Called strikeouts from today's (astonishingly fast-paced) game:
Don't take this as blaming or scapegoating. Forget what happened in the game. Forget that it was the Mariners and the Yankees. Just take an objective look at these images and give me a good reason why people still so readily accept inaccuracies like this when we have the technology to be so much better. Batters made 64 trips to the plate in this game. On five of those occasions, they were undeservedly called out, according to the rule book strike zone that both they and the umpires were presumably taught. How is that okay? That's five outs! Outs are hugely important!
I'll take a page out of Tango's book - if from the beginning of baseball's existence the strike zone had always been judged according to a system that gets almost every call correct, would you want to change it?
I will never, ever, ever understand the argument that umpires and human error contribute to the beauty of the game. Regardless of how much they get right, umpires screw up all the time, and the game is worse because of it.
1 recs | 48 comments
I know some of the calls this season around baseball have been repugnant (especially some egregious calls at first base),
but imagine a baseball game in which some computer system was behind home plate announcing balls and strikes. As much as I love the game and getting calls correct, I don’t want to sacrafice part of what makes it great. Umpires are part of what makes it great. Who will the fans jeer at? Who will toss the manager? Catchers can’t frame pitches anymore. I understand these are silly externalities to some, but they are also part of the system.
Besides, what would the computer do? Just sit behind the plate and be like, “Ball 1” in a computerized tone? That’s extremely boring. Or will there be umps to make out/safe calls, something a computer couldnt do? Or give the catcher more baseballs? Break up uneccessary mound meetings? Make calls down the line?
I think the solution should be to work with the umps on making better calls. Eradicating them seems harsh, although I completely understand your frustration.
Pat Andriola - July 1, 2009
Why not keep the umpires where they are and have them be fed information from a computer?
Jeff Sullivan - July 1, 2009
I would definitely support this for balls and strikes.
This is something that is only fair to both the batters and pitchers. Since we have the technology to make these calls that seem so different depending on who the homeplate umpire is we should use this to eliminate the current discrepancies.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
I guess that would be pretty interesting
to just have them there and get a real time electronic feed that just reads if it is a ball or a strike. However, I wonder about even the delayed time. Imagine Tim McClelland x 5 for every pitch. However, if it could be done instantenously, I don’t think that’s a real problem then.
Pat Andriola - July 1, 2009
It would be like the fair/foul pole, entirely neutral and something fans can't get mad at.
My biggest concern with an electronic umpire calls balls and strikes would be possible tampering.
Janic - July 1, 2009
Yet another good reason to keep the human umpires in the game
Use them as a sort of checking device. I don’t know if anyone could make a program sophisticated enough to call balls as strikes for a specific team without it looking suspicious, but the umpires could at least be a secondary defense to protect the accuracy of the calls.
JLC - July 1, 2009
so the human umpires have never be tampered with/bought?
PagsBrewCrew - July 3, 2009
Really? Umpires are part of what makes baseball great?
I completely, 100%, disagree to an extent that I cannot fully express in words.
Matthew - July 1, 2009
I knew this reaction would come
But yeah, player-umpire interractions are part of what makes baseball great. They are a strong facet of the game. I understand they are just there to enforce the rules, but their presence clearly adds an interesting human element to the role.
I understand your being upset. Umpires routinely make terrible callsand take games into their own hands. I don’t think this is an un-fixable problem.
Also, I think you alienate a large portion of the main stream baseball fanbase by doing this as well.
Pat Andriola - July 1, 2009
You alienate the people who like seeing the manager or players throwing a tantrum over a terrible call and getting tossed out
That’s not baseball though, that’s just theatrics. If getting calls right means alienating the people who thrive on that I’m more than fine with it.
OlSalty - July 1, 2009
As someone who umpired for five years I have to say
The single most important thing any official should do is stay OUT of the picture. By that I mean the perfectly officiated game is when you forget there even was an umpire.
I’m tired of umpires baiting players, managers and coaches. I am also tired of them trying to become part of the show.
If you enjoy their contribution to the game in any facet other than making the correct call you have a far different version of entertainment than I do.
Sec 108 - July 2, 2009
No, I totally agree
I hate when umpires bait players, and I feel like you are seeing it way too often.
However, I wouldn’t question how someone else gets utility. I do find it fun to watch a manager go out and defend his players, screaming at the ump, even if it means getting tossed. As a Mets fan, I have loathed watching Jerry Manuel manage, but when he goes out there to get into it with an ump, I do find it kind of fun.
Pat Andriola - July 2, 2009
I think we all found the Lou tirades amusing,
but if those types of things disappeared because calls were not being missed wouldn’t that be even more entertaining?
Sec 108 - July 2, 2009
In addition
There would be no question of ‘home calls’ or ‘Yankee/BoSox calls’ or one pitcher getting a bigger zone or whatever. Strikes are strikes, balls are balls, and outs are outs. Based on the rules.
greg briley - July 2, 2009
Umpires take away from the game's greatness
Graham MacAree - July 1, 2009
There was a pretty long and, when you think about the emotions this subject raises, pretty damned civil discussion about this on USSMariner a while back.
Here’s the link, Pat, if you didn’t catch it back in May.
Decatur - July 1, 2009
Thanks a lot. I'm browsing through and it's good stuff.
Are we even set on the fact that there is a “true” strike zone? Isn’t just a subjective determination on behalf of someone else as to whether a batter “should” or shouldn’t" be able to hit a baseball? Although I know MLB has some “official” strike zone measurement that it doesn’t really enforce.
