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

[srock]

Again, it's my opinion that good pitchers get more calls primarily because they have better command, the ability to exploit the umpires given strike zone, and the skill to execute pitches within the current system of evaluation..............not just because of their reputation as good pitchers. It is a skill by both the pitcher and the catcher. I don't discount vet/hometown bias (or other possible biases), but generally speaking, I think they are lesser and secondary factors. I also don't discount some level of inconsistencies in a single game, but in general think the in-game inconsistencies are usually lesser/secondary factors as well.

I am referring to an electronic system being rigged. The Twins used to reverse the direction of the air condition fans when they were at bat. Could they rig pitch f/x to call an inch wider zone when they are pitching? This is the type of issue that would have to be dealt with.

[CA-ORIOLE]

How are you defining fact? And I thought you said earlier that it was merely your opinion? Anyway...

If we are dealing with "fact," it seems to me that your hierarchy of values regarding what influences these things is, while important to you, of less significance to the bigger picture - unless there's something empirical backing it up. Determining what's primary or secondary seems to bite off more than we have the data/information to chew right now. That said, I think it's a fair intuition. (Not that you need my validation.)

Your initial comment, that I piggy-backed on, identified things that automated-umping would eliminate. To the extent that it exists, the bias I identified would also be eliminated. Which is why I added it. You responded by saying that you didn't think it existed/played a role. I merely defended my position by explaining that - in my attempt at an agnostic, "objective," grab-all assessment - I see no reason to eliminate something that is very real, even if you intuitively don't think it matters much.

Good grief. It's my opinion that the strike is in fact more systematic, fair, and based on player skills. It's my opinion that the bias factors you cite are secondary and less relevant.

I just don't get the outrage here. I've been watching ML baseball now for over 40 years. It's always been like this. You're just now gettiing outraged about it over a few pitch charts? It is what it is. Of course I'd like to see it changed. Until then the players have to deal with it. There is no significant unfair advantage to the Orioles (IN MY OPINION).

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am referring to an electronic system being rigged. The Twins used to reverse the direction of the air condition fans when they were at bat. Could they rig pitch f/x to call an inch wider zone when they are pitching? This is the type of issue that would have to be dealt with.

Of course anything can be rigged, I guess. Like anything else, that involves attention to detail an management supervision to ensure it's not.

[square634]

It's a strawman. Of course the Orioles should "get better" and "learn to beat the system." But that's not the point of the discussion. No one here's offering ideas as an alternative to having pitchers talented enough to manipulate a faulty system.

I thought the point of the discussion was: "Why do the Orioles seem to draw the short end of umpire ball/strike rulings, according to PitchFx?"

Talent might be one of the reasons, but it doesn't have to be the only one. For example, pitch sequence and initial catcher positioning aren't necessarily related to skill but might have an effect. Additionally, when our batters are making their split-second decision of whether to swing, someone like Markakis might be better off pretending that home plate is an inch wider on either side than it really is. In fact, in the OP's analysis, it seems that Markakis's superior talent in pitch recognition and plate discipline would work against him.

If the topic is really just: "The Orioles seem to draw the short end of umpire ball/strike rulings according to PitchFx, and that is a suboptimal result," then there really isn't any need for discussion beyond the excellent opening post because everyone would agree.

[Lucky Jim]

Good grief. It's my opinion that the strike is in fact more systematic, fair, and based on player skills. It's my opinion that the bias factors you cite are secondary and less relevant.

I just don't get the outrage here. I've been watching ML baseball now for over 40 years. It's always been like this. You're just now gettiing outraged about it over a few pitch charts? It is what it is. Of course I'd like to see it changed. Until then the players have to deal with it. There is no significant unfair advantage to the Orioles (IN MY OPINION).

We just disagree. So far, the numbers show a fairly large tilt toward the opposition. Whatever it's based upon, so far - w/o any hard statistical analysis - it appears both significant and unbalanced.

I don't think there's outrage. I think there's a sense that (i) we now have technology that allows us to analyze the differences; and (ii) we now have the technology to - feasibly - correct for them.

