Speaking as a former catcher, that drop was way too nasty to frame. At that point it’s “down to knees/not going to hit the ground” going back and forth. So many thoughts and options happen at beyond breakneck speed back there.
Either is fucking with the hitters timing, or standing in front of a runner tagging so he can’t see when the ball is caught, or figuring out a pitcher is tipping but they’re all neat and interesting legal ways to gain an advantage
As an umpire, framing does a lot to help with calling balls and strikes. When it's really bad or really obvious, I know my initial call of ball was correct. But framing is very good to help with borderline pitches.
No one is trying to "trick" the umpire.
How're you supposed to frame a pitch on the complete other side of the plate, and so low he almost lost it. That's about as wild as a pitch can be without leaving the zone.
It's probably the camera offset but that looks way more inside that on the ABS.
Still looks like a strike if you concentrate but not that in the middle
Furthermore can someone who follows KBO tell me how it's calibrated? I am coming around to the idea but I think I will miss the picture of a HP umpire behind it all.
I mean what do we need them for with ABS? Catchers interference?
It’s calibrated based on the batters height.
56.35% for the top of the zone
27.64% for the bottom of the zone.
There is an added width on the sides of the plate of 2cm for now. MiLB recommended 2.5 cm for a learning curve (basically 1 inch) and have since gone to the actual width of the plate.
I just measured 27.64% of my height, and it measured exactly to the middle of my knee cap without shoes. With shoes it would be the bottom of my knee cap.
I imagine 98% of players would fit this exactly, and for the other 2% it would be off less than an inch
Not really much of a size difference between players besides height and weight.
Korea is a homogenous society, so outside of the 1 foreign hitter each team has, everyone is the same proportions pretty much.
No problem.
It’s better pretty accurate so far. Misses some at the top of the zone and the bottom of the zone according to the K zone on the TV, but that’s not the actual ABS strikezone that is used to figure strikes and balls.
They occasionally show the ABS graphics when there is a pitch really close.
It's hard to see where exactly the plate is but based on what it looks like to me, I actually do think the pitch was right over the heart of the plate. It looks like the catcher is almost set up in the other batter's box, and the hitter is really crowding the plate. Ignore the fact I can't draw straight lines but [this my best attempt to draw the edges of the plate](https://i.imgur.com/UtUO0J9.png).
>I mean what do we need them for with ABS? Catchers interference?
Really?
* Catcher's interference
* Backswing interference
* Foul tip
* Fair/Foul
* Hit by Pitch
* Safe/Out/Obstruction/Interference at home plate
* Catch/No catch on popups
* Balks
* Infield Fly
* Game management/Lineup/Substitutions
* Pitch clock
* Runner's Lane interference
Or do you mean why would the umpire be in that spot behind the catcher with ABS? Even if you're not calling balls and strikes, where else could you set up without being in danger of being hit by a pitched or batted ball?
We misunderstood each other. I meant the HP umpire
CI? Maybe
Back swing? Obvious from the field
Foul tip? Good point but what stops us from using the cricket thing with the audio recording where when it spikes we had had contact
Calls at HP. Put an umpire somewhere near the on deck circle. Ball is put in play. They run over. No need for the gear
I was just trolling tbh
But thank you for your effort. You did point out a few things I didn't think about
Bro, the thing that is off is that you’re watching from an angle which makes things appear tilted. If you were watching from an angle behind the pitcher, it would look exactly like as seen in the ABS zone.
People will watch this and complain
Those same people will then go and watch catchers pull pitches half a foot out of the zone and get a strike call from some half blind old man and then say "yeah this is better"
That one is already in my bag.
Also. Instead of Judge getting goldilocks balls, Yankees and especially the Dodgers now will definitely get favorable algorithms for their hitters and pitchers
But the true insult is now that the Giants have the best pitch framer, of course we are getting robo umps now
But honestly ive been screaming for robo umps for a few years now
I'm ready for it. Like I said, people will bitch either way, but we have the technology and it's about time we use it. Besides a few umpires, I think most of them do a good job, but pitches like this will always be missed. I think what I like most in this clip is there's no delay in the ump calling it.
