Accuracy of TBS's Version of K-Zone

[jicecone]

OK what am I missing here?

Its only arithmetic.

18 half innings with avg 4-6 batters per, is approximately 90 batters.

90 batters at avg 5 pithches per batter is 450 pitches.

This rating system is judged upon 1/4 of the HP calls?????

What am I missing?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

OK what am I missing here?

Its only arithmetic.

18 half innings with avg 4-6 batters per, is approximately 90 batters.

90 batters at avg 5 pithches per batter is 450 pitches.

This rating system is judged upon 1/4 of the HP calls?????

What am I missing?

Part of what you are missing is that it does not judge on any pitch that is swung at. Not sure that accounts for 100% of the discrepancy, but it has to account for a majority.

[RPatrino]

As near as I can tell, this only tracks where the pitch is caught. It doesn't track the path of the pitch through the zone. Does anyone know this for sure?

[briancurtin]

I've seen pitches that appear on the tracker higher than they were caught. I would think they have multiple cameras measuring this and can fairly accurately know when the ball crosses the plate. That's what Questec did/does.

I'm not "for sure" on this, but I'm kinda sure.

[rbmartin]

My understanding is it uses 2 cameras which are aimed perpendicular to each other and feeding data into a computer which tracks the ball via shape recognition software and records the 3 deminsional path (actually an approximated path derived from 20 or so points).

It is also my understanding that the inner and outer edges of the strike zone are fixed to the edges of the plate but the upper and lower extremities are adjusted for each batter according the the size of the batter. No adjustments are made regarding the batters position relative to standing in the front of the box vs. the back of the box.

It is also my understanding that the "digital strike zone" is a plane at the front of the plate rather than a theioretically correct pentagonal prism.

All this is based upon what I have read and not based on first-hand knowledge.
The bottom line is , in my opinion, this has forced umpire to call a more consistant, rule-correct strike zone and we don't have any Eric Greggs (RIP) with a 3 foot wide strike zone.

My 12 year old son commented Sunday night during the Reds/Giants game how good the HP umpire was at balls/strikes.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by jicecone

OK what am I missing here?

Its only arithmetic.

18 half innings with avg 4-6 batters per, is approximately 90 batters.

90 batters at avg 5 pithches per batter is 450 pitches.

This rating system is judged upon 1/4 of the HP calls?????

What am I missing?

Umpires are not judged on obvious strikes or balls. There's probably a bit more to it...but my point is that you have to get your money pitches. If you get 10 correct that are cock shots, and miss one border one, 90% is not a true indictor of how good of a job you're doing. Let's take 10 border pitches and say you got 9 of them right, now that's a nice job.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Umpires are not judged on obvious strikes or balls. There's probably a bit more to it...but my point is that you have to get your money pitches. If you get 10 correct that are cock shots, and miss one border one, 90% is not a true indictor of how good of a job you're doing. Let's take 10 border pitches and say you got 9 of them right, now that's a nice job.

Agree. But the pfx graphs linked in Rich's post above capture a lot of pitches that are your so-called "cock shots".

A better assessment would include the graphic display of only those border pitches, plus the no-brainers that the umpire still got wrong.

[MD Longhorn]

I looked at the stats for several of the games this week, and it appears to me the discrepancy is easily accounted for simply by subtracting the pitches swung at - more than half the pitches were swung at, in total, in the 5 games I checked.

[johnnyg08]

Interesting.