balls and strikes umpiring

[Blackout Friday]

His name is Green Line so maybe it’s sarcasm?

[Green Line]

53 minutes ago, harkness99 said:

but instant gratification and everything to be correct are not the same things... they often are the opposite.. so that makes no sense.

you are also spewing if then fallacy like a mad man.

Stop focusing on that part.  It might not be instant, but it is gratification.

I'm just saying, we don't need to replace the human aspects of the game.  I like it when the blown calls go in our favor.  Thats just baseball.  Its a slippery slope to robot hitters and pitchers.

[asindc]

6 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

And it's ludicrous. Robo umps will not ruin the game as some have suggested. We don't watch the game for umpires, and the only time we talk about umps are when they fuck up. As Stone and Hawk always said, you know you have a good umpire when you don't have to talk about them.

And another poster said, yeah but the umpires suck for every team. Well shouldn't something be done about it then??

I'm glad they are testing it in the minors. Can't get here soon enough. I'm sure there will be kinks to work out, much like replay (which people said would also ruin the game), but it will be worth it.

I’d happily give up replay for an automated strike zone. The latter has a far greater impact on the game. 

[asindc]

6 hours ago, Green Line said:

Replay IS ruining the game.  You guys want instant gratification.

Sports are a human game, for humans.  We could also have robot batters and robot fielders eventually, but that would be a terrible idea.  One day you'll have people pushing for it though.  "Why wouldn't we want better quality players on the field?"

There is nothing more instant about an automated strike call compared to its human-called counterpart. 

[MiddleCoastBias]

Interestingly, the whole ESPN crew was discussing this for half an inning during the cubs/Braves broadcast tonight. Most were in agreement that 1. yes, some form of accountability and improved accuracy is needed and 2. we still like humans behind the plate.

They were all discussing augmented reality (hat tip to someone else in this thread that suggested that as well) or a "Google glass thing" as they called it to assist umpires to make the live call. Still probably many years out with how slowly MLB adapts (see: universal DH), but it's definitely part of the national conversation.

Also Tim Kurkjian was the only one that didn't like it, because he's a dinosaur.

 

[Quin]

28 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Interestingly, the whole ESPN crew was discussing this for half an inning during the cubs/Braves broadcast tonight. Most were in agreement that 1. yes, some form of accountability and improved accuracy is needed and 2. we still like humans behind the plate.

They were all discussing augmented reality (hat tip to someone else in this thread that suggested that as well) or a "Google glass thing" as they called it to assist umpires to make the live call. Still probably many years out with how slowly MLB adapts (see: universal DH), but it's definitely part of the national conversation.

Also Tim Kurkjian was the only one that didn't like it, because he's a dinosaur.

 

That's such a good idea.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

50 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Interestingly, the whole ESPN crew was discussing this for half an inning during the cubs/Braves broadcast tonight. Most were in agreement that 1. yes, some form of accountability and improved accuracy is needed and 2. we still like humans behind the plate.

They were all discussing augmented reality (hat tip to someone else in this thread that suggested that as well) or a "Google glass thing" as they called it to assist umpires to make the live call. Still probably many years out with how slowly MLB adapts (see: universal DH), but it's definitely part of the national conversation.

Also Tim Kurkjian was the only one that didn't like it, because he's a dinosaur.

 

When the walks start mounting after they change to automated balls and strikes there will be an uproar. Miss the plate by a centimeter  ball. Throw a sinker that the catcher dips his glove on and catches way low but somehow clips the zone- strike ! Then some hacker will make the strike zone smaller for his team in the playoffs .

I don't agree that its just a couple of years away as some say. I'd say 5 at the earliest but I know nothing about how advanced the tech is or how it might be implemented and maintained or work in inclement weather. Like on a checked swing how would it differentiate between the bat and the ball entering the zone  ? I'd guess by the path but the bat would have to be eliminated very quickly and still have it be able to call strikes when multiple objects enter the zone.

[South Side Hit Men]

Wonder how much Hawk's decades of crying about umpiring impacts our fan base vs. the average baseball fan.

White Sox fans need to ask themselves whether having an electronic strike zone effective with the new CBA (the current umpire CBA already allows for MLB to transition to an electronic strike zone) is worth losing the team's touted competitive advantage after Hahn spent the most money in team history to acquire a player whose primary contribution is "tricking" a human umpire?

[Jose Abreu]

3 hours ago, Quin said:

Also, instant replay isn't instant gratification. It slows the game down and takes time to review to ensure the game is being called correctly.

It's quite literally the antithesis of instant gratification, it's delayed gratification

[Jose Abreu]

1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

When the walks start mounting after they change to automated balls and strikes there will be an uproar. Miss the plate by a centimeter  ball. Throw a sinker that the catcher dips his glove on and catches way low but somehow clips the zone- strike ! 

