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

[John_Brian_K]

18 hours 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. 

These were my thoughts.  I really do not think you should adjust it...make it the exact same for each player and it takes out the whinging from the players about their zone not being as big as X player or not "right" or something.  Make it static and let the players adjust.

The more I think on it the more I think this is the answer, but who are we kidding MLB is not doing this anyway...at least not in the next 10 years IMO.

[CMRivdogs]

AAA will be using Robo Umps behind home plate this year. Interestingly half the games will be called with the ABS system calling all balls and strikes the other half will be played using a challenge system.

Umps will call the game with each team getting three challenges

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35434317/sources-all-aaa-parks-use-electronic-strike-zone-23

[casimir]

4 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

AAA will be using Robo Umps behind home plate this year. Interestingly half the games will be called with the ABS system calling all balls and strikes the other half will be played using a challenge system.

Umps will call the game with each team getting three challenges

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35434317/sources-all-aaa-parks-use-electronic-strike-zone-23

I had forgotten about the pitch clock this season.

[JackPine]

I'm a bit confused by the limited pick off attempts rule. Does that mean if you hit the limit the runner can just go wild because he knows you can't throw over? I'm sure it's more complicated than that

[chasfh]

8 hours ago, JackPine said:

I'm a bit confused by the limited pick off attempts rule. Does that mean if you hit the limit the runner can just go wild because he knows you can't throw over? I'm sure it's more complicated than that

Pitcher gets two free throws over to first. On the third throw he’d better get the runner out, because if he doesn’t, runner is awarded second. It’s the possibility of being thrown out on the third throw that keeps him close.

In the end I don’t think this will have any effect on runners’ leads.

[Jim Cowan]

Yeah, all it does is prevent you from throwing over there 10 times.  Which nobody does anymore, because Rickey Henderson isn't on first anymore.

[Tiger337]

On 1/14/2023 at 11:39 AM, CMRivdogs said:

AAA will be using Robo Umps behind home plate this year. Interestingly half the games will be called with the ABS system calling all balls and strikes the other half will be played using a challenge system.

Umps will call the game with each team getting three challenges

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35434317/sources-all-aaa-parks-use-electronic-strike-zone-23

Great,  after speeding up the game this year, they are going to slow it down in the future with more replays.  

[Motor City Sonics]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:38 PM, Tiger337 said:

Great,  after speeding up the game this year, they are going to slow it down in the future with more replays.  

This replay is brought to you by......................   (there's a reason for it)

[Edman85]

Anybody here ever umpire and call balls and strikes? You have to stray from the rulebook zone for common sense sometimes. Doing youth games as a kid, you get a lot of loopy pitches and catchers too far behind the plate... In other words, called strikes in the dirt.

Obviously that corner case doesn't happen at the Major League level, but the strike zone as defined in the rules will surpise some people.

[RedRamage]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:19 AM, chasfh said:

Pitcher gets two free throws over to first. On the third throw he’d better get the runner out, because if he doesn’t, runner is awarded second. It’s the possibility of being thrown out on the third throw that keeps him close.

In the end I don’t think this will have any effect on runners’ leads.

This is the first I've heard of this rule... I actually really like it... I mean I like it a lot.  

First, I know it doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen at times when a pitcher will throw over 4 or more times.

Second, I like that it's 3 attempts... 3 is just a very baseball number.

Third, I can actually see this being employed as a strategy by a base runner.  I can see a runner who's been thrown on twice already trying to tempt the pitcher to try for a third pick off attempt.  I think it could actually create some intrigue and action in the game.

This is a very rare instance where I think they are actually solving a problem (admittedly a minor problem) with an upgrade to the game.

[RedRamage]

12 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Anybody here ever umpire and call balls and strikes? You have to stray from the rulebook zone for common sense sometimes. Doing youth games as a kid, you get a lot of loopy pitches and catchers too far behind the plate... In other words, called strikes in the dirt.

Obviously that corner case doesn't happen at the Major League level, but the strike zone as defined in the rules will surpise some people.

