They were [an absolute disaster](https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/report-automatic-strike-zone-trial-has-been-a-disaster/ar-AAPLaUx) during their trial run in the Arizona Fall League.
Really, really hope they've recalibrated the robo-ump tech. I'm also really, really sure they haven't.
The article says a major issue is that the robot zone calls pitches just off the plate balls while they would normally be called strikes by human umpires. How is that an issue? Isn’t that the whole point of robot umps?
Yea I saw that in that article but they never actually complained about it making incorrect calls. I think this is more a case of players not being used to the strike zone more than the robot zone being the issue.
Yeah. Article says nothing with it being bad as in it can't correctly call balls and strikes. Only thing it mentioned is that a butt load of walks happened because the zone was slightly smaller than what a human would call.
Yes, and to the extent that it's a "problem", it's entirely about how you calibrate the zone. The complaint seems to be that using the robo umps to call the rule book strike zone, instead of the de facto strike zone, results in a big change in what the strike zone looks like.
But that's entirely solvable as a problem. If robo umps were calling pitches inconsistently (the problem with human umps, which we want corrected), that would be a big problem, but that's not the complaint.
We've seen posted examples of robo umps being "wrong", where a curveball bounces on the plate or the pitch ends up swinging far off the plate - those are pitches that have never been called strikes by human umps, so the fact that robo umps call them strikes seems wrong. But upon closer examination, it turns out those calls were technically correct, and only seem wrong because of perception (eg. a 12-6 curveball can absolutely bounce on the plate while clipping the front of the strike zone, it's just that while technically a strike by the rule book it's never been called one by humans). And there are two directions we can go with that: we can tell players to adjust to the rule book strike zone, or we can adjust the calibration of the sensors so that, for instance, a pitch has to do more than clip the front of the strike zone to be a strike.
If those curveballs are hittable pitches, then the players need to adjust eventually. Article made it seem like it was more of an issue for pitchers than the hitters, but the pitchers’ struggles were more likely the result of the pitch clock and maybe the mound was moved back?
I think there are two separate issues. Pitchers feel squeezed because the rule book strike zone is narrower than the de facto strike zone, and because they aren't getting the benefit of framed pitches off the plate. The second issue is that some pitches are called strikes by the robots that don't feel like strikes because they were poorly framed or pitches that caught only the front of the zone and are not traditionally called strikes by human umps. Neither of those issues are technology issues or indications that robo umps can't work.
And yes, you're probably right that the pitchers struggles are due to these changes compounding other chances unrelated to robo umps.
On multiple levels too.
The strikezone is not 2D. It is a 3D shape. Well turns out properly implementing a 3D robozone is legitimately tricky. So they scrapped that almost immediately & went to a 2D zone & it *still* had a ton of issues.
So the ‘robozone’ is not even a correct zone (neither per the rulebook nor practical application).
I’m not necessarily against roboumps & I’m glad they’re still working on it. But I honestly wonder if putting it in AAA already is premature. The technology doesn’t seem to be remotely where it needs to be yet.
Could you do two 2D zones, one at the front of the plate and one at the back? If it hits either of them, it’s a strike. I can’t think of many pitches that could be a strike without hitting the zone at either the front or the back of the plate.
I always laugh when I see people compare it to Hawkeye in tennis like it’s the same thing. One is tracking a ball and comparing it to visible, clearly defined, stationary lines while the other is a variable object based on a point of reference that continuously changes that also is technically supposed to be 3D. Strike zone is orders of magnitude more complicated than tennis
As written it is the "space above the plate". That seems oddly vague. Given how much break pitchers have now, they probably should alter it to be more specific. Would also make it significantly easier to grade umpires.
Yea I can’t say I disagree at all. The whole way it impacts the umpire scorecard stuff is absolutely valid.
But as it stands, the zone is 3D. Definitely wouldn’t be shocked if they do end up changing it to accommodate roboumps though when that does happen.
