What Umpires Get Wrong

[anon50325502]

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m pretty surprised that a lot of you don’t want balls and strikes to be called right every time. You really think that the game is better because there is a reasonable chance that an umpire will miss a game changing call? You are literally saying that you think the game is better due to the fact that Team A could win and Team B would be credited with the win because the umpire screwed up? And there is around a 1 in 7 chance of that happening in a close game. That, to me, is astounding.

Also, it wouldn’t really have to be replay. You could just install a camera behind home plate. With the right software, it would make calls faster and more accurately than the umpire. Obviously, you would have to rigorously test the software and system, but it wouldn’t be impossible. [/quote]

Balls and strikes aren’t really game changing like a fair/foul ball or safe/out call is.

An electronic strike zone would completely change the game, imo, for worse. The catcher would get in the way of a backstop camera I think.

[dmaddox]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Not a baseball fan at all, so take this opinion with a grain of salt. Why in the world would you not want an ACCURATE call EVERY TIME?
[/quote]

Sure, if you want to watch 160+ home run derby’s.

Working the plate, from the pitchers & hitters perspective, is an art form.

Like I said a guy like Greg Maddox would cease to exist. You’d still have your power throwers sure, but that’s about it. [/quote]

Why would they cease to exist. The only time a pitch is looked at is when the player does not swing. Greg Maddux was great at getting hitters to swing at bad pitches. The strike zone is the strike zone. You throw the ball through there and the hitter does not swing it is a strike. If it does not go through there it is a ball.

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.

[Aragorn]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m pretty surprised that a lot of you don’t want balls and strikes to be called right every time. You really think that the game is better because there is a reasonable chance that an umpire will miss a game changing call? You are literally saying that you think the game is better due to the fact that Team A could win and Team B would be credited with the win because the umpire screwed up? And there is around a 1 in 7 chance of that happening in a close game. That, to me, is astounding.

Also, it wouldn’t really have to be replay. You could just install a camera behind home plate. With the right software, it would make calls faster and more accurately than the umpire. Obviously, you would have to rigorously test the software and system, but it wouldn’t be impossible. [/quote]

Balls and strikes aren’t really game changing like a fair/foul ball or safe/out call is.

An electronic strike zone would completely change the game, imo, for worse. The catcher would get in the way of a backstop camera I think. [/quote]

Ditto that. Boring. As. Fuck.

One of the art forms of baseball is gaming the strike zone. Another is gaming the umpire. That’s part of what makes baseball baseball and a microcosm for life. I understand replay for home runs, even though I don’t like it. But replay for the strike zone? I played ball for most of my life, and umpired up to American Legion high school/NAIA college. It’s part of the game.

What made baseball for me for the longest time was that it was the last bastion of completely human sport, no replay, no cameras to go to. The nature of humans is to be fallible and there is no point in me ever watching a game if they institute something like a camera or replay for strikes.

[LankyMofo]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Not a baseball fan at all, so take this opinion with a grain of salt. Why in the world would you not want an ACCURATE call EVERY TIME?
[/quote]

Sure, if you want to watch 160+ home run derby’s.

Working the plate, from the pitchers & hitters perspective, is an art form.

Like I said a guy like Greg Maddox would cease to exist. You’d still have your power throwers sure, but that’s about it. [/quote]

Why would they cease to exist. The only time a pitch is looked at is when the player does not swing. Greg Maddux was great at getting hitters to swing at bad pitches. The strike zone is the strike zone. You throw the ball through there and the hitter does not swing it is a strike. If it does not go through there it is a ball.

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

But with a narrower strike zone for Greg Maddux, he wouldn’t get those just off the plate pitches and batters would not have swung at pitches nearly as much as they did.

It’s all inter related, I think.

It’s a horrible idea all around, and the stats they list leave out a lot of information, I think they are misleading at best.

For instance - the race stats. They make a statement that white pitchers are more likely to have the zone expanded than black pitchers. But they don’t mention if the difference is really statistically significant or how they work with the other variables at play (is the batter white or black? Is the black/white pitcher part of the home team/away team? Etc.)

