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 Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2022 14:59:07 GMT -5
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.
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2022 15:02:28 GMT -5
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. You think? Why? Unless they are going to cut down on the number of umpires working games (which they wouldn't), I don't see the problem. I could see them hemming and hawing about it, sure, but don't see why they'd be in line to get more money to do less work. And to perhaps undercut my previously stated comments about the union, now that I think about it, recall that last time the MLB umps went on strike, MLB just shrugged and hired new umpires, leading to a decent number of them never being re-hired, IIRC - they don't really have much leverage.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 24, 2022 16:34:22 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/Thanks Norm. I tried to find the category, but got lost. LOL. I think what i am trying to say it is a higher percentage of FG's made when you are shooting inside 10 feet as opposed to 20-25 feet. And that is where the game has changed. So with the players actually making a higher percentage of 3's as opposed to the early years of the shot, you could argue that scoring efficiency is better, but i just don't think that overall shooting percentage is better. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, when the big men ruled the game and they were the focus of the offense, i would guess the percentages of made FG's was higher. Even Jordan, the greatest scorer 50% FG, buy only 32% from 3. I don't think there is an argument that the players shoot 3's at a higher percentage than 20 years ago, and that is the point i am trying to make. The evolution of the game forced players to learn how to shoot it better through practice, and the outcome of having such a standardized zone may have unintended consequences.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Jan 24, 2022 16:49:05 GMT -5
This "human element" means exactly zero to me. I remember as a kid watching John McEnroe abuse officials and thinking there has to be a better way to do this. Now there is and I doubt anyone misses officials making line calls in tennis and players cannot yell at a machine. Who goes to a baseball game in person or tunes in on TV to see an umpire? If you can eliminate 10 bad calls a night why not? And if the case can be made that it chops a few minutes a night off the length of games, which it might, I am so in.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2022 16:54:13 GMT -5
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.
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way.If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. It will disrupt the game, though, in the sense of changing it. The strike zone has never really been the neat and stable rectangle as defined in the rulebook. It is a blurry oblong shape, and it gets larger with 3 balls and smaller with 2 strikes. It is also pulled toward wherever the catcher sets up, so that a strike can be called a ball if the pitcher misses his spot by too much.
Maybe it will be worth it to change the game in these ways in order to have a more consistent strike zone. Maybe the changes will even be for the better. But it will change the game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2022 17:07:38 GMT -5
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way.If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. It will disrupt the game, though, in the sense of changing it. The strike zone has never really been the neat and stable rectangle as defined in the rulebook. It is a blurry oblong shape, and it gets larger with 3 balls and smaller with 2 strikes. It is also pulled toward wherever the catcher sets up, so that a strike can be called a ball if the pitcher misses his spot by too much.
Maybe it will be worth it to change the game in these ways in order to have a more consistent strike zone. Maybe the changes will even be for the better. But it will change the game.
I meant disrupt the flow of the game (i.e., we're not taking about 10-minute video reviews to see if a guy held the base with his cleat or not). My bad for being unclear there. It certainly will change things, for sure, but I consider the changes you describe to range from neutral to positive.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 24, 2022 22:02:00 GMT -5
This "human element" means exactly zero to me. I remember as a kid watching John McEnroe abuse officials and thinking there has to be a better way to do this. Now there is and I doubt anyone misses officials making line calls in tennis and players cannot yell at a machine. Who goes to a baseball game in person or tunes in on TV to see an umpire? If you can eliminate 10 bad calls a night why not? And if the case can be made that it chops a few minutes a night off the length of games, which it might, I am so in. Baseball already fixed this problem by enforcing ejections for arguing balls and strikes. It still happens sometimes and, quite frankly, it's a colorful part of the game that animates the fans and announcers.
There was a low-A game with robo-umps last year where an obvious ball was called strike-three by the robot. The kid looked back at the human ump in utter disbelief and all the human ump could do was say "sorry, kid, you're out. I'm just standing here." Is that better?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 24, 2022 22:06:15 GMT -5
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. You think? Why? Unless they are going to cut down on the number of umpires working games (which they wouldn't), I don't see the problem. I could see them hemming and hawing about it, sure, but don't see why they'd be in line to get more money to do less work. And to perhaps undercut my previously stated comments about the union, now that I think about it, recall that last time the MLB umps went on strike, MLB just shrugged and hired new umpires, leading to a decent number of them never being re-hired, IIRC - they don't really have much leverage. I'm not saying it's a problem, just saying the ump union is going to milk it as much as they can.
