Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Robo strikezone: Not as simple as you think -- Baseball Prospectus

Discussion in 'MLB Discussion' started by charlieoscar, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    This is a free article from Baseball Prospectus of a paper submitted to SABR's Analytics Research Conference. It discusses some of the problems that could be encountered in trying to develop an automated ball/strike calling system.

    https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/

    One thing that is not spelled out is the definition of a non-swinging strike, which is any portion of the ball passing through any portion of the strike zone. A baseball must have a circumference measuring from 9.0 inches to 9.25 inches. If you work out the diameter of a ball from those numbers, you find it to be from 2.864789... to 2.944366...", which is a latitude of almost 1/12 of an inch. A question I have never seen answered is whether allowance is made in the circumference for the seams.

    A question or two comes to mind but I'm not a subscriber to BP, so I cannot ask there. However, if the plate was slightly skewed towards left field (a few hundredths of an inch), and there was a right-handed pitcher facinf a right-handed batter. If a pitch was thrown to the outside of the plate, just missing the front left corner and breaking away from the batter, would/could the robo-ump pick that up?

    Are the plate and batter's boxes perfectly flat in both the x- and y-axes? What if the back of the plate were slightly higher than front of the plate? A higher pitch would not have to drop quite as far to catch the top of the zone than if the back of the plate was slightly lower than the front. The rear left corner of the plate could be lower than the front right corner, which also could cause an error.

    These may be nit-picking questions but if you want perfection....
     
    #1 charlieoscar, Feb 13, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  2. VORP Speed

    VORP Speed Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,875
    Perfect is the enemy of good
     
  3. InstaFace

    InstaFace MDLzera

    Messages:
    6,709
    yeah, if it's 98% accurate to within 1/8", the umps' union might as well fold up shop. These worries are angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin in terms of impact on the overall experience.
     
  4. edoug

    edoug Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    What about foul tips? Wild pitches or passed balls with a man on 3rd? Wild pitches or passed balls with men on 2nd and 3rd? HBP that graze the batters uniform?
     
  5. jercra

    jercra Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,829
    I don't think the proposal needs to be that the home plate umpire is eliminated, just that they don't call balls and strikes anymore. The first base ump still exists and he doesn't call balls and strikes.
     
  6. Beomoose

    Beomoose Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    16,443
    How about a compromise: the Ump wears an AR headset that projects the zone into the world so he can clearly see the ball in relation to it, but he's still the one that makes the call.
     
  7. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Overall, batters hit .248 with an on-base percentage of .318 during the 2018 regular season. Who made more mistakes...the batters of the home plate umpires? I've been watching baseball for a long, long time and missed calls by umpires (and mistakes by everyone from the owners on down) have been part of the game. What I want to see is getting the game time back down to about two-and-a-half hours. I posted a link to that article to bring it to the attention of those people who think that robo-calling balls and strikes is a piece of cake to implement.
     
  8. Joe Sixpack

    Joe Sixpack Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,869
    Pace of play is an entirely separate issue being discussed elsewhere on this site, and I think an important one, but not to be conflated with the missed calls issue.

    This article is highly flawed from my perspective. For example:

    "It is widely known that both Doppler-based and camera-based machines are not accurately reporting 100 percent of their measured data 100 percent of the time. Even if they were accurate 99.9 percent of the time, what if that 0.1 percent is a strike but is called a ball on a 3-2 count in the bottom of the ninth inning with bases loaded and two outs in a tie game?"

    This argument makes no sense, because I think we all know that no human umpire is 99.9% accurate, so why would a robo ump be held to that standard? Not to mention what the example used brings to mind since we saw a perfect game ruined by a human umpire in real life. (I know, not a ball/strike call)

    Worrying about whether the seams of the baseball will be picked up is silly because right now the entire baseball can be over the plate and the human ump may call it a ball.
     
  9. Lose Remerswaal

    Lose Remerswaal Leaves after the 8th inning Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,126
    Welcome to SoSH Mr. Cafardo!

    Doing it quickly is better than doing it right? I hope I never meet your surgeon!

    Of course if batters hit 1.000 or had an OBP of 1.000 you could turn your argument around to say the pitchers are making too many mistakes . . . .
     
  10. Van Everyman

    Van Everyman Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    17,000
    My assumption all along has been that umpires will wear a Google Glass-type of eyewear that allows them to see the ball go over the plate Gameday-style.

