On umps and strike zones
I was going to put up a big, picture-heavy post on how Marvin Hudson’s inability to call a decent strike hosed the game up, but two things:
1) he didn’t do that bad on Washburn and Aardsma, and McCarthy made out decently, though there were some bad calls. And overall, check out the normalized strikezone graph. He wasn’t calling the low strike for beans.
2) humans shouldn’t be calling balls and strikes. A guy squatting behind a plate can’t adequately determine if a 90mph pitch crossed a three-dimensional strike zone. The sooner the swap’s made, the better for the game.
To pre-empt the standard “you can’t be serious” comments I get: I am. That anyone should be trying to judge balls and strikes by eyeballing it is absurd. We know it doesn’t work: we’ve got all of baseball history to show that. If you want the strikezone called consistently, especially if you want it called by the rulebook, you’re on my side.
Arguing that umps should be doing this is saying “I support preventable errors affecting the outcome of games.” And then why not just have whatever system you implement make errors, say, 50% as often as human umpires? Or heck, if you like the errors, have them call 25% of pitches randomly.
Or re-write the rule book, and define the strike zone to be whatever the guy behind the plate thinks it should be, and have that day’s home plate ump give a quick talk about his artistic interpretation during the lineup exchange so both managers can brief their teams on what to expect. Acknowledge and celebrate the flaws.
Comments
122 Responses to “On umps and strike zones”
We cannot remove umpires from the game of baseball because they make the sport beautiful, flaws and all. And we cannot punish umpires for poor strike zones because, as DMZ mentions, they are only human, they have imperfections, and they will not always make the right calls. But they will most of the time because they too are professionals at the highest level and they have talent for calling balls and strikes like the players have for hitting the cover off of the ball.
Keeping umpires makes the game of baseball perfect, if simply because umpires prevent it from becoming a simulation that vaguely represents the original sport played by Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth. Umpires keep baseball a game of adjustments, one that constantly stimulates the players’ intellects as well as their athletic abilities. Yogi Berra put it perfectly when he said that baseball is ninety percent mental. Replacing an umpire with a machine would make the sport a shell of what it once was. Baseball has so many different dimensions that make it the greatest sport in the world and eliminating the umpires eliminates an integral part of the game.
I think Joser hit it on the head. Why not let the umps use technology to improve the way they call the game instead of using technology to replace the umps? That way we don’t have to choose sides and we can all get along.
Because we know even the best umps, the finest at perceiving and calling the strike zone, aren’t that good at it. If you train everyone up to calling 85% of them correctly, that’s great, but that’s still not as good as it can, and should, be.
Also, I don’t understand why this is viewed as punishing umpires. If you asked a mercat to build an interstellar colony ship, there’s no punishment in relieving them of the duty. They can’t do it, except for certain supermercats, maybe. Humans can’t call the strike zone.
And if you want to see the game kept challenging, why not just have the strike zone randomized? Each pitch, one quarter of the strike zone randomly counts for two strikes, while another is a ball. Extra strategy and stimulation for players.
I think the compromise position, where the umps are told by the machine whether the ball crossed the plate but the umps themselves make the vertical call and hence the final call whether the pitch is a strike, seems very plausible. Technologically, it’s simple. Aesthetically, there would be very little change from the current situation. If you’re going to start a letter writing campaign or something, I recommend pushing for that…
The most sensible compromise would be for select umps to have cybernetic ocular implants installed. Fieldin Culbreth would make a suitable guinea pig for the procedure.
I’m not sure myself how automating ball/strike calls takes the challenge and/or competition out of baseball.
Pitchers still have to throw strikes that hitters can’t hit well. Hitters still have to discern between 85-100 mph fastballs and offspeed pitches, let alone whether they’re in the strike zone or not, let alone actually time their swings and actually hit those strikes.
You’re not automating the players or anything other than the ball and strike calls at the plate, calls that human umpires routinely get incorrect.
And as mentioned, home plate umpires wouldn’t lose their jobs to a computer. Check swings, catcher interference, foul balls, plays at the plate and a variety of situations still require a human call, which requires a home plate umpire. And the base umpires would still keep their jobs. Plus if the pitch-call technology falters, there’s your home plate umpire to call balls and strikes.
