[HN Gopher] Developing MLB's Automated Ball/Strike System
___________________________________________________________________
Developing MLB's Automated Ball/Strike System
Author : ingve
Score : 79 points
Date : 2021-05-15 08:32 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (technology.mlblogs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (technology.mlblogs.com)
| modeless wrote:
| How on earth could a web page receiving push notifications over
| cellular or WiFi in a crowded stadium and then playing audio over
| Bluetooth have consistently lower latency than a walkie-talkie?
| What kind of slow walkie-talkie were they using?
|
| I'm also surprised that all you need to define the strike zone is
| two heights which are pre-determined per player. I guess I
| assumed you would need to track the batter's actual knees and
| torso to define it dynamically. If this is really being used by
| the actual umpires, wouldn't that be important to get right?
| culturestate wrote:
| I haven't messed with this but I'd guess they couldn't have the
| walkie-talkies transmit continuously for whatever reason, and
| the short delay between the time you "push the button" on a
| walkie-talkie and the time it actually starts transmitting was
| the problem.
|
| _> I 'm also surprised that all you need to define the strike
| zone is two heights which are pre-determined per player_
|
| The strike zone is determined when the batter first gets set in
| their stance so that batters can't shrink the zone after the
| pitcher starts their motion.
|
| If you watch, you'll notice a lot of guys crouch when they
| start to load up and step in the bucket, so there can be a
| _huge_ difference in the apparent strike zone from the time a
| pitcher lets the ball go to the time the ball arrives at the
| plate.
| modeless wrote:
| Sure, but their starting stance could still change from day
| to day or even pitch to pitch, couldn't it? Fixing the strike
| zone at the start of the season seems like a rule change to
| me.
| culturestate wrote:
| Technically you're right, but the differences would be so
| small that I can't imagine they would materially change the
| zone. The mechanics of a batting stance and swing aren't
| something you really want to screw around with once you've
| got them figured out.
|
| I haven't played organized baseball in 10 years, but having
| played for a _long_ time before that my body still
| automatically does its thing when I pick up a bat.
| ec109685 wrote:
| This system seems to pre-assign the strike zone for each
| player, regardless of current stance.
| [deleted]
| nerdbaggy wrote:
| Past life I have deployed high density WiFi networks. Most
| likely they will have a dedicated access point pointing toward
| the ump. With a proper channel plan I don't see why there would
| be any issues. And it looks like they did switch to wired
| headphones luckily. 2.4 is a mess in high density environment.
| Guest42 wrote:
| I'd go for a tennis-like approach whereby a team gets 3
| challenges and if a challenge is correct it goes unused.
| Moosdijk wrote:
| In MLB it's one.
| spike021 wrote:
| In addition to my prior comment, I've always thought the best
| path would be an automated "assist".
|
| So you get the human calls from the ump, but at the same time
| there's a way of signaling if any are egregious. If so, you can
| override the human call.
|
| Problem is, that process would happen often and need to take less
| time than a standard play review, which already can drag, and it
| has to be agreeable.
| ec109685 wrote:
| This seems the other way. The umpire hears what the machine
| said and I guess makes final determination?
| spike021 wrote:
| Maybe, but I figure the typical "#umpshow" issues would
| continue to play into it if the umps still make a decision
| with whatever they're given by the machine.
|
| The way I see it with what I initially posted, the ump can
| make a call but with the machine backing every pitch, it'll
| be easy to stop emotional calls from continuing.
| tardismechanic wrote:
| In cricket, having a legal ball hit the stumps (three vertical
| sticks behind the batsman/batter) is an unambiguous way to get
| out.
|
| A leg-before-wicket (LBW) out on the other hand happens if the
| umpire deems the ball would have struck the stumps if the batsman
| hadn't put their legs (really pads) in the way (there are other
| technicalities involved but thats the gist). A MLB ball/strike
| judgement seems similar in nature. Cricket has been using ball-
| tracking technology for over a decade now for determining LBW.
|
| See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg_before_wicket
| https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ball-tracking-and-the-uni...
