I do agree that CB is really bad. Which hurts to say because you always hear about what a nice guy he is.

That being said, even pitchrax had it barely missing the line- by like 1/10 of a baseball. So it's pretty close. And another thing I hate to admit, but it's reality with today's lousy umpires- it was framed perfectly. The ball hit the center of the chest protector. (I never ever paid attention to the catcher- just watch the ball as it passes the plate. But stats do concede that catchers who frame better get more balls called strikes, because apparently the majority of ML umps are idiots).

Bucky wrote:I do agree that CB is really bad. Which hurts to say because you always hear about what a nice guy he is.

That being said, even pitchrax had it barely missing the line- by like 1/10 of a baseball. So it's pretty close. And another thing I hate to admit, but it's reality with today's lousy umpires- it was framed perfectly. The ball hit the center of the chest protector. (I never ever paid attention to the catcher- just watch the ball as it passes the plate. But stats do concede that catchers who frame better get more balls called strikes, because apparently the majority of ML umps are idiots).

I'm glad to hear you say that, sort of. I never quite understood how pitch framing could work, since by the time it reaches the catcher the call should have been made (in the umpire's mind at least) and what happens after it crosses the plate not only shouldn't have any effect, but can't. It would be like calling the winners of a race ten feet past the finishing line. So, I mean, I'm glad my understanding of it is correct, but mystified by how many of supposedly the best umpires in the game are still musing on the result long after the event itself has passed.

I'm also irked once again by how little Comcast uses their pitch track tool on broadcasts. I don't need it on every pitch, but they don't even employ it on many close, important calls.

Oh, and I also agree that while Bucknor generally sucks, this is an odd one to call him out on. Yeah, it's a ball, but barely.

That wasn't that bad of a strike call. The call on Valentin yesterday was much worse.

wiivile wrote:That wasn't that bad of a strike call. The call on Valentin yesterday was much worse.

The one on Valentin was a strike according to the pitch track, but it was also the only time a pitch in that location was called a strike the entire game.

Slowhand wrote:

wiivile wrote:That wasn't that bad of a strike call. The call on Valentin yesterday was much worse.

The one on Valentin was a strike according to the pitch track, but it was also the only time a pitch in that location was called a strike the entire game.

Not according to this:



But the K on Valentin was compounded by the fact that it was (1) very late call (2) higher than the catcher framed it (3) not called a strike all day.

I was going by whatever they use on the broadcast which showed it as a strike, which then begs the question as to how much these different pitch trackers differ by and which is the most accurate. It certainly did not look to be a strike anyway, so I’m fine classifying it as a bad call.

Mlb at bat app tracker had Valentin’s strike at the very top of the zone, it’s probably a strike but it’s rarely called

Technology probably isn't there yet but need to get rid of umps and just have a robot behind the plate. Or the ump sits back there and handles the balls and strikes based off of an earpiece or something. Might help speed up things.

heyeaglefn wrote:Technology probably isn't there yet but need to get rid of umps and just have a robot behind the plate. Or the ump sits back there and handles the balls and strikes based off of an earpiece or something. Might help speed up things.

Earpiece for the umps to "advise" on strike zone. Would certainly stop the bitching, at least a bit. Gotta do that soon. And using it to "advise" the umps making their calls should placate the union.

Slowhand wrote:I was going by whatever they use on the broadcast which showed it as a strike, which then begs the question as to how much these different pitch trackers differ by and which is the most accurate. It certainly did not look to be a strike anyway, so I’m fine classifying it as a bad call.

I'm confused. The image posted by wiiville DOES show it as a strike, right? As long as it catches any part of the zone, it's technically a strike.

the left/right of the zone is pretty well defined; the width of the plate plus 2 baseball's of diameter. the height fluctuates from batter to batter(knees to whatever). and even that can change during the season for the batter(if he adjusts his batting stance at all). i've never had full faith in the 'normalized' top/bottom of the pitch trax. its good on the aggregate for a full seasons of samples(or even game). but on the individual level for an at bat its not that good.

swishnicholson wrote:

Slowhand wrote:I was going by whatever they use on the broadcast which showed it as a strike, which then begs the question as to how much these different pitch trackers differ by and which is the most accurate. It certainly did not look to be a strike anyway, so I’m fine classifying it as a bad call.

