From <I><U>NY Times</I></U>

Umpires Say System Has Them Alter Calls
By MURRAY CHASS


Throughout baseball history, pitchers and hitters have adjusted daily to the strike zone idiosyncrasies of the home plate umpire. Now umpires are adjusting, too, depending on the site of the game, and they say their adjustments can influence the outcome of games.

The reason, four umpires said yesterday, is the QuesTec system that Major League Baseball uses to monitor umpires' calls of balls and strikes and to rate the umpires on the accuracy of their calls.

The system is used in at least nine parks, including both in New York, and is expected to be in 13 parks as the season progresses. But, the umpires said, the strike zone created by the system varies from park to park, forcing them to alter their strike zones from park to park. The umpires say they can have yet another strike zone in the parks where they are not monitored.

"It's having an effect on the game," said one umpire, who like all of the umpires who commented in telephone interviews did so only if they would not be identified.

"It's definitely a concern," another umpire said.

Umpires have questioned the QuesTec system for the past year, but the commissioner's office has forced them to try to comply with the QuesTec strike zone. 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.

"I try to call the game I would normally call," one umpire said, "but I think about QuesTec every once in a while. When you start thinking, you're in trouble. The worst feeling an umpire can have is second-guessing yourself. That's what QuesTec does. Umpires say they are losing their confidence."

Another umpire said he and his colleagues had to change their strike zones from QuesTec park to QuesTec park. "For years, you're reacting to what happens; you call what you see,'' he said. "In a QuesTec city, you say, 'What is the machine going to say?' not 'What was that pitch?' Pretty soon you're umpiring a video game, not a baseball game. It affects your mind-set of what you're doing out on the field."

What makes the system worse, this umpire said, is that the strike zone, which is established by the computer operator, varies from park to park, from at-bat to at-bat with the same batter and sometimes even from pitch to pitch.

Sandy Alderson, executive vice president for baseball operations under Commissioner Bud Selig, did not return a telephone call yesterday seeking comment, but on Tuesday he strongly defended the system, telling The Associated Press that "the umpires have never been more accurate and more consistent about the strike zone and the rule book than they are today."

The QuesTec system, which the World Umpires Association has challenged in a grievance that is scheduled to be heard in July, has come under public scrutiny since last Saturday night, when e Arizona pitcher Curt Schilling took a bat to one of the cameras through which the system operates at the Diamondbacks' Bank One Ballpark. His earned run average this season is 4.39 in six starts at home and 1.96 in three starts on the road.

Schilling will most likely be disciplined for his action, but he gained the gratitude of umpires and fellow pitchers who have come to believe that the system has affected umpires' pitch calls.

"We hear it all the time," Al Leiter of the Mets said in Philadelphia before the Mets' game there last night. "There are a number of umpires saying: 'Al, I'm on the computer tonight. It's a computer night.' "

Tom Glavine, also a Mets pitcher, said he had heard similar comments from umpires. Several umpires spoke of being forced to call a narrower strike zone in QuesTec parks.

"I think that's unfair that they're under pressure to call a different game," Glavine said. "To me, either everybody has it or nobody has it. Whether or not it does anything, if there's even the slightest potential that because of it being somewhere, the game's going to be different versus it not being there, that's tough."

Alderson said the system was easy to operate, but the umpires interviewed yesterday disagreed. They said the system's accuracy varied from operator to operator and depended on the way the operators calibrated the system and the way they set the strike zone from a snapshot taken as the first pitch to a batter was on the way to the plate.

Because of the variations, one umpire said, umpires do not know what the dimensions of the strike zone were until 30 minutes after the game.

"It's an exercise in frustration," he said, adding: "You spend your whole career trying to get good enough to be on the major league level and some guy comes along 30 minutes after the game and tells you based on a grainy photograph where the strike zone was."

Because of the differences they say exist, the umpires said, they share information about the different parks where QuesTec is used.

"It's human nature," one umpire said. "If a truck driver is going down the road and sees a cop, he lets everyone know there's a cop. You go to a QuesTec city and you pass on information about it."

Another umpire said, "We also share the despair going from park to park."

I hope MLB gets the message and drops the QuesTec system as an evaluation system.

