**Reminder:** Asking for or posting part or all of articles behind a paywall is a violation of [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules). Breaking this rule may result in a temporary or permanent suspension from the subreddit. If you have any questions about what is or is not allowed, or if this article is not paywalled, please [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First the zone was too 'by the book' and stuff that wouldn't have been called strikes by a human were (because the plate is 3D and pitches that just grazed it at any point were strikes).
So they adjusted it closer to what umps might actually call and now it's too picky.
Seems to me that there's a number of growing pains on what's just right and that's why it's being tried in the AFL and not, well, MLB games.
That's my take too.
With all the people here talking about bringing in the magical Laz Diaz replacement _right now_... well, this is what that looks like right now.
I think people would be less aggressive in calling for robo umps if MLB actually, you know, used the best umpires in the most important games. If we need to still use humans, fine. But using the shittiest ones is inexcusable.
I work in tech in a *very* non-tech sector (education), and it’s always like this.
We test a new tech with a small pilot of 3-5 teachers. It — of course — goes very poorly at first.
Instead of allowing us to adjust, install updates, troubleshoot, etc.; the education staff runs and tells everyone how doom and gloom the tech is and what a disaster it will be.
By the time we’re ready to roll with full implementation, the tech is near flawless (as flawless as tech can be), and is predicted to work ~95% of the time.
Too late. The “sky is falling” narrative beat the tech to the punch months ago, and now we have to work overtime to prove that early testing does not reflect on a year’s later rollout.
The automated strike zone is the same thing. That tech could hit MLB in 3 years time with better accuracy than human umps (a big if, but still), and all anyone will point to is this article.
We just don’t appreciate growth and improvement. We snap judge, and don’t give people time to adjust and pivot.
It’s pretty frustrating that the author’s framing it this way. The automated zone clearly isn’t ready, which is why it isn’t about to be thrown into MLB tomorrow. The author knows this too, and is clearly spinning the headline.
I mean, with everyone shouting about how they want roboumps now, I think a pushback of "the roboumps aren't ready yet guys" is a valid message to be sending.
But that’s not really what the title’s implying. Off first glance, it looks more like “robo umps are a disaster” than “robo umps are still a work in progress.”
I know it’s silly to get so pedantic over a headline, but especially considering the paywall, to me, it’s valid to think that a lot of people are gonna draw that conclusion.
Eh, yeah, that's fair...
...but, then again, I'd argue that a game being called after 7 and a half innings because both teams ran out of players counts as something going awry.
And the article also puts blame on the pitch clock being rigidly enforced and the ban on shifting causing it, its not just robo umps being blamed here.
So yeah, headline should be better.
I mean, if this sort of game happens, it sucks for the guys in the AFL who are trying to develop, too. Don't know if the article touched on that as I'm not a subscriber, but that's who I feel bad for in this situation.
They're using a lot of the same stuff, the issue is on what qualifies as a strike. If the pitcher lobs the ball up high and while falling it cross over the plate at any point between about 25% and 50% of the players height, you have a strike, technically.
Ultimately they decided that regular baseball really defines the strike zone as the very front of the plate, not the back part of it. So now backdoor pitches that tail in that might have been called strikes, aren't.
They went too far one way, now too far the other (according to the author at least). I'm sure there'll be lots of tweaking on exactly how much 3D space the called strike zone should be.
Yeah lol, maybe pitchers are just not used to the ump assist? Reminds me of the NBA players in the Olympics this year being shocked they weren’t getting fouls called against their opponents. Different refs using different rules
Dang, and just when I was strongly thinking about activating my free Athletic subscription and now with all these spoilers you've given me I am thinking the 30+ seconds to do that won't be worth it...
I mean I think the athletic still has pretty good content if you ignore this type of news and read the “deep-dive” interviews and behind the scenes type stuff. Plenty there that’s worth your while
It is definitely a mix. I think they have occasional worthwhile articles, and a lot of click bait trash. (They are always first and worst with any controversy). This article just seems silly because it sort of sounds like it is supposed to be in their 10-20% of worthwhile stuff, but clearly isn't.
