Another Way Robot Umps Would Help
Jon Roegele is the leading authority on strike-zone changes, and I recommend you read his midseason update of the strike zone that was published at The Hardball Times yesterday.
There are a number of interesting findings and developments in the piece, but the headline is that the strike zone is contracting for a second consecutive season after it shrunk for the first time in the PITCHf/x era last season.
In 2015, the strike zone measured 475 square inches, according to Roegele, and 50 square inches in the area 21 inches above the ground and down (i.e. the bottom of the zone and below). It declined to 474 and 45 inches, respectively, last season, and to 464 and 43 square inches to date this season.
A smaller strike zone likely has played some role in the run-scoring surge of the last 48 months, and a smaller strike zone figures to have all sorts of consequences.
Interestingly, despite the strike zone having shrunk last season and having continued to contract this season, the number of pitches in the lower portion of the strike zone and below have increased this season (30.5%) from 30.0% in 2016 and 29.8% in 2015. And it’s not just more breaking balls and changeups being thrown for chases below the zone; the percentage of fastballs thrown down is slightly up this season (19.4%) compared to 2015 (19.1%), according to data provided by Baseball Savant’s detailed zones.
Pitchers are throwing down more often even as the strike zone shrinks, even as batters have become more skilled at driving the low pitch. This suggests that it’s not so easy to change, that pitchers have been conditioned and programmed to target that area. (Or that not enough pitchers are browsing pitch-location data during their idle time.)
It makes sense to think of the power spike in baseball as a uniform change, but that spike has actually occurred in certain parts of the strike zone more prominently than others.
Consider, for example, this chart of the league’s isolated slugging by zone in 2008:
And then the same thing for 2017:
A decade later, the ISO mark in the top left of the zone has actually decreased by a single point, from .183 to .182. The areas middle and low, however, have increased by 30 points in most cases. That speaks to a fundamental change not just in overall power, but specific approach, from batters.
One significant implication of an evolving strike zone — of an inconsistent zone — that perhaps hasn’t received as much attention is the preparation aspect from both the perspective of the individual player and the club. How do you go about planning and preparing as a player when you don’t know how the strike zone will play in a given year? How do you go about building a team as a member of a front office if you don’t know how large the strike zone will be and where the biases will be located?
For instance, entering the 2016 season, if you were a decision-maker for a club, you might want to consider — perhaps you ought to have attempted — to take advantage of a strike zone that had grown every year in the PITCHf/x era, and grown in a particular place: in the lower regions of the strike zone and below it.
Perhaps you invest heavily in two-seam, sinking-fastball pitchers and target an elite pitch-framing catcher, as it’s that lower part of the strike zone where most of the value of framing resides. Perhaps you place more focus and emphasis on having your pitchers target the lower part of the strike zone from the top to bottom of your system.
And what if, after doing all that, the lower part of the zone suddenly begins to dry up?
Earlier this season, I asked Milwaukee reliever Jared Hughes, who has relied on peppering his sinker down in the zone throughout his career, about how he is adapting in an era when the strike zone is contracting, at a time when batters have become more proficient at driving the lower pitch.
Said Hughes:
“If your swing is geared to the lower pitch there might be something else there you can’t get to. In my opinion, every swing, every approach, there is a way to get a hitter out,” Hughes said. “The thing is if I can find a way to have a strength up. To find something to go to up there if I think i need, which I think I do.”
Hughes is trying to evolve, though he’s doing so more through pitch type than location.
He’s evolving on the fly successfully. Among relievers who have thrown at least 100 sliders, he has the game’s top swing-and-miss rate, and for his career he gets about as many whiffs per swing as Chris Sale via the pitch. Hughes’ sinker was so good, he was perhaps under-utilizing his slider. After being released by the Pirates this spring, Hughes has a 2.92 ERA and 3.68 FIP for the Brewers.
Of course, not every player can adjust so quickly.
And if a team has invested too heavily in a strategy to take advantage of soon-to-be-defunct trend, making a change at an organization-wide level can be akin to turning around an aircraft carrier.
Another interesting finding from Roegele is that the gulf between the size of the zone between left-handed and right-handed hitters continues to grow. Wrote Roegele:
The lack of sustained strike calling on the inside part of the plate to left-handed hitters appears to be the most obvious area remaining where the league could stand to improve in steering its strike zone toward the rulebook definition.
