On umps and strike zones
I was going to put up a big, picture-heavy post on how Marvin Hudson’s inability to call a decent strike hosed the game up, but two things:
1) he didn’t do that bad on Washburn and Aardsma, and McCarthy made out decently, though there were some bad calls. And overall, check out the normalized strikezone graph. He wasn’t calling the low strike for beans.
2) humans shouldn’t be calling balls and strikes. A guy squatting behind a plate can’t adequately determine if a 90mph pitch crossed a three-dimensional strike zone. The sooner the swap’s made, the better for the game.
To pre-empt the standard “you can’t be serious” comments I get: I am. That anyone should be trying to judge balls and strikes by eyeballing it is absurd. We know it doesn’t work: we’ve got all of baseball history to show that. If you want the strikezone called consistently, especially if you want it called by the rulebook, you’re on my side.
Arguing that umps should be doing this is saying “I support preventable errors affecting the outcome of games.” And then why not just have whatever system you implement make errors, say, 50% as often as human umpires? Or heck, if you like the errors, have them call 25% of pitches randomly.
Or re-write the rule book, and define the strike zone to be whatever the guy behind the plate thinks it should be, and have that day’s home plate ump give a quick talk about his artistic interpretation during the lineup exchange so both managers can brief their teams on what to expect. Acknowledge and celebrate the flaws.
Comments
122 Responses to “On umps and strike zones”
It’s hard to imagine a machine calling balls and strikes…baseball wouldn’t be the same without the punch-out.
Is an ump making a gesture worth having inconsistent, error-riddled ball and strike calls?
If that’s the main concern, there could be a machine behind the catcher that said “ball” or “strike”, but only the home plate umpire could read the output. Then, he could bellow out the strikes as loud as he wanted to.
No really. You can’t be serious.
Hell yes. Hell yes. Hell yes.
The truth of the situation is that the umpire has become a far too egocentric figure on the diamond. Don’t argue balls and strikes. Why the hell not? Because the umpire doesn’t like dealing with someone questioning his judgment? At my work, I make judgment calls on a daily basis and if you don’t think there’s somebody above me waiting to chew me out for making the “wrong” call, then you don’t actually live in reality.
QuesTek has been virtually ignored since it’s implementation, but the three camera triangulation system that gives us the pitchfx data has been embraced quite extensively. Everybody and their dog has a special “pitch location strike zone thingy brought to you by Kodak” that shows just how bad an umpire’s calling is. So it’s not as if the fans and the rest of baseball aren’t catching on to just how absurd these men can be back there.
A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. As long as there’s a human elemnet behind the plate, that fact will always be in question.
But whatever you do, don’t you dare question the umpire on it. He’s not even sure he wants home run instant replay, let alone your newfangled watchdog system.
I actually don’t think it’s a bad idea for it to be re-defined as an umpire’s interpretation for which the umpire is responsible to explain, and is then held accountable to.
Seriously, it’s possible that an umpire would be more consistent with their own interpretation than they would the rulebook as it stands. Right now, some are just ri-goldern-diculous.
It would keep the human element largely intact (for those who actually appreciate that full-volume “REEEEEEE-RIIIII”, dance step and punchout), and give broadcasters an extra piece to work with in pre-game.
Lord only knows what wisdom Bill Krueger could lay on us with a system like that in place.
“Well, Eric Gregg is a major-league umpire for a reason. He’s one of the all-time masters at calling balls and strikes, his strike zone never wavers…” (retch)
And it would eliminate the years of having to learn umpires’ tendencies by the players.
The only thing that would keep me from fully endorsing such an idea is I am not at all positive that umpires would reduce their mistakes, as a result.
Me, I think that’s a heck of an idea though, DMZ.
I totally agree, Derek. That we have the technology to determine whether a pitch was a ball or a strike, and transmit that information instantly to millions of viewers, yet we only utilize it to determine whether the umps’ subjective calls were correct…it makes absolutely no sense. I can’t even begin to imagine what a coherent defense of the current setup would look like.
And, also…if there’s only a machine there and Milton Bradley doesn’t like the calls the MACHINE makes, what stops him from saying “(bleep) the fine, I got a lot of money!!!”….and going berserk on the thing with that bat in his hands?
I like the sense of theater that a good umpire calling balls and strikes can create.
But really, go read this post for one of the many reasons that this idea at least merits consideration.
We’re increasingly aware of how much inconsistent/poor umpiring affects the outcome of games. This has ALWAYS been a problem, we can just quantify it and point it out more accurately, now.
And while some people will inevitably say “but it affects ALL teams”, that’s only true on a macro level. And that’s not the only level that matters.
Awesome. The only post that I have agreed with in the history of USSM.
QuesTec is the most important technological innovation in baseball ever, and I would diagree with aptly named Typical Idiot Fan above, as it has, in combination with the elimination of seperate NL and AL crews, kept the umps in check to a great extent. You dont see the 18 inch outside eric gregg pitches called strikes anymore.
I personally would love to see something like that robot from Lost in Space calling balls and strikes behind the plate.
His flailing arms would be a hoot.
I agree, in theory, but this will never happen and I don’t want it to. I agree with this post because umpires seem to be extremely inconsistent this year with their ball and strike calls than they have in years past. Honestly though, it wouldn’t be such an issue for me if the M’s weren’t winning and losing such nail-biters. If they were winning or losing convincingly I probably wouldn’t care too much about the ball and strike calls. I commented to the people I was watching the game with last night that Hudson’s strike zone looked something like a malformed tear drop, which is obviously far from what the rule book states, and it had an apparent affect on the game. That said…
I’m not saying it will never happen, but I’m pretty sure it won’t in my lifetime (another 60 or so years if I get into my 80′s). I say this for multiple reasons:
1) Change in the MLB is relatively slow. Home run instant replay is the only recent example that comes to mind of a quick action affecting the day-to-day gameplay of the sport (as opposed to the drug policy that doesn’t have the ability to affect every single game on any given day).
2) Home runs have a greater affect on the score (and the outcomes of games) than a single ball or strike, thus quick action on the use of instant replay was necessary. An inch or two means the difference between 1 and 4 runs, or 0 and 1, etc. A pitch an inch or two in or out of the zone won’t always have such ramifications. So change isn’t as desperately needed, or probably that universally yearned for. Lets also not forget that home runs usually leave the field about 100 feet away from the umpire, so it can be argued that an aid was needed to help the umps make more accurate close calls.
3) Can you imagine the protest the umpire’s union would present if this were to happen? They’d probably refuse to work the bases. Would the option be to have cameras and computers decide if a runner is safe? This is a problem baseball won’t want to deal with, especially Bud. The man has no balls.
4) The technology would have to vastly improve. For the system to provide accurate results for 200 or so pitches thrown during the 2430 regular season games held each year without any major hiccups would be unheard of. 99% accuracy would not be acceptable (equivalent to about 25 games being called completely wrong).
5) Part of baseball’s allure is that it is a game of inches, milliseconds, and timing, all seen through the human eye. The human element of baseball adds to its appeal. There’s a point where being too technical about the game gets in the way of enjoying the game. IMHO this is where umpires fit into the system, faults, frustrations, and all.
6) Whatever machine they use would definitely be no match for Milton Bradley’s bat, or (insert manager’s name here) foot.
If baseball can get past these problems, I won’t have a problem with them instilling an umpire free system, but in my heart of hearts would still want a human umpire.
One last note, as a new poster I hope my post was interesting enough to not get me banned for what I’m about to say, but I’m not surprised to see most of you agree with DMZ. What these guys write is interesting and extremely informative, but it’s not like they’re the ultimate authority. Feel free to disagree with them! If one of you had proposed this idea, i don’t think it would have been as accepted nearly as much as it has been. And to Dave and DMZ: you guys run a great blog, the intelligent atmosphere is something you don’t see everywhere.
You’re wrong, and you owe the readers of this blog an apology.
