Adjacent Aspects of ABS Worth Considering

[MadMax]

… by us amateurs. 

Peruse this read:

MLB Article About ABS Implementation

There are two points to consider from this article; one is directly posed by the author, the other is by yours truly, after watching the first month of the “ABS Era” (insert Tim Kurkjian’s voicing this akin to his descriptor “not since the Live Ball era”). 

First, how the catcher catches / doesn’t catch the pitch no longer matters. “The mitt didn’t move!”, “You can’t reward him fumbling it!”, or “Not a strike if he didn’t catch it!” are all disproven by ABS. While there was an “art” to framing, and (attempting to) influencing a PU, there is now emerging a different “game within the game”, where catchers are now “dirtying / soiling” their catches so as to influence batters to waste challenges.

What this means to us (umpires) is that, more than ever, we need to call the zone irrespective of how or where the catcher receives it. 

The second point is slightly personal. I am (in)famous for having a very fast, emphatic,  and definitive strike call. We can get into a prolonged discussion about Timing, and how it has an ambiguous value. Sure, guys talk about “Timing” frequently, but can it be measured? Quantified? No, it’s strictly felt. So all this mumbo-jumbo about having “great timing” and delaying one’s call to see the “entirety of the pitch, including the catcher’s mitt catching it” no longer holds water. The ABS imager isn’t giving an entirety-of-the-pitch zone; instead, it’s only giving the planar window on/over the midsection of the plate. 
Am I advocating for not tracking the pitch? No. Am I saying that we should only focus on that planar window? No. I’m simply saying that “timing”, as we explain, train, and hold value in, has lost its worth, so to speak. In fact, I will now argue that by prolonging the call – whether naturally or artificially (the “shove it up their a$$” strike call) – you’re putting the participants at a disadvantage. Call it promptly, definitively, and decisively, and let the ABS system validate it. 

… and quit all this 💩-talk about, “oh, your timing seemed quick”. 🐎 💩!! The more important question – did you read / call the pitch correctly??! If ya did, then the “timing” of your call doesn’t matter squat! 

[wolfe_man]

Great point made and agreed with wholeheartedly by this guy.  Umpire audits at many levels would ding you for being too fast... even if you're right.  Like for not doing a pivot at 1st base when you caught the touch and that there was no interference just the same by looking over your shoulder, but you didn't follow the assigned protocol by the age-old umpire association. 

I've had a, let's call them a supervisor, say that my strike call wasn't long/loud enough (first time I've ever been told I can't be heard, normally I'm told I'm too loud).  Twelve years of doing this signal/call and I've not had one coach at any level say "Was that the strike signal Blue? I can't hear you and that hammer confused me" - but I evidently didn't meet the superivosr's signaling/volume expectations.  He also said I need to call every pitch because it's nothing until I call it... what about the pitch to the backstop?  The one that hits the batter, BALL.  Do I need to scream "FOUL BALL" on every foul too - even the one over the grandstand? 

Change can be a good thing if it gets rid of archaic rules and policies.  Can navy shirts be next please?

Back to the topic, do you think we'll see an immediate and big change from F2 pitch-yanking or do you think it'll take a few years to trickle down to amateur levels?

[umpstu]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

… by us amateurs. 

Peruse this read:

MLB Article About ABS Implementation

There are two points to consider from this article; one is directly posed by the author, the other is by yours truly, after watching the first month of the “ABS Era” (insert Tim Kurkjian’s voicing this akin to his descriptor “not since the Live Ball era”). 

First, how the catcher catches / doesn’t catch the pitch no longer matters. “The mitt didn’t move!”, “You can’t reward him fumbling it!”, or “Not a strike if he didn’t catch it!” are all disproven by ABS. While there was an “art” to framing, and (attempting to) influencing a PU, there is now emerging a different “game within the game”, where catchers are now “dirtying / soiling” their catches so as to influence batters to waste challenges.

What this means to us (umpires) is that, more than ever, we need to call the zone irrespective of how or where the catcher receives it. 

The second point is slightly personal. I am (in)famous for having a very fast, emphatic,  and definitive strike call. We can get into a prolonged discussion about Timing, and how it has an ambiguous value. Sure, guys talk about “Timing” frequently, but can it be measured? Quantified? No, it’s strictly felt. So all this mumbo-jumbo about having “great timing” and delaying one’s call to see the “entirety of the pitch, including the catcher’s mitt catching it” no longer holds water. The ABS imager isn’t giving an entirety-of-the-pitch zone; instead, it’s only giving the planar window on/over the midsection of the plate. 
Am I advocating for not tracking the pitch? No. Am I saying that we should only focus on that planar window? No. I’m simply saying that “timing”, as we explain, train, and hold value in, has lost its worth, so to speak. In fact, I will now argue that by prolonging the call – whether naturally or artificially (the “shove it up their a$$” strike call) – you’re putting the participants at a disadvantage. Call it promptly, definitively, and decisively, and let the ABS system validate it. 

… and quit all this 💩-talk about, “oh, your timing seemed quick”. 🐎 💩!! The more important question – did you read / call the pitch correctly??! If ya did, then the “timing” of your call doesn’t matter squat! 

Timing can be too quick, even in this age of ABS. I have worked with umpires who have called the pitch prior to it getting to the plate, much less to the glove. Love your articles.

 

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, umpstu said:

Timing can be too quick, even in this age of ABS. I have worked with umpires who have called the pitch prior to it getting to the plate, much less to the glove.

Surely! That’s a polar, extreme end. Accordingly, there is the other polar extreme – the guy who (finally) makes the strike call when the BR is already at the 45, having perceived the pitch to be Ball 4! 

