As an umpire.. the faster the pitch, the easier it is to see where it crosses the plate. When the umpire blew the call on the slow rainbow pitch, that’s because those are the hardest to see because they start 12ft high and drop in the dirt.. similar to little league . And those umpires have to deal with parents yelling at them. One of the hardest pitches to see is the outside corner because you have to take your eyes off the batter to see the pitch and try to remember where his zone was.
And that's why you lock your head and track with your eyes only. So, when the ball passes you can glance back to the batter, put both measurements together and make your call. That's why you should take your time. It comes with experience, I have to admit.
I remember one umpire I worked with explain his philosophy for 0-2 and 3-0 pitches. Basically, unless the next pitch was very clearly a strike (for 0-2) or a ball (for 3-0), he would call it the opposite. More or less because of that balanced attitude. Something else that can affect how umpires call those is what they expect the pitcher to do. Umpires likely expect a pitcher to pitch the opposite deliberately. Easy strike for a 3-0 count, while a pitcher with an 0-2 count would be smart to throw a pitch just outside the zone to try and tempt the batter into swinging at something he has no realistic chance of hitting well. A potential problem with robot umpires is that they still only work at the very front of the pitching plate, when the zone is technically three-dimensional. As pitch tracking currently exists, an umpire who correctly calls a curve ball that enters the zone towards the back of the plate will still be marked incorrect :\
I'm sorry but this balance philosophy is unacceptable. Umpires are there to determine the pitch not to balance the game! If you have a x-0 or 0-x count just call the next pitch as it is. As a batter you are under pressure to do better. Not with a 3-0, you can afford a strike but with 0-2... you either hit that thing or take the K and try next time.
I wonder if pitch selection on those counts influences things. 3-0 counts are more likely to be a fastball which is maybe easier to call. the opposite of breaking balls in pitchers counts. Not going to explain the whole difference but maybe some.
the strike zone is not a plane at the front of home plate it is a rectangular box whose width is the width of home plate, whose depth is the depth of home plate from the forward edge to the point at the rear, and hose height is the height from the batter's kneecap to a line drawn across his chest even with the bottom of his arms when held straight out to the side, when the batter is in a normal upright standing position
@@jeremycaldwell2950 no its 2d because its only the front part of the plate that counts when the ball passes throught there, not when its over the plate thats slow pitch softball
@@Nik_21p1aza yeah, no. The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area. Hence the term “back door pitch”. It is a 3D area a simple search of anything baseball rulebook will tell you this.
@@jeremycaldwell2950 bro i play hs ball i know what a strike zone is, but yes you are correct but its not a 3d strike zone its not where the ball lands its where it passes throught the zone. Anybody can throw an eephus pitch where it lands right in the catchers glove but it doesnt pass through the strikezone.
I'm an old codger at heart, so I don't want the human element of the strike zone eliminated from baseball. I would not be opposed to a cricket-style system where teams get to challenge 3 or so pitches a game (and keep said challenges if they are correct), but the catch is that the true borderline pitch stays with the umpire's call. Technology was meant to correct total howlers by the Angel Hernandezes of the world, not obsess over a razor-thin decision where the tassle of a glove might have grazed a jersey. A thing with low and outside pitches: umpires place their heads up and in to protect themselves from foul balls, which makes the low and outside parts of the zone the most difficult to see consistently. A single shift of the foot from pitch to pitch can cause that corner to start dancing. And I'd be interested to see if there is any data to support this hypothesis: Taller umpires struggle more with low pitches, while shorter umpires struggle with higher pitches.
