Thoughts on robotic ball/strike calls?

[Second Base]

Here's what I'm picturing. The game on the line, the season on the line, and we're playing against the Yankees or Red Sox in NY or Boston. The environment is hostile, not just for the players, but the umpires as well. Then there's the favoritism you take into account, which you know exists and plays a role. Do you think the Angels would get the benefit of the doubt? Do you think the umps would be heavily favoring those two teams, as they've done for years? Do you think the ump would call a fair game? No. And even if they wanted to, statistically speaking, they're going to screw something up anyway.

Remove the umpire, stop letting those guys dictate the direction of the game when it should be the players. No one came to the ballpark to watch Joe West throw his weight around and threaten the coach every other inning. No one came to watch a Angel Hernandez and his incompetence.

[Amazing Larry]

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

Make the squat mandatory.

Here's looking at you Jeffy.

[maximus p]

They could have used a computer to make the right call in the playoffs when Napoli tagged both players off the base and the umps didn't make the right call...

[zenmaster]

Robots behind the plate will be great. Players are programmed to yell crap and turn their head around and complain. Imagine the fun when there is no one back there?

 

Pretty soon we will have BB8 type robots in the outfield chasing down calls. Or maybe drones that are gps tied to the ball to stay near the ball but not touch it? They can make the calls on the field. Fun times!

Edited January 20, 2016 by zenmaster

[Capital_Dave]

This 44 year old says yes.  It's inevitable. 

[totdprods]

May as well have robots pitch and hit too.

It's still a game.

[eaterfan]

May as well have robots pitch and hit too.

It's still a game.

Huh?

[YouthofToday]

Yes.

This isn't a technology issue. 3D imaging software already identifies where a ball crosses the plate with precision.

This is a solely an issue in regards to marketing and baseball folks favoring tradition.

If you prefer accuracy and the truth, instead of random shiz, vote YES.

[Stradling]

Robots behind the plate will be great. Players are programmed to yell crap and turn their head around and complain. Imagine the fun when there is no one back there?

Pretty soon we will have BB8 type robots in the outfield chasing down calls. Or maybe drones that are gps tied to the ball to stay near the ball but not touch it? They can make the calls on the field. Fun times!

There will still be umpires back there to call plays at the plate and balks.

[CaliAngel]

I'm kinda on the fence. I'm all for it when I'm pulling my hair out during an Angels/Stanks or BoSox game, but it also goes in our favor some time. I love when guys like A Rod or Cano get robbed on strike 3 and just stand there scratching their heads LOL.

But mostly, I am over the umpires affecting the outcome of the game.

I guess I'm for it.

[totdprods]

I liked the idea of using them to measure and grade the umps. If one is doing a terrible job, there's data to back up removing them.

Or, it can be a useful tool for umps to measure where they need improvement.

I do think the umps have too much power and influence and I'm all for seeing that reduced, but I still like the human element of the game. I like the variation. I like how it forces pitchers and hitters to adjust. They get paid to be the best at the sport and the best will make adjustments. Baseball doesn't need to try and perfect every imperfection, IMO.

Edited January 20, 2016 by totdprods

[QuinlansMinion]

For thos saying no, you're basically saying that the strike zone is subjective. For years umpires have called games with different interpretations of the strike zone. At least be consistent in your reasoning. Those of us that want cpu strike zones just want the calls to be right, and not have umpires bias interfere with the games anymore.

[QuinlansMinion]

Heres an idea for you traditional nancies out there. How about keep the human umpires behind the catcher. But with every pitch, they are relayed information by a computer which determines if its a ball or a strike.

You still get your human element, the umpires dont screw up the calls, and the home plate ump can still determine other things like check swings. Everybody's happy.

[eaterfan]

Heres an idea for you traditional nancies out there. How about keep the human umpires behind the catcher. But with every pitch, they are relayed information by a computer which determines if its a ball or a strike.

You still get your human element, the umpires dont screw up the calls, and the home plate ump can still determine other things like check swings. Everybody's happy.

 

That's basically how the system would work. You need an umpire behind home for fair and foul calls, balks, and plays at the plate. There would be a system that relays balls and strikes to him.

 

I like the idea of players determining the outcome of the game more than I like the umpires doing it. I want pitchers and hitters to have to adjust to each other and not to the umpire.

[gotbeer]

For thos saying no, you're basically saying that the strike zone is subjective. For years umpires have called games with different interpretations of the strike zone. At least be consistent in your reasoning. Those of us that want cpu strike zones just want the calls to be right, and not have umpires bias interfere with the games anymore.

 

But the strike zone is subjective.  It's below the knee and between the belt and shoulders as you address the ball to hit.  And as long as you have that definition of the strike zone, it will be up to interpretation of an ump, or some geek in a trailer to interpret it for each batter.  And depending on the definition, the strike zone can vary from player to player. 

 

And while I'm against going the computerized method.  If you go that way, you have to change the definition of the strike zone, to get rid of the subjectiveness.  Otherwise, you are just changing one problem for another.

