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 26, 2022 16:47:06 GMT -5
For what it's worth, "call the zone consistently" feels very high school ball to me. In this era, no hitter is going to be cool with 98 mph 2 inches off the plate consistently being called a strike, nor is a pitcher going to be ok with the inside corner to right-handers consistently being called a ball. If we're talking 80 mph and the kid may or may not have a curve, and the hitter has no idea what his strike zone even is? Then sure, just be consistent.
That's why I gravitate to the accuracy numbers on Ump Scorecard first, personally. But I get that's an individual value judgement so there's not really a point to arguing it
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 26, 2022 17:47:18 GMT -5
Missed calls make fans grumpy. Check the game threads and there's no shortage of unhappy complainers every single day. The subjective experience of the paying customers will be improved with robo umps getting it right every time. It's that simple to me.
I liked an earlier poster's point that the TV strike zone box is the real villain here, for enabling so much more whining from the fans (which I am guilty of, to be clear)
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 27, 2022 0:33:32 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. Doesn't count balls put in play or swung at and missed or fouled off, when the ump doesn't have to make a call, so the median number of pitches called in 2021 was 152. 3.6% of 152 is 5.5 "inconsistent" pitches per game, split between both teams over nine innings. That's about one pitch per team every three innings. Seriously, we need robot umps because of that?
EDIT: Corrected typo.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 27, 2022 0:47:19 GMT -5
Missed calls make fans grumpy. Check the game threads and there's no shortage of unhappy complainers every single day. The subjective experience of the paying customers will be improved with robo umps getting it right every time. It's that simple to me. I liked an earlier poster's point that the TV strike zone box is the real villain here, for enabling so much more whining from the fans (which I am guilty of, to be clear) Thanks for agreeing about the who (er, what) the real villain is. However, part of my point is that the whole issue is based on the frustrations of the TV audience -- not the "paying customers" (unless you also consider TV viewers and radio listeners "paying customers").
95% of the people in the ballpark can't really tell if a close pitch is a ball or strike. They'll groan and yell "C'mon, blue!" if it goes against the home team but only in solidarity with their boys, not with real confidence.
... and then they take a sip of their beer and focus on the next pitch.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 27, 2022 6:41:33 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. I don't know how anyone who reads that article doesn't agree with fixing the problem. Bad calls affect too many games and if it can be fixed then you fix it.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 27, 2022 10:02:26 GMT -5
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. Doesn't could balls put in play or swung at and missed or fouled off, when the ump doesn't have to make a call, so the median number of pitches called in 2021was 152. 3.6% of 152 is 5.5 "inconsistent" pitches per game, split between both teams over nine innings. That's about one pitch per team every three innings. Seriously, we need robot umps because of that? Yes, definitely. Calls behind the plate can and do have a big impact on the outcome. The elephant in the room is that these zones seldom resemble the ideal zone, so even a consistent zone has more than that number of incorrect calls. Players will eventually learn an incorrect but consistent zone, but only after both sides are burned by a number of bad calls. And, even once they do, it can change players' approaches at the plate. As far as I know, there are no downsides to robo umps besides tradition and aesthetics, which pale in comparison to the advantages: more offense and balls in play (consistent zone should help, and it allows a shift to better offensive catchers), faster pace, less frustration for everyone, fewer arguments on the field, and player skill has more of an impact on the game's result.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Jan 27, 2022 11:16:40 GMT -5
Missed calls make fans grumpy. Check the game threads and there's no shortage of unhappy complainers every single day. The subjective experience of the paying customers will be improved with robo umps getting it right every time. It's that simple to me. I liked an earlier poster's point that the TV strike zone box is the real villain here, for enabling so much more whining from the fans (which I am guilty of, to be clear) Thanks for agreeing about the who (er, what) the real villain is. However, part of my point is that the whole issue is based on the frustrations of the TV audience -- not the "paying customers" (unless you also consider TV viewers and radio listeners "paying customers").