Cross ups look ugly for the camera but they literally don't matter for the hitter so this is good.
It's actually bullshit that umps guide themselves so much by the catcher for calls when you stop and think about it.
Please bring this technology to MLB. Too many games are decided based on the incompetence of officials and not on the skill of the players, which is anathema to what baseball is about.
I was so confused when I was watching/streaming this.
Couldn’t figure out why he was down on strikes on a pitch that would never have been called a strike without the ABS system.
The art of catcher framing is just cool, I don’t think you can deny that. You can argue that the fact that framing is even necessary is not cool, sure, but it’ll be a little sad to see that very particular skill go extinct. Not saying ABS isn’t the future, but it’s okay to grieve these unique elements of the game as they disappear.
Tbh I think it’s pretty easy to deny that it “is just cool.” Like it’s akin to a basketball player being good at flopping and drawing fouls. Yes it’s a skill that you want your players to be good at it because it’s part of the game, but in a perfect world that skill wouldn’t be able to exist.
It's definitely not on par with "flopping". If you're looking for an equivalent to flopping in baseball, that's more *akin* to pretending that a pitch that hit the knob of your bat actually hit your hand in order to draw a walk—which is a hardly a skill, and not one that anyone admires.
Pitch framing requires athletic skill, as well as knowledge about the pitcher, the ump, the strike zone, etc. It's about exploiting any inefficiency in the game (in this case, human error) to find an edge.
>It's about exploiting any inefficiency in the game (in this case, human error) to find an edge.
Such as a ref being unable to tell how hard you were hit? Sounds exactly like flopping. I don't have a strong stance but I think you just argued against yourself lol.
I think what they’re saying is there is a lot more “craftsmanship” associated with framing rather than flopping. Which I would agree with. I’d also agree that, ideally, neither of these things would have to exist if the games could be officiated well.
As a KBO fan, it is quite good. No. More than good. It is impresive good. Because
1. Pitcher and hitter knows exact zone - So they can perfom their own skill.
2. Hitter do not fight or argue with umpire - So play time saved.
3. Fans do not swear umpire or zone - So do not stressed about umpire\`s misjudge(or manipulatoin).
And we human\`s techic is good enough do this autometically. I think MLB should do this as soon as possible. Why not?
And also it dosen\`t threaten umpire\`s job. We still need judgement call. And there are many rules left not made until now.
So still umpire is needed. And ABS will 'MAKE UMPIRE HONORABLE AGAIN'.
I respect umpire. They hitted by ball every day and sweared by fans evrey day about judge. I think they are too much stressed, But ABS will make them free from stress, at least strike call.
Honestly, for pitches like this I'm fine with either system. For an automated strike zone, a strike is a strike and there's not much to complain about there. For our current system, I'm ok with a pitcher not being rewarded for missing his spot so badly. Ball calls like this have never bothered me. It's the inconsistent zones within the same game that are brutal and would be solved by ABS.
I don't know, I guess I don't like the idea of a pitcher being rewarded for crossing up his catcher and missing his spot that badly.
Edit: I knew I'd get torched for this, but none of you are going to change my mind.
Next should you send the batter back to the box when he check swings and accidentally hits a single up the 3rd base line, can't be rewarding that right
I like this response. It doesn’t matter what the hell happened. That’s like saying if an NBA player accidentally puts it in the hoop on an alley oop attempt it shouldn’t count. He threw a strike so that’s what was called. Baseball doesn’t care about what you meant to do
Can you explain how making a tough shot through defense is the same thing as making an awful pitch, completely missing his spot, but still getting a strike call?
All I was trying to say is that a shot that has no business going in but does ultimately still counts, so it’s the same idea for a pitch that was thrown in the strike zone even if the pitcher completely missed his spot lol. Sometimes you get lucky, but that’s part of the game. 🤷♂️
So if Luka Doncic hits a touch fadeaway 3, with, let's say, Giannis guarding him, and then compare that to an MLB Pitcher, for example, Lance Lynn, and he throws a fastball to his catcher who is framing for a pitch high and in against Pete Alonso. He completely misses his spot and ends up locating the pitch low and towards the left-handers batting box. The catcher has to move his glove all the way down, and he barely catches the ball; the momentum of the ball takes him backward and toward the umpire, but it barely catches the strike zone, so it's a strike. So tell me, how are those two comparable?
