A Maddux, a Maddux, we have ourselves a Maddux! Hopefully we will see a couple thousands words on Jordan Montgomery from Joe tomorrow. Or Maybe Albert Pujols (who has decided to turn the clock back 10 years in the last couple weeks)
If we did go full robo-ump, the practice of pitch framing would suffer greatly. That's probably for the best; I hate it when a catcher slips a ball into the strike zone and the ump buys it.
Is there *any* scientific data that proves pitch framing is real? Umpires are often not great, but I don't believe they are that stupid to be so easily tricked.
I don't know any science, but I do know two things: Catchers' livelihoods often depend on their pitch framing skill, and when I see a "bad call" from an ump, pitch framing is usually involved. Angel Hernandez excepted.
About calling balls and strikes - there is one call that no robo ump will be able to call: the “checked swing” -- and even if the technology got even better, the rule book does not contain an official definition for a checked swing; it simply defines a swing as "an attempt to strike at the ball", with no further specification. That is, 100% human judgment is required (until they come up with a definition that can be technically measured).
The history here has a fascinating twist: Starting in I believe 1956, the rule book added a *comment to Rule 8.02(C)* regarding appeals of an umpire’s call: “The manager or the catcher may request the plate umpire to ask his partner for help on a half swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball, but not when the pitch is called a strike. The manager may not complain that the umpire made an improper call, but only that he did not ask his partner for help. Field umpires must be alerted to the request from the plate umpire and quickly respond.”
The frequent/regulator use of such appeals on checked swings evolved slowly, I believe -- but amazingly I have not found any tracing of its use (e.g., when it started occurring once or twice every few games, vs often in every game). The reason this is amazing is the outcome of many games turns on such appeals (sometimes in a crucial post-season game, e.g., game 5 of the NLDS, Giants v Dodgers, the final out) and yet we have no studies of how it’s use and frequency evolved. Surely it must have been used by someone prior to the adding of that comment in the rule book - Why else would the idea have been proposed? And yet when you listen to recorded broadcasts of games prior to the mid-50s and into the 60s you do not hear announcers referring to any such checked swing appeals - ok, this is anecdotal evidence but still, just when can we say for certain these appeals became common?
I like the challenge system but I’d like them to also replace the umps who have the most overturned calls at the end of the year. Call it the Angel Hernandez rule
I very much dislike the term "robo umpire". It gives the impression for the uninformed that there is a robot behind the plate and not a real person who does all of the duties except calling balls and strikes. It's the ABS System. I have seen it work in Fall Ball and it was seamless. It just works and takes the guesswork out of the equation. Just get it right. The individualized strike zones would be a thing of the past, which I like. If there is no ABS I would lobby for removing the strike zone box superimposed on your TV. It's information the umpire doesn't have. The only criticism I've heard about ABS is calibrating the top of the strike zone. It is supposed to be individualized to the player but it is calibrated to a player standing and not in his stance as it should be. I'm not remotely interested in a challenge system. Use it entirely or not at all. I don't want more complications and challenges.
The pitch clocks are great. I saw a A+ game last week. 4-0 in 1:59 minutes. It was great. Why the Players Union has opposed the clock is a mystery to me.
Saw good critique of ABS from a player catching in system. Tech is limited, simplistic, even damaging. When one thinks about it, common sense leads one to realize tech isn’t available to handle lateral or vertical ball movement. Just straight lines. Not a fan.
“ the strike zone of the “robot umpire” is more generous to the sides of the plate but squeezes pitchers at the top and bottom of the strike zone. Pitches that miss the catcher’s target significantly but catch the edge of the strike zone are called strikes by ABS when a human umpire would likely call it a ball, and conversely, a pitcher can hit a catcher’s target perfectly, but if that target is slightly outside the strike zone, ABS will call it a ball.”
I'm a little skeptical about the challenge system. You don't want unlimited challenges but you also don't want a crucial call to be missed after the team has exhausted their challenges. Easy to see how a game could still end with a blown call in that scenario. And, of course, you don't always know which missed calls are going to be crucial until later in the at-bat or even later in the inning.
I'm still hoping for full-time robot umps but if not, how about an extra umpire in the booth or back in New York, NBA-style, to initiate checks when live video suggests that the home plate ump has missed it?
Anything that speeds up the game is positive step. Length of game is the biggest deterrent to attracting new fans. I believe outlawing the shift is important; it makes it more consistent with the way we all learned to play the game and that’s a good thing. It also makes record keeping consistent and we know BB is a game of statistics.
