Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:17 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
This stuff falls into the "life ain't fair" truth.

I hate replay. Slows the game, takes from the pace. You hit a HR, you don't get crowd yell, you get a stoppage to review if it hit the top of the fence. I suppose if you're a BDSM kinda person, you like the tease, but I don't.

People play the game. People manage/call the game. People make mistakes. Deal.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:02 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3655
Location: Economy, PA
StarlingArcher wrote:


That's a good read. Thanks.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:41 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
ZelieMike wrote:
This stuff falls into the "life ain't fair" truth.

I hate replay. Slows the game, takes from the pace. You hit a HR, you don't get crowd yell, you get a stoppage to review if it hit the top of the fence. I suppose if you're a BDSM kinda person, you like the tease, but I don't.

People play the game. People manage/call the game. People make mistakes. Deal.

ZM

I agree. To a point. I'll expect a perfectly called game when someone plays a perfect game. Until then, it's all part of the game.

However, as instaneous video becomes ever increasingly available, and the complaints about incorrect calls increases, it seems to make sense to try an utilize the technology better. In football, it seems like they more and more calls right. And the time delay is coming down. In tennis the calls are pretty much instantaneous. Soccer, and if there was a dodgier old sport than baseball, it's soccer, used goal line technology at the WC. Wasn't needed this go-round, but it was there.

What I think would make using the technology easier would be if they departed from the requirement of the manager challenge. But that would necessitate that baseball do away with one of it's distinctives: that of the manager on the field. That's what slows a ballgame down, not replay. And so I find myself wanting replay for baseball than I ever would have thought...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
God help us if baseball goes the way of college basketball.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Naples, FL
Replays have added up to like 5 minutes to some of the games I've watched.

_________________
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3655
Location: Economy, PA
No. 9 wrote:
God help us if baseball goes the way of college basketball.


Yeah college basketball is ridiculous, the way they stop play to split hairs over tenths of seconds.

I like the challenge system. You can't stop the game to review every play.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4238
Location: Zelienople, PA
SUPERCHARGED APE wrote:
Replays have added up to like 5 minutes to some of the games I've watched.


And, I've been at Pirates games where the call was reviewed for at least 10 minutes. In a game that is trying to shave off minutes for pacing, that means something.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:27 am
Posts: 1444
Location: Eastern Shore
ZelieMike wrote:
SUPERCHARGED APE wrote:
Replays have added up to like 5 minutes to some of the games I've watched.


And, I've been at Pirates games where the call was reviewed for at least 10 minutes. In a game that is trying to shave off minutes for pacing, that means something.

ZM

That's gotta be a communications issue. Or a technology one. But seems like replays ought to be able to tell within under a minute if there's conclusive enough evidence to overturn a call. I would be happy if the standard for replay was "better" as opposed to trying for perfection.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:28 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Findlay, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio
Bucs score 4 in the first so far. Nice to get a decent lead early. Can't let up.

_________________
Roberto Clemente and I have a combined 3,000 career hits.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:28 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Findlay, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio
Wow. Travis Snider just hit a bomb. 5-0 Bucs.

_________________
Roberto Clemente and I have a combined 3,000 career hits.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am
Posts: 561
Location: Oregon
good crowd..........MLB Free Game of the Day also.

Damn Snider also goes river.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
ZelieMike wrote:
In a game that is trying to shave off minutes for pacing, that means something.
ZM


Is the league actually being proactive in trying to shorten game lengths, though? To my knowledge they are not.

If they were, you'd think they would they'd start with enforcing their own rules that are already place regarding game length. For example, a rule actually already exists that a pitcher has 12 seconds to deliver a pitch when the base are unoccupied (rule 8.04 here: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp). However, not only is that rule never enforced, but Fangraphs has actually posted an additional PITCHf/x tool that tracks "Pace", finding that the actual average time between pitches the last few years has actually been around 20-25 seconds. That is far from being the only culprit, of course. The opposite of batters taking too much time in the box is also a parallel.

