Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Yeah... You're right... but we're letting perfection get in the way of improvement. Compared to humans, things are more accurate and fair with the ABS... so let's just go with it and stop watching every pitch with a square around it that's called by a human and occasionally appealed. If you want accurate calls on balls and strikes, it's as good as it gets right now.
I'm just looking out for unintended consequences. A defensive advantage that encourages all pitchers to have a 100MPH fastball and creative pitching becomes a thing of the past... it almost is already.
They'll get there. Just one or two "overturned" calls that "decide the game" and people will demand it. Because it wasn't the overturn that decided the game; it prevented a bad call from deciding the game.
I just expect we're going to need a season or four of data to know whether it's actually as accurate as we want it to be. If those crazy pitches aren't getting the call and it winds up rewarding the 100MPH fastballs over actually pitching and outthinking the batter...
Yeah... You're right... but we're letting perfection get in the way of improvement. Compared to humans, things are more accurate and fair with the ABS... so let's just go with it and stop watching every pitch with a square around it that's called by a human and occasionally appealed. If you want accurate calls on balls and strikes, it's as good as it gets right now.
All of that said, how are decisions being made today? You might be right about great pitches...but it doesn't matter. My point is that if that's the final authority....let's stop playing around and use it. Baseball is a beautifully strategic game without needing a late inning appeal strategy for balls and strikes.
The first week stats for "who's right" support your catcher perspective...slightly... they were correct in 59% of their appeals, compared to 52% for batters and 42% for pitchers.
They'll get there. Just one or two "overturned" calls that "decide the game" and people will demand it. Because it wasn't the overturn that decided the game; it prevented a bad call from deciding the game.
I just expect we're going to need a season or four of data to know whether it's actually as accurate as we want it to be. If those crazy pitches aren't getting the call and it winds up rewarding the 100MPH fastballs over actually pitching and outthinking the batter...
The ABS is a two-dimensional plane at the midpoint of the plate. It's impossible to position it perfectly, if you put it at the front edge, a slider can conceivably miss the front corner but clip the back corner. An eephus can definitely drop through the "cylinder" without breaking that plane. More likely, a late-breaking curve or sweeper or sidearm funkball is *designed* to just clip the front corner but end up out of reach or on the end of the bat where it's harmless. Those great pitches will be called balls by this system. So before it goes any further, they need to redefine a strike.
My current concern, though, is that the catcher is really in a vastly better position to know whether it's a ball or strike than either the batter or the umpire is. So ABS is going to favor the battery; a batter will only challenge a strike call if the ball misses by a lot, but I see catchers getting ABS calls going their way when it looks like just the stitching is over the plate.
All of that said, how are decisions being made today? You might be right about great pitches...but it doesn't matter. My point is that if that's the final authority....let's stop playing around and use it. Baseball is a beautifully strategic game without needing a late inning appeal strategy for balls and strikes.
The first week stats for "who's right" support your catcher perspective...slightly... they were correct in 59% of their appeals, compared to 52% for batters and 42% for pitchers.
If a ball went above your shoulders or below your belt it was a ball, regardless of the height ratios of players.
I skimmed over a few things they seemed like typos but add them all up, there's no way a human wrote that nonsense. I sure don't have any confidence in the percentages he cited. But maybe just the concept that they base the zone on the player's height, regardless of their crouch or freakishly long shins.
I read that article an hour +/- ago...and baseball is either going to have to decide they love the drama, or that they're wasting time...but this "half-pregnant" status is silly.
If you look at the umpire scorecards you'll see that the average ump is 90%-95% correct. The overriding assumption is that the computer is 100%....but I'm waiting for the analysis that shows there is a bias against tall players...short players...something.
Either we should have the computer call the balls and strikes...or not. The home plate ump is still going to be there for the check-swings... tag plays...foul balls... but I think it's time to just get on with the computer calling balls and strikes. I thought it was strange when I first saw it in tennis, and now anything with humans is just a slow distraction awaiting a challenge.
The ABS is a two-dimensional plane at the midpoint of the plate. It's impossible to position it perfectly, if you put it at the front edge, a slider can conceivably miss the front corner but clip the back corner. An eephus can definitely drop through the "cylinder" without breaking that plane. More likely, a late-breaking curve or sweeper or sidearm funkball is *designed* to just clip the front corner but end up out of reach or on the end of the bat where it's harmless. Those great pitches will be called balls by this system. So before it goes any further, they need to redefine a strike.
My current concern, though, is that the catcher is really in a vastly better position to know whether it's a ball or strike than either the batter or the umpire is. So ABS is going to favor the battery; a batter will only challenge a strike call if the ball misses by a lot, but I see catchers getting ABS calls going their way when it looks like just the stitching is over the plate.
I remember some announcer during a Yankees vs. Astros game a couple of years ago, talking about how the home plate ump had to re-adjust between innings when Judge (6'7") or Altuve (5'6") would come to the plate, so I wonder how they calibrate for that with the bots. I guess there's a method.
I read that article an hour +/- ago...and baseball is either going to have to decide they love the drama, or that they're wasting time...but this "half-pregnant" status is silly.
If you look at the umpire scorecards you'll see that the average ump is 90%-95% correct. The overriding assumption is that the computer is 100%....but I'm waiting for the analysis that shows there is a bias against tall players...short players...something.
Either we should have the computer call the balls and strikes...or not. The home plate ump is still going to be there for the check-swings... tag plays...foul balls... but I think it's time to just get on with the computer calling balls and strikes. I thought it was strange when I first saw it in tennis, and now anything with humans is just a slow distraction awaiting a challenge.
I remember some announcer during a Yankees vs. Astros game a couple of years ago, talking about how the home plate ump had to re-adjust between innings when Judge (6'7") or Altuve (5'6") would come to the plate, so I wonder how they calibrate for that with the bots. I guess there's a method.
I read that article an hour +/- ago...and baseball is either going to have to decide they love the drama, or that they're wasting time...but this "half-pregnant" status is silly.
If you look at the umpire scorecards you'll see that the average ump is 90%-95% correct. The overriding assumption is that the computer is 100%....but I'm waiting for the analysis that shows there is a bias against tall players...short players...something.
Either we should have the computer call the balls and strikes...or not. The home plate ump is still going to be there for the check-swings... tag plays...foul balls... but I think it's time to just get on with the computer calling balls and strikes. I thought it was strange when I first saw it in tennis, and now anything with humans is just a slow distraction awaiting a challenge.
Makes sense. I guess Bucknor was already in a prickly mood because the robot ump overturned 6 of his calls, so he wasn't going to have a "second opinion" on the check swing call.