I personally don’t think instant replay has improved the NFL experience and to try to change or improve Baseball by electronic balls and strike calling is plain dumb. Umpires have always been a part of the game like the weather, something you can’t control. Our experiments to play inside only have lasted a while and the “domes” are being phased out. The wind, rain, snow, and blistering heat are as much part of the game as blue’s dynamic strike zone. I just can’t see “upon further review that is a strike” Although seeing Lou beating a PC senseless over a strike call would be amusing.
“Mike G.” is an auto response system that only exists to agree with the authors of this blog. It’s second protocol is to crush the human element of blog commenting.
I see where this argument is coming from, but I don’t want the human element of umpiring completely aborted. Maybe there should be umpiring statistics? Something like Strike Accuracy%, Strike Zone Variance (in inches) and maybe something like Game Changing Calls and plain Missed Calls. Set standards and enforce then in order to get umpires that don’t take the game into their own hands.
I like human umpires, but what really gets me is when they act like they’re above the game. Like people are somehow there to see them?
One of the parts of the game that I enjoy most is watching a pitcher adjust to an umpire’s strike zone. It’s one of the things that non-baseball fans don’t get or see. Good pitchers are able to do it; bad pitchers cannot. Glavine is/was one of the best at it and he is one of the pitchers that I enjoy watching most.
If having a machine call balls and strikes means this aspect of the game goes bye-bye, then I don’t want that to happen.
Well, I have been coming to this blog for a few years now and while there is always an interesting read to be found, this is the first one that got me signed up..
I take a lot of heat being a Mariner fan in NY, and even more heat because I am an umpire and am used to hearing all the usual comments made (I normally just shrug them off and tell them to try and get creative next time).. I know it can be frustrating to see strikes not being called a strike, but if you try to take the home plate umpire out of the game you can forget about having any out there. There is no way they would just do the field umpiring, just not going to happen in this lifetime. You just have to believe in the way they rate the umpires using the data that gets collected during each game to help them improve their zones.
But anyways, these pitchers are not idiots, they see that they didn’t get the low strike called a few times and both teams know that they won’t be getting that all game so why keep trying to get it? It’s like trying to pound the square peg into the triangle hole, not going to work. Of course looking at that graph though, he did miss a few that seemed to be right in the middle and called a few that were probably in the other batter’s box so there really is no excuse for those other than sometimes you just miss some… In the long run of a game though, the call of a few balls and strikes normally don’t make as much difference in the outcome as a few plays in the field that should have been made and weren’t
The pitchfx triangulation system is more interesting to me. The QuesTec system is still not in every stadium either, so it’s full effectiveness cannot be felt.
Was that necessary?
No you don’t, but we have been seeing that for more than 10 years now. QuesTec has only been around for about the last 8 or so years.
The fact that a pitcher HAS to confirm to what an umpire is willing to call a ball or strike is precisely why said umpire needs to go. The strike zone is defined in the rules of Major League Baseball, not the rules of Tim McClellend.
You’re saying that a bad pitcher is someone who still throws strikes. That’s some batshit logic there.
[if you're going to continue to insult people's intelligence and be unapologetic about it, why should we care about the rest of what you have to say?]
Even if you don’t support the notion of switching to a purely mechanical system, you should support the idea of no longer allowing each member of the umpiring to work home plate.
We have the data to know which umpires are better at calling balls and strikes and which ones are worse. The ones that are better should be the only ones that work home plate; give them premium pay because they are doing more work and have greater responsibility.
I disagree. Sure, I often yearn for more accurate calls on balls and strikes (well, at least when it benefits the Mariners), but it seems like it’d just be a different game if they removed the umps.
Why not remove the pitchers too for the new pitching machines so we don’t have to watch pitchers get drilled.
I think the human element, and it’s imperfections, is a lot of what makes the Game. Take too much of that away, and it might as well be on a Wii.
But I do think they need to be tough on umps that are bad at their job. Get them to improve, or replace them with minor league umps that are better.
I kind of like this idea, but how would we know which umpires to add to the pool going forward? Do they have to go through a remdial umpires school to get them “home plate” certified?
I’m on the fence. I think that if you got rid of the umps, you might find you missed them. Here’s a middle-ground thought:
Track every pitch and seriously penalize umps who screw up a lot. Tell them that, while we know they can’t be perfect, the closer to perfect they are, the more they’ll be paid and if they’re truly bad, they should be fined and/or fired. And fire a guy if he makes egregiously bad calls on a regular basis. I am sure calling balls and strikes correctly is a real skill. Guys who are good at it should be doing it. Guys who aren’t can take one of the other ump positions that doesn’t require that skill. Bottom line: I don’t think we should consider going to pure-machine based ball/strike calling until we’ve truly gotten the best from our humans.
I encourage anyone who wants the current state of MLB umpiring maintained to follow a few games on MLB.com’s Gameday (just go to mlb.com’s scoreboard and you’ll find it above the Mariners’ scoreboard line) while watching the game. People tracking pitch f/x have concluded that umpire’s get only about 83% of the balls and strikes called right. Even a 90% accuracy rate would be worth it, but pitch f/x has close to a 99% accuracy rate or better. It’s not even a contest.
As far as I know, umpires are already graded and critiqued by their employer on their balls and strikes, but this is in its infancy and won’t change much soon.
I’ve seen this mentioned on Lookout Landing somewhere: the simple solution is to put a fifth umpire in the press booth with a technical support crew and have him relay the pitch f/x results (which are almost real time results) to the home plate umpire. This would take a long time to work the kinks out of, but that’s where spring training and minor league games would be the logical place to start (plus pitch f/x in minor league parks would be sweet!).
Umpires will always be needed for all other calls of the game – it’s not like we’ll replace them with robots that will eventually turn on us.
But today, miserable umpiring (it’s always been miserable, because baseball moves too fast for the human eye to fully absorb all the details) gets 1/6 of the balls and strikes calls wrong – 1/6 of the plays of the game will often have a greater effect than one swing, because having a 2-1 instead of 1-2 count or a strikeout instead of a walk can affect the game just as much as one swing of the bat.
Oh, and old traditions are stupid when innovations work amazingly better than them.
YES YES YES
I’d like to see this implemented simply because it means programmers / hackers will be able to introduce whole new ways of cheating that we’ve never seen before.
Imagine a team knows a control pitcher is on the mound tonight… someone who likes to nibble at the corners. Wouldn’t it be something if the zone just happened to be very, very slightly off, by say an inch, on the outside, just for certain batters?
How would you ever completely secure the system well enough to make sure that the equipment, and the program, were sacrosanct?
If a problem were found later (e.g. a keen-eyed blog like USSM looks over game records and notices some borderline calls that were actually incorrect), what do you do about it? How do you retroactively fix it? And if you don’t, how is that all that much more fair than when a human gets it wrong?
Worst of all, can you imagine cancelling a game by putting a giant bluescreen of death on the video board, with the announcement “game called due to umpire crashing”? I know there hasn’t been an instance of Pitch F/X sensors or computers going down… but what’s the contingency for when this UmpireBot 2000 does?
This has potential, but I don’t think technology is the savior of accuracy in the game that it’s being made out to be here.
No, it wasn’t, and I’m sorry I missed that comment before. Not cool.
A good rule of thumb is, if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t post it about them here.
Start posting like you’re all adults, or we’ll start getting a lot more aggressive about removing posts again.
I’m tired of people trying to see how closely they can toe the line insulting each other before they get squashed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like the only way for this to work would be to have the home plate umpire be a messenger for the computer, because we still need the home plate umpire for things like plays at the plate.
Which I’m in favor of.
In the extremely unlikely event that that happens, the home plate umpire (who is still punching people out and going STEEE-RIKE! when being relayed pitch f/x results from the umpire in the booth), simply goes back to calling actual balls and strikes like we’ve always done. And with months of pitch f/x aided calls having trained the ump’s brain to call balls and strikes as accurately as possible, I’d wager that umpires would be far more accurate in that situation than they are today (reinforcement and all)
while we are at it I wouldnt mind the M’s signing a Cyborg to play shortstop.
jmb13, are you writing a blog post or ordering from the soup nazi
I say express your opinon, probably get mocked, eventually banned and then I dont know, if it means that much to you, sign up with a different email and username?!?!?!
