Should they automate the calling of balls and strikes?

[AZRon]

On the pro side --

Dan Szymborski

Mostly on the pro side, but with some cautions -- this is from last year, but it's a worthy effort -- be sure to check out the links in the article --

Rob Neyer

Eric Byrnes vs. the MLB Commisioner --

Manfred Speaks

Some of the Mariners personnel were interviewed on the subject --

Mariners Comments

My opinion -- I want the playing field as level as possible -- Pitcher vs. Batter -- Team vs. Team -- an inobtrusive system that removes the subjective human element from the determination of a ball versus a strike gets us closer to that ideal

[thezeroes]

After the simplistic approach in football to have the balls all inflated the same and then having the fallout of "De-Flate Gate" I would like to see what the Punishment/Banishment would be for teams that are found to have circumvented the entire process. You would need at a Minimum TWO different system in place so as one could be checking the other as to the validity of the process. Three checks/balance systems wold be better than two.

I am not against having the strike zone called by a computer but I do have a trust issue with certain teams/ballparks.

[Can_of_corn]

After the simplistic approach in football to have the balls all inflated the same and then having the fallout of "De-Flate Gate" I would like to see what the Punishment/Banishment would be for teams that are found to have circumvented the entire process. You would need at a Minimum TWO different system in place so as one could be checking the other as to the validity of the process. Three checks/balance systems wold be better than two.

I am not against having the strike zone called by a computer but I do have a trust issue with certain teams/ballparks.

Don't let the home team be in charge of it.

Run it through MLBAM.

[thezeroes]

Don't let the home team be in charge of it.

Run it through MLBAM.

I do not trust much of the MLB Hierarchy when witnessing the fallout of MASN and Peter Angelos. Any system that can be manipulated falls into a category of mistrust. Computers and computer generated information is only as good as those that implement them. I stand by having three systems in place as a check and balance and even that will get questioned.

[Can_of_corn]

I do not trust much of the MLB Hierarchy when witnessing the fallout of MASN and Peter Angelos. Any system that can be manipulated falls into a category of mistrust. Computers and computer generated information is only as good as those that implement them. I stand by having three systems in place as a check and balance and even that will get questioned.

You think a future electronic system is more at risk of manipulation than the current system?

[thezeroes]

You think a future electronic system is more at risk of manipulation than the current system?

Not if they have the check and balance as I had described it. An independent system, a MLB system and a system that is umpire based (the one used in the ball park) should do it. I never said the current system has or does not have a bias as you imply. Are you saying that???

Things that may or may not happen on a pitch by pitch basis if electronically called:

1) No more showing up umps by complaining (Toronto, NYY, Boston)

2) Removal of the pitch/trac in the corner of the screen (Bothersome)

3) No more pitch framing needed by catchers (some non-hitting catchers will get less $$$)

4) No more shots of Managers/pitching coaches yelling at umpires (keeps the game in focus)

5) No more threads about how the "Home Plate Umpire" cost us the game

6) Half a year of more K's than Walks then the Batters adjust to the "Perfect Zone" and hit the snot out of pitchers in the second half.

7) Possibly less pitches per inning (see #8)

8) Possibly starters going longer (less relievers on roster)

9) Less nibbling by pitchers early in counts (more K's)

10) Both LH Hitters and RH Hitters will get equal calls on pitches (less called strikes on Chris Davis)

[Can_of_corn]

Not if they have the check and balance as I had described it. An independent system, a MLB system and a system that is umpire based (the one used in the ball park) should do it. I never said the current system has or does not have a bias as you imply. Are you saying that???

I suggested that the current system is more at risk than an electronic one.

I wasn't suggesting that it is currently compromised.

I would be most shocked if, in all the recorded history of MLB, that an outside influence, or personal bias toward a team or player, did not impact ball/strike calls in a game.

[Frobby]

If we can satisfy ourselves that automated calling of balls and strikes is significantly more accurate than human umpires, then I'm in favor. I feel like home plate umpires have gotten materially worse over the last ten years. Of course, that's largely because we now see replays that box home plate, and who knows how accurate those boxes really are, since they are two dimensional and home plate is three dimensional.

[AZRon]

If we can satisfy ourselves that automated calling of balls and strikes is significantly more accurate than human umpires, then I'm in favor. I feel like home plate umpires have gotten materially worse over the last ten years. Of course, that's largely because we now see replays that box home plate, and who knows how accurate those boxes really are, since they are two dimensional and home plate is three dimensional.

The PITCHf/x cameras and system that track pitches and display them during television broadcasts show only where the pitches are at the front edge of home plate.

See this:

Analyzing the Strike Zone as a Three-Dimensional Volume

A significant point is that, apparently, umpires most often make their ball/strike calls based on the position of the ball at the front edge of the plate

Even so, this study (as do all of the ones that I have viewed) shows umpires miscalling as many as 20% of the pitches that were taken by the batter

So, it would seem that even a 2-dimensional technology would bring greater accuracy to assessing strikes and balls

[Tryptamine]

Based solely on two types of events I think they should. The first event is the 3-0 where anything within half a foot of the plate is for some reason a strike and the other is the catcher cross up. The pitch can be straight down the middle but if the catcher has to lunge back to the ball it's called a ball 99% of the time regardless of where it was actually thrown.

[O's84]

Based solely on two types of events I think they should. The first event is the 3-0 where anything within half a foot of the plate is for some reason a strike and the other is the catcher cross up. The pitch can be straight down the middle but if the catcher has to lunge back to the ball it's called a ball 99% of the time regardless of where it was actually thrown.

Wonder when the practice of the 3-0 strike call began.

[Can_of_corn]

Wonder when the practice of the 3-0 strike call began.

When four balls counted as a walk.

It works the same in the other direction, the strike zone shrinks on an 0-2 count.

I don't think it's a conscious act by the umps.

[DrungoHazewood]

If we can satisfy ourselves that automated calling of balls and strikes is significantly more accurate than human umpires, then I'm in favor. I feel like home plate umpires have gotten materially worse over the last ten years. Of course, that's largely because we now see replays that box home plate, and who knows how accurate those boxes really are, since they are two dimensional and home plate is three dimensional.

As if umpires can judge whether a ball crossed through a 3D strike zone better than tracking systems. I think that for all intents and purposes the strike zone is 2D with a human ump, since a 90 mph fastball spends less than 1/100th of a second crossing the plate.

[DrungoHazewood]

Wonder when the practice of the 3-0 strike call began.

Remember the original intent of walks - to punish the pitcher for not throwing pitches that the batter can put into play. The powers-that-be didn't want walks, they wanted struck balls flying around the field and came up with a limit for the number of times a pitcher can throw a pitch out of the batter's reach. In 1876 the NL averaged 10 walks per 600 PAs. And they didn't even keep batter's walks as an official stat until sometime into 1900s, 30+ years after MLB began, because it thought that this was the pitcher's fault.

If we wanted to get back to the founders' original intent we'd quickly conclude that the current walk rate reflects the fact that this punishment isn't nearly enough to get batters to swing. So they'd make walks two bases, or move all the baserunners up with every walk, or something that would more harshly punish pitchers for not throwing strikes.

So... wandering back to your question... probably what Can_of_corn said. From the beginning the intent was to get batters to swing so the ump almost certainly did what they could to push the batter and pitcher towards that end.