Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Technology

Now Calling Balls and Strikes: Robot Umpires (wsj.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Baseball's future has arrived in the Atlantic League, a collection of eight independent professional teams that span from New Britain, Conn., to Sugar Land, Texas. Last week marked the introduction of the most significant innovation: an automated strike zone, shifting responsibility for calling balls and strikes from a person to an emotionless piece of technology free of the biases and inconsistencies of mere humans. And if the test goes well, the days of big-league players imploring umps to schedule an eye exam could soon come to an end.

Ducks manager Wally Backman predicted that MLB will adopt the system within five years. "It's going to happen," he said. "There have been a few pitches that are questionable, but not as many as if it was a human. The machine is definitely going to be more right than they are." Every Atlantic League stadium, including the Patriots' TD Bank Ballpark in Central New Jersey, now features a TrackMan device perched high above the plate. It uses 3-D Doppler radar to register balls and strikes and relays its "decision" through a secure Wi-Fi network to the umpire, equipped with an iPhone in his pocket connected to a wired earbud. That umpire, positioned behind the plate as normal, hears a man's voice saying "ball" or "strike" and then signals the verdict.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Now Calling Balls and Strikes: Robot Umpires More

Now Calling Balls and Strikes: Robot Umpires

Comments Filter:

  • Sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @02:32PM (#59013570)

    It starts with robot umpires, but before you know it humans will be replaced with the likes of Wireless Joe Jackson and Pitch-o-Mat 5000.

  • Tennis has been using automated line judging for years. The line judges are still there, but the computers can override bad calls.

    Home plate umps aren't going anywhere. If there is any justice in the world, robots will determine their good call percentage and their pay will be adjusted accordingly.

    • The line judges are still there, but the computers can override bad calls.

      Why? What is the point of keeping a human in the loop?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Tennis, just like baseball, is a silly historical sport with all the tradition that implies. It's a production.

    • Tennis has been using automated line judging for years. The line judges are still there, but the computers can override bad calls.,

      The baseball problem is a little harder than in tennis because the strike zone can be different for each player.

  • This is just another nail in the coffin of "America's favorite pastime". Arguing with the umpires is part of the game. Not that it matters much, though -- baseball is slowly losing its mass appeal anyway; it's too slow to hold the interest of people uses to being constantly stimulated by their phones.

    • It was too slow before there were phones. Phones just gave people something to do during the 95% of a baseball game where nothing is happening.

      Baseball is in desperate need of a shot-clock for the pitcher. 90 seconds to get the batter out or they walk. Starting from when they step into the box. And they're only allowed to step back out twice, for 10 seconds each time or they're out.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Altus ( 1034 )

        there is supposed to be a pitch timer any time there isn't anyone on base. If there is someone on base then the pitcher also needs to hold the runner, putting a timer on them in that case would make stealing bases trivial.

        One problem is that the time limit between pitches is not enforced, even if there is nobody on base and it really should be. The time between pitches has been creeping up slowly for decades and the game has gotten longer and longer as a result.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Quarters ( 18322 )

          The time between pitches has been creeping up slowly for decades and the game has gotten longer and longer as a result.

          Correlate that with the increase in the amount of advertising in a televised game and you'll quickly understand why there is no enforcement of the time limit between pitches.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Altus ( 1034 )

            they don't show commercials between pitches, they show them between innings. Admittedly they have extended the time between innings more than is necessary for the grounds crew and for the team to warm up so they can add a few more 30 second spots... which does add up when you also factor in pitching changes.... so yeah, thats an issue too

      • And yet hand-egg-ball continues to be popular despite the fact that there is literally 10 minutes of action in over two hours of event....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Baseball was always too slow. If you were drinking and partying with your friends it made an inoffensive background. Then they started charging unreasonable amounts for beer at the stadiums. THAT was all the nails in the coffin.

  • Can't wait to see a manager run out and start kicking dirt and screaming a little device above home plate.

  • predicted that MLB will adopt the system within five years.

    Where did I just hear – NPR story perhaps – that MLB already uses them. But the human behind the plate is still the authority for now.

    • All of the broadcasts already have the technology. They draw a square around the strike zone, and a splash where the ball crosses that imaginary plane. Lighting up a "Ball" or "Strike" sign based on where it lands in there is a fairly trivial exercise.

      • MLB itself uses it for feedback for the umpires. It helps them understand when their strike zone is drifting, for example, and allows them to get guided training to address specific shortcomings rather than generic training. It works, too, as they're getting better.

        I still don't want them calling the actual pitches, but I'm a traditionalist. The systems have uses even if that happens, though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        They've started doint that to. A ball shows as an open circle, a strike is filled in.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      predicted that MLB will adopt the system within five years.

      Where did I just hear – NPR story perhaps – that MLB already uses them. But the human behind the plate is still the authority for now.