In 2012, right-handed hitters posted a superior isolated-slugging mark (.152) compared to lefties (.149), and the strikeout rates were nearly even (19.7% for righties an 19.9% for lefties). To date in 2017, lefties have an advantage both in isolated power (.174 to .168) and in strikeout rate (20.6% to 22.2%).
If you’re employed in a front office, it would seem to make some sense to place an even greater value on left-handed hitters, if this trend continues, if lefties continue to enjoy a more favorable strike zone.
Fans clamor for robot umps when calls go against their clubs. But perhaps more teams and more players will be calling for robot umps for the sake of consistency, for the purposes of planning. While robot umps might not call a perfect zone, particularly at its northern and southern boundaries, robot umps could — eventually — provide a more consistent one.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
This is great, and an eye opener for me. I do have a couple of questions:
1) .ISO for high, middle-of-the-zone pitches increased from 2008 to 2017 by 22 points. Is that noise, or an indication that hitters are not merely targeting low in the zone?
2) “474 and 45 inches” to “464 and 43 inches” seems like a huge change. Is there any sense that this might be an intentional shrinking of the zone by umps, perhaps by order of MLB? (I mean, I doubt umps would lengthen games on purpose!)
Also, I’ve always wanted a consistent zone. I think we could all live with that.
I think there are people out there, myself included, who “could live with it” but given the choice, want nothing to do with a roboump. And Travis, I take you’re point, but I find myself unsympathetic to the player who is so specialized, or the organization that is so rigid, that they need to design out a critical part of the game in order extract the most value. This is not like a revision to the slide rule (that makes plays safer and, near as I can tell, changes the game little or not at all); we’re talking about radical change…for what exactly? I’ve seen commenters here argue (and I don’t want to leap too far off the philosophical cliff) that it’s important to GET IT RIGHT because TRUTH IS IMPORTANT or some version of that, but I can’t help but think that’s bogus. This is a children’s game for fun an entertainment, isn’t it? This is not the tax code. This is not medical research.
If this rule change is inevitable and you’re trying to sell it, fine, but if we’re trying to talk about if it’s actually a good idea, if it’s actually needed, if anyone actually *wants* it, I remain unconvinced.
The game is worth billions because many individuals enjoy the performance of the athletes and the outcomes for their teams.
The fans want to see the contest between Harper and Kershaw according to the rules of the game. If the outcome of that contest is determined by Joe West instead of the preternatural talents of the major league players, the contest loses its legitimacy. The less that happens, the better.
But, as has been established, on this website and elsewhere, the strike zone is negotiated by the pitcher, catcher, hitter and umpire, and that this is a skill, a part of the game, just like sliding, fielding grounders, hitting for high average, whatever. I don’t see how legitimacy is lost. Getting an out call wrong that breaks up a no hitter, that’s terrible and was rightly designed out of the game.
And it’s not obvious to me, as you seem to imply, that this is what all fans what to see. It’s also not obvious to me that players want it too. Certainly some have spoken out, but I have not seen it reported that there is a crisis here that needs immediate or radical attention. Has a petition circulated? Has this come up in labor negotiations? Who *actually* cares? And how many of them are there? Maybe absurd questions here, and absurd questions now, but this needs serious thought.
In general, I take your point, but what I’m resisting is the assumption that all fans want this, or that it objectively improves the game. These statements are simply not true. Do some people want it and do they have good reasons? Sure, of course they do. But acting like this is a closed case will increase the risk of doing something that hasn’t been thought through and with consequences that aren’t known.
Fair points, all.
I don’t mean to speak for all fans; I doubt a plebiscite for robot umps would prevail so no doubt not every fan wants them. I do think Sabemetric fans would easily vote in robot umps, though.
Although command and pitch-framing are certainly skills, I would vastly prefer that the outcomes of plate appearances be determined by Clayton Kershaw’s ability to throw a ball and Bryce Harper’s ability to swing a bat than Yasmani Grandal’s ability to influence Angel Hernandez’s perception by the way he keeps his glove still.