I have never really had an issue with game length so that kind of stuff isn't a huge deal. But I do recognize that it's an overriding complaint of the general viewing public so I recognize that it's not a perfect system that will never change. I would think that shortening the length between pitches to the actual rule in place would suffice as at least something that I don't think actually takes from the game or favors either pitchers or batters more favorably.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:16 pm
Posts: 2229
Great start, but liriano looks like he's running out of gas.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:28 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Findlay, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio
the Dodgers had men on second and third with nobody out but Liriano does a good job of limiting damage. Bucs up 5-1.

_________________
Roberto Clemente and I have a combined 3,000 career hits.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5633
Great two wins after getting flat out beat in the first game.

This NL Central race is going to be fun.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
StarlingArcher wrote:
From January 2014. Looks like it's around 15% of ball/strike calls are missed.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/1/27/5341676/how-well-do-umpires-call-balls-and-strikes


Are calls missed? Absolutely. Without question.

However, to put the assumptions of the author in perspective, it is important to understand the difference between MLB's defined strike zone and Pitchf/x's strike zone.

MLB's strike zone is defined by Rule 2.0. It reads as follows:

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 kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

Pitchf/x's strike zone is different. It defines the strike zone not as an "area," but as a flat lineal plane. The lower level of the strike zone is not the line measured "at the hollow beneath the kneecap of the batter," but at 21.6 inches above the ground. The upper level of the strike zone is not the line measured at the "midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants" of the batter but at 40.8 inches above the ground.

It is clear that MLB's rules dictate a "floating" pentagonal prism-like strike zone that changes from batter to batter based upon that particular batter's physical characteristics.

So . . I measured my strike zone this morning. I'm slightly taller than 6'1". The measurement to the bottom of my kneecaps is 19 inches. The measurement to the midpoint between the top of my shoulders and the top of my pants is 45 inches. Thus, for me, Pitchf/x's estimate of my strike zone is off by 2.6 inches on the bottom of the zone and 4.2 inches on the top of the zone.

Doesn't seem like much does it? Well . . . let's see. According to Pitchf/x, the difference between the top and bottom of the strike zone is 19.2 inches. However, under MLB's rules, the difference between the top and bottom of my strike zone (measured as a 6'1" male) should be 26 inches. That's a difference of 6.8 inches. Using basic math, we can determine that - for me - Pitchf/x "shrinks" my strike zone by 26.1% from the top limit to the bottom limit.

Significant? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

However, I really do not think that it is debatable that there are circumstances in which Pitchf/x will deem a certain pitch to be a ball when it may fit within MLB's definition of a strike for a particular hitter. Further, there are circumstances in which Pitchf/x will deem a certain pitch to be a strike when it may be a ball for a particular hitter.

I also don't think that it is debatable that, under the current technology, Pitchf/x does not capture "strikes" that cross into the defined floating pentagonal prism but do not touch the front flat lineal plane of that prism. The extent to which it does not capture those strikes is unclear to me.

If MLB and its players want to employ Pitchf/x to define balls and strikes, the rule would have to be changed. Perhaps it should read:

The STRIKE ZONE is defined as a flat lineal plane located at the front of home plate which as an upper limit of 40.8 inches above the ground and a lower level at 20.6 inches above the ground. The Strike Zone is static and shall not vary from hitter to hitter.

If the rule was defined in that manner, the data in the article may be spot on (assuming that the cameras used for Pitchf/x are dead on accurate in their measurements and there is no margin of error in the analysis).

Otherwise, the data is skewed and conclusions based upon an incorrect assumption.

Its an interesting read and should not be disregarded. Not in the least. However, its limitations should be understood.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
Considering the umpires stopped calling the strike at the letters a long time ago and seem to perceive the bottom of the K zone as being low-mid thigh, I'm not sure extending the Pitch f/x strike zone to the letter of the law would help their cause. The umpires have arbitrarily enforced the rules, written and otherwise, for years now. Pitch f/x approximates what the umpires currently call and what they have changed the K zone to over time.

Obviously I think when technology takes over it should be as it's written in the rules. Not what it's been dragged down to.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
StarlingArcher wrote:
Pitch f/x approximates what the umpires currently call and what they have changed the K zone to over time.


Help me here.

Pitchf/x isn't designed to measure a true ball or a true strike? Instead, the Pitchf/x square is only to "approximate" what the average umpire would characterize as a ball or a strike without regard for MLB's definition of the strike zone?

