29 replies to this topic

[Plympton91]

Seriously. Home Plate umpires are vastly inferior to the computer systems used on every broadcast.

I am totally serious when I say that they should replace the home plate umpire with the computer. There is no reason in this day and age to allow a human being to do a job that consistently poorly when a computer can do it flawlessly. In all the games I've watched since the introduction of the the computer graphic strike zone, I don't think I have ever disagreed with the computer's pitch call. Just hook up a speaker to the computer, and when it's a strike, the computer emits a loud "beep" just like in tennis; when it's a ball, the computer is silent. Saves money for the owners too.

Does anybody else out the find themself consisently saying, "good thing the ump was tthere, the computer would have gotten that wrong.". Because, I sure don't.

[Rasputin]

Even if the computer isn't perfect, it will be more consistent and consistency is more important than accuracy.

Oh, and they'd be more accurate, too.

[brs3]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but don't many veterans understand each particular umpire's strike zones? It's an element of the game that I think adds to the excitement. Can you imagine a loud 'beep' when an entire ballpark disagrees? Baseball isn't tennis. I'm certain that if you replaced umpires with computers, you'd get the same damn arguments.

[OttoC]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but don't many veterans understand each particular umpire's strike zones? It's an element of the game that I think adds to the excitement. Can you imagine a loud 'beep' when an entire ballpark disagrees? Baseball isn't tennis. I'm certain that if you replaced umpires with computers, you'd get the same damn arguments.

Valentine had an interesting observation this morning at the Sabermetrics seminar. He said that because there are no longer AL and NL umpires, the umpires aren't seeing the same pitchers enough to learn their patterns. The other side of that coin would be batters aren't seeing umpires enough to learn their patterns.

Edited by OttoC, 05 August 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[BigMike]

Seriously. Home Plate umpires are vastly inferior to the computer systems used on every broadcast.

I am totally serious when I say that they should replace the home plate umpire with the computer. There is no reason in this day and age to allow a human being to do a job that consistently poorly when a computer can do it flawlessly. In all the games I've watched since the introduction of the the computer graphic strike zone, I don't think I have ever disagreed with the computer's pitch call. Just hook up a speaker to the computer, and when it's a strike, the computer emits a loud "beep" just like in tennis; when it's a ball, the computer is silent. Saves money for the owners too.

Does anybody else out the find themself consisently saying, "good thing the ump was tthere, the computer would have gotten that wrong.". Because, I sure don't.

Funny, I have yet to be convinced the tennis system is as perfect as they make it out to be.

Honestly I never say good thing the ump was there, at the same time, I really never sit back and bemoan the fact that an ump is there when a computer would be so much better

[Adrian's Dome]

A computer wouldn't call a pitch a foot outside on a 3-0 count a strike just for the hell of it.

Nor would a computer call a pitch a foot outside that should be ball four a strike because the batter took a step out of the box early.

Computers wouldn't incite reactions out of pitchers and batters alike, either.

Plus, you know, they'd actually be consistent so players would know for sure what the zone is and what they should/shouldn't swing at.

Just saying.

[abty]

I watch too much Dr Who to allow this to happen. "Strike 3. Argument unacceptable. You will be deleted. Delete....delete....delete...."


Of course, being objective, I cannot say I have a problem with this. The question is would the public such a transition because there really is no need to debate the benefits of this since they are fairly obvious and staring us in the face over the last few years.

[walkoffblast]

Funny, I have yet to be convinced the tennis system is as perfect as they make it out to be.

Any particular reason?

[TheYaz67]

As a (volunteer) umpire, I'll only point out you still need someone to call plays at the plate (out/safe on tags) unless you think the first base ump can sprint down the line in time to get in position to make those calls.

Can your magic computer also discern foul tips and pitches that graze the batter, or batted balls that bounce back up and hit the batter while still in the box, cause that is a long way for the base umps to be making those calls? If you say "well of course you need a home plate ump for those things" then your premise that the computer would save you money (reduction in number of umps to pay) seems to go out the window.....

[paulb0t]

I don't think the argument is about saving money. I think the argument is about getting the calls right.

Personally, I'm a fan of the hybrid model. Let the computer call balls and strikes, but signal the information directly to the umpires. An umpire at home pate will still have the other duties (foul tips, check swings, HBP, calls at the plate) that require the human element.

[uncannymanny]

I thought I posted this in here, but I think Google-glasses type HUDs for umps would be a fine compromise. They could have a questec display overlaid. The device could have simple hand controls. B/S/O could be displayed here and there are tons of possibilities to improve. I vote for cyborg umps. This tech is ultimately cheaper, existing and easier to transition.

[zenter]

As a (volunteer) umpire, I'll only point out you still need someone to call plays at the plate (out/safe on tags) unless you think the first base ump can sprint down the line in time to get in position to make those calls.