MLB doesnt need machines to call balls and strikes they need eliminate/refuse to work with the umpires union and discipline umpires who refuse to call the strike zone. Most lines of work if you fail to follow the rules or suck at your job you get fired or suspended. That doesnt apply to teachers, auto workers and umpires apparently.
Yeah right. And when Derek’s cyberump3000 runs away becuase it decided it would rather be a toothbrush, then where will we be?
For my part, I could only support this idea if the umpbots were Number Six models. (which would probably help with the Milton Bradley problem mentioned earliers). Otherwise, count me out.
While I generally like the idea of taking the human error element out of calling balls and strikes, I fear that DMZ’s suggestion would take us one step closer to the “Rise of the Machines.”
Oh, and we fight back on 5.21.
[you are not the judge of fandom]
Wow, I was on the fence tell I read all the posts so far. Yes the idea takes away from the “human” element of the game. The safety factor is what im concerned about. How easy would it be to hack the system of a computer or realigning the way a program can call BB and K’s.
With these concerns if there was a 100% accurate and safe way to do this, I’m all for it. It would stop stupid drama of over paid players complaining,touching of players, arguing and sometimes bumping umps over stupid calls. Anything to get the stupid complaining to stop!
Calling balls and strikes is a perfect example of a situation where a machine is a better solution than a human. It’s a highly defined, repeatable task that requires no interpretation.
I’m a happier consumer now that machines weld my car and vacuum my carpet. I’d be an even happier consumer if a machine called balls and strikes.
I like the idea of the 5th booth ump myself who could be appealed a handful (say 3?) times per game on called strikes or even check swings. Maybe like football, if you get two appeals right, you get another.
I’d love to see Beltre point straight up to the sky on a check swing to appeal to booth, that would pretty much be one of the greatest things ever.
oooo, that would be cool to see.
I think some of the comments missed that point. You’ll still need an umpire behind the plate, to check fair/foul on balls that don’t reach the bag, catcher interference, bunting while outside the batters box, pitchers that cheat, batters that call time, foul tips, batters hit by a pitch, etc.
I wonder if there’s any chance the terrible umpiring is especially detrimental to the Mariners?
(Even assuming that some of the umps don’t have a bias against the M’s, and it’s just incompetence. Though it sure seems like some of them unprofessionally have it in for us.)
We got a bunch of guys who aren’t very solid with being able to watch pitches go by in the first place, and when they know there’s some random guy behind the plate who’s apt to call a ball a strike and bone them, won’t that make them more swing happy?
In the interest of discussing something that might actually happen in our lifetimes, how about this compromise: Have machines decide whether the ball crossed the plate and let umps call whether the pitch was too high or too low. The technology for the former is much simpler because it does not change with each batter. Letting a computer decide if a pitch is high or low is more problematic.
Under the above proposal, the umpire would be the final arbiter of whether a pitch is a ball or strike, so it would be more appealing to those who really hate the idea of computers making the call. Yet many – I would guess the vast majority – of incorrect calls would be eliminated if umps only had to focus on the vertical aspect of the pitch.
Anyone like that idea?
I like the idea, but I would be surprised if it was implemented in the next few years. Now what would it take to get a push for this? I think the best thing would be for a guy like Sims to start comparing the “Emerald Queen Casino pitch tracker thingy” to the umpires’ calls and ripping them when they get it wrong. They already do that to some extent, but if several announcers push for a change or just point out the mistakes in lots of games, an uproar would ensue and eventually Bud (or his successor) would have to take notice and do an experiment in spring training. Once an idea like this gets a foothold, I think it would prove its worth. Then there’s just that pesky umpires union to deal with.
it almost seems baseball itself is making this argument by allowing the “pitch-trackers” to be used in broadcasts at all. the umps are at best, capricious and incompetant and at worst, tyrannical clowns. tennis does it (perhaps a not-exactly-germane example), but balls and strikes is both the most crucial and most difficult to judge aspect of the game. like i’ve been saying for years: BRING ON THE ROBOTS!
My biggest fear is a 15 minute delay while instant replay is used to determine if that fastball really was knee level and on the black…
My boss doesn’t let me screw up with the thought that it’s my client who has to adapt. That, to me, is just silliness.
That said, I don’t know if I’d support a switch or not. I think I’d prefer they really start to crack down on the umpires. There are umpires with pretty good zones. Others are good, except they don’t call this or that (but it is consistent). And some just flat out suck.
The ones who have been around forever make upwards of 300k a year if I recall. Do your freakin’ job the way the employee manual says to, or we’ll find someone else who will.
Also, as long as Bud Selig is running things and he gets to hand pick a replacement, I can’t see this ever happening.
Someone brought up a good point that you can’t ignore the possibility of cheating. And even if cheating isn’t a possibility, it raises too many questions as to what happens if something goes wrong with the technology. What if you are reviewing the stats after a game, and you saw that one inning, for whatever reason, the system became mis-calibrated and that inning turned out to be the difference in the game for whatever team? And for that matter, does pitch f/x take into consideration batter height? A 5’2″ batter has a much smaller strike zone than a 6’5″ guy. Something like this could seriously complicate the technology. What about batting stance? I’m not sure how the official definition of the strike zone works, but would Jeff Bagwell have a different strike zone if he stood up straight?
It has never really made a difference what the size of an umps strike zone is as long as he is consistent with his calls. If he is calling strikes 3 inches outside, as long as he is consistent the players and pitchers will adjust.
As others have said, with this technology you don’t have to get rid of the home plate ump. If anything, they could keep calling the game like usual except they would have a little remote that would tell them if it’s a ball or strike, then they would make the call – the “machine” would be completely out of sight (no, there would not be a PC sitting behind home plate for an angry player to go Office Space on)
Hey – what about publishing stat lines for umpires the same way we have them for the players? You can get detailed scouting reports on them and then the pitcher can have a game plan for the batter and the umpire…
Very good points in this thread about still needing a human at the plate for interference calls, plays at the plate, etc.
Though, you know, if you’re going to take this automation thing to a logical conclusion, you should be able to weave / build in some sort of material into the player uniforms, helmets, spikes, gloves and the plates, that will let you determine exactly when a connection is made.
Rather than an umpire listening for ball-in-glove and looking for foot-on-bag on a bang-bang play at first, there can simply be a measurement of whether there was an electrical connection between specific glove and uniform / helmet before connection of specific player shoe on plate. (Just don’t play in the rain. Ever.)
They have systems like this for fencing, why can’t it be worked out for baseball?
You have a closed system. Like Eagle Eye in tennis or the timing systems in track and field. No one has ever substantiated any claims against there accuracy.
(Emphasis Mine) If “a” problem were found then we should all celebrate that accuracy is much improved. Why are people more concerned about the 1% that a computer might get wrong compared to the 17% that human are currently getting wrong? Getting fewer errors in the system should be the goal!
This is a fair concern. I would imagine the #1 solution would be to have at least 2 parallel systems in place. Maybe in the end the “computer rain out” might be right up the purists alley, after all it would lead to more double headers!
This isn’t how pitch f/x works. It tells you in a couple of seconds, there isn’t a guy watching replays of the pitch from 16 angles.
I have fenced competitively for 15 years and I can tell you that the technology isn’t there yet. In the last few years some great strides have been made in conductivity of non-metallic lame equipment and wireless gear, but its not there yet. Though, of course the investments of the international fencing community would be dwarfed if an entity like MLB got involved.
I’ve been arguing this for years, especially since FSN has started (inconsistently) showing the QuesTek results. I’ve always been met with similar criticisms that have been articulated here. For some of the people I’ve talked to, computerizing balls and strikes would change the game into something else.
But I like to look at a good analogue: tennis. Some (if not most) of the tournaments have added the Hawkeye system in order to determine whether any given ball hit the line. It’s met with tremendous success as the tournaments, fans, and many of the players love it (Federer being an obvious counterexample).
