Rage Against The Machine

[Wolf Hopper]

If this were T2, Schilling would be Arnie, the Umps would be John Connor, and QuesTec would be the Cop Terminator, right?

This belly-aching over the analysis tool is getting out of hand when we start to see struff like this, IMHO.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0525/1558965.html

Umpires who don't like the new electronic system that evaluates their calls on balls and strikes have gained an outspoken ally in Curt Schilling.

The Arizona ace got so fed up with the system Saturday night during his loss to the San Diego Padres that he smashed one of its cameras near the Diamondbacks' dugout.

"I said something to one of the umpires about it,'' Schilling said, "and he said 'Do us a favor and break the other one.'''

The QuesTec Umpire Evaluation System is installed at 13 ballparks, including Bank One Ballpark in Arizona. The umpire's union has filed a grievance against major league teams contending the system is inaccurate and varies greatly depending on the person operating it.

An arbitrator is to hear the grievance in early July.

"The QuesTec system in this ballpark is a joke,'' Schilling said. "The umpires have admitted it. They hate it. In the last three starts I've made here, multiple times umpires have said to the catcher, 'It's a pitch I want to call a strike but the machine won't let me.'''

[Domeboys]

I actually agreed with Bobby V. On Baseball Tonight, V sarcastically called Schilling's actions "really mature" and asked why Schilling should be upset that it is being enforced that balls are to be called balls. He went on to say that Schilling, Maddox and everyone else needs to earn their share of the plate. Not to be outdone, Harold the Wise added a counterpoint that any machine that loses track of the break of the ball 6 feet from the plate cannot receive his trust. I felt so much better...

Seems to me that the machine is doing its job, forcing consistency in balls and strikes and that the umpires are being transparent.

[LeGrandOrange]

I don't believe a damn word Schilling says...I have a hard time imagining that an ump would REALLY ask him to do this.

VERY mature indeed...*scoff*

[Luis]

In this article Brenly stated that if the system is so good they shouldn't need an umpire to call balls and strikes.

I don't know how the system works but if it can automatically adjust for the size of a players strike zone I like the idea of an automated strikezone. I think that major league baseball is trying to work toward this goal.

[Domeboys]

Luis, I hadn't seen Brenly's comments, but I think I agree with him. I can imagine that the technology can be refined to the point that balls and strikes can be called more efficiently by a machine than a man. That is not a big stretch considering how technology is used elsewhere in this world.

On the other hand, the umpires and their union will not give up easily.

[Fatwater Fewl]

I like the Questec system, but I would never want to see it replace the plate umpire in calling balls and strikes. The struggle for balance between objectivity and subjectivity is part of what makes baseball such a great game. That struggle exists in the casual fan attempting to understand why his favourite player and favourite team aren't perfect. It exists in the degrees of fandom which make this message board a great place to be part of, as the members here attempt to understand and balance the subtleties and details that surround and influence great performances and terrible performances of players, teams, managers, GMs and umpires on a daily, seasonal and career level. That struggle exists in every member of organized baseball from the grounds crew through to (in an ideal world) the Commissioner's office.

As a tool to enhance every umpire's performance in the calling of balls and strikes in a manner more consistent with the text of the rules of baseball, I welcome Questec. And I hope MLB has the balls to keep it in place.

As for Schilling:
Schilling is a perfectionist. He has every pitch he's ever thrown to a batter on video and he studies them for hours and hours before each start. He also has a book on every call he's seen an umpire make.

"As someone who relies on command and preparation and doing the things that I do to get ready for a ballgame, consistency is the most important thing in the world for me from an umpire,'' he said.
I have a hard time believing that someone who is such a perfectionist cannot adjust to Questec. I'd say that once he gets over himself and simmers down, stops acting like a three year old, he'll start to study the way pitches are called as result of Questec and find a way to make it work for him.

The article itself is very slanted. Seems to me like something cooked up between the D'backs' and the umpires' PR guys.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

They tried replacing humans with machines in the weather observing part of my field -- at every airport, there is now a machine that "accurately" measures visibility, cloud height and amount, etc., using lasers and photometers and so on. In practice (but not specifics) the system is very much like the one MLB is trying to use behind thr plate.

It "works" so "accurately" that the FAA has had to hire a whole bunch of human observers just to correct the output of the machine, IN ADDITION TO the maintenance technicians and operators that keep the new equipment running AND the OLD observing equipment they need as a (frequent) backup.

Now, weather observing isn't balls and strikes. But the technology is very similar. I know for a fact that the FAA is damned sorry they ever bought the system from the National Weather Service vendors -- and wishes they had kept the old equipment and human observers all along -- and saved a ton of money and trouble.

