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

Right...

[Prince_Ali]

Does anyone read:

"However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view."
as, "It points out our mistakes!"

Re:Right...

[$$$$$exyKrout]

Not necessarily. Baseball has a long history of being a subjective game. Umpire mistakes are part of the game, and players learn how to take advantage of them.

Re:Right...

[notque]

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.

Unless it doesn't work very well.

Last year, I was invited to the umpire's room before a "Sunday Night Baseball" telecast. Umpiring officials showed me the QuesTec system and explained why they felt it wasn't accurate. And after seeing their demonstration, I could see what they were talking about (from ballpark to ballpark, similar pitches to the same batter were called differently by the computer). I even mentioned it on air that night. - Joe Morgan

Re:Right...

[Yunzil]

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.

Shrug. That's part of the game. Some umps have a wide strike zone. Some really squeeze it. Some allow a higher strike than others. As long as they are consistent, no one cares much.

Ron Luciano had a story in one of his books about a game he called early in his career. The pitcher threw a pitch right around the top of the "official" strike zone. Ron called it a ball. The next pitch was right around the batter's knees. Ron called that a ball too. The catcher turned to him and said, "I'm not complaining, but you have to give me either the high pitch or the low pitch or we're going to be here all night." At that moment, Mr. Luciano was enlightened.

I agree with the umps... Maybe

[RustyTire]

I have been playing sports my entire life and I must say that it is the human factor that makes it interesting. To take all the errors out of sport is to take away something -- and as I have recieved many a bad call I can't believe I am saying this -- special from it.

Then again, with all the money that is in sports these days maybe it is a good idea -- from the point of view of owners, players, and sponcers. I think it takes something away from the fans.

Why remove the human element?

[zptdooda]

"These are proud professionals who don't want to be evaluated by a faulty apparatus"

Or even by a working apparatus.

This can go wrong in so many ways, false positives and false negatives along every border of the strike zone. But aside from the mathematical reasons, why take away the human element even more from baseball?

You know one of the most fun parts of playing sports in my neighbourhood as a kid was watching my big brother argue whether something was a goal or not, who was safe or out. It was subjective and it was fun!

Now we have photo radar and cars that will apply the brakes themselves too. Sheesh.

little league

[interstellar_donkey]

I remember having a conversation about this some 20 years ago, when I was playing little league. After seeing so many bad calls, I brought up to my coach that someday we would have computers and robots making all of the decisions. He balked, saying it would ruin the game.

Now that Iâ(TM)m older, I tend to agree with him; at least for the major leagues. But I still think this technology could be well used in little league, where itâ(TM)s hard to find someone to be an umpire, even harder to find one thatâ(TM)s any good. Some would show up drunk, would have some bone to pick against a team who had a player with a parent he didnâ(TM)t like, or simply be idiots.

Whatâ(TM)s worse is the way parents react to calls (even good ones) they donâ(TM)t agree with. I can only imagine how it would change the dynamic of the game for kids if these officiating robots could be made cheaply and be available to kidsâ(TM) leagues.

It wouldnâ(TM)t be without precedent: We already allow little leaguers to use aluminum bats, while the big leagues still have wood. Keep the majors pure and traditional, but it would be nice to see a little technology around to help keep the games fair for kids.

Re:One problem...

[ojplg]

This isn't what the article says though. What it says is that in games where the system is on 32.1% of pitches are called strikes by the umpires. In games where the system is off, the number of pitches
called strikes by the umpires is 31.4%. It doesn't say what percentage of the pitches are called strikes by the machine. (Note: The summary of the article is also wrong.)