Following tennis’s example, an alternate idea to replacing home plate umps would be to introduce a challenge system. Give each manager 1-5 challenges a game. They could even enact them like football and have a guy who’s entire job is to watch pitch f/x and tell a manager when to challenge.
that was an interesting post DMZ. Guess its only a matter of time before robots replace all umps and refs.
As long as the new RoboUmps look like this, I’m all for it.
Having balls and strikes called correctly through the use of electronics does not necessitate getting rid of umpires. I’m not sure why this is frequently taken as “replace umpires with robots” or something.
I absolutely see where you are coming from here, but to me this seems like the worst of both worlds. Maybe it is a necessary evil to get pitch tracking tech into the game, but this
1) Further antagonizes umps* by turning the umpires in the bad guys who have to be “challenged” in order for right to prevail.
2) Doesn’t acknowledge that the job umps are asked to do is actually impossible for them to do all that much better than they are doing it right now (probably with a few exceptions that are clinging to “their” strike zones).
3) Will delay the game while the manager decides whether to challenge (batter calls time/steps out a few times etc. etc.)
I just don’t think baseball is the place for a challenge system.
*Not that I am that concerned about antagonizing them. For people who say umps “won’t work” unless they get to call the game: I guarantee they can find people who would be happy and capable of doing the remaining jobs.
I think you need to add this disclaimer every time you reference a) umpires or b) pitch f/x.
And as for “it all evens out” arguments, what evens out over a season does not even out in a small set of games, like the playoffs.
Human umpire error rates are currently at 17%?
There aren’t many umpires in the league that can overlook Kenji Johjima’s pummeling of pitches low in the strike zone.
He makes more pitches down in the zone look out of the zone than any catcher I’ve watched in quite some time. Pitches low-and-away to a righty, or down-and-in on a lefty are particularly difficult for him, and it really hurts pitchers’ ability to compete.
I don’t think it’s intentional, I think his reaction time just isn’t good enough to catch (anymore).
I didn’t look it up myself, but according to decatur7 above:
It looks like this is the article he is referencing: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/4/20/846320/using-pitch-f-x-to-determine-an
Please provide proof of this statement. Thanks in advance.
The notion of a little yellow flag flying out of the dugout onto the field, is simultaneously hilarious and depressing.
If anything close to this sort of thing were implemented, I’d at the least grouse about it at every opportunity, like anti-designated-hitter people complain about the DH.
Go down this path too far, and soon you could make arguments for having all baseball games played in tempurature-controlled dome stadiums, with uniformly cut grass (no such thing as a “fast infield” somewhere) and park dimensions that are exactly the same in all 30 parks, foul line to foul line, no corners or quirks. Because hey, the point is to ensure that the playing conditions are as fair and uniform and accurately measured as possible, right?
Yes, before you even say it, I’m fully aware I’m dragging out a perfectly reasonable suggestion to an extreme.
But really, I like that the game forces teams to play better than the margin of error over the course of 162 games, even if that margin as it stands now is measurably significant. If your team’s season depends on 1 or 2 calls going your way, or even a handful of them spread out over the course of the season, your team sucks, and has only gotten where it is through luck.
Life is unfair; people of strong character and skills overcome that. Baseball, as constructed currently, is measurably unfair; teams of strong discipline and skills overcome that.
I am opposed to this with every fiber of my being. The beauty of baseball is that it is played the same way, with the same rules, at every level, from recreational leagues right up to the bigs. It is a game played by human beings, with human successes and human failngs, and that includes the umpires.
If we institute robo-ump at the major league level, what then do we do in the minors? In the colleges? In high schools? In semi-pro leagues? Who’s going to buy those machines? Who’s going to maintain them? Who’s going to test them for accuracy?
It’s a GAME, dammit, not bleeping NASA or something! Just because a technological fix is possible does not mean it is necessary or desirable.
Baseball is the success that it is because it appeals to people on so many different levels. People love the game for the sheer esthetic beauty of it, or for simply admiring players’ athletic skills, or on the strictly emotional level of rooting for the home team. The price they pay for a ticket is the same that stat nerds and technogeeks pay. Like it or not, THEY HAVE EQUAL STANDING. This blog and others like it are still a very narrow slice of baseball fandom,. and not necessarily representative of the whole.
So while there might be consensus in this comment thread that Robo-umps are necessary, in the immortal words of Harvey Keitel’s Winston Wolf character in “Pulp Fiction,” “Let’s not start sucking each other’s d*cks just yet.” The rest of baseball fandom at large just might not agree.
I do not give a RIP if umpires screw up ball-and-strike calls. It’s part of the game, just like errors, and throwing to the wrong base, or committing a balk. I do not give a RIP if it’s a “preventable error” that affects the outcome of the game.
The only place IMO for stuff like Questec is in umpire evaluation and retention. For this I consider it both necessary and desirable at the professional level.
For the money these umps are making, and for the work that they do, which essentially is part of the entertainment industry, their performance should be measured against a verified, tested technological standard AT THE END OF EVERY SEASON, and umps whose ball-and-strike calls fail to measure up should be “relegated” to Triple-A till they improve. I have no problem with that.
Whereas I have been following professional baseball avidly for going on 60 years, on both coasts, younger technogeeks might write my opinions off as those of an “old fart” who is resistant to change.
That would be a mistake. I was, and am, for the DH. I would not like to go back to the bad old days before the CF camera. Younger fans have NO IDEA what that was like. I enjoy having instant replay and the pitch tracker.
I favor aluminum bats and think they should be used at every level of baseball. They should deaden the ball accordingly to compensate at the professional level.
I am even for steroids. That’s right. I think players shold be able to use them to enhance performance to the extent that they are beneficial and not harmful.
But for judgment calls, made by human beings in the heat of action, I say NO to robo-umps. I do not, can not, and will not agree with Derek and some of the rest of you on this one. That’s my opinion and I am sticking to it.
I think people (including myself, in this case) are hesitant to make sweeping changes to sports for a few reasons. The first reason is probably the one with the greatest influence: tradition. I don’t think you guys should completely shrug this one off. If you change a game too much, then it ceases to be what it once was and becomes something completely different. Maybe that “different” is, in this case, a more accurate calling of balls and strikes, but one must ask if that’s really better. If you want to change live baseball into a videogame that gets balls and strikes unquestionably right every time, then maybe you should just play a videogame (incidentally, one baseball game I play allows you to change the settings so that the umpires do occasionally make an incorrect call—I do because it makes the game more realistic).
I guess I just wonder if this gripe really gets to the heart of why statisticians and traditional baseball fans seem to clash. It is, after all, a question of mathematical correctness vs. feel. Some people prefer feel (ex: “I feel like Manny would have gotten a hit there, and that’s why I like him.” vs. “Manny Ramirez was statistically a better hitter based on X, and that’s why I like him.”). I find myself occupying a somewhat hybrid space on issues like this, especially regarding Griffey. I don’t really care if Griffey wasn’t the best choice to be our lefty DH—I’m thrilled that Z signed him (at a good price, of course) and I love watching him hit, even if that means I have to see him wave helplessly at a lefty slider every now and then.
All of this is not to say that you’re wrong, Derek, I just think that both sides of this point should recognize the merits of the other side rather than just saying “If you want the strikezone called consistently, especially if you want it called by the rulebook, you’re on my side.” Incidentally, I prefer strikes to be called strikes and balls to be called balls, but I’m not on your side on this issue. I guess I don’t think absolute correctness would improve my experience of watching baseball. It is, after all, entertainment.
My bad. I forgot to link the the Beyond the Boxscore article about 17% of pitches being called wrong. That is indeed the one I was thinking of. Thanks for linking to it, RoninX.
Aye, roninx. If home-plate umpires are currently getting nearly 1-in-5 calls completely wrong…this should be a red-flag of MAJOR concern for MLB. Thanks for the link, gents.
“a more accurate calling of balls and strikes, but one must ask if that’s really better”
I don’t understand how better ball and strike calling would be bad.
Also, that whole videogame analogy of yours comes across as condescending and dickish in the same way that “bloggers = parents’ basement” does.