Another condition that determines balls and strikes called by umpires is if the catcher drops the ball. Look more into and you'll see that a slider that breaks towards the outside caught would be called a strike, but throw the same pitch in the same location and the catcher drops it, it'll be called a ball.
another factor is the handedness of batters, and low and away pitches like you said tend to be calls balls far more often depending on handedness! might come back to your idea in another vid
Foolish Baseball briefly touches upon the subject in his video "What Bad Umpiring Looks Like" but I really appreciated the more in depth statistical look here. Just interesting that he mentioned that Umpires are afraid of having their decisions matter and do not want to end the at bat unless it was super obvious.
yeah i agree on that to a certain extent. they’re still professionals and umpiring is so difficult, but it definitely still impacts them. love his channel!! definitely some inspiration there
I’d love a video on the bizarre super wide and short strike zone that existed from about 1987 - 2010. Announcers were always talking about “this umpire’s strike zone”, but there was the additional element - with some small variation, nearly all umpires were calling a zone that was bottom of the belt to just above the knees, but that was also about three baseballs width off each side of the plate. I feel like this stretch of time, and the incredibly poor ball/strike calling from it, are why we have the automated strike zone so close on the horizon for MLB games. Umpires have even corrected their behavior *very* strongly in the past decade or so, but it’s just too little, too late.
This was a GREAT video and I learned a lot. If you do another video please explain how and when the strike zone is calculated. For example, Ricky Henderson would get into the batter's box and crouched down giving a tiny strike zone. When is the strike zone created in the batters positioning of his stance and how does the strike box that we see on TV account for this factor?
"When the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball" is how it's defined on the MLB website. The TV box doesn't account for this.
BTW, I think the reason for the trend based on count is that umpires don't want to be wrong and have that wrongness be immediately decisive. It's safer and leads to less anger to NOT call a batter out on a ball or hand a batter first base on a strike...better for the players to decide the outcome themselves.
I’m curious if you could analyze an umpires’s deference to batters. You often hear the commentators suggest that a particular veteran “knows the strike zone” very well and if it’s close and that batter didn’t swing, the umpire will defer to the veteran that the ball was outside the strike zone, perhaps even for a pitch that they might have called a strike for another batter. It would be interesting to break this out based on the tenure of the umpire too. It would also be interesting to see if umps do better with lefties or righties, particularly when they are up against lefties and righties.
6:30 - that is not a strike, so not sure why he made the reference about the umpire feeling sorry for him or cutting him some kind of break. It's not painting the zone if it's not touching any part of the zone in any way, and the umpire didn't "put him out of his misery" because he wanted to call a ball a ball right there. 6:34 - "What should be strike 3...." No dude. Look closer. There's an air gap between the ball and the zone! And the catchers mitt was moving downward toward the dirt, then he suddenly does a bad frame job to make it even easier for the umpire to sniff that one out.
Can you imagine how epic the Galarraga perfect game call would have been if there had been replay. I mean, that would almost have been better than them getting it right in the first place. Call blown at first, but it goes to replay. The crowd knows what is at stake. The review booth looks at it. They know what's at stake. They relay the decision to the umps on the field. The umpire walks to the center of the field and they overturn the call on the field. The stadium goes wild. /I've never seen a no-hitter from start to finish. I think I've seen one or two of the ones where they interrupt the game you are watching to cut to the 9th, but I was robbed. I watched a player throw what would have been a no-hitter just the year before, start to finish (okay, only on TV, but it was a live broadcast). Unfortunately there were some walks and errors, and it was a road game. 8 innings of no hitter, but he took the loss. Maybe he would have lost it in the 9th anyway.
That's super interesting. I hope I do better than that. Admittedly, I do adjust the zone but only for the league. If I call games in the lowest league with inexperienced players I tend to be more generous. Whereas in higher leagues, players should know the drill already. I say, I tend to do that. But things, I don't do is "count adjustment". Imo that's plain wrong. Blues are not present to balance the game.
i worked part-time as an ump for high school and middle school games in the late 90s. 1 thing i did, that i never see talked about, is calling inside corner differently than outside corner. since inside pitches can hit a batter if they miss by much, and outside pitches cant, i gave debatable/close calls on the outside corner to the pitcher, but the too close to call on the inside went to the hitter. ive felt since my childhood in the 70s that none of us call the high strike according to the rule book. do you agree? umps dont call a strike very much above the belt, but the rulebook implies the top of the zone is much higher than that.
