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.
|
Post by controne on Jan 20, 2022 10:34:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2022 11:24:25 GMT -5
Interesting. Clearly this is a situation in which they weren't going to announce it yet.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 20, 2022 11:41:14 GMT -5
My two cents, it is a move in the right direction. Umps have proven to be too human in their inability to stay objective and make the right calls consistently, bravo.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 20, 2022 11:57:09 GMT -5
FWIW, the feedback in the Low-A Southeast last year was that pitchers at that level needed a bigger strike zone than the rulebook one because their control wasn't there yet. It therefore makes a ton of sense for them to want a datapoint with more advanced minor league pitchers as well, although I'm a little surprised they're going with AAA instead of a AA league.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 20, 2022 12:51:51 GMT -5
I don't read into the job posting as them moving to robot umps immediately in AAA West, I would hope they spend time parallel testing before implementing.
My guess is that they spend 2022 tuning the system, doing work like UmpScorecard to determine how impactful robot umps would be, pilot it over some games later in the season, then go for a rollout in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 20, 2022 13:22:51 GMT -5
FWIW, the feedback in the Low-A Southeast last year was that pitchers at that level needed a bigger strike zone than the rulebook one because their control wasn't there yet. It therefore makes a ton of sense for them to want a datapoint with more advanced minor league pitchers as well, although I'm a little surprised they're going with AAA instead of a AA league. As this seems to be something that MLB wants (in the majors), I think it makes sense to do it in AAA next. If they were to do it in AA, although the pitchers have much better command than Low-A, it's possible they receive similar feedback. Then they have to move to AAA to test it. This way they cut out the (possible) middle and speed up the process.
|
|
|
Post by dirtdog on Jan 22, 2022 21:36:32 GMT -5
Count me in.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 23, 2022 7:14:53 GMT -5
i have grave concerns about robot zones. I know baseball is an entirely different sport, but I think of the 3 point line and basketball and can foresee an outcome where hitters, after having been trained on it from a young age, have too much "command" of what the zone is. Guys are so proficient at 3's that basketball has permanently been altered as such. I don't even watch basketball anymore, it isn't as fun to watch guys chuck 3's.
I don't know why you can't just incentivize umpires on making the correct ball/strike calls. They already have a way of determining when umps miss calls. Give them more money when they do well. Money talks.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that, over the course of a season, these things probably even out. Open minded about it, but concerned of unintended consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2022 8:21:26 GMT -5
The NBA has gone 3-heavy because teams realized it's more efficient, not because players are better at shooting them.
I'm not sure what your concern is. That players will start taking too many pitches? Pitchers will be forced to throw more strikes and more balls will get put in play. If his can't throw strikes they're going to treat them like they... a treat guys who can't throw strikes now.
Anyway, finding any unintended consequences is the whole point of testing these rules in the minors. They learned last year that A-ball pitchers can't throw to the MLB zone yet. That's useful. So they recalibrated. They'll continue working out kinks. But the league is actively looking to make games more exciting - they're not going to do something that makes them less so.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 23, 2022 10:19:54 GMT -5
I'm more concern about pitchers manipulating the strike zone than hitters. Hitters gaining confidence that the strike zone is consistent feels like a good thing to me and would lead to more hitting.
For pitchers, I get concerned about them learning how to throw the pitch that hits the very front bottom of the zone but dives down and is optically out of the zone. Or the pitch that starts high but then drops down at the last minute into the strike zone at the very last minute. Something on a lesser scale of how we would throw a whiffle ball to hit the chair in a way that it was impossible to hit.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 23, 2022 13:29:49 GMT -5
I mean really what are you concerned with.... a pitcher being able to throw a pitch 1 inch closer to a real strike or not. The blame for this is squarely on the umps shoulders for not being good at their job and at times not being objective. A pitcher or a hitter should not have to worry about hurting an umps feelings and having it come back to haunt them. I personally hate umps with big egos and this is a high and tight fastball directed right at them.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 23, 2022 14:14:13 GMT -5
Watching some of that action, what popped into my mind is "would Tom Glavine have made the HoF with robot umps?". The answer is probably still yes, but it might have been a different Glavine. It was hilarious watching him gradually move his pitches further and further outside, by centimeters, as the game progressed and still get strike calls. It had to be very frustrating for hitters.