    Really, it’s not that hard.
     
  11. Max Power

    Max Power thai good. you like shirt? SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,419
    Imagine how long the games would be if that were the case.
     
  12. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,239
    People though robot umps would be a piece of cake to implement?
     
  13. TomTerrific

    TomTerrific Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,316
    The article isn't bad for the most part (see below), but it kind of misses the forest for the trees.

    (BTW, one of the bad parts of the article is the machine calibration part--calibrating to the tolerances required is not challenging at all. And the discussion of RF issues is uninformed, to put it mildly.)

    What a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes needs to have, more than anything else, is consistency within a game, and consistency from game to game, and park to park. This is very much easier to achieve with automated equipment than humans. Even if the strike zone is different than the average one called by umpires, given the tolerances already achievable by machines, I'll bet the in-game variance for them is way smaller than the variance from ump to ump. And as I said above, the game-to-game and park-to-park variance just isn't going to be anything nearly as big as the in-game variance if any reasonable effort is put into it.

    The thing that drives people nuts aren't any of the things focused on in the article. What bugs everyone are lack of consistency and glaring errors--and humans just can't do nearly as good a job at avoiding those two things. As for any residual errors--if batters can adjust to the vagaries (i.e., biases) of human umpires, they can adjust to the ones caused by machines. Which will be far more constant and predictable than the human ones. And BTW, if the K-zone shown on the screen is drawn from the same sensing that calls the balls and strikes, it will look right to everyone and stop pissing people off. Which people, BTW, who have a really, really poor idea based on just their eyeballs as to whether the pitch really was a ball or strike.

    TECHNICAL RANT I CAN'T RESIST MAKING:

    From a physics point of view, humans are kind of poorly designed relative to machines. We depend almost exclusively on two angles that our eyes measure, and a not-very-well-stablized platform (our heads) to track an object that is decreasing in range by almost 98%. Anyone who's ever worked this kind of problem knows you're going to be heavily dependent on estimating the entire trajectory in order to try and get that last bit (where the ball crosses the strike zone) right, and humans definitely do that. Given the forces at play (e.g., baseball's response to the spin vector, air motion-temp-pressure-humidity) this is a really variable process, too.

    In contrast, these other systems are range-Doppler multilateration systems (meaning they construct a trajectory based on a series of range-Doppler measurements from a set of fixed locations). There are very few situations where we cannot reconstruct trajectories far, far better using range-Doppler multilateration than we can using angle information along, even multi-angular measurements (aka triangulation). The basic reason is that, for most situations, and relative to the required accuracy, we can measure range far, far better than we can angles.
     
  14. Marbleheader

    Marbleheader Dope Dope

    Messages:
    10,165
    All he's really need is an earpiece. The ump gets a ding for a strike and a buzzer for a ball but still relays the call on the field.
     
  15. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Why does a batter take a pitch? Sometimes it's because it wasn't the pitch he was looking for, sometimes because he was fooled, sometimes because he thought it would be called a ball. In this latter case, he is umpiring. So, who makes more mistakes umpiring? The batter or the umpire? I'd say the batter and if you had a perfect ball/strike calling robo-umpire you would still see batters misjudge close pitches. For one reason, batters are watching the ball and especially with pitches that are up a bit, they won't be seeing the edge of the strike zone.

    Oh, the umpire missed a call. Boo! But does anyone boo the batter? You have these fans watching a depiction of the strike zone and path of the ball in a little display on the corner of their television screen, a display that is not always accurate, calling for the head of the umpire. Or better, yet, someone down past the foul pole in right field screaming at the umpire for missing a ball or strike call.

    I think baseball has bigger things to worry about, and doing things quicker is one of them.
     
  16. geoduck no quahog

    geoduck no quahog Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,579
    What on earth is relevant about "batters making more mistakes than umpires"? Seriously...what's your point?

    That aside, the killer paragraph for me is:

    There is nothing fair or sporting about that sentence. Is that the way players should be trained? The zone changes with the count? Robo-Umps aside, it's ridiculous that an umpire should change the zone within a single plate appearance.

    I'll repeat what an NCAA umpire once told me (take it for what it's worth - I'd be interested in a more direct interpretation): Umpires have a hard time judging pitch height, particularly in the 2-dimensions that include plate depth. He says he was taught to call a pitch caught above the catcher's knees and below the catcher's eyes a strike. He said that college umps give catchers a lot of shit if they try to repeatedly game that system. Anyone have any insight?