Can your magic computer also discern foul tips and pitches that graze the batter, or batted balls that bounce back up and hit the batter while still in the box, cause that is a long way for the base umps to be making those calls? If you say "well of course you need a home plate ump for those things" then your premise that the computer would save you money (reduction in number of umps to pay) seems to go out the window.....

Keep the home plate ump for all those things. Indeed, keep them for calling swings and checked swings. As I see it:

• Let QuesTec/Cyclops call whether the ball went through the zone. The ump will hold/wear a device that will let him know if the ball went through the zone (earpiece that beeps, etc.).
• Let home-plate ump determine all the other factors, call the pitch.
• Release the pitch data to teams 24 hours after game.
• Release pitch data to public a week or a month later.

Solves the ump union issue, too. Add in 3 replay challenges per side (like tennis) and a 5th ump in a box, and maybe the union will jump at the opportunity to embrace technology.

[glennhoffmania]

Isn't the problem with calling high and low though, not inside or outside? Even if you put sensors on players' uniforms or something they could crouch a little lower to get a high strike called a ball. I think you keep the home plate ump for plays at the plate, fair/foul calls, check swing calls, and high/low calls, but use a computer for inside/outside. The most egregious missed calls I see are strikes that are 6 inches outside.

[zenter]

Isn't the problem with calling high and low though, not inside or outside? Even if you put sensors on players' uniforms or something they could crouch a little lower to get a high strike called a ball. I think you keep the home plate ump for plays at the plate, fair/foul calls, check swing calls, and high/low calls, but use a computer for inside/outside. The most egregious missed calls I see are strikes that are 6 inches outside.

I don't think it's a big problem. By and large, players optimize their stances to see the ball and make contact. I don't think they'd sacrifice this for a marginal advantage. And then, those who do so successfully (Rickey) deserve said advantage. Besides, remember the mid-shin called strikes of the 90s?

Edited by zenter, 07 August 2012 - 04:07 PM.

[glennhoffmania]

I hear you, but what happens when a team is down a run in the 9th and there's a 3-0 count on the leadoff batter, who crouches down to try to draw the walk to bring the winning run to the plate? This is one of the scenarios I see where only using a computer will cause some controversy.

[zenter]

I see where you're going.

Incidentally, in previous iterations of this thread, I included an idea of a pre-determined strikezone for each player, calibrated weekly during a BP, so these shenanigans couldn't happen. I don't know that it's necessary, if an ump can overrule.

[OttoC]

I spoke with Mike Port this weekend and he feels that there still is a big problem with the determination of the bottom of the strike zone with the aotomautic systems now in use.

[walkoffblast]

I spoke with Mike Port this weekend and he feels that there still is a big problem with the determination of the bottom of the strike zone with the aotomautic systems now in use.

What was the problem? Just the general issue of everyone being a different height or was he saying it isn't correctly registering? I am not sure the automatic systems can call everything perfectly but I do think if you give them some margin for error they can determine if something was an especially bad call, which is all that really needs fixing.

[Max Power]

There could be a hybrid system where the ump has a buzzer in his hands that goes off when the ball goes over the plate, regardless of its height. It would then be up to the ump to determine if it's in the north-south limits of the strike zone and call it accordingly.

[Plympton91]

I spoke with Mike Port this weekend and he feels that there still is a big problem with the determination of the bottom of the strike zone with the aotomautic systems now in use.

Well, even if true, that puts the computers well ahead of the umpires, who have big problems determining the top, left, and right sides of the strike zone, in addition to the bottom.

[BigMike]

Keep the home plate ump for all those things. Indeed, keep them for calling swings and checked swings. As I see it:

• Let QuesTec/Cyclops call whether the ball went through the zone. The ump will hold/wear a device that will let him know if the ball went through the zone (earpiece that beeps, etc.).
• Let home-plate ump determine all the other factors, call the pitch.
• Release the pitch data to teams 24 hours after game.
• Release pitch data to public a week or a month later.

Solves the ump union issue, too. Add in 3 replay challenges per side (like tennis) and a 5th ump in a box, and maybe the union will jump at the opportunity to embrace technology.

So if Questek is making the pitch calls what are you going to challenge? Will you have a human who can overrule the bot? Ir is there another bigger bot

[OttoC]

Well, even if true,...

So, for which part of my sentence do you challenge the veracity? That I spoke to Mike Port or his statement about the automatic systems having difficulty determining the bottom of the strike zone?

[zenter]

So if Questek is making the pitch calls what are you going to challenge? Will you have a human who can overrule the bot? Ir is there another bigger bot

Keep the home plate ump for all those things. Indeed, keep them for calling swings and checked swings. As I see it:

• Let QuesTec/Cyclops call whether the ball went through the zone. The ump will hold/wear a device that will let him know if the ball went through the zone (earpiece that beeps, etc.).
• Let home-plate ump determine all the other factors, call the pitch.
• Release the pitch data to teams 24 hours after game.
• Release pitch data to public a week or a month later.