| omegabravo wrote:
| It is also worth noting the standard of umpiring increased
| dramatically with the introduction of the DRS system. It has
| been a massive success.
|
| Recently the automated front foot no ball system was introduced
| too, and it has too been a success.
| spike021 wrote:
| Cannot come soon enough. This season in particular has seen way
| too many poor ball/strike calls.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Well, it's not actually just one bad season. They did a study
| over several years using the ball tracking data which MLB has
| had for a long time, and found that 12 percent of calls were
| incorrect.
|
| This system should have been fully in place many years ago. The
| fact that the deployment is still dragging along is amazing.
| spike021 wrote:
| Yeah, of course it's been a historical problem. But there
| have been at-bats that are just completely eliminated by an
| umpire either just being awful or making ball/strike calls
| emotionally. Some this season have been particularly
| egregious.
|
| I think there needs to be a fine line, however. We can keep
| umpires in some capacity, but still make use of an automated
| system.
| remarkEon wrote:
| If anyone from MLB or BAM reads HN and is in this thread ...
|
| _Do Not Do This_.
|
| Here's why:
|
| Right now, all of the criticism about the calls of balls and
| strikes - criticism that might seem unique for this season but
| isn't - is directed at individual umps. You do this, and build an
| automation tool to replace them, and you've just redirected the
| entire fan rage from an ump who makes a bad call or two at a
| critical point in the game and aimed it at the institution of
| baseball.
|
| While you may feel like this season has seen a lot of criticism
| of balls and strike calls, it only seems that way because of,
| well, the internet. You may also think "if we just make this
| thing uniform, with math and automation, then it really will be
| fair", but it won't be. This is important to note because, again,
| if you take the human element out of this and replace it with a
| machine you are signing yourself up for constant criticism and
| risk. Moreover, you are introducing a _new_ kind of risk into the
| game (an attack surface that hasn 't existed before). Think of
| the Houston Trash Can Scandal, but instead of an analog signal
| based on an auditory input, it's some paid bad actor who
| manipulates the system making calls at critical points in the
| game. I hesitate to use the word "hack" but is it really that
| outside the realm of possibility? With a World Series on the
| line, Houston did what they did out in the open. You don't think
| someone would lose their scruples and try to do it on the backend
| if this existed?
|
| Third, and this may be a bit "old man yells at cloud", but if you
| do this you are removing one of the best parts of the game. The
| _human_ element, where a reasonable person can watch a ball go
| across the plate, and it 's just outside that little box the
| broadcast booth puts on, the ump calls strike three, and you as a
| fan let it go because, ya know what, "ehh he coulda hit that I
| think".
| swang wrote:
| ah yes, if technology is vulnerable to hacking don't ever use
| technology ever.
|
| and i too don't understand your third bit. when the human
| element that gets involved is the umpire that is terrible for
| the game. the umpire should only be there to properly referee
| balls/strikes, safe/out as they are. not to just decide a ball
| is now a strike and a strike a ball. no thanks. sign me up for
| robot umps.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > The human element, where a reasonable person can watch a ball
| go across the plate, and it's just outside that little box the
| broadcast booth puts on, the ump calls strike three, and you as
| a fan let it go because, ya know what, "ehh he coulda hit that
| I think".
|
| I am baffled because I don't understand how that is "the human
| element" at all. I don't know if you can explain that in a
| different way? And you could still have the same situation
| happen with a machine calling it a strike, couldn't you?
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| Interesting bit about relaying the ball/strike call to the
| umpires using walkie talkie or iPhone solutions. I'd have thought
| the hard part would be making the ball/strike determination, not
| getting it to the ump in a timely fashion. I wonder if they
| considered having a couple of big lights in center field for the
| ump to get this info visually. Also, are there any deaf umps?
| Will MLB need the ability to make accommodations if so?
| NoNotTheDuo wrote:
| > I wonder if they considered having a couple of big lights in
| center field for the ump to get this info visually.
|
| Another thing to consider is that the ump also has other
| responsibilities than just ball/strike. Keeping it audio only
| allows the ump to focus on check swings, catcher interference,
| and anything else that requires his eyesight.
