More crazy from Byrnes ....

[Thunderheads]

sigh ..........

[stkjock]

typically I'm a traditionalist when it comes to the game. I like the fact that umpires have their own zones.  It seems some calls are lost or gained by where the HU sets up and how the catcher receives the ball.   I can see how this could benefit the game by creating a more consistent zone across the game.

 

Jeff - 

I'm not a umpire - so I cannot speak from that view point.    What's your apparent objection to this system?

[UmpJeff]

IMHO, everyone in this video with hair is a complete tool.  I change the channel when these 3 start blowing wind through their vocal cords.  UGH!!!!

[Thunderheads]

typically I'm a traditionalist when it comes to the game. I like the fact that umpires have their own zones.  It seems some calls are lost or gained by where the HU sets up and how the catcher receives the ball.   I can see how this could benefit the game by creating a more consistent zone across the game.

 

Jeff - 

I'm not a umpire - so I cannot speak from that view point.    What's your apparent objection to this system?

my issue is that the systems they're talking about say they have about an inch margin of error, but we still don't know (for a 3 dimensional strike zone) how accurate the systems are.   Most, if not all of the MLB umpires margin of error is way smaller than Byrnes is discussing here and much closer to what this so called system can perform. 

[UmpJeff]

Jeff - 

I'm not a umpire - so I cannot speak from that view point.    What's your apparent objection to this system?

I'm not the Jeff you're asking, but I'll weigh in...

Baseball, for as long as I've been alive, has always been "traditional" in nature.  Things are not easily changed in this game.  I am a traditionalist.

Also, this system, like the humans tasked to call Balls and Strikes, isn't perfect.  So, until it is iron-clad perfect, don't use it.

Edited August 7, 2015 by UmpJeff

[stkjock]

my issue is that the systems they're talking about say they have about an inch margin of error, but we still don't know (for a 3 dimensional strike zone) how accurate the systems are.   Most, if not all of the MLB umpires margin of error is way smaller than Byrnes is discussing here and much closer to what this so called system can perform. 

Thank you - I did not realize that MLB Umpires were that consistent or close with the MoE.   From the youth ball experience I've had of the last few years this system would be a god send...  

I'm not the Jeff you're asking, but I'll weigh in...

Baseball, for as long as I've been alive, has always been "traditional" in nature.  Things are not easily changed in this game.  I am a traditionalist.

Also, this system, like the humans tasked to call Balls and Strikes, isn't perfect.  So, until it is iron-clad perfect, don't use it.

I agree about the traditional nature as stated in my first comment.

 

appreciate the comment UJ.

[MooseLoop]

This system still has humans setting the top and bottom of the zone according to each individual batter's knees and pants/shoulders midpoint as he is preparing to swing.  It does not account for the actual ovoid nature of a realistic strike zone.  And it removes a critical baseball skill: adjusting to an individual human plate umpire's strike zone for that game.  Just because it is technology does not mean it is accurate.

[LRZ]

Sport is a human endeavor, complete with error. To this traditionalist, that includes the officiating. Why not wire bases and uniforms, like touches in fencing, to determine safe/out, tag/no tag? Yes, such a system might be "iron-clad perfect," but something would be missing, to my way of thinking. But, then, I still root for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

[Mizzou2016]

2:20 in the video: "If the ball crosses the front of the plate in the strike zone, that's a strike"

While that is correct, it is incomplete! That's the biggest problem with this technology - the strike zone is 3 dimensional, exists in time and space, yada yada. . . 

You want a computer to call a ball that misses the stike zone in this 2 Dimensional plane by 1/4 of an inch, but passes through the rest of the zone, a Ball? No! That's a strike, all day every day!

Comparatively, a sinker that just catches the front of this strike zone in the 2 Dimensional plane but that the catcher has to smother to control, is not a strike. Sure it might have touched the strike zone, but did it pass through it? Depending on you interpretation of "pass through" but I think most players, coaches and umpires would say no.

Human umpires are not perfect, but even using a computerized strike zone will involve human error, and I don't think baseball people will like the consequences.

[stkjock]

2:20 in the video: "If the ball crosses the front of the plate in the strike zone, that's a strike"

While that is correct, it is incomplete! That's the biggest problem with this technology - the strike zone is 3 dimensional, exists in time and space, yada yada. . . 

You want a computer to call a ball that misses the stike zone in this 2 Dimensional plane by 1/4 of an inch, but passes through the rest of the zone, a Ball? No! That's a strike, all day every day!