Add: The other part is watching pitchers and hitters try to keep from laughing as the calls go their way.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 23, 2022 15:34:43 GMT -5
I mean really what are you concerned with.... a pitcher being able to throw a pitch 1 inch closer to a real strike or not. The blame for this is squarely on the umps shoulders for not being good at their job and at times not being objective. A pitcher or a hitter should not have to worry about hurting an umps feelings and having it come back to haunt them. I personally hate umps with big egos and this is a high and tight fastball directed right at them. I agree with you that ego has no place in umpiring (or being a referee in any sport) but for some reason it has been allowed in baseball. Perhaps a baseball historian out there can provide some context for why it was allowed or if there was a time period in which umpires with egos began (was it an issue in the 19th century?). But it's unfair to say that umpires are 'not good at their jobs'. That's like saying a 90% free throw shooter is bad at his job because he doesn't make the free throws 100% of the time. It's impossible to pinpoint a baseball travelling 100 mph across an invisible 2 dimensional plane with perfect precision and consistency, especially when the catcher, pitcher and hitter are trying to trick you whenever possible. The issue with baseball, to a greater degree than other sports, is that the technology used and displayed to the viewer at home allows the fans to 'know' if the umpire was correct or in error. Prior to recent technology, the fan's determination of strike-or-ball was left to complaining on each pitch in favor of your team (has anyone ever watched a game in person and felt they could consistently tell balls and strikes?). We have seen changes in other sports (primarily replay, but also goal line cams and some laser tracking technology) but the issue isn't 'getting it right', it's being culpable to the viewers. When the fans consistently are better and determining the call than the umpire referee (due to technology displayed on TV) it's a problem and MLB is fixing it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 23, 2022 16:20:42 GMT -5
The NBA has gone 3-heavy because teams realized it's more efficient, not because players are better at shooting them. I'm not sure what your concern is. That players will start taking too many pitches? Pitchers will be forced to throw more strikes and more balls will get put in play. If his can't throw strikes they're going to treat them like they... a treat guys who can't throw strikes now. Anyway, finding any unintended consequences is the whole point of testing these rules in the minors. They learned last year that A-ball pitchers can't throw to the MLB zone yet. That's useful. So they recalibrated. They'll continue working out kinks. But the league is actively looking to make games more exciting - they're not going to do something that makes them less so. over the life of the 3 pointer, because of the emphasis on points returned per possession (not really more efficient, pretty sure the NBA shooting percentage has gone down since the emphasis on 3) as you pointed out, we have a totally different game. it is kind of boring if you grew in the the glory days of NBA basketball in the 80's, as I did. I don't think the currrent product was even considered with the advent of the rule. And yes, the concern is that they will become so efficient at knowing the zone, there will be too much scoring / difficulty getting outs. There will be some kind of evolution as guys get more used to it, I don't know what that outcome is, but it is a concern. As I said, you can get better performance by incentivizing good plate umpiring.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 23, 2022 18:10:36 GMT -5
I mean really what are you concerned with.... a pitcher being able to throw a pitch 1 inch closer to a real strike or not. The blame for this is squarely on the umps shoulders for not being good at their job and at times not being objective. A pitcher or a hitter should not have to worry about hurting an umps feelings and having it come back to haunt them. I personally hate umps with big egos and this is a high and tight fastball directed right at them. I agree with you that ego has no place in umpiring (or being a referee in any sport) but for some reason it has been allowed in baseball. Perhaps a baseball historian out there can provide some context for why it was allowed or if there was a time period in which umpires with egos began (was it an issue in the 19th century?). But it's unfair to say that umpires are 'not good at their jobs'. That's like saying a 90% free throw shooter is bad at his job because he doesn't make the free throws 100% of the time. It's impossible to pinpoint a baseball travelling 100 mph across an invisible 