If you think the computers would be perfect all the time, then you are just a fan who is clueless. There is still plenty of flaws in trying to get a computer to call the top & bottom of the zone "perfect", on every single batter, per the current language of the rule. Even if every batter was the exact same height, that does not mean the top & bottom of the zone would be the same. 1) The knee height could still be different. 2) The midpoint at the top could be different. 3) Even the same batter could change their own stance mid-GAME to try to correct a flaw in their mechanics and, by rule, this could change their strike zone. The computers are not ready to keep up with these variables. The fastest way to get computers calling B&S at the MLB level requires changing the language of the rule, making a strike zone based off the batter's raw height, regardless of individual biology or stance. This would STILL not make the computer system "perfect" but would eliminate several critical variables.
that might be what happens eventually. another interesting idea is having a regular umpire call the game, but then you can challenge pitches if you don’t like the call and then use the CPU to tell if it’s right
Another factor most don't realize, it goes from the front of the plate to the back of the plate. This means the strike zone is 3D. Theoretically speaking, if the ball died right after crossing the front of the plate, and fell onto the plate, it should still be a strike.
@@TheKobiDror Which is why I started, theoretically. I used an extreme, essentially impossible, example more to remind people it's not where the ball ends, but the entire path that matters. It's not a 2D rectangle, which is depicted, but a 3D, pentagon box. Balls can curve through it, but start outside the plate and end inside. A sinking ball can cross the plate high, but actually fall into the strike zone before crossing the back of the plate, turning it into a strike. This is the failing of the 2D box, where they only put the ball location, instead of the trail from front of the plate to the back.
Remember that those people on the field, whether players, umpires, or even ball attendants-but not those idiots who run out onto the field from the stands-have to give the fans what they paid to see, otherwise they do not get properly paid themselves.
The only thing I disagree with is that umpires i encounter will not call borderline pitches strikes if a pitcher is struggling with control. It's almost like they won't help a struggling pitcher because maybe they are hoping the manager will take him out? Of course I'm not talking about major league umps, but the standard guy off the street umpires who do non professional baseball for supplemental income
The Automated Balls & Strikes (ABS) system is NOT perfect in any way. No clue where you got that info but perhaps your next video should be why MLB has not gone to ABS yet and why. Your research will point you in the right direction.
Yep. And ABS misses tend to be egregious. Meaning the game gets delayed in order to have those pitches reviewed. Also, don't for a minute think MLB won't implement software modifications to replicate 0-2, 3-0 zone adjustments. MLB isn't going to standby and let ABS squeeze offense out of the game. You can bet they will be constantly tinkering with it. In the end, it won't be any better. It may prove even more controversial.
People don't want an umpire that just relays something an ear piece told them. They want umpires who REACT to what happened and emphatically let everyone know. It's part of the soul, tradition, and culture of the game. Not to mention, you can eliminate mistakes without eliminating that quality. We already do it with virtually every other call that isn't a judgement call. It's called challenges.
i actually agree with you here. the strike zone isn’t perfect, so let it be called that way, but when something egregious happens in a really big spot, we have the power to fix it! i would be okay with that change to be honest
Are the robots umps really 100% accurate about the strike zone? The box you see on TV broadcasts isn't always accurate. You can watch 2 different broadcasts of the same game & they could have different strike zones
RoboUmp is never wrong..just check the computer data, and you will see that RoboUmp never calls a ball on a pitch that it measures inside the Strike Zone.
Each team should have a couple challenges in critical counts or ABs, those ones that really affect the outcome of a game. But a full automated system is probably not necessary. At least not yet.
This year, the Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) league became the first professional baseball league to implement an automated ball-strike system (ABS). Through its' first 185 games, ABS missed 21 out of 55,026 pitches thrown through 185 games, good for a 99.96% accuracy and 1 missed call every ~9 games. MLB umpires incorrectly called over 21,000 balls & strikes on 362,368 pitches called during the 2023 regular season which comes out to 94.2% accuracy and ~9 missed calls per game. It was their most accurate season, ever. And yet, despite this, MLB is still dragging their feet on implementation here- 2026 is optimistic. It isn't some umpire union issue either, they agreed on it in 2020 CBA. MLB is just incompetent and extremely resistant to change, even if it will improve their product.
i think it's the responsibility of the player to foul off pitches in the chase zone because they should understand the % out there or risk challenging the limitations of the human eye the choice is yours
We don't have human umpires because we want people to have jobs, we have human umpires because every once in a while it causes chaos for the whole game, which gets eyes to watch, which makes the MLB more money, and which is why it will never change.
