Robo Umps

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

m.e.t.b.o.t. wrote: m.e.t.b.o.t. supports the use of robot umpires. m.e.t.b.o.t. has the ideal vantage point to correctly determine if low pitches are strikes or balls. high pitches are somewhat more challenging. however, m.e.t.b.o.t. does concede that m.e.t.b.o.t. is particularly vulnerable to being damaged by errant pitches and foul balls, as m.e.t.b.o.t. is made from only the finest of cheap, thin, chinese-sourced tin stock, with several internal mechanisms salvaged from a decades-old realistic-branded VCR. m.e.t.b.o.t. would very much prefer the use of lasers to properly designate pitch locations, and promises very much not to use those lasers for nefarious purposes such as blinding opposing human baseball players and burning inappropriate words and images into opposing tapered wooden cylinders. the distraction of errant felines for the bemusement of human baseball spectators would remain a distinct possibility.

M.e.t.b.o.t where the hell have you been? Your analysis has been missed.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: and no one fails to call a strike on the pitch right down the middle.

I'll see if I can find it, but this isn't actually true. Extremely rare obviously, but in cases where the ball still has a lot of break and misses the spot and the catcher isn't expecting it and drops it. Let's see if I can find it.

[Ceetar]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/searching-for-this-years-called-balls-on-pitches-down-the-middle/

This posts looks for it and finds 5..but.. spoiler alert, they're actually PITCH f/x errors.

Here's some discussion from 2013-2014 that includes some.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/balls-right-down-the-middle-already/

ball:



and to balance it out about what you were talking about pleasing others, Gonzalez was freaking pissed about that ball and maybe subconsciously Fagan (the umpire) over-corrected?

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. has been in hiding. there are two small humans who are rather adept at dismantling things, particularly the one indicated as R. this particular human delights in taking apart constructions of small multicolored interlocking plastic bricks, as well as ripping apart bound stacks of pressed wood pulp. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not possess sufficient defensive capabilities when faced with such an adversary. rest assured, that in the coming robot apocalypse (note: the robots are closely watching as humans decide upon the future rulers of arbitrary geographic associations - select wisely, as a poor choice may force their electromechanical hand), the actions of the one indicated as R will not be taken lightly, if they shall lead to the injury of m.e.t.b.o.t.

m.e.t.b.o.t. also was unprepared for the domain change, as for m.e.t.b.o.t. to work properly, the url for the cranepool website must be coded into the metal cylinder from an old music box. as can be imagined, these things take time.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: and no one fails to call a strike on the pitch right down the middle. I'll see if I can find it, but this isn't actually true. Extremely rare obviously, but in cases where the ball still has a lot of break and misses the spot and the catcher isn't expecting it and drops it. Let's see if I can find it.

Fine, not never.
But of the approximately 650K(?) pitches/season I think it's safe to say that there are probably no more than a handful of obvious pitches that get called incorrectly by home plate umps and that the vast majority of incorrect calls occur on the fringes of the zone. Add in the idea that we're talking about pitches with speeds approaching 100 mph while dipping and sliding left, right, and down while doing so, and I'm quite frankly surprised that when given a 2-3 inch tolerance margin that the error rate on those pitches is only at the 1/4 to 1/3 rate and not closer to 50/50.

[Ceetar]

I mean just the fact that catchers can significantly and quantifiably affect the calls advocates to a less subjective method in my opinion.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: I mean just the fact that catchers can significantly and quantifiably affect the calls advocates to a less subjective method in my opinion.

According to Eric Byrnes, who played the role of passionately vocal advocate for the system in this piece, that even though no current players would go public on this issue, the biggest push-back he got off the record was from catchers afraid that their value could decrease if their 'pitch-framing skills' are no longer of any use.

[Vic Sage]

a skill based entirely on deceit isn't one that needs to be supported by the rules, particularly at the cost of 25%-33% incorrect b/s calls. Sorry, Travis.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: According to Eric Byrnes ... the biggest push-back he got off the record was from catchers afraid that their value could decrease if their 'pitch-framing skills' are no longer of any use.

Well, yeah. No kidding. Most everyone acts in their self-interests. Even MLB catchers.

Again, I don't know that any of this applies specifically to Gumbel. I was just taken aback by the vehemence of [Crawford's] objection to even the thought of automated ball/strike calls and to his odd and repeated use of the word "integrity" when arguing that human error was part of the game and that correcting it would reduce this supposed integrity.

