Manfred says no to machines calling balls and strikes

[brewfanks]

I think the perfect marriage of the ideas is using Augmented Reality technology to assist the umpires. I don't think it's quite where it needs to be yet, but it's getting better. It could theoretically project a strike zone, track the ball and offer assistance on whether it was a ball or strike. The umpire still makes the call as technology isn't always correct either, but it could certainly help.

 

I found this article here describing a version of this: https://marlinsminorsmlb.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/augmented-reality-umpiring-the-future-of-balls-and-strikes/

[tbbrewers]

Here is something to think about as a Brewer fan from my perspective. I could be way off on this but just my thinking.

 

There is no doubting the super star hitters(and pitchers) get the benefit of the corners from time to time. As a Brewer fan how many super stars are we going to have on our roster from year to year as compared to other big market teams? Ryan Braun does get some calls to go his way from time to time because he is Ryan Braun.

 

Of course we need to develop more super stars and that would help a lot of things. That is easier said than done.

 

I am for helping the umpires call balls and strikes in some capacity.

 

Just something to think about.

[JohnBriggs12]

Ok fine, but nine out of ten is not a good standard. However, the real stinker is there seems to be a growing arrogance from the Umps. Kind of a "hey I called it, shut up." Tack that on to the maddening in game consistency, it is almost like more and Umps are sending the message that "I am in control".

 

 

Umps have pretty much always had that. And I think 9 out of 10 actually is a good standard...especially when the majority of those 10 pct are pitches that are borderline calls. It's not like you see a ball over a guys head or a foot outside being called a strike very often.

 

What games are you watching? A trained chimp could get 8 of 10 right. Routinely night after night umps miss multiple calls that aren't even borderline. The tolerance rate for non borderline calls should be 100% correct. If you watched this guy Chris Conroy yesterday in the Reds-Cubs game he was an absolute joke. At one point a Red pitcher threw what should have been a third strike practically in the middle of the zone and it was called a ball. Later a Red hitter correctly assumed he'd be called out on a pitch that was clearly a strike and took two steps to the dugout before realizing Conroy missed the call. 90% overall is a terrible percentage. I'd bet the best umps are more like 97-98%. That means the worst are well below 90%. Too much is riding on these games. Balls and strike calls affect outcomes of games. The technology is available now. Manfred just doesn't want to upset the umpires union.

 

At the very least, managers should get 3 challenges a game on balls and strikes. That might eliminate the most egregious.

[monty57]

It's not "an always part of the game" reason for me, I just think it takes too much nuance out of the game. You're taking away from that pitcher who keeps hitting his spots, moving the ball around in the zone and then gets that strike call just outside the zone. I get some people don't like that, but I think that's a part of the game, the matchup between the pitcher and hitter I want to see preserved.

 

That's like saying if a hitter puts four balls to the wall that are caught for outs, the fourth one should be considered a home run because he's been hitting the ball hard all game. If it's not a strike, it's not a strike. Giving the pitcher a wider zone because he's been throwing strikes breaks the stated rules to benefit him and penalizes the hitter. Just give them an even playing field and see who wins.

 

I think having automated ball/strikes called makes a lot more sense than using super slo-mo to see if a baserunner's foot left the base for 1/10 of a second. That takes time and seems like an overreach, while calling the strike zone accurately is just something that makes sense. The automated strike zone is instant and accurate, so it takes nothing away from the game other than the visual of seeing a guy dressed in black standing behind the plate.

 

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

[stoutdude04]

I'd like to see their % on what could actually be considered close calls, I bet it's a heck of a lot closer to 50%. And I don't blame them, it's nearly impossible to get that right as they can go either way when you have one look at it when it's going 95mph. It's just that you have technology there to fix it, why not use it. Ump can have a buzzer on his arm similar to what you get when waiting at a restaurant, buzzes for a strike. That way the ump can still have his head up for everything else he needs to do. It would eliminate all complaining and whining by teams and fans too, which would be a big plus for me.

 

Also, the curveball argument made above. I think technically what you describe would accurately be called a strike. If it crosses the plate at that spot it's a strike.

 

I agree with this completely. As others have said 3 out of 4 pitches are no brainer. It's the close calls that if like to see the percentages on. I have made my position clear on this issue, so I am just going to follow along, but accepting 9 out of 10 right when most of them are easy calls just seems silly to me. I too would like to see some sort of challenge system like tennis. Needs to be challenged by the hitter or pitcher or whatever instantly and you only get x amount a game.