Yes, the last time the umps struck MLB was able to essentially clean house and hire back only the umps they wanted (I believe the Plump Ump was one of the casualties). Maybe they're planning for something similar this time.
I also think the MLBPA is not going to just sit back and let it happen without some concessions. Do they really care about the careers of good-framing catchers? Maybe not but they can sure say the do in negotiations.
Bottom line is I don't think this is just going to roll in without resistance like the morning fog.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 24, 2022 22:18:03 GMT -5
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.
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. I guess I just like humans.
Humans have been calling balls and strikes for 150 years and we've all loved baseball our whole lives nonetheless.
It's just really, really low on my list of things that could be changed and there's already a program in place to evaluate and improve human strike calling. To me it's not broke to the point where it needs to be fixed.
I also think replay should only be done at regular game speed, not super slo-mo.
If it's not obvious enough to overturn at regular speed, give the ump who was standing right there the benefit of the doubt. That would get rid of those ridiculous off-the-base-for-a-millisecond outs, for sure. But that's a subject for another thread...
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 25, 2022 5:06:50 GMT -5
This "human element" means exactly zero to me. I remember as a kid watching John McEnroe abuse officials and thinking there has to be a better way to do this. Now there is and I doubt anyone misses officials making line calls in tennis and players cannot yell at a machine. Who goes to a baseball game in person or tunes in on TV to see an umpire? If you can eliminate 10 bad calls a night why not? And if the case can be made that it chops a few minutes a night off the length of games, which it might, I am so in. Exactly!! Since when is "human element" more important than getting a call right. Umpires are not part of the game experience for me. Like the old saying "seen not heard" applies as far as I am concerned. If you come away from a game thinking about the refereeing then it is about 100% you are thinking they had too much of an impact on the game and your team lost because of it. Someone just mentioned how little it happens and sights a game back in the 90's. I disagree and all we have to do is go back and look at the game day threads here to see how often people felt that the umps sucked calling a game. Why should their even be a discussion about how big or small the strike zone is on a given night. What could possibly be bad about a consistent strike zone for both hitters and pitchers, not to mention the head games that go on for those who are in the middle of it. A specific umpires strike zone on any given night should not have any impact on who wins the game and although rare it does happen.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Jan 25, 2022 10:27:44 GMT -5
This "human element" means exactly zero to me. I remember as a kid watching John McEnroe abuse officials and thinking there has to be a better way to do this. Now there is and I doubt anyone misses officials making line calls in tennis and players cannot yell at a machine. Who goes to a baseball game in person or tunes in on TV to see an umpire? If you can eliminate 10 bad calls a night why not? And if the case can be made that it chops a few minutes a night off the length of games, which it might, I am so in. Baseball already fixed this problem by enforcing ejections for arguing balls and strikes. It still happens sometimes and, quite frankly, it's a colorful part of the game that animates the fans and announcers.
There was a low-A game with robo-umps last year where an obvious ball was called strike-three by the robot. The kid looked back at the human ump in utter disbelief and all the human ump could do was say "sorry, kid, you're out. I'm just standing here." Is that better?
To me, you need to keep working at the technology to address the concern you mentioned and some others. But this technology can work substantially better than humans. The average MLB umpire misses about 8% of their calls and 25% of "close calls". ABS is already under 1% and with some more work it can get close to zero. There are still a few issues to work out, mainly on the heights of batters.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 25, 2022 11:13:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 25, 2022 20:25:02 GMT -5
These data directly from umpscorecards.com from a total of 2462 games tracked in 2021:
% Consistency
| No. of games
| % of total games
| 100 | 147 | 6 | 99+ | 287 | 12 | 98+ | 621 | 25 | 97+ | 1019 | 41 | 96.4 | half | median |
As every single pitcher, hitter, and manager has ever said when asked about an umpire's strike zone, "As long as it's consistent, I'm fine with it."