Here’s the thing: let’s say I invented a new contact lens which allows umpires to somehow perfectly judge all balls and strikes. Everyone would herald this as a huge accomplishment, we’d be seeing how fast we could roll it out, umpires who can’t use contacts would be patted on the back and made roving instructors or something, and yay, everyone’s happy.
But arguing that implementing a system that can do exactly the same thing but isn’t routed through an umpire’s optic nerves to his brain for him to make a gesture is a travesty, undermining the game, ignorance of tradition. I don’t get it.
How about having the ball/strike info (similar to the pitch tracer used on tv) relayed to a small display visor in the umps mask? You would still have the human presence behind the plate to make the calls, ring people up and make the calls at the plate.
Derek:
It’s OK if you “don’t get it,” and I’m not condescending here. You’re human like the rest of us are, and you’re wired differently.
There are baseball fans out there who are every bit as passionate about the game as you are, and they have a different threshold for different imperfections. Their standing is equal to yours. That’s all this discussion is about, different thresholds for different aspects of the game.
I disagree. Couldn’t you say the same thing about steroids for hitters?
And I honestly didn’t think the videogame bit was condescending at all. I just wanted to use it to illustrate my point that I enjoy watching umpires do their job—it’s part of what draws me to the game. Again, Derek, I’m not saying I’m right. I’m merely acknowledging that, for me, this would not make baseball better. For you it might. But, again, I’ll say that what you desire may not, in fact, be baseball per se. Maybe a better way to put it: What you desire is not my version of baseball. I can appreciate both sides of these issues, but I guess “removing umpires” is where I draw the line.
I’m serious about not meaning to offend you. I don’t think your a loser blogger; I read this blog religiously because I enjoy what you and Dave write. You guys are insightful and interesting.
Why not remove the pitchers too for the new pitching machines so we don’t have to watch pitchers get drilled.
I’m still not quite sure where I stand on the strike zone, but this is a ridiculous strawman argument. No one on Earth is suggesting that baseball be played by programmed machines. The “human element” is obviously what makes baseball baseball. It’s a competition between two groups of human beings. But trying to prevent a third group of fallible humans from affecting the outcome of the intended competition isn’t even on the same planet as replacing players with machines.
I’m entirely sympathetic with Ivan’s line here, because it’s really quite close to my fallback argument which is that you use the tech to train the umps to be as good as you can get them.
I don’t understand though why wanting to see the strike zone called consistently as defined in the rules, something humans cannot do, means I’m advancing something that’s not baseball “per se” whatever I’m supposed to take from that.
Umpires are not inherently part of the game. They’re judges of whether conditions in the rules are met, and frequently interpreters of the rules. The game is a contest between the two teams, and the more level and fair the contest the better.
Best Argument FOR Human Umpires
Umpires are not inherently part of the game. They’re judges of whether conditions in the rules are met, and frequently interpreters of the rules. The game is a contest between the two teams, and the more level and fair the contest the better.
Which is why the comparison to steroids, whatever you think of them, is completely misplaced. Steroids are taken by the players competing in the contest, and the objection to them is based on them changing the balance of that competition. Umpires do not compete with anyone, so providing them with “artificial” or “unnatural” enhancements to their abilities should not detract from the quality of the contest at all.
Derek:
The notion that “umpires are not inherently part of the game” might not be generally accepted in the world of baseball fandom at large.
I get what you’re saying. It seems to be that because umpires are not written into the rule book, that we should not view them as inherent. Again, to me(!), umpires have assumed a position of inherency. They have always been; it is no longer germane that they were not a part of the original rule book. Because of the tradition of baseball, umpiring has become an interesting variable like wind, temperature, etc. It does seem like you’re line of thinking leads us toward playing baseball games in domes where dimensions are always identical (someone may have already noted this). Maybe for you this would be an improvement. I like the Safe and the Ballpark, but they’re inherently different.
I’m all in favor of this…the umpire calling balls and strikes feels sometimes as if he’s an important part of the game.
No, I don’t like the human error element as some people stated. I want it right. I don’t want pitchers to have to ‘adjust’ to an umpire’s arbitrary strike zone.
Get rid of the home plate umpire – they’ve screwed up the game for far too long.
I don’t see how not wanting to have umpires with shitty, inconsistent strike zones is in any way analogous to having identical domed stadiums. The rule book says you can have a field that has to be within certain parameters (which Selig waives all the time, but anyway) and in the same way it says the basepaths go like so, the strike zone is like so. You should no more have terrible strike zones than you should allow drunken groundscrews to put the bases random distances apart, draw screwy lines, and then call it “charm”.
And if people want to see crazy, inconsistent strike zones to challenge the pitchers and make the games more difficult, that’s fine: express that as a need, or something you want to see. But no one’s willing to say that. Or we should talk about the favortism that’s winked at today in the guise of “veteran calls” or whatever we’re calling it today– does anyone really want to say that a rookie pitcher should be squeezed while a veteran pitcher is not? And yet that happens now, and I’d argue that’s not good in any sense.
It seems like the diversity of opinions on this issue within the context of this blog would be reflective of the outside world. This is why things like “the challenge flag” exist. The flag gives people who enjoy the human element their fill, and it holds umpires accountable by using replay on occasion. Maybe it wouldn’t be so absurd for baseball to implement something like this. Sorry to both parties: it’s called compromise.
Get rid of the home plate umpire – they’ve screwed up the game for far too long.
Or keep him there to look for check swings, balks, catcher’s interference, etc. And plays at the plate, of course.
This point is somewhat valid, but I’d only say that drunken grounds crews are not a part of baseball and never have been.
I don’t hope for the worst when I watch a baseball game. But I hope to have made it clear that I do enjoy umpiring—in all of it’s sound and fury. So, consider the need for humans to umpire (this includes occasional inaccuracies) expressed.
I really don’t want to wade into this debate, since I’m sympathetic to both sides (yes, I’d like to see a 100% consistent strike zone, and yes I like the ump back there doing his thing, looking at the same thing the batter is looking at). I certainly think the occasional drama queen ump doing exaggerated “you’re out!” gestures adds something to the game (as long as it is occasional).
But I’d like to point out that the strike zone — as determined by the region in which at least 50% of thrown balls are called strikes — is in practice quite different in size and shape from what it is in theory. According to the rulebook, a strike is called if any part of the ball crosses over any part of the plate, so while the plate itself is 17″ wide, the horizontal motion of the ball (as viewed by the umpire) combined with the depth of the plate (front vs back corners) means that the rulebook strikezone is effectively about 20″ wide. However, in 2007 John Walsh did an analysis that showed the real horizontal extent of the strikezone is almost exactly 24 inches; moreover, it varies between RH and LH batters (it is -12 to +12 inches for RH but slightly smaller and offset -14.6 to +9.9 inches for LH, another reason why its good to bat leftie). Walsh added more information in a second article where he found the vertical extent was less than the rulebook strikezone. So even though the horizontal extent was larger than the rulebook (more so for RH than LH), the total area of the strikezone was actually 7% to 10% smaller than the rulebook strikezone area. And Jonathon Hale followed up with an article looking at consistency among different umpires. It’s worth noting that there’s more variance in the vertical zone because the umpires are having to adjust to batters of different heights, so although the zone is larger in the vertical direction the margin of error is greater as well.
I don’t know if anyone followed up on this — we have another season’s data, or more, since then but I doubt the overall conclusion would change. It would be interesting to look at each and every umpire to see which ones are the least consistent from game to game, or the furthest from the rulebook ideal.
But it’s also worth noting that the Pitch FX data isn’t 100% perfect either. They do lose data or have glitches from time to time.
So I think you need the umpire behind the plate. However, since the advent of Questec and now Pitch FX, I’ve thought it would be quite possible to put a wireless receiver and five LEDs into the umps mask (red ones for high, low, inside, outside, and a green one in the middle) to tell him what the Pitch FX system determined. You could even call it a “training tool” or “quality assurance” tool and leave it at that, without ordering them to obey it, because — if we assume that umpires have their performance (strike-calling) reviewed afterwards (right?) — it’s just warning them about things they’re going to have to explain later anyway. If it turns out they start relying on it, well, how bad would that be? And if the system fails or gives wonky data, there’s still a human there to back it up.