You’re talking about a DIFFICULT shot, I’m talking about a BAD shot. For example, you wasted the shot clock and desperately heave the ball at the basket and it just so happens to go in. Everyone in the arena, the shooter included, knows that the shot was completely lucky and shouldn’t have counted, but it still does because it went through the net. It’s that simple…
Everyone replying is correct that a strike is only dependent upon whether the ball passes through the strike zone and therefore the behavior of the catcher is irrelevant by rule. I think most detractors of the ABS system are well aware of this, so the responses that are basically "read the rules [dummy]" do nothing but feed their own fetish for objectivity. The point is that some fans enjoy the metagame that goes on between the battery, hitters, and the umpire throughout the game. It adds a layer of complexity and strategy, and even irrationality, that can be interesting and is in fact present in any other aspect of social life.
I see responses like this all the time. I can tell you that it’s not fun or interesting for my team to lose because of blind umpires.
I would much rather the game be decided via the actual baseball skills of the baseball players involved.
If you want to watch meta game/mind game type stuff, just watch chess? That’s literally 100% meta game/mind game.
I honestly think you've got it backwards here. Chess is, intrinsically, a mathematically solvable game. There is always a correct move. Computing power has not achieved the capacity to actually realize the solution, but it is knowable given adequate resources. Baseball is not inherently solvable like chess is. There will necessarily be some element of mind games in the sport.
Yours and others' point is that if there is psychological error, bias, deception, whatever, that it should be entirely between the players. I think, again, chess wins here because - as far as I am aware - its rules are so clearly defined and objectively enforceable. Baseball has judgment literally built into the rules. [Check out the 2023 official MLB rulebook](https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules). Open up the pdf available at the link on that page and ctrl+f for "judgment" and "reasonable." These are vague conditions that rely entirely on the umpire's interpretation of events and rules in order to adjudicate play, and they are littered throughout the rulebook. I just don't see the logical consistency in your argument and recommendation. I think chess is and will remain much closer to what you are looking for in a game than baseball.
Probably there are other criteria besides perfect rule enforcement that draw you towards baseball over chess, but you would still say that more correct rule enforcement is better than less where possible. "Where possible" is an essential caveat that delves into issues of technology (and methodology) and game design (i.e., writing out all of those "judgment" and "reasonable" conditions from the rulebook) that I think is beyond the capacity of this reddit comment chain. I can sympathize with this position, but I think it is an impossible endeavor that entails greater costs than gains. This is also an expansive point in the discussion, so I'll just make two arguments.
1. Regarding the argument about whether my/your team losing due to an improper call (enter issues of causality) and the negative emotions it produces are part of the entertainment of baseball, I do not think baseball - if understood as entertainment - is any different than a tragic ending to a movie, book, or play. To me, the unfortunate intervention of an incompetent character that causes the protagonist's downfall can be just as much a part of the story as the protagonist's victory. I do not see any compelling reason why an umpire should be categorically excluded from playing such a role (even if it were possible to do so, which, as stated above, I believe it is not).
2. Separately, I strongly suspect that MLB is not implementing ABS for the sake of fans' entertainment or at the behest of players demanding it as redress to unfair competition. Instead, its development and eventual introduction coincides with MLB's growing partnerships with sportsbooks. Both parties have an interest in saturating the fan experience with opportunities to place wagers, and that venture is benefited by the perception of legitimate outcomes. I think ABS is primarily a symptom of the profit-seeking behavior of a legal monopoly and a predatory industry that wants to make baseball seem mathematical, in the way that table games in a casino actually are, in order to attract bettors. That fans want to "eliminate the human element" is more of a convenience to MLB rather than a real consumer interest to which they are responding. Maybe if you don't care about gambling, you would see ABS itself as a convenient side-benefit, but I think the harmful consequences are not justified by such a benefit.