2 dimensional plane with perfect precision and consistency, especially when the catcher, pitcher and hitter are trying to trick you whenever possible. The issue with baseball, to a greater degree than other sports, is that the technology used and displayed to the viewer at home allows the fans to 'know' if the umpire was correct or in error. Prior to recent technology, the fan's determination of strike-or-ball was left to complaining on each pitch in favor of your team (has anyone ever watched a game in person and felt they could consistently tell balls and strikes?). We have seen changes in other sports (primarily replay, but also goal line cams and some laser tracking technology) but the issue isn't 'getting it right', it's being culpable to the viewers. When the fans consistently are better and determining the call than the umpire referee (due to technology displayed on TV) it's a problem and MLB is fixing it. Sure it isn't easy to be 100% accurate all the time and I get that but all those calls in that video were from just last yr. That is a lot of bad calls in one season and I am sure there were many more. And to compare seeing something correctly vs doing something correctly like making a free throw is not a very comparable analogy. How many times have you seen a pitch right down the middle called a ball?? It doesn't happen often but it happens. And you are right, baseball is fixing it for a reason and part of that reason is the umps are wrong too often and they can be bias.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 23, 2022 21:59:36 GMT -5
There are ~750,000 pitches each year, there's going to be enough bad calls to fill out a 4 minute youtube clip.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 23, 2022 22:06:16 GMT -5
Leave the human element in the game. Hitters miss their best pitch to hit. Pitchers leave hangers over the plate. Fielders boot easy plays. An ump missing an occasional call is not the end of the world (and it's a lot less frequent than in a youtube video).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2022 22:39:37 GMT -5
Leave the human element in the game. Hitters miss their best pitch to hit. Pitchers leave hangers over the plate. Fielders boot easy plays. An ump missing an occasional call is not the end of the world (and it's a lot less frequent than in a youtube video). Three of those categories are the competitors. One is the neutral arbiter. If you have the ability to make the outcome completely (or more) independent of the neutral arbiter's ability to do his job, then I don't get why you wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2022 1:03:24 GMT -5
...over the life of the 3 pointer, because of the emphasis on points returned per possession (not really more efficient, pretty sure the NBA shooting percentage has gone down since the emphasis on 3) as you pointed out, we have a totally different game... You'll want to rethink that assumption. Here's the link to basketball-reference. Look at the effective field-goal pct for individual players. That's a weighted avg of the 2-pt and 3-pt pcts. For many of them it's well over 50%. Stephen Curry has had a number of seasons over 60%. As Hatfield pointed out, they've acquired the shooting skills to take advantage of the 3-pt line. There is no going back. www.basketball-reference.com/
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 24, 2022 1:50:12 GMT -5
I agree with you that ego has no place in umpiring (or being a referee in any sport) but for some reason it has been allowed in baseball. Perhaps a baseball historian out there can provide some context for why it was allowed or if there was a time period in which umpires with egos began (was it an issue in the 19th century?). But it's unfair to say that umpires are 'not good at their jobs'. That's like saying a 90% free throw shooter is bad at his job because he doesn't make the free throws 100% of the time. It's impossible to pinpoint a baseball travelling 100 mph across an invisible 2 dimensional plane with perfect precision and consistency, especially when the catcher, pitcher and hitter are trying to trick you whenever possible. The issue with baseball, to a greater degree than other sports, is that the technology used and displayed to the viewer at home allows the fans to 'know' if the umpire was correct or in error. Prior to recent technology, the fan's determination of strike-or-ball was left to complaining on each pitch in favor of your team (has anyone ever watched a game in person and felt they could consistently tell balls and strikes?). We have seen changes in other sports (primarily replay, but also goal line cams and some laser tracking technology) but the issue isn't 'getting it right', it's being culpable to the viewers. When the fans consistently are better and determining the call than the umpire referee (due to technology