

[moonslav59]

Looks bad without Porcello in there. Unless we get Cole lol.

 

It looks better without the 2019 Porcello, Thornburg, Wright, Cashner & Chacin in there.

[OH FOY]

Sean McAdam says Maybe we bring back Holt, and Porcello. At Very Reduced Salaries. That's it, who's a FA for the Sox.

[OH FOY]

Think about this Holt had a nice season, and made only 3.575 million, and he might not be coming back, because his salary might be too high. That's the mindset you have to have this Off-Season.

Follow the money.

[notin]

Think about this Holt had a nice season, and made only 3.575 million, and he might not be coming back, because his salary might be too high. That's the mindset you have to have this Off-Season.

Follow the money.

 

But then Holt might be a candidate for a starting position in the infield, and has proved his value. And despite trying to get under the tax limit, it does not mean the Sox are going to spend nothing this off-season. They still have to field a team and play 162 games...

[notin]

Looks bad without Porcello in there. Unless we get Cole lol.

 

I think another good under-the-radar candidate is Tanner Roark. Roark made $10mill last year and could get a raise and still be under a paycut from Porcello.

 

Since the Sox are extremely unlikely to make a splashy deal for Cole or Strasburg, the best of the second tier candidates might be Porcello and Roark...

[OH FOY]

They will. Who says they wont, just not going to be spenders like everyone is used to. Try to get value, with analytics.