The sooner we get an automated strike zone, the better

[chw42]

Based on the really small number of calls that are even questioned, including very close plays, I would say it proves the umps are very good. If one in a few hundred gets questioned, that's very good even if it gets overruled.

 

When they are talking an inch off the plate I wonder how far off the plate the graphic shows. We are being fed an enhanced view for entertainment. I wonder how exact they are actually able to detect.

 

Even if umpires are right 95% of the time on pitch calls, do you realize how many missed calls that is? Over the course of one game, that's at least 10 missed calls. Over the course of one night with a full slate of games, that's 150 missed calls. Over the course of a whole season, that's ~24,000 missed calls.

[bmags]

 

Just gonna leave this here.

 

He stopped giving low strikes very suddenly, which is a weird part of the plate to stop giving.

[Texsox]

Even if umpires are right 95% of the time on pitch calls, do you realize how many missed calls that is? Over the course of one game, that's at least 10 missed calls. Over the course of one night with a full slate of games, that's 150 missed calls. Over the course of a whole season, that's ~24,000 missed calls.

 

Based on your numbers you win. No disputing that.

 

I wonder how baseball ever managed to survive with so many missed calls night after night.

[OmarComing25]

Based on your numbers you win. No disputing that.

 

I wonder how baseball ever managed to survive with so many missed calls night after night.

Just because baseball managed to survive doesn't mean you shouldn't continually strive to improve the game wherever you can.

[Texsox]

Just because baseball managed to survive doesn't mean you shouldn't continually strive to improve the game wherever you can.

 

Of course.

[Black_Jack29]

I can see why people feel this way, but man, I just can't get behind it. I couldn't disagree more. There are certain baseballisms that I'm in love with, like different ballpark dimensions, but this unpredictable strike zone from night to night is a detriment. It's not good that a game can hinge on the whims of an official. We have the capability to do it better, so let's do it.

 

Yeah, I can understand why people feel this way. And I'm fine with football, basketball, tennis, etc. using technology to improve the officiating. But, for me, baseball has always been a throwback sport and I like it as is, warts and all. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[Black_Jack29]

Based on your numbers you win. No disputing that.

 

I wonder how baseball ever managed to survive with so many missed calls night after night.

 

Not only that, but it was the most popular sport in America until a few decades ago.

 

Technology allows us to scrutinize umps more heavily now, which is why many people want the technology to at least partially replace the umps. I like the idea of using the best strike zone-callers permanently behind the plate, though I worry about the wear and tear on a handful of umps who are behind the plate that often.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Black_Jack29

[Texsox]

So how many games will be played this season

How many games will be decided by a wrong call over balls and strikes?

 

Now we now how big of a problem it really is.

[Jake]

I think it should be one of 2 things, either get technology to call balls and strikes or make the best balls and strikes umpires permanent home plate umpires. Let the Laz Diazes of the world work the bases.

 

Now with replay, balls and strikes is the biggest umpire issue. Everything else can be reviewed.

 

If they aren't going to do anything about it, they probably should ban pitch trax. All it does is makes the umpires look bad. And these are the best in the world. It shows just how tough of a job it is.

 

 

Great point. These are the best in the world.

 

Again, does anyone have evidence how reliable and accurate pitch trax is?

 

Pitch F/X is extremely accurate. With that said, I do not know what technology powers the graphics you see on the broadcasts. AFAIK, only MLB (and their Gameday app on the web and mobile) has real-time Pitch F/X data, I believe it is not available to others until the next day. I could be wrong about that, but I've never gotten an answer out of any TV station about the tech behind their pitch tracking graphics.

 

[Texsox]

Where did you find the information that it is real accurate? I couldn't find anything.

[GreenSox]

I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion.

The umpire as part of the sport is far more part of the culture of baseball than referees are in football, hoops, et al. Pretty obviously.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Couldn't a batter theoretically defeat a technology that calls pitches by making his strike zone smaller by crouching more every at bat ? Ricky Henderson walked a lot because not only did he have a good eye but he also made himself smaller. So then theoretically could not a team of small folks make a mockery of the game just by standing there and basically dare the pitcher to throw the ball into a very small strike zone ?

 

The 1st question I asked is serious. The one about little people not so much.

 

 

[Boopa1219]

How about adding a clock to the game? How about 10 minute innings for a 90 minute game?

