10/10/2025 Tigers @ Mariners 8:08 PM ALDS Game 5

[Screwball]

If I added the numbers in the box score correctly, between the two teams there were a total of 472 pitches.

[Screwball]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Did Fox even have a box?  Sometimes there was a very dim solid box which I could barely see, but it wasn't always there.  Maybe, it was just my TV.  It was actually disconcerting not having a box because I have gotten so used to it.  

It was very light and no outline. I couldn't tell if it was there all the time or not.  Kind of messed up.

[Tiger337]

Just now, Screwball said:

It was very light and no outline. I couldn't tell if it was there all the time or not.  Kind of messed up.

It seemed very low tech for such a high cost production.  

[Screwball]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It seemed very low tech for such a high cost production.  

I was looking into how they will determine the strike zone when/if they go to that at some point. I couldn't find out too much on how the technology worked, but it reads like it is all done with cameras. I assume this is also used to place the zone on the broadcast? Don't know. Would like to know more.

Those must be some really good cameras and the technology pretty impressive. I would like to know more.

[lordstanley]

I’d prefer no box on my screen to the faint Fox box, but I prefer the faint Fox box to the sharp white line boxes. Broadcasters spend so much time of their time now talking about ball-strike calls and pitch counts. 

[Tiger337]

22 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I was looking into how they will determine the strike zone when/if they go to that at some point. I couldn't find out too much on how the technology worked, but it reads like it is all done with cameras. I assume this is also used to place the zone on the broadcast? Don't know. Would like to know more.

Those must be some really good cameras and the technology pretty impressive. I would like to know more.

The strike zone technology may be impressive.  It's just the image that Fox provided was low tech.  The bigger question of course is how accurate the zone is.  No matter how good the technology is, they won't get it right every time.  It should be more accurate and especially more unbiased than the human umpires.  However, not all TV networks use the same box, so there is already potentially some bias involved as far as what is presented by TV.  I would hope that there would be uniformity across games once they start using it to make calls.  

Edited October 12 by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

6 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

I’d prefer no box on my screen to the faint Fox box, but I prefer the faint Fox box to the sharp white line boxes. Broadcasters spend so much time of their time now talking about ball-strike calls and pitch counts. 

I have grown to like the box, but I still wonder how accurate it is given that different networks have different boxes.  

[Screwball]

17 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I have grown to like the box, but I still wonder how accurate it is given that different networks have different boxes.  

How much difference is the box from the strike zone defined by the ABS system?

According to what I can find, but don't know how accurate. From a search:

MLB electronic strike zone percentages

Top of the zone: 53.5% of the batter's height 

Bottom of the zone: 27% of the batter's height 

Total height of the zone: 26.5% of the batter's height (

53.5%−27%=26.5%53.5 % minus 27 % equals 26.5 %

53.5%−27%=26.5%) 

Other details

The zone's width is set to match home plate, which is 17 inches. 

The ABS system calculates the strike zone at the midpoint of the plate, unlike the traditional home plate zone which could include any part of the plate. 

This definition is used for the automated ball-strike system and is different from the traditional umpire-called zone, which may have been more lenient.

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I have grown to like the box, but I still wonder how accurate it is given that different networks have different boxes.  

I've sat and watched a game with fanduel and gameday up on in side-by-side windows and in general the network box is smaller and doesn't always adjust to the batter's height like the gameday box does. Not unusual for a pitch that's outside the TV box to be a strike on the gameday box. Now granted it's probably been a couple of years since I did a serious side-by-side like that but at the time I didn't think there was any question they were using different sources/algorithms/adjustments for their geometry.

[gehringer_2]

44 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I was looking into how they will determine the strike zone when/if they go to that at some point. I couldn't find out too much on how the technology worked, but it reads like it is all done with cameras. I assume this is also used to place the zone on the broadcast? Don't know. Would like to know more.

Those must be some really good cameras and the technology pretty impressive. I would like to know more.

SW for 3-d space mapping based on photos is really slick. I saw the first versions of this years ago (and phenomenally expensive at the time) when they would come in, set up a bunch of markers and then take bunches of photos of big outdoor process equip (e.g in a refinery), piperacks etc and then generate a 3D map of a unit on which they could route new piping additions.  The most recent example was my Dentist now has a little camera wand he runs around your teeth and it generates a 3D model of everything with exact alignment which provides the exact geometry for a new crown instead of taking casts. 

[Screwball]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

SW for 3-d space mapping based on photos is really slick. I saw the first versions of this years ago (and phenomenally expensive at the time) when they would come in, set up a bunch of markers and then take bunches of photos of big outdoor process equip (e.g in a refinery), piperacks etc and then generate a 3D map of a unit on which they could route new piping additions.  The most recent example was my Dentist now has a little camera wand he runs around your teeth and it generates a 3D model of everything with exact alignment which provides the exact geometry for a new crown instead of taking casts. 