But shouldn't (in theory) those deviations be accounted for by an electronic zone?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but your 'strike in the dirt' example seems like your saying the ball was in the dirt when it got to the catcher, but was in the strike zone when it passed the plate.  If that's the same an electronic zone would properly call that as a strike.

[RedRamage]

On 9/30/2021 at 9:22 AM, John_Brian_K said:

These were my thoughts.  I really do not think you should adjust it...make it the exact same for each player and it takes out the whinging from the players about their zone not being as big as X player or not "right" or something.  Make it static and let the players adjust.

The more I think on it the more I think this is the answer, but who are we kidding MLB is not doing this anyway...at least not in the next 10 years IMO.

On one hand, I don't like the idea of "penalizing" a shorter player by making him need to cover a larger strike zone (compared to body size) vs. a taller player.  But, on the other hand, taller players already have many advantages.  We don't move the pitchers mound back or forth a few inches depending on the height of the pitcher.  We don't let shorter first basemen be allowed to be two inches off the bag on a force out.  And we don't adjust the height of the outfield fences based on who's playing in the outfield.  So why should we adjust the strike zone based on the height of a batter?

My guess was the original rule was written the way it was because there was no better way for an ump to be able to judge a zone.  The ump would be hard pressed to create an imaginary invisible line in his head and call that consistently without any cue to where that line is.  But if we can electronically measure it accurately, do we really need to adjust it for every batter?

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

But shouldn't (in theory) those deviations be accounted for by an electronic zone?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but your 'strike in the dirt' example seems like your saying the ball was in the dirt when it got to the catcher, but was in the strike zone when it passed the plate.  If that's the same an electronic zone would properly call that as a strike.

I think people tend to overestimate how much a pitch moves while it's over the plate. even a 65mph 'Epheus' pitch has enough linear velocity to be moving mostly straight across the plate so I don't think the instrumentation should have any trouble with that. To give the extreme case, when I was playing slow pitch softball , we had people who firmly believed a pitch could hit the back of the plate and still be a strike. I put it into a simulator once to show some folks that even in slow-pitch that's nearly impossible.

[Jim Cowan]

Anything is better than Angel Hernandez

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Anybody here ever umpire and call balls and strikes? You have to stray from the rulebook zone for common sense sometimes. Doing youth games as a kid, you get a lot of loopy pitches and catchers too far behind the plate... In other words, called strikes in the dirt.

Obviously that corner case doesn't happen at the Major League level, but the strike zone as defined in the rules will surpise some people.

Yes, I umpired little league games around the time I was 19 or 20. (Not actually “Little League”, since Warren didn’t, and apparently still doesn’t, belong to that organization.)

I clearly remember the first inning I ever worked. I had a strike zone that was armpits to knees I was going to call. The pitcher was missing close up and down and I was calling it by that book.

After the kid walked the first three batters on 12 pitches, I saw the folly of my ways and called an audible: strike zone was now nose to toes.

It worked. They griped, but it got the bats off their shoulders.

[Edman85]

Fwiw, I did games from age 12 to 20 of increasing levels, calling balls and strikes for 7 years, one of the most sought after umpires in the area before entering the white collar workforce. Also worked a tournament at 23 the year I was out if work and living at home. My parents said when I was away for college, former Tiger Heath Murray called asking me to do games. I'd estimate in that time I called somewhere between 300-400 games behind the plate, culminating in summer high school tournaments the last couple years. Probably could have gone down that path if I wanted to, but chose not too. I had the rule book down pat at the time.

Just getting credentials out there...

Edited January 30, 2023 by Edman85

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

Third, I can actually see this being employed as a strategy by a base runner.  I can see a runner who's been thrown on twice already trying to tempt the pitcher to try for a third pick off attempt.  I think it could actually create some intrigue and action in the game.

This is a very rare instance where I think they are actually solving a problem (admittedly a minor problem) with an upgrade to the game.

