Robot Umps (at Home Plate).........Your Thoughts?

[Useful Idiot]

This might be of interest to some:

 

[Biff Mayhem]

I'd heard "letters to knees" was the standard. This could certainly be preprogrammed in when the lineups were submitted and then updated in real time with a pinch hitter because they'd know the measurements of every roster member in advance.

Plus it would create jobs to update the software and input any pinch hitter info prior to the AB. The umpire would still be present to call foul/fair and close plays at the plate.

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, Useful Idiot said:

This might be of interest to some:

 

this is almost funny, because the truth is that despite this chart showing the top of the zone getting lower, what the umps call has been getting higher over the same period. In the 80-90s a pitcher could hardly get anything above the waist called a strike. Some of what is going on in this chart is not a change in the real zone, but a move to get the zone closer to what the umps actually call. This began to matter with Questec technology starting showing what the umps really were calling. For decades between the 60s and the current game, the high fastball was useless as a strike out pitch because it was not going to be called a strike and hitters could just take it. The willingness of umps in this era to call higher strikes is what has brought back the power fastball strike out despite the official zone definition getting lower.

Edited September 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[djhutch]

1 hour ago, Useful Idiot said:

This might be of interest to some:

 

If this is accurate, I would think this also had a little something to do with the rise in HR numbers.  Yes, steroids had an impact, but a smaller strike zone can't be ruled out.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, djhutch said:

If this is accurate, I would think this also had a little something to do with the rise in HR numbers.  Yes, steroids had an impact, but a smaller strike zone can't be ruled out.

smaller K zone would not make the hardest hit balls go further though it might make the HR/FB ratio go up. But on the other side, a smaller K zone would definitely NOT make Ks go up, which is the stronger proof that it is really is larger - particularly at the top.

[djhutch]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

smaller K zone would not make the hardest hit balls go further though it might make the HR/FB ratio go up. But on the other side, a smaller K zone would definitely NOT make Ks go up, which is the stronger proof that it is really is larger - particularly at the top.

& who knows what impact it would have on pitch selection.

[Useful Idiot]

And then there is Joe West....🧛‍♂️

 

We had an organized developmental "league" here called "wildcat" that I played as a young child, where everyone made the team, and your uniform consisted of a tee shirt with a graphic. Mostly  to keep vulnerable kids out of trouble. The main emphasis was to instill fundamentals. 

I recall hitting  a mammoth home run, and upon returning to the bench the coach chided me "That pitch was over your head!"

Innocent as a child may be, I simply asked "So, you want me to do that over?" 

I realize that pitch was not made by a big league caliber pitcher, but it often  strikes me as curious why big leaguers don't give high "lollipop" pitches a good ride. 

[RedRamage]

I don't think it needs to be done in real time at all.  Players get measured at the start of the year by the league and their strike zone is dictated by that measurement. Players aren't growing or shrinking in height through out the year, at least not significantly, so there's no need to reset every PA.  I supposed it's possible players might try to cheat the system by wearing shoes with bigger soles in the game, but all that would be doing is moving the zone, not changing it's size.

Your biggest potential issue is that the wrong player gets plugged into the computer.  There would have to be some way of displaying a player identifier to the umps and teams so if a pinch hitter went in the teams can verify that the right batter is plugged into the computer for that AB.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Useful Idiot said:

This might be of interest to some:

 

Everyone who watches the game with any regularity knows that practically no umpire regularly calls practically any strikes from the belt up, never mind up around any "midpoint". Any called strike up there is an anomaly that gets Blue an eyeful from the batter, if not an earful along with it.

I'm wondering whether the lowered top of the zone that has evolved has also contributed to the launch angle revolution. Hear me out:

In order to get launch, hitters swing up on an angle (i.e., uppercut) so that the ball they barrel is already rising at the optimum 20 to 30 degrees. For that to happen, they need the ball pitched down to a certain part of the zone—that is, from knees at the bottom of the zone to the pecker, which is now toward the top of the called zone. Hitters don't have to swing at balls above the belt because they know they won't be rung up, and since they know this, they have cultivated uppercut swings for the area they know would be called strikes, so they can try to take the pitcher out of the park.