Well, good news then: in the median game called in 2021, the umpire was 96.4% consistent, which means that about half a dozen pitches were inconsistent over nine innings of both teams batting. In a quarter of games the umps were 98% or better with consistency.
What are we really talking about here? Is it so important to "get the calls right" that we look at 96.4% and say "we need radical change"?
No thanks. This is a non-problem.
The real problem is that stupid little box on TV -- that's what's making people crazy.
Get rid of the stupid little box and move on with the knowledge that the umps are calling it good enough for the players and coaches about 96.4% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 25, 2022 23:40:27 GMT -5
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.
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. To me it’s a question of aesthetics. Football isn’t really a beautiful game. Basketball isn’t a beautiful game. Hockey isn’t a beautiful game. But baseball is beautiful. It’s that element that Ken Burns captured so well. I don’t think having a major part of the game decided by a computer rather than a human makes the game more beautiful. It eliminates all of the opportunities for missed calls, arguments between the batter and umpire, manager ejections, and so on. Those are all part of what makes baseball interesting to me, and they connect it more strongly to the game we all played as kids. If I wanted to watch pitchers throw strikes into a computerized box I would just play MLB: The Show.
|
|
keninten
Veteran
Posts: 685
Member is Online
|
Post by keninten on Jan 25, 2022 23:44:45 GMT -5
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. To me it’s a question of aesthetics. Football isn’t really a beautiful game. Basketball isn’t a beautiful game. Hockey isn’t a beautiful game. But baseball is beautiful. It’s that element that Ken Burns captured so well. I don’t think having a major part of the game decided by a computer rather than a human makes the game more beautiful. It eliminates all of the opportunities for missed calls, arguments between the batter and umpire, manager ejections, and so on. Those are all part of what makes baseball interesting to me, and they connect it more strongly to the game we all played as kids. If I wanted to watch pitchers throw strikes into a computerized box I would just play MLB: The Show. Those are not good parts of the game. They may add more time to the game if anything.
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on Jan 26, 2022 9:34:36 GMT -5
So, I don't really care much about this issue. It probably won't affect how much baseball I watch or how I feel about it either way. I'm a data guy rooted in mathematics, so there's a certain part of me that likes the objectivity of a computer and always getting it right. I very much like improving the consistency within a given game on what the strike zone is. However, I also think there's something inherently interesting about a strike zone that changes a little from night to night, meaning that hitters and pitchers need to constantly make adjustments and the game looks a little different from game to game.
I recognize that the feelings created in fans that can now clearly (mostly) see every mistake made on balls and strikes means that roboumps are coming. I also believe that there's probably AI on the horizon (or its already here) that with a little investment in more cameras that every call that an ump makes is going to able to be better made by a roboump than a human. The investment in cameras is probably cheaper than paying umps. I remember a number of years ago, people talked about the fact that probably the field umps' calls would eventually be made by by computers, but we would never move to balls and strikes being judged by computers. I guess even longer ago there was talk about calls being made offsite with video. I find it interesting that we're probably going to start the move with balls and strikes.
I'd be interested in people's feelings on all calls moving out of human hands. Baseball is clearly the easiest of the big three US sports to be able to do this with - there's too much subjectivity in calls in football and basketball. Hold happens on every play in football. Some, but not too much, contact is allowed is basketball. Baseball calls really are all pretty cut and dry, so why not move to make every one right?
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 26, 2022 9:58:49 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. There would be no replay challenges for robo strikes, though, so not sure what you mean. This is the equivalent of replacing tennis umpires with the Rolex Review/Chase Review/Hawkeye/whatever it's called now. The thing that would otherwise be used to validate whether a challenge were successful is now just making the right call the first time.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 26, 2022 10:06:20 GMT -5
You think? Why? Unless they are going to cut down on the number of umpires working games (which they wouldn't), I don't see the problem. I could see them hemming and hawing about it, sure, but don't see why they'd be in line to get more money to do less work. And to perhaps undercut my previously stated comments about the union, now that I think about it, recall that last time the MLB umps went on strike, MLB just shrugged and hired new umpires, leading to a decent number of them never being re-hired, IIRC - they don't really have much leverage. I'm not saying it's a problem, just saying the ump union is going to milk it as much as they can.
