Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

The Dale Scott Thread (Papi got hosed!)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
93 replies to this topic

#51 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 20,175 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 13 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think, and really hope you mean 33%. Maybe my sarcasm meter is off, thats it..



Ummmmmm . . . no? unsure.gif

#52 Jnai


  • is not worried about sex with goats


  • 9,803 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 07:55 PM

QUOTE (kartvelo @ May 13 2010, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4 = 3 * 1.33
and
4 = 3 + (.33)3


SONS OF SAM HORN

WHERE THE MAGIC OF BASEBALL ANALYSIS HAPPENS

#53 URI


  • stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of life


  • 10,251 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 08:33 PM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 13 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think, and really hope you mean 33%. Maybe my sarcasm meter is off, thats it..


33% of 3 is 1.

I hope this isn't another one of your instances where people correct you and you go on and try to make yourself a martyr.

#54 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,886 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 09:11 PM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 13 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was a large strike zone, but it was large all night, at least against the Red Sox, so with 2 strikes in the 9th, it's hard to take that pitch. Papi may be right, but he is still out.

Umm... You don't follow baseball, do you? The strike zone is the strike zone. That umps get it wrong is the crux of this entire thread, and that this particular ump got it egregiously wrong is the reason for this thread's creation.

And a ball 1/2 a foot outside is still 1/2 a foot outside, which is always a ball, even with crappy and generous umps. Sure Papi was out, but only by ump fiat. Want to excuse a consistent ump for being consistently generous or stingy? Fine. This was not that situation.

Edited by zenter, 13 May 2010 - 09:11 PM.


#55 absintheofmalaise


  • too many flowers


  • 11,203 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 09:24 PM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 13 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Given that his strike zone against Wakefield was not unusual, I would think the difference could be attributed to Scott does not see 90 mph FB very well but can see 70 mph heat, and relies on where the ball is caught for some of his calss. Molina is one of the better defensive catchers around and was doing a good job of setting up outside and framing pitches. To Scott, the pitcher is throwing exactly where the catcher is calling for the ball to be be pitched, but all he does is hear the whizzz and see where the ball is caught. Also, the way he sets up inside on balls thrown outside means he does not have a very good angle on determining if the ball is over the plate or outside, even if he sees it.

Where exactly would you have him set up? He was set up perfectly. The umpire sets up on the catcher's shoulder nearest to the batter. You really don't think he can see a 90mph fastball? High school umpires don't have a problem seeing a 90mph fastball, why do you think a MLB ump would?
Check out the screen shot of that pitch again. He actually followed the catcher and his face was in the middle of the plate. That makes it an even worse call.


#56 Toe Nash

  • 3,211 posts

Posted 13 May 2010 - 10:20 PM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 13 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Given that his strike zone against Wakefield was not unusual,

It was only not unusual because Wakefield didn't manage to throw any pitches 2-6 inches off the plate that Marcum and Gregg got for called strikes. If you look at the chart there are no Boston pitches in that zone that were called balls -- it's probable that if Wake had thrown any there they would have also been called strikes.

#57 paulftodd


  • 133% banned


  • 1,470 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 12:30 AM

QUOTE (absintheofmalaise @ May 14 2010, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Where exactly would you have him set up? He was set up perfectly. The umpire sets up on the catcher's shoulder nearest to the batter. You really don't think he can see a 90mph fastball? High school umpires don't have a problem seeing a 90mph fastball, why do you think a MLB ump would?
Check out the screen shot of that pitch again. He actually followed the catcher and his face was in the middle of the plate. That makes it an even worse call.


I have read a number of times that umps can not cover the entire zone, they can do high - low, or inside - outside, but not both well. The umpire was set up well to call high or low, having a clear view well away from the catchers shoulder, which was his biggest problem based on a 2007 study, so maybe he adjusted.

Sometimes catchers tip off an ump to help him out and get a good call (I have seen V-mart tap an umpire on the leg to let him know inside/outside). Tito once questioned an umpire seriously about if the umpire could actually see Lesters fast ball one night. This ump was set up on the inside of the plate, head movement is not recommended to making good calls (batters try to minimize head movement to hit the ball) so the fact he was following the ball with his head is not a good sign IMO.

Also, ever seen a catcher that gets crossed up on location, they act at times if they don't see the ball. Umpires are no different, they don't know what pitch is coming and sometimes not even location when the pitchers command is off and it goes inside instead of outside (in which case it tends to be called a ball even if it was a strike), and while the good ones can see the ball well, the bad ones don't see the ball as well.

Thats my theory anyways. Maybe his plane was late, maybe he was betting against the Red Sox, maybe some other conspiracy theory.

