Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, May 25, 2023

ESPN Insider: Robo umps in MLB? Inside baseball’s latest ABS experiment

In Triple-A games this season, the day of the week matters. On Tuesdays through Thursdays, the strike zone is adjudicated by Major League Baseball’s automated ball-strike system (ABS), which tracks pitches using a dozen ultra-high-speed cameras and spits out the result into an earpiece worn by the home-plate umpire in less than half a second. Even though Hendriks’ fastball appeared to clip the edge of the zone on the digital rendering of the pitch seen in MLB’s app and on its website, ABS deemed it a ball—and the system, which the league says is accurate to less than one-tenth of an inch, is judge and jury.

The next day, as the Charlotte Knights again hosted the Durham Bulls, another borderline call. Charlotte catcher Evan Skoug snatched a low 1-1 pitch and froze his glove in the strike zone. Paul Clemons, the home-plate umpire, didn’t bite and called it a ball. Immediately, Skoug tapped his head—a motion that only matters on Fridays through Sundays.

Over the weekend (no Triple-A games are scheduled on Mondays), balls and strikes are judged by the umpires’ eyes, but players are allowed to challenge a call three times per game and retain their challenges if correct. During Skoug’s challenge, which from start to finish took less than 10 seconds, the scoreboard displayed a graphic of the pitch’s trail toward home plate, shown from the catcher’s perspective. As the pitch neared, the screen pivoted 180 degrees, to the pitcher’s perspective, to render the definitive judgment. The call stood. It was a ball, and it wasn’t particularly close.

Two varieties of the future of balls and strikes are playing out in Triple-A this season, and whether either wins out in the eyes of MLB will offer a fascinating insight into the league’s priorities going forward. The league’s faith in the ABS system’s fidelity and accuracy is clear. After nearly 20 years of tinkering, upgrading, testing, failing and repeating the process, the current incarnation of ABS is a technological marvel, its pieces and parts big league ready. But installation at the major league level breeds a bevy of philosophical hesitations, all perfectly practical, each a sub-issue of the overarching question that continues to puzzle league officials and owners who aren’t quite sure of the answer.

Would robot umps really make baseball better?

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:28 AM | 102 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: robot umpires

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Lassus Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:45 AM (#6130048)
Depends on your definition of better.

For me? Nah.
   2. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: May 25, 2023 at 01:20 PM (#6130075)
I look forward to the first time the batteries go out in an ump's headset and we get the Enrico Palazzo call of "Strike.....?"
   3. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 01:24 PM (#6130076)
I'm with Lassus. This gets a big no from me.
   4. catomi01 Posted: May 25, 2023 at 01:57 PM (#6130079)
If they can demonstrate that robo umps are consistently accurate, I'm all for them...I have no idea why the challenge system is in any way appealing at all. The goal should be to get the call right, not to have another spot for gamesmanship and strategy - especially not putting that into the hands of players on the field themselves. But I also feel the same way about the current replay challenge system - the fact that the coach has to challenge it to get the right call is just silly. If we have the technology to get the calls right, let's just get them right. If its not good enough for that yet, keep refining it and come back in a couple of years when it is.
   5. Karl from NY Posted: May 25, 2023 at 03:13 PM (#6130095)
The challenges serve as a limiting factor, to not take time reviewing every single call, but to put the judgment in a human's hands as to whether the call was drastically wrong enough or the situation is high enough leverage to warrant it. The challenges unavoidably come with some gamesmanship, which is both good and bad, elevates the drama with another strategic point but distracts from the on-field action.
   6. SoSH U at work Posted: May 25, 2023 at 03:22 PM (#6130097)
I'm not for automated balls and strikes, but I'd vastly prefer the midweek version than the weekend challenge system.

   7. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: May 25, 2023 at 04:08 PM (#6130101)
I'm in SoSH's camp. I'd prefer balls and strikes continue to be called by umpires. If you're going to use robo-umps, there's no need for a challenge system.
   8. bookbook Posted: May 25, 2023 at 04:28 PM (#6130105)
Why not get the calls right?