95% of the people in the ballpark can't really tell if a close pitch is a ball or strike. They'll groan and yell "C'mon, blue!" if it goes against the home team but only in solidarity with their boys, not with real confidence.
... and then they take a sip of their beer and focus on the next pitch.
That may be true. But so what? All in it costs about $200 to go to a Red Sox game in person. I go maybe once every five years. But I watch upwards of 100 games a year on TV. Why do I and the rest of the viewing audience have to watch an extra 8 or 10 bad calls behind the plate a game? Obviously we're not going to agree on this but I find the very idea of strike zones varying by umpire to be offensive, even if it's consistent. When my son was young I used to manage youth league teams. I remember watching an umpire calling balls at the ankles strikes and balls at the belt balls. I finally (politely) confronted him about this. His explanation? "Yeah I have a low zone". Made me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2022 12:46:02 GMT -5
Potential application of robo umps not really being discussed: Every now and then, we hear about a player with good plate discipline who has worse K/BB numbers in the minors than he will in the majors because minor league umps are worse than MLB umps (can confirm, especially at the lower levels - it's the minor leagues for them too). I never really buy completely into this, but Dalbec, for example, was one this was said about.
Having a consistent, correct strike zone in, say, the upper minors could be huge for player development (as mentioned above, that may or may not be practical in A-ball and lower...). Learning on the correct zone would help with offensive development, in theory (and pitching, I guess), and as fans (more than a practical item), remove the "he's getting killed by umps expanding the zone on him" theory.
Just throwing that out there. Maybe not a huge consideration, but a real one.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 27, 2022 15:49:10 GMT -5
One meta reason to favor robot umps is that I think the Red Sox stand a good chance of creating a significant advantage by doing a better job of adapting to the new environment than the median team,
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 27, 2022 16:35:26 GMT -5
One meta reason to favor robot umps is that I think the Red Sox stand a good chance of creating a significant advantage by doing a better job of adapting to the new environment than the median team, Why?
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 27, 2022 16:43:32 GMT -5
Cause they're smarter
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 27, 2022 17:30:00 GMT -5
Are they? I think they're a smart organization overall, but I also think we're past the Moneyball days when some organizations were using advanced stats and others were judging prospects by their girlfriends' appearance.* "Smartness" just consists in seizing on marginal information-analytical advantages here and there. And "there is an automatic strike zone now" doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing that will evade the attention of, say, the Phillies or Rangers.
But an interesting question would be: what sort of pitcher/hitter will benefit from the changes? Pitchers with especially good control? Hitters that can cover the whole strike zone really well? And do the Red Sox have those players and emphasize those skills in development, vis-a-vis other teams?
*yes, apocryphal, I know
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 27, 2022 19:01:01 GMT -5
The value of various pitcher and hitter strategies will change. It's plausible that hitters and pitchers should be acting much differently with robot umps. Being ahead of the curve as that all shakes out could be worth a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jan 27, 2022 19:41:23 GMT -5
Doesn't could balls put in play or swung at and missed or fouled off, when the ump doesn't have to make a call, so the median number of pitches called in 2021was 152. 3.6% of 152 is 5.5 "inconsistent" pitches per game, split between both teams over nine innings. That's about one pitch per team every three innings. Seriously, we need robot umps because of that? Yes, definitely. Calls behind the plate can and do have a big impact on the outcome. The elephant in the room is that these zones seldom resemble the ideal zone, so even a consistent zone has more than that number of incorrect calls. Players will eventually learn an incorrect but consistent zone, but only after both sides are burned by a number of bad calls. And, even once they do, it can change players' approaches at the plate. As far as I know, there are no downsides to robo umps besides tradition and aesthetics, which pale in comparison to the advantages: more offense and balls in play (consistent zone should help, and it allows a shift to better offensive catchers), faster pace, less frustration for everyone, fewer arguments on the field, and player skill has more of an impact on the game's result. Respectfully disagree. The biggest downside is going to be when the robo ump makes an obvious mistake due to some kind of glitch. They're not going to be infallible. So what happens then? Replay? Human ump overruling the robot in real time? Let's say that the robots are 99% accurate, as one poster estimated; that's still an average of 1-2 missed calls per game after the radical change to the game, instead of 5.5 inconsistent pitches by human umps. To me it's just not worth the trouble or the assault on aesthetics and tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 27, 2022 20:44:13 GMT -5
