More Nails in Questec's Coffin

[edhern]

Here is an article regarding the Questec Company in Today's Newsday (Long Island, NY).

Ed H

Taking Swings At QuesTec
Finances, treatment of workers questioned




By Monty Phan
STAFF WRITER

September 3, 2003

It's at the center of a high-profile dispute between Major League Baseball and umpires and has drawn the ire of star pitchers, including the Mets' Tom Glavine.

And yes, this computerized umpiring system has generated a debate about nothing less than the soul of the game.

But behind all this fuss is a Long Island company with only two full-time employees, a debt of hundreds of thousands of dollars, no headquarters, a stock price that sells for a thousandth of a cent per share, and questions about its future.

If you're a baseball fan, no doubt you've heard of QuesTec, which has installed a system in 10 major league ballparks - including Yankee and Shea stadiums - that uses cameras and computers to evaluate umpires' balls-and-strikes calls. Major League Baseball, which is using QuesTec's Umpire Information System on a trial basis, defends it. Umpires and pitchers, such as Glavine and Arizona Diamondback Curt Schilling (who was fined for smashing a QuesTec camera in May), despise it. Many umpires see the device as an attempt by Major League Baseball to second-guess them, while many pitchers have said the technology will force umpires to change the way they call a game.

Glavine, for example, has argued that the system is unfair for two reasons: It's in only a third of major league ballparks (instead of all or none), and it affects finesse pitchers, who rely on location, more than power pitchers, who rely on speed. Glavine and others have complained that the QuesTec system has forced plate umpires to use narrower strike zones, which in turn affects the way pitchers pitch.

The debate has left the company in a tight corner. It has put growth of its business with Major League Baseball - which last year accounted for 95 percent of income but now is about half - on hold while the league and its umpires undergo arbitration hearings to determine how the QuesTec system should be used. "This has been an overwhelming battle for us," said Ed Plumacher, 43, the company's founder. "We feel like a pawn in a major dispute. Whenever something happens, blame it on QuesTec."

But while QuesTec attempts to answer the question at hand - just what is a strike, anyway? - its critics have one of their own: Just what is QuesTec?

Depending on whom you talk to, there are differing accounts of how the company is run, who runs it, even where it's located.

It used to have an office in Deer Park, but that was closed last year. Although Plumacher identifies himself as the company's founder, he is not an officer and is listed as "key employee" in Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Two ex-employees say Plumacher, who lives in West Islip, calls the shots, but he denies that. QuesTec chairman Stephen Greenfield, a Florida attorney, and president Derek Donaldson, a lawyer in British Columbia, didn't return calls

Fair or Foul?

This season, Major League Baseball is using a computerized system called QuesTec to test umpires' performance calling balls and strikes.

The company says the system is accurate to within a half-inch, but umpires and many players have criticized it.

According to Major League Baseball's Official Rules, "the strike zone is that area over home plate, the upper limit of which is a 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 hollow beneath the knee cap."

1 Cameras mounted high up in the stadium follow the flight of the ball from the pitcher's hand to home plate.

2 Cameras near the dugouts along the first and third base lines help establish where a batter's strike zone is.

Watching the Plate

The overhead cameras follow the flight of the ball to see if it passes over home plate. They also record pitch speed and trajectory.

Watching the Batter

The field-level cameras record the height of the ball as it crosses home plate.

Marking the Strike Zone

Later, a technician uses images from the field-level cameras to help calculate the batter's strike zone and determine whether the pitch was a strike.

After each game, the home plate umpire is given a CD-ROM that shows how he and QuesTec called each pitch so he can compare the results. Major League Baseball has told its umpires that it expects at least 90 percent of their ball-strike calls to agree with QuesTec's.

SOURCES: QuesTec, ESPN, news reports
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[johnSandlin]

I totally agree with the player's complaint so far of the computer system to evaluate umpires. For example, about a month ago when the Yankees and Red Sox played each other, a close pitch on the inside corner was called a ball by th umpire due to the new system.