QUOTE (kartvelo @ May 14 2010, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4 = 3 * 1.33
and
4 = 3 + (.33)3


QUOTE (Jnai @ May 14 2010, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
SONS OF SAM HORN

WHERE THE MAGIC OF BASEBALL ANALYSIS HAPPENS


When you are talking about 4 being X more than 3, it is 33% more. The fact that 4 is 133% of 3 does not mean 4 is 133% more than 3, as implied by the statement "Barely More EV?.

Really guys..


QUOTE (zenter @ May 14 2010, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Umm... You don't follow baseball, do you? The strike zone is the strike zone. That umps get it wrong is the crux of this entire thread, and that this particular ump got it egregiously wrong is the reason for this thread's creation.

And a ball 1/2 a foot outside is still 1/2 a foot outside, which is always a ball, even with crappy and generous umps. Sure Papi was out, but only by ump fiat. Want to excuse a consistent ump for being consistently generous or stingy? Fine. This was not that situation.


Actually I do, and umpires sometimes have their own strike zone and players have to adjust to it accordingly, or else. Sometimes life is unfair, and things are not as they should be. If it was the first inning I would understand, but it's the 9th. The strike zone at that point is what the ump says it is, rules don't help.

Edited by paulftodd, 14 May 2010 - 12:31 AM.


#58 geoduck no quahog


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,054 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 04:25 AM

I think he was calling that area of the zone a strike the entire game (certainly against Drew, at minimum). It becomes terrifically unfair because Wakefield doesn't throw pitches that take advantage of the umpire's peculiar reads and the knuckleball is moving so differently. Another Sox pitcher could have recognized the defective calling and thrown the same types of pitches to the same spots in critical situations.

What also sucked was how obvious the bad calls were - at least from the centerfield angle which I admit doesn't provide enough dimension to judge as accurately as an umpire or machine.

But why doesn't a left -handed batter recognize this and simply move 3 inches closer to the plate? That doesn't impact muscle memory...he just moves his personal strike zone relative to the ballpark's strike zone. Was Ortiz already as close as he could get? Was he concerned with catching up to an inside pitch? I know it's not a fair solution, but if an umpire has a wide strike zone the hitter has to make a decision and decide which part of the zone to protect.

The umpire sucked and should be called out, but he seemed to suck consistently. It's too bad the Sox pitchers couldn't take full advantage of that suckitude but any talk about having a machine call balls and strikes make me ill. Umpires personal strike zones are a traditional part of the game. Inconsistency is an unfortunate part of the game but exists. Without that asshole behind the plate, we don't get Pedroia's quote which, for me, made the whole thing worthwhile.

#59 judyb

  • 3,385 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 06:31 AM

QUOTE (geoduck no quahog @ May 14 2010, 05:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think he was calling that area of the zone a strike the entire game (certainly against Drew, at minimum). It becomes terrifically unfair because Wakefield doesn't throw pitches that take advantage of the umpire's peculiar reads and the knuckleball is moving so differently. Another Sox pitcher could have recognized the defective calling and thrown the same types of pitches to the same spots in critical situations.

What also sucked was how obvious the bad calls were - at least from the centerfield angle which I admit doesn't provide enough dimension to judge as accurately as an umpire or machine.

But why doesn't a left -handed batter recognize this and simply move 3 inches closer to the plate? That doesn't impact muscle memory...he just moves his personal strike zone relative to the ballpark's strike zone. Was Ortiz already as close as he could get? Was he concerned with catching up to an inside pitch? I know it's not a fair solution, but if an umpire has a wide strike zone the hitter has to make a decision and decide which part of the zone to protect.

The umpire sucked and should be called out, but he seemed to suck consistently. It's too bad the Sox pitchers couldn't take full advantage of that suckitude but any talk about having a machine call balls and strikes make me ill. Umpires personal strike zones are a traditional part of the game. Inconsistency is an unfortunate part of the game but exists. Without that asshole behind the plate, we don't get Pedroia's quote which, for me, made the whole thing worthwhile.
http://www.brooksbas.....mlb_bosmlb_1/

See, when I look just at Marcum's chart, it doesn't look to me like hitters should have been prepared for what happened in the 9th.

http://www.brooksbas.....mlb_bosmlb_1/

When I look at Gregg's, I'm not thinking he did a good job exploiting a wide zone, I'm thinking the umpire kept handing him gift strikes he did absolutely nothing to deserve.

#60 Bucknahs Bum Ankle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,489 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 07:48 AM

QUOTE (paulftodd @ May 14 2010, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
When you are talking about 4 being X more than 3, it is 33% more. The fact that 4 is 133% of 3 does not mean 4 is 133% more than 3, as implied by the statement "Barely More EV?.