Yes, definitely. Calls behind the plate can and do have a big impact on the outcome. The elephant in the room is that these zones seldom resemble the ideal zone, so even a consistent zone has more than that number of incorrect calls. Players will eventually learn an incorrect but consistent zone, but only after both sides are burned by a number of bad calls. And, even once they do, it can change players' approaches at the plate. As far as I know, there are no downsides to robo umps besides tradition and aesthetics, which pale in comparison to the advantages: more offense and balls in play (consistent zone should help, and it allows a shift to better offensive catchers), faster pace, less frustration for everyone, fewer arguments on the field, and player skill has more of an impact on the game's result. Respectfully disagree. The biggest downside is going to be when the robo ump makes an obvious mistake due to some kind of glitch. They're not going to be infallible. So what happens then? Replay? Human ump overruling the robot in real time? Let's say that the robots are 99% accurate, as one poster estimated; that's still an average of 1-2 missed calls per game after the radical change to the game, instead of 5.5 inconsistent pitches by human umps. To me it's just not worth the trouble or the assault on aesthetics and tradition. Yes, the human ump overruling the robot ump in real time if it's an obvious glitch. I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it works.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 28, 2022 0:50:05 GMT -5
Yes, definitely. Calls behind the plate can and do have a big impact on the outcome. The elephant in the room is that these zones seldom resemble the ideal zone, so even a consistent zone has more than that number of incorrect calls. Players will eventually learn an incorrect but consistent zone, but only after both sides are burned by a number of bad calls. And, even once they do, it can change players' approaches at the plate. As far as I know, there are no downsides to robo umps besides tradition and aesthetics, which pale in comparison to the advantages: more offense and balls in play (consistent zone should help, and it allows a shift to better offensive catchers), faster pace, less frustration for everyone, fewer arguments on the field, and player skill has more of an impact on the game's result. Respectfully disagree. The biggest downside is going to be when the robo ump makes an obvious mistake due to some kind of glitch. They're not going to be infallible. So what happens then? Replay? Human ump overruling the robot in real time? Let's say that the robots are 99% accurate, as one poster estimated; that's still an average of 1-2 missed calls per game after the radical change to the game, instead of 5.5 inconsistent pitches by human umps. To me it's just not worth the trouble or the assault on aesthetics and tradition. This feels like a non-issue to me. Like, should the NBA ditch the shot clock because the screen might stop working? Should we give up on indoor/night games because the floodlights might fail? Should leagues ditch replay reviews because the camera with the best angle might malfunction? Technology is fallible, but this should only happen extremely rarely. Worst case the umpires on the field will be able to take over. You could simply give the umpires the power to decide if there's an issue and take control themselves. Humans are way more fallible than tech like this, so if this possibility for failure scares you then I'm surprised that human umps don't. Edit: Also, where is this 99% accuracy coming from? I see no reason to expect these things not to be darned near perfect. Worst case it's misaligned on rare occasions and there's a slight and predictable bias to calls that night. Still wipes the floor with human strike calls.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 28, 2022 6:26:04 GMT -5
