I was hoping the embarrassment would force some bad umps to retire early but Bucknor is such an ass I think he will stay on purely out of spite.

Only caveat to previous posts I'll say is there absolutely is a negative impact. I mean some of these calls are off by .1". They overturn it and those have been some of the louder cheers from the crowd. Even though that ump is still doing better than 99% of people could.

Not saying I'm against it for this reason. I'm 100% for it. But this definitely could impact people wanting to ump in the future.

The umpire union apparently wanted this at first but got talked out of it. There potentially are some technical issues with getting the call fast enough too.

But it may come sooner rather than later.

mneisch said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

This is just proof he doesn't know what the strike zone is.

To those who claim "aww you're removing the human element" - you mean removing the gross incompetency?

We should just have an ear piece telling morons like Bucknor whether it's a ball of strike - it's apparent he doesn't really know.

---

I was wondering why they don't have an earpiece that tells ball/strike and they just signal the call. Seems way easier than requiring the use of a challenge.

---

That opens the door for the umpire to be told the "right call" before making the call.

AustinAg2K said:

---

mneisch said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

This is just proof he doesn't know what the strike zone is.

To those who claim "aww you're removing the human element" - you mean removing the gross incompetency?

We should just have an ear piece telling morons like Bucknor whether it's a ball of strike - it's apparent he doesn't really know.

---

I was wondering why they don't have an earpiece that tells ball/strike and they just signal the call. Seems way easier than requiring the use of a challenge.

---

I assume it is because it would take too long to use on every pitch. The umps call is instant. The replay takes a second or two. I think they could save the ump some embarrassment by not having the ump stop the whole game a make an announcement. When someone calls for a replay, just have the ump hold his hand up, wait for the call, then signal ball or strike.

---

I like this idea.

htxag09 said:

---

Only caveat to previous posts I'll say is there absolutely is a negative impact. I mean some of these calls are off by .1". They overturn it and those have been some of the louder cheers from the crowd. Even though that ump is still doing better than 99% of people could.

Not saying I'm against it for this reason. I'm 100% for it. But this definitely could impact people wanting to ump in the future.

---

I sort of agree, but I have zero sympathy for the umpires who acted like God and were butt-hurt and offended when a player or coach argued an obviously blown call. They deserve every ounce of ridicule they are getting.

I also wonder if we will see much better umpire scorecard results as the season progresses. These "my strike zone" umpires are being held to account, so let's see if they comply with the standardized zone. Umpires can no longer be subjective and call the zone they favor (e.g., below the knees but not above the belt). It might help them call a more consistent zone, leading to fewer challenges.

One problem with the challenge system is we've already seen umpires take revenge on batters who challenge them. Making strike out calls on checked swings that can't be reviewed and such.

We really just need full time ABS on every pitch. That's what I wanted before the season started and most people have come around to it in less than a week.

And sure - they miss by 0.1" and they're still better than 99% of the people - but worse than 100% of the computers.

fc2112 said:

---

One problem with the challenge system is we've already seen umpires take revenge on batters who challenge them. Making strike out calls on checked swings that can't be reviewed and such.

We really just need full time ABS on every pitch. That's what I wanted before the season started and most people have come around to it in less than a week.

And sure - they miss by 0.1" and they're still better than 99% of the people - but worse than 100% of the computers.

---

That's my fear as well.

I think back to the Lenny Dykstra story he told about Angel Hernandez and just buying him and his fellow umps a round of beers after a game when he ran into them at a bar. He said from that point forward a pitcher had to throw middle-middle to him in order for Angel to call a strike.

These umps are human and can be bought off just as easily as pissed off. I'm all for just giving the HPU's earpieces and let them "call" balls and strikes that ABS relays down to them. It will look the same as it always has except we will know all bias and prejudice have been removed from the process.

If you want to use ABS full time to call all the pitches, then what is the HPU doing besides call his base for safe/out, ruling on foul tips, checked swings (which in theory could be automated with a camera from above the plate), and calling fair/foul? Basically they would be nothing but a normal base umpire with small extra duties.

Mathguy64 said:

---

If you want to use ABS full time to call all the pitches, then what is the HPU doing besides call his base for safe/out, ruling on foul tips, checked swings (which in theory could be automated with a camera from above the plate), and calling fair/foul? Basically they would be nothing but a normal base umpire with small extra duties.

---

point?

The HPU position isn't some revered or special role. Every member of the crew rotates each game and all 4 of them take their turn behind the plate (albeit not necessarily within the same series). What difference will it make if one of their duties (of the many you listed) is removed? They're still needed during the game, just like they are at 1B/2B/3B.

Mathguy64 said:

---

If you want to use ABS full time to call all the pitches, then what is the HPU doing besides call his base for safe/out, ruling on foul tips, checked swings (which in theory could be automated with a camera from above the plate), and calling fair/foul? Basically they would be nothing but a normal base umpire with small extra duties.

---

I'd rather they be laser focused on foul tips and checked swings than worrying about calling balls and strikes and getting into arguments with players and coaches that inevitably lead to them distracted.