I get that some people respect the tradition and human element. But the original game didn’t even have balls and strikes. It was intended to be a contest to see if the defenders could retire a batter on a ball in play. Umpire-called balls and strikes were a solution to a problem, a necessary evil, to give an incentive to the pitcher to deliver hittable balls and for the batter to strike at them. For nearly 140 years, we had no better option to solve this problem innate to competitive baseball than to pay Tim McClelland to slowly raise his hand when he thinks a pitch went over the plate. But now it’s clear the robots can do better, and I, for just one, cannot wait.
Woe… the original game? So, are you refering to rounders or peg-ball or maybe stoop-ball? The game, as played at Hoboken by the Knickerbockers, aloud the batter/hitter to request a high or low ball and there were strikes.
upon further research…
the Massachusetts Game had the strike calls in case of delayed game tactics.
the high and low pitch requests were not implimented until some few years later.
Step back and ask if you want a game where the strike zone is “negotiated” by anyone. And if you do like that, why not push for other decisions to be similarly “negotiated”?
I want the rulebook strike zone called as much as possible. I’m 54 years old and a lifelong baseball fan who respects tradition. But I have never once enjoyed the “art” of stealing strikes, and I have zero attachment to human umpires.
Ok, if you think it’s ok to get rid of calls at 1B that rob a pitcher of a no-hitter (or a perfect game in Gallaraga’s case), why not get rid of calls at home plate that can do exactly the same thing? Balls and strikes can clearly affect a perfect game on a bad ball four call, not to mention screwing up an entire AB on ANY call.
Fans complain all the time about bad calls, especially balls and strikes. Do you think that should continue because it’s “interesting” to have drama and controversy? I’d rather drama and controversy come from the game itself and not from incompetent umps.
Joe West is the reason robots are definitely coming.
MLB instructed umpires to stop calling so many low strikes before the season began.
https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/02/13/raising-strike-zone-pace-action
Thanks. Definitely a shrinking zone.
We should all be raising our voices louder and louder on this issue, there will be a long battle ahead with the Umpire’s union when MLB starts seriously talking about robo-umps. Thanks for this analysis.
Would you mind elaborating on why you want roboumps? I’m not being provocative, I’m sincerely trying to understand this. Is it about “getting it right” or some “fairness” principal?
For me, it’s because this cannot happen, but eventually will happen in a big spot.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-worst-called-strike-of-the-first-half-3/
Agreed! Point taken! But baby yada yada bathwater yada yada, right? Every human ump except Angel Herandez gets that call right.
catcher did a great job presenting the pitch. If a team isnt getting the calls they should get a better catcher. Look at the world series last year. the catcher was terrible and wasn’t getting the calls because he had weak hands.
I think the term “robo-ump” is loaded and shuts down a lot of otherwise useful discussion. I wouldn’t replace human umps with robots – much as it’d be fun to see them try to handle rain delays or streakers running on the field.
But I think giving the umpire an iphone with the same strikezone picture we get on TV in realtime, would help the game. The zone would be more consistent; rookies would face the same zone as veterans, etc.
I actually don’t think “robot umps” would help all that much. MLB would simply write little flaws into the code.
Both — minus the air quotes.
My idea would be keep the home plate umpire and equip him with an ear piece or buzzer that simply tells him if a pitch is horizontally a strike or ball. Simply, did it cross the plate. Technology is really good at accurately measuring this piece. Leave the north/south vertical calls to the umpire.
Hybrids are all the rage these days … why not a hybrid human/robot umpire?
robot umps are a joke. An automoated k zone deletes one whole position out of the field. Might as well throw into a net behind the plate and set a bucket of balls on the mound. Does anyone actually think someone is going to want to squat for 9 innings just to catch the ball and throw it back? Catchers play the position to perfect the art….the art of catching is what drives them to the position. You could put the bat boy back their if go to automoated k zone.
The art of catching goes way beyond framing. Blocking, pitch calling, throwing out would-be base-stealers, managing pitching staffs, fielding bunts, relaying signs etc. You make it sound like all they do is catch borderline pitches.
I doubt catcher is a long-term viable position anyway, given what we continue to learn about concussions. That’s obviously a bigger change than robotic umps, but it’s probably going to have to happen.