[502 to Right]

You will need an umpire set the high and low parameters for each batter. You can't let a tech guy do it. But this solves the union problem. Have a 5th umpire in the box setting the computer strike zone. That umpire can also do any necessary replays. That's a win for accuracy and a win for the union.

[TheYaz67]

You will need an umpire set the high and low parameters for each batter. You can't let a tech guy do it. But this solves the union problem. Have a 5th umpire in the box setting the computer strike zone. That umpire can also do any necessary replays. That's a win for accuracy and a win for the union.

When you are trained as an umpire you are instructed that the top of the strike zone should be determined when the batter take his "natural stance" to address the ball - meaning as the pitcher goes into the wind, the position the batter is in at that time is what counts - if then he "squats down" in his stance as the ball is delivered in an effort to make his strike zone "smaller" you are taught to disregard the squatting action and call the top of the strike zone from where he started. Trust me, I have had kids do this and I have called the high strike and had coaches bitch and moan about it (since the high/low pitches are generally the ones they can "see" from the dugouts) and have had to explain this rule and its application as a result....

[OttoC]

What the rule book says is:

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a
horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform
pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall
be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I know it would be a bit of a pain in the ass, but...I mean, it's a fucking computer. Couldn't (and shouldn't) each player have their own strike zone? Why is it impossible for MLB to go around in spring training and "fit" each player for the Questec system? When the player comes to bat, his strike zone is adjusted (high/low) accordingly.

Am I overthinking this?

[zenter]

I know it would be a bit of a pain in the ass, but...I mean, it's a fucking computer. Couldn't (and shouldn't) each player have their own strike zone? Why is it impossible for MLB to go around in spring training and "fit" each player for the Questec system? When the player comes to bat, his strike zone is adjusted (high/low) accordingly.

Am I overthinking this?

No, you are not.

It's easy enough to "fit" all players at the beginning of every series during BP. And at home, players don't need to be fit that often. And players can ask to be "re-fit" before any game during BP if they think the zone is off. It's easy enough to have ~50 different profiles at the ready per game. You don't need sensors on uniforms - just have the 5th ump in the booth watching the cameras during BP and fitting them based on the most obvious fixed point - the ground.

[MentalDisabldLst]

So, for which part of my sentence do you challenge the veracity? That I spoke to Mike Port or his statement about the automatic systems having difficulty determining the bottom of the strike zone?

I don't think he was challenging the veracity of your statement at all. He was making the point that computers would be more consistent and accurate than humans at this, even if the computers still have some bugs to work through for one edge of the strike zone.

The thing that's going to be more of an issue, I think, is high strikes. Which is to say, I don't think umpires have called the high end of the strikezone by-the-book since the 1960s.

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a
horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform
pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall
be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

By the definition, that's about "at the numbers". As-she-is-called, though, we almost never see a strike above the belt.

I'd love high strikes to get called - we'd get more swings, PAs would move along faster and the game would take less time.

[TheYaz67]

The thing that's going to be more of an issue, I think, is high strikes. Which is to say, I don't think umpires have called the high end of the strikezone by-the-book since the 1960s.

You are absolutely correct - they do not. At the little league umpiring level you are taught to maintain the knees as the "low" boundary of the zone, then give an extra ball's width on each side (or even use the inside edge of the batter boxes) and call the high strike "by the book" - a good guide visual for the little league ump (assuming the batter does not have some bizarre Youkilis-like batting stance) is the batters front elbow (so yes, basically at the "letters" mid-chest below the armpits), at least that is how I have been taught, and that is basically the strike zone you see called when you watch the LL World Series on the TV. If you didn't give that high (and inside/outside) strike, there would be lots and lots more walks - the idea is to get the kids swinging the bats, obviously NOT the current MLB strike zone approach!

I gotta say, its a lot of fun working the plate for the good Little League All Star teams at the Majors (11/12) and Juniors (13/14) levels - some of these kids can play and the pitchers can start really bringing it (especially the big 12 year olds from just 46 feet!). I'm headed to Williamsport for a weekend-long Umpire Training Clinic in September - have never been and can't wait to see the place in person. Have been umping for 3 years now (about 30+ games per year) and still have tons to learn, especially things like the field mechanics for 3 and 4 man crews - I love it despite the occasional/rare disagreements with coaches (hey - I have yet to eject anyone!) - the parents and kids in my league are mostly all thankfully very appreciative of our efforts (we are all volunteers) and rarely ever give us grief, so I am lucky in that regard - some umps toil under more "duress" at these levels due to some poor parent behavior. You have to be humble and able to deal with the fact that you will end up blowing calls despite your best effort not to, and just try to avoid getting into those situations which are usually caused by having a poor angle on the play/tag and/or moving while trying to make the call....