Yes, the last time the umps struck MLB was able to essentially clean house and hire back only the umps they wanted (I believe the Plump Ump was one of the casualties). Maybe they're planning for something similar this time.
I also think the MLBPA is not going to just sit back and let it happen without some concessions. Do they really care about the careers of good-framing catchers? Maybe not but they can sure say the do in negotiations.
Bottom line is I don't think this is just going to roll in without resistance like the morning fog.
I don't know why the MLBPA would care. This should theoretically benefit poor framing catchers as much as it hurts good framing ones, so there's no net negative for players. I also agree with Chris that I don't see what leverage umps have here. In theory there would still be a home plate ump and their responsibilities would be even lower, meaning their job would be easier. If MLB doesn't reduce the amount of umps on the field and doesn't dock their pay, I see no good argument from the umpires union to get concessions from MLB. Easier job for equal pay seems fine, except maybe for the Kulpa-esque egomaniacs who seem to take pleasure in having power and hurting the game to flex it.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 26, 2022 10:12:49 GMT -5
These data directly from umpscorecards.com from a total of 2462 games tracked in 2021:
% Consistency
| No. of games
| % of total games
| 100 | 147 | 6 | 99+ | 287 | 12 | 98+ | 621 | 25 | 97+ | 1019 | 41 | 96.4 | half | median |
As every single pitcher, hitter, and manager has ever said when asked about an umpire's strike zone, "As long as it's consistent, I'm fine with it."
Well, good news then: in the median game called in 2021, the umpire was 96.4% consistent, which means that about half a dozen pitches were inconsistent over nine innings of both teams batting. In a quarter of games the umps were 98% or better with consistency.
What are we really talking about here? Is it so important to "get the calls right" that we look at 96.4% and say "we need radical change"?
No thanks. This is a non-problem.
The real problem is that stupid little box on TV -- that's what's making people crazy.
Get rid of the stupid little box and move on with the knowledge that the umps are calling it good enough for the players and coaches about 96.4% of the time.
The percentage doesn't capture the impact this can have on a game. Those same ump scorecards routinely assign as much as a run or more of score difference just to the umpiring. Also, when hundreds of pitches are thrown a night, even 96% means maybe a dozen bad calls. That's just frustrating for players and fans and leads to pointless arguments that slow down the game. Why live with this if we can easily make that number 100%? I see no real downsides and plenty of upside.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 26, 2022 10:56:53 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.
The only reason baseball shows the Robo zone is because it was the ultimate plan anyway. People hate sudden chance even when it is to their benefit. About 10 years ago (?) I debated a whole lunch room full of coworkers about replays and their use going forward I was on one side with about 4 or 5 others opposed to it. Just a few month later MLB started to review plays with reviewing footage. It's inevitable so argue all you want but it will be in vain. I'd bet my house on it. Personally I'd love to see markers on uniforms on the outside just large enough to see. Uniforms would all have to be worn the same way. These markers would be sensors as well. It would be a check against anyone hacking the system. Batters stances would not effect the zone.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 26, 2022 11:00:45 GMT -5
This "human element" means exactly zero to me. I remember as a kid watching John McEnroe abuse officials and thinking there has to be a better way to do this. Now there is and I doubt anyone misses officials making line calls in tennis and players cannot yell at a machine. Who goes to a baseball game in person or tunes in on TV to see an umpire? If you can eliminate 10 bad calls a night why not? And if the case can be made that it chops a few minutes a night off the length of games, which it might, I am so in. I agree. I think to many people conflict human element to mean anything more than those competing on the field. It's as if the can't separate the two in their own rationalization.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 26, 2022 11:06:26 GMT -5
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. I guess I just like humans.
Humans have been calling balls and strikes for 150 years and we've all loved baseball our whole lives nonetheless.
It's just really, really low on my list of things that could be changed and there's already a program in place to evaluate and improve human strike calling. To me it's not broke to the point where it needs to be fixed.
I also think replay should only be done at regular game speed, not super slo-mo.
If it's not obvious enough to overturn at regular speed, give the ump who was standing right there the benefit of the doubt. That would get rid of those ridiculous off-the-base-for-a-millisecond outs, for sure. But that's a subject for another thread...
