User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1442 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Thursday, May 25, 2023ESPN Insider: Robo umps in MLB? Inside baseball’s latest ABS experiment
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:28 AM | 102 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: robot umpires |
Login to submit news.
Support BBTFThanks to You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Update on Yankees’ Juan Soto trade talks: Teams talking players, but not close on agreement
(26 - 11:58pm, Dec 01) Last: The Yankee Clapper Newsblog: OT - November* 2023 College Football thread (179 - 11:45pm, Dec 01) Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him! Newsblog: Hot Stove Omnichatter (50 - 11:03pm, Dec 01) Last: cardsfanboy Hall of Merit: Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (23 - 10:38pm, Dec 01) Last: The Duke Newsblog: Forbes: For MLB, Las Vegas, And Oakland, The A’s Name And Brand Should Stay Put (16 - 10:36pm, Dec 01) Last: The Duke Newsblog: OT - NBA Redux Thread for the End of 2023 (118 - 10:24pm, Dec 01) Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135 Newsblog: Who is on the 2024 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and what’s the induction process? (299 - 8:41pm, Dec 01) Last: The Duke Newsblog: Zack Britton details analytics ‘rift’ that’s plaguing Yankees (8 - 8:11pm, Dec 01) Last: McCoy Hall of Merit: Hall of Merit Book Club (16 - 6:06pm, Dec 01) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Jackson Chourio extension: Brewers closing in on historic deal with MLB's No. 7 prospect, per report (19 - 4:54pm, Dec 01) Last: Rally Newsblog: OT Soccer - World Cup Final/European Leagues Start (288 - 3:35pm, Dec 01) Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter) Newsblog: Sportsnet's Ben Wagner out as voice of Blue Jays radio broadcasts (4 - 3:04pm, Dec 01) Last: Ron J Newsblog: Former Yankee Luis Severino agrees to 1-year, $13 million deal with Mets: reports (25 - 1:49pm, Dec 01) Last: Howie Menckel Newsblog: OT: Wrestling Thread November 2014 (3019 - 12:21pm, Dec 01) Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135 Newsblog: Reds, RHP Nick Martinez agree to $26M deal, sources say (9 - 10:39am, Dec 01) Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 1.1442 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
For me? Nah.
Baseball is hard enough without a randomizer from a biased umpire making the game that much harder.
Simple question with a simple answer. Yes, it makes baseball better.
1. Umpires make enough mistakes that the roboumps will be more accurate, even if not perfect.
2. It kills the meme of pitch framing (aka bad umpiring), something I hope to never hear again.
3. It removes a large thorn of irritation between umps and players/coaches. Although check swings and foul tips can cause arguments, there will be a minimal chance that players/managers get ejected for arguing balls and strikes. Players reacting to strike outs will no longer be "showing up the ump". Hair trigger umps like Joe West will have less reason to irrationally try to take over games.
4. The strike zone is easier to change if it turns out that a truly accurate strike zone massively upsets the balance between pitchers and batters.
5. The home plate ump still has a lot of decisions to make while still managing the game, so it makes it easier for them which may improve these other aspects of their jobs.
1. I think the mistakes are more interesting. I fear that a uniform “perfect” strike zone will have some negative effects.
2. I like pitch framing.
3. Arguments with the umpire are fun.
4. This only becomes necessary if the system is working poorly so I don’t see it as a positive.
5. Meh, I guess this is OK though I’m not really sure what decisions it refers to. But I’ll concede #5.
There are actually a lot of reasons why many of us would prefer not to see them, which we've gone over repeatedly.
Of course, the biggest benefit I can see from them is it will hopefully end the endless and insufferable whining about balls and strike calls from fans.
1. The mistakes are only interesting in May and June or when they go against the other team (in my view).
2. Same. It and pitch calling were about the only things I was actually good at in baseball. Both seem to be on the verge of death in MLB. I'll be sad to see it go, but if it gets rid of truly bad strike zones, I'll accept the sacrifice.
3. Managers and players will still find plenty to argue with the remaining umpires.
4. We've already seen this in practice - every few years the strike zone drifts higher or lower, so there has really never been such a thing as a "perfect" strike zone. This will at least standardize it, and if does actually need adjustment, its not just on a whim of an umpire deciding things need to change.
5. Meh also...but it does bring something up - if they go full automated balls and strikes, do they just eliminate the Homeplate ump and have the other 3 rotate for plays as the plate? If not does he still line up behind the catcher and just watch until something comes along for him to do? Can we get him a tennis ref lifeguard chair to help judge check swings?
1. I agree that roboumps may, although unlikely, introduce some unintended consequences, which is what point 4 addressed. Why are umpire missed ball and strike calls more interesting than getting the call correct?