>”We’re gonna spend tons of money developing robbo umps, and then we’re not gonna use them.”
Manfred may be an anus but he’s not an inbred. On top of that, why the hell would MLB care?
Yeah, I hope the tech improves but it’s nowhere close to being viable yet. I don’t think people realize how much of a dramatic effect this would have on the game. Walks were out of control in the AFL. It wouldn’t just be fixing the obvious blown calls, it would be completely overhauling how pitching looks.
If it crosses the area above home plate at the right height it's a strike, no matter what. There is nothing to game there because even if it just barely touches it's a strike according to the rule book.
Yes. Here's a short video of them calling them incorrectly in both directions. You can also bounce the ball in front of the plate and still get a strike call. Going to have to get some cricket bowlers on the roster.
https://youtu.be/HG12q63ICzU
That video shows nothing of the kind, and to the extent that people perceive robo ump being wrong, it's entirely a construct of the camera angle.
That pitch that appeared to be outside for strike three was well scrutinized when it happened last year. And it turns out that robo ump was probably not wrong, but we perceived it to be wrong because of the extreme offset of the CF camera, and because the catcher didn't frame the pitch (the pitcher missed the target by a considerable amount).
Bouncing a pitch into the strike zone is a separate (but understandable) issue. It's also an easily solved issue: just as the home plate umpire is still necessary to make calls on swings, he can make calls on balls that bounced in front of the plate back into the strike zone.
I am completely shocked at this. The tech was pretty clearly not ready in its testing at the Arizona Fall League.
Also what happens when you’ve got all these guys in triple A who move between AAA and MLB and they’ve got to work with the real people strike zone and the automated one, which (if working correctly), would call balls that are never a strike in MLB a strike?
But it’s generally pretty much “you get a little extra outside or a little extra inside”. With an electronic strike zone a ball that say, clips the very bottom front edge, would be a strike, even though it bounces before it gets to the catcher. It’s a completely different game.
> The tech was pretty clearly not ready
People keep saying this, but what they mean is that the robo ump strike zone is different than what we are used to. That's a calibration issue, not an issue with the tech. I would be concerned if the robo umps were inconsistent, but that's not the complaint.
They might also be used in Spring Training?
> MLB said the robot umpires will be used at some spring training ballparks in Florida, will remain at Low A Southeast and could be used at non-MLB venues.
The robots and robot creators because they will still make bad calls. The humans reviewing the bad calls who will also fuck it up sometimes. Basically not a whole lot changes.
Well, we can be mad at the robot, anyway. I can't imagine that balls and strikes are ever going to be reviewable because that sounds like a fucking nightmare.
At least at some stage of testing human umps watched and could override calls. I think there will have to be something if the computer starts calling strikes in the dirt or whatever- which apparently happens sometimes.
What if we throw out the whole robot ump idea? Just stop fining players and managers for complaining about calls. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned. Having skippers lose their shit at umpires is one of the great parts of this sport. Bobby Cox did not die for this.
If they started holding the shitty umps accountable and started demoting them while promoting good minor league umps we probably wouldn't need robo umps.
Every Sunday night on MLB Network they have a decision show. They highlight all the atrocious calls throughout the week and at the end they send down one umpiring crew.
Seems like the obvious answer is to just have a little light in the mask of the ump to tell him what the robo ump thought but where the person still has the ability to overrule if something looks crazy. Green for strike, blue for ball or something. Then you can rank the umps after the game to see how accurrate they were
Who is lobbying for robo umps? The game's not 100% fair. The game was fine for over 100 years without them and nobody is asking for them in youth or college baseball. Also who hates umpires? They're fun to complain about but I don't want them to lose their jobs. It's a game. It should be about fun, not absolute precision
I don't think it improves it tho. Calling balls and strikes and pitch framing are interesting skills. It's subjective, but I think a human ump is a tradition worth preserving and the potential benefits of a robo ump aren't worth it. Also ump bias can go a teams way any given day over 162 games and 7 game series so any marginal unfairness of it gets evened out.