I work in a manufacturing plant where we gather all kinds of data on production etc... We chart this data and look for variations and the causes of the variation. We then look at ways to correct the variations.

Of course this is based on good, clean, unskewed data. It sounds to me that the QuesTec system and the process of setting up the system has more variation than the umpires strike zone.

Use the computer system as a Tool but until they can show all parties concerned, umpires, players, management etc... that the evaluation from this system is accurate and without its own variation, then let the umpires do the job they were hired to do without the threat of discipline.

I fix cars...
 

And we use a lasr guided measuring system to restore the vehicle to original inner-stucture manufactures dimensions, however there is a big disclaimer that "the vehicle may be in tolerences, but the dimensions showed may not be"....go figure... You smash em I fix em....

They take the fun out of it
 

To me the joy of the game if dealing with the umpires.

You know if **** is umpiring that he's calling such a zone.

The next night you have **** and you know he likes to call this zone.

The batter knows it, the pitcher and catcher know it etc.,

That's the beauty of baseball. Alderson is trying to be the enforcer and show everyone he is in charge, but I think its just another "bad call" by baseball.

They should be able to look at dropping attendance and TV ratings and know that there is a problem with the game.

I love to watch a Glavine or Shilling pitch simply because they are pitchers. That's why they have won as many games as they have.

The new breed of "throwers" are the reason why we have so many HR's now and the scores are so elevated.

As we know baseball is skewed by rules in favor of the offense.

This is simply another attempt to continue that tradition.

Thanks
David

Why not just dump Questec and hire former MLB umps to evaluate?
Since their paycheck would be from Mr. Alderson, there would be no doubt as to where their allegiance would be.
SInce they would have worked at that level for several years, they would know a strike when they see it.
The major problem I see with Questec is its setup. It is off-angle, utilizing 2-D looks at a 4-D problem. It does not "see" the whole stike zone but only selected portions of the zone. A pitch can be a ball for the first 57' and then break into the zone and the machine can't follow it. Big problem with that.
Paying former MLB's would probably be cheaper also. Pay them 3/4 of what Questec costs and you should save money and get a better product.

<b>Questec is nothing more than a tool used by Alderson's team to teach the umpires who is really "in charge" of the officiating system of MLB.</b>

Questec is a flawed tool intended to intimidate umpires into doing what Alderson says he wants them to do.

However, the flaw in Questec prevents proper evaluation of what Alderson claims is his goal. Alderson's ego will not allow him to admit the shortcomings of his tool. Common problem in some men.

Questec is a tool. Correct. So is a screwdriver and pliers both of which have been used as a chisel, pry bar and hammer by most at some time.

Use them correctly.

Why not rig the system so that it informs the home plate umpire (via earphone) what the pitch is.

Better still, why not leave the home plate ump behind the plate for everything but strikes and balls, and have the system connected to the scoreboard so that if the pitch is a strike, a red light flashes, ball, a green light. Then a rectangle could appear with a ball superimposed over it to show exactly where the pitch was.

My guess is that 3D would be no problem, either. We could see exactly how and where the ball passed through the zone.

Umpires are inconsistant not the camera
 

How is it possible that the most inconsistant judge in sports (baseball umpires) has the standards to tell us
how irregular the system is? Maybe we should have the umpires adjust the cameras in each park to match their strike zone. But....if a big namr pitcher gets up he may have to adjust it after every 1/2 inning.

Re: Umpires are inconsistant not the camera
 

I don't really need to comment, but ask hockey gurus around the country about how accurate their cameras are. (or better were)

And I'm sure football officials would love to comment on how well instant replay works.

And now even in college basketball and in the pros we have the cameras to help officials (I mean to screw up officials) in making their game ending calls.

Sorry but the cameras don't always show the real story either.

Thanks
David

Re: AND,
 

that's good Tee. and also I wonder what the umpire is going to do in that 16-4 game like we had a few weeks ago.

Lets see its 11--0 in the third inning and he's going to keep squeezing the plate. Just to keep his job.