Really guys..

I usually don't get involved in these little pissing matches that you consistently find yourself in, but this time it's too much even for me to take. SJH clearly wrote that 4 is 133% of 3 and then went on to question whether that qualified as "barely more". A middle school kid can understand that more in this case refers to the part that is greater than 100%. Please do yourself a favor, admit that you misread it, and take that mischaracterization of this ridiculous argument out of your signature field so as not to draw even more negative attention to yourself.

#61 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,848 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 08:17 AM

BBA, don't bother. He can't hear you any more.

paulftodd, I tried to send you this but you disabled your PM inbox, so I'm putting it here where you can see it:

QUOTE
Your hard-headedness in internet conversation wouldn't normally be a handicap to the board, as it could easily be used to stimulate some good conversation about certain topics like UZR, SSS, and even JD Drew. But you have displayed a constant pattern of refusing to back down from even the most elementary of mistakes, and when they are pointed out to you instead of saying "my bad" you retreat further, refuse to admit you were wrong, and repeat the same fallacies over and over and over again.

And using your sig file to continue your stubborn statements is blatant trolling at this point. It's become a distraction and a liability on the board, and it's become clear to ALL the administrative staff here that this isn't the board for you. Thus you will no longer have posting permission on this board.

And learn some basic math. Christ.

Good day.




Hasta eternidad, gringos.

#62 Alternate34

  • 2,461 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:56 AM

QUOTE (EastCoasterOutWest @ May 13 2010, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Um, that would really slow things down. Maybe they get a set # per game (5) like tennis challenges, but with all the talk of pace of play these days there's no way they agree to add anything in that potentially slows things down.

Not that I think it's a bad idea.


I thought about the set # per game. Here are the issues with that. If it is a set number per player, you will delay the game more. A substitute would get 5 when coming in late game. Additionally, many players will only get 4 PAs in a game, so one per PA would give them more challenges.

If the number is a set number per team, it makes the challenges more interesting but less useful and may make the challenges take longer. A batter would have to think about the rest of his teammates and whether they would need to use challenges. Certainly, this makes their use more strategic and interesting, but cuts away at the attempt at accuracy. To adjust for strategy, batter may check with their manager. The manager would think whether to trust the batter or not since the batter has a better view.

Once per PA takes away that deliberation aspect. With the batter or pitcher being the only one responsible, they would use their challenge quickly. To enforce this, you could have a rule that if the pitcher gets the ball back from the catcher or the batter gets set, the challenge opportunity is lost. That would speed up the game immensely as a borderline strike or ball would get tossed back quickly or the batter wouldn't leave the box and set himself ASAP. The only issue would be last pitches leading to Ks or BBs. You could have the same rule for a K, ball gets back to a pitcher, no challenge opp. The rule for a BB could be player gets to 1B, no challenge opp.

Edit - you may also cut down on arguing about pitches, which could marginally improve game times.

Edited by Alternate34, 14 May 2010 - 09:58 AM.


#63 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 20,175 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 10:15 AM

About time. Even Grady didn't have that slow of a hook.

#64 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • PipPip
  • 1,309 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE (zenter @ May 13 2010, 07:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Alternatively, simply have Cyclops watch every pitch and leave it to the ump's discretion to call according to Cyclops or not. A simple beep in the ear, or buzz on a wrist-held device would suffice. Then, managers can have all the call logs as well, and learn how to pitch/bat dependent on the given ump. After the season, call logs are released to the public.

Umps are happy - they maintain control and gain accuracy.
Fans and players are happy - umps are accountable-er.


Or, $uck the umps. I have yet to see the "human element" angle present a reasonable argument or even a bad one against getting the dam calls right. The umpires cannot. It really is that simple. The technology is there. Implement it. An umpires job is to make the right calls however they have failed at that time and time again. They are human, they will make errors. That is a problem; therefore logic dictates you correct problems when and where ever you can. The fact that they have no accountability has to lead one to question the very integrity of the game itself. Without accountability you eventually lose all integrity. This opens the door to games being fixed or at least the possibility of that happening. Why would you not eliminate that possibility?

The front, back, inside and outside of the strike zone is easy enough to set up with an accurate electronic device. The only real issue would be the top and bottom of the zone. They could use small sensors sown to the exterior of uniforms. It's important that they be visible but hardly noticeable and that they match the color of the uniform. The sensors would account for the different heights and or batting stances for players.