[3and2Fastball]

There needs to at least be a higher level of expectations for these Umpires if we are going to keep the human umps. Less job security. Get at least 95% correct or you are out

 

Baseball is big on keeping gambling out of the sport. Robot umps eliminates the notion that some umps are "on the take"....

[adambr2]

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

Amen. I can't wait for the first shocked look on a batter's face the first time a slow curve that lands near the dirt is called a strike because it crossed at the bottom of the zone even though it's just been called wrong for years.

 

People say it's going to take a lot of nuance out of the game, but it's also going to add other nuances.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I'm not sure how if there is a way to do something correct more often than the current way, that we shouldn't accept that way.

 

To me, this is like saying "when I go to a fast food restaurant, they get my order correct 90% of the time (that's being generous, honestly), but that's the way it's always been done, so I'm ok with that".

 

No! If there's a way for them to do it better, I want them to implement those ways. If using an electronic system, either in whole or part makes the strikezone more consistent, then I don't care about the tradition or "nuance". These dudes play their butts off for 7 or 8 months out of the year, and to say that we're ok with umpire human error being the deciding factor in even a handful of games is silly, if there are ways to remove that.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

There needs to at least be a higher level of expectations for these Umpires if we are going to keep the human umps. Less job security. Get at least 95% correct or you are out

 

Baseball is big on keeping gambling out of the sport. Robot umps eliminates the notion that some umps are "on the take"....

 

Eyeroll. Only irrational fans think they're "on the take".

[NievesNoNO]

I disagree with the premise that the human element is needed and part of the product. I will agree with what he said about it's not ready to be implemented in real time. The problem is there's no move to try to test. Why not use it in some spring training games? Why not some minor league games?

 

It's not really a simple solution as we all know electronics fail and there still needs to be humans running the electronics (vertical zones for each player, etc) but to just say it's not going to happen to me is not in the best interest of the sport moving forward.

[Thurston Fluff]

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

Amen. I can't wait for the first shocked look on a batter's face the first time a slow curve that lands near the dirt is called a strike because it crossed at the bottom of the zone even though it's just been called wrong for years.

 

People say it's going to take a lot of nuance out of the game, but it's also going to add other nuances.

 

Count me in on this one too. It would allow pitchers who have a lot of movement on their breaking balls to utilize them more effectively. That could open up a lot of room for different type of pitchers to be successful. As it is now it's almost impossible to be effective if your best pitch is anything but a changeup or fastball.

[pacopete4]

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

Amen. I can't wait for the first shocked look on a batter's face the first time a slow curve that lands near the dirt is called a strike because it crossed at the bottom of the zone even though it's just been called wrong for years.

 

People say it's going to take a lot of nuance out of the game, but it's also going to add other nuances.

 

Count me in on this one too. It would allow pitchers who have a lot of movement on their breaking balls to utilize them more effectively. That could open up a lot of room for different type of pitchers to be successful. As it is now it's almost impossible to be effective if your best pitch is anything but a changeup or fastball.

 

This probably goes too far. I'd say a guy like Kershaw does pretty well with his slider. And there are plenty of examples out there too. Fastball-Changeup might just be the best combination if you can throw them.

[markedman5]

I really don't think the players want to go to machines either( or at least I have never seen anyone say it) so all of this back in forth is kind of a waste. Commissioner doesn't want it.....players likely don't want it......Umps sure don't want it......now if the players decide this is a big issue for them then M,sure it will be discussed further....until then it's much to do about nothing.

[JohnBriggs12]

There needs to at least be a higher level of expectations for these Umpires if we are going to keep the human umps. Less job security. Get at least 95% correct or you are out

 

Baseball is big on keeping gambling out of the sport. Robot umps eliminates the notion that some umps are "on the take"....

 

Eyeroll. Only irrational fans think they're "on the take".

 

It has happened in the NBA. It can happen in baseball. But too many umps are simply incompetent or unable to bear down on every pitch.

[reillymcshane]

If I made errors 10% of the time at my job I'd be fired - and justifiably so.

 

I would love robot umps for calling balls and strikes. While it takes away the 'human' element - it offers the opportunity to get things right - that's the most important thing.

[yfinn6]

I would be most in favor of a system that would alert umpires to mistakes made (calls made out of zone or in zone non-calls) that could be fixed while still in the at-bat; i.e. override the umpire without going to full review. This would allow that 9/10 correct call percentage to increase while still maintaining the "human element". I apologize if this idea was already posted, haven't read the entire thread.