I thought the rule was stupid when I first heard about it, and I’m still not sure I don’t think that, but as with the three-pitch minimum rule for relievers, I’m sure I’ll come around to being fine with it.

Re the strategy part, I don’t know that it will result in any change because (I assume) a runner is already leading off the maximum amount he can get away with on every pitch anyway. Not necessarily to set up a steal, but to shorten the distance to run so if a ball is hit, they increase their chances of being safe, if ever so slightly. (And baseball is nothing if not a game of ever-so-slightly.)

I can’t think of a situation where a runner is not leading off to his maximum, except in situations where he must protect his hold on first base in a game situation where losing that base would be much worse than gaining an extra base would benefit (e.g., down a run and two outs in the ninth). And in a case like that I can’t see him leading off an extra six or twelve or whatever inches after the second throw over because, again, the cost of getting picked off would be too great.

There might be guys early on doing what you say, but once a few of them get picked off for their foolishness, I would bet that would stop. So I see this as less an incentive to steal bases than it is to limit endless throws to first which, I agree with you, happens hardly ever anyway.

[RedRamage]

28 minutes ago, chasfh said:

There might be guys early on doing what you say, but once a few of them get picked off for their foolishness, I would bet that would stop. So I see this as less an incentive to steal bases than it is to limit endless throws to first which, I agree with you, happens hardly ever anyway.

You might be right, I dunno... I suspect (at least initially) that some might push the envelope a bit.  I can see some runners maybe dancing a little bit to try and distract the pitcher more.  It might very well be that in a year (or less) this all settle down and has virtually no impact on that game because runners aren't doing things different and pitchers aren't doing things differently.

However, even if that happens I think it's worth noting that rule doesn't effectively "get in the way" of the game in any meaningful way, at least that I can see.  It's very possible, even likely, that at the end of the season we'll say: "Eh... it fixed a very minor problem without making the game worse."  If that's the worst that can be said of it at the end of the year that's still a win (a minor win) imho.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

You might be right, I dunno... I suspect (at least initially) that some might push the envelope a bit.  I can see some runners maybe dancing a little bit to try and distract the pitcher more.  It might very well be that in a year (or less) this all settle down and has virtually no impact on that game because runners aren't doing things different and pitchers aren't doing things differently.

However, even if that happens I think it's worth noting that rule doesn't effectively "get in the way" of the game in any meaningful way, at least that I can see.  It's very possible, even likely, that at the end of the season we'll say: "Eh... it fixed a very minor problem without making the game worse."  If that's the worst that can be said of it at the end of the year that's still a win (a minor win) imho.

I'm with you on that. Although that makes it just one more thing to have to monitor. We may even forget about it after a while. It might become like that rule where if a fielder throws their glove at a ball and hits it, runners are awarded three bases. When was the last time you saw that?

[casimir]

22 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think people tend to overestimate how much a pitch moves while it's over the plate. even a 65mph 'Epheus' pitch has enough linear velocity to be moving mostly straight across the plate so I don't think the instrumentation should have any trouble with that. To give the extreme case, when I was playing slow pitch softball , we had people who firmly believed a pitch could hit the back of the plate and still be a strike. I put it into a simulator once to show some folks that even in slow-pitch that's nearly impossible.

Sure.  The strike zone might be octagonal area above the plate rather than just the front or back of the plate, but the break of the ball up/down or right/eft or any combination of those can't be that great above the plate.

The slow pitch softball scenario brings to mind the Tiger Stadium right field upper deck overhang and the lore of how it turned against the wall outs into home runs.  Holy heck, that place has been gone damn near a quarter of a century now.

[chasfh]

That’s why when they do robot umpires, they’re almost certainly going to treat the plate two-dimensionally, probably the middle plane that’s 8-1/2” equidistant from front and back. That would eliminate both the yakker clipping the bottom front and bouncing in the dirt for a called strike, and the ridiculous eephus coming in over the batter’s head and scraping the top back for a called strike. 

[Clinkeroo]

Angel Hernandez.  That’s all I’m saying.