Turn Off Ads?
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 345

Thread: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

  1. #316
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    Interesting plan paintme.

    Would would you say to someone like Doug who (paraphrasing) says that pitch f/x is very very accurate already. I don't even know where to begin to question the issues (if there even are any) with pitch f/x.
    I don't know what pitch f/x uses or if it's real-time. It may be completely viable already.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #317
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    12,197

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Great analysis, paint.

    So how do you do the strike zone? I think that's the hard part.

    Pay attention to the open sky

  4. #318
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,502

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966 View Post
    Is Pitch FX 100% accurate? It has been argued here, but does it change for every hitter based on his height and his stance (Rose being an extreme with his squat)? It is 2013 and I understand that people will use technology as they deem fit.
    Is it 100% accurate, no. Is it 98% accurate? Probably so, especially once you have corrected data. Yes, the strikezone height changes batter to batter and even from at bat to at bat with each batter.

    No MLB umpire is perfect, but most are damn good. That each man has a bit of a varying strikezone is OK by me and most teams (just be consistent).
    This shows that it isn't consistent. The harder you throw, the smaller your strikezone is.

    I want baseball types ruling baseball games. Not a Silicon Valley type that has never played the game nor understands the importance of the game and it's history. Wendelstedt can call the game I attend while Gates can be responsible for the software I utilize to study the stats from that game.
    I want the game I love to be decided by the players on the field. Not the guy wearing the umpire hat.

  5. #319
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,502

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered View Post
    I don't know what pitch f/x uses or if it's real-time. It may be completely viable already.
    Pitch F/X uses three cameras, using standard 30 frames per second video, places at different points in the ballpark to triangulate the ball, batters and strikezone.

    Google can help you out with more information if you are truly interested in reading up on it all.

  6. #320
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Pitch F/X uses three cameras, using standard 30 frames per second video, places at different points in the ballpark to triangulate the ball, batters and strikezone.

    Google can help you out with more information if you are truly interested in reading up on it all.
    In that case, Pitch F/X will have a higher percentage of pitches measured incorrectly. That number may only be 1-2% more than something more accurate, but it will be higher. For it's current application, it doesn't matter if it's "not good enough". The inaccuracy applies equally to all umpires, and its output should be viewed only as a relative comparison between different umpire's ball/strike accuracy. I doubt it would be suitable to replace the role of an umpire. I'd at least need a bit more convincing.

    For what it's worth, the Pitch F/X setup is much less complex and probably costs 20% of what I suggested above. It's diminishing returns, and it all depends on how accurate you need the measurement to be. An inch will cost you millions...
    Last edited by paintmered; 01-07-2013 at 09:57 PM.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  7. #321
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    I hate to beat a dead horse, but the computerized strike zones are dependent on humans calibrating the zone before each at-bat. There is some definite wiggle room for being off by an inch or two with each player, and worse is that because it's only calibrated before the plate appearance, a slight shift in batting stance can throw off the zone even further.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  8. #322
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,051

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    So lets assume that 25% of Chapman's 98+ taken strikes are balls.

    Is it too much to ask to see some photographic prove?

    Lets take it a step further. If you are a fireballer getting jerked around why not make a huge stink in the press? 25 percent error rate is beyond comprehension.

  9. #323
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,051

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Pitch F/X uses three cameras, using standard 30 frames per second video, places at different points in the ballpark to triangulate the ball, batters and strikezone.

    Google can help you out with more information if you are truly interested in reading up on it all.
    How far does a normal fastball travel in 1/30 of a second?

  10. #324
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,502

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    So lets assume that 25% of Chapman's 98+ taken strikes are balls.

    Is it too much to ask to see some photographic prove?

    Lets take it a step further. If you are a fireballer getting jerked around why not make a huge stink in the press? 25 percent error rate is beyond comprehension.
    It is possible to do if you wanted to spend the money for MLB.tv (for archived game footage) and wanted to cross check PFX data. The problem is, you are talking about thousands and thousands of pitches here. That isn't something many people are going to be able to undertake in terms of going back and loading up the video, capturing it, editing it and comparing it against pitcher XYZ and his slower fastball. That doesn't even come into play with the fact that camera angles in every ballpark are different, so you aren't going to be able to do much with the video unless you are solely looking at it in one ballpark.

    But it is pretty simple, if you accept that the Pitch F/X system is incredibly accurate (and MLB, MLB Teams and every television station that covers the games all do), then what the author is saying is true.

  11. #325
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    How far does a normal fastball travel in 1/30 of a second?
    A 95 mph pitch will travel 4.6 feet in 1/30 of a second.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  12. #326
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    So lets assume that 25% of Chapman's 98+ taken strikes are balls.

    Is it too much to ask to see some photographic prove?

    Lets take it a step further. If you are a fireballer getting jerked around why not make a huge stink in the press? 25 percent error rate is beyond comprehension.
    For a 20 pitch outing, it means he gets one fewer call than the 92-94 mph group.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  13. #327
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,502

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    How far does a normal fastball travel in 1/30 of a second?
    Usually there are 20 frames (so 60 images in total between the three cameras) between release and the front of home plate for an average pitch.

  14. #328
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,051

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered View Post
    A 95 mph pitch will travel 4.6 feet in 1/30 of a second.
    Ok, so isn't it a problem that that is much greater than the depth of home plate?

  15. #329
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,502

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    Ok, so isn't it a problem that that is much greater than the depth of home plate?
    No, because we can use math/science to determine exactly how the ball moves based on gravity, velocity and spin of the baseball, all of which are measured by the system. Deceleration of the ball is accounted for, as is the spin and break of the baseball.

  16. #330
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,051

    Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered View Post
    For a 20 pitch outing, it means he gets one fewer call than the 92-94 mph group.
    But couldn't just Chapman (or someone more articulate/media friendly (no disrespect intended to Aroldis)) hold a presser showing 100 pitches in the strike zone and 25 of them called balls? That would really turn the tide against umps I'd say...granting that the info is correct.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25