The reason that particular pitch was called a ball was due the fact the computer system had been set up that any pitch in that exact spot like the one in the Yankees/Red Sox game I was just mentioning was to be called a ball.

Tim Welke(major league umpire and crew chief) told me about a month while I was umpiring a tournament his son was playing in said that one of the umpires on his crew this year gets very nervous when he is working the plate at a ballpark that has the new system. The umpire said that he feels himself having to call pitches that opposite way.

I agree that there needs to be an evaluation system in place to evaluate all umpires on the accuracy of the strike zone, but the system that is in place this year is not the system to be using. Like yesterday in the Phillies/Expos game, a pitch was called a ball by the HP because of the new system. Right idea, but wrong tool to be using for evaluating umpires.

[ozzy6900]

Here's another flaw with the system. It is only designed for a straight pitch! It cannot track a breaking pitch! The system stops recording just before the plate and calculates the trajectory. So it doesn't see like we can. Oh, a sinking pitch is another problem all together!

[Bfair]

I can only speculate on what I think is occurring in MLB.

Prior to the failed strike of a few years back, the MLB umpires seemed to have stronger tenure guidelines established than did the teaching profession. I think that MLB---spearheaded by Sandy Alderson---has been trying to prove that MLB will be in charge of the standards of officiating in the MLB---and not the umpires. They certainly proved their point in dealing with the striking umpires, and they gathered the attention of all professional umpires in doing so.

It appears MLB desires include having the entire game called more "by the book" versus sitting back and accepting the custom and practice dictated by the officials elevated to that level. In support of those desires they are likely monitoring and reviewing play for adherence to their desires. I think I've seen far more infractions of rules such as interference and obstruction called over the past several years than I did prior. Certainly we've seen less tolerance in the judgment applications of reacting to balls that may be purposely thrown at batters. I think all is a result of the officials reacting to MLB desires to adhere more to the rulebook.

The strikezone is likely the most subjective issue yet the most difficult to monitor from an objective standpoint. Although MLB's use of Questec is not perfect, it is not only attempt to monitor that facet of the game, but it's also a message to umpires telling them MLB will continue to attempt to do so. It's part of MLB's message to umpires that the league will set the policies, not the officials.

While I doubt if anyone on these boards has the background to verify the accuracy of Questec, I think we'd all agree that what it is trying to accomplish is a significant change from the "custom and practice" of what has been the strikezone used in MLB over the past decades. If successful in forcing umpires to call the zone by the book, it would represent a major change to the game. For that reason alone, I believe their is opposition to it from all levels. Afterall, those that have achieved that level did so based on their proven success of playing the game under current standards of custom and practice versus some unknown and untested standards---even if those untested standards are defined within the rulebook. In attempting to implement those untested standards, it puts the status of both groups of participants already at the top---players and officials---at risk of being less successful under the new standards.

Evaluation is criticism, and nobody likes negative criticism---especially when the criticism is used to evaluate one's overall performance. Negative criticism can be accepted, however, if it is easy to adjust to the desired performance level. It's not easy to make changes to something that has been established for decades. It's even more difficult when those changes are obvious to millions of regular viewers who are accustomed to the established standards of custom and practice.

While the current implementation of Questec has its flaws and may not be the perfect the answer, I doubt if eliminating Questec will eliminate MLB's goal of getting the umpires to adhere moreso to the book definition of the strikezone. Whatever method MLB looks to use, I'd expect to see opposition from players, officials, and fans to MLB's desire for change within the game.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rick Vietti]

I think if MLB wants to implement any new system they should start at the bottom and work up. Start in the minor leagues with new systems.

Change takes time and I agree with Glavine and others that it should be in ALL ball parks and not just a select few.