Can someone explain to me what the hell the "human element" actually means? I thought the human element was about the players actually competing on the field and not the umpires. We watch sports in part to see great performances and competition. If you don't employ every endeavor you can to get the events on the field RIGHT then that is a total disservice to the game. In fact the "human element" angle is actually a shamockery to the game. It gives the game a giant middle finger.

Edited by seantoo, 14 May 2010 - 02:35 PM.


#65 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,886 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE (seantoo @ May 14 2010, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OR. or Fuck the Umps. I have yet to see a reasonable or even bad arguement against getting the dam calls right. The umpires cannot.

Nobody's a bigger proponent of minimizing the impact of umps on a game than me. The "human factor" is nothing I care for, either. But what you say isn't so simple, even with the implementation you propose. There are things Cyclops cannot do...

1) Deal with the umps' union.
2) Determine "intent to swing" - key for judging whether a swing is "checked" or not.
3) Fix itself when it breaks. Right now, other umps are the backup system.
4) Call a time out.
5) Call plays at the plate.
6) Calling swinging strikes, or at least distinguishing between a swinging strike and a struck ball.

In essence, you cannot completely take human overseers out of the equation anyway. If there's a guy who needs to keep track of or verify what Cyclops is doing anyway, might as well simply let the home plate ump be that guy. It resolves the umpiring problems without affecting the human impediments to these problems.

#66 Alternate34

  • 2,461 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 12:22 PM

QUOTE (seantoo @ May 14 2010, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The front, back, inside and outside of the strike zone is easy enough. The only real issue would be the top and bottom of the zone. I can picture small sensors sown to the exterior of uniforms, hadly noticeable but improtant to be noticed that would match the color of the uniform. They would account for the different heights and or batting stances for players.


You can't attach it to the uniform. Jacking up your pants and tucking in your shirt could effect the strike zone. Wind blowing your shirt would effect the strike zone.

Most importantly, the strike zone is (approximating the language here) based on the players stance as if ready to swing. Rickey Henderson's adopted a stance to try and gam the system where he bent over, shrinking the zone between his armpits and knees. A human ump can see that as BS designed to draw walks. A computer ump wouldn't.

#67 iayork

  • 199 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 12:26 PM

QUOTE (zenter @ May 14 2010, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nobody's a bigger proponent of minimizing the impact of umps on a game than me. The "human factor" is nothing I care for, either. But what you say isn't so simple, even with the implementation you propose. There are things Cyclops cannot do...


One other thing about an automated system: It would have to pass what I think of as the "Pedroia" test. Could a hypercompetitive, obsessive fanatic who spends 21 hours a day thinking about baseball, and three hours a day playing it, figure out a way to trick the system? Especially if being able to trick the system every fourth or fifth time would make a difference of several million dollars a year?

#68 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:02 PM

QUOTE (Alternate34 @ May 14 2010, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't attach it to the uniform. Jacking up your pants and tucking in your shirt could effect the strike zone. Wind blowing your shirt would effect the strike zone.

Most importantly, the strike zone is (approximating the language here) based on the players stance as if ready to swing. Rickey Henderson's adopted a stance to try and gam the system where he bent over, shrinking the zone between his armpits and knees. A human ump can see that as BS designed to draw walks. A computer ump wouldn't.



Not that hard to do really. You could just make the detectors be tight. And the home plate ump(who would be needed anyway) could check for players screwing with their uniform. As for gaming the system...it wouldn't be to hard to have the strike zone detected at, say the the instant the pitch is thrown. A person couldn't change their stance much in that amount of time. A computer system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It just has to be better than the current system.

#69 Alternate34

  • 2,461 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:11 PM

QUOTE (BucketOBalls @ May 14 2010, 01:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not that hard to do really. You could just make the detectors be tight. And the home plate ump(who would be needed anyway) could check for players screwing with their uniform. As for gaming the system...it wouldn't be to hard to have the strike zone detected at, say the the instant the pitch is thrown. A person couldn't change their stance much in that amount of time. A computer system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It just has to be better than the current system.


Did you see Rickey Henderson bat? He would change his stance depending on pitch location. If he thought it would be a ball, he would remain crouched down. If not he would stand up a little into his real stance. It was off and on how much umpires would fall for it. A computerized system based on the uniform could be gamed.

You'd need to based the strike zone on video, not attachments to a player uniform.

#70 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,808 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:17 PM

No technological fix will be perfect, for many of the reasons highlighted here.

Honestly, I'd be fine with the current system if the individual(s) in a position to do something about it would grow a pair and begin to discipline and/or replace umps who are simply not very good at their jobs.

