HHP: Hard Data on Ball/Strike Calls - How Good/Bad are the Umpires

[Can_of_corn]

That's not in line with my analogy. I'm suggesting that the strike zone is flawed and inconsistent for all teams (all the cars start pulling to the right) and that some pitchers seem able to work within that system and compensate and use it to their advantage (steering left to keep the car going straight) rather than just throw up their hands at the unfairness of it all and fail (steer what should, in a well-run race with well-maintained vehicles, be straight ahead but crash to the right).

Right but we are not seeing the same flawed strike zone or even the same flawed strike zone throughout a game. If we were your analogy would make sense.

[Lucky Jim]

You're running a little hot, baby.

I'm responding, not just to you, but to one general argument: if a) the strike zone is an objective thing, and b) we're getting more missed calls than other teams, then it's logical to conclude that our pitchers are getting "cheated" out of some good pitches because of flaws in the system. I'm saying that there's another possibility - that the strike zone is not objective and that we're doing a poor job of working within the confines of a flawed system.

And that's really the one and only line you choose to respond to?

I don't really feel the need to respond because (i) you're not talking about anything I'm interested in when you discuss "crookedness"; and (ii) the idea that the strike zone is not objective (whether treated that way or not by umpires in the past) is absurd.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't really feel the need to respond because (i) you're not talking about anything I'm interested in when you discuss "crookedness"; and (ii) the idea that the strike zone is not objective (whether treated that way or not by umpires in the past) is absurd.

You're basing your argument on a model (an objective strike zone) that is simply not borne out by reality.

[Lucky Jim]

You're basing your argument on a model (an objective strike zone) that is simply not borne out by reality.

This is boring. No offense.

[SrMeowMeow]

This is boring. No offense.

Tell me about it.

[skanar]

Squeeze = called ball inside the strike zone

Gift = called strike outside the strike zone

Tonight's (4/24) game vs. Blue Jays

Tommy Hunter: 0 gifts, 2 squeezes (-2)

Henderson Alvarez: 2 gifts, 3 squeezes (-1)

Game score: -1

PitchF/X thinks this was a well-called, even game. Good for Brian Gorman.

[sangar]

You're basing your argument on a model (an objective strike zone) that is simply not borne out by reality.

The last time I checked, the rule book was real and the definition of strike zone is objective. The fact that umpires have chosen to expand the definition to include personal interpretation does nothing to change the actual rule.

[Lucky Jim]

The last time I checked, the rule book was real and the definition of strike zone is objective. The fact that umpires have chosen to expand the definition to include personal interpretation does nothing to change the actual rule.

Mind-bottling that this is even a point of debate.

[square634]

Mind-bottling that this is even a point of debate.

I honestly don't think you two are talking about the same thing. Sure, the rule book has a static, unyielding definition of the strike zone. But in a pragmatic sense, the strike zone is literally whatever the umpires actually enforce in a given game, whether they are willfully subverting the rules or are incapable of accurately enforcing them.

It's obvious that a computer system judging balls and strikes would be more accurate, and likely better for the game, but it's not necessarily particularly useful as a model for outcomes under the current system.

[SrMeowMeow]

Mind-bottling that this is even a point of debate.

Blades of Glory reference, or outraged typo? Who can say!

[Hallas]

After giving it some thought, I'm actually not sold on the ability for technology to replace human beings with regard to calling balls and strikes. Most of the past implementations of computer-aided visuals for the purposes of sports officiating are significantly simpler scenarios than a strike zone. For example, tennis uses Hawkeye, but the tennis court is a two-dimensional plane with very clearly defined boundaries. Soccer is going to use a similar technology for goals, but once again all the ball has to do is cross a clearly-defined plane. Football, the best they can do is stop the game for 3 minutes and let someone watch really detailed slo-mo video. Basketball, they only do it for last second shots.

In baseball, the strike zone is significantly more complicated, because the strike zone is technically a three-dimensional box bounded by one static object (the plate) and one not-so-static object (a batter.) Gameday does not accurately represent this; one example where Gameday would give ambiguous results would be on a ball that crosses the front of the plate, but ends up outside the zone by the time it reaches the back of the plate; this pitch should be a strike.

The definition of the strike zone probably needs to be simplified if we want to use technology to help minimize mistakes.

[DrungoHazewood]

I honestly don't think you two are talking about the same thing. Sure, the rule book has a static, unyielding definition of the strike zone. But in a pragmatic sense, the strike zone is literally whatever the umpires actually enforce in a given game, whether they are willfully subverting the rules or are incapable of accurately enforcing them.

It's obvious that a computer system judging balls and strikes would be more accurate, and likely better for the game, but it's not necessarily particularly useful as a model for outcomes under the current system.

We need to remember that even with a computer aided system there will still be boundary conditions that aren't 100% accurate. That will always be the case.

But a well-designed system would reduce the ambiguity significantly from an unaided umpire. And almost completely remove the inconsistency.

[DrungoHazewood]

After giving it some thought, I'm actually not sold on the ability for technology to replace human beings with regard to calling balls and strikes. Most of the past implementations of computer-aided visuals for the purposes of sports officiating are significantly simpler scenarios than a strike zone. For example, tennis uses Hawkeye, but the tennis court is a two-dimensional plane with very clearly defined boundaries. Soccer is going to use a similar technology for goals, but once again all the ball has to do is cross a clearly-defined plane. Football, the best they can do is stop the game for 3 minutes and let someone watch really detailed slo-mo video. Basketball, they only do it for last second shots.

In baseball, the strike zone is significantly more complicated, because the strike zone is technically a three-dimensional box bounded by one static object (the plate) and one not-so-static object (a batter.) Gameday does not accurately represent this; one example where Gameday would give ambiguous results would be on a ball that crosses the front of the plate, but ends up outside the zone by the time it reaches the back of the plate; this pitch should be a strike.

The definition of the strike zone probably needs to be simplified if we want to use technology to help minimize mistakes.

I don't think there's any doubt that the technology exists today to very accurately define a dynamic strike zone with a computer-aided system, and track pitches in and around that zone. There are systems today that automatically find, track, identify, target people, vehicles, etc from many miles away. There are systems that track incoming artillery shells moving faster than the speed of sound and almost instantaneously compute and target their origin. Of course some of those systems are expensive military projects. But even in somewhat cheaper, simplified form I have almost complete confidence that baseball could take essentially an off-the-shelf system and implement it in short order, and get far better results than an unaided umpire.

[Hang10]

Happy to answer additional questions that people may have.

This is outstanding work on your part and very valuable and informative. Substantive posts such as this are what makes this board relevant and worth while.

May I suggest that when you do an evaluation you make it a seperate post each day so it is easier to find, and so comments are relative to that particular game.

Again, thanks for the post and please keep up the good work.

[Lucky Jim]

I honestly don't think you two are talking about the same thing. Sure, the rule book has a static, unyielding definition of the strike zone. But in a pragmatic sense, the strike zone is literally whatever the umpires actually enforce in a given game, whether they are willfully subverting the rules or are incapable of accurately enforcing them.

It's obvious that a computer system judging balls and strikes would be more accurate, and likely better for the game, but it's not necessarily particularly useful as a model for outcomes under the current system.

If the computer system were imperfect, but better than a human umpire, would we call it "subjective," or simply the poorly-implemented arbiter of an objective strike zone?

Blades of Glory reference, or outraged typo? Who can say!

What do you think?

[video=youtube;PTJpLBXGBkM]