Not possible.
umpires are apart of the game. They make it what it is. Take it or leave it, or just don’t watch baseball anymore. I’m tired of this commisioner changing the game. He needs to be fired along with torre.
We’ve had umps for 150 years…why do we have to change it all of a sudden? This is stupid.
Get off my lawn!
relieving myself on your Welcome mat.
Well then, let’s do away with night games, since all we had for the first 40 years or so were day games. While we’re at it, let’s go back to those crappy gloves they used to wear, those newfangled things are ruining the game! And batting helmets? They didn’t have them in the old days, why do we need them now? They look ugly, let’s get rid of them too. Also, stediums should go back to the old days with the pillars and lots of obstructed view seats, since that’s the way it always was.
What else would you like to revert to?
Just to be clear, while I’m sensitive to The Guru’s sentiments, I’m not in agreement. I’m not saying change is bad, and tradition is more important than the quality of the play/product. I’m saying that I’m not convinced this is necessary, and am skeptical. Still waiting for someone to persuade me (and I’m seriously open to being persuaded by a good argument) that there’s a good reason for this. “Consistency” for it’s own sake, “innovation,” “progress,” all the arguments I’ve seen to this point are reductive and short sighted.
I appreciate your open-mindedness but could you please explain how being consistent and innovative is reductive and short-sighted?
I have been extremely underwhelmed by the arguments for keeping human umps long-term.
Reductive in that it assumes all innovation is good and necessary. I know this is an unpopular position, and I accept the down votes to come. But I’m trying to advocate for a more measured approach that picks and chooses how it innovates, and not necessarily with an attachment to history (as others here have). The new slide rule improves safety in exchange for fewer hard hits, or “dramatic” plays. That’s a good trade off. But what do you get in exchange for taking the ump away? This is an honest question. So far the answers are too abstract for me. I may be in the minority, but a blown call on a strike or ball doesn’t really piss me off, so the easy answer could be “I’ll scream at my TV less when there are roboumps”? And that’s not enough for me personally.
Shortsighted in that this would be the biggest change to the game since free agency, and no one seems to be talking about what ancillary effects there might be. It seems widely assumed that we’d get the right calls, and that’s that, but I’m concerned. What happens to the finesse guys who can’t blow you away? Pitch framing goes away, which I could take or leave, but what happens to the rest of the catcher’s dark arts? It can’t be nothing. These things should be considered, no? I can’t understand the demand/insistence that’s often prevalent here. Okra, above, is the only other person here who seems to think there should be any nuance to this, and it’s been similar in the comments on other umpire pieces.
This is the most human game we have in the states, and I’ll be sad to see it turn into something else. It’s not some glorified gym class, it’s not a pseudo-militaristic war of attrition, and it’s not a 90 minute game of keep away. It’s grown men in pajamas showing off their really impressive hand-eye skills. That’s so cool! The negotiated strike zone is the only thing like this in all of sports as far as I know, and (argue if you want) it basically works.
“I may be in the minority, but a blown call on a strike or ball doesn’t really piss me off, so the easy answer could be “I’ll scream at my TV less when there are roboumps”? And that’s not enough for me personally.”
That’s just it. I am confident that amongst fans of baseball, you are a minority. This should be reason enough.
If it’s your team in game seven and the 3-1 pitch half a foot outside gets called strike two, and you don’t get pissed, you’re in the minority. Now imagine that it is your job to take that pitch and it gets called a strike. You’re going to be pissed. We have the technology, why not use it?
1) if you think your view of the pitch or ‘pitch-tracts’ gets it right even 60% of the time then you’re deluded.
2) MLB is entertainment. to be entertained one needs to feel something… being pissed at the ump, opposing pitcher, hitter, coach and happy for the success of our boys!! that is what it is about.
3) what majority do you claim to be a part of?… some gamer geak-squad? go back to your console and leave the real game to be felt, smelled and breathed by us humans including the umpires.
Kenai, what makes you think the pitch trackers are wrong 40% of the time? It sounds like you’re skeptical of technology in general, and can’t admit that technology can do a better job than a human in many instances. Yes, I know the trackers are designed by humans, and have software written by humans, but the eye test is overwhelming to show that trackers do a better job than human umpires. I would think this would go without saying, but I guess there are lots of people out there that are blind to simple truths.