Comparatively, a sinker that just catches the front of this strike zone in the 2 Dimensional plane but that the catcher has to smother to control, is not a strike. Sure it might have touched the strike zone, but did it pass through it? Depending on you interpretation of "pass through" but I think most players, coaches and umpires would say no.

Human umpires are not perfect, but even using a computerized strike zone will involve human error, and I don't think baseball people will like the consequences.

1/4" is a very small MoE.

 

 why would that sinker not be a called strike, it would seem by rule that it should be,  \/ from OBR

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which -- 
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed; 
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; 
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes; 
(d) Is bunted foul; 
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it; 
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or 
(g) Becomes a foul tip. 

[Mizzou2016]

(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; 

Which is why I said depending on your interpretation of "passes through" 

I am well aware of the definition of a strike, but to me, passes through means more than just clipping the edge of invisible three dimensional pentagonal base - prism. 

Most players coaches and umpires do not want that strike, some do.

If I were working a 10U game I might get it. If I I tried to get that working a 5A varsity game...well, my night would probably not go well. 
 

[BillKen]

Again...a player will play his whole career with a human umpire...then get to the bigs and be playing a different game!  That makes it stupid.  The MLB umps are by and large excellent at their jobs.  They just don't miss many pitches and I believe they aren't biased.  I've seen studies that show a slight bias towards home teams, but each team plays 81 at home and 81 on the road.  In a league that plays 162 games in a season...I don't believe that umpires have a very significant impact at all as it relates to who makes the playoffs.  This whole Robo-Ump is just what narcissistic jocks dream of when they refuse to take responsibility for only hitting .258 in their career.

(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; 

Which is why I said depending on your interpretation of "passes through" 

I am well aware of the definition of a strike, but to me, passes through means more than just clipping the edge of invisible three dimensional pentagonal base - prism. 

Most players coaches and umpires do not want that strike, some do.

If I were working a 10U game I might get it. If I I tried to get that working a 5A varsity game...well, my night would probably not go well. 
 

I call a 23 inch plate in college with no complaints. 

 

[Mizzou2016]

I call a 23 inch plate in college with no complaints. 

 

23 inches where it just barely clips the edge of your zone? Or is passes through the edge of your zone?

A ball is approximately 2 7/8" wide, so you call 3" on both sides of the plate, I think that's ok. 1 ball in, 2 balls out for almost all amateur ball. 

But just clipping the bottom front of the zone and then bounces before it gets to the catcher? I have a feeling that would garner some criticism in college. 
 

[catsbackr]

The hitters are going to absolutely HATE the armpit strike at 95 MPH!  No one will be able to touch that!

[lawump]

There are enough (legitimate, science-based) stories on the web that shows that these systems have not advanced (at least not yet) to a point where they can replace human umpires. 

For example, one story points to a game a few years ago where the MLB umpire was shown to have missed or grossly missed a large number of calls (he was, according to the computer, calling "strikes" on pitches that were inside to way inside).  After the game, it was determined that the calibration was off 4 to 5 inches. 

Second, all current systems rely on human operators (as has been discussed above) to set the upper and lower limits of the strike zone.  Thus, human judgment is still not eliminated with the use of a computer system.

Third, no system accounts for the fact that MLB does not want certain "strikes" (as judged by the computer) called.  For example, if a breaking ball barely clips the bottom of the strike zone at the front edge of the plate (thus, being ruled a "strike" by the computer) and then lands in the dirt uncaught by the catcher...if the human umpire calls that pitch a "ball", his computer evaluation score will be changed after the game by MLB to reflect that that is a "correct" call.  (NOBODY in professional baseball wants that pitch called a "strike".) 

Fourth, there are more than one computer systems in use.  In fact, the system that ESPN uses (K zone) is not what MLB uses to evaluate their umpires.  These computer zones DO vary from one to the next (just like from one umpire to another).  This happens all the time:  A batter gets called out on strikes.  The television "K zone" says the pitch was a "ball".  The batter gets ejected (and the announcers bury the umpire based on K zone).  Then the next day I go to www.closecallsports.com to read about the ejection and that website's computer chart shows that the pitch was called correctly.  So, which computer system do you use?

Fifth, another story states that these systems generally perform more consistently pitch-to-pitch, inning-to-inning than major league umpires, but they have more gross misses.  So, in essence your trading one "perceived evil" for another.  Would you rather have a human umpire whose outside corner varies from inning to inning by an inch or so, but hardly ever (if ever) has a truly gross miss OR would you rather have a system that is more consistent overall...but then out of no where will suddenly call a pitch that goes flying over the catcher's head a "strike" or a pitch thigh high over the middle of the plate a "ball"?  They have not been able to completely eliminate these gross misses.

