With the Atlantic League rolling out an automated strike zone, how do they work? Since the top and bottom of the zone is defined by the stance of the batter as he is prepared to swing at a pitched ball, do you have to wait for somebody on a computer to mark the top and bottoms after every pitch? Or can the computer discern the top of shoulders, top of pants, and bottom of the kneecap at time of pitch?
Automated Strike Zones
4,398 Views |
42 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Joe Schillaci 48
Originally there was a person who would adjust the top and bottom of the zone manually.
This doesn't answer your question directly, but is a pretty good overview of the challenges of implementing a robo zone.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/
This doesn't answer your question directly, but is a pretty good overview of the challenges of implementing a robo zone.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/
Does it also take into account that the plate has depth? If not, I want nothing to do with it.
Just pick a zone and go with it. Don't change for different batters. I bet most umps would say in secret that they do that already.
sellthefarm said:
Just pick a zone and go with it. Don't change for different batters. I bet most umps would say in secret that they do that already.
That shouldn't be right, though. Take tonight, for example. UTA had a lineup with heights ranging between 5'9" and 6'6".
If an ump has the exact same elevation on strike zones for those two guys, they shouldn't be umpiring.
When you watch MLB on TV, does the strike zone box move depending on the hitter? Honest question...
Seriously. Strike zone is a prism. When they have those fancy strike zones on TV, it kind of bothers me that they only show it in 2D.jkag89 said:
Does it also take into account that the plate has depth? If not, I want nothing to do with it.
Umpires are not perfect. But neither is baseball perfect. I'd rather not have robo strikezones.
I think this is how the pitch grading works for umpires:
They use a 3d zone.
They use a 3d zone.
sellthefarm said:
Just pick a zone and go with it. Don't change for different batters. I bet most umps would say in secret that they do that already.
Wow that's a terrible idea
A baseball is 3" in width
So you're telling me that a guy that is 3" shorter or taller than another guy can have a full ball length advantage/ disadvantage if zone doesn't change depending on height.
Nope
Robot umpires
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
I agree. Baseball has always been a game of failure and human error. A lot happens over 162 games and I tend to think it all evens out.LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
I just questions whether or not umps adjust the zone batter to batter as it is. I doubt they do...not much anyway.
LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
Yep. Replay, var and other similar technologies have not made any game better.
who?mikejones said:LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
Yep. Replay, var and other similar technologies have not made any game better.
Tennis is better and most of the ambiguity is gone and it depends on limited player challenges. I've actually been surprised at how MOSTLY seamless it is, now. Also surprised at how canny the players are at using a risk-based approach when asking for reviews.
Baseball, football, and basketball just take too long and slow-mo changes the fan's trust of the umpires' decision making especially in baseball though football's contact with ground and out-of-bounds reviews also suffer from the same issue. The scope of reviewability always strikes me as somewhat artificial as well.
It won't be much fun bicching at robots.
all for it
I mean, you'll have no grounds to complain.... It'll always make the correct ball/strike call.Corporal Punishment said:
It won't be much fun bicching at robots.
That's fine and dandy at the MLB level where a 7-game series can determine who moves on/wins a championship.powerbelly said:I agree. Baseball has always been a game of failure and human error. A lot happens over 162 games and I tend to think it all evens out.LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
In college it's a best of 3. If you lose a game due to umpiring, you're behind the 8 ball already.
That is part of the game. I also think games actually lost to umpiring are vastly overstated.Aggies2009 said:That's fine and dandy at the MLB level where a 7-game series can determine who moves on/wins a championship.powerbelly said:I agree. Baseball has always been a game of failure and human error. A lot happens over 162 games and I tend to think it all evens out.LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
In college it's a best of 3. If you lose a game due to umpiring, you're behind the 8 ball already.
Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
I see reviews and automated balls and strikes as vastly different things. While I agree that umpire-defined strike zones have always been part of the game, I honestly believe having a uniform strike zone would be good for the game and would improve offensive output across the board (I also ech Greg's comments that it has been a HUGE improvement for tennis - they are never going back - ever.)
greg.w.h said:who?mikejones said:LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
Yep. Replay, var and other similar technologies have not made any game better.
Tennis is better and most of the ambiguity is gone and it depends on limited player challenges. I've actually been surprised at how MOSTLY seamless it is, now. Also surprised at how canny the players are at using a risk-based approach when asking for reviews.
Baseball, football, and basketball just take too long and slow-mo changes the fan's trust of the umpires' decision making especially in baseball though football's contact with ground and out-of-bounds reviews also suffer from the same issue. The scope of reviewability always strikes me as somewhat artificial as well.
It's tennis, a game bound by a set, immovable boundary.
The strike zone is only that in theory as it adjusts with each batter.
Aggies2009 said:
Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.
Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.
How many games are lost because of a bad umpire balls and strikes?
who?mikejones said:greg.w.h said:who?mikejones said:LOYAL AG said:
This push for perfection is going to ruin the game. Reviews and robo strike zones have no place in a game that can go mostly unchanged for years and years and years. It's a human game, not a robot game.
Yep. Replay, var and other similar technologies have not made any game better.
Tennis is better and most of the ambiguity is gone and it depends on limited player challenges. I've actually been surprised at how MOSTLY seamless it is, now. Also surprised at how canny the players are at using a risk-based approach when asking for reviews.