Here's something I've suggested for years. Give umps real-time feedback on their pitch calling. With their earpieces in, they could easily be told, "Nope, that wasn't a strike. It missed outside." If that seems too distracting, do it between innings. "Hey CB, that 2-1 pitch to Trout you called a ball? It actually caught the outside corner. Did you think it was low? Outside? Both?"
Isn't feedback how we learn to get better at things? When I give me students a test, after I grade it, I don't simply tell them their score, it gets returned to them so they see which questions they got wrong. I can't help but think umps would get better at calling balls and strikes by doing this.
Umps do not think about ball/strike calls, they react based upon zillions of pitches of experience. Listening for feedback in real time will only slow the game down. Umps already get feedback at a later time.
If the robo-ump is going to be used at all, let the robo-ump make the calls.
Was for banning the shift, then saw Giminez bounce a FB thru the big hole on the left side of INF. Hitters can learn to adjust and take advantage. Now argue to tweak the shift. All INFs have feet on INF dirt. SS can be parallel to 2nd B cannot be positioned to right of 2nd B.
"Hitters can learn to adjust and take advantage." The problem is, they won't. Why? Singles hitters don't get paid.
The incentives currently favor launch angle and pulling the ball. Two guys - one bats .280, 12 HR per season. The other bats .235, but hits 25 dingers. Who's gonna get the bigger contract?
The .235 dinger guy will also probably get a 10-15 point increase in BA with no shift. More hits = more action, which is what everyone wants right now.
I love the idea of the pitch challenge.
Another rule change would be the requirement for a sliding runner to maintain contact with the bag. I think that rule increases the chance of injury.
A Maddux, a Maddux, we have ourselves a Maddux! Hopefully we will see a couple thousands words on Jordan Montgomery from Joe tomorrow. Or Maybe Albert Pujols (who has decided to turn the clock back 10 years in the last couple weeks)
If we did go full robo-ump, the practice of pitch framing would suffer greatly. That's probably for the best; I hate it when a catcher slips a ball into the strike zone and the ump buys it.
Is there *any* scientific data that proves pitch framing is real? Umpires are often not great, but I don't believe they are that stupid to be so easily tricked.
Some. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-art-science-and-psychology-of-catcher-framing/
I don't know any science, but I do know two things: Catchers' livelihoods often depend on their pitch framing skill, and when I see a "bad call" from an ump, pitch framing is usually involved. Angel Hernandez excepted.
Loved this -- had to agree with all of it too lol
About calling balls and strikes - there is one call that no robo ump will be able to call: the “checked swing” -- and even if the technology got even better, the rule book does not contain an official definition for a checked swing; it simply defines a swing as "an attempt to strike at the ball", with no further specification. That is, 100% human judgment is required (until they come up with a definition that can be technically measured).
The history here has a fascinating twist: Starting in I believe 1956, the rule book added a *comment to Rule 8.02(C)* regarding appeals of an umpire’s call: “The manager or the catcher may request the plate umpire to ask his partner for help on a half swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball, but not when the pitch is called a strike. The manager may not complain that the umpire made an improper call, but only that he did not ask his partner for help. Field umpires must be alerted to the request from the plate umpire and quickly respond.”
The frequent/regulator use of such appeals on checked swings evolved slowly, I believe -- but amazingly I have not found any tracing of its use (e.g., when it started occurring once or twice every few games, vs often in every game). The reason this is amazing is the outcome of many games turns on such appeals (sometimes in a crucial post-season game, e.g., game 5 of the NLDS, Giants v Dodgers, the final out) and yet we have no studies of how it’s use and frequency evolved. Surely it must have been used by someone prior to the adding of that comment in the rule book - Why else would the idea have been proposed? And yet when you listen to recorded broadcasts of games prior to the mid-50s and into the 60s you do not hear announcers referring to any such checked swing appeals - ok, this is anecdotal evidence but still, just when can we say for certain these appeals became common?
Joe, your thoughts here?
That was the 2021 NLDS of course, with the batter being Wilmer Flores and the Giants trailing 2-1 in bottom of the 9th with tying run on base.