This is what I don't get- you say this as if it's a bad thing? I'd love for the strike zone to actually be 100% consistent. As long as they aren't changing the parameters between games, it doesn't matter whether a ball barely clipping the zone is technically a ball or a strike, as long as it stays that way for both teams. We as fans would get used to the nuance of the borderline calls in time since they wouldn't be changing

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

3 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

This is what I don't get- you say this as if it's a bad thing? I'd love for the strike zone to actually be 100% consistent. As long as they aren't changing the parameters between games, it doesn't matter whether a ball barely clipping the zone is technically a ball or a strike, as long as it stays that way for both teams. We as fans would get used to the nuance of the borderline calls in time since they wouldn't be changing

No I'm saying it will be a huge difference. A guy like Greg Maddux built a HOF career out of getting the benefit of the doubt on strikes called outside of the zone because his command was so good. It'll be a good thing but just not sure how players , especially pitchers ,will react to it if walk totals increase in any significant manner.

[greg775]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:04 PM, wegner said:

I think these guys are deliberately calling bad games hoping that someone calls them out in a slanderous manner....I call it the Country Joe West effect.

I've said for YEARS the umps, who have the power, have purposely made a mockery of the strike zone. It's them throwing an obscene gesture at baseball owners and baseball executives in New York. For some reason umps feel they have long been mis-treated and it's their one way of taking a stand. Look ... a belt high fastball is a strike and umps for years have called anything just above the belt a ball, at least on a fastball. It's one reason guys like Cease have so many walks.

Umps are also missing a lot of pitches on the outside corner. Sometimes I give them the benefit of the doubt on those that are just off the corner. They are balls but for some reason it doesn't seem as blatant as not calling the belt high fastball a strike. ... Umps also will not enforce rules on the books designed to speed the game. They just won't do it. I'm not a fan of umps.

[greg775]

1 hour ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

When the walks start mounting after they change to automated balls and strikes there will be an uproar. Miss the plate by a centimeter  ball. Throw a sinker that the catcher dips his glove on and catches way low but somehow clips the zone- strike ! Then some hacker will make the strike zone smaller for his team in the playoffs .

Very perceptive post. I agree. There will be an uproar like you say with automation.

[gusguyman]

On 4/26/2021 at 2:01 PM, Dominikk85 said:

It is actually not worse than ever, stats show that Umps are getting better since cross checked against pitch fx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ftw.usatoday.com/2016/02/mlb-umpires-improving-instant-replay-strike-zone/amp

There are some which are bad but overall Umps have been steadily improving the last 10 years, there is just a human limit to what the eye can do plus nastier moving and faster pitches make it more difficult too. 

 

Umpires make plenty mistakes but the feeling that Umps are getting worse is selective perception. 

If you want perfect strike calling get robo ump (but that will cause some issues that need to be addressed because robo ump allows some pitches to be thrown that just graze the zone and are tough to hit but a regular ump would not call 

(in short human zone calls zone wider and shorter than rulebook zone which helps hitters because wide pitches are easier to hit than low and high ones) 

 

18 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

When the walks start mounting after they change to automated balls and strikes there will be an uproar. Miss the plate by a centimeter  ball. Throw a sinker that the catcher dips his glove on and catches way low but somehow clips the zone- strike ! Then some hacker will make the strike zone smaller for his team in the playoffs .

I don't agree that its just a couple of years away as some say. I'd say 5 at the earliest but I know nothing about how advanced the tech is or how it might be implemented and maintained or work in inclement weather. Like on a checked swing how would it differentiate between the bat and the ball entering the zone  ? I'd guess by the path but the bat would have to be eliminated very quickly and still have it be able to call strikes when multiple objects enter the zone.

It cracks me up when people trot this out as some sort of gotcha. First of all, changing the definition of the strikezone for an automated ump would literally be a 5 minute change. Once the system is there, tweaking the definition of the strikezone is super simple. Second, this is one of the reasons they are trialing it in the minors right now, any needed strike zone definition tweaks will almost certainly accompany the tech when it reaches the majors.

Furthermore, no one is saying to take the umps off the field. If the system is malfunctioning or if there are judgement calls like check swings that the system doesn't work for, the umpires would still be there to step in. But for the other 99% of cases, we'd finally have a fair and consistent strike zone. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here, especially when the state of umpiring is FAR from good.

[Dominikk85]

Yeah of course you can change the rulebook zone. I think robo ump is the future, manfred wants it and will get it soon 

[Vulture]

On 4/26/2021 at 10:07 PM, Green Line said:

Its a slippery slope to robot hitters and pitchers.

I’m impressed you identified your own fallacy yet stuck to it nonetheless. Down south they call that gumption