That's the one point in this thread I would agree with you. The extremes of anything is well extreme and is usually not the intent. Common sense goes along way to rectify these situations. But it's MHO that umpires are the same type of people who to often follow rules to an extreme and don't (or can't and by that I mean are not allowed to) use their own discretion.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 26, 2022 11:10:17 GMT -5
These data directly from umpscorecards.com from a total of 2462 games tracked in 2021:
% Consistency
| No. of games
| % of total games
| 100 | 147 | 6 | 99+ | 287 | 12 | 98+ | 621 | 25 | 97+ | 1019 | 41 | 96.4 | half | median |
As every single pitcher, hitter, and manager has ever said when asked about an umpire's strike zone, "As long as it's consistent, I'm fine with it."
Well, good news then: in the median game called in 2021, the umpire was 96.4% consistent, which means that about half a dozen pitches were inconsistent over nine innings of both teams batting. In a quarter of games the umps were 98% or better with consistency.
What are we really talking about here? Is it so important to "get the calls right" that we look at 96.4% and say "we need radical change"?
No thanks. This is a non-problem.
The real problem is that stupid little box on TV -- that's what's making people crazy.
Get rid of the stupid little box and move on with the knowledge that the umps are calling it good enough for the players and coaches about 96.4% of the time.
The percentage doesn't capture the impact this can have on a game. Those same ump scorecards routinely assign as much as a run or more of score difference just to the umpiring. Also, when hundreds of pitches are thrown a night, even 96% means maybe a dozen bad calls. That's just frustrating for players and fans and leads to pointless arguments that slow down the game. Why live with this if we can easily make that number 100%? I see no real downsides and plenty of upside. I agree and It's only improved because of the threat of being replaced. Many bad umpires were booted only because they went on strike. Others saw the writing on the wall and cleaned up their act. I know years prior their were games graded to be far far worse than 96% correct. It's inevitable. I see this debate going forward as useless.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 26, 2022 12:10:13 GMT -5
These data directly from umpscorecards.com from a total of 2462 games tracked in 2021: % Consistency
| No. of games
| % of total games
| 100 | 147 | 6 | 99+ | 287 | 12 | 98+ | 621 | 25 | 97+ | 1019 | 41 | 96.4 | half | median |
As every single pitcher, hitter, and manager has ever said when asked about an umpire's strike zone, "As long as it's consistent, I'm fine with it." Well, good news then: in the median game called in 2021, the umpire was 96.4% consistent, which means that about half a dozen pitches were inconsistent over nine innings of both teams batting. In a quarter of games the umps were 98% or better with consistency.
What are we really talking about here? Is it so important to "get the calls right" that we look at 96.4% and say "we need radical change"? No thanks. This is a non-problem. The real problem is that stupid little box on TV -- that's what's making people crazy.
Get rid of the stupid little box and move on with the knowledge that the umps are calling it good enough for the players and coaches about 96.4% of the time.
Interesting data, but again, I'd want to see this data for the pitches that are within a couple inches of the strike zone, not all pitches. If there are like 150-170 called pitches in a given game I admittedly have no idea how many are in the "shadow" of the strike zone, as Baseball Savant puts it. Every ump is going to get pitches in the heart of the plate or waste pitches correct. Missing, say, 6 out of 30 pitches that are close is way different than missing 6 out of 80, right? This article is interesting: www.bu.edu/articles/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/It's obviously making an argument, and lies, damn lies, and statistics, etc., but the two-strike bias thing is very interesting, as are the points about calls getting better over time. No surprise about the good and bad umps save for Angel Hernandez having a decent season.
|
|
|
Post by humanbeingbean on Jan 26, 2022 13:15:46 GMT -5
Robo umps would make Juan Soto too powerful.
All kidding aside, players should be rewarded for their discipline and strike zone knowledge. When players have great takes and earn their walks, a mistake by the umpire shouldn’t get in the way.
There should be a way to maintain the current dynamic while removing some of the human error, though. Technology has come too far to not adapt with it and better the game. I also don’t think it’d be the end of the world if robo umps are placed on the back burner for something more pressing.
|
|
|