#71 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 13,048 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:31 PM

The installation of an automated system will do nothing, NOTHING, to placate fans or players. Thinking otherwise is ignoring the realities of human nature. Look at the Hawkeye system in tennis. If a player loses a Hawkeye review, does he just shrug his shoulders and walk away? No. He bitches, moans, stamps around angrily, the exact same reaction he has to a referee. Hawkeye, Questec, Pitch f/x, I think everyone knows that there is a greater than 0% fallacy in any of those automated methods. Until there is a system that is absolutely, positively, definitively proven to be 100% accurate, it isn't going to have a significant impact on our satisfaction levels.

#72 Toe Nash

  • 3,211 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:44 PM

QUOTE (JimBoSox9 @ May 14 2010, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The installation of an automated system will do nothing, NOTHING, to placate fans or players. Thinking otherwise is ignoring the realities of human nature. Look at the Hawkeye system in tennis. If a player loses a Hawkeye review, does he just shrug his shoulders and walk away? No. He bitches, moans, stamps around angrily, the exact same reaction he has to a referee. Hawkeye, Questec, Pitch f/x, I think everyone knows that there is a greater than 0% fallacy in any of those automated methods. Until there is a system that is absolutely, positively, definitively proven to be 100% accurate, it isn't going to have a significant impact on our satisfaction levels.

Really? If a pitch is so close that pitchFX can't tell, I'm not going to be too upset with it no matter which way it goes. I compare this to the replays in hockey and football that are too close to be overturned, so the call on the field / ice stands. I don't think too many people, even players, raise much of a stink about this. I don't watch tennis, but maybe tennis players are just babies.

Essentially though, i agree with Average Reds -- if there were a system in place to evaluate and promote / demote umps instead of them basically having their jobs for life, I would be ok with human umps as they are. Right now they don't have to answer to ANYONE and it's a fraternity. Heck, until the debacle that was the playoffs last year they awarded playoff games based solely on seniority, which led to umps with deserved bad reputations like CB Bucknor making bad calls in the most important games of the year.

#73 PrometheusWakefield


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,853 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:07 PM

QUOTE (JimBoSox9 @ May 14 2010, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The installation of an automated system will do nothing, NOTHING, to placate fans or players. Thinking otherwise is ignoring the realities of human nature. Look at the Hawkeye system in tennis. If a player loses a Hawkeye review, does he just shrug his shoulders and walk away? No. He bitches, moans, stamps around angrily, the exact same reaction he has to a referee. Hawkeye, Questec, Pitch f/x, I think everyone knows that there is a greater than 0% fallacy in any of those automated methods. Until there is a system that is absolutely, positively, definitively proven to be 100% accurate, it isn't going to have a significant impact on our satisfaction levels.

I disagree with this on multiple levels, starting with the idea that Hawkeye has failed to reduce player complaints about bad calls. Hawkeye certainly eliminates any perception that a ref is biased against them, which is when players get really vicious. I'm only an occasional tennis watcher, but my perception is that Hawkeye is quite popular with fans, umpires and players (excluding Federer).

But regardless, the goal here is not to placate players or fans, it's to get the calls right. I don't think any of the Ricky Henderson related concerns are insurmountable, it's just a complexity that needs to be designed into the system.

#74 judyb

  • 3,385 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:12 PM

QUOTE (JimBoSox9 @ May 14 2010, 02:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The installation of an automated system will do nothing, NOTHING, to placate fans or players. Thinking otherwise is ignoring the realities of human nature. Look at the Hawkeye system in tennis. If a player loses a Hawkeye review, does he just shrug his shoulders and walk away? No. He bitches, moans, stamps around angrily, the exact same reaction he has to a referee. Hawkeye, Questec, Pitch f/x, I think everyone knows that there is a greater than 0% fallacy in any of those automated methods. Until there is a system that is absolutely, positively, definitively proven to be 100% accurate, it isn't going to have a significant impact on our satisfaction levels.

Even if that's true, it's a poor reason to decide to not even bother trying to improve anything. We can't make it perfect, so we'll do nothing to make it better?

Edited by judyb, 14 May 2010 - 02:13 PM.


#75 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,886 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:27 PM

QUOTE (PrometheusWakefield @ May 14 2010, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I disagree with this on multiple levels, starting with the idea that Hawkeye has failed to reduce player complaints about bad calls. Hawkeye certainly eliminates any perception that a ref is biased against them, which is when players get really vicious. I'm only an occasional tennis watcher, but my perception is that Hawkeye is quite popular with fans, umpires and players (excluding Federer).

But regardless, the goal here is not to placate players or fans, it's to get the calls right. I don't think any of the Ricky Henderson related concerns are insurmountable, it's just a complexity that needs to be designed into the system.

