Strike zone

[wsttxump]

Originally Posted by buckweat

Wsttxump,

You’re the only one who’s credentials have been posted as far as the highest level of ball you call, but perhaps you have an insight to what no one else seems able to answer what I asked way back in post #68.

…if anyone’s ever had the dubious pleasure of being “graded” by QuesTec”, I’d sure like to know exactly what the purpose of the thing is, and what exactly it is that you see when you throw the DVD in the player.

I’d also be curious to know how it would “score” one of those pitches that seems to be bringing out such angst. I.e., a pitch that crosses the zone at the bottom and front of the plate, but hits the dirt in front of the C.

Its not that I don’t respect what anyone saying, because that just isn’t the case. Any opinion I have is pure conjecture, so I have no choice but to bow to those who actually are making the calls. But, I can’t help but wonder why MLB was thinking and what they’re looking for with this “training” program.

I’ve read and heard a lot of the rhetoric both pro and con about it, but press releases, sound bites, and video clips aren’t really telling anyone what’s going on. What are the main goal(s) for doing it?

I can certainly see why MLB would want to try to bring the highest consistency to calling pitches. But, with all the “hits” baseball has taken with its integrity lately, I can also see where that might be a very big motivator too, and I can also see that the way integrity is viewed by the owners might have several facets.

The bottom line is, since the “standards” for umps calling pro games under ML auspices are obviously are lot more stringent than for college, let alone any level below that, what does it say for those lower level umps if what the top ones are doing is in question?

I’m not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, but normally businesses don’t train people unless they feel they could somehow be doing a “better” job. I’m trying to find out what MLB thinks could be done “better”.

There has to be some reason MLB is spending untold millions of dollars on the specific task of calling pitches.

No. I have never worked with this system.

What is it?
Major League Baseball hired QuesTec, a digital media firm based in Deer Park, N.Y., to install and implement an Umpire Information System.

Where QuesTec resides
The 10 major-league ballparks in which QuesTec, the umpire evaluation system, has been installed:

Bank One Ballpark (Arizona)
Fenway Park (Boston)
Tropicana Field (Tampa Bay)
Jacobs Field (Cleveland)
Miller Park (Milwaukee)
Edison Field (Anaheim)
Network Associates Coliseum (Oakland)
Minute Maid Park (Houston)
Shea Stadium (Mets)
Yankee Stadium (Yankees)


Why?
MLB wants to support its strike zone initiative, to help its umpires improve and to grade their performance.

How does it work?
QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology uses cameras mounted in the stands off the first and third base lines. The cameras follow the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the plate. Multiple track points precisely locate the ball in space and time. This information measures the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path.

According to the New York Times, a computer technician sets the strike zone from a snapshot taken as the first pitch to a batter was on the way to the plate. That is used to measure whether the pitch was a strike or not.

After each game, the complete set of data is put on a CD-ROM to be given to the umpire at the end of the game to view. The umpire can view his calls next to QuesTec's and contrast where they differed.

What is the umpires' biggest complaint?
The strike zone is established by a computer operator, so they say it varies from park to park, from at-bat to at-bat with the same batter and sometimes even from pitch to pitch.

Are the umpires fighting the system?
Yes. The umpire's union has filed a grievance against major league teams contending the system is inaccurate and varies greatly depending on the person operating it. An arbitrator is to hear the grievance in early July.

How accurate is it?
The UIS is accurate to within 0.5 inch (one half inch), according to QuesTec.

How accurate does MLB want its umpires to be?
Umpires have been told that if at least 90 percent of their calls do not conform with QuesTec calls, they are guilty of below-standard umpiring.


Seperate Info.

Major League Baseball has contracted QuesTec to install, operate, and maintain the UIS (Umpire Information System) in support of MLB's previously announced strike zone initiatives. The UIS uses QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology that analyzes video from cameras mounted in the rafters of each ballpark to precisely locate the ball throughout the pitch corridor. This information is then used to measure the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path. The UIS tracking system is a fully automated process that does not require changes to the ball, the field of play, or any other aspect of the game. Additional cameras are mounted at the field level to measure the strike zone for each individual batter, for each individual pitch, for each at bat. This information is compiled on a CD ROM disk and given to the home plate umpire immediately following each game.












FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How does it work?

The UIS uses QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology. Quite different than "video insertion" technology that simply adds graphics to the broadcast video, QuesTec technology actually measures information about interesting events during the game that would not be available any other way. This technology is so innovative it appeared in a Scientific American article in September of 2000. The ball tracking component uses cameras mounted in the stands off the first and third base lines to follow the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the plate. Along the way, multiple track points are measured to precisely locate the ball in space and time. This information is then used to measure the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path. The entire process is fully automatic including detection of the start of the pitch, tracking of the ball, location computations, and identification of non-baseball objects such as birds or wind swept debris moving through the field of view. No changes are made to the ball, the field of play, or any other aspect of the game, to work with QuesTec technology. The tracking technology was originally developed for the US military and the company has adapted it to sports applications.


How accurate is it?

The UIS is accurate to within 0.5 inch (one half inch).


How does the UIS system differ from the broadcast system PitchTrax?

The UIS uses different cameras, modified software, and a different calibration process to increase accuracy.


Why are they different?

The requirements for umpires and broadcast graphics are different. The extra cost and effort for the increased accuracy would be wasted when turned into the graphics we provide on air or over the internet.


What have you done over the internet?

Variations to this system have been used to produce pitch data for the online game "HIT THE PROS" located at www.FOXSports.com/games. "HIT THE PROS" allows you to swing at all the same pitches that the big leaguers did! In the past, we provided simultaneous webcast of pitch data for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 All Star Games and the 1999 World Series, all on the MLB official website.


How long has PitchTrax been available?

The PitchTrax product was first seen Nationally on air during the 1997 World Series. It has been used in various markets since then and appeared in hundreds of broadcasts on FOX SportsNet last season. We are in the process of installing it in all 30 MLB parks and hope to have that completed sometime this season.


Where and when will the UIS be in operation?

MLB will tell us where they would like the system installed. Four Major League parks were installed in 2001 and ten are scheduled for 2002.



Who owns the technology?

We have retained full ownership of the technology with certain practical limitations on any uses related to umpiring in baseball.


So, you can sell this technology to others?

Yes, as long as we don't interfere with the use of it for the legitimate purpose of providing information to the umpires.


How do the umpires feel about it?

In general, they support it! They had the opportunity to really watch the technology in action and to talk to us about how it works and how we thought it might be used. MLB has also worked very hard to clearly lay out why they wanted this technology and how they would use it. We wouldn't dare say everyone loves it at this point but, from what we have seen, the umpiring community as a whole agrees this information has a lot of potential value and they want to work with it to see what can be learned.


Why is this deal important to QuesTec?

Gaining acceptance from both MLB and the umpires for the accuracy, reliability and value of our technology is like getting a Seal of Approval. We are not aware of any other measurement technology that has been accepted in this way by the governing body of a major US sport, or, in fact, any sport worldwide. This is the first real advance since the stop watch and the tape measure. We are a measurement company and now an independent organization has agreed that our technology works and is willing to use it in a very important capacity. We think that is pretty important.

[wsttxump]

Originally Posted by NIump50

At least I read part of it.
If you actually read the thread you'll find I merely offered my opinion on this pitch and then was told in no uncertain terms that a pitch in the strike zone that drops to the ground cannot be called a strike. Period. Then I was told that I could not be a quality umpire if I did.
I'd say that's your side telling me how to call balls and strikes, not vice versa.
The rest of the thread I've been defending my opinion.

So again I say to you. Get your facts right and Stop making assumptions.

After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you're probably an assistant coach.
Just a clueless mouthpiece thrown out at the end of an argument as a sacrificial lamb to protect me the coach.

Have a nice walk to the parking lot!

I was answering your question as to why this is not considered a strike. Whatever opinion you have is fine. Just like the rest of the coaches, its not worth much.

Call the pitch whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. If you were like most coaches..........dang I mean umpires, we share with one another what it takes and what we have expierenced in order to move to the next level.