Baseball, football, and basketball just take too long and slow-mo changes the fan's trust of the umpires' decision making especially in baseball though football's contact with ground and out-of-bounds reviews also suffer from the same issue. The scope of reviewability always strikes me as somewhat artificial as well.
It's tennis, a game bound by a set, immovable boundary.
The strike zone is only that in theory as it adjusts with each batter.
Agreed. But tennis is better now, would you agree? Because the previous comment suggested replay never makes it better. FIFA's system is not perfect, either, but could be argued to be an improvement over no replay. So two potential cases where replay truly helps and both are relatively rare occurrences to be honest so more seamless than not.
That's the thing that allows me to make the claim. I'm actually also mostly fine with reviewing other plays in baseball based on a challenge and believe it's both exciting to wait for the call and too time consuming.
Your team will still lose a lot of games to inferior teams and beat a lot of better teams. That's the nature of the game. Elite teams only win 60% of their games.Aggies2009 said:
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
Umpiring, assuming it's unbiased, just adds an extra source of "noise" to the signal. So you'll win another occasional game against a better team, and lose another occasional game against a worse team.
Robot umpires will never ensure that "the better team wins".
I dont watch enough tennis to have an opinion.
No, soccer is not better with var. All it's done it create a different place to have a disagreement.
Imo, replay, in all it's various forms, doesnt make the game better. It just makes it different which is not the same thing. Replay is actually quite perfect for modern society.
If youre going to have replay etc., everything should be able to be looked at a second time. That much i can agree on.
No, soccer is not better with var. All it's done it create a different place to have a disagreement.
Imo, replay, in all it's various forms, doesnt make the game better. It just makes it different which is not the same thing. Replay is actually quite perfect for modern society.
If youre going to have replay etc., everything should be able to be looked at a second time. That much i can agree on.
Replays slow the game down. The game already lasts too long.
As far as balls and strikes, it is not a strike until the ump calls it a strike. It does not matter where the ball is located.
As far as balls and strikes, it is not a strike until the ump calls it a strike. It does not matter where the ball is located.
Quote:
Rule 2.00: The Strike Zone
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
What would happen if a batter bent over, such that his shoulders were between his knees? Would the strike zone collapse to a straight line? Seems like an easy way to get a walk.
It's going to be very difficult to swing at a pitched ball from that position.SchizoAg said:Quote:
Rule 2.00: The Strike Zone
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
What would happen if a batter bent over, such that his shoulders were between his knees? Would the strike zone collapse to a straight line? Seems like an easy way to get a walk.
When I had a kid crouching down a lot, I'd ask him to step back and give me a couple of swings and use that to set his strike zone.
It's not supposed to change per pitch. It's supposed to be based on each batter's normal stance. That guy we had last weekend wouldn't call anything above the bottom of the belt a strike. Asa is used to dropping in off speed in the top of the zone, and getting the call, but that guy wouldn't even call most pitches at the top of the belt, a strike.
Class of '93 - proud Dad of a '22 grad and a '26 student!
A lot of these umps struggle with consistency throughout the game though. If it was a strike or a ball in the 1st on a 0-0 count, a hitter and pitcher should be able to rely on that on a 3-2 count in the 9th regardless of score. I think it would be good for the development of players if they pitch for the corners and know that they will get the call if they hit their spot, or for hitters to not need to guess when to swing.who?mikejones said:Aggies2009 said:
Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.
Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.
I personally think reducing 3rd party error/bias is good for sports when determining which team/individual deserves to win in a physical competitionl
To me, the most obvious application is the 2-strike count, catcher sets up outside, pitcher hits his target and the ump rings the batter up. If you want that called strike 3 and think "thats baseball" thats cool. I get it and I dont have a problem with it. But I certainly wouldnt object to baseball evolving to the point where that ISNT called strike 3 and the pitcher actually does have to come back over the plate to get strike 3.
It goes WAY beyond that, though.who?mikejones said:Aggies2009 said:
Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.
I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)
You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.
Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.
There is a provable umpiring bias. For instance, when the count is 3-0, umpires increase the size of the zone similar to how they shrink it at 0-2 because they don't want to make a call that sends someone to first or back to the dugout. They want a batter to swing and miss to be out, or to actually get a hit to reach first. This has been proven. How many times have we seen a player get away with watching what should've been called strike 3 only to slap a base hit afterward? That completely changes the game.
It's not a "bad apple ump", nor is it "overstated on Texags". Umpires in the MLB missed 34,000 ball/strike calls last year, roughly 15 per game. The umpire has "worked" in that we never had anything better. Having a single umpire standing behind the pitcher worked..... Until they could afford to pay someone to stand behind the plate as well. Things are and have always been changing. It won't put anything "on a tee". It'll just ensure that the correct call is made.
Featured Stories
See All
Keys to the Game: No. 22 Texas A&M vs. Texas Tech
by Luke Evangelist
Scouting Report: No. 22 Texas A&M vs. Texas Tech
by Tom Schuberth
23:14
3d ago
21k
@coopercuffe
We've constructed a playoff system where Arizona State and Boise State get a bye
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
133
KillerAg21
We've constructed a playoff system where Arizona State and Boise State get a bye
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
89
Infection_Ag11
We've constructed a playoff system where Arizona State and Boise State get a bye
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
62