2. Agree to disagree.
3. I watch games to see the players, especially the stars. Seeing a player ejected over a perceived bad strike call is the opposite of enjoyable. Even worse, most ejections over balls and strikes are ticky tacky calls lacking an entertaining argument.
5. Home plate umpires are still responsible for out calls at the plate, fair/foul calls in the infield, foul tips, HBP, check swings, catcher interference, pitch clock violations, maintaining the official counts, balks, etc.
Dalek umps would EXTERMINATE! anybody who argued with them, thus moving the game along.
managing line-ups (legal players, batter batting out of turn, ghost runner in extra innings etc.)
responsible for some out calls in the field (e.g., did catcher catch the ball or did the catcher trap it on the screen, rundowns between third and home)
batter not standing in the batter's box for the pitch or hitting ball while out of the box
checking pitcher for sticky stuff
breaking up overly long mound visits
managing time between innings
deciding on whether to use current baseball or put new one in play
determining if catcher caught third strike
determining if catcher caught foul tip
catcher illegally blocking plate on throw
some obstruction plays (e.g., pitcher trying to back up home obstructing runner, batter obstructing catcher trying to field ball)
determining swing or bunt with two strikes
ejections
weather related decisions
I might have missed a couple, but even without calling balls and strikes, the home plate ump has a lot of responsibilities and will not be replaced by roboumps.
I like that they are testing it out, as it's probable, until proven different, that the technology and speed of game haven't caught up with each other.
As far as the challenge system goes, I really hate a challenge system, but I've heard plenty of people point out that it's self regulating to the point that replays are only happening when a team really deems it's important etc, and MLB even has in place their system that late games allow the manager to request an umpire challenge, which allows for them to challenger early in the game knowing(assuming) that in a potential obvious miscall at a critical part of the game, that they still have options.
You missed one of the most important: calling fair or foul on balls before they pass first/third.
The day we lose human umps will be a great day.
I’ll never in my life understand this point of view. Go to a little league game if you want bad umpiring.
Sorry I wasn't clear. That responsibility was in my original post 16. I didn't want to repeat those, so I only gave ones I missed in my original post.
Hey now, I umped many a LL game and I resemble that remark!
"He's calling that low outside pitch." (I have a large zone.)
"Yeah, but he's consistent about it."
I felt really good.
While I don't enjoy egregiously bad calls, I do get some measure of enjoyment out of a pitcher figuring out an umpire's zone and exploiting it. I enjoy that pitch framing is a skill that matters for catchers. I think imperfect ball/strike calls make baseball more interesting.
Are you in favor of the the "replay shows you one millimeter above base for .1 seconds - you're out" calls? They are also more accurate.
I'm all for automated balls and strikes. The sooner the better. I also wish they would limit the use of replay either by forcing managers to request reviews immediately/or without aid of replay cameras OR minimize the number of plays that can be subject to replay.
But why would you want to limit replay? Why wouldn't you want umpire calls to be more accurate?
Personally, I do not like it, that's all.
As is my loathing of personalized strike zones. And I'm much older than you!
The problem with personalized strike zones is that they more often favor pitchers over batters, and add to the already too-high strikeout rates. Repeated gift strikes that miss low and / or outside are so common on some nights as to be almost uncountable. Not to mention that some batters are victimized by bad calls disproportionately.
It'd be one thing to keep human ball & strike umps if they did away with all forms of replay. At least that would be consistent. But it makes no sense to use technology to correct the minuscule number of bad calls on the bases, while at the same time refusing to use it to address the far, far higher number of missed ball and strike calls, which in many cases are just as likely to affect the outcome of a game as a missed bang-bang play at 1st.
The personalized strike zone, aka the strike zone.
WTFAYTA? The actual strike zone is defined by the rule book. It doesn't establish 76 different zones for 76 different umpires. There's absolutely no reason why one umpire's strike zone should be any different from another's.
The actual strike zone has always been defined by that day's umpire, who called it based on his eye/positioning. So it was in the 1910s when you were a lad. So it was in the 1970s when I was introduced to the game. And so it's been now, even with the little box superimposed on the teevee. Your perpetual need to pretend the "personalized strike zone" is a modern creation by glory-hungry umpires is amusing, but absurd.
Just fix this in the rules, it still counts as contact if you bounce upwards by a tiny bit. Don't pretend we can't see it or outlaw the camera that does, just fix the rule.
Both AAA leagues? I’d click but don’t have ESPN insider. If so I’ll run some aggregates and see how the 2 formats affect walk and strikeout rates, and offense in general.
Is Eric Gregg posting here from the Great Beyond?
Weekdays (robo-ump) 12.5% bb (bb/pa), 26.6% so (so/ab), ba .253, slg .424
Weekends (ump with limited challenge reviews) 11.7% bb, 26.0% so, .264, .443
So with robo-ump, more walks, more strikeouts, less hitting. I don’t like that. But the differences are not huge, especially k/w, it’s early, and might reflect other biases, like more day games on weekends.