|
| > Also, are there any deaf umps? Will MLB need the ability to
| make accommodations if so?
|
| Since they developed an iOS app, they could feasibly develop a
| watchOS app as well, and relay the call via vibrations on the
| wrist
| chrishas35 wrote:
| > I wonder if they considered having a couple of big lights in
| center field for the ump to get this info visually.
|
| I think having the automated call kept semi-private is part of
| the design. Umps aren't big fans of getting shown up. Maybe in
| future iterations, but the only way this is getting adopted up
| front is if the ump still has some "control."
| kart23 wrote:
| Part of me is sad about this. Of course there are horrible calls
| that sometimes result in runs being scored, but the game loses a
| lot with robo-umps as well. The dynamic of the pitcher and ump
| would go away, the pitcher learns what the ump likes and doesn't
| like, and has to pitch for them. The inconsistency can be
| annoying, but its part of the game to me, you really never 100%
| know whether a pitch will be a ball or strike.
|
| Also catchers framing pitches would go away entirely, something I
| really enjoy watching, heres a video on that.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdkeYXHh6Y
| GavinMcG wrote:
| I agree. The idea that there _is_ always a right answer has
| been a fiction for the entire history of the game. Take away
| the box on the screen and there are still some obviously bad
| calls, but there are many more calls that no one but the
| batter, catcher, and umpire could credibly debate about.
|
| There are measurable differences in the skill with which a
| catcher catches the ball. [0] And frankly, without the box
| there, many people wouldn't have batted an eye at this pitch
| [1] (watch the video). No one in the game did!
|
| It's sad to me that many people care more about the box than
| about that human experience of the game. One of the great
| things about sports is that it _isn 't_ fair--it teaches us
| about life in that and other ways. And particularly in
| baseball, with 162 games and _24,000_ pitches in a season [2],
| variations tend to come out in the wash, even as individual
| games and pitches feel really meaningful.
|
| [0]
| https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/catcher_framing?year=2019&tea...
|
| [1] https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-worst-called-ball-on-
| record/
|
| [2] https://www.baseball-
| reference.com/leagues/MLB/2019-pitches-...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > The idea that there is always a right answer has been a
| fiction for the entire history of the game.
|
| The rule is right there. If the rule is a lie, it should not
| be there.
|
| > And frankly, without the box there, many people wouldn't
| have batted an eye at this pitch
|
| It's moving fast and involves tracking something in 3d space
| from a far-away camera. You could trick me super easily, but
| I'm not sure what that proves.
|
| > One of the great things about sports is that it isn't fair
|
| Yikes.
|
| I'm really unconvinced that if things were more fair, you'd
| be arguing they should become less fair.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| That's because you imagine fairness can be adjusted on its
| own. I wouldn't say I want the game to be less fair _as a
| primary value_. But imagine I say I want the game to be
| more X, Y, or Z, and you respond that those changes would
| make it less fair. It 's not hard to imagine accepting that
| tradeoff for some things that make the game better.
|
| Before the Rockies existed, adding a team at high altitude
| where the ball carries farther could have been seen as less
| fair, because batters for that team would have an easier
| time breaking home run records. But so what? Camden Yards
| is one of the best stadiums in baseball. It's only 318 feet
| down the right field line. But so what?
|
| The rule isn't a lie. It's just enforced by humans. Should
| speed limits not exist, just because you can often exceed
| the limit and not get a ticket? I sure don't want to live
| in a world where every street has automatic enforcement.
| thatcat wrote:
| Speed limits are a bad rule that is used bc it is easier
| to measure. Following distance is a better metric bc it
| is more closely aligned with the goal of safety, but
| harder to determine by a human.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Agreed. Baseball is interesting in part because of all its
| nonsense.
|
| Robo umpires? Please. Your league has two sets of rules, every
| field is differently shaped, and one even had a ramp in the
| outfield.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| I think one thing that's important about this tech in the wider
| context of improving the entertainment value of baseball is
| that this gives the league a knob to tweak to balance pitching
| and hitting.