      Come on man, why is this so hard? If you were actually a fan of MLB baseball, or took 30 seconds to educate yourself, you'd know that the MLB DOES NOT use the system in question. The broadcasters have similar technology available to them, the umps are graded based on feedback from the system after the game, but computerized ball/strike calls are not available to the ump real-time and ball/strike calls are not review-able.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        So MLB DOES use them to grade umpires, just not to call the game.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )
          Yes, post-game, they grade the umpires based on the accuracy of their calls. And the broadcasters have the cool graphics that they overlay on the screen real time. This still is not the same as what the article is talking about. The big change here is that they are letting the computer make the actual ball and strike calls real time, directing the game, which the MLB does not do.
  • It's inevitable that one of these robo-umpires will be miscalibrated resulting in an advantage for the pitcher of the winning team. Holy hell will break loose because instead of one bad call, there are now hundreds. To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer. To me, this takes the human element from the game and subsets robot overlords. No thanks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      It's inevitable that one of these robo-umpires will be miscalibrated resulting in an advantage for the pitcher of the winning team.

      How is a miscalibration going to produce an advantage for the pitcher of the winning team and that does not also go to the pitcher of the losing team?

      Two robo-umpires that switch at the top and bottom of every inning? Unlikely.

      • Very simple - one is a fastball specialist who works the inside of the plate; the other is a curve-ball specialist who works the outside of the plate. A slight miscalibration could radically alter the calls.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Very simple - one is a fastball specialist who works the inside of the plate; the other is a curve-ball specialist who works the outside of the plate. A slight miscalibration could radically alter the calls.

          But they both face the same "miscalibration," they both can observe what pitches are working and what pitches are not, and you're acting as if neither pitcher, nor their team, will adapt.

          Also, if you think that there aren't umpires that are loose on certain sides of the plate, you don't watch baseball.

          • Oh, I do watch baseball and have for fifty years. The people pushing the robo-umps are touting the 'incredible accuracy' and I'm pointing out that the claim is bogus. If the machine can make bad calls or doesn't have the to the millimeter strike zone, then why bother? In other words, it's no better than the current umps. And if that's the case, there's no point in doing it at all. What this does take away is the quiet word from the catcher encouraging the umpire to rethink his strike zone. Or for managers

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              I'm pointing out that the claim is bogus.

              No, you're not. You're assuming that it is without any data concerning umpire accuracy or robo-umpire accuracy. You're demanding millimeter accuracy or "why bother" when umpires are 100x less accurate.

              What this does take away is the quiet word from the catcher encouraging the umpire to rethink his strike zone. Or for managers to make their case. Or a host of other things which can happen with human beings.

              Which are boring, slow the game down, and do little to actu

              • Once you turn it over to the computer, everyone assumes it's always right and there is no way to deal with the problem at all.

                So now we're going to pretend that Pitch F/X data does not exist and there won't be a collection of yous monitoring the data.

                Which will do not good and will have no effect when it comes to undoing the damage done by a hacked or miscalibrated machine. You're engaging in wishful thinking and assuming that the robo-umpires are better, with no significant data to back you up, other than a theoretical claim. And nobody has actually thought through the ramifications of what do to when the inevitable problems crop up. To deny that problems will arise is to ensure failure, Take off your rose colored glasses.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  Which will do not good and will have no effect when it comes to undoing the damage done by a hacked or miscalibrated machine.

                  As opposed to the damage of a bribed or quasi-competent umpire?

                  You're engaging in wishful thinking and assuming that the robo-umpires are better, with no significant data to back you up...

                  If only there were field test data, collected in, for example, the Atlantic league.

                  And nobody has actually thought through the ramifications of what do to when the inevitable problems crop up.

                  Nobody

            • "If the machine can make bad calls or doesn't have the to the millimeter strike zone, then why bother?"
               
              Um, the machine can't make "bad calls". It also has a "to the millimeter" strike zone. So not sure what you are talking about. Human umpires can make bad calls and don't have a millimeter accurate strike zone. TV has been using the system for years without "hacking" or "miscalibration" issues.

              • Hacking the TV system gains you nothing. Hacking the actual robs-umpire gains you an advantage in the game.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Starting pitcher for winning team has a problem with pitching just off of the outside corner when he tries top paint it. Opposing pitcher's stronger pitch grazes the inside corner. Machine "somehow" gets misaligned about half an inch to the outside.

        • So fix the "misaligned" machine. Both teams have access to the machine to see if it was "misaligned" or not. Do teams have access to the umpire to see if they are biased in any way? Nope.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            The question was "How is a miscalibration going to produce an advantage for the pitcher of the winning team".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer.

      No, it requires a human [beyondtheboxscore.com], you're just far more willing to forgive human errors than theoretical and suspiciously subtle systematic miscalibrations that would still be a vast improvement over the wild inconsistency of the former.

