How accurate is the strike zone graphic/grid they show on broadcasts?

[Senser81]

Is it something a guy just eyeballs then puts it on the grid, or is there an electronic component to it?

The reason I ask is two-fold:

1) If the ump keeps calling strikes on pitches that are balls, why are the announcers so hesitant to say anything? Its kind of annoying when you look at the grid and Verlander has thrown 5 pitches to a batter, none of which were really even that close to the strike zone, yet when the umpire rings up the Oakland batter all the announcers can offer is "Drew didn't like that call"??? How about saying Verlander didn't throw a single strike the entire at bat, and in fact threw 5 straight balls, yet the batter is walking back to the dugout after looking at ball 5?

2) The plate umpire for Game 1 of the Oakland-Detroit series was incredibly one-sided. I don't have a rooting interest, but Verlander was getting every strike call as long as the pitch wasn't in the dirt or above the batter's head. Oakland's pitchers didn't get nearly the same inside-outside strike zone. Was there any comments on this? I thought it was unfair, to say the least.

[MVPete]

Here's the pitchfx data for game 1.

Verlander:


Parker:

[FedEx227]

There is an electronic component but it's also ran through a graphics processor so I'm somewhat skeptical when I see it in real time like that. Now Pitch F/X as Pete posted is lifted directly from the ballpark and is pretty much 100% accurate. It also tells the story of Verlander getting at least 8 called strikes that were nowhere close to the zone.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Somebody on MLB Radio on Sirius (it may have been Aaron Boone, but i'm not positive) the other day was saying that he knows for a fact that they make the border around the strike zone graphic & around the "ball" a little thicker than they should so that more borderline pitches "touch" the zone, because obviously they want to show up the umpires as little as possible.

[Senser81]

Somebody on MLB Radio on Sirius (it may have been Aaron Boone, but i'm not positive) the other day was saying that he knows for a fact that they make the border around the strike zone graphic & around the "ball" a little thicker than they should so that more borderline pitches "touch" the zone, because obviously they want to show up the umpires as little as possible.

On some of those Verlander pitches the ball would need to be as thick as Hulk Hogan's cock for it to "touch" the zone. Just sayin.

[Villain]

Is it possible for them to get some technology similar to tennis? Or is that not possible since each batters' strike zone varies in height?

[Garrett67]

I think part of it is (and I'm only guessing here) that the umpires are never in the same position in reference to the plate and the move around from RH to LH batters. I would think it would be difficult to keep a good reference point when everything around one of the objects you're trying to focus on (the plate) is moving, and the fact that the other focal point is moving (between 78-100 mph). Those pitches fool the hitters, I can imagine they fool the umpires too.

I also wonder if (and how) the ball is represented on the Fox overlays when its over the plate or when the catcher catches it. Sometimes the ball moves quite a bit in those few feet (and the catcher frames the pitch).

Maybe they need to put a chip in every MLB baseball... think FOX and the hockey pucks (but not have the trail).


Personally I like the variation, all umpires have a different perception of the strike zone. They always have and as long as its a human there, they always will.

[FedEx227]

They have the technology, no chips needed. It's just not rendered or displayed properly on a live television broadcast. Pitch F/X which is generated throughout the game, but not available to the general public until after the game tells the entire story with pretty much exact science.

[Garrett67]

They have the technology, no chips needed. It's just not rendered or displayed properly on a live television broadcast. Pitch F/X which is generated throughout the game, but not available to the general public until after the game tells the entire story with pretty much exact science.

Right, but they don't use it in real time and I don't think they should. They need a real person, bias or not. I can see in the chart that Verlander got the most calls out of the zone
and perhaps the ump is a Tigers fan but that happens with every game. The opposite could happen on a different day, even with the same two teams, pitchers and the same ump.

[Garrett67]

Also, its hard to see but it looks like only 2 more of Verlanders pitches (that were out of the zone) were called strikes.

My eyes call it 9-7 but its hard to see.


And yes, I'm a Tigers fan :P


Also, Parker threw 96 pitches to Verlanders 121

[Senser81]

Also, its hard to see but it looks like only 2 more of Verlanders pitches (that were out of the zone) were called strikes.

My eyes call it 9-7 but its hard to see.


And yes, I'm a Tigers fan :P

Yeah, I can tell. I counted 8 Verlander pitches that weren't even close to the strike zone that were called strikes. There as another ball that was called a strike just outside the zone. Of the 6 "on the line" calls, 4 were called strikes. So thats 13 calls that went Verlander's way, 8 of which were egregious.

Parker has 3 strike calls on pitches not even close to the zone. 3 strikes that were just outside the zone. There was only 1 on the line call, and that was a strike. There is also a clear strike that Parker had called a ball. So thats 7 calls that went Parker's way, 3 of which were egregious, and 1 strike taken away that was egregious.

So basically Verlander got an additional 8 strikes while Parker only benefitted from 2. I think you can also tell that Verlander noticed he was getting the calls, because he had several more "on the line" pitches, whereas Parker had to basically throw down the middle to get a strike call.

[Garrett67]

I agree, Verlander got the better end of the deal but you could play this game with any 2 pitchers and an ump.

They still owe us for the Jim Joyce call.

[NAHSTE]

Obligatory

[Garrett67]

That is a good example, and I'm referring to the position of the ump more so than the ball being way outside. Even in your signature, he is nearly behind the batter

[Senser81]

I agree, Verlander got the better end of the deal but you could play this game with any 2 pitchers and an ump.

I guess thats terrible, then. And if its pretty much a given that the home plate ump is going to be so biased towards the alleged "better pitcher", then why are the announcers so hesitant to say anything? Its kind of an important part of a game when the final is something like 2-1.