[newrivervalley]

As other posters have said, I'm not for machines, but for umpires being held accountable for poor performance. This should happen monthly, weekly or daily if called for.

[adambr2]

If I made errors 10% of the time at my job I'd be fired - and justifiably so.

 

I would love robot umps for calling balls and strikes. While it takes away the 'human' element - it offers the opportunity to get things right - that's the most important thing.

 

I agree completely. I can't understand the perspective that the human element (read: incorrect calls) need to be a part of the game. I understand some have that opinion, I just can't understand it. No one would ever say "I think it's an important part of our judicial system that sometimes the jurors get it wrong," or "I think it's a good thing that sometimes less qualified people get promoted at work over more qualified people." The goal is obviously to get it right, as much as possible.

 

Obviously these are extreme examples, but i still don't understand why a different standard and expectation is applied to baseball. Human lives, money, and careers can still be affected.

 

Take Armando Gallaraga for example. A mediocre career pitcher, he will always have one thing to establish a legacy for himself -- a perfect game. Except he doesn't, because of something that was completely and entirely preventable -- the human element. I realize this would be prevented now by replay, but there's still nothing preventing a blown ball or strike call from affecting the game the same way, or worse, costing a team a playoff game or World Series.

[adambr2]

As other posters have said, I'm not for machines, but for umpires being held accountable for poor performance. This should happen monthly, weekly or daily if called for.

 

I have seen several posters say this, but I am not seeing how this is actually going to fix the problem. Held accountable how? Fine them, suspend them? Ok, how is this going to get rid of the bad calls? These guys are (supposedly) the best in the world at what they do. I am operating under the assumption that they are in fact not on the take and are attempting to call every pitch correctly already, so I don't see how holding them accountable is going to make them more aware of the strike zone. They are still going to make mistakes.

[MrTPlush]

If I made errors 10% of the time at my job I'd be fired - and justifiably so.

 

Are you an MLB umpire? Your job is different than that of an MLB umpire. I'm sure you understand that.

[jerichoholicninja]

If I made errors 10% of the time at my job I'd be fired - and justifiably so.

 

Are you an MLB umpire? Your job is different than that of an MLB umpire. I'm sure you understand that.

 

The very best major league hitters fail at their job over 60% of the time.

[MrTPlush]

If I made errors 10% of the time at my job I'd be fired - and justifiably so.

 

Are you an MLB umpire? Your job is different than that of an MLB umpire. I'm sure you understand that.

 

The very best major league hitters fail at their job over 60% of the time.

 

Exactly my point. Though MLB hitters are on the extreme end of exceeding while failing a good chunk of the time.

[danzig6767]

While i very much support replay in MLB, it does slow the game down.

 

Technology though for machines calling pitches is at a point where it wouldn't slow down the game. So long as it could be evaluated to where we can be sure that it is correct in calling balls/strikes on every type of pitch, i can't fathom why any baseball fan wouldn't support it over umpires basically guessing on close pitches or creating their own strike zones from game to game?

 

Especially in important situations of a game, whether the last few innings or with runners on earlier, the count a batter is in can be huge. An ump blowing a strike/ball which say changes the count from 2-1 to 1-2 or 3-1 to 2-2 can be huge in deciding what kind of pitch a pitcher throws next and a batter faces. Add in blown calls in these situations which can wrongly turn a 3-2 should be walk into an out or the reverse, i've had it with yelling at the TV regularly because an ump guessed wrongly.

 

It's only a matter of when stubbornness loses out and this technology is implemented for balls and strikes, just as was the case with replay. Once it is, we'll be watching games and saying, i can't believe it took so long to do this.

[danzig6767]

Could be great for teachers. I give students correct information over 90% of the time. So, you know, I'm pretty awesome.

Plus, this 90% number needs some nuance to it.

 

There are a sizable percentage of pitches which end up being very obvious balls or strikes which pretty much any umpire can get correct about 98% to 99% of the time.

 

Where the frustration lies with many fans is not the right down the middle strikes, balls clearly off the plate, in the dirt, or really high. It's instead the pitches on the edges of the plate or right around the knees where umpires aren't getting things correct 90% of the time. The percentage on those type of pitches is likely closer to 70%-75% when you just think about it statistically.

 

Those are the pitches where the blown calls almost entirely reside and can tilt close game.

[logan82]

Anything that will help reduce umpire jackassery is great in my opinion.