The Machines Calling Balls and Strikes - Baseball Joins the Tech Takeover

[Julio Franco]

MLB is testing robo umps in spring training, letting players challenge ball and strike calls using Hawk-Eye tech. The system could reach regular season games as early as 2026---but not all are sold.

Read the full article here.

The Machines Calling Balls and Strikes - Baseball Joins the Tech Takeover

 

[Squid Surprise]

A little late on this story... spring training has been over for over a week now...

Baseball has always been one of the worst leagues when it comes to technology - too many dinosaurs cite "tradition" as their reasons against it...

But, with SO much money being involved in professional sports, there is no longer any room for nostalgia or human error... billions of dollars are at stake, and referees will soon simply exist to reinforce machines.

 

[Skjorn]

A little late on this story... spring training has been over for over a week now...

Baseball has always been one of the worst leagues when it comes to technology - too many dinosaurs cite "tradition" as their reasons against it...

But, with SO much money being involved in professional sports, there is no longer any room for nostalgia or human error... billions of dollars are at stake, and referees will soon simply exist to reinforce machines.

Ehh it's kinda gimmicky in baseball. The strike zone is a 3D shape that has depth. It's not some 2D plane like they like to depict.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Ehh it's kinda gimmicky in baseball. The strike zone is a 3D shape that has depth. It's not some 2D plane like they like to depict.

They can make the shape of the strike zone whatever they want - and the tech exists to see if the ball enters a 3d cube at any point… certainly with FAR more accuracy than any human umpire.

It’s harder with football and hockey, where the locations move every time… but in baseball (and tennis) the strike zone is in the exact same place - adjusted for the height of the batter - every time.

 

[Skjorn]

They can make the shape of the strike zone whatever they want - and the tech exists to see if the ball enters a 3d cube at any point… certainly with FAR more accuracy than any human umpire.

It’s harder with football and hockey, where the locations move every time… but in baseball (and tennis) the strike zone is in the exact same place - adjusted for the height of the batter - every time.

On TV they depict the zone as a 2D plane at the front of the plate. This article says with hawkeye it's still a plane just in the middle of the plate now, still not the true shape.
On TV also when they show where the ball was with the curricular outline relative to the zone is terrible depiction as well. They place that circle wherever the catcher catches the ball, not where it came across the zone.

 

[Squid Surprise]

On TV they depict the zone as a 2D plane at the front of the plate. This article says with hawkeye it's still a plane just in the middle of the plate now, still not the true shape.
On TV also when they show where the ball was with the curricular outline relative to the zone is terrible depiction as well. They place that circle wherever the catcher catches the ball, not where it came across the zone.

Depends on what channel you watch - they do that simply because it’s easy to depict quickly… on replays, they have the ability to check if it entered the entire 3d strike zone - they can also show the path of the ball from the pitcher’s hand until it hits the catcher’s mitt.

 

[trents]

Even if it's not perfect it's got to be better than the human umps. It's time.

 

[mbk34]

I watch (and play) a lot of tennis. Hawkeye has been useful in that it stops arguments with the umpire though sometimes these arguments have been entertaining. The problem though is that Hawkeye isn't always correct - it imagines a ball hitting the line using it's full diameter but balls are spheres and only a part of the ball will get close to the line. Imagine rolling a ball up against a wall and think of the wall as the line - Hawkeye will say the ball has touched the line but, if you look at the contact patch of the ball on the ground, it's nowhere near the line. The replay feature is also deceptive as it doesn't show the actual path of the ball (and where it landed) but the path it calculated while the ball was in flight. They're not the same thing. Hawkeye is certainly more accurate than line judges but it's not a perfect system. It's also a lot more difficult to argue with.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I watch (and play) a lot of tennis. Hawkeye has been useful in that it stops arguments with the umpire though sometimes these arguments have been entertaining. The problem though is that Hawkeye isn't always correct - it imagines a ball hitting the line using it's full diameter but balls are spheres and only a part of the ball will get close to the line. Imagine rolling a ball up against a wall and think of the wall as the line - Hawkeye will say the ball has touched the line but, if you look at the contact patch of the ball on the ground, it's nowhere near the line. The replay feature is also deceptive as it doesn't show the actual path of the ball (and where it landed) but the path it calculated while the ball was in flight. They're not the same thing. Hawkeye is certainly more accurate than line judges but it's not a perfect system. It's also a lot more difficult to argue with.