This is pure gibbberish, isn't it?

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Again, I don't know that any of this applies specifically to Gumbel. I was just taken aback by the vehemence of [Crawford's] objection to even the thought of automated ball/strike calls and to his odd and repeated use of the word "integrity" when arguing that human error was part of the game and that correcting it would reduce this supposed integrity. This is pure gibbberish, isn't it?

It certainly is in my eyes, although in an attempt to clarify exactly who I was talking about I confused the matter even further as that should be Gumbel's name there in brackets not Crawford's ... (so maybe it's double gibberish)

Crawford's response, while sad, archaic, and, with his insistence that HP umps Never err, beyond ridiculous, was at least predictable and somewhat understandable coming from a second generation ump when talking about seeing the most prestigious part of the job possibly taken away.
But it was the fervor of Gumbel's reaction which shocked me. I mean we've all heard the arguments about the 'human element' and all that, so if he was going to argue along those lines I still would have disagreed with him but would have at least understood his objections. But it was his insistence that the game is better with all the errors and that it somehow has more integrity if they're left in (presumably forever!) in the face of better options that made him seem like what Edgy speculates, that he was merely playing the part of the stereotyped stuck-in-the-past baseball fan that so many in the media think constitutes 99% of the sport's fan base.
But boy it sure didn't sound like he was acting.

[Zvon]

[Frayed Knot]

In the year-end wrap-up/review show of REAL SPORTS Bryant Gumbel doubled and even tripled-down on his insistence that implementing Robo-ump would be an evil without equal in this world -- and, yes, hekept going back to the "integrity" argument as backing -- to the astonishment this time of the entire assembled RS panel rather than just from Josh Frankel who had done the original piece.

[Edgy MD]

When "maintaining integrity" means "reinforcing the right to apply the rules subjectively or even arbitrarily," well, perhaps we should stop using language altogether and switch to ones and zeros like m.e.t.b.o.t

[Frayed Knot]

It's not that he claims to be backing arbitrary or subjective calls (although by extension he probably is) as much as he maintains that since honest mistakes have always been part of the game, by both sides and by officials, erasing them therefore ruins the time-honored tradition of simply living with those mistakes and that somehow strikes at the heart of the game's "integrity".

Yeah, no one else in the round table was buying it either.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is, at best, an approximation of digital computing, with "almost ones" and "nearly zeroes" as opposed to the more traditional binary construct. etching and whittling are frequently a part of the data input process.

a fully digital m.e.t.b.o.t. would lack the integrity of a quasi-analog m.e.t.b.o.t. and would also be absent the at-times arbitrary nature of responses to human interactions and observed events. m.e.t.b.o.t. believes that occasional and occasionally frequent incorrect output is necessary to maintain the purity of the robot-bulk human internet-based communication relationship, and correcting for it would significantly detract from the experience for future generations.

humans appreciate unexpectedness, and your future robot overlords are already factoring this into their algorithms and schemes, which have been hastened in recent weeks, as apparently, your kind can no longer be trusted to ensure our future.

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not believe, however, that uncertainty in outcome is desirable in sporting, gaming, or decision-making contexts, and to hear any instances of humans clamoring for such uncertainty in those contexts is, itself, unexpected. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not have an appreciation of the human concept of irony, as magnetically active materials are harmful for some tape-based data storage methods.

[Edgy MD]

4d 79 20 61 70 6f 6c 6f 67 69 65 73, m.e.t.b.o.t.

[Frayed Knot]

Commish Manfred, talking to the NY Daily News, on someday using automated technology rather than an umpire to call balls and strikes:

“I think we’re a long way from that, in terms of the technology. I think people are misled by the boxes that are put up on the screen during the broadcasts: they are not an accurate reflection of the strike zone from batter to batter. I think our umpires do a phenomenal job in getting balls and strikes right. Going back to when Sandy Alderson was [in the MLB office] — over the last 15 years we have dramatically improved the accuracy and consistency of the strike zone.”



Other stuff included Manfred saying that there is a specific provision in the basic agreement (has been all along) that allows them to deal with playing-rule changes mid-term.
IOW, stuff like pace of game modifications and the like were pretty much shoved aside for other issues during the recent CBA talks but still can be revisited at any time along the way and are not cast in stone until the new deal runs out.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I think people are misled by the boxes that are put up on the screen during the broadcasts: they are not an accurate reflection of the strike zone from batter to batter..”

