Bour's strikeout pitch in the ninth

[krAbs]

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

But no one wants robot umps because that's silly and takes away from the tradition of getting calls wrong. 

See, what we should have is a robot that automatically gets 2% of its calls wrong, just so it still feels authentic.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

Whatever system they choose to go with will be more objective and just flat out more accurate than the human error system they currently have.

Like in the case above, they could pick one and people could look at the other and still everyone would complain.

[krAbs]

1 minute ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Like in the case above, they could pick one and people could look at the other and still everyone would complain.

Eh...I'm sure this is MLB's line, but like...this isn't really persuasive to me. Like, basically another way of wording this is: if its not going to be 100% perfect and uncontroversial, then why do it at all? I feel like there is room for something to be better but not perfect. There will still be complaints, sure, and there will still be controversy about if MLB should tweak the algorithm that decides balls and strikes. But it seems kinda silly to me to say that because of that, we should just settle for a worse system.

Like literally, take a scenario where we just have a dog sitting behind the home plate, and if it barks its a strike? If someone were to say "hey, maybe we should replace this dog with a human who can tell the difference between a ball and a strike", the argument here still applies.

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Eh...I'm sure this is MLB's line, but like...this isn't really persuasive to me. Like, basically another way of wording this is: if its not going to be 100% perfect and uncontroversial, then why do it at all? I feel like there is room for something to be better but not perfect. There will still be complaints, sure, and there will still be controversy about if MLB should tweak the algorithm that decides balls and strikes. But it seems kinda silly to me to say that because of that, we should just settle for a worse system.

Like literally, take a scenario where we just have a dog sitting behind the home plate, and if it barks its a strike? If someone were to say "hey, maybe we should replace this dog with a human who can tell the difference between a ball and a strike", the argument here still applies.

That's fair. 

I actually think the more legit issue is that there would be a lot of pitches called strikes that we're not used to being called strikes, like high pitches that nip the back of the zone or low pitches that get the front or balls that get the corners on the way by. Again, the real strike zone is 3 dimensional, not some 2 dimensional rectangle.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

What do you base the challenge on? 

And this one was egregious and probably would be called a ball by any standard, but what if it’s not? 

It wouldnt be on anything borderline or in a low impact situation but this one was egregious and in a horrific spot in the game, and yet the Halos had no recourse of any kind. 
As you say it would be called a ball by any standard, but it wasnt. 

[floplag]

59 minutes ago, Slegnaac said:

 

Soccer has a fixed goal post.  This would be like having No goal posts and letting the ref decide if the kick was a goal.

What other sport has an official deciding if a ball passes through a specific space with out any physical or technical assistance?  Even tennis has technical assistance.

if you go robotic you fix the strike zone too with an electronic box. 
In this case there is zero assistance, and zero recourse.  That needs to be addressed and the robot doesnt do that.  Who to you go to to challenge the robot for example?  
Leave umps in the game just expand the review rules to allow for challenge of balls/strikes in important spots of the game rather than this nonsense that you cant argue them at all. 

[Slegnaac]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's fair. 

I actually think the more legit issue is that there would be a lot of pitches called strikes that we're not used to being called strikes, like high pitches that nip the back of the zone or low pitches that get the front or balls that get the corners on the way by. Again, the real strike zone is 3 dimensional, not some 2 dimensional rectangle.

But the key factor is consistency. 

The players have better chance of adjusting to something consistent than something arbitrary. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Slegnaac

[krAbs]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

That's fair. 

I actually think the more legit issue is that there would be a lot of pitches called strikes that we're not used to being called strikes, like high pitches that nip the back of the zone or low pitches that get the front or balls that get the corners on the way by. Again, the real strike zone is 3 dimensional, not some 2 dimensional rectangle.

Right - I think we are inching towards a "reckoning" on exactly what we consider the strike zone. My understanding is that "technically", the strike zone is supposed to be front of plate to back of plate, left side of the plate to the right side of the plate, knees to letters on the player. If the ball touches anywhere in that zone, then its a strike. But, that's obviously going to be a much more aggressive strike zone then people are used to, and will probably benefit pitchers with a lot of movement on their pitches (who can theoretically barely curve the ball into the side of the strike zone).

