Seattle Sports Insider

Sabermetrics

Automating the Strike Zone

Earl was right. About a great many things

Posted by

jemanji

6/22/16

We asked Rick whether MLB(TM) was making any noises about automating the strike zone. He sez

Not a peep

from MLB execs, although last year's test of an automated strike zone in a minor league game had excellent reviews, even from the umpires involved. (1)

But it can't go on like this, because nobody trusts the ump over the little tracer box, and people don't go to games to watch umpires. Every game on TV has a little box shadowing the ump, to see whether he's doing his job right, and the networks just leave it there for every single pitch. No way is anyone going to even argue that the human eye is superior to that little box. (2) Sometimes you think it isn't adjusted right, but the immediate response is to fix it, not go back to human eyes calling the strikes and balls.

Like the astronauts from The Right Stuff, when the system is superior to human decsion making, the ump or astronaut is there mostly in case the system malfunctions. (3) The human is not superior to the system. The human contest here is not reliant on human subjectivity determining boundaries. Like the ballfield, the strike zone is a piece of real estate to be fought over in human contest, and not by persuading a judge who may be enamoured by a combatant's technique and thus offers a 9.5 for the pitcher, and a 7.4 for the hitter.

This isn't a debate. The umpire is there because until now, there was no better system. (4) Now there is, so the ump is an anachronism. You can't fix an umpire like you can fix a computer system. The computer will ALWAYS get the benefit of any doubt, unless it's clearly broken, and when that happens, you can tell the ump to step in.

(1) James wrote about this, that in the space of only 2-3 years, the umpires have gone from a 100-years-old attitude of "Why don't you respect the difficulty of my job?" to "Why would we ever want to mess up a game by getting a call wrong?"

(2) I hadn't noticed this, but it's true. Who DOES ever argue any more, even a single time, that the home plate umpire has a "way of doing things" that is preferable to the tracer?

So, Rick, amigos ... what DO they argue? Honestly don't know. Haven't HEARD a debate in quite a while.

(2a) Every single game, the fans are sitting there watching the computer contradict the umpire, twice every half inning. You could imagine giant red letters and buzzer sounds, UMP BLEW IT superimposed on the screen. This creates an obvious grassroots pressure. Even modern Americans ca. 2016 get irritated by falsehoods they know factually to be bankrupt.

The F/X system, which follows the ump's raised right arm with an emphatic plot of the pitch outside the strike zone, creates constant irritation. With the umpire.

Even the NFL, of all entities, was shamed by replays into fixing their game. They just didn't want the embarrassment any more.

(3) The astronaut analogy is convincing. Actually, it's a slam-dunk falsification of the old school resistance on this one.

(4) If it's 1995 and you know for sure that in 20 years, everybody will be using the internet, why would you want to be the last person using it? At the point an issue becomes "NOT IF BUT WHEN," what is the benefit to delay? There is no fan consensus remaining to be built here.

Along the lines of the Konspiracy Korner, I'd honestly be interested in knowing what MLB's hesitation is on this. It's a blind spot for me; I used to think maybe they were protecting their ability to fix games, but have abandoned that idea. The ump lobby? That doesn't look like a serious factor here. Simple nostalgia among the Joe Torres of the world? You're talking about an $8 billion business here.

Help a guy out.

....

Kerwin Danley has the plate tonight in Detroit. He's got the 2nd-highest ERA among 86 umpires, at 5.30, and an absurdly low K/BB of 2.02. Hope WBC-san is ready to throw his shuuto down the pipe. On the other hand, the M's offense could be in for another 15 hits.

Be Afraid,

Dr D

Blog:

Sabermetrics

Tags:

saber metrics

Comments

Here is what the purists argue.

1) They say that if you remove the human element from the officiating, the game will have lost something unique about its own culture...that being the ability of the players to impact the officiating by their own trickery and skill and the fun of the managers and players expressing frustration when calls don't go their way. You will make the game more boring if every call is obvious and always correct.

2) They say that if you computerize the strikezone, the result of the game will be (either too hitter friendly or too pitcher friendly depending on who you talk to) wrong. That Greg Maddux would have had 4.00 ERAs and that the game would be 6 R/G/Side instead of 4.5...or that it would become much easier to throw breaking pitches for strikes and that the scoring would plummet. But either way...they are saying they don't want to see the game change.

3) They say that is you computerize the zone, you will harm how the game is presented (yes...they say this...it is patently absurd...if anything knowing the instant a pitch arrives whether it is a strike will IMPROVE our experience watching it...but they make this claim), saying that the doubt on each pitch is part of the game's charm

4) They say that the technology is expensive to apply and that the rules need to be as similar as possible at all levels...so we can't do it until the minor league teams and the college teams and the high school teams and the little league teams all do it. Yes, really.

That's what they say.

I say all of those claims are ludicrous and wrong. But you know that already. I ***HATE*** injustice...and I hate that my team is ALWAYS the one getting hosed by an unfair, incompetent system...and I want the game to be about human skill, not about the umpire. And I have actually studied umpire biases in depth and found them to be slightly LARGER than park factors (!)...tonight's ump is a great example...this man, like Hirschbeck is CONSTANTLY in the center of fights with players because they all know his zone is not accurate. Hirschbeck got a Roberto Alomar spitwad in the eye for that (not that I'm saying that was cool to do)...and Danley is just as maddening...his umpire factor is about the same as COORS FIELD. NO...that is NOT acceptable.

Thanks. (4) has a little traction

Along the lines of infielders never playing shifts until they get to the big leagues. That's sort of an interesting argument.

....

(2) is feasible in theory, but a moment's thought points up the fact that you can "tune" the strike zone to produce any ERA you want (as current umpires illustrate very well!). Including "tuning" it left to right, so that the baseball just has to nick the strike zone, or bisect the black, or whatever.

And in fact would provide MLB(TM) with a powerful, invisible tool to adjust pitching or hitting that is out of hand, as strikeouts are becoming now.

....

I haven't heard any of those four arguments recently, but haven't been reading. Appreciate the summary.

What would be the home plate

What would be the home plate umpire's role with an automated strike zone? His ball/strike signals seem to be the easiest way to signal to fans at the stadium whether a pitch is a ball or strike, since the fans are looking at the home plate area. But if he did serve in only a ceremonial pitch-by-pitch role, would he remain crouched right behind the catcher? Perhaps sit on a stool a few feet in back of home and given let's say two flags, one white for signaling balls, one red for signaling strikes?

I'd still want the HP ump behind there watching the pitches

I've discussed the idea, before, of having the ump fitting with an ear piece that beeps for strikes. He would still be allowed to call against the beeper, but each time he did that, it would be recorded for league review. I'd want him watching the pitches so that there was a backstop in case the equipment was giving bad information.

Agreed Matt. This retains the

Agreed Matt. This retains the best of both worlds. Of course, one could not blame an ump if he became less vigilant in scrutinizing pitches and began to simply rely on the beeps or lack thereof. It's just human nature. But you still need a home plate ump for calls other than ball/strike. And like you say, it provide a check and balance in case the system is clearly not working properly.

Yep, and the home plate ump would still manage the game

For example, from behind the plate he has a feel for whether a pitcher is throwing at a hitter, is delivering illegal pitches, whether the batter is legally in the batter's box, whether the batter and catcher are chipping at each other too much, etc.

Probably with an automated strike zone the ump wouldn't need to crouch behind the catcher. Which would be fine.