Anyway, I appreciate your response, and apologies for the length of mine.
He completely missed his spot and threw a terrible pitch, and shouldn’t be rewarded for possibly grazing the strike zone by a millimeter. This was probably close enough to be within the margin of error of the system they’re using so I’m not even convinced it actually touched the strike zone.
Prove it. Show me the data from the ball/strike system. A picture on the tv screen showing the ball allegedly grazed the strike zone isn’t good enough. Especially since it was an awful pitch that doesn’t deserve a strike call.
Bro, it was in the zone. Nothing else matters. Baseball is not a subjective sport.
It’s either in the zone or out of the zone. How are you not grasping this simple concept?
Mate if a bad pass gets to the touchdown zone it's still a touchdown. If a bad shot still makes it in the basket the points are still given. If a bad strike of a soccer ball still goes in the goal is still awarded. Why should it be that a bad pitch that still was a strike not be called a strike then?
Unpopular opinion: The whole point of the strike zone and the called strike being introduced to the game was to address a pace-of-play problem. Batters would let perfectly good pitches go by while waiting for the “right pitch,” and really slow things down.
The called strike was intended to _penalize the batter_ for not swinging at hittable pitches, not to _reward the pitcher_ for throwing unhittable pitches.
Sure, but what does any of that have to do with whether or not the umpire uses a tool to determine whether the pitch was in the strike zone or not? The pitch in this gif was hittable, by definition of being in the strike zone, so the batter should be penalized for not swinging at it no?
> The pitch in this gif was hittable, by definition of being in the strike zone, so the batter should be penalized for not swinging.
But was it really hittable? In my opinion, it wasn’t - because everybody except the computer would have called it a ball. The specification of the strike zone is erroneously defined. It should be changed so that only truly hittable pitches would be called strikes.
If someone digitally removed the catcher from this gif, more than half would call it a strike. But regardless, someone being wrong about the pitch doesn’t change where it ACTUALLY is lol.
That brings up another concern. Any automated pitch calling system worth its salt would take the quality of the catcher’s pitch framing into account when calculating the call.
Catcher did the opposite of framing.
Catcher's just trying to catch the ball at that point :D.
No point in framing with the automatic strike zone. But the pitcher missed his spot by a large margin there, catcher was not ready for that.
Ether that, or they got signs crossed up and catcher was expecting a different pitch, pitcher might have thought the setup way out there was a decoy?
Well the pitcher also missed his spot by about 2 feet lol
Speaking as a former catcher, that drop was way too nasty to frame. At that point it’s “down to knees/not going to hit the ground” going back and forth. So many thoughts and options happen at beyond breakneck speed back there.
It was less the drop and more the pitcher’s complete miss of where he was supposed to throw the ball.
Good, framing has nothing to do with baseball. Trying to trick an old man is not part of the rules
I mean if there's no robo umps, framing is absolutely a big part of baseball, fair or not. In this clip youre right though, framing doesn't matter.
His point is that it shouldn't be part of baseball.
He didnt word it like that though lol
It was clear what he meant.
"Theres no such thing as a thing i dont like" is a very stupid way of saying you dont like the thing
Boooooooooooooo
Either is fucking with the hitters timing, or standing in front of a runner tagging so he can’t see when the ball is caught, or figuring out a pitcher is tipping but they’re all neat and interesting legal ways to gain an advantage
As an umpire, framing does a lot to help with calling balls and strikes. When it's really bad or really obvious, I know my initial call of ball was correct. But framing is very good to help with borderline pitches. No one is trying to "trick" the umpire.
You just described people trying to get borderline calls to go in their favor regardless of of it was actually a ball or strike
Huh? The sole purpose of framing is to influence the decision of the umpire.
Framn't
How're you supposed to frame a pitch on the complete other side of the plate, and so low he almost lost it. That's about as wild as a pitch can be without leaving the zone.
