SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
BU study with MORE evidence for an automated K zone
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 10, 2019 21:58:08 GMT -5
That might be the best argument for an electronic zone. A strike is a strike, take out the human side of things. The count shouldn't matter. If the ump had a bad day shouldn't matter. You just eliminate all the variance from ump to ump. The zone is 100% the same every game, for every pitch. It just makes so much sense. Nothing worse than watching clear strikes and balls being called wrong. Since when, and why not? What is the evidence that a rigid strike zone which has never existed is definitively better? That might be the best argument for an electronic zone. A strike is a strike, take out the human side of things. The count shouldn't matter. If the ump had a bad day shouldn't matter. You just eliminate all the variance from ump to ump. The zone is 100% the same every game, for every pitch. It just makes so much sense. Nothing worse than watching clear strikes and balls being called wrong.Yeah, let's get rid of that. Bad calls are bad. The practical definition of the strike zone as it has existed for over a century is not necessarily bad! Two different issues. Since the rules were written. Just because flawed ups can't always get it right during a game doesn't change the rules on what a strike is and isn't. Evidence? Why do I need evidence for a strike to be what the rules say? If you don't like the rules than change them, to whatever the damn ump feels like on a given day. Right now any part of the ball going threw the zone is a strike, and should be called as such. Otherwise why have rules? Not really, there are good and bad umps. The change game to game is massive. Maybe you like that, I don't. I don't like a small zone one day, and a big one the next day. I don't want my hitters chasing bad pitches because the ump has a massive zone that day. A strike should be a strike no matter the day or ump. What is practical definition of the strike zone? That litterally changes from ump to ump and that is the big issue. If they were all the same, there would be no issue. What's the evidence it would be bad? Or is this just the standard I love Baseball don't mess with it line of thinking?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2019 7:36:44 GMT -5
Since when, and why not? What is the evidence that a rigid strike zone which has never existed is definitively better? Yeah, let's get rid of that. Bad calls are bad. The practical definition of the strike zone as it has existed for over a century is not necessarily bad! Two different issues. Since the rules were written. Just because flawed ups can't always get it right during a game doesn't change the rules on what a strike is and isn't. Evidence? Why do I need evidence for a strike to be what the rules say? If you don't like the rules than change them, to whatever the damn ump feels like on a given day. Right now any part of the ball going threw the zone is a strike, and should be called as such. Otherwise why have rules? Hey, do you always drive the speed limit? If not, why? The rule as written is all that matters, right? I've written about a half dozen posts in this thread about why the "rulebook zone" isn't a thing that exists or has ever existed, and we don't know if implementing it would particularly make baseball better or worse. I invite you to give those a closer reading.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2019 11:28:41 GMT -5
Since the rules were written. Just because flawed ups can't always get it right during a game doesn't change the rules on what a strike is and isn't. Evidence? Why do I need evidence for a strike to be what the rules say? If you don't like the rules than change them, to whatever the damn ump feels like on a given day. Right now any part of the ball going threw the zone is a strike, and should be called as such. Otherwise why have rules? Hey, do you always drive the speed limit? If not, why? The rule as written is all that matters, right? I've written about a half dozen posts in this thread about why the "rulebook zone" isn't a thing that exists or has ever existed, and we don't know if implementing it would particularly make baseball better or worse. I invite you to give those a closer reading. That is a horrible example, as the pitcher would be the driver. More like do you not want Cops enforcing the speed limits? Yea we all hate it, but it makes the roads safer. I'd go a step further and say any part of the ball going through the one being called a strike is like Cops not pulling you over for going 5 mph over or less. Every post has said the expect same thing, because umps are human and humans can't fully enforce the rules. The rule book zone hasn't existed before. Which is kinda crazy. There are some very good umps that get it fairly close and some bad one that aren't even close. Why do we have instant reply? So human umps that might get a call wrong per the rules, can then get it right. Same thing here. You posted numbers showing that some Umps change the zone during certain counts. That isn't in the rule book, it's litterally Umps taking it opon themselves to influence the games. Just like some bad umps doing all types of crap like having a bad day and throwing guys out for saying hardly anything. That has always happened, but it doesn't improve the game. Do you agree with the rule book? Let's not act like a bunch of strikes haven't been called using that definition, they certainly have. It's just no human can get them all right, a computer and some sensors can 100% of the time get it right. Right now anyone watching the game can call balls and strikes better than an ump using the strike zone tools we have and that is crazy. Would it be something that takes a long time to get data for? Nope, it litterally takes a second. I just don't see a negative to something that can easily get the rules right Everytime and is easy to implement. Every stadium already has the tools. Just give the ump an Apple watch with the data or an ear piece to get the calls. This boils down to you like the rules and want a strike to always be a strike and a ball always a ball or you like umps having the ability to just do what they feel like on a given day. Did instant replay help or hurt the game get certain calls right? Like should we take that away because that's the way it always was? Personally I want the calls right, a guy is safe or he's out, a foul ball is foul or a home run is a home run or it isn't. An OF out is an out or if the guy drops it and the umps don't see it, replay can get the call right. So yea I embrace getting the calls right and following the rule book. I can't see home that could hurt the game. I just hate the idea of leave the game alone because it's always been that way. A hundred years ago you had no better way to do it. Everyone watching couldn't see balls and strikes in real time like they can now. Times change and so should the game. Unless there is some evidence that it will have a negative impact. So if you have some I'm all ears, I just haven't seen any to this point.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 11, 2019 11:40:43 GMT -5
Do you agree with the rule book? Do you even read my posts? I’ve said so many times that I’m in favor of an improved strike zone, through the use of technology. But it seems like you ignore that, because you want to reduce everything to a yes/no argument to be won or lost. I’m not interested in that discussion. I’m interested in what the strike zone should actually look like, and I think that just saying “rulebook strike zone” is a wildly inadequate answer to that question, which doesn’t respect the reality or history of the game.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 11, 2019 13:49:03 GMT -5
Color me confused then. You want a improved strike zone that doesn't follow the rules and includes human error? It's so simple, a strike is when any part of the ball crosses the zone. Wanting to respect the game, seems foolish if your improved zone now wants to change a crazy old rule just because umps can't get calls right all the time.