Wrong, we have human umpires because of tradition. People don't want an umpire that just relays something an ear piece told them. We want umpires who REACT to what happened and emphatically let everyone know. Not to mention, you can eliminate mistakes without eliminating them. We already do it with virtually every call that isn't a judgement call. It's called challenges.
As an umpire.. the faster the pitch, the easier it is to see where it crosses the plate. When the umpire blew the call on the slow rainbow pitch, that’s because those are the hardest to see because they start 12ft high and drop in the dirt.. similar to little league . And those umpires have to deal with parents yelling at them. One of the hardest pitches to see is the outside corner because you have to take your eyes off the batter to see the pitch and try to remember where his zone was.
And that's why you lock your head and track with your eyes only. So, when the ball passes you can glance back to the batter, put both measurements together and make your call. That's why you should take your time. It comes with experience, I have to admit.
Wow. I've only been watching baseball for 63 years and learned a ton from this video and the replies.
I remember one umpire I worked with explain his philosophy for 0-2 and 3-0 pitches. Basically, unless the next pitch was very clearly a strike (for 0-2) or a ball (for 3-0), he would call it the opposite. More or less because of that balanced attitude.
Something else that can affect how umpires call those is what they expect the pitcher to do. Umpires likely expect a pitcher to pitch the opposite deliberately. Easy strike for a 3-0 count, while a pitcher with an 0-2 count would be smart to throw a pitch just outside the zone to try and tempt the batter into swinging at something he has no realistic chance of hitting well.
A potential problem with robot umpires is that they still only work at the very front of the pitching plate, when the zone is technically three-dimensional. As pitch tracking currently exists, an umpire who correctly calls a curve ball that enters the zone towards the back of the plate will still be marked incorrect :\
I'm sorry but this balance philosophy is unacceptable. Umpires are there to determine the pitch not to balance the game!
If you have a x-0 or 0-x count just call the next pitch as it is. As a batter you are under pressure to do better. Not with a 3-0, you can afford a strike but with 0-2... you either hit that thing or take the K and try next time.
I wonder if pitch selection on those counts influences things. 3-0 counts are more likely to be a fastball which is maybe easier to call. the opposite of breaking balls in pitchers counts. Not going to explain the whole difference but maybe some.
the strike zone is not a plane at the front of home plate it is a rectangular box whose width is the width of home plate, whose depth is the depth of home plate from the forward edge to the point at the rear, and hose height is the height from the batter's kneecap to a line drawn across his chest even with the bottom of his arms when held straight out to the side, when the batter is in a normal upright standing position
Deserves more views than it has
well i can’t get there without support from y’all! especially at the beginning, thanks so much!!!
this was a sick video my guy, I didn't think about the umpire changing balls and strikes depending on a count
the baseball on your desk slowly moving further out is a nice touch.
Really enjoyed the video, looking forward seeing your channel grow. Keep it up!!
Great job on this. Excited to see more of your videos in the future!
Am I missing something, or isn't the plate 3D? The "rectangle" is only 2D...
Bro the strike zone measure from when the ball passes the front side of the plate not where it ends up
@@Nik_21p1azaincorrect the strike zone is 3D if the pitched ball passes over any part of the plate in the zone it is a strike.
@@jeremycaldwell2950 no its 2d because its only the front part of the plate that counts when the ball passes throught there, not when its over the plate thats slow pitch softball
@@Nik_21p1aza yeah, no. The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area. Hence the term “back door pitch”. It is a 3D area a simple search of anything baseball rulebook will tell you this.
@@jeremycaldwell2950 bro i play hs ball i know what a strike zone is, but yes you are correct but its not a 3d strike zone its not where the ball lands its where it passes throught the zone. Anybody can throw an eephus pitch where it lands right in the catchers glove but it doesnt pass through the strikezone.
I'm an old codger at heart, so I don't want the human element of the strike zone eliminated from baseball.
