Moncada leading MLB in OOZ strike 3s

[southsider2k5]

And it isn't even close.

 

[ChiSox59]

And water is wet.  

[Baker]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And it isn't even close.

 

Anyone for the automated strike zone?  

[BlackSox13]

I knew there was alot just by watching the games but had no idea it was that much, wow. 

[flavum]

6 minutes ago, Baker said:

Anyone for the automated strike zone?  

Hell no. The plate should swell within reason with two strikes. The unintended consequences of an automated strike zone would prove out to make the game less interesting and longer games...not shorter. Be careful what you wish for.

Now if you want to get better umpires that know how to call balls and strikes better than others, I'm all for it. But the human factor of balls and strikes makes the game better. Replay is great for safe/out though.

[gusguyman]

1 minute ago, flavum said:

Hell no. The plate should swell within reason with two strikes. The unintended consequences of an automated strike zone would prove out to make the game less interesting and longer games...not shorter. Be careful what you wish for.

What? Yes, the batter should expand his zone to protect the plate and not strike out. Are you saying the umps should expand the zone too? First of all, no way. Second, you could do that with robo umps too, but with perfect consistency.

[flavum]

1 minute ago, gusguyman said:

What? Yes, the batter should expand his zone to protect the plate and not strike out. Are you saying the umps should expand the zone too? First of all, no way. Second, you could do that with robo umps too, but with perfect consistency.

With human error in play, hitters have to protect and swing more...and that's a good thing. If they go to an automated zone, the batter is going to swing less and guess more. Ok, walks may go up for some...but is that a good thing for the game? I don't think so. If walks are your thing, by all means, enjoy a more boring game.

[gusguyman]

1 minute ago, flavum said:

With human error in play, hitters have to protect and swing more...and that's a good thing. If they go to an automated zone, the batter is going to swing less and guess more. Ok, walks may go up for some...but is that a good thing for the game? I don't think so. If walks are your thing, by all means, enjoy a more boring game.

Or it forces the pitcher to throw in the zone more, which allows more contact and runs. Plus the human error isn't limited to the umps - the batter still needs to expand the zone a little in case they are wrong about a borderline pitch.

[flavum]

1 minute ago, gusguyman said:

Or it forces the pitcher to throw in the zone more, which allows more contact and runs. Plus the human error isn't limited to the umps - the batter still needs to expand the zone a little in case they are wrong about a borderline pitch.

That's another issue...would pitchers try to nip the outside corner with breaking pitches that are technically in the zone but the catcher receives it in a spot that would currently be called a ball? Again, I think the unintended consequences of the robo ump would drastically change the game for the worse. And not only would it change the game on the field...it's just less interesting. It's ok to be imperfect and have some nose-to-nose fights once in a while.

[Harry Chappas]

In order to have proper context.  How may strikeouts looking does he have? 

[bmags]

54 minutes ago, gusguyman said:

What? Yes, the batter should expand his zone to protect the plate and not strike out. Are you saying the umps should expand the zone too? First of all, no way. Second, you could do that with robo umps too, but with perfect consistency.

that's not clear yet.

[yesterday333]

41 minutes ago, flavum said:

That's another issue...would pitchers try to nip the outside corner with breaking pitches that are technically in the zone but the catcher receives it in a spot that would currently be called a ball? Again, I think the unintended consequences of the robo ump would drastically change the game for the worse. And not only would it change the game on the field...it's just less interesting. It's ok to be imperfect and have some nose-to-nose fights once in a while.

I completely disagree. I am all for getting calls right and making the game more fair. I think if a pitcher has to throw a strike to get a strike out it increases offense. But players will adjust, just as they have to with different umps different zones. They will have to figure it out and I think hitting increases. Batters wont get walks based on reputation and pitchers wont get strike outs based on reputation, which both walk and strike outs are considered a problem.

[Jose Abreu]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

that's not clear yet.

I'd have to imagine that if MLB made ball and strike calls robotic, they would make sure that the same exact system is being used for all counts, all teams, etc 

[Jerksticks]

How does a computer map a perfect three dimensional zone at every stadium currently?  How do they get the data

[Balta1701]

40 minutes ago, yesterday333 said:

I completely disagree. I am all for getting calls right and making the game more fair. I think if a pitcher has to throw a strike to get a strike out it increases offense. But players will adjust, just as they have to with different umps different zones. They will have to figure it out and I think hitting increases. Batters wont get walks based on reputation and pitchers wont get strike outs based on reputation, which both walk and strike outs are considered a problem.