Derek says:
I’m willing to say it. I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s not necessarily a “need,” or “something I want to see,” but it will exist no matter what.
The game is a reflection of the society at large, where imperfections abound. People adapt to them and life goes on. People have different thresholds and different expecations, and make different tradeoffs.
I’m willing to live with some strike zone inconsistency. Do I think umpires should improve their ball-and-strike calls? Yes. Do I favor using Questec or something like it for postseaton evaluation? Yes. Do I think a machine should replace umpires during a game for ball-and-strike calls? No. Would it “ruin the game” for me if it happened? Probably it would, and for that reason I’d oppose it, and probably quit watching baseball if it were adopted.
But that’s MY threshold. It’s no better or worse than Derek’s or Axtell’s. It’s just different. I don’t expect or demand others to adopt my thresholds, for my reasons, and they shouldn’t expect me, or anyone else, to adopt theirs.
If we’re going to seriously consider this, we really have to figure out how this is going to affect umpiring top-to-bottom. If human judgment is going to be our backup in the case of a system failure, we’ve still got to have competent strike-zone-calling umpires. And the labor relations and practical questions are so thorny, I don’t see how this happens.
I keep reading how these video-computer ball/strike calling systems are 99% accurate, but according to whom? Questec says that according to Questec data, Questec s 99% accurate? That makes no sense. If a system becomes mis-calibrated, how do we detect that?
And once you detect it, how long has it been mis-calibrated? If it clearly blows 3 calls in a row, do you redo those calls? 10 calls? A half inning? A whole game?
I do wonder if improved accuracy would favor batters or pitchers. Would pitchers lose the ability to expand the strike zone? Or would hitters with a reputation for a good eye lose their benefit-of-the-doubt-on-close-calls advantage? Would we have to raise or lower the height of the mound in order to compensate, to keep the game in competitive balance?
I think the arguments against the merits of implementing this kind of system are pretty shaky. Improve accuracy is really a good thing. But the cultural, practical, and technological hurdles for doing this are significant. I can’t see this happening in the next decade.
It feels like implementing a robotic strike zone would be akin to the intersection cameras that ding people for “running” red lights or even speeding (which I am WAY against). Obviously the technology exists, but is it really for the greater good of the game (or society). I really don’t want to start spouting off horrible slippery slope scenarios where there are sensors in the ball, the bat, the bases, the gloves and anything else that might determine the outcome of a play, but if such technology existed, I wouldn’t want it anywhere NEAR the game. And I’m no Luddite who doesn’t want technology interfering with the Sanctity Of The Game. I’m an early 20s, iPhone loving techie geek who probably ingests digital information 13 hours daily. Sure, technology makes things better, or even darn near perfect, but does that make it right? Because I’m sure when “they†develop a robot that perfectly simulates sex with a human, it’ll be “better than the real thing!†but I still wouldn’t use it (maybe once or twice…). And it would seems obvious to harken back to the good ol’ days of baseball and to not want to change the game because of nostalgia, but using robotics to determine strike zone would feel like a significant alteration of the game: Robo-Baseball (actually sounds kinda cool, and had Wesley Snipes gotten this script pitched to him 15 years ago, we probably could have gotten a great/horrible movie where he plays a second baseman on the New New York Titans going up against a team of NASA engineered baseball cyborgs in the year 2045… sweet…)
I think to assume that either umpires will perfectly uphold the rules prescribed by MLB, or even that the rules themselves are perfect is a lot to ask for. Of course it’s desired, but it’s ultimately unobtainable. And I don’t believe that having incorrect calls are part of the “charm†of the game because I don’t think anyone finds “1+1 = 3†charming, but it’s the reality of the game. It’s why you play the game. Because it could be the exact same day of the week, against the exact same team with the exact same players and umps and EVERYTHING identical to how it was the game before, yet there is NO WAY the same outcome will occur. For better or for worse, that’s the game of baseball.
I’m sorry, but… you’re arguing that umps can’t uphold the rules, the rules aren’t perfect (and it’s unobtainable, which it’s not, but anyway)… but that incorrect calls are bad, aaaaand that inconsistent umpiring is part of the game. That’s contradictory.
Nate says:
Yes. Bingo! Nate nails it exactly. Technology does not exist in a vacuum, despite geek wet dreams. Cultural and practical hurdles affect baseball’s bottom line and fan acceptance.
I think it’s GREAT that we can measure ball-and-strike accuracy like we can. I love watching the tracker. But people’s thresholds for applicability, and their reasons for those thresholds, will differ widely.
Derek is entitled to his strictly technological perspective. I understand it and respect it, but I consider it somewhat narrow in the cultural totality that is baseball, and there is no reason why I should share it.
IMO Derek’s POV succeeds in theory, but fails, for now, in applicability. The issues raised by Nate’s comments on calibration need fuller examination.
Not trying to call you out here, ivan, but I don’t buy this.
Many people made the same assertion regarding instant replay’s implementation in football. Instead of massive dropoffs in football viewership, the NFL has been stronger than ever. (Yes, I realize there’s no direct correlation between replay and increased viewership, the fact remains it didn’t hurt the sport.)
I’m sure if MLB replaced the home ump’s ball and strike calling duties tomorrow with a system, baseball would hardly notice an attendance or ratings drop. Now, I may be utterly wrong there since it’s never been implemented at such a scale, but it hasn’t hurt football or tennis.
I don’t know anyone who bemoans football’s replay system because of its increased accuracy. Indeed, I hear more complaints that replay isn’t wide enough and doesn’t cover enough types of calls.
This isn’t removing the human element from the game, it’s removing a human element from the adjudication of a game.
This I agree on, ivan. I really don’t think an electronic strike caller will be implemented in the foreseeable future.
I just think it should.
Torx:
It would ruin the game for me, OK? I don’t know what it would do for others, and neither do you. OK?
If the rules were perfect, then shouldn’t they have changed to adapt to the times and factored out the imperfections? The umps are meant to be interpreters of the rules. I do agree that some umps are FAR more imperfect than others, and in a lot of cases it’s on a game by game basis. Yes, it’s very, very unfair at times. Would it be contradictory to be in favor of measuring an umps zone to a Pitch F/X readout for evaluation purposes, because to me, that does make perfect sense. Keep them honest, and when their interpretation begins to waiver and deteriorate, then you’re umpping days are done.
Even more complicated: what about batters who change their batting stance, mid-pitch? E.g. a lot of batters straighten up slightly as they prepare to swing. Is the pitcher supposed to aim for the batting zone that exists as he pitches the ball, or the one that exists when the ball actually crosses the plate?
RoninX’s comment about the inadequacy of the technology for fencing also makes me pause; fencing has what would seem to be a much simpler technological problem, but even they haven’t gotten it right yet, according to RoninX.
IOW, to echo comments made by some others: the claim is that machines’ calls are more accurate — but accurate according to whom? How do we know that those boxes drawn for the Pitchf/x data are the correct boxes? (And every Pitchf/x ball/strike box that I’ve seen has been 2-dimensional, whereas in reality balls and strikes have to be called relative to a 3-dimensional cube.)
The human eye sees things differently from how a machine sees things; a machine might tell us that the physical reality was a ball, but if human perception — and I mean what things look like to the batter, pitcher, and umpire alike — says it looked like a strike, then baseball is better if the ruling is a strike. Players (and umps) can’t play towards a standard that can be perceived only by the inhumanly accurate machine; they can only play towards what is humanly perceivable.
It’s simpler but not by a whole lot, I don’t think. Depends on the weapon. In addition, even with the electronics that have been implemented, a human director is an essential part of any fencing bout, due to the necessity to interpret right of way (in the only non-RoW weapon, the director is usually pretty bored).
The electronics in fencing take care of the mechanics of telling whether a touch happened and whether it hit valid target, but I think fully automating fencing would be a much larger challenge than fully automating baseball umpiring.
I wonder if I’ve fenced RoninX!
The problem with using the systems only as an evaluation tool for the umpires and not having the system take over entirely, is that umpires cannot call balls and strikes nearly as accurately as the systems can.