I would not be opposed to a cricket-style system where teams get to challenge 3 or so pitches a game (and keep said challenges if they are correct), but the catch is that the true borderline pitch stays with the umpire's call. Technology was meant to correct total howlers by the Angel Hernandezes of the world, not obsess over a razor-thin decision where the tassle of a glove might have grazed a jersey.
A thing with low and outside pitches: umpires place their heads up and in to protect themselves from foul balls, which makes the low and outside parts of the zone the most difficult to see consistently. A single shift of the foot from pitch to pitch can cause that corner to start dancing.
And I'd be interested to see if there is any data to support this hypothesis: Taller umpires struggle more with low pitches, while shorter umpires struggle with higher pitches.
A++ video my friend.
The Band of Brothers music was a nice touch too.
Nice video, I look forward to more content from you going forward!
Another condition that determines balls and strikes called by umpires is if the catcher drops the ball. Look more into and you'll see that a slider that breaks towards the outside caught would be called a strike, but throw the same pitch in the same location and the catcher drops it, it'll be called a ball.
another factor is the handedness of batters, and low and away pitches like you said tend to be calls balls far more often depending on handedness! might come back to your idea in another vid
Fun (and informative) vid. Subbed
Thanks for the sub! Glad you enjoyed!!!
Well researched, and (in its substance;) well presented
Good video man, I'm new to your channel but I'm excited to see what you do next
i’m new to the channel too haha, appreciate the support!!!
excited to see where things go, might do some in depth player videos, whatever feels right! appreciate the support :)
very good video. keep it up!
good vibes !! really appreciate it :)
Foolish Baseball briefly touches upon the subject in his video "What Bad Umpiring Looks Like" but I really appreciated the more in depth statistical look here. Just interesting that he mentioned that Umpires are afraid of having their decisions matter and do not want to end the at bat unless it was super obvious.
yeah i agree on that to a certain extent. they’re still professionals and umpiring is so difficult, but it definitely still impacts them. love his channel!! definitely some inspiration there
I’d love a video on the bizarre super wide and short strike zone that existed from about 1987 - 2010.
Announcers were always talking about “this umpire’s strike zone”, but there was the additional element - with some small variation, nearly all umpires were calling a zone that was bottom of the belt to just above the knees, but that was also about three baseballs width off each side of the plate.
I feel like this stretch of time, and the incredibly poor ball/strike calling from it, are why we have the automated strike zone so close on the horizon for MLB games.
Umpires have even corrected their behavior *very* strongly in the past decade or so, but it’s just too little, too late.
This was a GREAT video and I learned a lot. If you do another video please explain how and when the strike zone is calculated. For example, Ricky Henderson would get into the batter's box and crouched down giving a tiny strike zone. When is the strike zone created in the batters positioning of his stance and how does the strike box that we see on TV account for this factor?
"When the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball" is how it's defined on the MLB website. The TV box doesn't account for this.
Deserves a lot more views and recognition, great video
Very well done.
Nice work
Great video.
BTW, I think the reason for the trend based on count is that umpires don't want to be wrong and have that wrongness be immediately decisive. It's safer and leads to less anger to NOT call a batter out on a ball or hand a batter first base on a strike...better for the players to decide the outcome themselves.
Great to see a Rainiers fan
Great video
I’m curious if you could analyze an umpires’s deference to batters. You often hear the commentators suggest that a particular veteran “knows the strike zone” very well and if it’s close and that batter didn’t swing, the umpire will defer to the veteran that the ball was outside the strike zone, perhaps even for a pitch that they might have called a strike for another batter. It would be interesting to break this out based on the tenure of the umpire too.
It would also be interesting to see if umps do better with lefties or righties, particularly when they are up against lefties and righties.
loved this video
This video is amazing ! Where did you get this data? I wonder what it looks like if you remove that umpire named angel
Angle Hernandez wasn't the worst rated on pitch calls
6:30 - that is not a strike, so not sure why he made the reference about the umpire feeling sorry for him or cutting him some kind of break. It's not painting the zone if it's not touching any part of the zone in any way, and the umpire didn't "put him out of his misery" because he wanted to call a ball a ball right there.
6:34 - "What should be strike 3...."