Am I understanding that correctly? If not, please clarify . . .

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2499
Location: Tejas
No. 9 wrote:
StarlingArcher wrote:
Pitch f/x approximates what the umpires currently call and what they have changed the K zone to over time.


Help me here.

Pitchf/x isn't designed to measure a true ball or a true strike? Instead, the Pitchf/x square is only to "approximate" what the average umpire would characterize as a ball or a strike without regard for MLB's definition of the strike zone?

Am I understanding that correctly? If not, please clarify . . .


From everything I can tell it's to measure the current strike zone. In this article from Baseball Prospectus, which touches on how to calculate the Pitch f/x strike zone, it says:

"The average sz_bot value recorded by PITCHf/x for all batters in 2010-2011 was 1.59 feet, and the average sz_top was 3.44 feet. The PITCHf/x approach to the bottom of the strike zone is an attempt to measure the rulebook line. The PITCHf/x approach to the top of the strike zone is an attempt to report a zone closer to that which is actually called by the umpires."


So, it looks like I'm mistaken and the Pitch f/x zone would cover the bottom of the rule-based K-zone. Which according to a Hardball Times Article (which I'll also link) has also been steadily brought down to a more normal level since Pitch f/x came in.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=14098

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-strike-zone-during-the-pitchfx-era/

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: July 21, 2014 Dodgers (55-45) at Pirates (52-46)
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5823
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
StarlingArcher wrote:
Considering the umpires stopped calling the strike at the letters a long time ago and seem to perceive the bottom of the K zone as being low-mid thigh, I'm not sure extending the Pitch f/x strike zone to the letter of the law would help their cause. The umpires have arbitrarily enforced the rules, written and otherwise, for years now. Pitch f/x approximates what the umpires currently call and what they have changed the K zone to over time.

Obviously I think when technology takes over it should be as it's written in the rules. Not what it's been dragged down to.


You won't get any dispute from me that there has been "evolution" in how umpires call the strike zone and I would likely agree with the statement that implementation of QuesTec and reviewing umpires based upon QuesTec results has been part of that evolution. I still recall marvelling at the pea-sized (I exagerrate for effect) strike zone that Frank Thomas faced and the incredible width of the strike zone afforded to Glavine, Maddux and Avery during the early 90s.

That being written, the underlying premise of the article is that umpires miss a certain percentage of pitches and the author uses Pitchf/x as the determiner of what is a ball and what is a strike. Pitchf/x would conclude that an umpire "missed" a call if he called a pitch which was 42 inches off the ground and over the plate to a batter who was 6'1" a strike. That is flawed. Such a pitch is a strike under MLB's definition. So . . . characterizing that umpire's call as a "miss" is simply wrong.

Again . . . I'm never going to argue that umpires don't make mistakes. They absolutely do. Can MLB do better if it eliminated the umpire's union and stripped the umpires of certain powers? I think that it could; but that's just my opinion.

Do I think that umpires demand too much attention from time-to-time (the 'ol Keith Law characterization of "ump show")? Yes I do. (I also think that it is slightly ironic for a person like Keith Law to accuse someone else of being maniacally egotistical; talk about pot/kettle situation).

My issue lies solely with the author's use of Pitchf/x as defining what is a ball and what is a strike and . . . to be blunt . . . if your comments about Pitchf/x merely being designed to "approximate" what umpires have perceived the strike zone to be and not measure the actual strike zone, I only have stronger convictions about the author's conclusions.

With respect to your comment yesterday about umpires being "pussies" in that close plays aren't shown in the stadiums, I get your point. I really do. I also have been to games where loud mouthed drunken idiots continually berate umpires or referees. I've been to games where loud mouthed sober idiots continually berate umpires or referees. Truly a wonderful experience listening to some loud mouthed fan calling an umpire a "blind fat mother f---er" particularly when I'm with my kids.

If the crowd thinks that an umpire missed a call, the crowd is going to let him know about it - whether it was the right call or the wrong call. By not showing close plays, the crowd is being deprived of the calls that the umps got right and the calls the umps got wrong. However . . . the crowd will always assume that the ump's call was wrong and berate the umpire for being a blind idiot. So, he will rarely get the benefit of doubt and will never benefit from the call being proven correct.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits