For crying out loud, can MLB please implement an electronic strike zone already?

[24fps]

Or you'll quickly find out that it wasn't poor umps so much as a nearly impossible task. What would happen if the bottom 33% of MLB rosters were banished at the end of each year? My guess is a small but noticeable decline in MLB talent.

Natural talent is natural talent. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to identify it in a prospective umpire. All my suggestion targets is that part of umpiring that is a learned skill and incentivizing each individual to be as consistent as it is possible to be.

In what way is playing professional baseball analogous to umpiring it? Why are you trying to introduce that connection? Are you suggesting that umpires should be at least as skilled at playing the game as the worst third of the players?

[DrungoHazewood]

Natural talent is natural talent. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to identify it in a prospective umpire. All my suggestion targets is that part of umpiring that is a learned skill and incentivizing each individual to be as consistent as it is possible to be.

In what way is playing professional baseball analogous to umpiring it? Why are you trying to introduce that connection? Are you suggesting that umpires should be at least as skilled at playing the game as the worst third of the players?

What I'm saying is that threats like firing 1/3rd of your employees each year might work on McDonalds employees or something, but probably have a lot of negative consequences among high-skill jobs. What you might find is that the spread in talent/performance in MLB umps is tight enough that how you implement your measurements becomes more important than performance. It's likely that you already have a very high performing group up umps and that all your system will do is cause bitterness and discontent as an almost random group gets axed every year.

[24fps]

What I'm saying is that threats like firing 1/3rd of your employees each year might work on McDonalds employees or something, but probably have a lot of negative consequences among high-skill jobs. What you might find is that the spread in talent/performance in MLB umps is tight enough that how you implement your measurements becomes more important than performance. It's likely that you already have a very high performing group up umps and that all your system will do is cause bitterness and discontent as an almost random group gets axed every year.

First of all nobody has mentioned firing, only demoting subject to reinstatement after a year if certain conditions are met. Secondly measurement would be electronically derived to the same tolerances being advocated elsewhere in this thread, and subject to the same caveats. Randomness is precisely what the basis for relegation wouldn't be based on, so I'm not clear on what you mean by that. The umps may already be high performing, but the issue (and basis for this thread) is whether they're sufficiently high performing.

If you prefer the carrot approach, then a bonus pool could be set up and paid to top performers using the same methodology.

Just to be clear, my suggestion is partially tongue-in-cheek, but incentivizing professional improvement is respected in many parts of the business world, why not include it in this discussion as well.

[El Gordo]

It's about perception The more fans watch games with pitch fx, the more they begin to question the credibility of the game. Too many erratic strike zones impacting the results. It's the same as it was for instant replay. The variance for accuracy among umpires may be only between 92% to 95% but the point is neither rate is acceptable.

[crawjo]

There has been terrible umpiring as long as there has been baseball. Baseball is fine. I personally wish they wouldn't have the live fx displayed for every pitch.

[DrungoHazewood]

First of all nobody has mentioned firing, only demoting subject to reinstatement after a year if certain conditions are met. Secondly measurement would be electronically derived to the same tolerances being advocated elsewhere in this thread, and subject to the same caveats. Randomness is precisely what the basis for relegation wouldn't be based on, so I'm not clear on what you mean by that. The umps may already be high performing, but the issue (and basis for this thread) is whether they're sufficiently high performing.

If you prefer the carrot approach, then a bonus pool could be set up and paid to top performers using the same methodology.

Just to be clear, my suggestion is partially tongue-in-cheek, but incentivizing professional improvement is respected in many parts of the business world, why not include it in this discussion as well.

I'm all for incentivizing performance. But I'm not sure drawing a line between 88% accuracy and 88.3% accuracy on called ball/strikes and demoting everyone below the line (and taking at least a year long 80% pay cut*) would have the intended effect. I'd guess a substantial fraction of promoted umps would fall below the threshold, and as a group they might be worse than the demoted umps.

I'd rather just take the umps out of ball/strike calls for the most part and give them electronic aids.

* I'm assuming AAA umps make a small fraction of what MLB umps do, similar to players, but I don't know that for sure.

[DrungoHazewood]

There has been terrible umpiring as long as there has been baseball. Baseball is fine. I personally wish they wouldn't have the live fx displayed for every pitch.

For 130 years nobody could do anything about bad umpiring. Now we can. To me it all comes down to the fact that today everyone knows about a bad call within seconds and you can't just leave that hanging out there. It's an elephant in the room. It will not be long before an ump calls a pitch 8" off the plate strike three with the tying run on third in the 9th in October, and it'll be all anyone talks about for months.

[24fps]

I'm all for incentivizing performance. But I'm not sure drawing a line between 88% accuracy and 88.3% accuracy on called ball/strikes and demoting everyone below the line (and taking at least a year long 80% pay cut*) would have the intended effect. I'd guess a substantial fraction of promoted umps would fall below the threshold, and as a group they might be worse than the demoted umps.

I'd rather just take the umps out of ball/strike calls for the most part and give them electronic aids.

* I'm assuming AAA umps make a small fraction of what MLB umps do, similar to players, but I don't know that for sure.

The Houston Chronicle has the range of MLB Umpire's salaries ranging from $120,000 to $350,000 yearly excluding benefits which are generous in the extreme. These are estimates but consistent with other reported figures. Based on these figures a rookie ump would gross $10,000 per month.

The same article has AAA umpires making $2,600 per month on the low end. Say 25% of a ML salary and potentially considerably less when compared to more senior ML umpires. The prospect of a demotion under my scheme would certainly be attention-getting. BTW, if 33% is getting in the way then make it 10% or even 5%. The process would still have its intended effect.

http://work.chron.com/average-yearly-income-major-league-umpires-12468.html

What I suggested (I'm well aware that it was and is DOA from a practical standpoint) doesn't exclude electronic aids from the process, just uses them as a teaching tool with real consequences for failure rather than a potentially intrusive element during the game itself.

Does the 88%/88.3% differential you reference have any factual basis?

[DrungoHazewood]

Does the 88%/88.3% differential you reference have any factual basis?

Just a made-up number based on the data I've seen that can interpreted as about 10% of pitches are rulebook strikes called balls and vice versa.

[InsideCoroner]

For 130 years nobody could do anything about bad umpiring. Now we can. To me it all comes down to the fact that today everyone knows about a bad call within seconds and you can't just leave that hanging out there. It's an elephant in the room. It will not be long before an ump calls a pitch 8" off the plate strike three with the tying run on third in the 9th in October, and it'll be all anyone talks about for months.

If the Don Denkinger call from the '85 WS happened now, they would probably be rolling out beta testing of the Strike-U-Tron 3000 software by the time winter ball started.

[24fps]

If the Don Denkinger call from the '85 WS happened now, they would probably be rolling out beta testing of the Strike-U-Tron 3000 software by the time winter ball started.

I think you would need a lot more than that to risk the labor problems that would ensue from any wholesale limiting of what the umpires perceive as their prerogatives. I don't think a single bad call would be enough, I think there would need to be some systemic problem that was clear to all before MLB would act.

What I think is more likely is that MLB will try to incrementally include technology over time that will improve accuracy. I think that decision is just as likely to be based on gaining a long-term negotiating advantage over the umpires union as it is fixing some existing problem. I don't see enough people viewing the current umpiring situation as so bad that it diminishes their enjoyment of the game. Nor do I see anyone clamoring for immediate change outside a few columnists and denizens of message boards like this one.

No one that I know disputes that greater accuracy can be achieved electronically. I also don't know too many people who spend much time pondering how removing human judgement, mainly from calling balls and strikes, would impact the overall fan experience of watching the game. I would be very careful before I assumed the outcome would necessarily be positive, much less self-evident.

[InsideCoroner]

I think you would need a lot more than that to risk the labor problems that would ensue from any wholesale limiting of what the umpires perceive as their prerogatives. I don't think a single bad call would be enough, I think there would need to be some systemic problem that was clear to all before MLB would act.

What I think is more likely is that MLB will try to incrementally include technology over time that will improve accuracy. I think that decision is just as likely to be based on gaining a long-term negotiating advantage over the umpires union as it is fixing some existing problem. I don't see enough people viewing the current umpiring situation as so bad that it diminishes their enjoyment of the game. Nor do I see anyone clamoring for immediate change outside a few columnists and denizens of message boards like this one.

No one that I know disputes that greater accuracy can be achieved electronically. I also don't know too many people who spend much time pondering how removing human judgement, mainly from calling balls and strikes, would impact the overall fan experience of watching the game. I would be very careful before I assumed the outcome would necessarily be positive, much less self-evident.

I agree, if anything I was just looking for an excuse to use the name Strike-U-Tron 3000.

But seriously, it's not something I am in a rush to see happen. There are bad and good calls (though most calls are right on the money) and that's the human element. I like that there are mistakes sometimes, infuriating as it can be, because it goes both ways. I like when an ump has a specific strike zone and you see pitchers adjust to it accordingly.

Then again, I'm a relic of a bygone era in that sense. I greatly prefer hearing Keith Moon drumming, despite his tempo fluctuations, than drummers who are metronome-perfect but have no soul.

No matter what happens, it's baseball. I'll be watching.

[24fps]

I agree, if anything I was just looking for an excuse to use the name Strike-U-Tron 3000.

But seriously, it's not something I am in a rush to see happen. There are bad and good calls (though most calls are right on the money) and that's the human element. I like that there are mistakes sometimes, infuriating as it can be, because it goes both ways. I like when an ump has a specific strike zone and you see pitchers adjust to it accordingly.

Then again, I'm a relic of a bygone era in that sense. I greatly prefer hearing Keith Moon drumming, despite his tempo fluctuations, than drummers who are metronome-perfect but have no soul.

No matter what happens, it's baseball. I'll be watching.

This is exactly the right way to think about the problem IMO, even down to the Keith Moon example.

Perhaps especially because of the Keith Moon example.

[DrungoHazewood]

So how about them umpires? Strike three called a ball and the Rays get an RBI double.

It's ridiculous. Gausman throwing gas, gets several Ks that are turned into non-Ks by bad umpiring, and the O's losing. Bring on the robot umps. Any day would be fine.

[section18]

The ump squeezed Gaus really bad the inning they scored their first run. He struck two guys out and didn't get the calls. It would have ended the inning. Painfully obvious! Wieters or Buck need to get tossed. The same pitches that were balls to Rays players were strikes to Davis and Trumbo. Do they provide free rooms and meals for the umps down there?