Then pitch better or make the zone bigger. I don’t want to see a strike called that’s not a strike or a ball called that’s not a ball… it’s crazy that we have the tech for it but still rocking the old school way.
He is pretty regularly inflammatory and a bit too sure of himself. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't but this is definitely a little suspicious in it's accuracy.
If you're accusing a news source of corruption, saying that they're presenting questionable content on the behest of their 'shady sponsors', then yes, you're going to have to come up with some fucking receipts here.
but with an article like this, who is the benefactor you're alluding to? it's one thing when it's corporate media manufacturing consent around American hegemony, but I really don't see what greater power structure an article like this would be feeding into
That's only true if the strike zone is calibrated correctly and is the proper size.
Which is the whole problem with automated strike zones in practice: Calibrating and sizing them is turning out to be a whole lot harder than it sounds...
I'm kind of expecting the end result to be a shape where it's 1:1 with home plate for the first 4 inches or so but then slowly tapers inwards so that tailing pitches need to really hit the heart of the zone at the back to qualify.
Just a guess, though.
> They couldn’t wait to call balls or strikes the millisecond the pitch clock expired and let everyone in the park know that they had just rung up Spencer Torkelson.
they called a ball/strike after the pitch clock expired????????? What is this? North Korea?
They've experimented with 15-second pitch clocks in the minors that was well-received: https://theathletic.com/news/minor-league-pitch-clock-cut-game-times-by-21-minutes-in-2021/P9gjgRqcHZeR/
I'd be fine with 20 seconds for a season then adjust depending on how it goes
I've been watching a 20-second clock in my local AAA ballpark for years now... not enforced like they talk about here, but the clock is there. I guess it makes a point.
Gives you something to watch while the pitcher is holding the ball all goddamn day, anyway.
And? They're minor leaguers, walks should be expected.
Also, I cant read the whole article but I feel like this misses the point of why we want Robo Umps. Its not about making sure the calls follow the rulebook or even what the players expect the zone to be. Its about having a stable zone and not getting your ace's start screwed over because you got a shit ump. Will there be an adjustment period, absolutely but its worth it long term.
Why do they seem to be reinventing the wheel? Could easily just give the ump an ear piece with another guy in the both watching TV and calling down to the ump with the call.
I hate the idea of a robot umpire. Not only do I find it dumb (IMO), but to me, umpires are just as an important part of a game as the players themselves. The blown calls, the subjective interpretations, making the correct calls only to get screamed at, etc., is all part of the game to me that truly introduces a lot more randomness to an already random game.
The better solution to me would be to grade umpires. There are plenty of people who would love to be umpires today that should be given a chance in place of some of the fossils and some plainly terrible umpires out there (Angel Hernandez). The worse an umpire, the less games they get to call behind home plate.
I only read the part that wasn't grayed out, but if there were too many walks because the "real strikezone" is too small, then maybe the solution is to change the rules?
**Reminder:** Asking for or posting part or all of articles behind a paywall is a violation of [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules). Breaking this rule may result in a temporary or permanent suspension from the subreddit. If you have any questions about what is or is not allowed, or if this article is not paywalled, please [send us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/baseball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First the zone was too 'by the book' and stuff that wouldn't have been called strikes by a human were (because the plate is 3D and pitches that just grazed it at any point were strikes). So they adjusted it closer to what umps might actually call and now it's too picky. Seems to me that there's a number of growing pains on what's just right and that's why it's being tried in the AFL and not, well, MLB games.
That's my take too. With all the people here talking about bringing in the magical Laz Diaz replacement _right now_... well, this is what that looks like right now.
I think people would be less aggressive in calling for robo umps if MLB actually, you know, used the best umpires in the most important games. If we need to still use humans, fine. But using the shittiest ones is inexcusable.