Yes, definitely. Calls behind the plate can and do have a big impact on the outcome. The elephant in the room is that these zones seldom resemble the ideal zone, so even a consistent zone has more than that number of incorrect calls. Players will eventually learn an incorrect but consistent zone, but only after both sides are burned by a number of bad calls. And, even once they do, it can change players' approaches at the plate. As far as I know, there are no downsides to robo umps besides tradition and aesthetics, which pale in comparison to the advantages: more offense and balls in play (consistent zone should help, and it allows a shift to better offensive catchers), faster pace, less frustration for everyone, fewer arguments on the field, and player skill has more of an impact on the game's result. Respectfully disagree. The biggest downside is going to be when the robo ump makes an obvious mistake due to some kind of glitch. They're not going to be infallible. So what happens then? Replay? Human ump overruling the robot in real time? Let's say that the robots are 99% accurate, as one poster estimated; that's still an average of 1-2 missed calls per game after the radical change to the game, instead of 5.5 inconsistent pitches by human umps. To me it's just not worth the trouble or the assault on aesthetics and tradition. OK so if you are right about the 99% thing, which isn't a given, then how bad would the wrong call be? I am going to assume that a bad call by a computer wouldn't be off by much more than an inch, especially when they have had time to work out the kinks. An inch is not enough to throw a batter or a pitcher off into a mental frenzy that affects the next pitch or pitches as the ump has now gotten into his head. That is the other part of this, bad calls by umps especially if based on an ego thing because the player ticked him off, then that has an even larger negative affect on a game as the player is put on tilt. If it is a computer calling the zone then it would eliminate all the times players get their heads all messed up because an ump is screwing with him, intentional or not. Heck the fact of the matter is it would also take the pressure off the umps and make their jobs easier as I have to imagine it can be stressful when they know they got a call wrong. No more beefing with players over pitch calls makes life easier on all involved. Sure it was fun to watch the old Earl Weaver blowups but avoiding most of them is probably better for the game.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 28, 2022 7:06:41 GMT -5
I’m also unclear how this affects the aesthetics of the game. The ump will still declare whether a pitch was a ball or a strike same as ever. He’ll just be right more often.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 28, 2022 10:01:22 GMT -5
I’m also unclear how this affects the aesthetics of the game. The ump will still declare whether a pitch was a ball or a strike same as ever. He’ll just be right more often. For me, and I get that this is subjective, it’s knowing while watching that there is a computer deciding a major part of the game. I just don’t like it. I’m far from a luddite (big fan of advanced stats, Rapsodo, pitch design, Savant, etc) but when it comes to the game itself, I just find it aesthetically displeasing to know that a computer has *final* authority over decisions. In a world where human decision making is increasing going to be augmented by AI, I like that there are little pockets of tradition, even if they’re not technically perfect. It feels like having hand-made pasta or something. I also dread the inevitable calls that the computer gets wrong, everyone knows are wrong, but since it’s a “robot authority” there’s no way to appeal and everyone’s scratching his head like, well, I guess that’s a strike now. If it’s framed as “umpire assist,” and the umpire still has discretion to make his own call if he disagrees, then I guess I’m more open to it, though that opens up a huge can of worms where umpires would probably take a huge amount of heat and criticism for going against the computer, and so in practice probably wouldn’t ever do it.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,802
Member is Online
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 28, 2022 11:10:33 GMT -5
Just saw an article about the first ever completely human-free robot surgery (on 4 pigs). metro.co.uk/2022/01/27/robot-performs-keyhole-surgery-without-human-help-for-the-first-time-15998427/Now, I have a huge negative visceral reaction to this. But in this particular case (suturing to reconnect two intestines parts) the repetitive nature and fine precision lends itself to robots far better than clumsy shaky old human hands. Would I want to be the first person to receive this? No thanks. But sounds like there's a path for it to be far better and greatly help humans. Not a doctor, but I'm fine with better surgery outcomes should I ever need such a thing. I have a general skepticism and (Asimov-influenced) fear about over-automation, but think it makes sense in the right places The human umps are so inconsistent at calling the most common part of the game that it gets maddening. Bad calls, makeup calls, changing strikezones. There shouldn't need to be a twitter scorecard about how bad they missed. I'm certainly open to a better path and wouldn't at all miss the complaining from both sides on what is mostly a knowable fact. Replay has generally improved the game, I think this would too. I for one welcome our robot umpire overlords.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 28, 2022 12:14:20 GMT -5