Pitchers with great velocity know that fastballs above the zone can get swing and miss most of the time, basically because hitters can't effectively swing with their normal uppercut swings to do damage to that ball. They either try to get to it with that uppercut they've been practicing for years and wave through under it, or they need to tryusing a suboptimal level swing, something they don't practice, and hit flares, pop ups, or fouls.

The data bear this out. In 2008, the batting average on balls down the middle of the plate between 3.5 and 4 feet off the ground was about .220 or .230. By 2011 that average had dropped onto the Interstate; this year it's right around .155. This is not an outlier—it's a continuation, or at least a culmination, of a trend that started with the juicing of the ball, ever-increasing pitch velocity, and new and absurd H- and V- pitch movements (that last one perhaps due to the icky sticky).

(By the way, 3.5 feet is not high off the ground at all to an adult man. It's right around my own belly button, a scant inch or two above my waist, and I'm only 5' 10". For a major league hitter who's maybe 6'2" or 6'3" on average, 3.5 feet is probably slightly below his waist—and yet, still, .155!)

Anyhow, tldr; my idea: if umpires—or robot umpires—were to start calling that pitch up close to the armpits a strike instead of a ball, wouldn't most hitters have to adjust their swings, basically flattening it, in order to get to the high pitch that today's flamethrowers would now get called strikes on? That could mean a flattening out of average swing plane, which could lead to more line drives and better wOBA on pitches up in the zone, which could lead to more swings up there, which could lead to more balls in play, shorter at bats, perhaps fewer strikeouts, maybe even shorter games? Not by a lot, maybe, but who knows? Who knew that a 15-second pitch clock could cut low-A game times by 20 minutes? Either way, I think calling the high strike could be a contributor

I still think the #1 thing that needs to be done is deadening the ball, though.

[Useful Idiot]

26 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

 

Your biggest potential issue is that the wrong player gets plugged into the computer.  There would have to be some way of displaying a player identifier to the umps and teams so if a pinch hitter went in the teams can verify that the right batter is plugged into the computer for that AB.

Put a Qr code on each player's sleeve?  

[RedRamage]

4 minutes ago, Useful Idiot said:

Put a Qr code on each player's sleeve?  

I thinking more that there has to be a way for the team to see who's currently in the computer.  Have a display in both dugouts that shows the name, picture, and measurements of the batter currently set in the machine.  Shouldn't be too hard.

You'd have to have someone who's job it was to plug in the appropriate player ID, but I shouldn't think that would be too hard of a job.  Have the guy who's responsible to carrying the replay crap out to the umps when there's a challenge do it.

[Jim Cowan]

Do it before the season, do it in real time, it doesn't matter either way, they are both dead simple.  Real time has the advantage in that it is possible that not everybody on a major league roster in September got measured pre-season.  But it is not important and does not detract from the necessity of the electronic strike zone.

And yes, as teenagers a lot of us would be up there hoping for something halfway up between the belt and the letters, to hammer with those level swings that were beaten into us.  Like Henry Aaron's swing.  That pitch never ever gets called a strike now and it does change everyone's hitting approach.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Everyone who watches the game with any regularity knows that practically no umpire regularly calls practically any strikes from the belt up, never mind up around any "midpoint". Any called strike up there is an anomaly that gets Blue an eyeful from the batter, if not an earful along with it.

I'm wondering whether the lowered top of the zone that has evolved has also contributed to the launch angle revolution. Hear me out:...

In

The only flaw I see here is that since questec  and then the on-screen strike boxes, pressure began in earnest on the umps to call more, not less high strikes. Umps do call to the top of the video box we see today, and I'd stand hard on my contention that before the video tracking they never did - at least not since the 60's. I agree that launch angle does make it harder for hitters to cover the top of zone, but my take would be that hitters went to launch angle *in spite* of a strike zone that was moving upward instead of because of it - and that was driven by the rabbit ball increasing the value of the HR to where all other effects - including the upward creep of the top of zone, were relegated to secondary status.