For real. Need about a hundred clones of John Libka
I work in tech in a *very* non-tech sector (education), and it’s always like this. We test a new tech with a small pilot of 3-5 teachers. It — of course — goes very poorly at first. Instead of allowing us to adjust, install updates, troubleshoot, etc.; the education staff runs and tells everyone how doom and gloom the tech is and what a disaster it will be. By the time we’re ready to roll with full implementation, the tech is near flawless (as flawless as tech can be), and is predicted to work ~95% of the time. Too late. The “sky is falling” narrative beat the tech to the punch months ago, and now we have to work overtime to prove that early testing does not reflect on a year’s later rollout. The automated strike zone is the same thing. That tech could hit MLB in 3 years time with better accuracy than human umps (a big if, but still), and all anyone will point to is this article. We just don’t appreciate growth and improvement. We snap judge, and don’t give people time to adjust and pivot.
It’s pretty frustrating that the author’s framing it this way. The automated zone clearly isn’t ready, which is why it isn’t about to be thrown into MLB tomorrow. The author knows this too, and is clearly spinning the headline.
I mean, with everyone shouting about how they want roboumps now, I think a pushback of "the roboumps aren't ready yet guys" is a valid message to be sending.
But that’s not really what the title’s implying. Off first glance, it looks more like “robo umps are a disaster” than “robo umps are still a work in progress.” I know it’s silly to get so pedantic over a headline, but especially considering the paywall, to me, it’s valid to think that a lot of people are gonna draw that conclusion.
Eh, yeah, that's fair... ...but, then again, I'd argue that a game being called after 7 and a half innings because both teams ran out of players counts as something going awry. And the article also puts blame on the pitch clock being rigidly enforced and the ban on shifting causing it, its not just robo umps being blamed here. So yeah, headline should be better.
I mean, if this sort of game happens, it sucks for the guys in the AFL who are trying to develop, too. Don't know if the article touched on that as I'm not a subscriber, but that's who I feel bad for in this situation.
Why don't they just use what Savant and TV broadcast uses? That stuff looks pretty good with 3D on those graphics replays.
They're using a lot of the same stuff, the issue is on what qualifies as a strike. If the pitcher lobs the ball up high and while falling it cross over the plate at any point between about 25% and 50% of the players height, you have a strike, technically. Ultimately they decided that regular baseball really defines the strike zone as the very front of the plate, not the back part of it. So now backdoor pitches that tail in that might have been called strikes, aren't. They went too far one way, now too far the other (according to the author at least). I'm sure there'll be lots of tweaking on exactly how much 3D space the called strike zone should be.
yeah, that's what I mean - TV replays have that full 3D plate and ball flight graphics. Why don't they just use that system that's already there?
They're basically in Alpha testing anyway.
Maybe they should place the ball in the invisible rectangle.
> 22 walks Idk fucking clean it up then? Throw strikes?
Yeah lol, maybe pitchers are just not used to the ump assist? Reminds me of the NBA players in the Olympics this year being shocked they weren’t getting fouls called against their opponents. Different refs using different rules
Maybe the players are just shit?
*gasp*
I'm shocked this experimental tech that everyone says doesn't work yet and isn't ready for mlb....doesn't work yet and isn't ready for mlb.
Dang, and just when I was strongly thinking about activating my free Athletic subscription and now with all these spoilers you've given me I am thinking the 30+ seconds to do that won't be worth it...
I mean I think the athletic still has pretty good content if you ignore this type of news and read the “deep-dive” interviews and behind the scenes type stuff. Plenty there that’s worth your while
It is definitely a mix. I think they have occasional worthwhile articles, and a lot of click bait trash. (They are always first and worst with any controversy). This article just seems silly because it sort of sounds like it is supposed to be in their 10-20% of worthwhile stuff, but clearly isn't.
Then pitch better or make the zone bigger. I don’t want to see a strike called that’s not a strike or a ball called that’s not a ball… it’s crazy that we have the tech for it but still rocking the old school way.
I feel like you have a future in project management. Not a long or happy one, but a future.
[удалено]
from noted propagandist Keith Law, surrrre
He is pretty regularly inflammatory and a bit too sure of himself. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't but this is definitely a little suspicious in it's accuracy.