Baseball is hard enough without a randomizer from a biased umpire making the game that much harder.
   9. . . . . . . Posted: May 25, 2023 at 05:29 PM (#6130111)
I'm for robo balls/strikes, and TBH I don't even understand the counterargument. The system could break, I guess, but just because lights can go out, doesn't mean we don't play at night. Why wouldn't you want strike/ball calls to be more accurate?
   10. PeteF3 Posted: May 25, 2023 at 05:52 PM (#6130112)
Yeah, obviously this place is not a monolith of opinions but I'm stunned to read blanket opposition to robo-umps on this website, every bit as much as I'd be stunned to see a defense of "clutch" hitters or praise for Jay Mariotti. It seems like this is what the vast majority of this website has been clamoring for for literal decades. Did I stumble across a rare few exceptions in the wild or is this grass-is-greener syndrome?
   11. Space Force fan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 06:09 PM (#6130114)
Would robot umps really make baseball better?


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.
   12. kcgard2 Posted: May 25, 2023 at 07:47 PM (#6130133)
Yeah, I don't understand not wanting roboumps calling balls and strikes. This is the least intrusive techno-umpiring aid, and it's almost certainly the most significant as well. The roboump is better at it and inherently more fair, letting the players decide the outcomes of games to a higher degree than happens now. It also removes one of the lamer aspects of gamesmanship (trying to trick umpires). I can't find a downside to it.
   13. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 08:27 PM (#6130137)
11 lays out the arguments for the roboumps nicely. But I also strongly disagree with all five points;

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.
   14. SoSH U at work Posted: May 25, 2023 at 08:45 PM (#6130141)
I don't see how anyone who has seen how well replay has worked can be so confident that robo umps will be an unmitigated good. Have you not been paying attention?

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.
   15. catomi01 Posted: May 25, 2023 at 09:12 PM (#6130146)
13

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?
   16. Space Force fan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 09:22 PM (#6130148)
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.


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.
   17. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: May 25, 2023 at 09:59 PM (#6130151)
Would robot umps really make baseball better?

Dalek umps would EXTERMINATE! anybody who argued with them, thus moving the game along.
   18. Space Force fan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:23 PM (#6130155)
Per #15: Some additional duties of the home plate ump (some rather trivial, but others very important) beyond the previous answer:

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.
   19. cardsfanboy Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:43 PM (#6130156)
I'm a fan of getting the best and most pure within the rules experience, and robo umps along with replays provide that. The game should be decided based upon the players and the umps/refs are just there to regulate the rules, if you can improve the system, you would be foolish to not improve it.

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.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: May 25, 2023 at 10:47 PM (#6130159)

I might have missed a couple,


You missed one of the most important: calling fair or foul on balls before they pass first/third.

   21. The Duke Posted: May 25, 2023 at 11:09 PM (#6130161)
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

The day we lose human umps will be a great day.
   22. Hank Gillette Posted: May 25, 2023 at 11:35 PM (#6130165)

1. I think the mistakes are more interesting. I fear that a uniform “perfect” strike zone will have some negative effects.

I’ll never in my life understand this point of view. Go to a little league game if you want bad umpiring.
   23. Space Force fan Posted: May 25, 2023 at 11:52 PM (#6130166)
You missed one of the most important: calling fair or foul on balls before they pass first/third.


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.
   24. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 26, 2023 at 12:30 AM (#6130171)
Go to a little league game if you want bad umpiring.


Hey now, I umped many a LL game and I resemble that remark!
   25. The Honorable Ardo Posted: May 26, 2023 at 01:02 AM (#6130173)
I also umpire. Overheard at my U14 game tonight:

"He's calling that low outside pitch." (I have a large zone.)
"Yeah, but he's consistent about it."

I felt really good.
   26. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: May 26, 2023 at 01:06 AM (#6130177)
Why wouldn't you want strike/ball calls to be more accurate?