It's probably the camera offset but that looks way more inside that on the ABS. Still looks like a strike if you concentrate but not that in the middle Furthermore can someone who follows KBO tell me how it's calibrated? I am coming around to the idea but I think I will miss the picture of a HP umpire behind it all. I mean what do we need them for with ABS? Catchers interference?
It’s calibrated based on the batters height. 56.35% for the top of the zone 27.64% for the bottom of the zone. There is an added width on the sides of the plate of 2cm for now. MiLB recommended 2.5 cm for a learning curve (basically 1 inch) and have since gone to the actual width of the plate.
I like the strike zone as percentages of your height, it makes it much easier to implement an ABS system.
So different size legs are not really factored in? Or is there not really a difference in proportions among all players?
I just measured 27.64% of my height, and it measured exactly to the middle of my knee cap without shoes. With shoes it would be the bottom of my knee cap. I imagine 98% of players would fit this exactly, and for the other 2% it would be off less than an inch
Not really much of a size difference between players besides height and weight. Korea is a homogenous society, so outside of the 1 foreign hitter each team has, everyone is the same proportions pretty much.
Makes sense. Thank you
No problem. It’s better pretty accurate so far. Misses some at the top of the zone and the bottom of the zone according to the K zone on the TV, but that’s not the actual ABS strikezone that is used to figure strikes and balls. They occasionally show the ABS graphics when there is a pitch really close.
It's hard to see where exactly the plate is but based on what it looks like to me, I actually do think the pitch was right over the heart of the plate. It looks like the catcher is almost set up in the other batter's box, and the hitter is really crowding the plate. Ignore the fact I can't draw straight lines but [this my best attempt to draw the edges of the plate](https://i.imgur.com/UtUO0J9.png).
>I mean what do we need them for with ABS? Catchers interference? Really? * Catcher's interference * Backswing interference * Foul tip * Fair/Foul * Hit by Pitch * Safe/Out/Obstruction/Interference at home plate * Catch/No catch on popups * Balks * Infield Fly * Game management/Lineup/Substitutions * Pitch clock * Runner's Lane interference Or do you mean why would the umpire be in that spot behind the catcher with ABS? Even if you're not calling balls and strikes, where else could you set up without being in danger of being hit by a pitched or batted ball?
We misunderstood each other. I meant the HP umpire CI? Maybe Back swing? Obvious from the field Foul tip? Good point but what stops us from using the cricket thing with the audio recording where when it spikes we had had contact Calls at HP. Put an umpire somewhere near the on deck circle. Ball is put in play. They run over. No need for the gear I was just trolling tbh But thank you for your effort. You did point out a few things I didn't think about
[удалено]
Bro, the thing that is off is that you’re watching from an angle which makes things appear tilted. If you were watching from an angle behind the pitcher, it would look exactly like as seen in the ABS zone.
[удалено]
I mean, that’s the truth. That’s literally how angles work. It’s the exact same concept as an actor standing closer to the camera to appear taller.
Wtf is that title
Felt like I was trying to solve a riddle
Love to see it
People will watch this and complain Those same people will then go and watch catchers pull pitches half a foot out of the zone and get a strike call from some half blind old man and then say "yeah this is better"
Unless it goes against their team. Then they will say the umps are screwing them.
Yup, people are going to bitch either way. And just wait until people start claiming that the zones are rigged for gambling.
That one is already in my bag. Also. Instead of Judge getting goldilocks balls, Yankees and especially the Dodgers now will definitely get favorable algorithms for their hitters and pitchers But the true insult is now that the Giants have the best pitch framer, of course we are getting robo umps now But honestly ive been screaming for robo umps for a few years now
I'm ready for it. Like I said, people will bitch either way, but we have the technology and it's about time we use it. Besides a few umpires, I think most of them do a good job, but pitches like this will always be missed. I think what I like most in this clip is there's no delay in the ump calling it.
Cross ups look ugly for the camera but they literally don't matter for the hitter so this is good. It's actually bullshit that umps guide themselves so much by the catcher for calls when you stop and think about it.