I don't think this will last

Thanks
David

Beatlejuice:

Questec is flawed in several ways, one of which is that it loses "sight" of a its full view of the ball about three feet in front of the plate. In that regards it occasionally calls pitches like a first year rookie, "tunneling" the ball and rememebering what it looked like just before it reached the plate.

It doesn't have the "judgement" to make the call on killer curves and sliders that umpires have. And, it is set differently from field to field.

If someone is going to make a mistake calling pitches, I prefer it to be a human who can adjust, not a preset computer program that will be "consistent."

I think there's an additional problem with Questec. It forces the umpires to call a strike zone that few participants want.

No one can deny that good umpires call the strike zone of least resistance. Questec takes that option away from the umpires. In Questec cities, no longer can an umpire call a strike just off the corner, or a curve where the catcher gloves it. The strike on the highest and most inside or outside point in the strike zone, a pitch that no one called a strike before, is now a strike thanks to Questec.

The real solution should've been to alter the strike zone definition to more closely resemble what has become the most accepted strike zone in baseball, rather than force a strike zone that no one seems to want. I've seen the look of surprise on hitter's faces this season when a ball is called on a pitch that would've been a strike two seasons ago. So, not even the hitters know where the strike zone is anymore. I've seen more than one hitter pause in the box on ball four, expecting a strike to be rung up. Baseball doesn't look natural anymore.

True.....
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~You are dead to rights, Jim. BUT, how does Schilling fare when Kevin Brown has a "ques-tec" park and the lowest ERA??

I recently watched a video of the complete 7th game of the 1965 World Series. Unlike the films of the 1950s, it has plenty of shots from the center field camera. Very instructive to see that in 1965 the umpires called strikes on pitches across the chest, several inches higher than the top of even today's "higher" zone.

Interesting also that checked swings that today would be obvious strikes were routinely called balls and not even appealed to the base umpires. In those days, you really had to take a cut.

....You mean, actually "strike at the ball", love it when kid has bat hanging over the dish for a bunt, pitch is well over his head, I sez..."No, he didn't", crowd erupts...I look dumb and we play on....LOL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris s
[B] The year I graduated from High School.
...Kids. ;)

And you still have that girlish figure? :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
[B]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
Now we know why you just work the dish, you be grizzled, Mick;o

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chris s
[B]chris s,
Grizzled? That's gray. I'm white.
I started grizzling at 16. (Two years <u>before</u> you were born)
Lots of practice.
I'm still okay in the yard. I almost always get there. Hafta get close, cuz I can't see or hear. ;)
mick

Yeah, Rut, I have the girlish figure of the girl I wouldn't have dated. :cool:

LOL!!!
 

:D

Peace

Doesn't anyone watch games anymore
 

Maybe the system is flawed and should be looked at but...
tell me how many times an umpire calls a strike and 5 seconds later an overhead view shows the ball CLEARLY 6 inches outside the plate. I remember a couple of times it changed the result of the whole game. There isn't any umpire/official/judge that wants replay because it's obvious that they screw up. Maybe the best solution would be is to never show any replays. What I don't know won't hurt me.

Re: Doesn't anyone watch games anymore
 

Almost never. Very few of the overhead cameras are, in fact, directly over (or in line with) the plate. And, it could be that the umpire was calling that pitch to make a point (it's accepted "game management" at times at the upper levels).

Quote:

I remember a couple of times it changed the result of the whole game.

It changed the result of the whole game more than any of the other 250 pitches the the players (including the batters) made plays on (or didn't)? Wow! Let us know how this happened.

Tee makes the point that Sandy is doing this to show the umpires "who is the boss." I agree. It also has the effect of showing the players (and managers) "Who is the boss."

The umpires didn't just get together one day and decide, "We're going to change the strike zone" -- the zone that's called is (generally) the one that the players and managers (as a whole) want. SUre, they could (and perhaps should) change the rule book to reflect that, but that requires a formal agreement between the players association and MLB -- and that ain't gonna happen.

The ML and minir-league umpires that I"ve talked to (none since QestTec) don't object to evaluations / feedback by people who know what they're talking about -- including video and other "technologies". But, I've seen nothing that indicates that the technologies (as implemented) are accurate / reliable enough to rate or score the umpires.