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.
   27. shoelesjoe Posted: May 26, 2023 at 01:07 AM (#6130178)
MLB can't ditch the umpires calling balls and strikes, or else Aaron Boone won't have anything to whine about. Then again, maybe the Yankee manager will just shift his overbearing sense of entitlement to some other aspect of the game still controlled by the umpires.
   28. Baldrick Posted: May 26, 2023 at 03:43 AM (#6130182)
Pitch framing as a relevant skill in baseball is one of my least favorite things about the sport. Even if robot umps call the game worse overall (which of course they won't), I'd endorse them as a way to kill pitch framing.
   29. Lassus Posted: May 26, 2023 at 08:07 AM (#6130186)
Why wouldn't you want strike/ball calls to be more accurate?

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?
   30. Lassus Posted: May 26, 2023 at 08:08 AM (#6130187)
My objections against robo-ball/strike calls are admittedly old-man and subjective, I will grant this 100,000%. But for me, it's not better. It takes away drama, it takes away narrative, it takes away poetry and humanity for the sake of minor improvements.

Personally, I do not like it, that's all.
   31. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 26, 2023 at 11:25 AM (#6130216)
My objections against robo-ball/strike calls are admittedly old-man and subjective,

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.

   32. SoSH U at work Posted: May 26, 2023 at 11:30 AM (#6130219)
As is my loathing of personalized strike zones. And I'm much older than you!


The personalized strike zone, aka the strike zone.
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 26, 2023 at 12:23 PM (#6130227)
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.
   34. SoSH U at work Posted: May 26, 2023 at 12:34 PM (#6130230)
The actual strike zone is defined by the rule book.


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.

   35. Karl from NY Posted: May 26, 2023 at 01:12 PM (#6130233)
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.

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.
   36. Rally Posted: May 26, 2023 at 02:04 PM (#6130236)
Has this been going on for the whole season, the weekday vs weekend thing?

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.
   37. shoelesjoe Posted: May 26, 2023 at 02:22 PM (#6130237)
The personalized strike zone, aka the strike zone.


Is Eric Gregg posting here from the Great Beyond?
   38. Rally Posted: May 26, 2023 at 02:44 PM (#6130241)
If the answers to my previous questions are yes, here’s what I’ve got so far:

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.
   39. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 26, 2023 at 04:18 PM (#6130261)
So with robo-ump, more walks, more strikeouts, less hitting.


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.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: May 26, 2023 at 05:16 PM (#6130266)
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.


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.

   41. Adam Starblind Posted: May 26, 2023 at 08:12 PM (#6130282)
Last night, Roberto Ortiz called 13 strikes that were actually balls, or 23% of his called strikes all night.. That’s somewhat better than a monkey could do, but not enough to let him wear shoes and drive a car.

Bring on the robot overlords.
   42. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 26, 2023 at 09:04 PM (#6130295)
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.

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.
   43. SoSH U at work Posted: May 26, 2023 at 09:40 PM (#6130301)
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.
   44. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 26, 2023 at 10:05 PM (#6130303)
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.

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.


   45. Howie Menckel Posted: May 26, 2023 at 10:20 PM (#6130305)
I like catcher framing (real catcher framing, not the misguided understanding of it that is way too commonplace here).

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.
   46. SoSH U at work Posted: May 26, 2023 at 11:15 PM (#6130312)


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.


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.


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. 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.

That would be like pointing out that 2+2=4. How could personalized strike zones ever not have existed?


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.

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 two outcomes (also, a rulebook zone will not just turn balls into strikes, but also strikes into balls).

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.


Doubtful. I love the pitch clock, just as I thought would. And I hate replay, just as I thought it would.

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.


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.
   47. Howie Menckel Posted: May 26, 2023 at 11:52 PM (#6130314)
well, we are in partial agreement there.

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.
   48. SoSH U at work Posted: May 27, 2023 at 07:50 AM (#6130322)
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.


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.

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.


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.
   49. Space Force fan Posted: May 27, 2023 at 10:48 AM (#6130347)
I like batters/pitchers having to adjust to the umpire's strike zone that day, as it rewards the attentive.


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 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.


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.

Catcher's instinctively do that. But it's not what happens after the pitch crosses the plate that umpires are responding to.


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.
   50. SoSH U at work Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:09 AM (#6130352)
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 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.

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.


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 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.


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.