Because a situation has historically been sub-optimal is a pretty lousy argument for the status quo. I don't get how someone who's been around as long as you doesn't understand how improved information can be a serious motivator for those who want to address long-standing problems of all kinds (political/legal/social/whatever). Being able to quantify disparate treatment is hugely important.

[CA-ORIOLE]

We just disagree. So far, the numbers show a fairly large tilt toward the opposition. Whatever it's based upon, so far - w/o any hard statistical analysis - it appears both significant and unbalanced..

Fair enough. We disagree on the why's and that's fine.

Because a situation has historically been sub-optimal is a pretty lousy argument for the status quo. I don't get how someone who's been around as long as you doesn't understand how improved information can be a serious motivator for those who want to address long-standing problems of all kinds (political/legal/social/whatever). Being able to quantify disparate treatment is hugely important

Are you kidding me? After all I've said here, you give me that line? That's lame and complete BS Jim.

[Lucky Jim]

Fair enough. We disagree on the why's and that's fine.

Are you kidding me? After all I've said here, you give me that line? That's lame and complete BS Jim.

You said you don't understand why there's "outrage" after 40 years of the same stuff. I gave you an explanation. Not sure why it's BS.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You said you don't understand why there's "outrage" after 40 years of the same stuff. I gave you an explanation. Not sure why it's BS.

Stop playing games Jim. You said you didn't understand "why someone who has been around as long as "me" doesn't understand how improved information can be a serious motivator etc......." as if I don't understand the situation. I completey understand the situation and I'd bet I've understood and disliked this situation for far longer than you have. I just choose to be pragmatic about it and don't buy the Orioles are getting screwed angle.

Comparing this to political/social injustices is way over the top (IN MY OPINION).

[SrMeowMeow]

Stop playing games Jim. You said you didn't understand "why someone who has been around as long as "me" doesn't understand how improved information can be a serious motivator etc......." as if I don't understand the situation. I completey understand the situation and I'd bet I've understood and disliked this situation for far longer than you have. I just choose to be pragmatic about it and don't buy the Orioles are getting screwed angle.

Comparing this to political/social injustices is way over the top (IN MY OPINION).

Indeed.

[Lucky Jim]

If the topic is really just: "The Orioles seem to draw the short end of umpire ball/strike rulings according to PitchFx, and that is a suboptimal result," then there really isn't any need for discussion beyond the excellent opening post because everyone would agree.

I don't think this encompasses it, at least for me. I'm actually sort-of fascinated by all of it, from a "policy" perspective. In part, it's the absence of a smoking-gun, causal relationship that really mandates a look at what's going on.

A (perhaps inapt) analogy. In legal terms, under Title VII, there are suits that can be brought for "disparate treatment" and for "disparate impact." One is conscious and requires showing intent. But perhaps there's something at work akin to the logic of the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, brought on behalf of women who...

...do not allege that Wal-Mart has any express corporate policy against the advancement of women. Rather, they claim that their local managers’ discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an unlawful disparate impact on female employees. And, respondents say, because Wal-Mart is aware of this effect, its refusal to cabin its managers’ authority amounts to disparate treatment. Importantly for our purposes, respondents claim that the discrimination to which they have been subjected is common to all Wal-Mart’s female employees. The basic theory of their case is that a strong and uniform “corporate culture” permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of Wal-Mart’s thousands of managers—thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice.

I think assuming a bias (statistical) is wrong on a number of fronts. A broad, sweeping look at how the strike zone is interpreted would be necessary. And it would have to look beyond the O's (though the effect need not be seen beyond the O's to be valid, I guess). But if you can identify a consistent impact in the way that games are called, it's something really interesting.

If someone intentionally does something, the solution is easy: fire them. However, if some kind of impact appears w/o any easy causal nexus, then you've got a system that needs wholesale revamping.