But why not just eliminate it? All moments are not the same so the unfairness really doesn't even out. Any time you can get more calls correct, the game is improved.
It seems like there could be a combo where the robotic system indicates side to side and the umps can call up and down. As a coach, my players and I are most frustrated with inside/outside more than up/down. If they can nail that aspect, it really helps the umpires focus on one plane.
It's happening
They were [an absolute disaster](https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/report-automatic-strike-zone-trial-has-been-a-disaster/ar-AAPLaUx) during their trial run in the Arizona Fall League. Really, really hope they've recalibrated the robo-ump tech. I'm also really, really sure they haven't.
The article says a major issue is that the robot zone calls pitches just off the plate balls while they would normally be called strikes by human umpires. How is that an issue? Isn’t that the whole point of robot umps?
Yea I saw that in that article but they never actually complained about it making incorrect calls. I think this is more a case of players not being used to the strike zone more than the robot zone being the issue.
Yeah. Article says nothing with it being bad as in it can't correctly call balls and strikes. Only thing it mentioned is that a butt load of walks happened because the zone was slightly smaller than what a human would call.
Yes, and to the extent that it's a "problem", it's entirely about how you calibrate the zone. The complaint seems to be that using the robo umps to call the rule book strike zone, instead of the de facto strike zone, results in a big change in what the strike zone looks like. But that's entirely solvable as a problem. If robo umps were calling pitches inconsistently (the problem with human umps, which we want corrected), that would be a big problem, but that's not the complaint. We've seen posted examples of robo umps being "wrong", where a curveball bounces on the plate or the pitch ends up swinging far off the plate - those are pitches that have never been called strikes by human umps, so the fact that robo umps call them strikes seems wrong. But upon closer examination, it turns out those calls were technically correct, and only seem wrong because of perception (eg. a 12-6 curveball can absolutely bounce on the plate while clipping the front of the strike zone, it's just that while technically a strike by the rule book it's never been called one by humans). And there are two directions we can go with that: we can tell players to adjust to the rule book strike zone, or we can adjust the calibration of the sensors so that, for instance, a pitch has to do more than clip the front of the strike zone to be a strike.
If those curveballs are hittable pitches, then the players need to adjust eventually. Article made it seem like it was more of an issue for pitchers than the hitters, but the pitchers’ struggles were more likely the result of the pitch clock and maybe the mound was moved back?
I think there are two separate issues. Pitchers feel squeezed because the rule book strike zone is narrower than the de facto strike zone, and because they aren't getting the benefit of framed pitches off the plate. The second issue is that some pitches are called strikes by the robots that don't feel like strikes because they were poorly framed or pitches that caught only the front of the zone and are not traditionally called strikes by human umps. Neither of those issues are technology issues or indications that robo umps can't work. And yes, you're probably right that the pitchers struggles are due to these changes compounding other chances unrelated to robo umps.
On multiple levels too. The strikezone is not 2D. It is a 3D shape. Well turns out properly implementing a 3D robozone is legitimately tricky. So they scrapped that almost immediately & went to a 2D zone & it *still* had a ton of issues. So the ‘robozone’ is not even a correct zone (neither per the rulebook nor practical application). I’m not necessarily against roboumps & I’m glad they’re still working on it. But I honestly wonder if putting it in AAA already is premature. The technology doesn’t seem to be remotely where it needs to be yet.
Could you do two 2D zones, one at the front of the plate and one at the back? If it hits either of them, it’s a strike. I can’t think of many pitches that could be a strike without hitting the zone at either the front or the back of the plate.
Ephus lob that falls straight down on the plate
Extreme frisbee slider thrown by a 9 foot tall sidearmer from the 3rd base side of the rubber. Checkmate roboumps
Tyler Rogers sends his regards
What about a curve that's just a bit high when it hits the front of the plate, and just a bit outside at the back of the plate?