According to the previous link, in 2008, the absolute best umpire for accuracy was Jim Wolf with 84.9%. The worst was a tie between Tony Randazzo and Mark Carlson at 81.4%, though they both have small sample sizes (2314 & 3548 pitches called respectively vs. 7155 for Wolf).
That means the best ump last year miscalled 1080 pitches. Do you send him down to the minors? How can you punish the worst when the best aren’t much better?
This a great debate. Lots of great ideas and interesting points. This kind of stuff is why this is the best (and just about only) blog I read on the Web. Thanks Derek and Dave.
Now, just about when people are gonna say I’m biggest a**kisser they ever heard, I’m gonna flat out disagree with Derek on this one. Like someone said, let’s put a pitching machine out there. It’s only fair, right? Why should some teams have poorer (ie more human and mistake prone) pitchers than other teams? We need to make sure it’s as fair as possible.
If I want to watch a robot calling the strike zone, I’ll play my son’s Wii baseball. I come out to the ballgame see humans play and judge a game. It’s part of the fun. Who wants to yell, “Short-circuit the umpire!” [To me, home runs are an exception, but the only one.]
Besides, as we all know, we never have any problems with our computers, do we? (tongue firmly in cheek). “Your BallsNStriks program has experienced an unexpected error and was forced to close.” No.
Besides, I really don’t want to hear this kind of thing in the locker room after the game:
“Erik, what was wrong out there today.”
“The computer was really off today. I don’t know if it got its wired crossed or overheated or what. The league needs to look into the software. Those robot calls were ridiculous.
“Now get away from my locker, you simpering idiots.”
I’m sorry, but if you can’t see the difference between advocating better, impartial enforcement of the rules for both teams and the replacement of actual participants with robots, we’re not even arguing the same thing. This isn’t even reducio ad absudrum, it’s just absurd.
This is what I was trying to point out. It’s not just that I don’t care to change a baseball tradition (a complaint that I recognize the merits in, but that others seem to easily dismiss), it’s also that this seems to be a change in baseball’s nature.
DMZ says:
Well, you know, Derek, we use all kinds of technological advances to improve the human potential of the players without replacing them with robots, and that’s perfectly OK.
So, also, we can use technological advances to improve the human potential of the umpires without replacing them with robots.
I understand the distinction you have made between the players, who are playing the game, and the umpires, who are enforcing the rules, and why YOU might think it’s necessary and desirable to replace the umps with robots, and why YOU might think it’s not the same thing as replacing players with robots.
But I’d venture to guess — and it’s only a guess, mind you — that most baseball fans would see this more in a humanistic framework than in a technological framework, and would not make the distinction that you make.
In other words, players are human, umps are human, and they’re all in it together. That might change over time, but for now, that’s the way I see it, and I’m guessing that mine is the majority position in baseball fandom at large.
A lot of people are attracted to baseball BECAUSE it’s one sphere in which they can be traditionalists without necessarily offending anyone else. Why else would we still have DH-haters and “little ball” lovers among us? To my mind, it sucks to watch pitchers hit, and Earnshaw Cook and Earl Weaver proved long ago that sacrifice bunting is mostly stupid.
But it also demonstrates that old preferences die hard, and so it will probably be for live umps.
To make the situation even worse, Umps not only make bad mistakes, they also systematically have a different zone for LHB than RHB, which is nuts.
I totally agree with this post.
“To make the situation even worse, Umps not only make bad mistakes, they also systematically have a different zone for LHB than RHB, which is nuts.”
Probably because the hitters occupy different physical spaces. In fact, the umpire’s “strike zone” (we all seem to be working under the assumption that this exists, and, meanwhile, umpires are trained not to develop a strike zone because each hitter is different) is constantly changing from batter to batter. It absolutely should be different for a righty and a lefty because the two hitters are physically different (different heights, different stances, etc.). The plate may not change, but the batter is always changing. Someone else made the point that many batters change stances during an AB—sometimes even during the pitch!
Edit: I tried to remedy the blockquote situation; this is the best I could do.
If the ump machine wanted to call a ball, it would do nothing, and make no noise, just sit there. To call a strike it would put on an elaborate performance.
Well said.
Incompetent or biased umpires have no part in the game.
The game and excitement of competition lose a lot of luster when the outcome is being decided by the random quirks or favoritism of some self assigned stage director behind the plate, rather than the rarified skills of the batter&runners vs. pitcher&fielders.
Holding your breath in a high leverage situation as your pitcher throws a critical pitch to a good batter, and then letting it out whoosh, “What a great pitch blown past by the batter, yeah!”, should be the joyous end.
Instead of “wait a minute, that ump’s terrible” still holding your breath and waiting and worrying whether “the Man” will really call a strike, a strike as it should be.
Get rid of incompetent or biased umpires. I’m not paying a bunch of money to watch those guys randomly mess up the outcome of a game.
In almost any other job, incompetence would rightly lead to a person shaping up or losing his job.
We cannot remove umpires from the game of baseball because they make the sport beautiful, flaws and all. And we cannot punish umpires for poor strike zones because, as DMZ mentions, they are only human, they have imperfections, and they will not always make the right calls. But they will most of the time because they too are professionals at the highest level and they have talent for calling balls and strikes like the players have for hitting the cover off of the ball.
Keeping umpires makes the game of baseball perfect, if simply because umpires prevent it from becoming a simulation that vaguely represents the original sport played by Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. Umpires keep baseball a game of adjustments, one that constantly stimulates the players’ intellects as well as their athletic abilities. Yogi Berra put it perfectly when he said that baseball is ninety percent mental. Replacing an umpire with a machine would make the sport a shell of what it once was. Baseball has so many different dimensions that make it the greatest sport in the world and eliminating the umpires eliminates an integral part of the game.
I think Joser hit it on the head. Why not let the umps use technology to improve the way they call the game instead of using technology to replace the umps? That way we don’t have to choose sides and we can all get along.
Because we know even the best umps, the finest at perceiving and calling the strike zone, aren’t that good at it. If you train everyone up to calling 85% of them correctly, that’s great, but that’s still not as good as it can, and should, be.
Also, I don’t understand why this is viewed as punishing umpires. If you asked a mercat to build an interstellar colony ship, there’s no punishment in relieving them of the duty. They can’t do it, except for certain supermercats, maybe. Humans can’t call the strike zone.
And if you want to see the game kept challenging, why not just have the strike zone randomized? Each pitch, one quarter of the strike zone randomly counts for two strikes, while another is a ball. Extra strategy and stimulation for players.
I think the compromise position, where the umps are told by the machine whether the ball crossed the plate but the umps themselves make the vertical call and hence the final call whether the pitch is a strike, seems very plausible. Technologically, it’s simple. Aesthetically, there would be very little change from the current situation. If you’re going to start a letter writing campaign or something, I recommend pushing for that…
The most sensible compromise would be for select umps to have cybernetic ocular implants installed. Fieldin Culbreth would make a suitable guinea pig for the procedure.
I’m not sure myself how automating ball/strike calls takes the challenge and/or competition out of baseball.
Pitchers still have to throw strikes that hitters can’t hit well. Hitters still have to discern between 85-100 mph fastballs and offspeed pitches, let alone whether they’re in the strike zone or not, let alone actually time their swings and actually hit those strikes.
You’re not automating the players or anything other than the ball and strike calls at the plate, calls that human umpires routinely get incorrect.
And as mentioned, home plate umpires wouldn’t lose their jobs to a computer. Check swings, catcher interference, foul balls, plays at the plate and a variety of situations still require a human call, which requires a home plate umpire. And the base umpires would still keep their jobs. Plus if the pitch-call technology falters, there’s your home plate umpire to call balls and strikes.
All this said, there appears to be a lot of traditionalism to the anti-tech argument here that’s coloring the thought process of those defending it. Progress is not a bad thing, people.
I’d rather have a game whose outcome is based on the actual skill of the players involved, not some sepia-toned silliness about umpires being a “part of the game”.
Even the best umpires often have too big of an involvement in what way the game is decided, and the worst can make a game basically unwinnable.