This is correct. I've been to the US Open pre- and post-Hawkeye. It's a world of difference. Only the idiots fight more. Those who lose a challenge may not shrug their shoulders, but you now VERY rarely have Conners and McEnroe types wasting 5-10 minutes arguing a call. But tennis is still a different beast - it was very rare that the line-callers or chair ump would ever significantly affect the game BEFORE Hawkeye. They already literally had a single person for each dimension. Adding Hawkeye made things even more accurate.

In baseball, we have one guy calling three-four factors at once, and it's clearly too much.

In fact, as lurker Idabomb333 adds:
QUOTE
I agree that there needs to be a home plate ump regardless, and it seems to me it would be a big improvement over the status quo if a computer determined whether a pitch is a strike horizontally, and an ump determines just the vertical component of the strike zone. Then there's no need for callibration based on the particular batter, the umps can adjust. Granted, the umps would probably still make some mistakes, but I bet there'd be fewer mistakes. With only one dimension to worry about, it ought to be easier on them.

Of course, if MLB were actually going to use a computer system for calling strikes, they could probably do measurements for the vertical strike zone whenever they do individual pictures of players and so on. That could create trouble for minor league call-ups and so on, but again, it could be an incremental improvement on the status quo.

Edited by zenter, 14 May 2010 - 02:28 PM.


#76 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • PipPip
  • 1,309 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:32 PM

QUOTE (zenter @ May 14 2010, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nobody's a bigger proponent of minimizing the impact of umps on a game than me. The "human factor" is nothing I care for, either. But what you say isn't so simple, even with the implementation you propose. There are things Cyclops cannot do...

1) Deal with the umps' union.
2) Determine "intent to swing" - key for judging whether a swing is "checked" or not.
3) Fix itself when it breaks. Right now, other umps are the backup system.
4) Call a time out.
5) Call plays at the plate.
6) Calling swinging strikes, or at least distinguishing between a swinging strike and a struck ball.

In essence, you cannot completely take human overseers out of the equation anyway. If there's a guy who needs to keep track of or verify what Cyclops is doing anyway, might as well simply let the home plate ump be that guy. It resolves the umpiring problems without affecting the human impediments to these problems.


I have reasonable answers to most of the opposition here. I'll leave dealing with the umpire's union aside for the moment. Intent to swing would require an umpire back-up. An umpire back-up could resolve #3 however any system implemented would have to have a back up and quick resolution to any problems that occur. That's implicit. Time outs would require an umpire behind the plate. I'd like to see each team be allowed three reviewable plays in a game much like football for calling plays at the plate ect. Yes you need an umpire behind the plate; however he should not be calling balls and strikes.

In regards to the uniforms I explained how it, sensors, would be slightly visible on the outside of the uniforms; it would be very easy to make that work. If someone screws with the system and it can be proven, be harsher with enforcing that rule and the punishment that follows than they are with steroids. It would be easy to make that a non issue as well. Zenter outlined a few scenarios which would require a back-up umpire behind the plate so they still have a job, baseball would be making their job easier for them and making the game better at the same time. Everybody wins here.

Edited by seantoo, 14 May 2010 - 02:39 PM.


#77 InstantKarmma


  • Defender of Roadrunners


  • 5,747 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:45 PM

QUOTE (seantoo @ May 14 2010, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In regards to the uniforms I explained how it, sensors, would be slightly visible on the outside of the uniforms; it would be very easy to make that work. If someone screws with the system and it can be proven, be harsher with enforcing that rule and the punishment that follows than they are with steroids.

Like sliding head-first into a base and getting the "sensor" covered in dirt, knocked loose or broken? How many time outs would there have to be for uniform changes?

I'm not buying into this at all.



#78 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11,346 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (InstantKarmma @ May 14 2010, 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Like sliding head-first into a base and getting the "sensor" covered in dirt, knocked loose or broken? How many time outs would there have to be for uniform changes?

I'm not buying into this at all.



You shouldn't be. He completely disregards the umpire's union who would never allow this in the first place. Sensoors sown surgically somewhere strategically simple.

#79 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE (Dogman2 @ May 14 2010, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You shouldn't be. He completely disregards the umpire's union who would never allow this in the first place. Sensoors sown surgically somewhere strategically simple.


Sensors are easy. You could use radio and have them wear RFID tags under their uniforms. There arn't really any tech barriers to implementing this. It's all political.

The umps union shouldn't oppose it, as a home plate ump would still be needed for the reasons already mentioned. Your right in that they probably would though. You can say it will never happen because of the league or the ump union. But the technology isn't a problem.

One way I can see it being implement ed is the umpires union would be more likely to agree to automated balls and strikes than some sort of performance review system. The league might be able to use performance review as a way to force the issue.