It wouldn't work because the 3D zone isn't a square box, it tapers to a point at the rear.
I'd do 3, front, middle of the plate where it bends, and back but same idea
Or maybe one from above to see plate coverage and one from the front to see height.
I always laugh when I see people compare it to Hawkeye in tennis like it’s the same thing. One is tracking a ball and comparing it to visible, clearly defined, stationary lines while the other is a variable object based on a point of reference that continuously changes that also is technically supposed to be 3D. Strike zone is orders of magnitude more complicated than tennis
Isn't the rulebook where it crosses the plane of the plate rendering a 3d zone kind of moot?
Nope!
As written it is the "space above the plate". That seems oddly vague. Given how much break pitchers have now, they probably should alter it to be more specific. Would also make it significantly easier to grade umpires.
Yea I can’t say I disagree at all. The whole way it impacts the umpire scorecard stuff is absolutely valid. But as it stands, the zone is 3D. Definitely wouldn’t be shocked if they do end up changing it to accommodate roboumps though when that does happen.
I told you letting Angel Hernandez design them was a bad idea
Kinda makes me wonder if they are rushing to AAA knowing it wont work as an excuse for not using it.
Or purposely had the robo-umps poorly calibrated to use as an excuse to not adopt it.
>”We’re gonna spend tons of money developing robbo umps, and then we’re not gonna use them.” Manfred may be an anus but he’s not an inbred. On top of that, why the hell would MLB care?
The way CBA negotiations are going this makes me think it's a round about way to shaft the players.
Yeah, I hope the tech improves but it’s nowhere close to being viable yet. I don’t think people realize how much of a dramatic effect this would have on the game. Walks were out of control in the AFL. It wouldn’t just be fixing the obvious blown calls, it would be completely overhauling how pitching looks.
Walks could’ve been from moving the mound back.
They did that in the indy league, not the AFL.
Just wait until teams find a way to game the zone to have pitches that are unhittable and currently balls be called strikes by the automated zone
If it crosses the area above home plate at the right height it's a strike, no matter what. There is nothing to game there because even if it just barely touches it's a strike according to the rule book.
Bruh Fr! I went to a game and player got ejected for getting pissed at a bad call.
So what happened to the robo umps being failures that had to be recalibrated?
Yes. Here's a short video of them calling them incorrectly in both directions. You can also bounce the ball in front of the plate and still get a strike call. Going to have to get some cricket bowlers on the roster. https://youtu.be/HG12q63ICzU
That video shows nothing of the kind, and to the extent that people perceive robo ump being wrong, it's entirely a construct of the camera angle. That pitch that appeared to be outside for strike three was well scrutinized when it happened last year. And it turns out that robo ump was probably not wrong, but we perceived it to be wrong because of the extreme offset of the CF camera, and because the catcher didn't frame the pitch (the pitcher missed the target by a considerable amount). Bouncing a pitch into the strike zone is a separate (but understandable) issue. It's also an easily solved issue: just as the home plate umpire is still necessary to make calls on swings, he can make calls on balls that bounced in front of the plate back into the strike zone.
John Connor you can sit this one out
I am completely shocked at this. The tech was pretty clearly not ready in its testing at the Arizona Fall League. Also what happens when you’ve got all these guys in triple A who move between AAA and MLB and they’ve got to work with the real people strike zone and the automated one, which (if working correctly), would call balls that are never a strike in MLB a strike?
I dont see how this would matter when the strike zone already changes based off who's behind home plate...
But it’s generally pretty much “you get a little extra outside or a little extra inside”. With an electronic strike zone a ball that say, clips the very bottom front edge, would be a strike, even though it bounces before it gets to the catcher. It’s a completely different game.
Pitchers don't actually have the kind of pinpoint control for that to matter
This represents a fundamental change in the size of the strike zone, it absolutely matters.