[eaterfan]

But the strike zone is subjective.  It's below the knee and between the belt and shoulders as you address the ball to hit.  And as long as you have that definition of the strike zone, it will be up to interpretation of an ump, or some geek in a trailer to interpret it for each batter.  And depending on the definition, the strike zone can vary from player to player. 

 

And while I'm against going the computerized method.  If you go that way, you have to change the definition of the strike zone, to get rid of the subjectiveness.  Otherwise, you are just changing one problem for another.

 

That's not entirely true. You at least eliminate the subjectiveness of the outside and inside of the plate. That will remain consistent from batter to batter, park to park, machine to machine, and pitch to pitch. So even if you are just substituting one judgement for the height of the zone for another, you are at least perfecting the inside/outside element. That's a huge improvement on its own.

[laagamer]

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.

I'm 24 and as a youth and High School umpire I'm vehemently against it.

[Stradling]

Heres an idea for you traditional nancies out there. How about keep the human umpires behind the catcher. But with every pitch, they are relayed information by a computer which determines if its a ball or a strike.

You still get your human element, the umpires dont screw up the calls, and the home plate ump can still determine other things like check swings. Everybody's happy.

That is kind of what I said. Except I would use it more as a grading period of a season, then determine what the percentage of blown balls and strike calls is and then make a decision based on that data. Oh and as a league be transparent with this stuff. Transparency will put pressure on umpires to become better or at least more consistent with each other.

[eaterfan]

That is kind of what I said. Except I would use it more as a grading period of a season, then determine what the percentage of blown balls and strike calls is and then make a decision based on that data. Oh and as a league be transparent with this stuff. Transparency will put pressure on umpires to become better or at least more consistent with each other.

This makes no sense to me at all. As has been stated the league is already doing this and the umps get between 80 and 85% of pitches correct.

But the part that doesn't make sense is that you are saying there is a perfect system to measure the current system against. I understand those who say the technology doesn't work (most experts says they are wrong) but saying that we can do better but aren't seems strange to me.

[Stradling]

This makes no sense to me at all. As has been stated the league is already doing this and the umps get between 80 and 85% of pitches correct.

But the part that doesn't make sense is that you are saying there is a perfect system to measure the current system against. I understand those who say the technology doesn't work (most experts says they are wrong) but saying that we can do better but aren't seems strange to me.

Not doubting you but do you have an article that talks about them only being 80% accurate. That just seems incredibly high to me. That would basically be 50 bad calls a night.

[eaterfan]

Not doubting you but do you have an article that talks about them only being 80% accurate. That just seems incredibly high to me. That would basically be 50 bad calls a night.

I posted a link at the end of page one of this thread. But it's probably 30-45 bad calls per game.

[Pujols4MVP]

Yes. Also the umpires take up too much time & managers complaining takes up too much time as well.

Speed up the game, baseball is losing ground to other sports because the new generation likes faster pace sports.

[Junkballer]

Bring on the robots! Preferably they'll look like the Johnny Cab driver from Total Recall.

 

It's not just that umpires miss calls but when the misses occur.  To an extent, early consistency lulls batters into thinking this is what he can expect.  The batter is counting on the call consistency even more in the late innings, especially in late counts, so mistakes made later after having enforced a particular zone have a huge potential to decide the outcome of a game.  If there is a opportunity to improve it, do so. 

 

 

 Even the best umps will have their imaginary zone moved from:

-different pitch trajectory

-angle which the pitch was viewed (to get around the catcher)

-self-correction (response to own mistakes)

-concentration (over 140 pitches per game)

-pitch framing (small degree)

-hangover (Joe West will tell you all about it)

 

Calling pitches is not an easy thing to do and for the most part they do as good a job as a person can, but this issue, much the same as instant replay, corrects something that directly affects wins and losses.  I'll never understand those who say that "the human element" is preferable.  Yes, when it comes to the players, but if technology can add to the integrity of the game, I'm all for it.

[itsKnoppUitsme]

What's next ... robotic managers too?

Please insert the robots would be better than Sosh jokes here!

[Junkballer]

But the strike zone is subjective.  It's below the knee and between the belt and shoulders as you address the ball to hit.  And as long as you have that definition of the strike zone, it will be up to interpretation of an ump, or some geek in a trailer to interpret it for each batter.  And depending on the definition, the strike zone can vary from player to player. 

 

And while I'm against going the computerized method.  If you go that way, you have to change the definition of the strike zone, to get rid of the subjectiveness.  Otherwise, you are just changing one problem for another.

 

You're right, the zone definition will have to be modified to implement this, but is that so bad?  I've always thought that a crouching stance affords an advantage over a standing stance.  I realize that the rule is "stance as prepared to swing" so I think there is some gray area between stance and posture when commencing the swing, but either way I believe an umpire will be influenced by a crouching stance.  Wouldn't it be better to assign the horizontal parameters of the zone by taking a measurement of the player's bottom of the knee and a fixed point below the shoulder instead of using the vague definition of where the player wears his pants?  Example, measure from bottom of knee to top of shoulder and multiply by .6.  This would give each player a fixed zone based on his anatomy, not his stance.  Obviously the system would have to align the zone for the height of the bottom of the knee as well.  All this can be done before the season starts and be a requirement for all call-ups.