This has always been my fear. That more accurate leads to less entertaining. If tweaked and this reverses then I can definitely see be for it but it seems all attempts to 'get things right' in baseball have lead to a less entertaining product.
I do think close calls are part of the entertainment though. I get that if your team is robbed it is not entertaining but to everyone else it is, the years of arguing and supposing IS part of the entertainment of sports. When not for entertainment, I want what is best and most fair, for entertainment all I ask is that it is just that entertaining and a level playing field, for sports at least. TTO has killed this sports entertainment, I don't want that to go away but I do want there to be variety in how the game is played to be successful.
same goes for our valuations of players, when you just point to a number and say 'See, so and so was better' it adds to your understanding of sorting things out but lessens the entertainment of arguing with friends that happened before it was precise.
Same here. My primary fear (but not only objection) was that this would even further reward those players with command of the strike zone and lead to more TTOs (relatedly, the inability for pitchers with good command to get extra strikes by hitting the target might lessen their value and lead to more hard-throwing goons). And simply changing where you set the zone wouldn't fix that.
Bring on the robot overlords.
Come on, get ####### real, and stop putting words in my mouth. I've never said that the personalized strike zone is a recent invention. That would be absurd. The only difference is that in recent years it's been possible both to quantify those bad calls and to correct them.
Look, I get that you think that bad calls are good for the game or something, and I can't do anything about that, but hopefully MLB will soon put you into your misery and give home plate umps better things to do than screw up balls and strikes.
Now if you want to eliminate all forms of replays, then at least that would be a coherent and consistent POV. But wanting to eliminate the smallest percentage of blown calls while brushing off the far larger percentage makes no sense at all.
Wow, this posts suggests that not only have you failed to read what I've written on the subject, but what you have as well. At no point in the five years we've been going at this, when I have repeatedly called you out for your focus on the personalized strike zone of today's umps, have you ever acknowledged that personalized zones have existed since the beginning of the game. Not once.
As for me, I don't necessarily think they're good for the game, they're just part of it and a part of it that I don't really give a #### about. But there are other things I do care about.
Since roboumps won't be coming to LL, Babe Ruth and HS balls for quite some time, I don't like the idea of the game at the highest level moving even further away from the game people grow up playing, which is what this will do. I like catcher framing (real catcher framing, not the misguided understanding of it that is way too commonplace here). I like batters/pitchers having to adjust to the umpire's strike zone that day, as it rewards the attentive. And, most of all, as noted above, I worry that a uniform zone will reward those batters who control the zone rather than free swingers, and penalize pitchers who hit their spots, thus leading to even more TTO than we have now. Because I can assure you, given a choice between a few bad balls/strike calls vs. even fewer balls in play, the former is vastly preferable.
And finally, I'm all for getting rid of all forms of replay. Replay sucks.
But as noted above, there is one benefit to the robo umps that even I can't deny. It's possible that I will someday be able to visit Primer or other places without hearing the incessant caterwauling about the damn home plate umpire's zone that day. That would be an unmitigated good.
That would be like pointing out that 2+2=4. How could personalized strike zones ever not have existed? Or do you think I believe Bill Klem never missed a call?
But prior to recently, all those bad calls couldn't be seen in real time, couldn't be quantified, and couldn't be corrected. And now they can be seen, counted, and corrected, which naturally leads to more kvetching when they aren't.
And, most of all, as noted above, I worry that a uniform zone will reward those batters who control the zone rather than free swingers,
So you like free swingers and don't like batters who know the strike zone, and would rather reward the former. Good to see that put on the record.
and penalize pitchers who hit their spots, thus leading to even more TTO than we have now.
IOW pitchers who can now "hit their spots" outside of the strike zone will be incapable of hitting spots inside the strike zone. That's an, er, interesting theory.
As for your dire TTO predictions: The more pitchers are forced to throw actual strikes, the more you'll see balls put in play. Or haven't you noticed that contact rate for pitches within the zone is higher than for pitches outside of it?
And finally, I'm all for getting rid of all forms of replay. Replay sucks.
Okay, that's a legitimate aesthetic preference, and it's consistent with your dislike of robo-umps. I can respect that.
But as noted above, there is one benefit to the robo umps that even I can't deny. It's possible that I will someday be able to visit Primer or other places without hearing the incessant caterwauling about the damn home plate umpire's zone that day. That would be an unmitigated good.
And within a matter of a few months, you'll look back and wonder why you were so opposed to a standardized strike zone, just as those who were opposed to pitch clocks are now realizing its benefits.
if a pitch is not in the strike zone, but a catcher moves his mitt slightly and leads the umpire to mistakenly call the pitch a strike - is that "framing?"
and if that isn't framing, then what IS framing?
and I assume that whatever you call it, you are not saying that no umpire ever falls for the C moving his mitt slightly in hopes of getting a called strike.
