White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:00 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
What I read is that the minor-league all-star game experiment resulted in a "taller" strike zone (it called the high strike, which for some reason umpires always get away from, no matter how many times it is supposedly emphasized) but called a narrower zone, not giving those pitches that hit the catcher's glove when he sets up outside the zone, and not giving the "framed" pitches.

Actually sounds good to me.
Was the strike zone on the books honored?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:54 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 17,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Was the strike zone on the books honored?
That's my understanding.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:07 AM
SBSoxFan SBSoxFan is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Bend, IN
Posts: 3,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
And not a moment too soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WSox597 View Post
No kidding. To me it always looks like cheating. The ball didn't land there, and then the catcher moves it to fool the umpire that it did.

It can go away as soon as possible. It has an unsavory look to it.

I never paid attention to it until it was called out as a special attribute for catchers.
Agreed. Of all the changes MLB has tried/implemented, this should have been the first one. Given how much batting average / OPS vary with the count, it seems this could have a huge impact on game outcomes and is worth getting correct per the defined strike zone.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-15-2019, 02:34 PM
SaltyPretzel SaltyPretzel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Loop
Posts: 2,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSox597 View Post
No kidding. To me it always looks like cheating. The ball didn't land there, and then the catcher moves it to fool the umpire that it did.

It can go away as soon as possible. It has an unsavory look to it.

I never paid attention to it until it was called out as a special attribute for catchers.
Kind of the same thing as flopping in soccer.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-15-2019, 03:51 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSox597 View Post
No kidding. To me it always looks like cheating. The ball didn't land there, and then the catcher moves it to fool the umpire that it did.

It can go away as soon as possible. It has an unsavory look to it.

I never paid attention to it until it was called out as a special attribute for catchers.
I never regarded it as cheating because a strike isn't where the catcher catches the ball, but where it crosses the plane defined by home plate. A ball that catches the front corner of the plate can appear to be outside or inside when the catcher catches it. A ball that appears low by the time it gets to the catcher could have been a strike when it crossed the front of the plate. Effective framing isn't as much lying about where the ball was pitched. Rather it is emphasizing the qualities of the pitch and not making it look like it was out of the strike zone, as it may appear by the time it hits the catcher's glove.

Exaggerated framing doesn't fool umpires, trying to make clearly bad pitches look good, generally doesn't fool umpires who are supposed to be looking at the plane of the plate, front to back. Failing to frame strikes on the black is more likely to fool umpire into not strikes that should have been called.

Robot umps or not, baseball needs to call both high and low strikes, force hitters to swing the bat rather than wait for their narrow launch angle.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:23 AM
HomeFish HomeFish is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,039
Default

Whatever joy I get from watching a talented pitch-framer or HBP-faker excel at his craft, is far outweighed by the anger I feel when an ump misses an obvious ball/strike call. So I think robot umps will be a net positive for the game.
__________________
"Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only when they are ruined."
-- Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:57 AM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is online now
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 7,058
Default

I would be in favor of robot umps so long as they look like the Jetsons robots.



Robots.png
__________________

2019 Sox Attendance Tracker: 7-5
All time Sox Attendance Tracker:

284-246
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-16-2019, 12:13 PM
esbrechtel esbrechtel is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 5,177
Default

+1 for Robot Umpires!

Last night in the Royals game there was the perfect example of why it is so crucial to get these calls correctly.

Bases loaded to Yolmer. First pitch WAY outside at the top of the zone called a strike. He's 0-1.

Second pitch he gets a nasty slider which he hacked at for a strike. Now he's 0-2. Does the pitcher go to that nasty slider if he is 1-0? I doubt it, he had already walked a couple that inning. That one call had a big impact on the game. If the pitcher goes 2-0 and has to grove a fastball to Yolmer, maybe he gets a knock and the game is now tied.

I know we come from the "get it right" generation but get rid of the "did his foot pop off the bag during the slide so he is out" replay and give me a legit strike zone!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:48 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,452
Default

With so many good pitches being called balls, I really can't get upset over strike calls that are off the plate. Obviously, It's unfair to a hitter to take a pitch he can't hit that is out of the strike zone and have it called a strike. That certainly happened to Frank Thomas a lot, especially later in his career. I didn't see the referenced Sanchez strike last night, but I've rarely seen bad pitches called strikes because of pitch framing. What I see are good, or at least borderline pitches that are called balls because of a lack of pitch framing. I also see umpires call balls on good pitches because catchers dropped the ball.

