Digital Baseball Umpires

Dekaner writes "Wired is running an article on an electronic umpire that tracks each baseball pitch and judges whether it is within the "strike zone" has been installed at 10 major league ballparks in the U.S. The QuesTec system uses several cameras that track each pitch and compare the machine's judgment with that of the umpire standing behind the catcher. At the end of each game it provides a summary of its ratings and compares them with the umpire's calls. In general there is reasonably good agreement. In a recent test the QuesTec system judged that 32.1 percent of pitches were within the "strike zone", while the umpire called 31.4 percent as strikes. However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view. "

Comments

And the reason...

[Obiwan Kenobi]

The reason umpires don't want these machines on the field is that they make a KILLING doing their job.

Seriously, the average pay for an ump is well over $100k. I'm not talking about your little league ump, I'm talking about the "Big Boys", the major league umpires.

It's hilarious reading the article with this in mind, with the machine doing the same job better and the umps jumping up and down crying foul. Of COURSE they don't want these machines. They'd lose their Lexus.

Just something to think about.

Re:And the reason...

[kawika]

Absolutely, these guys are not used to having their authority challenged. Unlike most other workers, I should add. It's fine for tech support staff to have their calls recorded, for employees to have all their emails monitored, and for factory workers to be judged by quantitative productivity standards. But if you start to question the ump, well then that's foul play!

Re:And the reason...

[EggMan2000]

I think it proves the Umps are pretty damn accurate at their jobs. To be that accurate takes quite a bit of skill.

I respect the ups more than some athletes. They work hard, get hit with balls, and are highly trained professionals.

Don't go off on umps for making decent money $100K a year is still middle class, they have to travel all over the damn country, and work pretty damn hard too.

The computer may be able to see strikes more accuratly, but they could never replace the umps for the interp of rules, calling out players at base, etc...

Re:And the reason...

[EggMan2000]

Dude, it's not like it's taxpayer money. The athletes themselves make millions. It easy to forget the work involved in being an ump beyond calling strikes.

Re:And the reason...

[JordoCrouse]

It's hilarious reading the article with this in mind, with the machine doing the same job better and the umps jumping up and down crying foul. Of COURSE they don't want these machines. They'd lose their Lexus.

That is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard. Nobody is asking for any umpires to be removed. Baseball by its nature is a very subjective game, and I don't think that anyone is stupid enough to think that a few machines will do a decent job of evaluating a game played at about 100 miles per hour on a gigantic chunk of real estate.

You know that beep you hear when a tennis player faults at a major event? Thats a computer system that can determine when the player faults. But did you notice that it doesn't replace the small army of human observers and judges? Of course not, and it won't do the same thing in baseball either. These things are in position for evaluating the umpires, not replacing them.

But here's my rant. Throughout history, umpires have been traditionally consistant from game to game. That doesn't mean they all are consistant with each other, but generally the same umpire will call the same way each game. And this has always been a great advantage to those who were students of the game. Pichers like Tom Glavine have made hall of fame careers by studying the umpires and knowing exactly where to throw the ball.

But you have to understand that these devices, which may be responsible for the hiring and firing of umpires, are only installed at a handful of ballparks. So in order to keep their jobs, the umpires much change their calling style when at those ballparks, which destroys their consistancy, and makes them more prone to error.

And the interesting thing is, this is a direct result of them being only installed in a handful of parks. If they were in every single major league ballpark, then you would see many of the objections disappear. Thats whats so interesting to me about this whole thing - not that they want to evaluate the umpires, but rather,that they don't want to evaluate them uniformly. Whats up with that?

Re:And the reason...

[phageman]

I've worked as an umpire at everything upto the Div I college level for over a decade, and I can say without a doubt that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

First, the "fat men" standing behind the plate are a dwindling minority in MLB. It takes a lot of hustle to be in the correct position to make a call, especially at third base or in the outfield.

Second, his job is physically dangerous. Why do you think the plate man wears so much protective equipment? Let's see how well you recover from a 90+ mph fastball between the eyes, off the inside of your knee, or (God forbid) a tipped ball that gets by the catcher and goes right off your nuts. Broken bones are a fact of life for any umpire with a full schedule of high-level ball.

Third, his job is mentally and techincally demanding. He must make an immediate ruling on action that occurs in a fraction of a second, and is expected to get it right every time by the fans sitting in the stands or in the their air-conditioned homes, who, btw, also have the benefit of slo-mo instant replay from multiple camera angles. They also must have a complete mastery of probably the most convoluted and counter-intuitive set rules for any major sport.

And just for fun, he gets to be the target of the wrath of the fans for every call that doesn't go their way.

The average MLB umpire does between 130-160 games a year, not counting spring training or postseason assignments. All those games require travel, which puts a huge burden on their families. Most of them spend the offseason training for the regular season, just like all the other athletes. And all of this is after they've spent several years working their way up through the minors, making $1700/month, traveling by bus, and staying in cheap motels nine months out of the year.

Hmmm, I guess paying $300k to someone who has over 15 years experience at their physically, mentally and emotionally challenging job just wouldn't be fair to everyone else.

Now, as far as QuesTec goes, I think it is a usefull tool for evaluating umpire performance, but nothing beyond that.