I like the ball in play. The former are better at that than the latter. And given a choice between more balls in play vs. the occasional ball a half-inch outside being called a strike, I'll take the former every frigging time. And preferring the latter strikes me as batshit insane.
Don't be daft. Pitchers who can hit their spots are typically going to have lesser stuff. If they spend too much time in the strike zone, they'll be hit harder. And then they'll be released, to be replaced by some lunkhead who throws 97 and doesn't care too much about hitting his spot.
I don't know. I've asked you that same damn question for five years and not once have you acknowledged it before tonight. I'm glad to see you've finally seen the light.
Not necessarily. The spectacular rise in strikeouts is one-part pitcher, one-part batter. If the new system benefits the kind of batter who controls the strike zone (who tend to be the TTO types, rather than an Ichiro type), you can see more three two outcomes (also, a rulebook zone will not just turn balls into strikes, but also strikes into balls).
Doubtful. I love the pitch clock, just as I thought would. And I hate replay, just as I thought it would.
Framing is catching the ball quietly, with limited movement by the catcher. That's what fools the umpire. If the catcher sets up outside and the pitcher hits the zone, he's going to get that call quite often. Likewise, if the catcher sets up inside and darts over to catch the pitch on the outside, it's almost always going to be a ball even if the ball catches the outside corner. It's the absence of movement, not the pulling back into the zone, that gets strikes called.
but "if the catcher sets up inside and darts over to catch the pitch on the outside, it's almost always going to be a ball even if the ball catches the outside corner" has nothing to do with framing, as we describe it.
and I wish your answer was just a little more on point about "you are not saying that no umpire ever falls for the C moving his mitt slightly in hopes of getting a called strike."
because for all of the points we agree on, that's not really what anyone cares about - or at least, I don't.
it's when you see a pitch that clearly misses "the box," then the C pulls it inside the box - yes, maybe only an inch or two - and then it's called a strike, is what the most or all of the discussion is about. doesn't matter what it's called, or not called.
are you saying that you don't see that? because I don't know how that is possible - but that's ok, if that's what you don't see then so be it. I would say I'd be surprised if any MLB exec agreed with you (but your confidence makes me believe you might have a cite to back up your point, and I'd be eager to review it).
because if that part of "pitch framing" doesn't exist, then I don't see a ton of value - unless you are saying that a good C "breaks even" in getting strikes called strikes, and a bad one turns a lot of strikes into what are called balls.
I guess there would be value in that universe, but I don't quite believe that's the one we are living in.
I'm saying that's not the reason the pitch was called a strike.
Catcher's instinctively do that. But it's not what happens after the pitch crosses the plate that umpires are responding to.
A good catcher catches the ball quietly (he doesn't jab at it) and therefore will get more strikes that are outside the little box. And a bad catcher will lose some strikes that inside (obviously, they both will get some of the other, but the best catchers will net positive and vice versa.
I think this is one of the most destructive misconceptions about baseball because it legitimizes bad umpiring by adding a layer of mythology to some hitters. I just don't believe any hitter adjusts to the umpire's unique daily strike zone, although they like to fool themselves and claim that they do.
Think the concept through. Hitters have adjusted their swings through hitting tens of thousands of pitches over the years. The idea of hitting is not to swing at strikes and take balls, but to hit the ball hard, which is optimized by swinging at pitches in your hot zones and taking pitches that are either balls (because they are presumably not hittable) or in your cold zone.
So, when a batter is faced with the unique daily strike zone, is your position is that they refuse to swing at pitches within their hot zone if the umpire is calling those balls today while they will swing at pitches in their cold zone just because the ump is calling them strikes today? Even with two strikes, is it better to not swing at borderline pitches you can't hit and hope the ump calls it a ball or swing and miss (with the resultant strike out)? I think that they hit like normal and pretty much ignore the variant strike zone.
I didn't understand your original answer, but this clears it up. My personnel definition of the terms are backwards fron the way you are using them. The think that the free swings are the TTO types (swing hard and hope you hit it) and the people who control the strike zone are the contact hitters.
You can't have it both ways. If nothing that happens after the pitch crosses the plate matters, then pitch framing is irrelevant. If the umpire takes into account the way that the catcher catches the pitch, then you need to address the issues that Howie raised.
I would be surprised if anyone's hot zone is ever routinely called a ball.
And the fact that with two strikes it's better to not swing at borderline pitches you can't hit hard and hope it's a ball than swing in miss is one of the essential problems with baseball as it's played now. I sure as hell wouldn't want to see that reinforced.
Contact hitters don't get to Ball 4 or Strike 3 as often as TTO guys. The Wade Boggs type of player is very unusual.