Digital scanners it sounds like. I've seen them used for scanning things you want to 3D print. Pretty slick. Thing is, how far away are the cameras, and how will the distance affect the accuracy?

[oblong]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Did Fox even have a box?  Sometimes there was a very dim solid box which I could barely see, but it wasn't always there.  Maybe, it was just my TV.  It was actually disconcerting not having a box because I have gotten so used to it.  

It was more like a shadow. 

[SeattleMike]

2 hours ago, lordstanley said:

I’d prefer no box on my screen to the faint Fox box, but I prefer the faint Fox box to the sharp white line boxes. Broadcasters spend so much time of their time now talking about ball-strike calls and pitch counts. 

Watching Skubal mow down the Mariners while his pitch count climbed really detracted from my enjoyment of the moment, to be honest. I knew he'd be out by the 5th or 6th inning and had little confidence the bullpen could record 9-12 outs without yielding a run or more. I'm not arguing that Hinch should have allowed Skubal to rack up 125 pitches, like the good ole days, but the sense of foreboding kind of stunk. Aces being pulled after 100 pitches really is one of the bummers of following the modern game.

Edited October 12 by SeattleMike

[lordstanley]

58 minutes ago, SeattleMike said:

Aces being pulled after 100 pitches really is one of the bummers of following the modern game.

Agreed. And it's why I differentiate between "dominant" performances and "great" performances.

No question Skubal was dominant on Friday. 2H 1R 0BB 13K in 6.0 IP. For perspective, through 6 innings of his Game 1 WS masterpiece in '68, Bob Gibson was 4H 0R 1BB 11K. Gibson had his 12th strikeout in the 7th, 14th at the end of 8 and then 17th for the complete. So inning for inning, Skubal's was as awesome as Gibson's if not  moreso and had the batters just as overmatched. BUT Gibson's extra 3 innings counts for something, counts for a lot. Verlander in Game 5 of the 2012 ALDS pitched a complete game shutout on 4 hits 1 walk and 11 strikeouts. Verlander in Game 5 of the 2013 ALDS pitched 8 innings of shutout ball on 2 hits and a walk with 10 strikeouts. Even if you ignore the run he gave up, I don't think Skubal's performance on Friday can be mentioned in the same breath as Gibson's or Verlander's despite the gigantic number of strikeouts.  I get that pitchers aren't asked to pace themselves these days, so this isn't a knock on Skubal, but lower IPs per season and per game mean that modern strikeout and ERA stats need to be discounted to an extent, IMO.

[Screwball]

16 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Agreed. And it's why I differentiate between "dominant" performances and "great" performances.

No question Skubal was dominant on Friday. 2H 1R 0BB 13K in 6.0 IP. For perspective, through 6 innings of his Game 1 WS masterpiece in '68, Bob Gibson was 4H 0R 1BB 11K. Gibson had his 12th strikeout in the 7th, 14th at the end of 8 and then 17th for the complete. So inning for inning, Skubal's was as awesome as Gibson's if not  moreso and had the batters just as overmatched. BUT Gibson's extra 3 innings counts for something, counts for a lot. Verlander in Game 5 of the 2012 ALDS pitched a complete game shutout on 4 hits 1 walk and 11 strikeouts. Verlander in Game 5 of the 2013 ALDS pitched 8 innings of shutout ball on 2 hits and a walk with 10 strikeouts. Even if you ignore the run he gave up, I don't think Skubal's performance on Friday can be mentioned in the same breath as Gibson's or Verlander's despite the gigantic number of strikeouts.  I get that pitchers aren't asked to pace themselves these days, so this isn't a knock on Skubal, but lower IPs per season and per game mean that modern strikeout and ERA stats need to be discounted to an extent, IMO.

I looked for that game (1968 and Gibson) and the box scores I found did not include pitch counts, which I think is more important than innings pitched. Would be curious to know how many.

ON EDIT: found it - says 159 - that's quite a few

Edited October 12 by Screwball

[lordstanley]

5 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I looked for that game (1968 and Gibson) and the box scores I found did not include pitch counts, which I think is more important than innings pitched. Would be curious to know how many.

ON EDIT: found it - says 159 - that's quite a few

Good find. And Verlander pitched 122 in the 2012 complete game Game 5 I referenced and 111 in the 8 innings of 2013 Game 5. Scherzer was pulled after 7 innings and 108 pitches of Game 2 of the 2013 ALCS against Boston in which he had given up 2 hits and 2 walks with 1 run and 13 strikeouts.