All this said, there appears to be a lot of traditionalism to the anti-tech argument here that’s coloring the thought process of those defending it. Progress is not a bad thing, people.
I’d rather have a game whose outcome is based on the actual skill of the players involved, not some sepia-toned silliness about umpires being a “part of the game”.
Even the best umpires often have too big of an involvement in what way the game is decided, and the worst can make a game basically unwinnable.
Let’s not be so mired in traditionalism that we can’t leverage technology to make sure the game is in the hands of the players as much as possible.
I find this a bit annoying. There are some very thoughtful explanations in this comments section (really, a great read, by the way). To reduce the view that umpires calling balls/strikes is a quintessential part of baseball as we know it to “sepia-toned silliness” is about as unthoughtful as you can get. As Ivan would say – I have my threshold, you have yours. This is a case where, truly, neither position is more right than the other. If you want to explain your position, explain it. Don’t simply reduce the other side’s position.
Where are these thoughtful arguments that you’re talking about?
Is it this?
Or maybe this?
Wait, I know, it’s this!
When someone posts an actual cogent argument that the 15% or more error rate from human umpires adds ANYTHING to the game, much less enough to offset the worse situations like the ridiculous strike zone post I linked to earlier in this thread, then I’ll call it something other than sepia-toned silliness.
I suspect I’ll be waiting a while.
This comes awfully close judging another’s fandom, Jeff. I would think you would realize that. Go back and read Ivan’s and TheMedia’s posts rather than cherrypicking a few lines that you find objectionable.
Look – there are two fan perspectives here. One is that the game is competition between athletes that should be decided purely based on the athletes’ performance. I get that. The other is that this is theater layered on top of an athletic competition and that umpires calling balls and strikes is part of that theater. I get that, too. And of course there are many views in between. None are correct or incorrect. What I don’t get is that anyone in one of those camps would be unwilling to give any credence to someone’s views from the other camp. Put another way, please don’t tell me why I like baseball.
Firstly, the post about not judging another’s fandom is not meant to be used to support the premise that all opinions are equal, and I’m getting a little tired of it constantly being misconstrued that way. Go back, read it again, and discover what it’s actually about before you start trying to call people out on it.
Let me clarify for you why you’re wrong in this case.
I didn’t say: “People who like human umpires are bad baseball fans”.
I did say: “The arguments I’ve seen so far from those who support the continued use of human umpires have no factual basis and are appeals to nostalgia and emotion.”
I don’t care if you would prefer to go even farther down the nostalgia train and go back to the days of baggy wool uniforms and windups that look like a complicated yoga routine; you’re welcome to enjoy whatever flavor of baseball you’d like, and it doesn’t make you any less of a fan.
But the actual fact in debate in this post is whether the outcome of a baseball game would be placed more directly in the hands of the athletes competing and be a better contest of the athletic skills of the players involved without human error being allowed to play so large of a factor, and THAT is what I’m waiting for some factual counter-evidence of.
Not everything is subjective, no matter how hard you wish for it to be.
No. You’re totally wrong and have completely missed the point that I have made and others have made repeatedly above. I don’t think a single person here is arguing that the outcome of a baseball game wouldn’t be placed more directly in the hands of the athletes if machines called balls/strikes. What’s in debate here is whether it would be a good idea to use a machine to call balls and strikes. This isn’t a discussion about the “factual basis” of anything. It’s a discussion of what different people find appealing about the game of baseball.
If someone says, “I enjoy the game more with umpires calling balls and strikes than I would with a machine calling balls and strikes,” I don’t see how you can argue with that person. It perfectly fits the definition of “subjective”.
Maybe you need examples:
My wife finds it fascinating that that one umpire takes forever to call a pitch.
My 5-year old loves the way umps go “strrrrrriiiiiiiiiiike”.
I like the fact that some pitchers get completely rattled by a bad call and can’t deal with it while others take it in stride. I enjoy the theater of bad calls.
I like the rule that you aren’t allowed to argue balls and strikes, and it’s an awesome teaching moment for me and my kid.
I enjoy that some people think guys like Glavine and Moyer get bigger strike zones.
I’m sure there are many reasons why people like umpires calling balls/strikes and, whether you share those opinions or not, it’s tough to argue they’re “wrong”.