displayed on TV) it's a problem and MLB is fixing it. Sure it isn't easy to be 100% accurate all the time and I get that but all those calls in that video were from just last yr. That is a lot of bad calls in one season and I am sure there were many more. And to compare seeing something correctly vs doing something correctly like making a free throw is not a very comparable analogy. How many times have you seen a pitch right down the middle called a ball?? It doesn't happen often but it happens. And you are right, baseball is fixing it for a reason and part of that reason is the umps are wrong too often and they can be bias. A pitch right down the middle called a ball would be an error in concentration by the umpire, and they typically occur in situations where the catcher is setup far outside or far inside and the pitcher misses his spot badly. Last year there were 709,842 pitches thrown during the regular season, so those highlights (lowlights) represent less than .01% of pitches. Based on various studies (which are inconsistent with how they represent their data), umpires get the call correct about 96% of the time. This is far worse than a computer, but for a human being it is quite impressive. Once computers take over, it will be far more consistent and accurate, but we're still going to find something to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 24, 2022 9:01:40 GMT -5
Sure it isn't easy to be 100% accurate all the time and I get that but all those calls in that video were from just last yr. That is a lot of bad calls in one season and I am sure there were many more. And to compare seeing something correctly vs doing something correctly like making a free throw is not a very comparable analogy. How many times have you seen a pitch right down the middle called a ball?? It doesn't happen often but it happens. And you are right, baseball is fixing it for a reason and part of that reason is the umps are wrong too often and they can be bias. A pitch right down the middle called a ball would be an error in concentration by the umpire, and they typically occur in situations where the catcher is setup far outside or far inside and the pitcher misses his spot badly. Last year there were 709,842 pitches thrown during the regular season, so those highlights (lowlights) represent less than .01% of pitches. Based on various studies (which are inconsistent with how they represent their data), umpires get the call correct about 96% of the time. This is far worse than a computer, but for a human being it is quite impressive. Once computers take over, it will be far more consistent and accurate, but we're still going to find something to complain about. 96% of the time is very good and I know it isn't easy. I do have to say though that the whole "where the catcher sets up thing" baffles me a little, I get it but it shouldn't matter as much as it does. I think what really bothers me the most is when the umps make it personal and guys get squeezed, then it is just about their egos. Which I think has needed to be reigned in for a long time. At the end of the day I am just glad it is happening for both pitchers and hitters, it should lead to more consistency.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 24, 2022 9:39:11 GMT -5
i have grave concerns about robot zones. I know baseball is an entirely different sport, but I think of the 3 point line and basketball and can foresee an outcome where hitters, after having been trained on it from a young age, have too much "command" of what the zone is. Guys are so proficient at 3's that basketball has permanently been altered as such. I don't even watch basketball anymore, it isn't as fun to watch guys chuck 3's. I don't know why you can't just incentivize umpires on making the correct ball/strike calls. They already have a way of determining when umps miss calls. Give them more money when they do well. Money talks. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that, over the course of a season, these things probably even out. Open minded about it, but concerned of unintended consequences. What evidence other than wishful thinking makes you think things even out? So your thought process is, correct me if I'm wrong, "they make plenty of mistakes but there is so many that they must even out". Yes? So getting it right does not matter? I do think replay can go to far. For example calling someone out at second on a stolen base, etc, because as they stood there was a nano second where they lost contact (although they should call timeout before doing so). Replay for all the four major sports, everything under the sun can be replayed (anything less should have everyone strongly questioning their integrity harshly) but you only get 3 to lose per game, if you win the challenge you still have 3. It's the perfect balance between keeping the integrity of the game without wrecking the flow of it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2022 10:40:36 GMT -5
