Jones' ejection

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Cumberbundy said:

Pitch f/x is the bible of balls & strikes. ?

I have asked these questions in other fora but have never gotten much of an answer. I don't think I've asked them before on here.

The strike zone is three-dimensional -- it has height, width and depth -, and pitches cross the batter in three dimensions The various strike zone graphics are shown to us in dots with two dimensions -- height and width. (By comparison, the devices used to judge whether a tennis ball landed "in" or "out"  involve only two dimensions.)

How do these programs reduce the three-dimensional flight of the ball to two dimensions? (It seems to me that the "right" way to do this would be to map out the three-dimensional flight of the ball, and then select and present the point that is closest to the axis, or line, running through the midpoint of the height and width of the strike zone.)

Why do various programs for mapping pitches yield different results? Are they mapping different things? Trying to map the same thing but doing it differently? Inputting data differently?

Do these programs account for the difference in height and batting stances among players, and if so how?

 

[Cumberbundy]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Buck implied that if the doctors give the OK, they might reinstate him to the active roster in 10 days strictly to be available as a pinch runner.    

No reason he can't run. A fractured finger isn't fun but it's not a big deal to run & slide with. 

[Cumberbundy]

2 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I have asked these questions in other fora but have never gotten much of an answer. I don't think I've asked them before on here.

The strike zone is three-dimensional -- it has height, width and depth -, and pitches cross the batter in three dimensions The various strike zone graphics are shown to us in dots with two dimensions -- height and width. (By comparison, the devices used to judge whether a tennis ball landed "in" or "out"  involve only two dimensions.)

How do these programs reduce the three-dimensional flight of the ball to two dimensions? (It seems to me that the "right" way to do this would be to map out the three-dimensional flight of the ball, and then select and present the point that is closest to the axis, or line, running through the midpoint of the height and width of the strike zone.)

Why do various programs for mapping pitches yield different results? Are they mapping different things? Trying to map the same thing but doing it differently? Inputting data differently?

Do these programs account for the difference in height and batting stances among players, and if so how?

 

Have you read this, you likely have but it's a good read for those who haven't.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/analyzing-the-strike-zone-as-a-three-dimensional-volume/

This doesn't address pitch f/x, the pitch f/X is the same as the k-zone we get on television. 

[Cumberbundy]

Jon Roegele, from hardball times, authored this. He's a decent follow on Twitter.

[weams]

24 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Buck implied that if the doctors give the OK, they might reinstate him to the active roster in 10 days strictly to be available as a pinch runner.    

That would be helpful.

[Cumberbundy]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/on-the-nature-of-the-strike-zone-in-two-and-three-dimensions/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/recasting-pitchfx-data-in-two-dimensions/

Now you've got me down the rabbit hole! Hopefully some of this addresses your question. I haven't read these last two, I'm going to check them out as I watch the Terps beat up on these bums from northern New Braunfels. 

[Beef Supreme]

19 minutes ago, Cumberbundy said:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/on-the-nature-of-the-strike-zone-in-two-and-three-dimensions/

http://www.hardballtimes.com/recasting-pitchfx-data-in-two-dimensions/

Now you've got me down the rabbit hole! Hopefully some of this addresses your question. I haven't read these last two, I'm going to check them out as I watch the Terps beat up on these bums from northern New Braunfels. 

Thanks for these articles, Cumberbundy. I am shocked by how many people believe that the strike zone is where the pitch crosses the front edge of the plate. Even former catcher Tim McCarver insisted this was the case during a World Series broadcast years ago.

[Aristotelian]

No excuse, but instead of ignoring it the umpire stopped play to say something to him, then tosses him out when AJ talks back.

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/blue-jays-vs-orioles/2017/09/01/492116#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=492116

[spiritof66]

2 hours ago, Roy Firestone said:

I love Adam Jones. He's the most beloved Oriole since Cal Jr. and a great fixture in the community, but he was wrong to blow up at the umpire from the dugout last night. It definitely hurt the team and might've cost them the game had they lost. 

Have you already forgotten Lew Ford?