Trying to take all subjectivity out of any sport is a ridiculous endeavor.

[Aragorn]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.

Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.

The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).

That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.

[Aragorn]

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

For instance - the race stats. They make a statement that white pitchers are more likely to have the zone expanded than black pitchers. But they don’t mention if the difference is really statistically significant or how they work with the other variables at play (is the batter white or black? Is the black/white pitcher part of the home team/away team? Etc.)
[/quote]

Yeah and what the FLYING FUCK is that? WHY do we have to bring in race to fucking everything??? Aren’t we supposed to have evolved past this as a society?

If you keep digging at a wound it never fucking heals. My mom taught me that when I was like 5 years old. (*cue Kobe Bryant’s comments on the Zimmerman thing)

[dmaddox]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.

Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.

The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).

That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]

All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.

It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.

[dmaddox]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

For instance - the race stats. They make a statement that white pitchers are more likely to have the zone expanded than black pitchers. But they don’t mention if the difference is really statistically significant or how they work with the other variables at play (is the batter white or black? Is the black/white pitcher part of the home team/away team? Etc.)
[/quote]

Yeah and what the FLYING FUCK is that? WHY do we have to bring in race to fucking everything??? Aren’t we supposed to have evolved past this as a society?

If you keep digging at a wound it never fucking heals. My mom taught me that when I was like 5 years old. (*cue Kobe Bryant’s comments on the Zimmerman thing)[/quote]

It was in the findings of the article. Read it.

[BlueCollarTr8n]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
One of the art forms of baseball is gaming the strike zone. Another is gaming the umpire. That’s part of what makes baseball baseball and a microcosm for life. It’s part of the game.

What made baseball for me for the longest time was that it was the last bastion of completely human sport, no replay, no cameras to go to. The nature of humans is to be fallible and there is no point in me ever watching a game if they institute something like a camera or replay for strikes.
[/quote]

Amen.
He who bitches about how the ball bounced is usually the guy that dropped it.

[anon50325502]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Not a baseball fan at all, so take this opinion with a grain of salt. Why in the world would you not want an ACCURATE call EVERY TIME?
[/quote]

Sure, if you want to watch 160+ home run derby’s.

Working the plate, from the pitchers & hitters perspective, is an art form.

Like I said a guy like Greg Maddox would cease to exist. You’d still have your power throwers sure, but that’s about it. [/quote]

Why would they cease to exist. The only time a pitch is looked at is when the player does not swing. Greg Maddux was great at getting hitters to swing at bad pitches. The strike zone is the strike zone. You throw the ball through there and the hitter does not swing it is a strike. If it does not go through there it is a ball.

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

Ya, I guess some of that is true, but it will be far more difficult for a pitcher to get batters to swing at balls knowing there is no give to the strike zone. Players will chase less pitches I think.

[anon50325502]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.

Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.

The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).

That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]

All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.

It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.
[/quote]

I think batting average, HRs, RBI, and on base % will all go up (as well as ERA) with an electronic umpire. Just look at how the game has evolved over the last 50 years.

[Silyak]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m pretty surprised that a lot of you don’t want balls and strikes to be called right every time. You really think that the game is better because there is a reasonable chance that an umpire will miss a game changing call? You are literally saying that you think the game is better due to the fact that Team A could win and Team B would be credited with the win because the umpire screwed up? And there is around a 1 in 7 chance of that happening in a close game. That, to me, is astounding.

Also, it wouldn’t really have to be replay. You could just install a camera behind home plate. With the right software, it would make calls faster and more accurately than the umpire. Obviously, you would have to rigorously test the software and system, but it wouldn’t be impossible. [/quote]

Balls and strikes aren’t really game changing like a fair/foul ball or safe/out call is.