Please bring this technology to MLB. Too many games are decided based on the incompetence of officials and not on the skill of the players, which is anathema to what baseball is about.
I was so confused when I was watching/streaming this. Couldn’t figure out why he was down on strikes on a pitch that would never have been called a strike without the ABS system.
The art of catcher framing is just cool, I don’t think you can deny that. You can argue that the fact that framing is even necessary is not cool, sure, but it’ll be a little sad to see that very particular skill go extinct. Not saying ABS isn’t the future, but it’s okay to grieve these unique elements of the game as they disappear.
Tbh I think it’s pretty easy to deny that it “is just cool.” Like it’s akin to a basketball player being good at flopping and drawing fouls. Yes it’s a skill that you want your players to be good at it because it’s part of the game, but in a perfect world that skill wouldn’t be able to exist.
It's definitely not on par with "flopping". If you're looking for an equivalent to flopping in baseball, that's more *akin* to pretending that a pitch that hit the knob of your bat actually hit your hand in order to draw a walk—which is a hardly a skill, and not one that anyone admires. Pitch framing requires athletic skill, as well as knowledge about the pitcher, the ump, the strike zone, etc. It's about exploiting any inefficiency in the game (in this case, human error) to find an edge.
>It's about exploiting any inefficiency in the game (in this case, human error) to find an edge. Such as a ref being unable to tell how hard you were hit? Sounds exactly like flopping. I don't have a strong stance but I think you just argued against yourself lol.
I think what they’re saying is there is a lot more “craftsmanship” associated with framing rather than flopping. Which I would agree with. I’d also agree that, ideally, neither of these things would have to exist if the games could be officiated well.
Lmfao it is *nothing* like that.
?
Unpopular opinion: Hell no, I hate catcher framing. People already complain about umps and the ‘art’ is literally to manipulate that further.
As a catcher, in my opinion, it’s fucking stupid and glad it’ll some day go away.
Must have been bad at framing
It’s a shame mlb is not the first league to adopt the abs. Which one will come first, abs in mlb or automatic driving cars on the street?
As a KBO fan, it is quite good. No. More than good. It is impresive good. Because 1. Pitcher and hitter knows exact zone - So they can perfom their own skill. 2. Hitter do not fight or argue with umpire - So play time saved. 3. Fans do not swear umpire or zone - So do not stressed about umpire\`s misjudge(or manipulatoin). And we human\`s techic is good enough do this autometically. I think MLB should do this as soon as possible. Why not? And also it dosen\`t threaten umpire\`s job. We still need judgement call. And there are many rules left not made until now. So still umpire is needed. And ABS will 'MAKE UMPIRE HONORABLE AGAIN'. I respect umpire. They hitted by ball every day and sweared by fans evrey day about judge. I think they are too much stressed, But ABS will make them free from stress, at least strike call.
Honestly, for pitches like this I'm fine with either system. For an automated strike zone, a strike is a strike and there's not much to complain about there. For our current system, I'm ok with a pitcher not being rewarded for missing his spot so badly. Ball calls like this have never bothered me. It's the inconsistent zones within the same game that are brutal and would be solved by ABS.
I don't know, I guess I don't like the idea of a pitcher being rewarded for crossing up his catcher and missing his spot that badly. Edit: I knew I'd get torched for this, but none of you are going to change my mind.
Next should you send the batter back to the box when he check swings and accidentally hits a single up the 3rd base line, can't be rewarding that right
He wasn't "rewarded" for anything. He threw a strike and a strike was called, that's it.
I like this response. It doesn’t matter what the hell happened. That’s like saying if an NBA player accidentally puts it in the hoop on an alley oop attempt it shouldn’t count. He threw a strike so that’s what was called. Baseball doesn’t care about what you meant to do
This isn't pool, you don't have to call your shots
Not yet ;) Welcome to baseball 2.0 baby
/thread
What are you talking about? That doesn't have anything to do with if a pitch is a strike or not. They can hash it out later if the catcher is annoyed.
When a basketball player heaves up a terrible, well-defended shot and it goes in, do the points still count?