“Huhr, don’t I have perfect timing? … HURH!” 

That’s a close cousin to the PUs who sit in their “school” stance while the F2 holds it out there, like some divine supplication, and won’t call it until “voluntary release”, often because some trainer / instructor / clinician / “higher-up” / ump-fluencer somewhere told them “You must have timing! You must see it all the way in, track it the whole way, and – here’s that stoopid cliché that @wolfe_man encountered – “it’s nothing until we/yoU call it”, so take your time! Process it!” 
Well, that’s not entirely true and applicable now, is it? 

I do not have issue with mentors, trainers, and supervisors assessing PUs once having all the metrics and data available on that game, post-game. Where I have the biggest issue with is a self-deigned “evaluator” telling a guy, either immediately post-game – or worse, during the game – that “uhm, your timing seemed quick”. 

What needs to change is not necessarily how we call B&Ks… what needs to change is how we teach the calling of B&Ks. 
If we are emphasizing “getting it (the pitch, the call, etc.) right”, then what should it matter on how we get there?? 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

Do I need to scream "FOUL BALL" on every foul too - even the one over the grandstand? 

 

Off topic: No you need to scream "FOUL" 😃 I no longer try to break ex-players become umpires habit of "foulball".

[wolfe_man]

4 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Off topic: No you need to scream "FOUL" 😃 I no longer try to break ex-players become umpires habit of "foulball".

[dumbdumb]

7 hours ago, MadMax said:

Surely! That’s a polar, extreme end. Accordingly, there is the other polar extreme – the guy who (finally) makes the strike call when the BR is already at the 45, having perceived the pitch to be Ball 4! 

“Huhr, don’t I have perfect timing? … HURH!” 

That’s a close cousin to the PUs who sit in their “school” stance while the F2 holds it out there, like some divine supplication, and won’t call it until “voluntary release”, often because some trainer / instructor / clinician / “higher-up” / ump-fluencer somewhere told them “You must have timing! You must see it all the way in, track it the whole way, and – here’s that stoopid cliché that @wolfe_man encountered – “it’s nothing until we/yoU call it”, so take your time! Process it!” 
Well, that’s not entirely true and applicable now, is it? 

I do not have issue with mentors, trainers, and supervisors assessing PUs once having all the metrics and data available on that game, post-game. Where I have the biggest issue with is a self-deigned “evaluator” telling a guy, either immediately post-game – or worse, during the game – that “uhm, your timing seemed quick”. 

What needs to change is not necessarily how we call B&Ks… what needs to change is how we teach the calling of B&Ks. 
If we are emphasizing “getting it (the pitch, the call, etc.) right”, then what should it matter on how we get there?? 

batter is already at the 45, i think was a little to short. with tim mccleland the BR was already taking his lead at first before the strike call.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Timing...such a great topic. The element of timing within the ball/strike-verse that I find so fascinating is...the consistency of an umpire's timing. To include my own of course.

As last year wound to a close, I had some college guys tell me, "Your strike timing is great. Your ball call is too quick." And I started to hear this repeatedly so, I spent some time addressing it. Then one night it hit me...

We are all trained to stay DOWN on our ball calls, call the pitch a ball...and then stand up to reset for the next pitch. And for a strike call we are all trained to come UP on our strike call, call the pitch a strike married to a mechanic...and then reset for the next pitch. Ok, nothing revolutionary there...wait for it...

In order to mirror our timing so the interval is the same whether ball or strike...we must make room in the sequence on the ball call FOR THE STANDING UP part of the strike call which we don't do on a ball call! When we SLOW DOWN the ball call, just a beat or two...that beat or two is the space filled between when we process the strike call and when we stand up. As soon as I added that beat or two to my ball call, it brought both calls beautifully together. If you were to close your eyes and just listen for the pop of the mitt, the pause and then the ball or strike call...you would hear little change to the timing of either call.

~Dawg

[Richvee]

Imagine how ABS could help a knuckleballer if ABS actually called a whole zone and not a 2D plane. 

[MadMax]

16 hours ago, Richvee said:

if ABS actually called a whole zone and not a 2D plane. 

If that happened, we’d have a lot more curveballs, sweepers, and sliders thrown… and Umpires such as #63, #58, #83, #51, #49… and others who are “conditioned” to call that low front-edge of the three-dimensional zone… wouldn’t be getting as much grief. 

[dumbdumb]

i believe?????i read somewhere where the sweetspot for hitting was a yearly average of 260 ( i really think it was 257). so they lowered the high pitch from 55 to 53.5%. just like when bob gibson had the 1.12 era and they lowered the mound, they are tinkering to get back to that 257-260. it has been in the 240s the last couple of years so ABS can be used as a sweet spot to get those averages up and not have to get into a situation of messing with the mound at all. remember in the atlantic league they moved the pitching plate back 6 inches (maybe only 2 or 4) for a month or so, but i do not know if they were happy with the result. so, to not mess with the field, ABS allows technical tightening or loosening (tball-put it where you want it and then still cry when you make an out) of the zone. the in out is pretty much set in stone, and of course you could try the very front of the plate or back of the plate (back may be hard to get due to the catcher) but up and down is the way to sqeeze or unsqueeze the zone to get the averages where you want them and hopefully either how "much action" or how little action you want in a game. hey maybe it will be top of the knees (which will have a different number than the 27% it is now), and the belt again which would be even lower than the 53.5 now. its all in the action or no action point they want to get too, to get FIS ie (Fannies In Seats) but not go hog wild either.