Do humans make mistakes? Yes. Are machines accurate? Yes. Does that make machines better than humans? Depends. All I know is that baseball is a game and no one gets hurt too much if the machine is wrong (or the human is wrong). In the real world where airplanes depend on accuracy for safety -- they want the humans in and the machines out.

The umps have a case.

[pathogan]

...that makes Maduux [whose hall of fame plaque should also mention the 15 umpires who put him there]and schilling piss and moan like this isnt half bad

[satchel]

Originally posted by pathogan
Maduux [whose hall of fame plaque should also mention the 15 umpires who put him there]

:loud: Couldn't you say this about Tommy Glavine too? not now that he's a Met though. ;)

On the topic, I think Ytown's comments are very interesting. As a matter of personal aesthetics, I guess what I would like to see is not a system where the umpires are replaced by machines, but rather a system where the machines supplement the umpires. This could work the way instant replays do in football - limited in quantity or with a penalty, so that managers have to call on it judiciously. In addition, Questec could also function well as an evaluation tool after the fact. (We could talk about umpires' unwillingness to consent to this, but most of us are probably subject to some kind of quality control in our jobs .... :rolleyes: )

[pathogan]

Originally posted by satchel
:loud: Couldn't you say this about Tommy Glavine too? not now that he's a Met though. ;)

On the topic, I think Ytown's comments are very interesting. As a matter of personal aesthetics, I guess what I would like to see is not a system where the umpires are replaced by machines, but rather a system where the machines supplement the umpires. This could work the way instant replays do in football - limited in quantity or with a penalty, so that managers have to call on it judiciously. In addition, Questec could also function well as an evaluation tool after the fact. (We could talk about umpires' unwillingness to consent to this, but most of us are probably subject to some kind of quality control in our jobs .... :rolleyes: )


Satch, isnt it used as an eval too, and isnt why the umpires are whining{again?!}? Ditto on glavine, he's not as acknowledged as M ,though...

[sweaver]

I think the umpires are complaining because they don't like to be second-guessed. As Satch says, most of us have some kind of evaluation at our jobs, whether it is billable hours, units sold, or student evaluations. Umps will have to get used to it. And so will pitchers used to having a personal strike zone.

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by pathogan
...that makes Maduux [whose hall of fame plaque should also mention the 15 umpires who put him there]and schilling piss and moan like this isnt half bad

Well said, Pat - imagine having to throw the ball over the plate instead of 6 inches to the side!

[satchel]

Originally posted by pathogan
Satch, isnt it used as an eval too, and isnt why the umpires are whining{again?!}?

Yes, you are right, I was imprecise. Rather than saying "umpires' unwillingness to consent to" I should have said "umpires' incessant bellyaching about."

[JamesI]

Originally posted by sweaver
I think the umpires are complaining because they don't like to be second-guessed. As Satch says, most of us have some kind of evaluation at our jobs, whether it is billable hours, units sold, or student evaluations. Umps will have to get used to it. And so will pitchers used to having a personal strike zone.

exactly. As a fan, I don't want to see a machine calling balls and strikes. But if that machine can be used to train umpires into much better consistency and a lack of Maddux zone strikes, that is a good thing.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by sweaver
I think the umpires are complaining because they don't like to be second-guessed. As Satch says, most of us have some kind of evaluation at our jobs, whether it is billable hours, units sold, or student evaluations. Umps will have to get used to it. And so will pitchers used to having a personal strike zone.

Exactly.

And, even as Schilling pointed out, Brian Lawrance wasn't having a problem with the balls and strikes.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Agreed, Sweaver et al ... my only concern is the accuracy of the machine; rather, the bent of most people to assume that the machine is accurate. If it IS accurate, then the umps should be happy to use it as a tool. I'm sure it was never intended to replace them.

[Domeboys]

Does anyone know the history of electronic line in/out calls in tennis? Seems like a closer analogy than FAA weather observing. Besides, everyone knows that no weather forecaster will ever be correct!

[satchel]

I just read this in an AP story (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-schilling-umpires&prov=ap&type=lgns) about Bob Watson's investigation of Schilling:


``I don't think he should be disciplined for breaking the machine,'' San Francisco pitcher Kirk Rueter said.


Sure, Kirk, Schilling should be permitted to vandalize rather costly MLB property without being disciplined. :rolleyes: Whether you like Questec or not, Schilling's antics were a pretty childish and unprofessional way to express his feelings.

[LeGrandOrange]

Professional for not giving a good explation on Woody's part.

Questec isn't a water cooler or a bat rack, it's a MLB creation, you screw around with those and you ought to get fined. Bob Watson has been stupid in the past but he is trying to keep the peace...this is his job. While he's had some dodgy fines, one here, especially given the fact Curt's trying to incriminate the umpires, would seem to be required.