An electronic strike zone would completely change the game, imo, for worse. The catcher would get in the way of a backstop camera I think. [/quote]
Certain balls and strikes are game changing. And an interesting point in the article is that umpires actually get worse at calling the strike zone when the stakes are higher.

A 3-2 pitch in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and bases loaded with a tie game certainly makes a difference. And in reality, walking a guy in the top of the first who goes on to score in a game that has a 1 run margin of victory also changes the game. You can’t really know what is going to change the game. But if balls and strikes never changed the game, we wouldn’t worry about calling them and this conversation wouldn’t happen.

[dmaddox]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.

Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.

The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).

That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]

All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.

It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.
[/quote]

I think batting average, HRs, RBI, and on base % will all go up (as well as ERA) with an electronic umpire. Just look at how the game has evolved over the last 50 years. [/quote]

Better and more consistent equipment, better PEDs, and Body Armor.

My question is how much will it go up? We will never know if there is not a test case.

guys I am not for or against an electronic pitch caller. I am just trying to make you guys see both sides of the argument.

I got screwed so many times growing up that it was ridiculous.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Yeah that would be dumb. Every umpire seems to have a different strike zone but as long as they are consistent the whole game and to both Pitchers then who cares.[/quote]

But according to the data, they are very inconsistent between pitchers and throughout the game.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Not a baseball fan at all, so take this opinion with a grain of salt. Why in the world would you not want an ACCURATE call EVERY TIME?
[/quote]

Sure, if you want to watch 160+ home run derby’s.

Working the plate, from the pitchers & hitters perspective, is an art form.

Like I said a guy like Greg Maddox would cease to exist. You’d still have your power throwers sure, but that’s about it. [/quote]

Wrong. You would still have control guys. The difference is that the control guys would only be rewarded for their control and not also for their reputation of control.

Edit: and I’m not sure where you are getting the home run derby idea from. because there are also strikes that are getting called as balls.

[Silyak]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m pretty surprised that a lot of you don’t want balls and strikes to be called right every time. You really think that the game is better because there is a reasonable chance that an umpire will miss a game changing call? You are literally saying that you think the game is better due to the fact that Team A could win and Team B would be credited with the win because the umpire screwed up? And there is around a 1 in 7 chance of that happening in a close game. That, to me, is astounding.

Also, it wouldn’t really have to be replay. You could just install a camera behind home plate. With the right software, it would make calls faster and more accurately than the umpire. Obviously, you would have to rigorously test the software and system, but it wouldn’t be impossible. [/quote]

Balls and strikes aren’t really game changing like a fair/foul ball or safe/out call is.

An electronic strike zone would completely change the game, imo, for worse. The catcher would get in the way of a backstop camera I think. [/quote]

Ditto that. Boring. As. Fuck.

One of the art forms of baseball is gaming the strike zone. Another is gaming the umpire. That’s part of what makes baseball baseball and a microcosm for life. I understand replay for home runs, even though I don’t like it. But replay for the strike zone? I played ball for most of my life, and umpired up to American Legion high school/NAIA college. It’s part of the game.

What made baseball for me for the longest time was that it was the last bastion of completely human sport, no replay, no cameras to go to. The nature of humans is to be fallible and there is no point in me ever watching a game if they institute something like a camera or replay for strikes.
[/quote]
First off, it’s not really replay. The computer would just instantly make the call. I think that’s important because I can see the problem if you have to pause to review every pitch. The fact is a computer can almost certainly make that decision better and faster than a human.

Moreover, if it’s possible for an umpire to have a good view of the action, it’s possible for a camera (at least so long as the umpire isn’t standing there anymore). You might have to work on what type of lense and angle you need for the camera, but it’s certainly possible.

I sort of understand when people get upset about replays in soccer, basketball, or football when it breaks up the flow of the game. But I really think this would be essentially the same game-play flow.

As far as the rules not being airtight, that’s a bug, not a feature. If you don’t see the point of sports having absolute and airtight rules, go play calvin ball. I understand that you can adapt to different umpires if you have to, but just knowing ahead of time what is expected is better.