You have some free swinging 2TO guys, but they're obviously less useful and typically have to bring something else to the table.
You're missing the point. How catchers receive the ball as it happens matters (the movement they make before and during the act of catching the pitch, when the umpire is tracking its flight). What happens after the pitch is caught (the catcher slyly pulling the mitt back over the plate in hopes the umpire is a doofus) is not.
As noted above, if you have a catcher setting up a half-inch outside the zone and the pitcher hits the spot precisely, chances are good the umpire will call that pitch a strike. Likewise, if the catcher is setting up inside and has to jab to catch a ball that nicks the outside corner, there's an almost 100 percent chance the umpire will call that a ball. And it's all because of the movement/lack of movement by the catcher before the pitch is received.
I like the ball in play. The former are better at that than the latter. And given a choice between more balls in play vs. the occasional ball a half-inch outside being called a strike, I'll take the former every frigging time. And preferring the latter strikes me as batshit insane.
No, what's insane is the thought that bigger strike zones lead to more balls in play, when all they really lead to is more ringouts on gift strikes and batters being forced to swing at pitches even further outside the plate.
IOW pitchers who can now "hit their spots" outside of the strike zone will be incapable of hitting spots inside the strike zone. That's an, er, interesting theory.
Don't be daft. Pitchers who can hit their spots are typically going to have lesser stuff.
Assertion in search of evidence.
If they spend too much time in the strike zone, they'll be hit harder.
Well, yes, because contact goes up for balls within the strike zone. I thought you regarded contact as a good thing, but maybe I was mistaken.
And then they'll be released, to be replaced by some lunkhead who throws 97 and doesn't care too much about hitting his spot.
And who are also the beneficiaries of gift strikes, just as much as the junkballers. Force them to throw real strikes, and you'll also see more balls put in play.
As for your dire TTO predictions: The more pitchers are forced to throw actual strikes, the more you'll see balls put in play. Or haven't you noticed that contact rate for pitches within the zone is higher than for pitches outside of it?
Not necessarily. The spectacular rise in strikeouts is one-part pitcher, one-part batter. If the new system benefits the kind of batter who controls the strike zone (who tend to be the TTO types, rather than an Ichiro type), you can see more three [true] outcomes
More assertions in search of evidence. Sluggers may walk more, but that's because pitchers are afraid of the long ball, not because sluggers have better batting eyes. In fact most sluggers also strike out disproportionately on balls outside the strike zone.
(also, a rulebook zone will not just turn balls into strikes, but also strikes into balls).
Which logically will force pitchers to throw more real strikes, and once again, contact increases for pitches in the strike zone and decreases for pitches outside the strike zone. You keep waving away that elementary fact, and it's at the heart of your core misconception.
Seriously, you need evidence that your softer tossers (lower K pitchers) do a better job hitting their spots than hard throwers. Soft tossers without command don't last long in the big leagues.
No, they're not. See above.
I hope you're right. Since the robo zone is inevitable, I sure as help it doesn't result in more TTO, though I remain highly skeptical. The main difference between you and I is that because you obsess over the rulebook zone, you've concluded that going to roboumps will automatically lead to better baseball and all of the consequences will be joyous. I find that to be a preposterous assumption.
Im not sure what is meant by command of the strike zone, so you can clarify that if you can.
One of your biggest arguments (biggest?) seems to be that pitchers who can spot the ball within and around the strike zone may be disadvantaged by robo umps. Talking about guys with less of a fast ball and spot the ball more. Correct? But how do we know that they will be disadvantaged? Is not equally possible that guys with overpower fastballs are getting more strike calls then they should? Simply because the umpire cant see the pitch and is guessing? I dont see any reference or study that would indicate what you keep thinking is likely.
2. Do you like it when someone like Maddux gets a strike call outside the strike zone? I dont. I think they should just call the rulebook strike. But you seem to like pitchers getting calls just outside the margins. Yes?
Your other pts. I think I mostly agree or at least understand. Yes nearly every replay system that's been implemented has its issues. There's no reason to think MLB will get it right immediately. I'd like to see them try though, I hate balls that get called strikes.
Yeah, I mean I gets thats a concern. But every major sport I can think of is using replay. Even tennis, even olympics. Not sure how much the NBA uses it. It doesnt seem to have hurt fan interest. But I can see the issue I dont think its enuf to over come the pro arguments.
maybe Im not following your def'n, but I thought this was one of your arguments. That control pitchers who have better accuracy will be hurt by a rulebook strike zone. Yes? You seem to be in favor of allowing this species to exist even if they miss outside the zone. But Im not sure.
I think we can both stipulate that one of us is crazy.
I'll let the jury decide the verdict.
It's funny, because I think I agree with everything you say - it's just a matter of you missing the one thing that anybody cares about.