Re: Doesn't anyone watch games anymore
 

that's what many have been saying. We <b>do watch the game.</b>

When you have a pitcher that can prove that he can put it 2 inches off the plate anytime he wants, then he's deserves to get that call from the PU.

Now we have only a few who can do that, Glavine, Shilling, Maddox, and a few others. But we also remember Tom Seaver, Jim Palmer and etc, etc,

Seaver was the master of the low strike, he could put if there anytime he wanted and he got the strike.

Palmer was a master on the inside and outside corner,

But, I never heard Hank Aaron complaining though about the pitches that were called. I don't think Rod Carew cared either, they just waited for a pitch to hit and did just that.

TV is ruining the game by showing a pitch that the F2 catches perfectly but might be a bit outside. You won't see the batter complaining either because they respect that pitcher.

What has happened is the young pitchers (and use that term loosely) don't know how to hit their spots and they wnat the zone bigger and bigger so they won't walk so many hitters and baseball is actually listening to them???

Same with my games, when I have a young man that can hit his spots he's going to get a lot more calls than 85 percent of the pitchers that we see that don't have a clue and when they actually throw a strike it surprises even themselves.

I think you understand where I'm coming from.

The game was beautiful, now baseball is trying their best to mess it up.


Thanks
David

<b>...tell me how many times an umpire calls a strike and 5 seconds later an overhead view shows the ball CLEARLY 6 inches outside the plate.</b>

6" I've never seen that. But then I know what 6" really looks like." ; )


<b>I remember a couple of times it changed the result of the whole game. </b>

Absolutely absurd. How about one of the other pitches that the batter chose not to swing at? That could have been a grandslam.

How about the the fly ball the right fielder didn't catch? That was the win right there.


<b>There isn't any umpire/official/judge that wants replay because it's obvious that they screw up.</b>

No. Many actually like replays. Some who don't feel that since the camera doesn't have the limitations the game or situation may place on the offical (getting screened out, having to sprint with the receivers, being concerned with one's safety, etc.) it doesn't actually reflect what the official "saw".

The flaws in Questec have already been pointed out.

Again, if someone is going to make a mistake, I prefer it to be someone human.


[Edited by GarthB on Jun 4th, 2003 at 02:05 PM]

Questec
 

Is the owner of this Questec company blowing Bud Selig or what? That's the only reason I can think of that ole Bud would want this thing used. I think the umpires should call balls and strikes not a machine. This is removing an essential human element of the game.

How do you highlight anyway?
 

6" I've never seen that. But then I know what 6" really looks like." ; )
6" is approximatly the width of two baseballs. Also catchers aren't invisable and last I seen the Ump was standing behind him.
The plate probably can't even be seen by the unpire.
(I remember a couple of times it changed the result of the whole game.)
Absolutely absurd.
Here's what happen "it was a 2-2 count and 2 outs bottom of the 9th bases loaded, score tied, Umpire's pizza getting cold". The pitch went way outside
the plate (from the OVERHEAD camera not the outfiefd camera) and at that second it reminded me of the winter olympics judging. Umpire called a strike !
A terrible call.

How about one of the other pitches that the batter chose not to swing at? That could have been a grandslam.
If the batter didn't swing at a strike that could have been a grand slam then the player needs to practice. It was the player that lacked skill not
the bad call from the Ump.

How about the the fly ball the right fielder didn't catch? That was the win right there.
Outfielder needs to practice and improve his skills.

(There isn't any umpire/official/judge that wants replay because it's obvious that they screw up.)
No. Many actually like replays. Some who don't feel that since the camera doesn't have the limitations the game or situation may place on the offical (getting screened out, having to sprint with the receivers, being concerned with one's safety, etc.) it doesn't actually reflect what the official "saw".
Good point!!!

The flaws in Questec have already been pointed out.
Again, if someone is going to make a mistake, I prefer it to be someone human.
Yep I agree the human player not an official.

It could just be me, but Beatlejuce sounds bitter. He expects perfection from the umps, but not from the players. Something's wrong with that line of thinking for sure.

Of course, any thinking person knows that an official does not decide the outcome of any game. It is entirely the fault of the losing team for having placed themselves in such a precarious position that an official's call affects their ability to win the contest.