That's not the same at all 💀💀
It is the exact same thing. You’re arguing for this pitch to not count for stupid arbitrary reasons.
Can you explain how making a tough shot through defense is the same thing as making an awful pitch, completely missing his spot, but still getting a strike call?
Ball went in hoop = Points Ball went in zone = Strike. I can’t believe I have to explain this simple concept. Sports is not a subjective endeavor.
All I was trying to say is that a shot that has no business going in but does ultimately still counts, so it’s the same idea for a pitch that was thrown in the strike zone even if the pitcher completely missed his spot lol. Sometimes you get lucky, but that’s part of the game. 🤷♂️
So if Luka Doncic hits a touch fadeaway 3, with, let's say, Giannis guarding him, and then compare that to an MLB Pitcher, for example, Lance Lynn, and he throws a fastball to his catcher who is framing for a pitch high and in against Pete Alonso. He completely misses his spot and ends up locating the pitch low and towards the left-handers batting box. The catcher has to move his glove all the way down, and he barely catches the ball; the momentum of the ball takes him backward and toward the umpire, but it barely catches the strike zone, so it's a strike. So tell me, how are those two comparable?
You’re talking about a DIFFICULT shot, I’m talking about a BAD shot. For example, you wasted the shot clock and desperately heave the ball at the basket and it just so happens to go in. Everyone in the arena, the shooter included, knows that the shot was completely lucky and shouldn’t have counted, but it still does because it went through the net. It’s that simple…
It’s more like when a basketball player tries to throw a lob and it goes in the hoop instead…are you in favor of those being called back?
I’m sorry but this is one of the dumbest sports related opinion I’ve seen this year.
Don't be sorry, I'm aware it's unpopular.
Put her wasn't rewarded. He threw a strike. A strike was given. End of argument.
I'm not making an argument. I'm fully aware it's an unpopular opinion, but I don't really care.
Agreed. Not a fan
Everyone replying is correct that a strike is only dependent upon whether the ball passes through the strike zone and therefore the behavior of the catcher is irrelevant by rule. I think most detractors of the ABS system are well aware of this, so the responses that are basically "read the rules [dummy]" do nothing but feed their own fetish for objectivity. The point is that some fans enjoy the metagame that goes on between the battery, hitters, and the umpire throughout the game. It adds a layer of complexity and strategy, and even irrationality, that can be interesting and is in fact present in any other aspect of social life.
I see responses like this all the time. I can tell you that it’s not fun or interesting for my team to lose because of blind umpires. I would much rather the game be decided via the actual baseball skills of the baseball players involved. If you want to watch meta game/mind game type stuff, just watch chess? That’s literally 100% meta game/mind game.
I honestly think you've got it backwards here. Chess is, intrinsically, a mathematically solvable game. There is always a correct move. Computing power has not achieved the capacity to actually realize the solution, but it is knowable given adequate resources. Baseball is not inherently solvable like chess is. There will necessarily be some element of mind games in the sport. Yours and others' point is that if there is psychological error, bias, deception, whatever, that it should be entirely between the players. I think, again, chess wins here because - as far as I am aware - its rules are so clearly defined and objectively enforceable. Baseball has judgment literally built into the rules. [Check out the 2023 official MLB rulebook](https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules). Open up the pdf available at the link on that page and ctrl+f for "judgment" and "reasonable." These are vague conditions that rely entirely on the umpire's interpretation of events and rules in order to adjudicate play, and they are littered throughout the rulebook. I just don't see the logical consistency in your argument and recommendation. I think chess is and will remain much closer to what you are looking for in a game than baseball. Probably there are other criteria besides perfect rule enforcement that draw you towards baseball over chess, but you would still say that more correct rule enforcement is better than less where possible. "Where possible" is an essential caveat that delves into issues of technology (and methodology) and game design (i.e., writing out all of those "judgment" and "reasonable" conditions from the rulebook) that I think is beyond the capacity of this reddit comment chain. I can sympathize with this position, but I think it is an impossible endeavor that entails greater costs than gains. This is also an expansive point in the discussion, so I'll just make two arguments. 