   51. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:17 AM (#6130356)
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.

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.
   52. SoSH U at work Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:47 AM (#6130365)
Assertion in search of evidence.


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.

And who are also the beneficiaries of gift strikes, just as much as the junkballers.


No, they're not. See above.

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.


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.
   53. sunday silence (again) Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM (#6130366)
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)


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.



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


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.
   54. sunday silence (again) Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:15 PM (#6130367)
To follow up. If there were such a thing as control pitchers getting more strikes wouldnt that show up on the umpire charts that we see nowadays? Someone would have likely done a study on that. In fact if what you say is true then wouldnt that also effect framing? Is there any study that indicates that catchers who catch control pitchers are better framers?


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.


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.
   55. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:30 PM (#6130368)
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.

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.
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:31 PM (#6130369)
Is not equally possible that guys with overpower fastballs are getting more strike calls then they should?


It's possible, but doubtful considering my thoughts on framing above.

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.


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).

   57. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:54 PM (#6130370)
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.

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?
   58. Froot Loops Posted: May 27, 2023 at 12:56 PM (#6130371)
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.


This suggests that pitch framing is as much about a pitcher being able to hit his spots as about anything the catcher does.
   59. Lassus Posted: May 27, 2023 at 01:14 PM (#6130372)
As long as the technology exists to call pitches correctly, it just seems crazy not to use it. Why reward bad umpiring?

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.
   60. kcgard2 Posted: May 27, 2023 at 01:20 PM (#6130373)
I do in fact believe pitch framing has at least as much if not more to do with the pitcher than it does the catcher.
   61. Ron J Posted: May 27, 2023 at 01:30 PM (#6130374)
#58 And probably what you might call a quiet glove. The Diamond Appraised is several decades old but is still probably useful as Craig Wright attempted to identify the mechanical elements common to catchers with good and bad CERA. One thing he noted about Gino Petralli (he was working for the Rangers at the time so this mattered) is that his movement after catching the ball appeared to cost a fair number of called strikes. The pitcher hit his target but Petralli would sometimes move the glove after catching the ball. And it seemed that at least some umpires have a decision tree that say, glove moved = didn't hit target = ball.

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.
   62. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 27, 2023 at 01:38 PM (#6130376)
As long as the technology exists to call pitches correctly, it just seems crazy not to use it. Why reward bad umpiring?

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.
   63. cardsfanboy Posted: May 27, 2023 at 05:56 PM (#6130401)
Just for the record I support robo umps, but a lot of the complaints about umps has been fixed by the league, not fully, but umpires do now recognize that catchers are trying to fool them and have adjusted their game calling in the past 5 or so years, (there is data that supports that comment) So it's not that the umps can't call the strike zone as written, it's a matter of their desire to call it as written. The league has enforced a system to award and punish umps who fail at that job, and there have been umps who have had a "perfect" game called in which every call was correct within the margin of error. In those situations, I can see an appeal to a human ump.


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.
   64. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2023 at 07:00 PM (#6130405)
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.

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.
   65. Froot Loops Posted: May 27, 2023 at 07:27 PM (#6130407)
When an infield fly is called, the play isn't dead.
   66. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: May 27, 2023 at 07:53 PM (#6130410)
When an infield fly is called, the play isn't dead.

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."
   67. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2023 at 07:56 PM (#6130411)
well, the runner is declared "out" even before the ball is caught, remains the relevant point.

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?
   68. Froot Loops Posted: May 27, 2023 at 09:59 PM (#6130417)
Mets rookie catcher Francisco Alvarez just hit his first career triple, then was called out (on replay) when he lifted his arm off the bag while the third baseman still had the tag on him.
   69. Howie Menckel Posted: May 27, 2023 at 10:02 PM (#6130418)
and right on cue, 21-year-old Mets C phenom Alvarez just legged out a triple but this stupid rule led to him being out.

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
   70. SoSH U at work Posted: May 27, 2023 at 10:21 PM (#6130419)
I think runners should be required to maintain contact with the bag. That's an essential part of going to second or third. However, it either shouldn't be subject to review at all, or shouldn't be reviewable if it wasn't visible to the naked eye of the umpire. If the second base ump sees you overslide the bag, you should be out. Otherwise, get that #### out of here.