FWIW, I don't think that reputation is likely the biggest cause here, not nearly compared to Moncada's approach and how it sets pitchers up to go for this type of strikeout. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

FWIW, I don't think that reputation is likely the biggest cause here, not nearly compared to Moncada's approach and how it sets pitchers up to go for this type of strikeout. 

Yes, this is the adjustment that needs to be made currently by the hitters.

I don't think the roboump would change much except more walks. Pitchers are still going to try to get the hitter's to chase pitches out of the zone for strike 3. If the hitters expand the zone they are creating more action. I don't see the pitchers going into the zone more for strikeouts as much as people think. They may some but few pitchers can really just put the ball over the plate and get away with it. The best pitchers can, but they do already.

[bubba phillips]

1 hour ago, yesterday333 said:

I completely disagree. I am all for getting calls right and making the game more fair. I think if a pitcher has to throw a strike to get a strike out it increases offense. But players will adjust, just as they have to with different umps different zones. They will have to figure it out and I think hitting increases. Batters wont get walks based on reputation and pitchers wont get strike outs based on reputation, which both walk and strike outs are considered a problem.

That's a load of crap---all umpires should have the same strike zone.  Of course none of them follow the written guidelines:  knee high to "letter" high and across the plate.  The robo ump info should be used for grading umpire accuracy.  Set the standards (90% accuracy?) and then dump the bad umps if they don't improve after a period of time.

Edited September 12, 2018 by bubba phillips

[Lip Man 1]

23 minutes ago, bubba phillips said:

That's a load of crap---all umpires should have the same strike zone.  Of course none of them follow the written guidelines:  knee high to "letter" high and across the plate.  The robo ump info should be used for grading umpire accuracy.  Set the standards (90% accuracy?) and then dump the bad umps if they don't improve after a period of time.

I'd agree except the umpires union has a lot of power, how else do you thinks stiffs like Joe West, C.V. Bucknor, Angel Hernandez keep their jobs?

[skooch]

2 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

In order to have proper context.  How may strikeouts looking does he have? 

According to Statcast, of the five, Moncada has the second lowest % of looking-K's that are OOZ.

	SO	K-swing	K-look	K-look-OOZ	% K OOZ
Moncada	196	124	72	49	68.06
Taylor	152	100	52	35	67.31
Judge	132	89	43	35	81.40
Chapman	119	67	52	36	69.23
Trout	99	55	44	36	81.82

Edited September 12, 2018 by skooch
Mistakenly transposed OOZ K statistics

[bmags]

1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

I'd have to imagine that if MLB made ball and strike calls robotic, they would make sure that the same exact system is being used for all counts, all teams, etc 

Right, but the idea that there would be no errors is false. It would have less, but it too would have errors that may fall in line to a bias. THe technology isn't perfect yet.

[Harry Chappas]

This is where this becomes usable information to me 

Of the 5 players his number only looks so high because of how many 2 strike pitches he takes.  Judge is getting royally screwed as is Trout and potentially players who take less called strikes.  The gross number of 49 seems really high but not when compared to others and then you don't know how many were borderline and how many were of the..."it's been a strike all day" variety.

 

 

 

[Jose Abreu]

2 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

This is where this becomes usable information to me 

Of the 5 players his number only looks so high because of how many 2 strike pitches he takes.  Judge is getting royally screwed as is Trout and potentially players who take less called strikes.  The gross number of 49 seems really high but not when compared to others and then you don't know how many were borderline and how many were of the..."it's been a strike all day" variety.

 

  

 

And that's where watching the game is essential. We're absolutely in the double digits of the "ok, that pitch wasn't even close and is called a strike 0-1% of the time" kind of called third strike. The majority of those 49 (50 after last night) are probably borderline/usually called a strike by the umpire, but I'd say that at least 15 of them were just awful, awful calls. 

[StrangeSox]

15 minutes ago, bmags said:

Right, but the idea that there would be no errors is false. It would have less, but it too would have errors that may fall in line to a bias. THe technology isn't perfect yet.

Maybe a situation where you have booth umpires who watch the video live combined with the analytics and call the ball/strike that way?

[Dam8610]

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

And it isn't even close.

 

Literally just correcting this would change his slashline to .247/.387/.431 with a 18.7% BB rate and a 25.0% K rate. In case anyone was wondering how badly the umps have screwed Moncada over this season, there's your answer.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Dam8610
Originally miscalculated OBP

[flavum]

Do these stats go the other way too where it shows how many times ball 4 should have been strike 3? Or any ball called that should’ve been strike 3?

Edited September 12, 2018 by flavum