It's possible, but doubtful considering my thoughts on framing above.
If the alternative is fewer Mark Buehrles, Terry Mulhollands, and Paul Byrds and more hard-throwing galoots who strike out 11 guys per nine innings, then yes, I would rather that situation exists. More balls in play is vastly more important to me than a theoretically perfect strike zone (a zone that's never existed in the history of baseball).
My bottom line is that:
---There's more contact with pitches inside the rule book strike zone
---Therefore, pitchers should be incentivized to throw rule book strikes
---Personalized strike zones that reward pitching outside the rule book strike zone lead to more strikeouts on bad pitches and fewer pitches within the rule book strike zone, where contact is greater. This is not a good thing.
---Some batters are disproportionately hurt by personalized strike zones. This is a matter of record. This is also not a good thing.
---As long as the technology exists to call pitches correctly, it just seems crazy not to use it. Why reward bad umpiring?
This suggests that pitch framing is as much about a pitcher being able to hit his spots as about anything the catcher does.
Would you advocate so strongly for the eradication of printed books?
So, when a batter is faced with the unique daily strike zone
This “unique daily strike zone” has been drama queened into an incomprehensible shape-shifting protozoa, which is most certainly is not.
At least to Wright it seemed that framing was mostly the catcher choosing a good spot and catching the ball in a way that didn't draw the umpire's attention to it.
Would you advocate so strongly for the eradication of printed books?
?????? Printed books and e-books can easily co-exist. That's obviously not the case with the subject currently being discussed.
If I buy a printed book, that doesn't stop anyone from using a Kindle, or vice versa. If a batter gets called out on a gift strike, that can change the entire course of a game.
but personally, I just prefer the call to be right on as many things as possible, and it doesn't matter how we get there, if the call can be handled equally as well between a human and a machine, then I don't care who makes the call, but there are absolute situations where a computer is going to be more accurate, in those situations, I'm going to defer to the computer, and the strike zone really feels like it. At the same time, I think there are situations where a human is more accurate/understanding, and that is a guy sliding into a bag and momentarily coming off the bag because of momentum, at that point in time, the written rules are too strict, and we need a human to realize that the call we want is did he beat the tag or not, not a combo of whether he beat the tag and physics interfered.
And again, with the new pitch speed rules, I fully support human umps there having the ability to override the arbitrary system that forces the rules over the actual game. I would much rather have the ump be allowed to ignore the pitch clock because of a standing ovation, or because the pitcher is half a second behind etc.... The umps need to be human for these things, because no matter how advance AI has gotten they don't comprehend these moments. The NFL is garbage because often times their replay calls are based upon language (damn useless lawyers) than on spirit of the rules. When the intent of the rules should be the first thing in the mind of everyone involved in the decision making process, not the written rule.
Having said all of that, it's absolutely clear that even the best human umpire cannot hold a candle to accurate strike/ball calling that you get from a computer, so just let the computer do the work.
the worst part is how easily solvable it is. once you see that the runner reached safely, the play is over. MLB has placed itself in a weird box - and this in a sport where the "infield fly" exists. if you can declare a play dead while the ball is still in the air, then you sure as hell can declare a play dead once the runner reaches the bag safely.
so the current scenario is both stupid AND logically inconsistent. sigh. fortunately it doesn't happen often, but it doesn't need to happen at all.
I'm surprised an internet "law" hasn't been coined for when it's appropriate to say something like, "Nothing worse than a journalist getting facts wrong that could be looked up in just a minute."
that is, MLB is willing to declare a result of a play, in the middle of a play.
so your response is accurate, but not particularly - well, responsive, ironically.
but you know that - and this being the internet, why would anyone make a declarative response when they don't have to do so?
as for my earlier point, I would imagine that if someone is on a barstool and the two guys next to him start talking about this issue and one makes the same careless error I did, I can imagine a few options:
- say nothing;
- ignore the error and engage in the discussion;
- say "well, the ball isn't actually dead, but I understand the essence of your point, which is that MLB is not 100 percent opposed to making a common-sense decision to avoid a silly result" (fielders getting to clown around on an easy popup to gain advantage over helpless runners). and from there, one can agree or disagree with the premise at hand - which obviously did not change, regardless of the error.
in real life, I can't picture someone just responding robotically, "When an infield fly is called, the play isn't dead" and leaving it at that.
now, part of the reason is because if the guy on the stool takes your comment as being obnoxious, you could wind up with a sore snout. but beyond that, I think it's because there is no reason to act like that in polite society.
why does the internet have to be different?
and yes, the followup here almost certainly wouldn't happen IRL - for obvious reasons.
EDIT: Coke to the Froot man
And one of the crappiest parts of the effect of the barely lose contact with the bag and be called out on replay rule is it gives the fielder the incentive to keep the tag on throughout the slide, which can be the cause of the loss of contact with the bag (and one of the really difficult things to determine by replay is the effect of force).