#80 zenter


  • slumdog idol


  • 4,886 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE (BucketOBalls @ May 14 2010, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sensors are easy. You could use radio and have them wear RFID tags under their uniforms. There arn't really any tech barriers to implementing this. It's all political.

Spoofing/gaming the system is the main barrier. Considering how poorly they treat unis and how willing they are to cheat (PED), baseball players will find any way they can to beat the sensors.
QUOTE
The umps union shouldn't oppose it, as a home plate ump would still be needed for the reasons already mentioned. Your right in that they probably would though. You can say it will never happen because of the league or the ump union. But the technology isn't a problem.

The umps shouldn't suck, but they do. It's not about "should".

To your larger point, having been in a union once, I can tell you this. Everything begins and ends with: "will any of us lose responsibilities that threaten our jobs, or lose our jobs?" The automagic system must work around that. Not saying it's right, but it's how the thing works.
QUOTE
One way I can see it being implement ed is the umpires union would be more likely to agree to automated balls and strikes than some sort of performance review system. The league might be able to use performance review as a way to force the issue.

Or. They can simply say no and walk away from the table. Hence you leave them in charge. You have to give them something.

Edited by zenter, 14 May 2010 - 05:05 PM.


#81 redsox2020

  • 255 posts

Posted 14 May 2010 - 11:05 PM

If the umps' union wanted to walk over the issue of computerized aid, is there any reason to stop them? Given the quality of their work, how much power do they really have?

#82 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,423 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 12:04 AM

QUOTE (redsox2020 @ May 14 2010, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If the umps' union wanted to walk over the issue of computerized aid, is there any reason to stop them? Given the quality of their work, how much power do they really have?

Technological substitution and de-skilling of an occupation often involve a new generation of workers.

I like the computer system as advisor to the umpire, because there are certain situations where the data may be faulty. It's important to understand what we mean by error rate in pitchfx data -- what kinds of data unreliability there are. I've been watching the pitchfx data for 3 years now, mostly through the medium of Jnai's charts. My sense is that there are the following kinds of errors, with the corresponding umpire's discretion.

- system failure. Rare, except at the beginning of the season (2010 had some early flakiness, usually as data omitted). The umpire have to take over the entire game. It would be like those dark old pre-tech days, full of Joe West strike zones, and we would shiver with disgust at how bad it used to be.

- systematic inflation of velocity. Meh, who cares for the purposes of calling a good game?

- systematic overstatement of vertical or horizontal break. Meh, who cares so long as the location is correct?

Are there ever systematic errors in location? I haven't noticed them, but if there were, let the home plate umpire ignore some or all of the computerized calls. Advocates of automation don't want to take over the game, or eliminate the human element -- but the human element we want to see is the players of the game, not the judges.

Are there epiphenomena or gremlins in the system = unexplained mislocation of individual pitches on a random basis? I don't know -- I can't remember such instances, but perhaps others can.

The pre-set strike zone, which varies for each hitter, would and should be the subject of real negotiations with the umpires and the rules committee.

#83 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10,990 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 06:50 AM

QUOTE (Smiling Joe Hesketh @ May 13 2010, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Where are we getting this 8 inches figure from? Am I misaligning where the dot is for pitch 7?

QUOTE (BucketOBalls @ May 13 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your right. (I was listening to EV...I should probably know better).

No, he wasn't right. To clarify this once and for all:

The plate is 17" wide. The rulebook strikezone is 20" wide in terms of the location of the center of the ball, because a ball merely has to nick the zone and the ball is 3" wide, so the zone extends 1.5" (half the width of the ball) further on each side.

Jnai adds an extra 2" to each side of the zone because that's what umpires give on average (although in reality the average zone is asymmetrical and extends further to the ump's left than to his right; it's more like 2.5" left and 1.5" right. Umps are usually more consistent with the left strike than the right strike, too).

The center of the ball was 9.6" inches from the edge of the plate*, so the ball was 8.1" outside and shows up as 6" outside on the charts. It's 5-6" outside the de facto strikezone as implemented by the typical ump.

*Pitch/fx had it -1.507 feet left of plate center, which is 18.1", and the half-plate is 8.5".

#84 Quintanariffic

  • 4,420 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 10:02 AM

QUOTE (redsox2020 @ May 14 2010, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If the umps' union wanted to walk over the issue of computerized aid, is there any reason to stop them? Given the quality of their work, how much power do they really have?

My guess is that the combination of replacement umpires plus computerized aid/replay would be FAR superior to the "professionals" in place today.


Let them walk.