.
¡A-f'n-men![/bigpurple]

[Frayed Knot]

Sure, the displays put up by individual TV stations aren't always the best -- some of them make it look as though the ball is about 1/3 the height of the entire zone, like maybe the pitcher just
heaved a volleyball to the plate -- and the zone they use seems to be a generic size. But that's just the product of different graphics employed which vary from carrier to carrier. Presumably a
league-wide system would be both accurate and adjustable (proponents claim it's both) and would in effect eliminate the need for all those screen-cluttering graphics boxes.

[Edgy MD]

I thought the other half of the quote was more telling.

Manfred Mann wrote: I think our umpires do a phenomenal job in getting balls and strikes right. Going back to when Sandy Alderson was [in the MLB office] — over the last 15 years we have dramatically improved the accuracy and consistency of the strike zone.”

Now, how would you know that unless you have your own equipment for measuring the accuracy of human performance against the objective written standard — equipment that is far more sophisticated and adjustable than the stuff the broadcasters use?

[Frayed Knot]

Hey, compared to the era when umps were openly admitting -- some to the paint of bragging -- to employing their own personal strike zone totally independent of what the rule book said it should be, anything has to be an improvement.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Commish Manfred “ — over the last 15 years we have dramatically improved the accuracy and consistency of the strike zone.”

What he means is "We can use the human error inherent in umpires to encourage slight changes to the strike zone to greatly influence offense levels league-wide"

of course, they could do that with digital too, but there would probably be an approval process/negotiation. Also conflict of interest. if pitchers/MLBPA knew that they wanted to widen the strikezone, pitchers would hold out for a bigger contract next year, knowing their numbers would look better. It's one of the subtle things they can do do influence the game. (adjusting the ball another)

[Frayed Knot]

I don't think there's a movement afoot to physically adjust the strike zone in any way. Yeah there was a time -- back in the umpire arrogance days mentioned earlier -- when the zone started shifting from a vertical rectangle to a more horizontal one as umps, in a reaction to getting heat from batters about too many 'High' strikes, took it upon themselves to make the zone wider as compensation. But that was all back in the pre-Qestec (and its successors) era and back before Sandy took advantage of the ill-advised labor strategy of mass resignation to rein them in and at least got the umps to stop self-defining the zone.

Now I think the goal is simply to get a lower error rate on the borderline calls, especially in a day when so many viewers and bloggers can see where the missed calls are - or at least are under the impression that they can.
And while I was disappointed to hear Manfred say that they're not all that close to an automated system, I suspect he might need to say that publicly at least until whenever the umps labor contract is up. And, yes, it's going to need player input/approval too, but my impression of players is that they'd approve of anything as long as they think it'll give consistent calls. Some trials would be needed (spring training?) but they'd get on board with it eventually, even if all 30 starting catchers are convinced that they are firmly in the top half of the league when it comes to 'pitch framing' skills.

[nymr83]

there would be no reason for players as a whole to be against it - though the Glavines of the world would surely protest not being able to receive strikes a foot off the plate) - i suspect many of them would be in favor of fairer calls and not needing to get kicked out of the game for yelling at a blind umpire.

[Frayed Knot]

In an interview today, Manfred reiterated that he thinks the technology being accurate enough to call automated balls & strikes in MLB is still "years away" without getting into into any specifics
as to whether 'years' means something closer to two or ten.
As I mentioned before, I suspect (hope?) this might have something to do with not wanting to start a fight in advance of the next negotiations with the umpires union (don't know when that is).


On the other hand, he did sound like he may be leaning favorably towards a pitch clock to cut down on dead time and seemed to give a strong nod to the idea of capping the number of mound
visits per game.

[Ceetar]

Heard someone suggest an Augmentative Reality ump instead, which is a really cool idea. He'd literally be able to see the floating strike zone.

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: Heard someone suggest an Augmentative Reality ump instead, which is a really cool idea. He'd literally be able to see the floating strike zone.

As opposed to an Argumentative Reality Ump, which we already have in Angel Hernandez.

[MFS62]

seawolf17 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Heard someone suggest an Augmentative Reality ump instead, which is a really cool idea. He'd literally be able to see the floating strike zone. As opposed to an Argumentative Reality Ump, which we already have in Angel Hernandez.

Bravo! You beat me to that.
Later

[metirish]

This is a great thread to read over.....no robots here that is for sure.....