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).
   71. cardsfanboy Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:07 PM (#6130430)
There is a difference between oversliding the bag, and momentarily loss of contact. I'm fine with someone over sliding the bag or their momentum pulling them off the bag due to their "angle of attack" and being called out, that was a risky move.... my issue is the slight bounce off the bag because of simple physics when the runner clearly beat the tag and maintained control enough of their slide that they effectively stopped on the bag. Mind you if the physics issue is major enough, then call them out, which is why I like the human aspect here, but a 2 inch error is not worthy of an out. It really takes away teams doing the fun things we like in baseball which is go for the extra base or steal. The limit on replay on these plays should be, did the runner beat the tag, and did he maintain control enough of the bag that any disconnect between the runner and the bag can be classified is incidental.
   72. sunday silence (again) Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:44 PM (#6130455)
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.


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?
   73. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 27, 2023 at 11:45 PM (#6130456)
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 posted this on the Island of Misfit Toys site today:

Last night in the Rays game, one of their LH hitters took a 2-1 pitch inside, well off the plate for a strike. As bad as a terrible call turning what should have been a 3-1 count into 2-2 is, the pitcher threw the next one in the same spot for a called strike 3. On the one hand you want to say "Hey, he's calling those today. You gotta swing at it with 2 strikes." But on the other, the pitch was unhitable and clearly a rulebook ball, and maybe it was just a mistake the first time. It's a tough spot to be in.


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.
   74. Howie Menckel Posted: May 28, 2023 at 12:49 AM (#6130464)
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 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.
:)

   75. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 07:51 AM (#6130472)
Last night in the Rays game, one of their LH hitters took a 2-1 pitch inside, well off the plate for a strike. As bad as a terrible call turning what should have been a 3-1 count into 2-2 is, the pitcher threw the next one in the same spot for a called strike 3. On the one hand you want to say "Hey, he's calling those today. You gotta swing at it with 2 strikes." But on the other, the pitch was unhitable and clearly a rulebook ball, and maybe it was just a mistake the first time. It's a tough spot to be in.

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.
   76. SoSH U at work Posted: May 28, 2023 at 08:10 AM (#6130474)
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.
   77. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 09:29 AM (#6130477)
But unfortunately, players get rung up all the time for not swinging at pitches outside that rectangle. You think that this is a feature, and not a bug, for reasons that seem more literary than logical.
   78. SoSH U at work Posted: May 28, 2023 at 11:54 AM (#6130486)

But unfortunately, players get rung up all the time for not swinging at pitches outside that rectangle. You think that this is a feature, and not a bug, for reasons that seem more literary than logical.


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.
   79. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 12:14 PM (#6130488)
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.
   80. SoSH U at work Posted: May 28, 2023 at 12:24 PM (#6130491)
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.


Really? Batters aren't getting run up on hittable pitches outside the zone. That's what you're going with?
   81. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 01:20 PM (#6130502)
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.
   82. SoSH U at work Posted: May 28, 2023 at 01:27 PM (#6130504)
What chart?
   83. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 02:59 PM (#6130509)
The chart in the "true hitting zone" link in #79. Here it is again.
   84. SoSH U at work Posted: May 28, 2023 at 03:25 PM (#6130510)
The chart in the "true hitting zone" link in #79. Here it is again.


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.
   85. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 28, 2023 at 03:59 PM (#6130516)
The Williams chart reflects the 1971 strike zone, which has since been lowered. The expected BA on the lower portions of the chart would now be even lower.

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.
   86. Greg Pope Posted: May 29, 2023 at 10:48 AM (#6130548)
I think we can both stipulate that one of us is crazy.

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.
   87. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: May 29, 2023 at 11:24 AM (#6130554)
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.


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.
   88. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 11:49 AM (#6130557)
I umpired HS games, and Jose has it exactly right in all aspects. Umpiring high level games is much easier than with lower skilled teams. The mistakes are the tougher plays to adjudicate. I also did volleyball and the same goes for that sport.
   89. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM (#6130558)
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.