I'm confused. The image posted by wiiville DOES show it as a strike, right? As long as it catches any part of the zone, it's technically a strike.

Yeah, I didn’t look closely at the image wiiville posted on my phone, but I agree that it probably SHOULD be a strike if it hits any part of the line. Though Jamie brings up a good point.

weird call to bring up as the reason CB Bucknor sucks

probably just because Harper is the one bitching

wiivile wrote:One thing I don't understand about buying tickets for MLB is why refunds can't be given on baseball games that are rained out. I may be going to Boston and would like to see a Red Sox game, but only have one night to see a game. If they get rained out, why won't they refund the ticket? I'm not coming back to Boston for a baseball game. Even if it was rescheduled for the next day, it might clash with my plans, or I might not be there anymore.

Any other "tickets" industry, airline, concerts, etc, if the ticketed "event" is changed, postponed, or cancelled due to weather (or really anything), they generally give (and are usually required to give) you a refund. Why doesn't MLB do this? It seems remarkably hostile to the consumer, and if you're more hostile to the consumer than the airline industry- that's really saying something.

Great point. I would even just settle for a voucher for a future game (including the rescheduled game, of course), which doesn't help in your example but does help hometown fans quite a bit.

They may already provide this, not sure.

That is what the phillies do I believe, you can use it at the rescheduled game or redeem it for a future game within the next calendar year.

PSUsarge wrote:

wiivile wrote:One thing I don't understand about buying tickets for MLB is why refunds can't be given on baseball games that are rained out. I may be going to Boston and would like to see a Red Sox game, but only have one night to see a game. If they get rained out, why won't they refund the ticket? I'm not coming back to Boston for a baseball game. Even if it was rescheduled for the next day, it might clash with my plans, or I might not be there anymore.

Any other "tickets" industry, airline, concerts, etc, if the ticketed "event" is changed, postponed, or cancelled due to weather (or really anything), they generally give (and are usually required to give) you a refund. Why doesn't MLB do this? It seems remarkably hostile to the consumer, and if you're more hostile to the consumer than the airline industry- that's really saying something.

Great point. I would even just settle for a voucher for a future game (including the rescheduled game, of course), which doesn't help in your example but does help hometown fans quite a bit.

They may already provide this, not sure.

Yeah you’re screwed if you are stuck with tickets for a game on the road, Happened to me in Denver in 2010 when the Phillies had a game snowed out and rescheduled in September, I had to sell them on StubHub, think I ended up making a slight profit though

phillychuck wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:Technology probably isn't there yet but need to get rid of umps and just have a robot behind the plate. Or the ump sits back there and handles the balls and strikes based off of an earpiece or something. Might help speed up things.

Earpiece for the umps to "advise" on strike zone. Would certainly stop the bitching, at least a bit. Gotta do that soon. And using it to "advise" the umps making their calls should placate the union.

I really don't get the desire for robot umpires. Baseball or nay sport's charm is that it is a human achievement. Umpires/refs have always been a part of it. If i wanted to watch robots do things, including call a game, I'd watch video games instead.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

phillychuck wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:Technology probably isn't there yet but need to get rid of umps and just have a robot behind the plate. Or the ump sits back there and handles the balls and strikes based off of an earpiece or something. Might help speed up things.

Earpiece for the umps to "advise" on strike zone. Would certainly stop the bitching, at least a bit. Gotta do that soon. And using it to "advise" the umps making their calls should placate the union.

I really don't get the desire for robot umpires. Baseball or nay sport's charm is that it is a human achievement. Umpires/refs have always been a part of it. If i wanted to watch robots do things, including call a game, I'd watch video games instead.

I'd rather them get the call right. I guess people just like to have things to bitch about but if the Phillies got screwed on a bad call in an important game we wouldn't hear the end of it.

Other sports are trying to take the refs out of it as much as possible because the fact is they screw up a lot no matter how good they are.

Why do we have electronic scoreboards. We should remember the score in our head.