This is why I get more upset with out/safe calls or fair/foul calls. There are clear and objective standards for those things, and screwing them up is just inexcusable. Overall, I think players and managers are more concerned with consistency than infallible accuracy.
However, I guess an instant relay to the ump for balls and strikes wouldn’t be terrible.
But thanks for the link. I’ll continue browsing.
Pat Andriola - July 1, 2009
.
Decatur - July 1, 2009
That's pretty much the only answer. Also, it enforces it pretty strictly, I think.
The zone’s changed quite a bit over the years.
Decatur - July 1, 2009
How about just calling the rulebook strikezone?
If the umps would get rid of their own version of the strikezone, it would go a long way to improving the game. How many players a game are furious about trying to figure out what the ump will call or not call a strike.
brent in Korea - July 1, 2009
The low strike does not seem to exist any more
so I’d be all over umpires being compelled to call the strike zone as it is defined in the rule book.
pdb - July 1, 2009
So this question might be easy to find via google
But am I correct in assuming, based on your statements above, that the fuzzy border is not part of the strikezone? Also, is the width of that fuzzy border due to the measurement error of the device (Pitch F/X, which, according to FSN’s Brad Adam, is accurate to within 1"), or is the fuzzy border width due to something else entirely?
JLC - July 1, 2009
I would also like to know the answers to the questions.
The fuzzy border is confusing me.
Wilder. - July 1, 2009
The problem with technology is that in many instances it points out human error.
The replay is wonderful to determine if the ball was on the fair side of the pole, or if the fan in the stands pulled the ball out of the outfielder’s glove, or if the catcher really did tag the runner before he touched home plate. The replay could get all of these calls right, in fact, almost every call right, but I don’t think the game would be better for it.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
Because god forbid the game be called according to what actually happens in it?
Jeff Sullivan - July 1, 2009
You don't want technology to show when the humans messed up?
Kirsten Schlewitz - July 2, 2009
No, I think the problem is time.
Replays would have to be reviewed, that can be time-consuming depending on how many camera angles are available on a given play. I don’t think it is in the best interests of the game to be any longer than they already are.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
Players and managers already take up that time by arguing close calls and there simply aren't that many borderline plays in any given game
Jeff Sullivan - July 1, 2009
I think there might be managers out there who might want a review of a lot of plays
and why wouldn’t they? I think the umpires make plenty of mistakes.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
I think the first, and most important step, is balls and strikes
Seems like it’d be the easiest to do, the hardest to argue, no replays necessary.
Fuckmikereilly - July 1, 2009
Agreed.
Once we have the fast technology to replace the umpire’s call on close plays at first, whether or not the outfielder trapped the ball, whether the baserunner was within the basepaths, etc, then I’m all for replacing them. Let’s get it right, but until we can get it right quickly, I would keep what we have.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
I honestly can't imagine the technology that would make that feasible - anything that would be determined by a human eye watching a replay would take too long.
Do any of the engineers/computer science aficionados among us know how this could work? Putting signal emitting sensors in the ball, the base, and the players uniforms?
Decatur - July 1, 2009
I gotta wonder though
If they use Joe’s Tracer (or whatever it is now), walk rates will skyrocket.
Fuckmikereilly - July 1, 2009
I don't know this for a fact but my impression is that it's a lot more accurate this year
OlSalty - July 1, 2009
Isn't the FSN tracer Pitch F/X?
Janic - July 1, 2009
It is now
Jeff Sullivan - July 1, 2009
That would explain the difference
OlSalty - July 1, 2009
Does anyone on this site remember the "good old days"?
Days before the pitcher always got a new baseball after a pitch in the dirt, because the batter challenged the next pitch because it looked funny, with the dirt on it? Days before managers when to the pen in the ninth because his pitcher was wilting, but it wasn’t to get his “closer”? The umpires weren’t any better then, but there were no options for replacing them. As technology gets better, I’m all for making this game better, let’s start with getting the balls and strike right.
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
Question I've always had:
PITCH/fx, assuming it’s perfectly calibrated, can call strikes horizontally. But according to the rule book, the strike zone fluctuates vertically according to a batter’s height. Does the technology exist for PITCH/fx to be trusted in that regard? The strike zone on Gameday appears to be static.
Teej - July 1, 2009
The vertical strike zone on PFX is manually adjusted with each new batter.
Matthew - July 1, 2009
So PFX seems to have is figured out.
David Eckstein and Richie Sexson have a different strikezone. Implement now!
Sinking Away - July 1, 2009
Very good to know.
Not sure why I never asked before.
Teej - July 1, 2009
I've noticed many sportswriters and announcers adhere to the belief
that a manager getting pissed and tossed from the game (ala Pinella) ‘fires up’ a team and it is just what they go on a winning streak. I am 95% sure that is all bullshit anyway. But I guarantee those purists think we need human umps for that bizarre reason.
Bottom line is, the Mariners had 4 at bats taken away from them – 2 from their most dangerous hitter. In a 4-2 ball game. How anyone can argue that improved the quality of the game is beyond me.
greg briley - July 2, 2009
You know what the best thing about a purist is?
Nothing because they are living in the past.
Sec 108 - July 2, 2009
It's 100% bullshit.
Matthew - July 2, 2009
Something tells me Lou would still argue with a computer
Jeff Sullivan - July 2, 2009
He'd just turn Zambrano loose on it
PROBLEM SOLVED
pdb - July 2, 2009
This is seriously getting ridiculous
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/3/937244/theres-your-human-element-why-when
Jack Moore - July 3, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.