      • LOL. Not at all. First of all, experience with other measuring devices (speed radar, breathalyzer, etc) says it's not just theoretical. Second, it would be FAR easier to rig the machine and not get caught than it would be to bribe a bunch of umpires and not get caught Third, I'm not forgiving human error, I'm saying it's part of sport and you deal with it. Again, from experience, we can be sure that machine error will result in spectacular failure Fourth, trying to solve for occasional error or variatio

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Miscalibrated...how about hacked. They just need robot pitchers who will always throw strikes, then they won't need umpires. Robot pitcher firing 300 mph fast balls, 1 every 10 seconds, just what the game needs.

      And we can go one step further and replace the owners with bots, it isn't like they do anything necessary except watch the finances. Bots are good at that.

      A slew of robot fans would help too, then it won't hurt if one of them gets beaned by a line drive.

      And then...and then...we'll get some Electric M

      • Easy enough to hack - you simply record the pitch as being where you want it to be then send the 'ball' or 'strike' word to the umpire, The recorded data is consistent with the call, but not with where the pitch really was. You make the strike zone an inch or two smaller when your team is batting and an inch or two bigger when your team is in the field. And then you reload the correct code as soon as the game is over, And that's just one hack! Somebody will figure out how to blind the robo-umpire, too, or

        • "You make the strike zone an inch"
           
          Who does?
           
          "And then you reload the correct code"
           
          Who is this person who is doing all of this? Who is this "you", this hacker? Why isn't this person detected messing with the machine during the game? Do you worry about the guy who hands the umpire $500 before the game to "make the pitches go his way"?

    • That already happens. There are umpires who are known for calling large or small strike zones. The better coaches schedule their pitching staff around who will be the plate umpire. If you've got a knuckleball pitcher, schedule him the day with the ump with a big strike zone. On the day of the ump with the small strike zone, schedule your most accurate (but not necessarily fastest) pitcher. etc.

    • I can totally see 3D imaging/radar figuring out where the ball is, but the strike zone is dependent on the definition of the space between the batter's knees and the midpoint of their torso.

      How is this area being defined by automation if the batters aren't wearing anatomically-specific markers defining this space? The ball is small enough that an error of an inch in measuring the batter's specific strike zone could make for erroneous calls.

      Plus any attempt to use it would certainly result in players attemp

  • I identify as a balk!

  • So... he has access to the calibration data and the data from each pitch such that he can declare it "questionable" in any cases? That radar system must have a far better idea of where the ball is than the manager from the dugout does. This would be my concern: since the output is just a binary "ball" or "strike" rather than the ball's trajectory, it can be rigged, broken, etc and not be obvious. Seems like two triggered slow-motion cameras, one from above and one from the side, would be a much more tra

    • Imagine a football game in which the footage used to overturn that potentially-game-winning touchdown was not shown to anyone, even the official making the call!
      The last time something like that happen the UNION got there jobs back.

  • iPhone?? apple will want 30% of MLB profits

  • So instead of a pitcher throwing the game to lose like the Blacksox, a programmer will throw the game. You are the Weakest Link, goodbye.

  • I mean, is it bribable?

  • "Ball...or Strike. Does it matter? Does anything matter?"

  • ...I've always wondered why this tech wasn't implemented in more obvious, simple applications - a RFID or something in a ball could easily identify if it was "in" or "out" for the myriad sports that have such boundaries. Tennis would seem to be the most obvious example.

    Baseball - where the strike zone itself is a subjective and malleable (https://www.mlb.com/official-information/umpires/strike-zone) 2D rectangle in 3 dimensional space through which a ball moving up to 100mph (160kph) must pass for a called

  • A strike zone is also based on player's knees and letters. I wonder if players have to be measured prior to game play, because one could manipulate the strike zone by saying the knees are two inches higher than they should be. I'm not sure if the knees and letters are based on standing straight up or when the batter is at the plate and in a hitting stance. I'm not a baseball nerd, I just have to attend them for team building meetings.
  • Any chance the strike zone will actually be enforced as it's written in the rule book? That is, from the "midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the hollow beneath the kneecap"?
  • ..... continues to go right down the toilet. Replays, new rules, hardly any pitcher goes 9 innings anymore, etc. The game sucks today. It's pathetic and sad.
  • For many years now, we have been having the RoboCup - an attempt to eventually beat humans with robots at the highest level of soccer.

    But I'd like them to try this with more simpler sports like baseball first. Pitching and batting don't seem too complicated for a robot (maybe even warranting some artificial limitations), and neither is running to the next base.
    Catching in the outer fields might be interesting. Robots bumping into each other at high speed might look fun, too.

  • I've always felt like the variability in the strike zone umpire to umpire was an interesting part of the game. What's even the point of having an umpire if this machine is doing the heavy lifting? We can already review everything else with replay so no point in even having them. Just put two review guys in the booth and be done with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close