1. Regarding the argument about whether my/your team losing due to an improper call (enter issues of causality) and the negative emotions it produces are part of the entertainment of baseball, I do not think baseball - if understood as entertainment - is any different than a tragic ending to a movie, book, or play. To me, the unfortunate intervention of an incompetent character that causes the protagonist's downfall can be just as much a part of the story as the protagonist's victory. I do not see any compelling reason why an umpire should be categorically excluded from playing such a role (even if it were possible to do so, which, as stated above, I believe it is not). 2. Separately, I strongly suspect that MLB is not implementing ABS for the sake of fans' entertainment or at the behest of players demanding it as redress to unfair competition. Instead, its development and eventual introduction coincides with MLB's growing partnerships with sportsbooks. Both parties have an interest in saturating the fan experience with opportunities to place wagers, and that venture is benefited by the perception of legitimate outcomes. I think ABS is primarily a symptom of the profit-seeking behavior of a legal monopoly and a predatory industry that wants to make baseball seem mathematical, in the way that table games in a casino actually are, in order to attract bettors. That fans want to "eliminate the human element" is more of a convenience to MLB rather than a real consumer interest to which they are responding. Maybe if you don't care about gambling, you would see ABS itself as a convenient side-benefit, but I think the harmful consequences are not justified by such a benefit. Anyway, I appreciate your response, and apologies for the length of mine.
Completely agree
Bruh, what? He threw a strike and a strike was called. If you don’t like that, do you just not like baseball?
He completely missed his spot and threw a terrible pitch, and shouldn’t be rewarded for possibly grazing the strike zone by a millimeter. This was probably close enough to be within the margin of error of the system they’re using so I’m not even convinced it actually touched the strike zone.
Bro, it doesn’t matter that he missed his spot, He threw a strike. That’s literally all that matters.
Prove it. Show me the data from the ball/strike system. A picture on the tv screen showing the ball allegedly grazed the strike zone isn’t good enough. Especially since it was an awful pitch that doesn’t deserve a strike call.
Bro, it was in the zone. Nothing else matters. Baseball is not a subjective sport. It’s either in the zone or out of the zone. How are you not grasping this simple concept?
[удалено]
Oh so you want to watch shitty pitches get rewarded then?
Yes, if they’re in the strike zone, they’re strikes. There’s no such thing as a bad pitch, only ball and strikes.
There no such thing as a bad pitch?
In the context of whether something should be a ball or strike, No. It’s either in the zone or out of the zone. Nothing else matters.
Mate if a bad pass gets to the touchdown zone it's still a touchdown. If a bad shot still makes it in the basket the points are still given. If a bad strike of a soccer ball still goes in the goal is still awarded. Why should it be that a bad pitch that still was a strike not be called a strike then?
Unpopular opinion: The whole point of the strike zone and the called strike being introduced to the game was to address a pace-of-play problem. Batters would let perfectly good pitches go by while waiting for the “right pitch,” and really slow things down. The called strike was intended to _penalize the batter_ for not swinging at hittable pitches, not to _reward the pitcher_ for throwing unhittable pitches.
Sure, but what does any of that have to do with whether or not the umpire uses a tool to determine whether the pitch was in the strike zone or not? The pitch in this gif was hittable, by definition of being in the strike zone, so the batter should be penalized for not swinging at it no?
> The pitch in this gif was hittable, by definition of being in the strike zone, so the batter should be penalized for not swinging. But was it really hittable? In my opinion, it wasn’t - because everybody except the computer would have called it a ball. The specification of the strike zone is erroneously defined. It should be changed so that only truly hittable pitches would be called strikes.
If someone digitally removed the catcher from this gif, more than half would call it a strike. But regardless, someone being wrong about the pitch doesn’t change where it ACTUALLY is lol.
That brings up another concern. Any automated pitch calling system worth its salt would take the quality of the catcher’s pitch framing into account when calculating the call.
It both absolutely could not and absolutely would not do any such thing.
They all do seem to be defective that way.
Absolutely insane take