#85 mfried

  • 1,025 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 11:19 AM

A question for the technically knowledgeable bunch.
It has been my observation that the Amica pitch zone is virtually incapable of showing a pitch to be below the strike zone without actually bouncing to the catcher. In other words, following Amica, a pitch is either at or above the knees OR in the dirt. Thus I have noticed that many pitches which seem low (usually called low by umpires) appear as low strikes on Amica. Comments?

#86 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,423 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 11:25 AM

QUOTE (mfried @ May 15 2010, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A question for the technically knowledgeable bunch.
It has been my observation that the Amica pitch zone is virtually incapable of showing a pitch to be below the strike zone without actually bouncing to the catcher. In other words, following Amica, a pitch is either at or above the knees OR in the dirt. Thus I have noticed that many pitches which seem low (usually called low by umpires) appear as low strikes on Amica. Comments?

I'm not sure about the Amica charting software, but the pitchfx data don't have that odd gap. Buchholz's strike zone chart shows an abundance of pitches below the knees, very few of them called strikes. Indeed, Buchholz threw many, many pitches a few inches outside or a few inches low, and rarely got the benefit of the doubt from the home plate umpire.

#87 Trlicek's Whip

  • 3,089 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 11:29 AM

QUOTE (zenter @ May 14 2010, 06:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spoofing/gaming the system is the main barrier. Considering how poorly they treat unis and how willing they are to cheat (PED), baseball players will find any way they can to beat the sensors.
Knowing nothing about potential technologies, I'd amend the bolded to include "anyone." I'm not certain equipment can be implemented that is 100% safeguarded against attacks from non-players - hackers in the stands as well as the plate.


#88 Hyde Park Factor


  • token lebanese


  • 1,350 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Quintanariffic @ May 15 2010, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My guess is that the combination of replacement umpires plus computerized aid/replay would be FAR superior to the "professionals" in place today.


Let them walk.


Richie Phillips will get this all straightened out.

#89 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 13,048 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Sprowl @ May 15 2010, 01:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are there ever systematic errors in location? I haven't noticed them, but if there were, let the home plate umpire ignore some or all of the computerized calls. Advocates of automation don't want to take over the game, or eliminate the human element -- but the human element we want to see is the players of the game, not the judges.



As someone who hasn't been looking at the pitch fx data for years, my question is: how would you notice them? It is just a comparison of the chart against what you see live with your eyes, or is a more complex QA method available?

#90 Jnai


  • is not worried about sex with goats


  • 9,803 posts

Posted 15 May 2010 - 05:01 PM

QUOTE (JimBoSox9 @ May 15 2010, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As someone who hasn't been looking at the pitch fx data for years, my question is: how would you notice them? It is just a comparison of the chart against what you see live with your eyes, or is a more complex QA method available?


There are much more complex QA methods available. And, there are systematic variations in location by park, but typically they are relatively small.

#91 joyofsox


  • empty, bleak


  • 6,833 posts

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:36 AM

I've seen plenty of pitches come in at the batter's belt or even a bit below and be charted in the very top of the Ameeker zone.

It seems like pure garbage to me -- nothing more than gimmicky insurance commercial.


#92 MoGator71


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,019 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 01:21 PM

Figured this would work since I don't think it's new thread worthy...what did people think of Bob Davidson last night? The pitch Crawford got tossed over was pretty brutal, but the other ones they were carping about were pretty close. They were generous strikes for sure, but I didn't think they were egregious errors either.

#93 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,950 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 04:32 PM

QUOTE (MoGator71 @ May 26 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Figured this would work since I don't think it's new thread worthy...what did people think of Bob Davidson last night? The pitch Crawford got tossed over was pretty brutal, but the other ones they were carping about were pretty close. They were generous strikes for sure, but I didn't think they were egregious errors either.

It's funny, I went to the strike zone tool at brooksbaseball.net and at first was puzzled, because I couldn't find any egregious strike calls to lefthanded Rays hitters--and then I realized that because Rodriguez finished the at-bat, the pitch was recorded by the system as a pitch to a RHH. It was definitely a bad call, but I think we've seen worse this year:



Overall I agree that Davidson wasn't that bad. Most of the missed calls were close:




#94 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 21,423 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE (Savin Hillbilly @ May 26 2010, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's funny, I went to the strike zone tool at brooksbaseball.net and at first was puzzled, because I couldn't find any egregious strike calls to lefthanded Rays hitters--and then I realized that because Rodriguez finished the at-bat, the pitch was recorded by the system as a pitch to a RHH. It was definitely a bad call, but I think we've seen worse this year:

It fits right into the Joe West strike zone, kinda thick and flabby around the middle. The first strike to Crawford was the single worst call of the game, and it certainly got into Crawford's head.