[Frobby]

54 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

Thanks for these articles, Cumberbundy. I am shocked by how many people believe that the strike zone is where the pitch crosses the front edge of the plate. Even former catcher Tim McCarver insisted this was the case during a World Series broadcast years ago.

It's 17 inches from the front of the plate to the point in the back.    I question how far a ball can move in that distance, taking approximately 1/100th of a second to do it.

[foxfield]

20 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Have you already forgotten Lew Ford?

Or the namesake of the team celebration...  

 

You know Felix Pie

[TradeAngelos]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It's 17 inches from the front of the plate to the point in the back.    I question how far a ball can move in that distance, taking approximately 1/100th of a second to do it.

All the ball has to do is "catch a piece" correct? So it shouldn't really matter front back side whatever. If it crosses at any point it should be a strike. 

[scOtt]

3 hours ago, Roy Firestone said:

I love Adam Jones. He's the most beloved Oriole since Cal Jr. and a great fixture in the community, but he was wrong to blow up at the umpire from the dugout last night. It definitely hurt the team and might've cost them the game had they lost. 

He was not only wrong..he was "loud wrong".

We simply cannot afford for anything like this from any player on our team to happen again...

Craig Gentry, Joey Rickard combined can't equal the play of Adam Jones.

I didn't see it but you're right. It puts Gentry hitting cleanup. smh

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Cumberbundy said:

Have you read this, you likely have but it's a good read for those who haven't.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/analyzing-the-strike-zone-as-a-three-dimensional-volume/

This doesn't address pitch f/x, the pitch f/X is the same as the k-zone we get on television. 

Thanks. I am pretty sure I didn't read this, but at my age it's hard to tell the difference between what I didn't see and what I've seen and forgotten.

To me the important part -- from which everything else follows -- is the author's statement that "The PITCHf/x cameras and system that track pitches and display them during television broadcasts are limited to two dimensions. These pitch trackers ignore the depth of the plate, and show only where the pitches are at the front edge of home plate."  That means that PITCHf/x doesn't even try to show you whether a pitch was a strike, but only whether it was when it crossed the front of the plate. I don't know whether that's true of the proprietary tracking technology that MLB supposedly uses to grade umpires.  Note that the problem isn't symmetrical: if a two-dimensional, front-of-home-plate pitch tracker calls a pitch a ball, it can be wrong because the pitch caught the strike zone later, after the pitch tracker stopped tracking it, but if the pitch tracker saw it as a strike strike, it'a strike. 

There is (for me, anyway) a larger lesson here: don't make assumptions that there's the most basic level of critical thinking that goes into anything related to MLB. I have known since I was about eight years old that the strike zone is three-dimensional, and I assumed that pitch trackers tried to depict three dimensions. I have wondered from time to time, including today, how they do that. Now I'm told -- though I don't know it for a fact -- that they don't even try. If that is a fact, it's one that I've never heard stated at any of the hundreds, or by now maybe thousands, of times I've seen pitch tracking in MLB games. I am almost certain I've never heard an announcer with the basic curiosity to ask, "How do they do that?" or "What does that dot mean, anyway?"

The article also says that umpires focus on whether pitches are strikes when they cross the front edge (extended) of the plate. The author says it's impossible for a human umpire to track the pitch throughout the depth of the plate, and tyhe front edge "seems pretty clearly to be the reference point of choice." I would have thought the opposite: that the umpire focuses on the rear of the plate since it's closer to him and it appears that the point where the catcher receives the ball (or moves his glove after receiving it) deceives umpires. 

Anyway, at times I've thought that pitch trackers are inconsistent with what I see on cameras, even the overhead one that shows the ball's flight. I now have a better understanding of why that is. Thanks again.

[thezeroes]

Not having heard the entire exchange between player and umpire, I have a difficult issue getting to the point of blame.  I also find it encouraging that at least ONE player has the ability to question a homeplate umpires decision for a change.  I have seen several times that Chris Davis was "Rung Up" on a close call that had been going the other way all night and yet he just bangs the bat off his shoe and walks away.  Boston, New York and Toronto have made a living with their players questioning Umpires on ALL close calls at the plate.