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.
   90. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: May 29, 2023 at 12:09 PM (#6130559)
89 - Yeah I see that all the time coaching. youth baseball. The umps for the most part are pretty good if you approach them calmly and just say "hey, can you check with the HP ump to see if (s)he had a better view?"

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.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: May 29, 2023 at 01:12 PM (#6130565)
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.

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.
   92. SoSH U at work Posted: May 29, 2023 at 02:15 PM (#6130571)
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.


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).
   93. Howie Menckel Posted: May 29, 2023 at 04:34 PM (#6130601)
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.

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?

;)
   94. SoSH U at work Posted: May 29, 2023 at 04:39 PM (#6130603)
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.
   95. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 05:08 PM (#6130606)
That makes 2 of us. Seems like he's arguing for the sake of arguing and being very unpleasant about it.
   96. Howie Menckel Posted: May 29, 2023 at 05:52 PM (#6130616)
Seems like he's arguing for the sake of arguing and being very unpleasant about it.


am eager for you to post what I wrote that is very much more "unpleasant" than
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

or frankly, much more "unpleasant" than what you just typed yourself.

I'll wait.
   97. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 06:04 PM (#6130620)
The entire tone of your post #93 is snarky and condescending. The little wink emoji at the end does not mitigate that.
   98. Rob_Wood Posted: May 29, 2023 at 06:10 PM (#6130623)
Howie is clearly correct here. Or at least he is not wrong. I am watching my third game today and on virtually every close pitch of each game the catcher moves his glove into the strike zone to "influence" the umpire to call the pitch a strike. Of course, this has been going on for more than 100 years. So it is nothing new and nobody can possibly doubt its occurrence.

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.
   99. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 06:22 PM (#6130625)
It has been my impression that the effective pitch framers do no move their glove. They position their glove in the strike zone and if the pitch is a little inside or outside, they don't move their glove into the optimum position to catch the ball, but are skilled at catching it on the edge of the glove, so as to give the impression that the pitch went directly into the glove in the strike zone. I don't think it has ever been about moving the glove into the zone after catching. As an ump, albeit only at the HS level and below, a catcher moving the glove from outside to inside the zone never fooled me. The movement was very obvious, and I was usually able to make up my mind whether the pitch was a ball or a strike before the catcher caught it.
   100. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: May 29, 2023 at 06:23 PM (#6130626)
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?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogUpdate on Yankees’ Juan Soto trade talks: Teams talking players, but not close on agreement
(26 - 11:58pm, Dec 01)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT - November* 2023 College Football thread
(179 - 11:45pm, Dec 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogHot Stove Omnichatter
(50 - 11:03pm, Dec 01)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(23 - 10:38pm, Dec 01)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogForbes: For MLB, Las Vegas, And Oakland, The A’s Name And Brand Should Stay Put
(16 - 10:36pm, Dec 01)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT - NBA Redux Thread for the End of 2023
(118 - 10:24pm, Dec 01)
Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135

NewsblogWho is on the 2024 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and what’s the induction process?
(299 - 8:41pm, Dec 01)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogZack Britton details analytics ‘rift’ that’s plaguing Yankees
(8 - 8:11pm, Dec 01)
Last: McCoy

Hall of MeritHall of Merit Book Club
(16 - 6:06pm, Dec 01)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogJackson Chourio extension: Brewers closing in on historic deal with MLB's No. 7 prospect, per report
(19 - 4:54pm, Dec 01)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT Soccer - World Cup Final/European Leagues Start
(288 - 3:35pm, Dec 01)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogSportsnet's Ben Wagner out as voice of Blue Jays radio broadcasts
(4 - 3:04pm, Dec 01)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogFormer Yankee Luis Severino agrees to 1-year, $13 million deal with Mets: reports
(25 - 1:49pm, Dec 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(3019 - 12:21pm, Dec 01)
Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135

NewsblogReds, RHP Nick Martinez agree to $26M deal, sources say
(9 - 10:39am, Dec 01)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Page rendered in 1.1442 seconds
48 querie(s) executed