No dude. Look closer. There's an air gap between the ball and the zone! And the catchers mitt was moving downward toward the dirt, then he suddenly does a bad frame job to make it even easier for the umpire to sniff that one out.
Can you imagine how epic the Galarraga perfect game call would have been if there had been replay. I mean, that would almost have been better than them getting it right in the first place. Call blown at first, but it goes to replay. The crowd knows what is at stake. The review booth looks at it. They know what's at stake. They relay the decision to the umps on the field. The umpire walks to the center of the field and they overturn the call on the field. The stadium goes wild.
/I've never seen a no-hitter from start to finish. I think I've seen one or two of the ones where they interrupt the game you are watching to cut to the 9th, but I was robbed. I watched a player throw what would have been a no-hitter just the year before, start to finish (okay, only on TV, but it was a live broadcast). Unfortunately there were some walks and errors, and it was a road game. 8 innings of no hitter, but he took the loss. Maybe he would have lost it in the 9th anyway.
That's super interesting. I hope I do better than that. Admittedly, I do adjust the zone but only for the league. If I call games in the lowest league with inexperienced players I tend to be more generous. Whereas in higher leagues, players should know the drill already. I say, I tend to do that.
But things, I don't do is "count adjustment". Imo that's plain wrong. Blues are not present to balance the game.
i worked part-time as an ump for high school and middle school games in the late 90s. 1 thing i did, that i never see talked about, is calling inside corner differently than outside corner. since inside pitches can hit a batter if they miss by much, and outside pitches cant, i gave debatable/close calls on the outside corner to the pitcher, but the too close to call on the inside went to the hitter. ive felt since my childhood in the 70s that none of us call the high strike according to the rule book. do you agree? umps dont call a strike very much above the belt, but the rulebook implies the top of the zone is much higher than that.
Please learn the difference between "less" and "fewer"
hahaha in my original script i had a joke about messing up the two, but i cut it for time. looks like i forgot to record the right version 🤷
If you think the computers would be perfect all the time, then you are just a fan who is clueless. There is still plenty of flaws in trying to get a computer to call the top & bottom of the zone "perfect", on every single batter, per the current language of the rule.
Even if every batter was the exact same height, that does not mean the top & bottom of the zone would be the same.
1) The knee height could still be different.
2) The midpoint at the top could be different.
3) Even the same batter could change their own stance mid-GAME to try to correct a flaw in their mechanics and, by rule, this could change their strike zone.
The computers are not ready to keep up with these variables. The fastest way to get computers calling B&S at the MLB level requires changing the language of the rule, making a strike zone based off the batter's raw height, regardless of individual biology or stance. This would STILL not make the computer system "perfect" but would eliminate several critical variables.
Comment gave more information on how the strike zone actually changes during a game than this video
Im totally for using a CPU to call the actual strike. With the umpire behind the plate just telling us what the cpu said.
that might be what happens eventually. another interesting idea is having a regular umpire call the game, but then you can challenge pitches if you don’t like the call and then use the CPU to tell if it’s right
Another factor most don't realize, it goes from the front of the plate to the back of the plate. This means the strike zone is 3D. Theoretically speaking, if the ball died right after crossing the front of the plate, and fell onto the plate, it should still be a strike.
Yeah but it depends on the previous trajectory. If it travels from high to low as slow as f*** - possible. Otherwise it's more likely a ball.
@@TheKobiDror
Which is why I started, theoretically. I used an extreme, essentially impossible, example more to remind people it's not where the ball ends, but the entire path that matters.
It's not a 2D rectangle, which is depicted, but a 3D, pentagon box. Balls can curve through it, but start outside the plate and end inside.
A sinking ball can cross the plate high, but actually fall into the strike zone before crossing the back of the plate, turning it into a strike.
This is the failing of the 2D box, where they only put the ball location, instead of the trail from front of the plate to the back.
very interesting. thanks bud
thanks so much!!
Remember that those people on the field, whether players, umpires, or even ball attendants-but not those idiots who run out onto the field from the stands-have to give the fans what they paid to see, otherwise they do not get properly paid themselves.
good job broski
Umpire: Hey nice video come 2 the back real quick
Are you using band of brother score?