I like the challenge system but I’d like them to also replace the umps who have the most overturned calls at the end of the year. Call it the Angel Hernandez rule
I very much dislike the term "robo umpire". It gives the impression for the uninformed that there is a robot behind the plate and not a real person who does all of the duties except calling balls and strikes. It's the ABS System. I have seen it work in Fall Ball and it was seamless. It just works and takes the guesswork out of the equation. Just get it right. The individualized strike zones would be a thing of the past, which I like. If there is no ABS I would lobby for removing the strike zone box superimposed on your TV. It's information the umpire doesn't have. The only criticism I've heard about ABS is calibrating the top of the strike zone. It is supposed to be individualized to the player but it is calibrated to a player standing and not in his stance as it should be. I'm not remotely interested in a challenge system. Use it entirely or not at all. I don't want more complications and challenges.
The pitch clocks are great. I saw a A+ game last week. 4-0 in 1:59 minutes. It was great. Why the Players Union has opposed the clock is a mystery to me.
Saw good critique of ABS from a player catching in system. Tech is limited, simplistic, even damaging. When one thinks about it, common sense leads one to realize tech isn’t available to handle lateral or vertical ball movement. Just straight lines. Not a fan.
“ the strike zone of the “robot umpire” is more generous to the sides of the plate but squeezes pitchers at the top and bottom of the strike zone. Pitches that miss the catcher’s target significantly but catch the edge of the strike zone are called strikes by ABS when a human umpire would likely call it a ball, and conversely, a pitcher can hit a catcher’s target perfectly, but if that target is slightly outside the strike zone, ABS will call it a ball.”
Can we have this implemented in time for the postseason please?
Hey Joe- I've been saving these and this seems like the opportune moment:
Ideas to “fix” current 3TO and pace issues:
• Bunt foul is not out
• Foul tip caught is not out (maybe just make this where the runner can take off as if it were dropped)
• Ball is fair if it passes 1b/3b fair (even in the air)
• Treat swinging and looking strikes differently (need to think about this one a bit)
• Any time there is a pitching change, add a ball to the count; second pitching change in the same inning, add 2; etc.
• Any time there is pinch hitter mid-inning, add a strike to the count
• When pitcher is ready, they can throw unless ump specifically grants time out
I am the quintessential baseball traditionalist and I've wanted a pitch clock for 10 years. Bring it on!
I'm a little skeptical about the challenge system. You don't want unlimited challenges but you also don't want a crucial call to be missed after the team has exhausted their challenges. Easy to see how a game could still end with a blown call in that scenario. And, of course, you don't always know which missed calls are going to be crucial until later in the at-bat or even later in the inning.
I'm still hoping for full-time robot umps but if not, how about an extra umpire in the booth or back in New York, NBA-style, to initiate checks when live video suggests that the home plate ump has missed it?
Anything that speeds up the game is positive step. Length of game is the biggest deterrent to attracting new fans. I believe outlawing the shift is important; it makes it more consistent with the way we all learned to play the game and that’s a good thing. It also makes record keeping consistent and we know BB is a game of statistics.
Here's something I've suggested for years. Give umps real-time feedback on their pitch calling. With their earpieces in, they could easily be told, "Nope, that wasn't a strike. It missed outside." If that seems too distracting, do it between innings. "Hey CB, that 2-1 pitch to Trout you called a ball? It actually caught the outside corner. Did you think it was low? Outside? Both?"
Isn't feedback how we learn to get better at things? When I give me students a test, after I grade it, I don't simply tell them their score, it gets returned to them so they see which questions they got wrong. I can't help but think umps would get better at calling balls and strikes by doing this.
Umps do not think about ball/strike calls, they react based upon zillions of pitches of experience. Listening for feedback in real time will only slow the game down. Umps already get feedback at a later time.
If the robo-ump is going to be used at all, let the robo-ump make the calls.
Which is why I also offered up doing it between innings.
Was for banning the shift, then saw Giminez bounce a FB thru the big hole on the left side of INF. Hitters can learn to adjust and take advantage. Now argue to tweak the shift. All INFs have feet on INF dirt. SS can be parallel to 2nd B cannot be positioned to right of 2nd B.
"Hitters can learn to adjust and take advantage." The problem is, they won't. Why? Singles hitters don't get paid.
The incentives currently favor launch angle and pulling the ball. Two guys - one bats .280, 12 HR per season. The other bats .235, but hits 25 dingers. Who's gonna get the bigger contract?
The .235 dinger guy will also probably get a 10-15 point increase in BA with no shift. More hits = more action, which is what everyone wants right now.
But teams like the Rays, As, etc will get the guys who get hits and beat the shift. Why not let them?
Will banning the shift encourage more or less three outcome hitters?
“ Mike Schur sends Brandon McCarthy and I screenshots of blown ball-strike calls…”
Analogy
The ball strike challenge system:baseball::grammar check:writing.