Let’s not be so mired in traditionalism that we can’t leverage technology to make sure the game is in the hands of the players as much as possible.
I find this a bit annoying. There are some very thoughtful explanations in this comments section (really, a great read, by the way). To reduce the view that umpires calling balls/strikes is a quintessential part of baseball as we know it to “sepia-toned silliness” is about as unthoughtful as you can get. As Ivan would say – I have my threshold, you have yours. This is a case where, truly, neither position is more right than the other. If you want to explain your position, explain it. Don’t simply reduce the other side’s position.
Where are these thoughtful arguments that you’re talking about?
Is it this?
Or maybe this?
Wait, I know, it’s this!
When someone posts an actual cogent argument that the 15% or more error rate from human umpires adds ANYTHING to the game, much less enough to offset the worse situations like the ridiculous strike zone post I linked to earlier in this thread, then I’ll call it something other than sepia-toned silliness.
I suspect I’ll be waiting a while.
This comes awfully close judging another’s fandom, Jeff. I would think you would realize that. Go back and read Ivan’s and TheMedia’s posts rather than cherrypicking a few lines that you find objectionable.
Look – there are two fan perspectives here. One is that the game is competition between athletes that should be decided purely based on the athletes’ performance. I get that. The other is that this is theater layered on top of an athletic competition and that umpires calling balls and strikes is part of that theater. I get that, too. And of course there are many views in between. None are correct or incorrect. What I don’t get is that anyone in one of those camps would be unwilling to give any credence to someone’s views from the other camp. Put another way, please don’t tell me why I like baseball.
Firstly, the post about not judging another’s fandom is not meant to be used to support the premise that all opinions are equal, and I’m getting a little tired of it constantly being misconstrued that way. Go back, read it again, and discover what it’s actually about before you start trying to call people out on it.
Let me clarify for you why you’re wrong in this case.
I didn’t say: “People who like human umpires are bad baseball fans”.
I did say: “The arguments I’ve seen so far from those who support the continued use of human umpires have no factual basis and are appeals to nostalgia and emotion.”
I don’t care if you would prefer to go even farther down the nostalgia train and go back to the days of baggy wool uniforms and windups that look like a complicated yoga routine; you’re welcome to enjoy whatever flavor of baseball you’d like, and it doesn’t make you any less of a fan.
But the actual fact in debate in this post is whether the outcome of a baseball game would be placed more directly in the hands of the athletes competing and be a better contest of the athletic skills of the players involved without human error being allowed to play so large of a factor, and THAT is what I’m waiting for some factual counter-evidence of.
Not everything is subjective, no matter how hard you wish for it to be.
No. You’re totally wrong and have completely missed the point that I have made and others have made repeatedly above. I don’t think a single person here is arguing that the outcome of a baseball game wouldn’t be placed more directly in the hands of the athletes if machines called balls/strikes. What’s in debate here is whether it would be a good idea to use a machine to call balls and strikes. This isn’t a discussion about the “factual basis” of anything. It’s a discussion of what different people find appealing about the game of baseball.
If someone says, “I enjoy the game more with umpires calling balls and strikes than I would with a machine calling balls and strikes,” I don’t see how you can argue with that person. It perfectly fits the definition of “subjective”.
Maybe you need examples:
My wife finds it fascinating that that one umpire takes forever to call a pitch.
My 5-year old loves the way umps go “strrrrrriiiiiiiiiiike”.
I like the fact that some pitchers get completely rattled by a bad call and can’t deal with it while others take it in stride. I enjoy the theater of bad calls.
I like the rule that you aren’t allowed to argue balls and strikes, and it’s an awesome teaching moment for me and my kid.
I enjoy that some people think guys like Glavine and Moyer get bigger strike zones.
I’m sure there are many reasons why people like umpires calling balls/strikes and, whether you share those opinions or not, it’s tough to argue they’re “wrong”.
Actually, what you and others have done in this comment thread is try to turn it into your subjective argument about what makes a game fun for you to watch, because you know you can’t address what Derek’s post was actually ABOUT, which is very simply put:
Your “examples” don’t even remotely address that, because you know Derek’s 100% correct but if you can shift the conversation to something that else that CAN be viewed subjectively, you can somehow “win”.
He goes on to say:
And again, where’s the response to that? Yep, none.
People who think baseball is a better game with human umpires calling balls and strikes are objectively, verifiably WRONG.
If you’d prefer to watch a flawed game, that’s up to you, but there is nothing subjective about what Derek was talking about when he made this post.
I was perfectly civil yesterday, as I think others (including CCW has been other than his “You are totally wrong” comment), but I absolutely can’t stand this line of thinking.
Look, Jeff: How the **** is it so hard for you to grasp that baseball, to some people, doesn’t have to be more statistically reliable to be, as you say, “better”?
What I and others hoped to point out—and I think I even acknowledged Derek’s position time and time again as valid and, therefore, not “wrong” for him—is that baseball, as a source of entertainment, would not improve if there was a system of infallibility available instead of umpiring.
It really does take a certain kind of well, jackass, if I can say so, to deny others a perfectly valid position relying on their own perspective. I haven’t done that, and most of the others in favor of human beings umpiring baseball games haven’t either. Seriously, man. It’s not winning. Nobody wins this discussion. If that’s all you’re interested in, how about this: You win, Jeff. You win. Feel better?
But led me add this: You say that we have not addressed the nature of the post. That is, as you quote: “2) humans shouldn’t be calling balls and strikes. A guy squatting behind a plate can’t adequately determine if a 90mph pitch crossed a three-dimensional strike zone. The sooner the swap’s made, the better for the game.” How is saying that this swap would not be bettering the game from our own definition of the game not addressing this point?
I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that human umpires make errors; many times, these errors seem obvious. But I can live with the errors, just as I can live with many frustrating aspects of baseball, because, to me, these “inadequacies” are a part of the game I enjoy. I think you have to say that neither side is “right,” but that both sides are “right.” The key is perspective. Why is this so difficult?
If I wanted to win, I could simply get rid of the posts disagreeing with me. Especially ones that call me a jackass. You’ll note that I haven’t, though.
In any case, I’m tired of disclaimering over and over again that I couldn’t care less if you’d enjoy the game more if all the players wore pink tutus; your own personal enjoyment isn’t even remotely relevant. And frankly, I’d have a lot more respect for you if that’s the position you were taking, since it’d be pretty difficult for pink tutus to have a significant impact on the outcome of a game. I imagine Yuni’d find a way to trip on his, though.
Instead, what you are asking all of the rest of us to tolerate, just to make you happy, is an unacceptably high level of preventable human error that changes the outcome of games.
It’s not subjective, it’s not a question of perspective; if you think baseball is in any way, shape or form a better game (note, this is different than it being more enjoyable for you personally) with human umpires making mistakes that affect the outcome of games, you’re simply wrong.
OK, Jeff. OK. This issue is clearly simple, as you say. And, I’m “simply wrong.” Well said.
Me too. Simply wrong.
Let me publicly add this, Jeff: Sorry I called you a jackass. I suppose I’m in such a volatile mood because the M’s are tanking. Maybe this is true for all of us. Who would have thought I could get this worked up about robots invading MLB, a scenario that others have smartly noted isn’t very likely in the first place.
It’s not a fun time for anyone who follows this team. No harm done, and I appreciate the apology.
I’m sorry too if I sounded more dismissive than I should have. I understand why people are attached to the element of drama that umpires can provide; I simply think the integrity of the game is a more important consideration.
I too concede that I am a sepia-toned, silly, tradition-obsessed baseball fan who likes the umpiring system the way it is and doesn’t want to see technology intrude in this area.
That is, I am simply wrong. And I’m ok with that. My kids still love me
Closing comments on this thread. The reason should be obvious.
In addition: if a moderator has removed one of your comments, don’t go back and re-edit in what got them removed in the first place, or further snotty comments.
If you feel you’ve been treated poorly by the awful, power-hungry moderators who spend their free time trying to help keep this site running more smoothly, you know the address to send your email to. Keep it out of comment threads.