Howie, take it easy my friend. One of the issues with internet and text messaging and the like is that oftentimes we dont have context to add to the statement. Someone adds an emoticon with a smiley face and we get the joke. someone writes it with no context and it gets completely misunderstood. I got folks on reddit screaming at me in some thread about a chess problem, because I didnt realize what the guy was responding to and I corrected him or so I thought. It happens.
The guy just made a factual statement: the ball is not dead on inf. fly. Yeah that's good to know. Offhand I didnt even realize your statement was wrong but then thinking about all the weird plays on that, yeah I guess its not dead. Point is, its useful for a baseball nerd to point rules mistakes, since the its a pretty heavily intellectual discussion board. So Im glad the guy pointed it out.
So I dont think he was trying to be a dick. And its just a factual statement. How can you get emotional about a rules fact?
I posted this on the Island of Misfit Toys site today:
I don't want to see batters swinging at bad, unhitable pitches because maybe that's the umpires strike zone today rather than he just blew the call.
I didn't say he was trying to be a dick, and I didn't get emotional - read my posts again.
either the poster who "pointed it out" knows, as I suggested, that the error is not at all relevant to the central theme (as explained above), or he's not as smart as we both think that he is.
admittedly, I'm an extrovert in real life and so many here do not seem to be (including many I have met at BBTF softball in Central Park when that was a thing BITD), so maybe some posters didn't understand my followup post because they themselves might make what frankly could be a costly mistake IRL (not that any physical action against them would be justified, at all). and many of my those closest to me are introverts - including my twin. not a value judgment there.
also, why would you not offer any insight as to whether my claim about in-person vs internet communications being so oddly different - or, about what you think of the issue at hand?
I'm not going to call you a dick, either, if you disagree with either situation.
it's just a weird phenomenon - all over, but especially on BBTF - that if you write 10 sentences and one is not really relevant to the point, that's the one that gets the responses. as I said, I don't get it. the infield fly rule has some parallels to a potential end of the "gotcha" outs after a runner reaches safely. that has nothing to do with my error, at all.
so why not respond to that point, agree or disagree? there could be a distinction that someone points out that changes my mind. I actually enjoy that, which tells you how freaking old I am.
:)
I don't want to see batters swinging at bad, unhitable pitches because maybe that's the umpires strike zone today rather than he just blew the call.
This. I'm at a complete loss to understand why some people seem to think that this sort of scenario somehow makes baseball more "interesting", and that batters deserve to be punished for not swinging at pitches outside the strike zone.
Fortunately, all of the hittable pitches appear in that rectangle.
You can obsess over the rulebook zone or you can worry about hittable pitches, but you can't have both. There are pitches inside the rectangle that are far less hittable than some pitches out, since the true hitting zone is more of an oval than a pure rectangle.
Well, duh. But batters aren't getting rung up on those hittable pitches outside the zone. They're getting rung up on pitches that are well outside of that zone.
If pitchers can get called strikes within the rule book zone that are outside the "true hitting zone", then more power to them. That's real pitching skill, unaided by bad umpiring. I've never objected to that. I call those called strikes earned, not unearned. I'm not trying to "have it both ways" at all.
But what we're seeing are strikes being called on pitches that are outside and / or below the "gray" zone on that Ted Williams chart, where the BA approaches the Mendoza line. Batters who lay off those pitches should be rewarded, not penalized as they are by those personalized strike zones.
Really? Batters aren't getting run up on hittable pitches outside the zone. That's what you're going with?
Look at the chart. The great majority of gift strikes are coming on pitches that are either low and / or outside. You still seem to insist that pitchers should be rewarded for throwing balls, and batters should be penalized for not swinging at them. That's just bizarre.
I assumed you were referring to a chart that demonstrated "the majority of gift strkes are coming on pitches that are either low and/or outside," rather than a 70-year-old chart that does nothing of the sort.
Silly me.
For just the latest of a gazillion examples of how gift strikes can impact a game: Just a few minutes ago, with the Padres trailing the Yankees by 2 runs in the 7th and Fernando Tatis Jr. at the plate with a runner on base and 2 outs, Cordero was awarded strikes on two straight pitches that were blatantly out of the zone, as shown on replays. So with an 0-2 count (which should've been 2-0), Tatis flailed at an even worse pitch and struck out. Even the Yankees announcers were marveling at Cordero's good fortune.
I'll let the jury decide the verdict.
If we're voting, Howie, I think it's you. There's just no way the the umpire sees a borderline pitch, then looks at the catcher's glove to see where it is, then makes the call.
First of all, it would take too long. You don't see calls taking long enough for that to happen. You would also see umpires' heads moving a lot more after the pitch has been caught.