[Texsox]

The umpire as part of the sport is far more part of the culture of baseball than referees are in football, hoops, et al. Pretty obviously.

 

Umpires enforce rules like in every sport. They get some calls correct, others wrong, the same as other sports. As far as the culture, how many fans would recognize an umpire on the street? Who ever said "Let's go to the game tonight Jim Joyce is in the crew? Or "John Hirschbeck is behind the plate tonight, let's go to the game".

 

But again, you are a good poster so I'm certain you must be thinking of this in a much different way than I am to reach that conclusion. I'd like to read your reasons.

[SCCWS]

Just because baseball managed to survive doesn't mean you shouldn't continually strive to improve the game wherever you can.

 

 

Let's use a T to hit the ball. No more balls and limited( fouls and misses) strikes. Eliminates the need for the pitcher so drastically increases team profits. No more hit batters so less injuries and drastically reduces Tommy John surgery.

[Texsox]

Let's use a T to hit the ball. No more balls and limited( fouls and misses) strikes. Eliminates the need for the pitcher so drastically increases team profits. No more hit batters so less injuries and drastically reduces Tommy John surgery.

 

Or a pitching machine could be a compromise for the old fashioned purists who want to preserve the traditions.

[shysocks]

Couldn't a batter theoretically defeat a technology that calls pitches by making his strike zone smaller by crouching more every at bat ? Ricky Henderson walked a lot because not only did he have a good eye but he also made himself smaller. So then theoretically could not a team of small folks make a mockery of the game just by standing there and basically dare the pitcher to throw the ball into a very small strike zone ?

 

The 1st question I asked is serious. The one about little people not so much.

I would think the technology would be less likely to be fooled by crouching than an umpire. Tell the system the batter's height before each AB, height of the zone remains static, problem solved.

 

For the second question, Bill Veeck would commend you.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I would think the technology would be less likely to be fooled by crouching than an umpire. Tell the system the batter's height before each AB, height of the zone remains static, problem solved.

 

For the second question, Bill Veeck would commend you.

 

The strike zone is not determined by the height of the batter. It is the area between the bottom of the knee cap and the middle of the torso while in their stance. If it went strictly by the batter's height a guy like Jeff Bagwell who hit in a crouched stance would have to be swinging at pitches eye level.

[shysocks]

The strike zone is not determined by the height of the batter. It is the area between the bottom of the knee cap and the middle of the torso while in their stance. If it went strictly by the batter's height a guy like Jeff Bagwell who hit in a crouched stance would have to be swinging at pitches eye level.

Today I Learned. Thank you, my mistake.

 

That makes the task a little more complicated, but it could still be done. As Dan Szymborski says here, "One of the common arguments against automatic balls and strikes is that we still can't count on the technology, which is a rather strange argument. We have planes that make thousands of imperceptible course directions accurately and without human contact... Yet somehow, in baseball, identifying where a white sphere crosses a white pentagon a couple of feet away is some monumental technological challenge? Poppycock."

 

He's downplaying the challenge a little for humor, but I think we could teach the system not to be fooled by a smaller crouch. Again, MLB will not risk switching to a computerized zone without making sure it is really, really good, as it is a massive change. Even if we couldn't figure this hurdle out, I also think hitters would rather repeat the stance they are used to than completely change their approach at the plate just to shorten the zone.

[Texsox]

The strike zone is not determined by the height of the batter. It is the area between the bottom of the knee cap and the middle of the torso while in their stance. If it went strictly by the batter's height a guy like Jeff Bagwell who hit in a crouched stance would have to be swinging at pitches eye level.

 

They seemed to have removed the language about it being a "normal" or "usual" stance.

[Panerista]

Couldn't a batter theoretically defeat a technology that calls pitches by making his strike zone smaller by crouching more every at bat ? Ricky Henderson walked a lot because not only did he have a good eye but he also made himself smaller. So then theoretically could not a team of small folks make a mockery of the game just by standing there and basically dare the pitcher to throw the ball into a very small strike zone ?

 

The 1st question I asked is serious. The one about little people not so much.

Theoretically, but with the modern computer's ability to self-learn, auto balls/strikes could adapt. I would still have a home plate umpire anyway to double check the computer, anyway. The MLB could make it so that a computer feeds information about pitches into the ear of the home plate umpire or to a watch on his hands.