Re:Right...

[dauvis]

Actually, I read it as "We don't want it to replace our jobs"

Sorry, but

[Kaz Riprock]

There's nothing like having a batter stare down an ump or kick dirt or get thrown out of a game.

Of course, you'd still need an ump for the home plate tag calls...so it's not like the umpires are going to disappear.

I think the machine is fun for the home-viewing audience, but the ump is necessary for the game. Until you can put in a Johnny-5 to call the game, I'll take my umpires and their strike calls and punch-out flourishes.

I mean seriously!

[WndrBr3d]

The fact that people are COMPLAINING that there is a 0.7%(!!) margin between the accuracy of machines to humans is insane! I'd be congratulating my umpires for being so accurate!

If anything, I think it'd be an argument on why to KEEP umpires.

Re:Right...

[TopShelf]

It's being used as a tool to evaluate umpires, particularly to judge which ones should be involved in playoff games. Baseball would gain nothing by replacing umps with these tools, and would only incur the wrath of traditional fans (of course, given MLB, they may do that anyway).

By and large, this is a GREAT tool in that it will help get rid of the absurd variance in strike zones as called by different umps. One factor in the Home Run Derby that MLB has become is the incredibly shrinking strike zone...

Re:Right...

[NetCurl]

I would strongly disagree that there is an absurd invariance in strike zones across different home plate umpires. If anything, the fact that there is a little over 1% difference in the machine and the actual human strike zone recognition proves this point. In general, umpires working in MLB have worked very hard through A, AA, AAA leagues to get where they are, and they are there for a reason.

From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone, and much more to do with performance enhancing drugs, different composition used in the actual ball, expansion thinning out pitching talent, and the general change in the makeup of ballparks (read: home run alleys as found in PacBell Park, and the new Great American Ballpark in Cinncinati).

Personally, and I believe many die-hard baseball fans feel similarly, this new machine ruins the game. Pitching and hitting are arts, and the ability of a good pitcher to locate pitches just on the corners is something that is special to the game, and makes a great pitcher amazing. This machine has served it's purpose: it has proven that the Umpires are doing a very good job dealing with a highly subjective condition. Leave the subjectivity to the humans, and the web serving to the machines.

Bad idea in general

[Dr. Bent]

I'm sure you could build a system that will measure strikes and balls better than any human. That's not the point. There's plenty of sports where automated systems could be used to replace human judges, but the question you have to ask is "does it make the game better?"

I argue that most of the time, the answer is no. Sports are not meant to be an exersize in perfection, and there is an element to every sport that involves playing 'outside' the rules. In the specific case of Baseball, for example, a human umpire knows when to call a ball as a strike because the batter is being a dick. Competition can be more about manipulating the human and social factors than about following the rules, and we shouldn't take that aspect out of the game just because we can.

A few words about officiating

[sjbe]

The reason umpires don't want these machines on the field is that they make a KILLING doing their job.

And they deserve it too. Being a good official is really, really, really hard. I know first hand because I've been an official (different sport but same deal) for a number of years. Major league officials show as much skill as the athletes do. I know because I've been a division 1 college athlete (yes a few of us read slashdot believe it or not) and an official too.

It is damn hard to know all the rules of a game, have them on instant recall, apply them to the situation at hand, and do so correctly and without pissing anyone off. If you do your job right, no one notices you and if you do get noticed you get screamed at, usually by some halfwit who has never picked up a rule book in their life.

It annoys the hell out of me when I see some twit complaining about officials "trying to determine the outcome". Let me get out the cluebat. NO official I have ever met (and that is a LOT of officials) would ever try to determine the outcome of a game. We really don't care who wins. We just want to have a fair contest and really prefer it when one team kicks the crap out the other. Less chance of anyone getting their panties in a bunch over a *game*. If you don't take my word for it, read anything by Ron Luciano and you might get the idea. The only thing any official wants is for the game to get over with as quickly and fairly as possible. That's it.

As for the measuring equipment being used. As an official I don't really have a problem with it being used as an evaluation tool. Most officials would welcome a tool to make them better at their job. I would however have a problem with it being used in a game I was officiating. No official wants to be second guessed because it undermines our ability to keep control of a game. People start becoming unnecessarily rough, unsportsmanlike, and generally begin to behave like cretins when they think they have a right to question the judgement of the officials. (This isn't a supposition of mine, I've seen it happen countless times)

Now there are problems when the officials in some sports (basketball is notorious for this) start calling the game differently depending on the situation instead of how the rulebook specifies. That's a problem. But most officials at a high level do a very good job at what is a very difficult job. If they get paid well to do it, believe me, they've earned it.

Re: strike zone size

[dpille]

From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone

I think this section is an excellent analysis of the parent post. If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average. The theory would say that by improving the quality of the pitches the batter faces as strikes, they'd be hitting more of everything, not just home runs.

Anyway, some guy's chart bears this out- keep in mind what looks like a big difference on that chart (.006, say) represents about 30 hits per team per season. Given that the NL appears to be hitting a collective .262 right now, I think I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that umpires' collective decisions about strike zones can move overall batting averages so minimally yet be the cause of an increase in home runs.