Umpires are inconsistent, but I don't see any way for robot umps not to be inconsistent. It's a matter of degrees of consistency. In the 1960s, umpires and managers talking about good umpiring said on an average-good day, umpires would get about 80 percent of the ball-strike calls right. The current definition has a batter's stance as the pitcher delivers the pitch, but it used to be when the batter was in stride in his swing, a change that was probably meant to take judgment out of the calls, but the robot ump would have to freeze the player's stance on the first pitch, because it is supposed to measure the normal stance, not the exaggerated crouch. Knowing this, players could manipulate robot umps with exaggerated crouches es in taking the first pitch, which isn't that uncommon with human umpires.

What looks like a strike on a replay when a batter swings isn't the strike the strike zone the umpires are judging, which is a problem created by the change in an attempt to make calls behind the plate more consistent. Aside from the up and down standpoint, robot umps would be challenged at accurately determining pitches that catch the front corner, or even backdoor pitches that curve across the plate, pitches where a catcher especially needs to frame a pitch to keep from it being called a ball.

A pitch often cannot be represented by a point in the strike zone, but by a line across the strike zone. That apples to in and out and up and down. Without a camera directly above home plate, as well as multiple cameras at ground level, robot umps are going to miss pitches, along with some platting from templates unique to each hitter, which may differ from appearance to appearance.

The big advantage is that you have no arguments over balls and strikes, just tirades at the post-game press conferences. Robot umps wouldn't be fair all of the time. They would be more fair than most human umpires on most days and nights.

Mostly it would be about baseball convincing fans calls were right. Instant replay really doesn't do that now in any sport, other than perhaps hockey in goal situations. But is baseball enforced a strike zone essentially from the bottom of the armpit to the bottom of the knee in the stride of a swing, hitters would be forced to swing at more pitches out of their preferred zone, and it would be a faster-paced game.

Robot umps is not the easy answer to balls and strikes.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:57 PM
QueerGirrl QueerGirrl is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North Side of Chicago
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
I would be in favor of robot umps so long as they look like the Jetsons robots.



Attachment 8227
__________________


Thanks for being an awesome ambassador Minnie!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-17-2019, 01:30 PM
TheVulture TheVulture is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,930
Default

I've seen too many pitches right down the middle called balls simply because the catcher was set up off the plate to conclude that pitch framing doesn't fool umpires. Granted that is the framing effect in reverse, but I think it still illustrates the point.
__________________
Fire Rinky Hahliams!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-18-2019, 03:37 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVulture View Post
I've seen too many pitches right down the middle called balls simply because the catcher was set up off the plate to conclude that pitch framing doesn't fool umpires. Granted that is the framing effect in reverse, but I think it still illustrates the point.

It doesn't illustrate the point you are arguing it does. Pitch framing as it is taught to catchers is not nearly so much about stealing strikes. It is about getting strikes called as strikes. It is giving the umpire the best chance to see a pitch for a strike. Exaggerated movements by the catcher can fool umpires, but doesn't convince them that a ball is a strike.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:15 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 17,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
It doesn't illustrate the point you are arguing it does. Pitch framing as it is taught to catchers is not nearly so much about stealing strikes. It is about getting strikes called as strikes. It is giving the umpire the best chance to see a pitch for a strike. Exaggerated movements by the catcher can fool umpires, but doesn't convince them that a ball is a strike.
Disagree. They constantly pull balls back into the strike zone and get the call. Even worse, though, is the pitches that get called strikes just because the ball precisely hits the target, which was set up outside the strike zone to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:01 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
Disagree. They constantly pull balls back into the strike zone and get the call. Even worse, though, is the pitches that get called strikes just because the ball precisely hits the target, which was set up outside the strike zone to begin with.
I the umpires actually called the game correctly I'd have no problem dismissing this whole robot ump idea. Unfortunately the umpires perceived as the most challenged at calling ball and strikes continue to be out there calling games. If the Umpire Executives took this issue head on we would not be here today. They brought this on themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-19-2019, 12:03 PM
eriqjaffe eriqjaffe is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 3,335
Default

Frank Viola got ejected one inning into the first Atlantic League game using the robotic ump for arguing balls and strikes.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/a...ot-umpire-era/
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.