I’m also unclear how this affects the aesthetics of the game. The ump will still declare whether a pitch was a ball or a strike same as ever. He’ll just be right more often. For me, and I get that this is subjective, it’s knowing while watching that there is a computer deciding a major part of the game. I just don’t like it. I’m far from a luddite (big fan of advanced stats, Rapsodo, pitch design, Savant, etc) but when it comes to the game itself, I just find it aesthetically displeasing to know that a computer has *final* authority over decisions. In a world where human decision making is increasing going to be augmented by AI, I like that there are little pockets of tradition, even if they’re not technically perfect. It feels like having hand-made pasta or something. I also dread the inevitable calls that the computer gets wrong, everyone knows are wrong, but since it’s a “robot authority” there’s no way to appeal and everyone’s scratching his head like, well, I guess that’s a strike now. If it’s framed as “umpire assist,” and the umpire still has discretion to make his own call if he disagrees, then I guess I’m more open to it, though that opens up a huge can of worms where umpires would probably take a huge amount of heat and criticism for going against the computer, and so in practice probably wouldn’t ever do it. This is the thing. Any given instance of substituting a fallible human decision with an automatic machine process seems rational - in fact, you seem irrational if you oppose it. So we keep adding these processes in all these individual cases. But that's how we get a massive surveillance state without really choosing it; or you get these little quietly dehumanizing experiences like using the self-checkout at the grocery store; and before you know it we're under the thumb of robot overlords.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Jan 28, 2022 19:24:07 GMT -5
I’m also unclear how this affects the aesthetics of the game. The ump will still declare whether a pitch was a ball or a strike same as ever. He’ll just be right more often. There's nothing more aesthetic than Laz Diaz calling a clear strike a ball and watching our team implode as a result of it. I will say, robot umps isn't the utopia that will resolve this once and for all. Folks will find new things to complain about in the gameday thread. The real strike zone shouldn't be a perfect rectangle, pitchers are finding ways to exploit it, batter crouches too much and a ball at his neck is a strike, etc.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,535
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 28, 2022 19:43:07 GMT -5
Personally I find the idea of robo umps ans an automated strike zone troubling on many accounts. While it is frustrating when a call doesn’t go your teams way, the human element has always been part of the charm of baseball. I think it’s a mistake and it will further anesthetize a sport that is already struggling to connect with fans.
I’d much rather MLB proactively remove guys like Angel Hernandez from the ranks than punish all umpires because he is bad at his job.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 28, 2022 22:57:00 GMT -5
Personally I find the idea of robo umps ans an automated strike zone troubling on many accounts. While it is frustrating when a call doesn’t go your teams way, the human element has always been part of the charm of baseball. I think it’s a mistake and it will further anesthetize a sport that is already struggling to connect with fans. I’d much rather MLB proactively remove guys like Angel Hernandez from the ranks than punish all umpires because he is bad at his job. I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 29, 2022 2:59:18 GMT -5
Hey guys, I skimmed through (this thread had become a bit mind numbing) and saw discussion of how often robot umps will get the call right:
The issue (as previously mentioned) is that the robots (animations displayed using software on our screen) tell the TV viewer every time the umpire gets the call wrong, which is why we know that the umpire is right ~96% of the time.
With the robot umps, the robots will be showing the result of the robot's call. So unless someone messes with the software, or FOX/ESPN/etc. have different software with a different zone, the robots will always be correct 100% of the time.
It's like when you're a little kid in school and the teacher makes you switch tests with someone else to peer-grade. You switch because if you graded your own test, you would get 100% everytime.
So, the robot will get it correct 100% of the time because it tells us it's correct 100% of the time.
(Sorry for adding to the tedium, but that discussion bugged me for some reason)
|
|
|