Thoughts on robotic ball/strike calls?

[eaterfan]

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

 

I really like the idea of having a ball or strike call being done by machine instead of man. I think it will be more accurate and solve a lot of complaining. The technology is good enough now.

 

If anyone watches tennis or soccer you already know how much the hawkeye system has helped. There are no more arguments about in or out and whether or not it was a goal. Although we won't get as much incredulous MS in the dug out.

[Troll Daddy]

No way Jose!

[halobob]

All for it...the Jays got robbed against the Royals.

[gotbeer]

Nope against it.  I've seen too many pitchtracks that were so off.  I don't trust them.  In some of the past gameday threads, would have people come in that was watching the pitch track and asking how all these strikes were not being called.  All the while the pitcher was wild and missing the plate by a good distance.

 

For Tennis and Soccer, it was either past or not past the line.  The line doesn't move.  The camera doesn't move.  With baseball you are dealing with a three dimentional box.  In which, depending on the batter, and really the umpire the strike zone will vary on top to bottom.  And unfortunately with some umpires, it varies from side to side also. 

[floplag]

not just no, but hell no
you cant fully replace the umps so i see little point.
i do however think that sometimes some of these calls should be a challenge-able as other kids of calls

[halomatt]

Yes.  Take the subjectivity out of the calling of balls and strikes.  

[Angel Oracle]

I would miss Scioscia's incredulous looks at the home plate ump.

[Stradling]

I almost want to know the age of people saying yes versus people saying no. Younger people will want the computerized zone more often than us older guys. I have come around on it and would like to see it not neccesarily used, but more put a computerized strike zone management system in place, but instead of using it to call balls and strikes immediately, use it to grade the umpires strike zone. This will help determine if it is even necesarry. My guess is the average umpire is right 99% of the time, and I am not saying 99% to exagerate my opinion on it, I say it because I truly believe it is probably about 99% accurate. Now if I am wrong and it is a lot worse, then make the switch. If it isn't then leave it as is.

[eaterfan]

Nope against it. I've seen too many pitchtracks that were so off. I don't trust them. In some of the past gameday threads, would have people come in that was watching the pitch track and asking how all these strikes were not being called. All the while the pitcher was wild and missing the plate by a good distance.

For Tennis and Soccer, it was either past or not past the line. The line doesn't move. The camera doesn't move. With baseball you are dealing with a three dimentional box. In which, depending on the batter, and really the umpire the strike zone will vary on top to bottom. And unfortunately with some umpires, it varies from side to side also.

The strike zone is not 3 D. It is a 2 dimensional plane. It is a flat rectangle at the front of home plate just like a soccer goal. The only differences are that the goal plane is always the same size and touches the ground.

And if I'm not mistaken the game tracker pitch things are not the same as pitch FX and they aren't as accurate.

[eaterfan]

I almost want to know the age of people saying yes versus people saying no. Younger people will want the computerized zone more often than us older guys. I have come around on it and would like to see it not neccesarily used, but more put a computerized strike zone management system in place, but instead of using it to call balls and strikes immediately, use it to grade the umpires strike zone. This will help determine if it is even necesarry. My guess is the average umpire is right 99% of the time, and I am not saying 99% to exagerate my opinion on it, I say it because I truly believe it is probably about 99% accurate. Now if I am wrong and it is a lot worse, then make the switch. If it isn't then leave it as is.

They already do this. That's where they get all the catcher framing data.

Basically even MLB admits that these things are far more accurate than regular umps.

I'm 31 years old by the way.

Edited January 19, 2016 by eaterfan

[IEAngelsfan]

If TD is against it, then I'm for it.

[gotbeer]

The strike zone is not 3 D. It is a 2 dimensional plane. It is a flat rectangle at the front of home plate just like a soccer goal. The only differences are that the goal plane is always the same size and touches the ground.

And if I'm not mistaken the game tracker pitch things are not the same as pitch FX and they aren't as accurate.

 

And already you are incorrect.  The strike zone is three dimensional, not 2 dimensional plane.  A ball curving in can miss the front of the plate completely, but can curve in and hit the back of the plate for a supposed strike.  Just like a pitch can curve downward and hit the strike zone at the front of the plate and pretty much be in the dirt when it reaches the catcher. 

[ABC]

[TroutBaseball]

I'm all for it.  On 3 ball counts umpires almost always call a strike. On 2 strike counts they almost always call a ball. The only thing keeping it from happening is that the technology doesn't catch every pitch yet.

 

According to this article the umpires are 85% accurate. I'm sure it's much lower at those high leverage counts.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/1/27/5341676/how-well-do-umpires-call-balls-and-strikes

 

"It's going to happen sometime-- . . . Why not now, and move from getting calls right 85% of the time to 100%, with the side benefit of eliminating arguments over balls and strikes and speeding the game along?"

[eaterfan]

And already you are incorrect. The strike zone is three dimensional, not 2 dimensional plane. A ball curving in can miss the front of the plate completely, but can curve in and hit the back of the plate for a supposed strike. Just like a pitch can curve downward and hit the strike zone at the front of the plate and pretty much be in the dirt when it reaches the catcher.

You are correct. My bad.

[Troll Daddy]

What's next ... robotic managers too?

[Link]

Nope against it.  I've seen too many pitchtracks that were so off.  I don't trust them.  In some of the past gameday threads, would have people come in that was watching the pitch track and asking how all these strikes were not being called.  All the while the pitcher was wild and missing the plate by a good distance.