BTW, I do understand and sympathize with the recourse to "skill." Lots of stuff would need to be done - separating "skill" from "reputation" would be tough. (And we need to realize that "skill" or "talent" is a prototypical defense of even the most biased.) Regressing many other confounders out would be tough sledding, too. I have to imagine someone will do it sometime soon, though.

[Lucky Jim]

Stop playing games Jim. You said you didn't understand "why someone who has been around as long as "me" doesn't understand how improved information can be a serious motivator etc......." as if I don't understand the situation. I completey understand the situation and I'd bet I've understood and disliked this situation for far longer than you have. I just choose to be pragmatic about it and don't buy the Orioles are getting screwed angle.

Comparing this to political/social injustices is way over the top (IN MY OPINION).

I was paralleling your language. You said "I don't get the outrage" because this had been the case for the, lo, 40 years you've watched baseball. I was merely positing that I "don't get" how you can "not get" why people are suddenly a bit more upset about this than before - the answer is because they can isolate and quantify it. If I assumed that you "don't understand the situation," it's because you said you "don't understand the situation." ("I don't get the outrage.")*

And, seriously? I didn't compare this to "social" injustice in any way stronger than pointing that what's happening here, with a "sudden" "outrage" against a long-standing status-quo, is not dissimilar from what happens in the world at large. Sheesh.

Is steam coming out of your ears yet? Let it rest. I'm not picking on you, goading you, or fixated on you. Nor have I been throughout the thread.

*As a post-script, I'll note that you've failed to identify "the situation." I was very clearly talking about the "outrage" being the result of new technology. You somehow translate that into "the situation" being about ball-strike disparity. That's on you. It's a mis-reading.

[CA-ORIOLE]

*As a post-script, I'll note that you've failed to identify "the situation." I was very clearly talking about the "outrage" being the result of new technology. You somehow translate that into "the situation" being about ball-strike disparity. That's on you. It's a mis-reading.

I don't think its' on me. I understand the situation completely and I've been quite clear in explaining it in my communication. I'm guessing others do as well as I don't seem to have the issues with others that I am having with you in this verbal joust. We have a difference of opinion as to what the numbers mean and their significance. I don't think there is much difference of opinion in that we both don't like the situation very much.

As I've valued our ability to maintain civil and reasonable discourse since our initial interaction(s) on here, I will defer to you for any last word as I see no real reason in devolving the conversation any further.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am referring to an electronic system being rigged. The Twins used to reverse the direction of the air condition fans when they were at bat. Could they rig pitch f/x to call an inch wider zone when they are pitching? This is the type of issue that would have to be dealt with.

After thinking about this a bit more, I think it brings up some significant issues. Most businessses will implement and incur the cost of new technology to gain productivity, but what real incentive does MLB have here? They don't make more money by being more accurate. In fact, the cost of equipment and labor (operators/technicians) could be fairly significant. Theoretically you'd probably have teams of operators and technicians in addition to the umpire crews.

[Lucky Jim]

I don't think its' on me. I understand the situation completely and I've been quite clear in explaining it in my communication. I'm guessing others do as well as I don't seem to have the issues with others that I am having with you in this verbal joust. We have a difference of opinion as to what the numbers mean and their significance. I don't think there is much difference of opinion in that we both don't like the situation very much.

As I've valued our ability to maintain civil and reasonable discourse since our initial interaction(s) on here, I will defer to you for any last word as I see no real reason in devolving the conversation any further.

We're good, I hope. I mean, I'm feisty, but I wasn't intending to disrespect you.

Either way, I think this is an interesting issue and guarantee it will become a part of someone's analysis going forward.

[sangar]

After thinking about this a bit more, I think it brings up some significant issues. Most businessses will implement and incur the cost of new technology to gain productivity, but what real incentive does MLB have here? They don't make more money by being more accurate. In fact, the cost of equipment and labor (operators/technicians) could be fairly significant. Theoretically you'd probably have teams of operators and technicians in addition to the umpire crews.

In any industry you'll find that quality control has a negative impact on cost per item, and a corresponding increase in customer satisfaction. You will also find that customer satisfaction is the #1 revenue driver.