Also, I can verify my statements as to what I work. Go ahead and post your coaching certificate.

[SAump]

One of them Questec articles that state, "Garbage in, garbage out."

http://www.athomeplate.com/questec2.shtml

"There are many reasons that data like this could be manipulated. It could be that baseball simply wants to keep the umpires and their union on a short leash - and thus under MLB’s thumb. It could be that MLB simply wanted the QuesTec experiment not to look like a badly run debacle - unreliable and troublesome therefore manipulating numbers could make it look better."

Something in the wind about polictics again. I think I said this already.

"It's ridiculous to expect the umpires to be perfect when the machine that's deciding if they're worthy of future job assignments isn't even perfect. "

http://espn.go.com/talent/danpatrick...8/1560141.html

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by SAump

It appears Questec has the same problem I do.

"A core weakness of the system is that it consistently misses certain types of pitches, mostly sweeping pitches (sliders and curves), as well as late, hard, 'boring' pitches such as the cut fastball. These pitches can land all the way into the opposite batter's box, but because they caught a tiny slice of the front corner of the plate, the computer calls them strikes. No umpire who values his safety is going to call a pitch that lands in the opposite batter's box a strike. "

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3326

Saump,

You certainly hit it on the nose by smiling at the failings of both umpires and technology. ;-)

I’ve read that article before, and at 1st reading thought, “WOW, What a piece of crap!”

But on close observation, it turns out that it is exactly the kind of rhetorical thing I was referring to.

Look at when it was written. That’s nearly 2 years ago! Do you or anyone else believe that none of the problems he described have been corrected and no improvements made since he was a QuesTec operator? If you do, just look at your new cell phone, automobile, TV, or anything else based on technology, and see how much they’ve changed in 2 years.

Did you notice that even though he points out many of the strange things goin’ on, he noted one of the “critical” things. The calibration involves setting the dots on certain parts of the field, with the back point of the plate being the most critical. This calibration gives the cameras a center point from which to track each pitch. Why not the front end of the plate or someplace else? It would appear that the “point” of the plate means something. ;-)

Another thing I noticed when I read it was that the “strike zone” he says he set, certainly isn’t the strike zone in the book.

Setting the lines at the top of the belt and at the hollow of the back knee only takes about 10 pitches for a beginner to master; as opposed to

horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap.

The book says nothing about the “back” knee being the only one to be used, but on reflection, it’s the only one that makes sense. Also, since he says he set the top of the zone at the top of the pants, either he used a little poetic license and exaggerated a tad, was just flat out wrong, or was told to set it there by the people wanting the results of the system, MLB.

But if you read the article by Ivan Santucci you can read through the link, you can see that once the line is set at the top of the pants, the computer automatically moves it up 2.5 ball widths, or about 7-8”, or to whatever precision the computer figures the diameter to be.

If one reads the whole article by Santucci, one can also see that the zone doesn’t depend one whit where the batter stands, and he pretty well defines not only what it looks like, but answers a great many other questions about it.

Also, if you look at what he says eventually gets put on the CD, using phrases such as “travel through the strike zone”, “throughout the strike zone”, sure indicates to me there is more than just one point where the pitch is supposed to be measured.

I thought his pointing out the major strength of the UIS as being its “ensured objectivity” was pretty telling. The only argument anyone could possibly have is if the system calibration is correct, and that would be obvious in viewing the CD because the lines defining the zone would be seen.

What he points out as a “core weakness” is also interesting, and seems to be pretty much in line with most of what are the “traditional” responses we’ve seen here. However, he makes no mention of whether what he’s saying is his opinion, or that of MLB.

His pointing out that even an exceptional ump with a very high accuracy rate still misses around 15 pitches a game should say something. And, no, not that umps suck! But rather that there is lots of room for improvement, and that using the system will help umps to make that improvement if the want to.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by wsttxump

. Whatever opinion you have is fine. Just like the rest of the coaches, its not worth much.

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is now bordering on the ridiculous? We have a noob telling other officials working levels from HS varsity through Div 1 NCAA basball, up to the minors, that they're cowards because they don't call this crap a strike.



Tim.

