Thought a poll would be interesting. We talk about this in a lot of threads and I didn't see a catchall to discuss ball/strike video (or other technology) review in MLB.
When Will There Be Ball/Strike Video or Robot Review in MLB?
- Thread starter DennyDoyle'sBoil
- Start date
Sorry, I edited. I really meant technology review. I can't seem to edit the poll question, but I edited the title.
Yea... they can put a person back there if they want but the goal should be all ball-strike calls are automated. Challenges and appeals are a half measure. The less the umpires can influence the game the better.
One game away:
With the discussion now already pretty far along, one especially brutal, game-changing night of playoff umpiring in a game involving a large market team. That will be enough of a catalyst for the change to come into effect the next season.
But it might take five years to get that game.
With the discussion now already pretty far along, one especially brutal, game-changing night of playoff umpiring in a game involving a large market team. That will be enough of a catalyst for the change to come into effect the next season.
But it might take five years to get that game.
My understanding is that it is going well. But who knows (I can't actually read this article).
https://www.masslive.com/worcesterredsox/2023/08/robot-umps-challenge-system-or-neither-woosox-players-weigh-in.html
Has anyone seen something reliable that describes how pitch techology draws the strike zone from batter to batter? I almost feel as though we might need to redefine the strike zone in order to effectively have review, because the current rule makes me think that there has to be some fudging with respect to how the zone is drawn.
The strike zone, as currently defined, depends on things like how the batter wears his pants and how he stands in the box, which could be different from pitch to pitch. A batter who gets more upright on two strikes has a different strike zone throughout the at bat, at least if you take the current definition seriously. The strike zone also depends on parts of the batter's body we cannot actually see -- they are under his uniform or pads. Specifically, the "hollow beneath the kneecap."
I think the best part of the AAA challenge system is the 3D technology that shows a firm box and then shows whether or not the ball passed through it. It looks very objective. But it assumes the box was properly drawn before the pitch. I assume they have this figured out, but I guess I have a hard time believing that it's as finely tuned as the rules pretend. Once you get the top and the bottom, then certainly I think you can do an accurate 3D model of the zone. But how are they getting the top and bottom?
It reminds me a little of first downs in football. When we want to know if the runner made a first down, we get very specific on using the chain to decide whether he made it down to millimeters. But we never really talk about the fact that when the chains are set at the start of the series, they are set by eyeballing it, often by guys 30 yards away running quickly to catch up before the play is run. So we pretend it's a very precise 10 yards. But it's not.
Someone in the thread linked by AB in DC notes that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I agree entirely. I just wonder about this part of it.
The strike zone, as currently defined, depends on things like how the batter wears his pants and how he stands in the box, which could be different from pitch to pitch. A batter who gets more upright on two strikes has a different strike zone throughout the at bat, at least if you take the current definition seriously. The strike zone also depends on parts of the batter's body we cannot actually see -- they are under his uniform or pads. Specifically, the "hollow beneath the kneecap."
I think the best part of the AAA challenge system is the 3D technology that shows a firm box and then shows whether or not the ball passed through it. It looks very objective. But it assumes the box was properly drawn before the pitch. I assume they have this figured out, but I guess I have a hard time believing that it's as finely tuned as the rules pretend. Once you get the top and the bottom, then certainly I think you can do an accurate 3D model of the zone. But how are they getting the top and bottom?
It reminds me a little of first downs in football. When we want to know if the runner made a first down, we get very specific on using the chain to decide whether he made it down to millimeters. But we never really talk about the fact that when the chains are set at the start of the series, they are set by eyeballing it, often by guys 30 yards away running quickly to catch up before the play is run. So we pretend it's a very precise 10 yards. But it's not.
Someone in the thread linked by AB in DC notes that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I agree entirely. I just wonder about this part of it.
What about batters who change their stance depending on the pitcher or where they are trying to hit the ball? Also, some batters don't take their actual stance until the pitcher is in the act of throwing the ball.
I recall being at a SABR convention in St. Louis when MLB was installing PITCHf/x in all the parks and I had the opportunity to view it first hand. One of the processes was techs drawing the lower and upper bonds of a batter's stance on a computer screen with the idea of compiling a database so it would eventually be applied automatically. I was not too inpressed by what I saw.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do the half-measure of ball/strike review instead of jumping all of the way to robot ball/strike, but I'm still wishing for this to go the way of tennis. Where it works awesome.
Watching multiple games a day you see how many of these calls are missed and how much it impacts the game. I've seen the review at work in the minors and it is quick and effective. It doesn't slow the game down at all and would be so ideal for these brutally missed calls. We have the technology, marry it with the umps judgement and a player with restrictions on how many they use it on and the game will be better.
Very timely thread... The Athletic's Jayson Stark has a really good story up today, that pretty much says, at the start of the year they were shooting for 2024, but now they do not have a firm date, as MILB players and managers have voiced concerns about both the full ABS system and the Ball/strike option
https://theathletic.com/4791440/2023/08/25/mlb-robot-umpires-future/?source=emp_shared_article
https://theathletic.com/4791440/2023/08/25/mlb-robot-umpires-future/?source=emp_shared_article
From the article, MLB also made the strike zone smaller in the games where this system is used.
The entire article is about how some minor league players and managers don't like the changes. Not a word about whether the fans do or not.
And many of the issues that are raised could easily be fixed by using an automated system that uses a buzzer to let the ump know if a pitch was in the zone or not. But MLB hasn't tested that version of the system.
Which of course leads to more walks. Which players and managers in AAA are blaming on... the pitch-calling system.
Obviously walks will go up when you make the strike zone smaller.
The entire article is about how some minor league players and managers don't like the changes. Not a word about whether the fans do or not.
And many of the issues that are raised could easily be fixed by using an automated system that uses a buzzer to let the ump know if a pitch was in the zone or not. But MLB hasn't tested that version of the system.
All that is needed is to stop having the strike zone outlined on tv and on MLB's gameday, etc. If you didn't have that, how well could you call balls and strikes when watching a game?
People have been arguing the veracity of umpire's strike zones since games have been televised (hell, since the first game ever played), way before the pitch zones and graphics demonstrated without question how badly some calls are missed.
Well, nearly all of the games I followed growing up were over the radio, so I son't think I had much chance of arguing balls and strikes.
I think it's fair to say that MLB wouldn't be entertaining any solutions to this if it weren't for the graphics.
Also, I wouldn't mind if they rolled this out this season with just one umpire, to work out the kinks in real time. Angel Hernandez comes to mind.
Back in the early days of the game, there was only one umpire and he was positioned behind the pitcher, but the calling of balls and strikes was much different back then, too. In 1912, both the AL and NL had 10-man crews (two were reserves, so some games only had one umpire). The four-man umpiring crew wasn't instituted for regular season games until 1952.