|
| Lots of words have been written already this season about the
| historically low batting average across baseball, fueled at
| least in part by balls with less bounce and thus more
| aggressive pitchers who aren't afraid of getting dinged.
|
| If MLB wanted to tweak a knob to get a bit more offense, they
| could shrink the strike zone a little - maybe take away half an
| inch at the top of the strike zone. With human umpires, there's
| no way that could be implemented consistently. But with this
| solution, it'd be consistent and could potentially even be done
| with no announcement and no rule change. If it's subtle,
| batters and pitchers might not even notice that they're being
| experimented on.
| treeman79 wrote:
| First time a hidden "experiment is noticed" trust goes out
| the window. Ever close call will be blamed on computers.
|
| Announcing ahead of time that strike zone is + - 5% would at
| least set expectations.
|
| Now it would also undo months of muscle memory training.
| wnevets wrote:
| If it means we don't have to deal with calls like this [1],
| it's worth it.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YQtVmpX-OM
| kart23 wrote:
| As a padres fan I was dying of laughter when this sequence
| happened.
|
| https://twitter.com/UmpireAuditor/status/1388405200512159747
| ilaksh wrote:
| Some university did a study and found that on average,
| umpires miss more than 1 out of 10 pitch calls.
| deelowe wrote:
| The issue is the union for the umps protecting bad umps. If mlb
| had a way to remove terrible umps and reward good ones, things
| would be much better.
| treeman79 wrote:
| I recall umps were all fat. Then one fell over dead at a
| game. Few years later they were all super fit.
|
| Was highly impressed at how industry got its act together.
|
| Found it. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-
| xpm-1996-04-07-9...
| culturestate wrote:
| _> Few years later they were all super fit._
|
| Not anymore. These days there are a few that make you
| wonder about the strength of the elastic on their
| protective gear.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| i disagree entirely. this bullshit nostalgia of the refs and
| players getting tit for tat ruins the game. if you're fair all
| the time it's always better
| paulcole wrote:
| The whole game is made up. Nobody ever said it had to be fair
| all the time. Sports are more interesting when there's
| controversy and what-ifs to debate.
|
| What if that Jeffrey Maier kid hadn't grabbed the home run...
| What if Ron Gant wasn't really out...
| LanceH wrote:
| Go watch WWE. Let sport be fair.
| dap wrote:
| Are you a baseball fan, out of curiosity?
|
| MLB parks are all different dimensions and even shapes.
| Grounds crews maintain the local fields differently from
| each other, sometimes to the advantage of the home team.
| Colorado plays half their games at an altitude that
| meaningfully favors offense. Other teams play half their
| games in climates that meaningfully favor defense. Some
| teams go 20 days without a day off. Some divisions tend
| to be more competitive than others. There are injuries --
| sometimes many of them to one team.
|
| To all those, add: some umpires make more mistakes than
| others, and some pitchers and catchers are better at
| adapting.
|
| All of these things aren't fair. That's okay. That's
| life, and that's baseball.
|
| Anyway, this isn't really about overall fairness. Serious
| accusations of umpires favoring one team or another are
| very rare. It's about whether to obsess about every
| single pitch being called by some mechanical (and so
| supposedly objective) standard. To me, that misses the
| whole point. You get 27 hitters per game (unless you win
| early) and play 162 games per year. If your success comes
| down to even a handful of bad calls, you were only going
| to win by chance anyway.
| [deleted]
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Why do you need unfair umpires to have what ifs??
| lc9er wrote:
| Me too. But counter argument: Angel Hernandez and Joe West.
| maxioatic wrote:
| Angel Hernandez.. smh.
|
| It's wild he still umps MLB games.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| IMO the issue isn't solving a problem with the game, it's
| implementation of systems that enable sports betting.
|
| At least I hope so. The folks running baseball now like to
| twiddle with stuff.
| ipaddr wrote:
| I look forward to the same strike zone every game. As a fan
| seeing calls outside being called strikes and seeing strikes
| being called balls based on who is the ump tonight is something
| I could do away with. The framing of the ball to make it appear
| as a strike is a fraud.
| dap wrote:
| People said the same about the curveball.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-16 23:03 UTC)