The beauty of sports is in fact the nature of humans making mistakes and at the same time being capable of incredible feats. But I don’t think that needs to extend to officiating.

[anon50325502]

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
I’m pretty surprised that a lot of you don’t want balls and strikes to be called right every time. You really think that the game is better because there is a reasonable chance that an umpire will miss a game changing call? You are literally saying that you think the game is better due to the fact that Team A could win and Team B would be credited with the win because the umpire screwed up? And there is around a 1 in 7 chance of that happening in a close game. That, to me, is astounding.

Also, it wouldn’t really have to be replay. You could just install a camera behind home plate. With the right software, it would make calls faster and more accurately than the umpire. Obviously, you would have to rigorously test the software and system, but it wouldn’t be impossible. [/quote]

Balls and strikes aren’t really game changing like a fair/foul ball or safe/out call is.

An electronic strike zone would completely change the game, imo, for worse. The catcher would get in the way of a backstop camera I think. [/quote]
Certain balls and strikes are game changing. And an interesting point in the article is that umpires actually get worse at calling the strike zone when the stakes are higher.

A 3-2 pitch in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and bases loaded with a tie game certainly makes a difference. And in reality, walking a guy in the top of the first who goes on to score in a game that has a 1 run margin of victory also changes the game. You can’t really know what is going to change the game. But if balls and strikes never changed the game, we wouldn’t worry about calling them and this conversation wouldn’t happen. [/quote]

Well I didn’t say they don’t matter at all.

And ya, the pressure is on everyone in your scenario. It’s like Dana White’s famous saying, “Don’t leave it in the hands of the judges.” Same applies in baseball.

[anon50325502]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Not a baseball fan at all, so take this opinion with a grain of salt. Why in the world would you not want an ACCURATE call EVERY TIME?
[/quote]

Sure, if you want to watch 160+ home run derby’s.

Working the plate, from the pitchers & hitters perspective, is an art form.

Like I said a guy like Greg Maddox would cease to exist. You’d still have your power throwers sure, but that’s about it. [/quote]

Wrong. You would still have control guys. The difference is that the control guys would only be rewarded for their control and not also for their reputation of control.

Edit: and I’m not sure where you are getting the home run derby idea from. because there are also strikes that are getting called as balls.[/quote]

Lol, that’s twice today I’ve been told flat out my opinion is wrong on the Internet, smh…

[anon50325502]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]

That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.

Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.

The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).

That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]

All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.

It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.
[/quote]

I think batting average, HRs, RBI, and on base % will all go up (as well as ERA) with an electronic umpire. Just look at how the game has evolved over the last 50 years. [/quote]

Better and more consistent equipment, better PEDs, and Body Armor.

My question is how much will it go up? We will never know if there is not a test case.

guys I am not for or against an electronic pitch caller. I am just trying to make you guys see both sides of the argument.

I got screwed so many times growing up that it was ridiculous.
[/quote]

I think you’d see these go up quite a bit. You’re taking an entire element out of hitting.

I guess for me the difference is I rarely got screwed at the plate because if it was even remotely close I’d swing at. I guess that’s just how I was coached. I considered striking out looking acceptable and not to tut my own horn (why would I, it’s not like I was some allstar) I very very rarely did.

[Aragorn]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

For instance - the race stats. They make a statement that white pitchers are more likely to have the zone expanded than black pitchers. But they don’t mention if the difference is really statistically significant or how they work with the other variables at play (is the batter white or black? Is the black/white pitcher part of the home team/away team? Etc.)
[/quote]

Yeah and what the FLYING FUCK is that? WHY do we have to bring in race to fucking everything??? Aren’t we supposed to have evolved past this as a society?

If you keep digging at a wound it never fucking heals. My mom taught me that when I was like 5 years old. (*cue Kobe Bryant’s comments on the Zimmerman thing)[/quote]

It was in the findings of the article. Read it.[/quote]

I know where it was. I was responding to the articles asinine need to bring race up