    Everything about that article led me to believe automatic strike zone calls are more fair than human perception.
     
  17. Bergs

    Bergs Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,169
    This is an argument against the very concept of logic.
     
  18. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,595
    It’s been about 20 years now that we’ve had games with that display screen for balls and strikes at least intermittently. In all the games I’ve watched, there was 1 time - one - where I said, “boy, the computer clearly missed that call, I’m glad the home plate umpire was there.” There is at least 1 time per game where the umpire calls a pitch completely and obviously wrong.

    The argument against computerized strike zones is, “Old man yells at cloud.” That’s it.
     
  19. joe dokes

    joe dokes Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,256
    I dont know how hard it would be to implement, but I'm not sure your points go to that issue.

    Who makes more mistakes delivering babies? Obstetricians or orthodontists?

    Does anyone boo the batter? In my experience, that happens occasionally.

    How does this do things not quicker?

    If true, it is even an argument?
    (see "The Argument Sketch," Monty Python.)
     
  20. Bergs

    Bergs Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,169
    I'm sorry, this is abuse.
     
  21. Dewey'sCannon

    Dewey'sCannon Well-Known Member Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    555
    Look at these shoes, I've only worn them a week and already the soles are worn out. Why bother to complain, no one even listens. . . .

    FWIW, I always though the first step should be rob-assisted umpiring - rigging their ball/strike counters so that they would vibrate if the ball is within the automated strike zone. Ump can rely on this, over override if they really think the robot-call is wrong. And that data would be available for review, at least by MLB.
     
  22. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,595
    It just seems like a vibration signal, or a beep, or a heads up display would be so distracting that it would make the umpires moot anyway. I can’t imagine that something that breaks your concentration as the pitch crosses home plate is conducive to making a better call. And, if they had the buzzer or the vibration on a one-second delay, it’s just going to train umps to not make a borderline call and rely on the computer anyway.

    There is no reason to not make this change other than nastalgia for a less sophisticated time.
     
  23. geoduck no quahog

    geoduck no quahog Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,579
    ...and they'd still be responsible for check swings (along with another umpire), plays at the plate, HBP, 3rd strikes in the dirt, foul balls up to the bag, calling time and generally running the game...a little more than they do the other 3 games they officiate - and they could now do better.
     
  24. edoug

    edoug Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    Yeah, there absolutely has to be someone behind home plate.
     
  25. Lose Remerswaal

    Lose Remerswaal Leaves after the 8th inning Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,126
    Well duh, or else you are going to have a shit-ton of passed balls /Casey Stengel (sort of)
     
  26. edoug

    edoug Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    Yeah it's only logical. :)
     
  27. InstaFace

    InstaFace MDLzera

    Messages:
    6,709
    Since it was clearly so memorable, though, I'm now kinda curious what that one instance was.
     
  28. uncannymanny

    uncannymanny Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,730
    The batter is also trying to decide whether or not to swing and to get his body parts into position to do so in a split second. The umpire has the luxury of having one job as the pitch is delivered. This is a really odd argument.
     
  29. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,595
    It was the Ortiz at bat against Miller early in 2016 season. Of course, the umpire missed that call too, so it didn’t really matter.
     
    #29 Plympton91, Feb 17, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  30. shaggydog2000

    shaggydog2000 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,920
    Trackman/Statcast, which I assume would be the robo-ump of choice given that it is in current use at ball-parks, is off vertically and horizontally by up to 3 inches:

    https://tht.fangraphs.com/the-lurking-error-in-statcast-pitch-data/

    Now, those three inch errors are pretty rare. There are most likely errors that are even worse, but happen even more rarely. But we've all seen Umpires make even worse mistakes. I don't know of data on umpire accuracy, but I am sure the MLB has it somewhere. I'd guess it's somewhat equal, but not fairly distributed error. Combining an Ump with an ability to over-rule the system with the trackman buzzer would be fine by me. The Ump could catch the obvious errors, and the robo-ump could be used to train the Ump to be more accurate and consistent. I know they do post-game training involving video and the Umpire calls, but a buzzer in your ear is a good reminder of how you're supposed to be calling things. It's going to come eventually, let's figure out how to do it in the most fair and accurate manner.
     

Share This Page