 

For Tennis and Soccer, it was either past or not past the line.  The line doesn't move.  The camera doesn't move.  With baseball you are dealing with a three dimentional box.  In which, depending on the batter, and really the umpire the strike zone will vary on top to bottom.  And unfortunately with some umpires, it varies from side to side also. 

 

 

Gameday tracking and the actual tracking used on TV are way, way different.  The locations on the gameday app/site are atrocious and seem almost completely unrelated to the actual location, which is what causes those posts.  

 

The "foxtrax" system and whatever you see sometimes on other channels is much more accurate - an article I found from 2013 claims that the system is accurate to within an inch, assuming it hasn't improved since then.  At least with a machine you'd have more consistent calls and no variation umpire to umpire.  I'd like to see something where each team (pitcher or batter) can challenge 4-5 pitches a game with an animated representation of the pitch like in tennis.  The system is incredibly quick and easy in tennis and it wouldn't completely eliminate umpires.

[gotbeer]

For better or worse.  IMO, if you are going to have robotic calls for home, again, IMO, you have to change a very fundamental rule of the game.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

 

And that is the strike zone cannot be based on a very judgemental below the knee to the area that is the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the pants.  This is also based on the batters stance as he is about to hit a pitched ball.  So even this point may move. 

 

I'm trying to remember, but I think it's the munchkin in Boston that likes to dive down, so that his stance is lower than the pitched ball. 

 

Again, IMO, if you are going to have a robotic call for home, you have to specify a specific zone of just throwing out numbers, but 2 feet above the plate, to 4 feet above the plate.  As an example.  This way, for every batter, the strike zone is the same. 

 

It might make the game better.  It might make it worse.  I'm thinking long term, under this scenario, you will have the ideal batter height get factored in.  You will also have the MLB system, that will be vastly different than what batters had coming up from little league to pony, to high school, to minors.  Since this type of system really can't be used at all levels.  I guess umpires can learn it.  But then you will get the subjective back of 2 feet - 4 feet, by eyeballing it. 

 

By the way, from 1907-1950 those hitters were boss.  Every pitch that Trumbo has swung at that we groaned about would be considered a strike back then. 

[meat]

Absolutely....yes please.  The sooner the better.  Enough of the subjective strike zones.  I'm tired of hearing the term(s) 'pitchers/hitters umpire'.

[eaterfan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/analyzing-the-strike-zone-as-a-three-dimensional-volume/

[gotbeer]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/analyzing-the-strike-zone-as-a-three-dimensional-volume/

 

Very interesting article. 

 

From his analysis, I wonder what the percentage was north south of the strike zone.  And by that I mean, area below the knee.  How many strikes/balls were called in that grey area.  And when he says say 80% of umpires call strikes correctly, If you took out the grey area pitches of below the knee and midway from belt to shoulder and say used knee and belt.  What % of strikes would that would be.  Are balls that are closer to the grey areas north and south, and the borders of the strike zone more likely to be missed? 

 

The other interesting thing, if the writer dares to even approach.  Is how much an effect the catcher has on the call.  And not by framing, but by blocking the view.  Looking at the umpire, he can only call what he sees or thinks he sees.  If the umpire was there without a catcher, he should be able to see the entire strike zone.  But he has a catcher in front of him.  And catchers for the most part shift right when the ball is going to be thrown, so as not to give away the location they are thinking of.  In this shift, the catcher forces the umpire to move.  And maybe this is the point of the catcher.

 

This is hard to explain.  But say an umpire is looking right down the middle of the plate for strikes and balls.  In theory, he should have be able to see the balls and strikes on the corners well.  Now shift that view from middle of the plate due to a catcher adjustment, and now the umpire is looking from one side of the plate.  Now you have a cutter moving away.  Based on angles, I would think it is much more difficult to determine the path of the ball relative to the zone.  Add into the mix, the catchers glove, head, parts of the body blocking the view. 

 

This would actually support the need automated calls route, since in theory the computer should never be blocked or hindered. 

[ettin]

And already you are incorrect.  The strike zone is three dimensional, not 2 dimensional plane.  A ball curving in can miss the front of the plate completely, but can curve in and hit the back of the plate for a supposed strike.  Just like a pitch can curve downward and hit the strike zone at the front of the plate and pretty much be in the dirt when it reaches the catcher. 

 

 

You are correct. My bad.

 

GB you can kick him too for good measure!

[Grigori]

It would not be that difficult to create a system that can track the ball in 3D across the plate, automatically adjust to the height of the batter and so on.  Such a system can do a perfect job of calling ball and strikes.  There is no reason not to do it.  Obviously, you still need an umpire at the plate to call foul tips and call plays made at the plate and so on, but the idea of an umpire calling balls a strikes when it is proven they aren't doing a very good job at all and a computerized system can do a good job, well.. it's total nonsense.  

[Docwaukee]

Umpires are wrong about 15% of the time.  An unacceptable rate in my opinion.  

 

But putting it in he hands of a computer would just be weird.  

 

Here is an interesting thought though.  Wouldn't it significantly affect the running game?  

 

Catchers wouldn't have to crouch anymore.  If a runner was on base, they could essentially stand in a position that would make them more ready to throw out a runner or be ready to pounce on a bunt.  

[ABC]

Catcher still needs to crouch for the ump to see the pitch in case the tech malfunctions.