Second, can the home plate umpire even see the catcher's glove? I've never umpired, so someone who has can chime in. But I don't see how the guy standing a couple of feet behind the catcher can see around the catcher's body and head to see exactly where the glove is.
No, pitch framing is about how much movement the catcher has to make to catch the ball, not what he does after. As several have pointed out, that means that it's partially on the catcher and partially on the pitcher hitting his spot.
The issue is that it's not what pitch framing has traditionally been defined as. Howie's is the traditional definition and generations of catchers have been taught to do that. But we all know that something being tradition doesn't make it correct.
I have umped, not at a high level but I've done it. Yes you can see the catcher's glove. As a rule you are set up over the inside shoulder of the catcher but even if you are straight behind him with the catcher in a crouch and the glove out in front you can definitely see the glove clear as day. The ump has a truly great view. A catcher receiving the pitch in a clean and casual manner is definitely going to get a few calls. It's not the drawn out sequence you describe but just the human nature, it makes it easier to see the pitch.
What I was taught is you don't anticipate the result but you anticipate the play. On an infield grounder you set up to watch the throw to first with the first baseman holding the bag. That's why calls on tag plays on errant throws at first are so tricky. Similarly if the catcher sets up on the inside corner you are anticipating the pitch to be in that area, if the pitch is then on the outside corner or if the catcher has his/her mitt jumping all around you just aren't going to see it as cleanly.
Sometimes impossible with a 2 man crew without the help of the plate ump. With a runner on second or third, the base ump is positioned on the infield grass roughly in front of the SS. But still responsible for plays at first. I've had this happen several times: Ground ball to third or short, followed a bad throw to first which pulls the first baseman off the bag towards home. After the catch, he attempts a sweeping tag on the runner with his back to me. I can see the tag attempt was before the batter's foot reached first, but I can't actually see if the tag was made or not. My only choice is to indicate safe, and then immediately ask the home plate ump for help. "Did you see if the tag was put on the runner?" "Yes, but I couldn't tell if it was made before the batter reached first." "OK, I saw that part, so he's out." Meanwhile, the players, coaches, and fans of the fielding team are going bonkers over what they could clearly see was a terrible call.
I tell the kids I coach there are two people you never argue with; umpires and your mother. You never win the argument and you only make things worse.
so if the obviously outside pitch is called a strike even though the catcher (apparently in a complete waste of time) moves the pitch INTO the strike zone but the umpire can't notice it - then why is it called a strike at all?
the argument supposedly is that umpires sometimes call borderline pitches strikes if the pitch smoothly hits the target. but we're talking about cases where the pitch did NOT hit the target, yet get called strikes anyway.
I feel like there's a bit of inconsistency there.
The pitch hit the target the catcher set up. That's what makes it look more appealing.
If the catcher sets up an inch outside the zone and the pitcher hits the spot precisely, that's going to look like a perfect pitch and frequently deceive the umpire. If the catcher sets up an inch inside and the pitcher hits the outside corner, forcing the catcher to shift all the way across the zone to receive the ball, that's going to look like a ball to the umpire even though it caught the edge of the zone.
It's the pre-reception movement that matters, not what happens afterward.
As for why do they pull the back back into the zone. One part instinct, one part hope, one part watching other catchers do it. But, for very much the most part, it's not what is getting strikes (it may happen occasionally if an umpire just drifts off).
so by this premise, a catcher has set up just outside the stroke zone and the pitcher hits the spot precisely. that's ideal.
therefore, NOT ideal would be to move - at all. now, are you telling me that when you watch a baseball game, a catcher who catches that very pitch does not in fact always move his mitt slightly to push the ball into the strike zone?
even if it doesn't matter 90 pct of the time (we disagree on that), that leaves 10 pct as a very possible bonehead play.
take a smart team like the Rays (or, someone claims, the Cardinals) - they could gain at least a modest advantage by training their catchers to remain motionless under this scenario.
yet not a single team does it, I think we may agree on that.
so maybe you should be working in a front office somewhere?
;)
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
am eager for you to post what I wrote that is very much more "unpleasant" than
or frankly, much more "unpleasant" than what you just typed yourself.
I'll wait.
What can be debated is how much influence this type of catcher framing actually influences major league umpires. Using today's games as a sample, I have seen probably a dozen pitches outside the displayed strike zone called a strike after the catcher catches a pitch barely outside the strike zone and moves his glove into the strike zone. On the other hand I have seen dozens of pitches outside the strike zone called a ball (correctly) despite the catcher moving his glove into the strike zone. So this type of framing is no guarantee of a strike call.
Another related version of "framing" (as mentioned above) is when a catcher catches the pitch with very little perceptible movement of his glove. Umpires can be "fooled" into calling these pitches strikes even if they are outside the strike zone.
I don't think that was there as I was composing my post. Did you edit?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main