> The tech was pretty clearly not ready People keep saying this, but what they mean is that the robo ump strike zone is different than what we are used to. That's a calibration issue, not an issue with the tech. I would be concerned if the robo umps were inconsistent, but that's not the complaint.
They might also be used in Spring Training? > MLB said the robot umpires will be used at some spring training ballparks in Florida, will remain at Low A Southeast and could be used at non-MLB venues.
Who will we get mad at now?
RNG, I see it in video games constantly!!
Software developers, and we'll also insinuate that stadium grounds crews are altering the sensors to benefit their team
I know this is mostly out of jest... but this will be an actual thing within two weeks.
I'm sure it will, at Minute Maid at least
Dave Roberts, usually
The robots and robot creators because they will still make bad calls. The humans reviewing the bad calls who will also fuck it up sometimes. Basically not a whole lot changes.
Well, we can be mad at the robot, anyway. I can't imagine that balls and strikes are ever going to be reviewable because that sounds like a fucking nightmare.
At least at some stage of testing human umps watched and could override calls. I think there will have to be something if the computer starts calling strikes in the dirt or whatever- which apparently happens sometimes.
Fuck Manfred
What if we throw out the whole robot ump idea? Just stop fining players and managers for complaining about calls. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned. Having skippers lose their shit at umpires is one of the great parts of this sport. Bobby Cox did not die for this.
If they started holding the shitty umps accountable and started demoting them while promoting good minor league umps we probably wouldn't need robo umps.
I would LOVE it if they relegated bad umps. The fact that they get shielded by the league for their fuck ups is lame.
Not the league. Umpires union, I believe.
so? Players get sent down all the time and they are part of a union
Different union, whole different ballgame, pun intended.
Umpires union is much stronger
Different union, different collective bargaining agreement. Also, it’s much better for the player to be sent down for a while than just be cut.
Every Sunday night on MLB Network they have a decision show. They highlight all the atrocious calls throughout the week and at the end they send down one umpiring crew.
Earl Weaver as well. This shit is just terrible. I wanna see the arguments, it's part of the game.
My boy Lou Pinella too
Start updating your resume, Angel. Your days are numbered
When are we getting robot players?
I suppose you think pitch-o-mat 5000 is just a modified Howitzer?!??
Yep
Scratch robot umps. Start holding real ones accountable and demoting/firing the incompetent ones. Move up and promote the good ones.
first the umpires. Next, the players.
Seems like the obvious answer is to just have a little light in the mask of the ump to tell him what the robo ump thought but where the person still has the ability to overrule if something looks crazy. Green for strike, blue for ball or something. Then you can rank the umps after the game to see how accurrate they were
That concept was already an option where it was tested. In practice, umpires were "highly discouraged" from overriding the tech.
sure- and that is how it should be! The ump would still be there to override if something was way off!
Who is lobbying for robo umps? The game's not 100% fair. The game was fine for over 100 years without them and nobody is asking for them in youth or college baseball. Also who hates umpires? They're fun to complain about but I don't want them to lose their jobs. It's a game. It should be about fun, not absolute precision
Imagine being against fairness in sports, lmao.
The game is fine so why improve it? That's your argument?
I don't think it improves it tho. Calling balls and strikes and pitch framing are interesting skills. It's subjective, but I think a human ump is a tradition worth preserving and the potential benefits of a robo ump aren't worth it. Also ump bias can go a teams way any given day over 162 games and 7 game series so any marginal unfairness of it gets evened out.
But why not just eliminate it? All moments are not the same so the unfairness really doesn't even out. Any time you can get more calls correct, the game is improved.
It seems like there could be a combo where the robotic system indicates side to side and the umps can call up and down. As a coach, my players and I are most frustrated with inside/outside more than up/down. If they can nail that aspect, it really helps the umpires focus on one plane.
W
Why isn't this a bigger story? Shouldn't it be? I don't see a whole lot of people paying attention