PS; the Earth is spherical
thanks for that reminder
yes I am a skeptic. Not that this has much to do with anything technology wise, but I prefer a game played by humans to be decided by humans. Mistakes are what life does to remind us of our common condition. I recall a missed call at first base that denied a Tigers pitcher a perfect game. the ump was in tears after… the pitcher was dumbfounded and then later very understanding.
To suggest that momentary fits of rage would be eliminated by a computer system of umpiring is fools gold… we will always find something to bitch about. That too is only human.
there you go. a small voice in this wilderness of FG. Thank you!
The people do not want automated robo umps…i don’t know one person that does. Probably the minority on fangraphs but definitely not the minority amongst the fans. Stealing strikes and hollering at umps and getting ejected is all part of baseball. Lets just make the game even more boring and add more time by reviewing more replay. By the way the umps do an unbelievable job 99% of the time….its just a few calls that gets missed and all of a sudden you have a select few people wanting to rip out half the mlb rule book. Over reaction……ridculous.
Guru, YOU are the one that’s over-reacting when you say things like “all of a sudden you have a select few people wanting to rip out half the mlb rule book”. Nobody is ripping out HALF the rule book or anything close.
The things you say that are “part of baseball” may add to the intrigue for some, but for others, it’s really not “part of baseball”, it’s just a by-product of inconsistent umpiring.
Would you REALLY miss these unnecessary histrionics, especially if your favorite team gets hosed on a really bad ball/strike call that could be one factor in costing your team a game that could have playoff implications?
It sounds like the old fogeys that probably clung to their slide rules and didn’t want to use calculators. Or the old fogeys that clung to their manual typewriters and didn’t want to use computers with word processors. The feel of the keys is a “part of writing a document” they might say!
Sounds a little bit like you haven’t watched baseball much recently…
Another way?
i know i’m getting in on this discussion late but… really, there is even a first way?!
Perfection is not a human trait and good thing too. That’s what gods are for. AS the strike zone shrinks the coaching will adjust and in turn the hitters. It will not speed up the game as the average hitters will happily take a BB and wait on the big fly from the next hitter.
To suggest it should/could be a positive development in MLB, or any level of baseball, is un-American. I suggest you go back to your gaming console and replay the 1986 World Series for your 100th time.
“I suggest you go back to your gaming console and replay the 1986 World Series for your 100th time.”
Huh?
“To suggest it should/could be a positive development in MLB, or any level of baseball, is un-American” — ridiculous appeals to patriotism like this does not help your argument one bit, just like seemingly non-sequiturs like the reference to the 1986 Series (not sure what that’s about).
ridiculous indeed. It was tit for tat… i believe robo-umps are a ridiculous solution to a human problem.
It is obvious that we have an issue here that goes way beyond MLB baseball.
There are those who see no problem with humans and computers existing on the same level… one subbing for the other. Then there are those who are skeptical that computers would solve a problem of human proportion.
My question.
If we were to propose that humans should replace computers in some task (phone jobs come to mind) and accept the errors that would come with it but put folks to work?
I’ve said for some time…
“it takes a person to make mistakes, and a computer to really screw things up” so there you have my final thought.
There is a great difference in the 25% best ball and strike umpires and the worst 25%. Given a choice between firing a lot of poor to mediocre umpires, having only the top umpires exclusively work the plate, and going to the robot, baseball is going to the robot. Too bad.
Also, eventually robot umpires are going be underneath the plate.
Here’s how you do it. All ballparks now have the tracking equipment to accurately gauge balls and strikes immediately, right? The next step is to incorporate an indicator into the home plate umpire’s equipment. Install an LED light into the umpire’s mask near the peripheral of his vision that lights green for a ball and red for a strike.
The umpire now has much less ambiguity on borderline calls, but there’s still a man at the plate watching for foul tips, catcher’s interference, plays at the plate, etc., and we all still get to see old men scream out “WEEE-HAWW!” while pulling imaginary chainsaw cords. Everyone wins.
That comment was reductive, short-sighted and un-American. I award you one point, and totally agree with you.
commie fag junkie, and I love it!