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

---

Are you referring to how each ump had his own strike zone, so the new strike zone is actually the "real" and standardized one that should have been used their entire career? Or something else entirely...?

---

No. Im referring to the fact that it is now a 2d, not a 3d zone. Balls that graze the front or back of the plate, or catch the bottom or top of the strike zone, are now balls. Those were strikes for 150 years until this week. So it's a new plate. The umpires are now trying to call pitches as they cross a line, not a plate. It's a very significant change to baseball.

agsalaska said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

---

Are you referring to how each ump had his own strike zone, so the new strike zone is actually the "real" and standardized one that should have been used their entire career? Or something else entirely...?

---

No. Im referring to the fact that it is now a 2d, not a 3d zone. Balls that graze the front or back of the plate, or catch the bottom or top of the strike zone, are now balls. Those were strikes for 150 years until this week. So it's a new plate. The umpires are now trying to call pitches as they cross a line, not a plate. It's a very significant change to baseball.

---

Gotcha. Yes, that is a component, I agree. I guess the overall argument is for circumstances like with Buckner where he misses calls by a foot vs when a call catches 1mm of the zone and is overturned. I just saw that on the giants game a few seconds ago. It literally hit the lower outside corner by about a tenth of an inch, and was overturned to make it a strikeout. Honestly, that is a circumstance where it becomes frivolous, especially with your argument.

Everyone will adapt, just like replay forced tags to stay on runners to steal an out when they lifted their foot an inch during a slide. There will be reversals that will be stupid, just like with other replay calls, but plenty of horrible calls can now be kept from dictating the outcome of games. That's the point, and I'm perfectly ok with everyone having to figure out the learning curve to make the umps no longer a deciding factor in the end result of games. They are not nearly as important as they think they are, and it's time to make them understand that.

agsalaska said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

---

Are you referring to how each ump had his own strike zone, so the new strike zone is actually the "real" and standardized one that should have been used their entire career? Or something else entirely...?

---

No. Im referring to the fact that it is now a 2d, not a 3d zone. Balls that graze the front or back of the plate, or catch the bottom or top of the strike zone, are now balls. Those were strikes for 150 years until this week. So it's a new plate. The umpires are now trying to call pitches as they cross a line, not a plate. It's a very significant change to baseball.

---

I agree theoretically, but you are talking about a situation that involves fractions of inches and seconds. A ball that would miss the current plane but drop into the zone at the back of the plate... no human eye could discern that anyway. It might be a significant rewrite of the rules, but the application is incredibly negligible in terms of umpire performance.

I may have misinterpreted your point, however.

Marvin said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

---

Are you referring to how each ump had his own strike zone, so the new strike zone is actually the "real" and standardized one that should have been used their entire career? Or something else entirely...?

---

No. Im referring to the fact that it is now a 2d, not a 3d zone. Balls that graze the front or back of the plate, or catch the bottom or top of the strike zone, are now balls. Those were strikes for 150 years until this week. So it's a new plate. The umpires are now trying to call pitches as they cross a line, not a plate. It's a very significant change to baseball.

---

I agree theoretically, but you are talking about a situation that involves fractions of inches and seconds. A ball that would miss the current plane but drop into the zone at the back of the plate... no human eye could discern that anyway. It might be a significant rewrite of the rules, but the application is incredibly negligible in terms of umpire performance.

I may have misinterpreted your point, however.

---

No you have my point. I don't think it's quite as negligible as you do though, especially with guys that have a ton of movement on their breaking pitches. I think in practice it will shrink the strike zone more than people realize, especially at the edge of the knees.

Take the last pitch in the WBC semifinals for example. When you look at the side view of that pitch it probably dropped two full inches as it was traveling over the plate. It was a borderline strike at the front of the plate but clearly low by the time it passed the back of the plate. I think that kind of thing happens a lot and the strike zone shrinks when made to be 2d.

Again I'm not excusing bad umpiring.

But like my son said last night, people(me mostly) complain about low BAs and high K numbers should like a smaller strike zone. Maybe. We will see.

To your point:



Not an egregious miss like Bucknor's bad week, but a miss that could've (should've?) been a strike, despite ABS.
I'm an ABS fan, but I'm wondering if there are still some tweaks to make in the system. As long as they're always trying to improve the tech, I'm good with it.

agsalaska said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Everyone does understand that the strike zone has completely changed. Correct?

So some pitches that were strikes last year are now balls.

I'm not defending bad strike zones. But it is now different fo everyone, including the umpires .

---

Are you referring to how each ump had his own strike zone, so the new strike zone is actually the "real" and standardized one that should have been used their entire career? Or something else entirely...?

---

No. Im referring to the fact that it is now a 2d, not a 3d zone. Balls that graze the front or back of the plate, or catch the bottom or top of the strike zone, are now balls. Those were strikes for 150 years until this week. So it's a new plate. The umpires are now trying to call pitches as they cross a line, not a plate. It's a very significant change to baseball.

---

Dude, I was already sold on full time ABS.

Yep. I think it happens more than people realize.