Is It Time? [technology assisted umpiring in baseball]

[Chingon]

I think that is a extremely doubtful.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@running_coach

Extreme pitch framing.

I love that look that catcher gives the umpire. “So, you’re not going to call it?”

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Tierce

Have the uniform include little motion capture icons on the knees and shoulders?

I started to laugh like hell… for about a nanosecond, and then thought… by golly, this is exactly how to do it.

The “motion capture icons” wouldn’t even have to be visible. So nothing like the big cross-hair crash test dummy target.

[spifflog]

You don’t even have to put anything on uniforms, too complicated.

Every player in spring training gets scanned while standing. The computer measures the body, most importantly the knees and chest. Adjustments can be made for a normal batting position. That data is fed into the computer that instantly computes the strike zone based on each individual player. Very, very easy with today’s technology.

[RickJay]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

I started to laugh like hell… for about a nanosecond, and then thought… by golly, this is exactly how to do it.

The “motion capture icons” wouldn’t even have to be visible. So nothing like the big cross-hair crash test dummy target.

This is an invitation to cheating. Players will monkey with the chips or wear baggy shirts so the top of the zone hangs lower or something.

Simply measuring players once would do the job, but, really, just setting the zone during each at bat works very, very well right now. The balls and strikes are being called by the technology right now, in every game, every at bat, every pitch, and it works fantastically.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

@RickJay

The effect of pitch framing has always been kind of a nebulous thing people usually only brought up when trying to defend that their guy was better than his numbers.

It’'s only since they came up with pitchf/x and Statcast that the skill of pitch framing has been measurable - and, as it turns out, it’s actually quite important. Estimates are as high as 30-40 runs a year more than average saved by the best pitch framers, which is astounding. That’s like hitting at least twenty extra home runs. Estimates have gone even higher than that, but I’m being conservative. It requires us to really re-examine player value. Brian McCann, who had led the league in runs saved through framing five times, might have been an even better player than we thought… like, not Brian McCann good, but more like Buster Posey, Joe Mauer good.

And yeah, taking away human umps from the ball strike thing takes that away. It sucks for catchers like Jose Molina, but I’m not sure an abiliity tied to deceiving the officials is one I’d be in a rush to keep.

That’s really interesting. I always thought framing a pitch only *really *mattered when a catcher was quite bad at it. It seems easier to make a strike look like a ball than vice versa. For example, when the catcher is set up on the inside corner, but the pitcher throws a fast ball over the outside corner, how many times do you see a not-so-great-at-framing catcher drag that ball all the way out of the zone and not get the call?

But yeah, I’ve never really dove into it. Makes sense that certain catchers are more frequently getting strike calls on balls out of the zone. But to the tune of 40 or more runs a year? Wow.

[Red_Wiggler]

@Jackmannii

“Analytics” have already superseded human judgment and intuition in baseball to a very large extent.

I’m all for computerized assists if they can markedly reduce error where it counts (i.e. in medicine).

Take umps out of the equation and you get a potentially more accurate but roboticized, mechanical sport which I’d be a lot less interested in watching and following.

Somehow I just can’t picture Earl Weaver getting into an entertaining rhubarb with a software program.

With sophisticated pitch calling technology, the drama will simply move to less accurate parts of the field of play.

I like the simplicity of this new technology. Pitchers – throw the ball somewhere through the damn zone. Hitters – swing at what’s thrown into the damn zone.

Umpires can call checked swings, foul balls, plays at the plate, etc. There will still be human judgment a-plenty.

[RickJay]

@Barkis_is_Willin

That’s really interesting. I always thought framing a pitch only *really *mattered when a catcher was quite bad at it. It seems easier to make a strike look like a ball than vice versa. For example, when the catcher is set up on the inside corner, but the pitcher throws a fast ball over the outside corner, how many times do you see a not-so-great-at-framing catcher drag that ball all the way out of the zone and not get the call?

But yeah, I’ve never really dove into it. Makes sense that certain catchers are more frequently getting strike calls on balls out of the zone. But to the tune of 40 or more runs a year? Wow.

It blows me away, too.

30-40 runs above average is like having a glove like Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson. It would require a total re-examination of our opinions of top pitch framers - as well as their teammates, since presumably credit for wins being given to their pitchers should be given to the catcher getting all those extra strikes - it means, for instance, that Buster Posey, who had some great framing years, should really have won the 2014 NL MVP Award (he finished sixth) and therefore that his pitcher teammates were slightly less valuable than they appear.

Of course, it’s stuff like Pitchf/x that made it possible to even know this stuff, and so in theory the technology that allowed us to know how valuable it is will cause us to not care about it anymore.

[Jackmannii]

Reading ESPN’s report on game 5 of the Sox-Astros Series may have converted me to the Mechanical Man Model of baseball.

Why, on a key plate call, didja know that the estimated probability of it being a strike was 84%, but the ump called it a ball???!!?!?

And on a Sox double, Statcast said there was only a 4% probability of it turning out to be a hit???

I don’t understand why we bother playing the games. Just let the computers sort it out.

[Cheesesteak]

The rule says a strike is X, but we want an umpire who messes it up a bunch of times every game?

Why bother having rule at all?

[Barkis_is_Willin]

Yeah, JD Martinez should been called out on strikes before the HR. The ump missed maybe 3 or 4 calls according to fangraphs, but that one was the worst and based on the end result is going to jump out. A computer would not have hesitated to ring up Martinez.

[spifflog]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Yeah, JD Martinez should been called out on strikes before the HR. The ump missed maybe 3 or 4 calls according to fangraphs, but that one was the worst and based on the end result is going to jump out. A computer would not have hesitated to ring up Martinez.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Ron Darling had such on hard on for that call, I was temped to ask how much he had on the Astros. He must have mentioned that 20 times, honestly. I’ve seen that called either way, and I’ve seen more pitches further in the computerized strike zone called balls than that pitch. I think Ron’s a pitchers announcer and that bias was very over the top for me.

Having said all of that, baseball should have this computerized. This would be some amazingly easy to do.