Seems like at some point a decision needs to be made on what we WANT the strike zone to look like, then then discuss how to get there. Its pretty easy to change the rules to make it smaller, if that is the version of baseball that MLB wants to have. That's what I mean when I say that you're absolutely right that people will still complain. If they shrink the zone, then people will whinge about "ruining baseball". If it stays the same, then the game will probably change and become much more pitcher and strikeout dominated. Still though, IMO, that's a better conversation than what we have now.

[Jay]

Yeah, just go to robots.

Especially in the concession stands.

 

[Duren, Duren]

Technology, computer graphics and multi angle replays make good TV viewing, but are deceptive in terms of what real human players see and do in the heat of the action. 

TV viewing of most sports conforms more to video game perception, and subtly dehumanizes reality. 

Until they abolish humans from playing and umping/reffing, one has to accept the compromise. 

Demographics also factor in. Just about anyone 30 or younger knows no other way of watching TV sports without some forms of video replay and graphic overlays. Watch whatever old sports films or tapes you can from the seventies or earlier. More primitive, low definition, fewer closeups, cameras and angles. But somehow, more authentic to experiencing a game live. 

Even with challenges in various sports, the 'control center's with their multiple angles still get some things wrong or are inconclusive. And many key plays and games were impacted by these decisions.

I prefer the human equation because it is part of the dynamic of the game. Perfection can not be achieved anyhow, so maybe dial back the robotic paradigm as inevitable and accept a more fallible reality.

 

[Docwaukee]

how about using technology to help improve the ability for the ump to judge as opposed to getting rid of them altogether?

[krAbs]

22 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

Technology, computer graphics and multi angle replays make good TV viewing, but are deceptive in terms of what real human players see and do in the heat of the action. 

TV viewing of most sports conforms more to video game perception, and subtly dehumanizes reality. 

Until they abolish humans from playing and umping/reffing, one has to accept the compromise. 

Demographics also factor in. Just about anyone 30 or younger knows no other way of watching TV sports without some forms of video replay and graphic overlays. Watch whatever old sports films or tapes you can from the seventies or earlier. More primitive, low definition, fewer closeups, cameras and angles. But somehow, more authentic to experiencing a game live. 

Even with challenges in various sports, the 'control center's with their multiple angles still get some things wrong or are inconclusive. And many key plays and games were impacted by these decisions.

I prefer the human equation because it is part of the dynamic of the game. Perfection can not be achieved anyhow, so maybe dial back the robotic paradigm as inevitable and accept a more fallible reality.

 

Isn't the point of pitching to follow the rules but to be deceptive in terms of what real human players see and do in the heat of action? Like, a slider is literally built to be a pitch that looks like it will be a strike, but ends up in the dirt. All that is being suggested here is to solidify the rules around which pitchers try to bend a hitter's perceptions.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

It wouldnt be on anything borderline or in a low impact situation but this one was egregious and in a horrific spot in the game, and yet the Halos had no recourse of any kind. 
As you say it would be called a ball by any standard, but it wasnt. 

Please define "borderline" and "low impact"

 

[floplag]

25 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Please define "borderline" and "low impact"

 

2-1 count third inning no one on no score ball is close enough batter should have protected, basically everything last nights Bour pitch was not.

[TroutAdell]

Anyone think the Umpire’s Union will just roll over and accept some kind of digital strike zone? Who calls the check swings, catcher’s interference, balks and out/safe at the plate?  Stick with the human element and persuade Joe West to retire and take Angel Hernandez with him. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

39 minutes ago, floplag said:

2-1 count third inning no one on no score ball is close enough batter should have protected, basically everything last nights Bour pitch was not.

Forget last night.

If you want to change the way things work, you need to create rules ahead of time, not just go back after the fact and decide what should be reviewed.

[Rollinghard]

Halographic/ robotic strike zone would cause  more strikes to be called. Think of the times when catcher setup for a slider on the outer part of the plate and pitcher throws a backup slider and catcher has to move his glove  12 to 14 inches. The ball would catch the computerized zone as a inside corner strike but  would rarely be called a strike by the human ump.  Umpires need term limits.  