[sweaver]

I love this quote from the New York Times, from the lead paragraph of an article by Murray Chass (reference http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/sports/baseball/29umpires.html?th)

"Throughout baseball history, pitchers and hitters have adjusted daily to the strike zone idiosyncrasies of the home plate umpire. Now umpires are adjusting, too, depending on the site of the game, and they say their adjustments can influence the outcome of games.

The reason, four umpires said yesterday, is the QuesTec system that Major League Baseball uses to monitor umpires' calls of balls and strikes and to rate the umpires on the accuracy of their calls. "

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The funny thing is: QuesTec is apparently claiming (falsely) that the system has the support of the umpires, according to its own website.

The umps, who do NOT support the system, have asked that the claim that they DO support it be removed from QuesTec's website, and QuesTec has not done so.

http://www.umpire.org/frames/fmlb.html

The umps are also complaining that they don't have testing info for the product, and had to threaten to go to court agains MLB to get ANY info on the system.

Is that really the way MLB wants to handle this: by shoving the system down the umps throats without providing ANY testing info? And does QuesTec really want to make false claims of umpire support for its system?

This goes beyond the accuracy of any system; it is about MLB feuding with the umps again, and trying to put them even more over a barrel. Sadly, the only people that fans dislike MORE than Selig and his crew are the umps, making it hard to generate any sympathy for their position.

Doesn't mean they aren't right though.

[Domeboys]

During a quick search of questec.com, I found this in their FAQs:

"How do the umpires feel about it?

In general, they support it! They had the opportunity to really watch the technology in action and to talk to us about how it works and how we thought it might be used. MLB has also worked very hard to clearly lay out why they wanted this technology and how they would use it. We wouldn't dare say everyone loves it at this point but, from what we have seen, the umpiring community as a whole agrees this information has a lot of potential value and they want to work with it to see what can be learned."

[Ytown Tribe fan]

That quote was from the company's 2001 FAQs, before the system had been installed. The umpire's complaints came later and, in fairness, I don't know whether QuesTec is STILL claiming their support or not.

http://www.questec.com/q2001/prod_uis.htm

The system is probably as accurate as MLB and QuesTec claim it is (tracking the ball within 0.5 inches as it crosses home plate).

One really good reason for using it would be to finally standardize the strike zone and, subsequently, batting and pitching records. Wouldn't it be great to look back, 50 years from now, at the trend in batting and pitching records, knowing that every single pitch was called accurately? This would be especially significant if MLB decided to alter the strike zone, as they have done so many times in the past.

It would be great to know, for example, exactly how much pitching and batting records from 1962-1969 were altered by the change in the strike zone. Maybe in the future we will have more accurate tracking data because of this and similar systems.

[Domeboys]

The quote which I clipped is from their website today. But, if it is old and inaccurate, then I have to agree with the umpires that it should be removed. (Not that anyone would actually be browsing the web, come across this site and want to buy one...)

This is different from my opinion about the use of the tool, which I think is valid and should be encouraged.

[Wolf Hopper]

Funny, no hitters are bitching.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0601/1561810.html

[qtlaw]

Schilling's (Mr. Close the Roof Dammit!) a crybaby. Machines are not going to replace the umpires but the umpires are not above being evaluated. Anybody notice the difference between Doug Harvey and Eric Gregg at home plate? Enough said.

[Domeboys]

...how much Schilling was fined? The only blurb I saw said the amount was "undisclosed". I hope the team did not pick it up for him...

[WiredTiger]

I think as others have alluded to the problem is not that the strike zone is being squeezed or being expanded it's that it is changing for certain players. The notion that veterans get calls that others don't is being challenged. Schilling and Maddux don't like it because they used to get calls that no one else did.

I think it's probably a good thing and not a bad thing if the strike zone is called more consistently for all players.

[satchel]

Originally posted by Domeboys
...how much Schilling was fined? The only blurb I saw said the amount was "undisclosed". I hope the team did not pick it up for him...
A headline at ESPN.com said $15k.

[cubfan33]

ESPN has a big feature on QuesTec today, including a great article by Nate Silver and Keith Woolner on "is it affecting things?"

Not that I'm biased.

[Rajah]

I found Dibble and Candiotti's comments enlightening.

Dibble no like change. Dibble no like outsiders in baseball. Dibble think inbred baseball good.

Candiotti likes the idea. He wants balls and strikes called according to the rule book. If the system is accurate use it, if it isn't, fix it.

Morgan seems to like it, so long as an ump doesn't get in big trouble or lose his job or something. he also wants it everywhere or nowhere.

[sweaver]

A study of the historical strike zone at "Mike's Baseball Rants."

http://mikesbballrants.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_mikesbballrants_archive.html#95552482