I sent this to my teams and told them there’s a quiz tomorrow at practice. Thank you
The only thing I disagree with is that umpires i encounter will not call borderline pitches strikes if a pitcher is struggling with control. It's almost like they won't help a struggling pitcher because maybe they are hoping the manager will take him out? Of course I'm not talking about major league umps, but the standard guy off the street umpires who do non professional baseball for supplemental income
Impressive that an 11 minute video about umps making questionable calls did not mention Angel even once lol.
The Automated Balls & Strikes (ABS) system is NOT perfect in any way. No clue where you got that info but perhaps your next video should be why MLB has not gone to ABS yet and why. Your research will point you in the right direction.
Yep. And ABS misses tend to be egregious. Meaning the game gets delayed in order to have those pitches reviewed. Also, don't for a minute think MLB won't implement software modifications to replicate 0-2, 3-0 zone adjustments. MLB isn't going to standby and let ABS squeeze offense out of the game. You can bet they will be constantly tinkering with it. In the end, it won't be any better. It may prove even more controversial.
People don't want an umpire that just relays something an ear piece told them. They want umpires who REACT to what happened and emphatically let everyone know. It's part of the soul, tradition, and culture of the game.
Not to mention, you can eliminate mistakes without eliminating that quality. We already do it with virtually every other call that isn't a judgement call. It's called challenges.
i actually agree with you here. the strike zone isn’t perfect, so let it be called that way, but when something egregious happens in a really big spot, we have the power to fix it! i would be okay with that change to be honest
Goated video
Nice vieeo
Robot umps are not “rule-perfect” especially regarding the top of the zone.
Are the robots umps really 100% accurate about the strike zone? The box you see on TV broadcasts isn't always accurate. You can watch 2 different broadcasts of the same game & they could have different strike zones
RoboUmp is never wrong..just check the computer data, and you will see that RoboUmp never calls a ball on a pitch that it measures inside the Strike Zone.
@@teebob21 But does it measure it accurately? Everything has a margin of error. I want to know the margin of error for the system
Well done, but screw robo-umps. Sucks the soul out the sport
as a limited appeal system, could be good
Each team should have a couple challenges in critical counts or ABs, those ones that really affect the outcome of a game. But a full automated system is probably not necessary. At least not yet.
Why do we as fan clamor for perfect umpires instead of perfect batters or pitchers?
UFB is a solid brewery
y'all...that pitch from Bautista is clearly a ball, dude. Hilarious...you found an accurate call to critique as showing human weakness.
This year, the Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) league became the first professional baseball league to implement an automated ball-strike system (ABS). Through its' first 185 games, ABS missed 21 out of 55,026 pitches thrown through 185 games, good for a 99.96% accuracy and 1 missed call every ~9 games.
MLB umpires incorrectly called over 21,000 balls & strikes on 362,368 pitches called during the 2023 regular season which comes out to 94.2% accuracy and ~9 missed calls per game. It was their most accurate season, ever. And yet, despite this, MLB is still dragging their feet on implementation here- 2026 is optimistic. It isn't some umpire union issue either, they agreed on it in 2020 CBA. MLB is just incompetent and extremely resistant to change, even if it will improve their product.
They call it that way to try to put the ball in play.
Strikezone-schmikezome just tell me how you where you got that baseball-plant?!
Balls and strikes should only be reviewable in the 9th inning or later
i think it's the responsibility of the player to foul off pitches in the chase zone because they should understand the % out there or risk challenging the limitations of the human eye
the choice is yours
I am for getting the calls correct. If a CPU can do that then im for it. Human factor be damned.
We don't have human umpires because we want people to have jobs, we have human umpires because every once in a while it causes chaos for the whole game, which gets eyes to watch, which makes the MLB more money, and which is why it will never change.
Wrong, we have human umpires because of tradition. People don't want an umpire that just relays something an ear piece told them. We want umpires who REACT to what happened and emphatically let everyone know.
Not to mention, you can eliminate mistakes without eliminating them. We already do it with virtually every call that isn't a judgement call. It's called challenges.
Oh true? That's cool thanks for the info.@@noahmcdaniel4920