Hey, Joe. I’m from the KC area and have attended your book tours previously. Looking forward to another one for sure. I think this analysis of ABS is interesting. The success rate is a bit higher than I might have guessed it would be. But, I think some perspective might help for the overall grasp of the new element of the game. How many challenges were there, of how many overall pitches? In other words, the number of challenges is relatively small, right? In the overall count of pitches being called. Just a thought…
My interest is this - if the overturn rate ,eventually, approaches zero, or if the challenge rate becomes very low, will the owners push for Automatic calls vs. Home plate umps calling?
I couldn’t figure out how there were do many challenges until I reread the rules and saw a successful challenge gets you another challenge I could foresee a playoff game where in extra innings a team keep winning challenges in the extra innings, because the umpire is tired, I wonder if there have been any studies on if umpires are worst calling ball/strikes after the 12th inning. If I am am right and of course, I have no clue if I am, it may get frustrating in a World Series game if 8 or 10 challenges happen every half inning
“completely sold out” just sounds cooler than regular old “sold out.”
There's actually a difference in the terms - at least in the theater industry.
Once a show passes @90/95% of tickets bought it is called sold out - the only seats left are scattered, unmatched singles that are difficult to sell. Completely sold out means every ticket gone.
I give the challenge system two years. It’s clear that batters and catchers have a pretty good idea of what to challenge, and they will get better at doing so. The success rate will be too high, there will be too many challenges and we’ll all just realize there is no point in having the human do this at all.
I enjoy the coverage as well, but do you really think it is massive? I really don't. There were 91 games in that set of games so there are 2.08 pitches per game being overturned, or 1.04 on average per team game. (This includes the Twins getting 8 in the game above.) Considering there have been (so far) about 297 pitches thrown per game, I don't think it is anything near massive.
I am surprised by the low percentage of overturns. They are choosing the pitches they think they are least likely to lose a challenge on, and are still wrong 45% of the time.
A fair point. My perspective is skewed by watching Yankee games which have had many challenges and, as the announcers are noting, pitches that should be challenged. My favorite was Austin Wells, who was brought to the Yankees because of his pitch framing, successfully framing a ball for a strike that wasn't challenged, then challenging a call when the Seattle catcher did the exact same thing to him except that pitch happened to have just nicked the corner (like 1% of the ball). Shows that pitch framing is on the way out. I bet that teams, when they have a runner on second, will use them to signal the batter when a ball has been framed, maybe by patting their hip, so the batter can challenge within the 2 seconds.
With the ABS system being so new, it's fun to see how teams and players approach it. Early on, there will be a ton of variety that will make it more interesting. Over time, though, I expect ABS challenges to be streamlined by analytics to the point that most teams will be using similar "optimal" strategies and it won't be nearly as fun or interesting as it is now.
They’re getting them mostly right. The ABS system catches where the pitch is when it passes the middle of the plate, and not where it is at the front of the plate. Could be a strike at the front, a ball at the middle, and in that case the ABS system gets the call wrong (according to the rule book definition of a strike).
They could do it if they simply don't zoom in that far and show the number as ±0.1" or such. It would essentially be saying that it's too close for even the ABS to call so the call stands. Don't racing sports do this by only showing 0.01 seconds? The problem is how replay is being used for eveything else in all sports - give us "The Truth" even if the system isn't that accurate.
Can we propose that MLB programs ABS to expand the strike zone in blowout games on crappy days?
I don't know if he's the first player to declare this since the regular season started, but after incorrectly challenging a call in yesterday's Phillies-Nationals game, Christopher Sanchez returned to the dugout when the inning ended and declared that he will never challenge a call again.
Can we get a more comprehensive breakdown and separate the fielders into pitchers and catchers? Based on what Gary Cohen has said on Mets broadcasts, the pitchers are pulling down the "fielders" success rate.
I'm a Mariners fan and I've watched almost every inning of Mariners baseball this year, and I have to admit Cal Raleigh must be one of the worst ABS (field) challengers in baseball. He has challenged multiple ball calls (as a catcher) and some of them have been 2+ inches outside the strike zone.
I'll be interested to see if, in the long term, the batters with the best OBP also have the best AB challenge rate. You would think there would be a correlation.
Every player was measured and the strike zone you see is unique to them. Thats why ABS wasnt used in the WBC as they couldnt get measurements for all the players.
Hey, Joe. I’m from the KC area and have attended your book tours previously. Looking forward to another one for sure. I think this analysis of ABS is interesting. The success rate is a bit higher than I might have guessed it would be. But, I think some perspective might help for the overall grasp of the new element of the game. How many challenges were there, of how many overall pitches? In other words, the number of challenges is relatively small, right? In the overall count of pitches being called. Just a thought…
My interest is this - if the overturn rate ,eventually, approaches zero, or if the challenge rate becomes very low, will the owners push for Automatic calls vs. Home plate umps calling?
I couldn’t figure out how there were do many challenges until I reread the rules and saw a successful challenge gets you another challenge I could foresee a playoff game where in extra innings a team keep winning challenges in the extra innings, because the umpire is tired, I wonder if there have been any studies on if umpires are worst calling ball/strikes after the 12th inning. If I am am right and of course, I have no clue if I am, it may get frustrating in a World Series game if 8 or 10 challenges happen every half inning
A bit late to the party here but:
“completely sold out” just sounds cooler than regular old “sold out.”