But that’s the wonderful thing about automated systems. It doesn’t matter if they are “accurate” so much as long as they are CONSISTENT. As long as the ball is called in or out the same time for each position, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the line, outside the line, or inside the line. The lines only exist as an arbitrary limit in the first place - their purpose was to setup an arbitrary consistent zone where it was legal for the ball to bounce or not.

The same will be true of baseball. The frustration most players and fans have is that a ball can be in the same location and called a ball or a strike depending on the whim of the umpire.. now, that same location will be consistent. It won’t matter if it’s technically outside the strike zone by 2 mm… if it’s consistently called a strike, people will be happy.

 

[mbk34]

It doesn’t matter if they are “accurate” so much as long as they are CONSISTENT. As long as the ball is called in or out the same time for each position, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the line, outside the line, or inside the line. The lines only exist as an arbitrary limit in the first place - their purpose was to setup an arbitrary consistent zone where it was legal for the ball to bounce or not.

I'm guessing you don't play sport competitively I just happened to be in a seniors tennis final last week. It was a very amateur competition with no Hawkeye and no line judges but just an umpire. Absolutely everyone competing would expect a ball that hits the line to be called "in". It wouldn't matter if it consistently called that same line shot "out" for everyone. Players would simply see the system as fundamentally flawed and they would definitely not be happy.

That's not to say that umpires and line judges are perfect but you have the option to appeal a call. If Hawkeye kept high resolution video of where the ball actually lands then it would be perfect. Even better if it used the video to automatically recalibrated itself. There are cheaper, less accurate alternatives that amateurs can use such as SwingVision but it still costs $150/year and only runs on an iPhone.

PS I lost the match

 

[Squid Surprise]

I'm guessing you don't play sport competitively I just happened to be in a seniors tennis final last week. It was a very amateur competition with no Hawkeye and no line judges but just an umpire. Absolutely everyone competing would expect a ball that hits the line to be called "in". It wouldn't matter if it consistently called that same line shot "out" for everyone. Players would simply see the system as fundamentally flawed and they would definitely not be happy.

That's not to say that umpires and line judges are perfect but you have the option to appeal a call. If Hawkeye kept high resolution video of where the ball actually lands then it would be perfect. Even better if it used the video to automatically recalibrated itself. There are cheaper, less accurate alternatives that amateurs can use such as SwingVision but it still costs $150/year and only runs on an iPhone.

PS I lost the match

Hawkeye is far more accurate than that… when it’s “wrong”, we’re talking like a millimeter - and the human eye doesn’t notice it either…

 

[mbk34]

Hawkeye is far more accurate than that… when it’s “wrong”, we’re talking like a millimeter - and the human eye doesn’t notice it either…

It's actually 3.6mm for tennis but that isn't the issue. The issue is that Hawkeye uses the width of the ball at it's largest point to say whether it touched the line. If Hawkeye shows that the ball grazed the line then the reality would be that the middle of the ball might be close to the line but the part of the ball that actually touches the ground is out and there'd be a couple of cm (say an inch) of a gap between the part of the ball on the ground and the line. A player can see that sort of gap even on moderately fast balls because you can see a green ball, the white line and a red stripe of clay between them. I guess that's why Hawkeye only shows what it thinks happened via an animation rather than what actually happened via a high speed camera.

I'm not saying that Hawkeye is bad, it isn't, I'm just saying that it's calls aren't perfect.

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's actually 3.6mm for tennis but that isn't the issue. The issue is that Hawkeye uses the width of the ball at it's largest point to say whether it touched the line. If Hawkeye shows that the ball grazed the line then the reality would be that the middle of the ball might be close to the line but the part of the ball that actually touches the ground is out and there'd be a couple of cm (say an inch) of a gap between the part of the ball on the ground and the line. A player can see that sort of gap even on moderately fast balls because you can see a green ball, the white line and a red stripe of clay between them. I guess that's why Hawkeye only shows what it thinks happened via an animation rather than what actually happened via a high speed camera.

I'm not saying that Hawkeye is bad, it isn't, I'm just saying that it's calls aren't perfect.

My point is perfection isn’t necessary, consistency is. The rule now is “if Hawkeye says it’s in, it’s in. If Hawkeye says it’s out, it’s out.”
And every time a ball hits, it will consistently get the same call.

Baseball will benefit tremendously from this as “reading the ump” will no longer have to happen game to game. Players (and fans) simply have to adjust to ONE official - Hawkeye - and every call will be consistent.