You are arguing two different sides. I want a better zone. Then I want that zone not to be the one the rule book says because umps haven't been able to call it that way, because no human can do that. Thing is that's why we're thinking about an electronic strike zone. Eliminate human error.
If you want an improved zone, what that would look like is crazy simple. What the rules say, that is what Umps have been using. I don't even get why this is a question. Like you want a zone that changes with two strikes to respect the game?
Like I can understand I want to respect the history of the game, I don't agree in this case. Yet it makes sense. I'm clueless to I want an improved zone, yet the rule book version of the strike zone is inadequate. Why? The answer shouldn't be the reason we are talking about an electronic zone to begin with, which seems to be your take. Which is why I'm so confused by your posts which I certainly did read.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Apr 16, 2019 12:47:27 GMT -5
Hey, do you always drive the speed limit? If not, why? The rule as written is all that matters, right? No offense, fenway, but I have no idea at all what your point is here. Are you arguing that we should give umps quotas for balls and strikes? Not enough strikes called by this ump this month so now anything close is a strike? At least I guess it would be predictable. :-) If you're saying that the rules are the only thing that matters because sometimes they should be bent for some higher cause, I could be convinced of that I suppose (although we'd need rules about that too). That's not what's happening behind the plate though. I don't blame umps. (Well, I must admit that in the heat of a game I have been known occasionally to say some vile things!) The variation in the calls tells me that even the best trained humans cannot consistently call balls and strikes accurately. In Little League it's the best we can do. In the majors with the resources MLB has available, it's not the best we can do. I just don't see the down side. Also, please don't speed on my street! :-)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2019 13:12:30 GMT -5
Hey, do you always drive the speed limit? If not, why? The rule as written is all that matters, right? No offense, fenway, but I have no idea at all what your point is here. My point is simply that there's a lot of situations in life where the rule as written says you have to do X, but everyone knows that really, you should do Y and it's fine. The rules as written say you should never move from your ticketed seats at Fenway, but if you wait out a rain delay or something, you're moving up to the good seats and it's pretty much cool. Like it would just be stupid to force the few diehards who stayed to sit behind 45 rows of empty seats, even though that's technically the rule. The rules of the strike zone say that the "gentleman's strike" on 3-0 is wrong, but despite the gimme strike, batters are still reaching base at a 75% clip in at-bats that reach 3-0. If you had the "real" strike zone in those counts, I doubt you'd even have pitches thrown in that count, they'd just IBB everyone. And so, even though that's technically the rule, wouldn't that be kind of a stupider version of baseball?
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Apr 16, 2019 15:07:35 GMT -5
No, I don't think it would be stupider. I see absolutely no downside to getting ball & strike calls correct with technology. There's nobody who won't get a better seat. There's nobody who will get a ticket for 27 in a 25 zone. Your analogies just don't seem to apply. Who gets hurt by doing it right?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2019 19:09:21 GMT -5
No, I don't think it would be stupider. I see absolutely no downside to getting ball & strike calls correct with technology. There's nobody who won't get a better seat. There's nobody who will get a ticket for 27 in a 25 zone. Your analogies just don't seem to apply. Who gets hurt by doing it right? I mean, what's your take on all the stuff I said about the 3-0 count?
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Apr 16, 2019 21:44:34 GMT -5
No, I don't think it would be stupider. I see absolutely no downside to getting ball & strike calls correct with technology. There's nobody who won't get a better seat. There's nobody who will get a ticket for 27 in a 25 zone. Your analogies just don't seem to apply. Who gets hurt by doing it right? I mean, what's your take on all the stuff I said about the 3-0 count? Already asked and answered, Fenway. You asked if I thought it was stupider and I said no and explained why your analogies made no sense to me. (BTW, by saying your argument doesn't make sense I'm in no way attending to call you senseless or stupid or any such. I've read enough of your posts over time to know that you know more about baseball than I do.) That said, on this issue I can't even fathom where you're coming from. You seem to be saying that calling the strike zone properly on a 3-0 count would in some way damage the game resulting in one pitch IBBs. That does to me seem like a senseless argument, but even if I accept it for a minute, in order to avoid all those one pitch IBB's you speculate would result, let's just change the strike zone for 3-0 counts. That's in effect what were doing now and you seem to like it so let's change the rule and then let's call the balls and strikes accurately. I really don't think either of us have anything new to say on this.
|
|
|