But if MLB wants true change, then embark on the lower levels and push it up.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rick Vietti
I think if MLB wants to implement any new system they should start at the bottom and work up. Start in the minor leagues with new systems.

Change takes time and I agree with Glavine and others that it should be in ALL ball parks and not just a select few.

But if MLB wants true change, then embark on the lower levels and push it up.

With players moving in and out, major league and minor league are too intertwined.
Effectiveness under one standard does not mean effectiveness under another if working under different standards. The money comes from being effective at the highlest level---MLB.

Idealistically they could hope that amateur ball could implement change that could eventually work its way to professional ball, but amateurs like to imitate pros---so that will NEVER happen. Idealism seldom supports realism.

If they make the change it must be done at the professional level,
and you can't separate MLB from minor league.
If MLB does it, minor league will be quick to follow.
The goal of all in minor league is to obtain MLB status.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

Mr. Freix, I believe has the rough essence correct. But I'd go another step.

MLB is demonstrating the institutional versions of the human traits of stubborness and denial.

The tool they have selected to achieve a goal has too many flaws. Consequently the path to the goal is rougher than need be and the likely outcome will be similarly flawed. However, MLB has become so single-minded in its determination to show everyone who's in charge that they either do not care how they do it, or refuse to believe that they can be mistaken.

This happens in business often. However, smart businesses realize the goal is more important than the tool and adjust accordingly.

MLB does not appear very smart.

[greymule]

If MLB believes that the computers and cameras are the gold standard that umpires should aspire to meet, why not equip the PU with an earpiece that tells him whether the pitch was a ball or a strike?

This would hardly be difficult with today's technology. If they didn't want an earpiece, they could use a vibrating signal under the chest protector or something. And why even do that? Have "strike" or "ball" immediately announced on the scoreboard.

If the batter swung and missed but the scoreboard showed "ball," the fans would be treated to knowing that the batter had swung at a bad pitch.

The PU would still be needed for HBP, fouls, interference, plays at home, etc.—everything but actual ball/strike calls.

The point is, if you have a machine that can instantly discern a true ball or strike, why compel a human to do that job?

[Bfair]

You are missing the point, Greymule.
Garth hit it on the head.

MLB is not looking for perfection. Umpire error has always been part of the game. It's likely MLB does not wish to eliminate umpire error. However, purposeful umpire error should not be there. When umpires call a zone that they know is not congruent with the rules, then that's not umpire error. They are successful in what they are attempting to achieve---calling something other than the book's zone.

MLB wants them to attempt to achieve that zone called for by the book. Tradition of the past decades has not been to the book's zone. We all know that. Consequently, the stubborness and denial exists. MLB is thus searching for an objective means of measuring an umpire's subjectivity to assure the attempt to meet their desired standards exists. The ability to measure that attempt will then initiate a need to meet that goal.

MLB has proven they can eliminate those not willing to play the game by their rules. Those that have made it to the top by not playing the rules of book hesitate to risk their ability to be successful under other standards. They have already achieved the pinnacle of success within the game under existing standards, and any change to those existing standards amounts to risk of their current status.

I believe MLB will win in their effort through whatever means they elect to take. If not Questec, then they'll find another way to address their needs. It's just a matter of how long the road will be and how many bumps they will encounter along the journey. Once MLB succeeds, others will follow.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Cubbies87]

Under the assumption that the goal is the umpires to simply call the MLB dictated zone, the solution seems simple. There is a quote that goes, "When you stop being better, you stop being good," and most umpires would agree with this. All aspiring umpires are constantly looking to improve their abilities and call a better game. One established way to improve yourself in any area is intelligent feedback.

With that in mind, QuesTec software can be used to the umpires advantage. The plate ump should have the choice to be evaluated. The QuesTec software would then be enabled, and the plate ump's calls checked by QuesTec. On the occasions where QuesTec and the umpire disagree, a note is made on where QuesTec felt the pitch crossed, which pitch it exactly was, etc. so the umpire can go back to film (or memory), and watch the pitch.

