Would robot umps really make baseball better?

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.

I might have missed a couple,

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

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

Go to a little league game if you want bad umpiring.

Why wouldn't you want strike/ball calls to be more accurate?

As is my loathing of personalized strike zones. And I'm much older than you!

The actual strike zone is defined by the rule book.

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.

The personalized strike zone, aka the strike zone.

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.

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.

I like catcher framing (real catcher framing, not the misguided understanding of it that is way too commonplace here).

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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 like batters/pitchers having to adjust to the umpire's strike zone that day, as it rewards the attentive.

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.

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

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.

Assertion in search of evidence.

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

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

Is not equally possible that guys with overpower fastballs are getting more strike calls then they should?

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.

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 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.

When an infield fly is called, the play isn't dead.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The chart in the "true hitting zone" link in #79. Here it is again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Seems like he's arguing for the sake of arguing and being very unpleasant about it.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

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.