<b>Also catchers aren't invisable and last I seen the Ump was standing behind him. The plate probably can't even be seen by the unpire.</b>

Well, this is enough to indicate that you're not an umpire or a damn poor one. When positioning himself properly, the umpire can see the entire plate, the outside corner, a good distance behind the plate and and sometimes a MILF or two.

<b>Here's what happen "it was a 2-2 count and 2 outs bottom of the 9th bases loaded, score tied, Umpire's pizza getting cold". The pitch went way outside the plate (from the OVERHEAD camera not the outfiefd camera) and at that second it reminded me of the winter olympics judging. Umpire called a strike ! </b>

First of all, overhead cameras are seldom, if ever, directly overhead. Any angle at all will exaggerate the balls position in regard to the plate. And again, what about all the other pitches. Did they have no effect on the game at all?


<b>If the batter didn't swing at a strike that could have been a grand slam then the player needs to practice. It was the player that lacked skill not the bad call from the Ump.</b>

No sh!#. That's our point Sherlock. There are many more instances in the game where the players could have done something or did something to control the outcome more than any call an umpire makes.

What's the old saying? You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think.

<b>How about the the fly ball the right fielder didn't catch? That was the win right there.
Outfielder needs to practice and improve his skills.</b>

Duh.

<b>(There isn't any umpire/official/judge that wants replay because it's obvious that they screw up.)
No. Many actually like replays. Some who don't feel that since the camera doesn't have the limitations the game or situation may place on the offical (getting screened out, having to sprint with the receivers, being concerned with one's safety, etc.) it doesn't actually reflect what the official "saw".

Good point!!! </b>

Yes it is.


<b>The flaws in Questec have already been pointed out.
Again, if someone is going to make a mistake, I prefer it to be someone human. Yep I agree the human player not an official. </b>

I suppose this is an attempt at wit, but since we were speaking of the officals versus technology and not officials versus players, it falls far short.

You ARE Rut, aren't you?

"When positioning himself properly, the umpire can see the entire plate.............and sometimes a MILF or two."

I needed a good laugh. Thanks Garth!!

Just another dumb statement
 

"Sandy Alderson, MLB's executive VP for baseball operations, tells Rumblings he's no longer in the QuesTec debate club. But after Schilling's remarks, he did have the Elias Sports Bureau do some research. And Elias found that there was actually a slightly higher percentage of strikes called in parks that have QuesTec (31.6 percent) than in parks without it (31.0)."

Found this on ESPN. How dumb really is Alderson?

The pitchers know which parks have the QuesTec system, they know they have to throw it over the plate so they do.

The pitchers is would hurt would still be Shilling, Maddox, Glavine, who are just stubborn and refuse to give into the hitters no matter which park and what the count is.

This percentage in my mind makes so sense at all.

thanks
David

Last week I was in Oakland calling a HS section state championship game. I inspected the QuesTec system and the MLB Umpire manual that was in the locker room. A couple of observations:

The QuesTec cameras do what we umpire's do: use fixed reference points to determine where the ball is in reference to the "zone." The problem is that the QuesTec cameras don't have the big fat catcher moving his rear back and forth, left or right, which can change our (umpire's) perspective.

The MLB umpire manual clearly points out how the system is to be used for evaluation. (Each umpire being evaluated gets a DVD of the game.) Included in the manual are sample evaluation forms and criteria. A 90% is listed as acceptable. There is language to account for "missed calls" or other "errors." You may agree or disagree with the how or why, the motivation for using it(QuesTec)or how its effected the game, but you can't say that Y'ALL HAVEN'T BEEN WARNED!!

So what do you think of "missing" 10% of your calls and still be an "acceptable" umpire?

Whatever happened to playing a game? As I grew up playing civic & Little League baseball and watching (& coaching + umpiring) my kids go through Little League; umpiring, good or bad was part of the game.

If MLB really wants to improve the umpiring. Take the system out of actual game. Let the ump call the game the way he thinks it should be called. Then after the game let him look at the analysis.

The Questec system is not mature enough to be the umpire during a game. It will improve over time. But until then keep out of game.

Play ball!