However, the results should be for the umpire's eyes only. If the umpire cares to disclose the results, that is his (or maybe eventually her) decision. In most cases, other umpires, players, and even fans can tell whether the umpire had been calling a good game. QuesTec is not necessary to simply show others how an umprie is doing.

If used correctly, with good intentions, under the premise of self-improvement, I see very few umpries having a problem with fairly accurate feedback on their performance.

Now, while that is my position on the software, I am not necessarily in favor of changing the game. Baseball has become what it has over time. By losing critical pieces, such as umpire error, you severely alter the game, and potentially damage it.

I know that personally, when I hear a player, team, or coach complaining, I can ignore it without hard feelings, knowing that it is a part of the game. Being a player for many years, I found myself doing the very things to umpires as I had done to me! That's baseball! That's what I, and many fans love. All the traditions and quirks that make the game more than a game.

For those who deny that every small detail makes the game what it is, talk to a loyal Chicago Cubs fan. Harry Caray was simply the announcer. He had no bearing on what happened in the field. But, in his passing, Cubs games, while still as fun as ever, aren't the same. The 7th inning stretch is not the same, and the game, no matter how minutely altered, is not the same.

That's my take. Leave the time tested techniques in play, and allow the game to keep all its splendor.

[Rich Ives]

"The plate ump should have the choice to be evaluated."

Wow. I never had a job where I had a choice as to whether I was evaluated or not. Did you?

[Cubbies87]

No, but in my scenario, the evaluation is only being seen by the plate ump. If the plate ump feels that they are beyond help, or feel that their ability to umpire is hindered by the software:

Originally posted by johnSandlin
Tim Welke(major league umpire and crew chief) told me about a month while I was umpiring a tournament his son was playing in said that one of the umpires on his crew this year gets very nervous when he is working the plate at a ballpark that has the new system. The umpire said that he feels himself having to call pitches that opposite way.

Therefore, in this scenario, the umpire would be able to choose as to whether or not to have their job be evaluated

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by GarthB
The tool they have selected to achieve a goal has too many flaws. Consequently the path to the goal is rougher than need be and the likely outcome will be similarly flawed. However, MLB has become so single-minded in its determination to show everyone who's in charge that they either do not care how they do it, or refuse to believe that they can be mistaken.

This happens in business often.

Government, too.

[David B]

I agree totally.

And just as MLB is heading down the wrong road as is our government.

It's only a matter of time.

As we have seen the last few years, the more they don't call the close strikes, the more good pitches the hitters have to hit.

I think we have seen the last of the great pitchers simply because they won't have a chance if MLB continues.

As it is now, there is no way for a pitcher to be consistent and I know as an umpire, if I'm having to change my zone from night to night its only going to get worse.

And the umpires that have been there the longest are going to continue to call it as they have for the last 30 years except for the games they have Questec.

That IMO is simply not fair to the pitcher.

Maybe that's why we don't see the 20 games winners anymore.
All of the pitchers are one year wonders. (aka the Oakland A's)

This year we have two of the most consistent pitchers for the last 10 years struggling. (Maddox and Shilling and you could throw Glavine in the mix also)

Thanks
David

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Government, too.

[johnSandlin]

I totally agree with David B, when he stated "we have seen the last of consistent pitchers." I went on a limb yesterday and emailed the umpiring school that I am going to in January and asked them about the questech system.

They replied back that it is a very touchy subject with MLB umpires this year and that was all that was said. I concluded with this only statement, that MLB umpires do not like the system by any stretch.

In my opinion, I think the new system has taken the liberty of umpires calling balls and strikes right out of the umpires hands. No umpire is going to feel good about their zone or their ability when you have to call the strike zone according to a computer system.

As I said before, I believe in having an evaluation system for umpires at all levels of minor and major league baseball, but the questech system is not the system to use for evaluation.