There's actually a difference in the terms - at least in the theater industry.
Once a show passes @90/95% of tickets bought it is called sold out - the only seats left are scattered, unmatched singles that are difficult to sell. Completely sold out means every ticket gone.
I give the challenge system two years. It’s clear that batters and catchers have a pretty good idea of what to challenge, and they will get better at doing so. The success rate will be too high, there will be too many challenges and we’ll all just realize there is no point in having the human do this at all.
Big fan of the ABS coverage (sorry, Tom). And the story isn't the percentage being overturned, it's the massive number of them.
I enjoy the coverage as well, but do you really think it is massive? I really don't. There were 91 games in that set of games so there are 2.08 pitches per game being overturned, or 1.04 on average per team game. (This includes the Twins getting 8 in the game above.) Considering there have been (so far) about 297 pitches thrown per game, I don't think it is anything near massive.
I am surprised by the low percentage of overturns. They are choosing the pitches they think they are least likely to lose a challenge on, and are still wrong 45% of the time.
A fair point. My perspective is skewed by watching Yankee games which have had many challenges and, as the announcers are noting, pitches that should be challenged. My favorite was Austin Wells, who was brought to the Yankees because of his pitch framing, successfully framing a ball for a strike that wasn't challenged, then challenging a call when the Seattle catcher did the exact same thing to him except that pitch happened to have just nicked the corner (like 1% of the ball). Shows that pitch framing is on the way out. I bet that teams, when they have a runner on second, will use them to signal the batter when a ball has been framed, maybe by patting their hip, so the batter can challenge within the 2 seconds.
I'm not one of those who wanted ABS coverage in this kind of detail. It's boring, frankly.
[taps helmet]
"After review, Moody's comment is overturned. ABS coverage *is* cool. He has one challenge left."
With the ABS system being so new, it's fun to see how teams and players approach it. Early on, there will be a ton of variety that will make it more interesting. Over time, though, I expect ABS challenges to be streamlined by analytics to the point that most teams will be using similar "optimal" strategies and it won't be nearly as fun or interesting as it is now.
With a 55% success rate, it seems like the players are mostly guessing, too. The batters especially … 52% isn’t much better than a coin flip.
That's huge, though. That's a better than a 50% chance to reverse a call -- for 150 years they had no ability at all to reverse them.
I get it. But it seems like we could have gotten similar results with less time and cost by having the umpire flip a quarter.
But they’re getting the calls RIGHT. Balls and strikes aren’t random. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
They’re getting them mostly right. The ABS system catches where the pitch is when it passes the middle of the plate, and not where it is at the front of the plate. Could be a strike at the front, a ball at the middle, and in that case the ABS system gets the call wrong (according to the rule book definition of a strike).
Joe, Trends that would be interesting to see going forward :
- the challenge numbers just for the previous day
- challenge stats by team, or maybe just identify outlier teams. I'm curious to see if different teams have different strategies
- home/road splits for challenges
Off topic, but for you Joe
Was at the Springsteen tour opener on Tuesday. I'm a veteran of over 150 shows, this was top 5. Incredibly emotional and powerful
I mostly love the ABS but they're going to need to straighten this out: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ovk2VmWdHKE
Me, I'd just modify the rule to say that if the pitch is within 1/10th of an inch either way, the umpire's call on the field stands. Simple enough eh?
That video is worth watching if only for the explanation of the 2D vs 3D strike zone.
They could do it if they simply don't zoom in that far and show the number as ±0.1" or such. It would essentially be saying that it's too close for even the ABS to call so the call stands. Don't racing sports do this by only showing 0.01 seconds? The problem is how replay is being used for eveything else in all sports - give us "The Truth" even if the system isn't that accurate.
Can we propose that MLB programs ABS to expand the strike zone in blowout games on crappy days?
I don't know if he's the first player to declare this since the regular season started, but after incorrectly challenging a call in yesterday's Phillies-Nationals game, Christopher Sanchez returned to the dugout when the inning ended and declared that he will never challenge a call again.
Can we get a more comprehensive breakdown and separate the fielders into pitchers and catchers? Based on what Gary Cohen has said on Mets broadcasts, the pitchers are pulling down the "fielders" success rate.
I'm a Mariners fan and I've watched almost every inning of Mariners baseball this year, and I have to admit Cal Raleigh must be one of the worst ABS (field) challengers in baseball. He has challenged multiple ball calls (as a catcher) and some of them have been 2+ inches outside the strike zone.
I'll be interested to see if, in the long term, the batters with the best OBP also have the best AB challenge rate. You would think there would be a correlation.
Or maybe the best K/BB ratio?
On taller batters, I think the box is lower and that balls slightly above the box are indeed strikes. Is the box a constant? I love your analysis Joe!
According to Heraclitus Paradox - it can be constant yet variable . Or may fall under the guise of Universal Flux, hence, no constant.
Every player was measured and the strike zone you see is unique to them. Thats why ABS wasnt used in the WBC as they couldnt get measurements for all the players.