Actually, what you and others have done in this comment thread is try to turn it into your subjective argument about what makes a game fun for you to watch, because you know you can’t address what Derek’s post was actually ABOUT, which is very simply put:
Your “examples” don’t even remotely address that, because you know Derek’s 100% correct but if you can shift the conversation to something that else that CAN be viewed subjectively, you can somehow “win”.
He goes on to say:
And again, where’s the response to that? Yep, none.
People who think baseball is a better game with human umpires calling balls and strikes are objectively, verifiably WRONG.
If you’d prefer to watch a flawed game, that’s up to you, but there is nothing subjective about what Derek was talking about when he made this post.
I was perfectly civil yesterday, as I think others (including CCW has been other than his “You are totally wrong” comment), but I absolutely can’t stand this line of thinking.
Look, Jeff: How the **** is it so hard for you to grasp that baseball, to some people, doesn’t have to be more statistically reliable to be, as you say, “better”?
What I and others hoped to point out—and I think I even acknowledged Derek’s position time and time again as valid and, therefore, not “wrong” for him—is that baseball, as a source of entertainment, would not improve if there was a system of infallibility available instead of umpiring.
It really does take a certain kind of well, jackass, if I can say so, to deny others a perfectly valid position relying on their own perspective. I haven’t done that, and most of the others in favor of human beings umpiring baseball games haven’t either. Seriously, man. It’s not winning. Nobody wins this discussion. If that’s all you’re interested in, how about this: You win, Jeff. You win. Feel better?
But led me add this: You say that we have not addressed the nature of the post. That is, as you quote: “2) humans shouldn’t be calling balls and strikes. A guy squatting behind a plate can’t adequately determine if a 90mph pitch crossed a three-dimensional strike zone. The sooner the swap’s made, the better for the game.” How is saying that this swap would not be bettering the game from our own definition of the game not addressing this point?
I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that human umpires make errors; many times, these errors seem obvious. But I can live with the errors, just as I can live with many frustrating aspects of baseball, because, to me, these “inadequacies” are a part of the game I enjoy. I think you have to say that neither side is “right,” but that both sides are “right.” The key is perspective. Why is this so difficult?
If I wanted to win, I could simply get rid of the posts disagreeing with me. Especially ones that call me a jackass. You’ll note that I haven’t, though.
In any case, I’m tired of disclaimering over and over again that I couldn’t care less if you’d enjoy the game more if all the players wore pink tutus; your own personal enjoyment isn’t even remotely relevant. And frankly, I’d have a lot more respect for you if that’s the position you were taking, since it’d be pretty difficult for pink tutus to have a significant impact on the outcome of a game. I imagine Yuni’d find a way to trip on his, though.
Instead, what you are asking all of the rest of us to tolerate, just to make you happy, is an unacceptably high level of preventable human error that changes the outcome of games.
It’s not subjective, it’s not a question of perspective; if you think baseball is in any way, shape or form a better game (note, this is different than it being more enjoyable for you personally) with human umpires making mistakes that affect the outcome of games, you’re simply wrong.
OK, Jeff. OK. This issue is clearly simple, as you say. And, I’m “simply wrong.” Well said.
Me too. Simply wrong.
Let me publicly add this, Jeff: Sorry I called you a jackass. I suppose I’m in such a volatile mood because the M’s are tanking. Maybe this is true for all of us. Who would have thought I could get this worked up about robots invading MLB, a scenario that others have smartly noted isn’t very likely in the first place.
It’s not a fun time for anyone who follows this team. No harm done, and I appreciate the apology.
I’m sorry too if I sounded more dismissive than I should have. I understand why people are attached to the element of drama that umpires can provide; I simply think the integrity of the game is a more important consideration.
I too concede that I am a sepia-toned, silly, tradition-obsessed baseball fan who likes the umpiring system the way it is and doesn’t want to see technology intrude in this area.
That is, I am simply wrong. And I’m ok with that. My kids still love me 🙂
Closing comments on this thread. The reason should be obvious.
In addition: if a moderator has removed one of your comments, don’t go back and re-edit in what got them removed in the first place, or further snotty comments.
If you feel you’ve been treated poorly by the awful, power-hungry moderators who spend their free time trying to help keep this site running more smoothly, you know the address to send your email to. Keep it out of comment threads.