Before evaluating how good umpires are, I'd want to narrow the universe of pitches to those that aren't obvious. A pitch a foot outside counts the same in that sort of statistic as one on the black. I mean, check out umpscorecards.com/. The fact that Chris Conroy can, in theory, swing a World Series game 1.62 runs in one direction (granted, in favor of the team who loses) is kind of bonkers, and I don't get why you wouldn't want to try to get rid of that. Same with Laz Diaz being below 90% accurate (to me, the numbers at the bottom of the ump scorecards are more important than the ones highlighted on the top re: consistency - "at least be consistent" is more of a high school ball thing for me than an MLB thing) in the ALCS. Now, since JerryG has mentioned this a few times, I don't think "incentivizing" calling strikes makes sense because I don't think, by and large, umpires aren't trying to make calls correctly. We're long past the days of the Braves rotation getting 4 inches off the plate consistently. I think most umpires do try to get it right. There's also the issue of the umpires being a union, and I think something like that would need to be collectively bargained and would never fly. Anyway, I'm with jodyreidnichols that replay re: whether a baserunner came off for .02 seconds is silly, but real-time feedback on whether a pitch is a strike isn't farcical, doesn't slow the pace of the game, and if anything improves the integrity of the on-field product (I don't get why a catcher's ability to fool the umpire into calling pitches incorrectly is a good thing for the game). I don't see why, once the system has all the kinks ironed out (this isn't coming to MLB anytime soon, folks, based on the 2021 data), having it would be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 24, 2022 14:37:04 GMT -5
Leave the human element in the game. Hitters miss their best pitch to hit. Pitchers leave hangers over the plate. Fielders boot easy plays. An ump missing an occasional call is not the end of the world (and it's a lot less frequent than in a youtube video). Three of those categories are the competitors. One is the neutral arbiter. If you have the ability to make the outcome completely (or more) independent of the neutral arbiter's ability to do his job, then I don't get why you wouldn't. If the arbiter is neutral, which I believe he is, then a flawed outcome does not affect any one team more than another.
I don't get why a very occasional, random, flawed call gets people so exercised that they're willing to debase the human element of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 24, 2022 14:57:49 GMT -5
Umpiring is a skill and most umps are actually very good at what they do. That's how they get to and stay in the big leagues. Can anyone name a game that was decided by a bad ball/strike call? The closest I can come is a Braves-Marlins NLCS game in the 90s (must've been '97) when El Duque's brother (can't recall his name right now) got consistent crazy strike calls a foot off the outside of the plate by the Plump Ump (whose real name I don't recall either but that was his nickname), especially to RH batters. The way Glavine, who didn't pitch that game, pitched his whole career, it was kind of funny how much the Braves complained. I believe the ump was out of the league not long after. Any others? That was 25 years ago... So, if the main problem with a human umpire's strike zone is that it can instantly be compared, pitch-by-pitch, to the little box on TV, then the simplest and cheapest solution is to get rid of the stupid little box. The league already compares umpires' strike zones with the robotic one and presumably bases umpire playoff appearances (and therefore playoff pay) and even dismissal from service in part on their scores. As such, over time the umpiring should get better and better. They've only been able to make these comparisons for 10 or so years, which is not enough time to clean out all the worst umps (especially the senior ones) -- they are unionized, after all. Speaking of the umpires' union, if robot umps ever do make it to the big leagues, the umps are going to demand serious concessions, which will likely come in the form of hefty pay raises, especially for the most senior union members.
EDIT: Hadn't looked at umpscorecards.com and now that I have, I am not at all swayed. Obviously the worst called game is one of the games that is highlighted as "trending on twitter." Click on the Games tab at the top and scroll through. The number of runs affected per game is negligible and at first glance quite random. A small percentage even make it to 0.5 runs in either direction. The wind could do more than that -- new rule: every stadium must be a dome so the wind can't influence the outcome of games.
|
|
|