For what it is worth, these computer zones, like all technology, will continue to improve.  It is my opinion (and my opinion only...I have no "inside" information) that pro baseball will hold on to the (human) umpire for a long time out of tradition.  However, I believe that when the millennial generation takes over running baseball (a generation that has grown up on computers) we will see umpires replaced (at least for calling balls and strikes).

[johnnyg08]

 From the youth ball experience I've had of the last few years this system would be a god send...  

If you like walk fests...then yes, this is the youth bb tool for you!!

[MObetterBlue]

I was done when I saw the DB with his hat on backwards acting completely unprofessional - "not even close".  When did calling balls and strikes become a venue for a wannabe entertainer???

Plus no mention of how accurate the MLB guys are with their zones. 

Add that they didn't show anything from actual players that had to use the system.  They only had the DB advocating for it.

The final straw was the insinuation of bias.

D.. O.. N.. E..

[BillKen]

23 inches where it just barely clips the edge of your zone? Or is passes through the edge of your zone?

A ball is approximately 2 7/8" wide, so you call 3" on both sides of the plate, I think that's ok. 1 ball in, 2 balls out for almost all amateur ball. 

But just clipping the bottom front of the zone and then bounces before it gets to the catcher? I have a feeling that would garner some criticism in college. 
 

The one they really holler about is the 12-6 curve that drops into the high part of the zone.  

Personally, I think the strike zone should be a Hexagon. :-)  Most amatuer umpires realistically have that type of zone.

 

[The Flush]

Pitchf/x and the like have already made MLB umpires more consistent. I think it should be used for training and evaluation, but don't see much benefit to using it to actually call the games.

 

-Jim, not an umpire.

[stkjock]

If you like walk fests...then yes, this is the youth bb tool for you!!

well since the zone can be adjusted it could be set a bit wider.  However, as I'm sure you know,  you coach the kids to swing at balls in the zone, then you get the guy who calls balls 6" off the plate  (that cannot be hit without lunging at) or at the ankles a strike, well then it makes the game a wee bit harder.  I can understand if you get a team who doesn't take the bat off the shoulder, however, you get a kid who pitches' are in the zone, well then it is a different story.

[BillKen]

You should be coaching kids to swing at hittable pitches...not just the ones that are in the zone.  If you coach them to foul off the ones that they might get punched out on, they will eventually get a fat one to drive.

[MadMax]

Suddenly, it struck me... Eric Byrnes may be the biggest threat to our jobs. I'm not speaking rhetorically, or philosophically... I'm talking actual fiscal logic.

Where does the implementation of the "Robotic Pitch Judge" truly start... and truly end? No doubt, "they" want it in MLB because that's where the money (and fame) is, rightly so. But see, they introduced it in an independent professional league (right?). Or at least in the Minors... So if it starts there, then what's keeping it from precipitating down the levels? Is the NCAA then next? Then Showcase ball and Elite / Academy ball? RBI ball? *gasp* NFHS??!!

Seriously! Where does it end? Because this system ain't cheap! Most of the baseball landscape is on a shoestring budget as it is. If there is enough outcry for Robo-Ump, then lesser leagues and levels of amateur baseball will start to try and implement it. There are a whole lotta complexities to this, but lemme cut to the heart of this – it's going to come down to a amateur baseball game where, instead of paying for 2 umpires, the hosting facility will wheel out the "Robo-Ump" (which is a flat equipment cost, I'm sure) to call balls and strikes, and pay for one additional umpire, with that umpire "encouraged" to work behind the mound in some weird, convoluted B-C, "rover"-like position. 

"But what about fair/foul?" you may ask. Good point, but you know what's next after they take balls & strikes from human eyes? Fair/Foul, determined by an optical "eye" much like, if not exactly like, tennis.

[Mizzou2016]

@MadMax I'm pretty young, and I feel comfortable saying that will not ever happen in my lifetime.

[DVA7130]

That was the worst baseball video I ever watched in my life.

If I was at that game it would have took everything to not attack that asshole on the microphone. F*#K them.

[ZebraStripes]

6 minutes of my life I will never get back.  If that's the crap that's on MLB channel, I'm lucky I don't have it.  That is awful.  It was worse than finger nails on a chalk board.