[krAbs]

43 minutes ago, TroutTrumbo said:

Anyone think the Umpire’s Union will just roll over and accept some kind of digital strike zone? Who calls the check swings, catcher’s interference, balks and out/safe at the plate?  Stick with the human element and persuade Joe West to retire and take Angel Hernandez with him. 

There would still need to be a home plate umpire, for sure. Their roll would just be scaled back. And yeah, I'm sure it would be a fight - but its a fight that's been brewing, and needs to happen eventually. There is more and more resentment in the air about umps, and its only getting more intense. It is going to be interesting to watch over the next ~5 or so years. I wouldn't be surprised if we see something like: The MLB caves to fan pressure and takes some power from umps -> the umps revolt and go on strike -> baseball fans in general do NOT support the umps -> ????? Maybe MLB hires shit umps to try to force the issue??? IDK what happens there.

[stormngt]

7 hours ago, floplag said:

The only fairness i can say is that he had been calling that pitch all night it seemed on everyone, but it wasnt a strike by definition to any of them obviously 

They weren't calling that pitch a strike all night.  That was way outside!

[floplag]

35 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Forget last night.

If you want to change the way things work, you need to create rules ahead of time, not just go back after the fact and decide what should be reviewed.

Of course, but this has been my position on robot umps for a long time actually.  Im just using last night as an example.
I dont think they should replace live umps, ever in fact, but the option should be there in important situations even on balls and strikes whereas today you cant even ask the ump about it for some silly reason. 

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, stormngt said:

They weren't calling that pitch a strike all night.  That was way outside!

i disagree he hadnt called it, i agree it was way outside, but its moot, he called it there

[Jeff Fletcher]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

Of course, but this has been my position on robot umps for a long time actually.  Im just using last night as an example.
I dont think they should replace live umps, ever in fact, but the option should be there in important situations even on balls and strikes whereas today you cant even ask the ump about it for some silly reason. 

I get that, but either you're using robo umps for everything or nothing.

I think it's a major disruption in the game to make it a challenge situation. How many do you get? How long do you have to decide if you want to use it?

And if you're doing a mix of human calls with the occasional robo challenge, then you're really looking at two different zones. Maybe the human ump has been perfectly consistent calling a pitch 1 inch outside a strike all night, but in the 9th inning you challenge it and the robo ump says it's a ball? If that's a ball, shouldn't it have been a ball the whole game?

 

[Stradling]

Who’s to say if you get a certain amount of challenges that the pitch immediately after your last challenge he calls a ball on purpose or a strike whatever is against what you want.  

[floplag]

13 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I get that, but either you're using robo umps for everything or nothing.

I think it's a major disruption in the game to make it a challenge situation. How many do you get? How long do you have to decide if you want to use it?

And if you're doing a mix of human calls with the occasional robo challenge, then you're really looking at two different zones. Maybe the human ump has been perfectly consistent calling a pitch 1 inch outside a strike all night, but in the 9th inning you challenge it and the robo ump says it's a ball? If that's a ball, shouldn't it have been a ball the whole game?

 

A valid point of course, but there has to be some recourse, whereas today there is none.  At least it gives something even if it isnt perfect. 
Plus it would force the umpire into an effort to be more consistent and inline with the robot rather than this guy likes it low this guy high this guy who knows.
As with any challenge there would have to be guidelines, it would have to be done before the next pitch or something.
It isnt perfect, but its something, which is more than we have today.

[Jay]

On 4/18/2019 at 6:54 PM, krAbs said:

There would still need to be a home plate umpire, for sure. Their roll would just be scaled back. And yeah, I'm sure it would be a fight - but its a fight that's been brewing, and needs to happen eventually. There is more and more resentment in the air about umps, and its only getting more intense. It is going to be interesting to watch over the next ~5 or so years. I wouldn't be surprised if we see something like: The MLB caves to fan pressure and takes some power from umps -> the umps revolt and go on strike -> baseball fans in general do NOT support the umps -> ????? Maybe MLB hires shit umps to try to force the issue??? IDK what happens there.

And what about pitch framing? Those poor catchers would lose value.