Edited September 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

The only flaw I see here is that since questec  and then the on-screen strike boxes, pressure began in earnest on the umps to call more, not less high strikes. Umps do call to the top of the video box we see today, and I'd stand hard on my contention that before the video tracking they never did - at least not since the 60's. I agree that launch angle does make it harder for hitters to cover the top of zone, but my take would be that hitters went to launch angle *in spite* of a strike zone that was moving upward instead of because of it - and that was driven by the rabbit ball increasing the value of the HR to where all other effects - including the upward creep of the top of zone, were relegated to secondary status.

con't:

net result being more HRs, more Ks, lower BAs

Edited September 28, 2021 by gehringer_2

[RandyMarsh]

Fwiw to me it seems the umps do a pretty damn good job of calling strikes North and South, atleast going by the zone they use on TV, where they struggle is East and West but even there I think they have gotten alot better.

I remember routinely going to Brooks after games and seeing 20 wrong calls on any given game, now that number is way less than that... atleast in my experiences when I look. 

[Motor City Sonics]

Over the plate has never changed.   That Niko AB at the end of the game was inexcusable...........and in the same game Matt Manning was not getting those calls.   

I remember when Mike Mussina (Orioles) was throwing a no-hitter against us and the ump was giving him a ridiculous strike zone east/west and Luis Gonzalez lost his mind and got chucked from the game. 

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

The only flaw I see here is that since questec  and then the on-screen strike boxes, pressure began in earnest on the umps to call more, not less high strikes. Umps do call to the top of the video box we see today, and I'd stand hard on my contention that before the video tracking they never did - at least not since the 60's. I agree that launch angle does make it harder for hitters to cover the top of zone, but my take would be that hitters went to launch angle *in spite* of a strike zone that was moving upward instead of because of it - and that was driven by the rabbit ball increasing the value of the HR to where all other effects - including the upward creep of the top of zone, were relegated to secondary status.

Where’s the top of the video strike box, though? Pretty much right at the belt. It’s certainly not as high as “the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants”. If they consistently called strikes as high as the book says to, I would think hitters would have to adjust their swing planes and their results on balls hit from that area would improve at least back to 2008 levels.

 

[Useful Idiot]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

Where’s the top of the video strike box, 

 

[John_Brian_K]

The size of the box never changes...would it really be horrific to set it at some point and just leave it?  Kinda short and bend a lot at the knees?  You may want to reconsider that stance...too tall and stand straight up...may want to bend those knees a little.  Batters would adjust.  Take all the confusion out of it...start with the same K zone and go from there.

[Useful Idiot]

8 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

The size of the box never changes...would it really be horrific to set it at some point and just leave it? 

So then, would you permit Jose Altuve to stand on a phone book while he takes his cuts? 

Considering the way he spits like a lawn sprinkler, that phone book might get nasty.

[Blue Square Thing]

10 minutes ago, Useful Idiot said:

So then, would you permit Jose Altuve to stand on a phone book while he takes his cuts? 

Considering the way he spits like a lawn sprinkler, that phone book might get nasty.

You still have phone books?

[RandyMarsh]

Aside from the rare exceptions like Altuve and Judge virtually all the players are within 4 or 5 inches of each other. Then you factor in the strike zone only takes up a portion of the body and then factor in most players are crouched in their stance and you come to the conclusion that the strikezone should look the same to the naked eye no matter the player. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by RandyMarsh

[Motor City Sonics]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Aside from the rare exceptions like Altuve and Judge virtually all the players are within 4 or 5 inches of each other. Then you factor in the strike zone only takes up a portion of the body and then factor in most players are crouched in their stance and you come to the conclusion that the strikezone should look the same to the naked eye no matter the player. 

Does a strike even matter with Altuve anyway?   He'll swing at anything. 

[Motor City Sonics]

Just now, Motor City Sonics said:

Does a strike even matter with Altuve anyway?   He'll swing at anything. 

Especially when they buzz the patch on his chest and he knows what's coming. 

[John_Brian_K]

16 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Does a strike even matter with Altuve anyway?   He'll swing at anything. 

Right...he likes those high pitches anyway and usually crushes them over the fence...so much power in that little frame.  Dudes a mini beast.