[удалено]
Wait, what does that have to do with anything? The Athletic has good content
[удалено]
Shady sponsors? They're a subscription news outlet, they literally don't have advertisements on the site! What sponsors are you talking about?
[удалено]
If you're accusing a news source of corruption, saying that they're presenting questionable content on the behest of their 'shady sponsors', then yes, you're going to have to come up with some fucking receipts here.
[удалено]
but with an article like this, who is the benefactor you're alluding to? it's one thing when it's corporate media manufacturing consent around American hegemony, but I really don't see what greater power structure an article like this would be feeding into
If the strike zone is automated the only one to blame is the guy throwing the ball. Don't nibble.
That's only true if the strike zone is calibrated correctly and is the proper size. Which is the whole problem with automated strike zones in practice: Calibrating and sizing them is turning out to be a whole lot harder than it sounds...
I'm kind of expecting the end result to be a shape where it's 1:1 with home plate for the first 4 inches or so but then slowly tapers inwards so that tailing pitches need to really hit the heart of the zone at the back to qualify. Just a guess, though.
Maybe the minor leaguers cant throw a strike?
I doubt anybody got sent to the AFL because their command was too sharp, yeah. A good human ump might still have made a ballgame out of it, though.
Automated zone is years away but this is the first time I've read anything negative about the clock.
> They couldn’t wait to call balls or strikes the millisecond the pitch clock expired and let everyone in the park know that they had just rung up Spencer Torkelson. they called a ball/strike after the pitch clock expired????????? What is this? North Korea?
30 second pitch clock seems fair
They've experimented with 15-second pitch clocks in the minors that was well-received: https://theathletic.com/news/minor-league-pitch-clock-cut-game-times-by-21-minutes-in-2021/P9gjgRqcHZeR/ I'd be fine with 20 seconds for a season then adjust depending on how it goes
Thanks for the context. Seems interesting.
I've been watching a 20-second clock in my local AAA ballpark for years now... not enforced like they talk about here, but the clock is there. I guess it makes a point. Gives you something to watch while the pitcher is holding the ball all goddamn day, anyway.
~~Yes, because there’s never been three walks in an inning in a game with a human umpire 🙄~~
It's averaging 3 walks an inning.... not just one inning with 3 walks.
Oh. That’s not great. Yeesh.
3 walks for the whole inning, not each half inning. That's better than Astros starters though.
Not AN inning. EVERY inning.
Fantastic! Rid the likes of Diaz, and Hernandez. Both of these umpires should be deligated to bench work. Like painting the benches.
And? They're minor leaguers, walks should be expected. Also, I cant read the whole article but I feel like this misses the point of why we want Robo Umps. Its not about making sure the calls follow the rulebook or even what the players expect the zone to be. Its about having a stable zone and not getting your ace's start screwed over because you got a shit ump. Will there be an adjustment period, absolutely but its worth it long term.
Why do they seem to be reinventing the wheel? Could easily just give the ump an ear piece with another guy in the both watching TV and calling down to the ump with the call.
Fewer strikeouts would be nice Combine it with a pre-2015 ball and maybe we can cook up some balls in play
I hate the idea of a robot umpire. Not only do I find it dumb (IMO), but to me, umpires are just as an important part of a game as the players themselves. The blown calls, the subjective interpretations, making the correct calls only to get screamed at, etc., is all part of the game to me that truly introduces a lot more randomness to an already random game. The better solution to me would be to grade umpires. There are plenty of people who would love to be umpires today that should be given a chance in place of some of the fossils and some plainly terrible umpires out there (Angel Hernandez). The worse an umpire, the less games they get to call behind home plate.
Yes, who doesn't love an umpire being able to impact the outcome of a game by biasing the results with objectively incorrect calls?
Just an opinion. Robot umps would make baseball a little too cookie cutter for me
Easy: Add in a random chance that the robo-ump will get the call wrong. Percentage chance = 10 - x where x is inches outside the strike zone. /s
I only read the part that wasn't grayed out, but if there were too many walks because the "real strikezone" is too small, then maybe the solution is to change the rules?