[LMan]

Don't feed the idiots, and they will shuffle off to another village.



NIump is the new-but-all-knowing, all-seeing expert that McGriffs has been searching years for....he is..... [Morpheus] "The One..." [/Morpheus]

[wsttxump]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

I am tired of explaining this to you. Go do whatever it is you do and call what you want to call.

Bigump
I agree, this is amazing.

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

One call that I make is when the ball beats the runner and the fielder puts down a quick tag and pulls it up to avoid getting spiked, even though he didn't make a tag I still call him out. Oh wait, you make that same call. I guess the coaches opinion carries so much weight that you are willing to change the rule about a fielder having to actually tag a runner for an out instead of just looking like he did.

I mean, why else would you make that call?

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by gsf23

One call that I make is when the ball beats the runner and the fielder puts down a quick tag and pulls it up to avoid getting spiked, even though he didn't make a tag I still call him out. Oh wait, you make that same call. I guess the coaches opinion carries so much weight that you are willing to change the rule about a fielder having to actually tag a runner for an out instead of just looking like he did.

I mean, why else would you make that call?

Your attempt at humor escapes me, I say right in the post you're quoting "to avoid getting spiked"
I make the call for the protection of the fielder.
besides
I never said the coaches opinions are worthless. Someone else did. I was only pointing out the hypocrisy in that statement
Nor did I ever claim that I didn't make calls for the benefit of the coaches.

If you could comprehend what's going on in this thread you'd see that I've given my opinion on the pitch and explained my reasoning for why I call it this way.
The rest of the time I've retorted in kind to those who feel compelled to personally impune me because I don't follow the crowd on this call.

Admittedly, when you respond in kind, you're no better than the one that started it. But then I've never claimed to be a saint either

If the participants don't want threads that degenerate like this then I suggest they don't start with the personal attacks.
And if you just can't help yourself then don't be surprised when someone steps up and defends themself from your arrogance.

[SanDiegoSteve]

To quote LMan, "YAWN."

I don't know which is more boring, reading your posts or FAQ's about Questec. Jeez, somebody throw water on my face, quick!

[SAump]

"We just got a memo the other day saying umpires are going to call that pitch right there. I felt like that was a strike and I'm asking where it is," King said.

King produced a memo in the clubhouse that he said all teams got in spring training informing pitchers that while the strike zone wouldn't be called wide this season, the pitch at the bottom of the letters would be called a strike.

"Don't get mad at me when I ask you about it," King said. "If they say they're going to call that pitch, call it."

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5...0813162&ATT=49
-----------------

[Rich]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

Yup, you found us out. When we get to the field, we go to both coaches and get down on our knees in front of them.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by SAump

"We just got a memo the other day saying umpires are going to call that pitch right there. I felt like that was a strike and I'm asking where it is," King said.

King produced a memo in the clubhouse that he said all teams got in spring training informing pitchers that while the strike zone wouldn't be called wide this season, the pitch at the bottom of the letters would be called a strike.

"Don't get mad at me when I ask you about it," King said. "If they say they're going to call that pitch, call it."

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5...0813162&ATT=49
-----------------

If MLB wants the upper zone at the letters I'd give it to them..... I'm waiting for them to want the ones in the dirt called strikes.

Let's make the strike zone "Nose-to-Toes" and "Box-to-Box". Wait, NIump50's zone would have to be Nose-to-Dirt

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by Justme

If MLB wants the upper zone at the letters I'd give it to them..... I'm waiting for them to want the ones in the dirt called strikes.

Let's make the strike zone "Nose-to-Toes" and "Box-to-Box". Wait, NIump50's zone would have to be Nose-to-Dirt

Evidently, the way the operator describes setting up QuesTec, which MLB directs usage to train umpires, MLB may not want that pitch called a strike, but its gonna darn sure show up as a missed call if it hits the zone.

I hoped there would be at least a few officials on this BB who were subject to its use or under the direction of MLB through the various channels, but evidently there aren’t or they ain’t talkin’. Until someone like that comments, what anyone says here can only be applied to whatever level they call games at, not at the way ML wants their umps to call it.