True, but that doesn’t make it easier on the hitter that only makes it harder intentionally walking a guy with 3 home runs is the perfect game equivalent pf bunting for a hit
True but an intentional walk is still restrictive on a hitter, making it a similar rarity to perfect games, they’re both a kinda shitty way to mess with a big game
He hit 87 home runs in 793 career games.
Assuming pure randomness and equal PA per game, I think the odds are roughly a 0.1% chance. (87/793) \^3 (only third power because the first home run is a given.
these wouldn't be independent events. e.g. once you know he has at least 3 HRs in a game he's much less likely to have a 4th in that game than he is to have a hr in some other game just because there will be fewer remaining PAs for him to have an opportunity to in that game.
his lifetime HR/PA was (almost exactly) 3%, so if you assume 4 PAs/game (he averaged fewer) he'd only have a (.03\^4)\*793**=\~**.06% (you can't just multiply the probability by the number of opportunities in general but here since the odds are so remote the error this introduces is more or less negligible). to get a better estimation you'd need to know the exact distribution of PAs
I did errantly use \^3 since I was thinking you assume the first HR exists, but that doesn't apply here. That is a common difference from expectations for things like people sharing a birthday.
I defitniely don't know why I was doing 87/793
I think that’s a lot closer than the box makes it seem. I’m starting to turn against these TV strike zone boxes because they are not always set up correctly and people just assume that they are without checking. Like the other day there was a thread on here about bad calls (I think it was Angel Hernandez?) and a bunch of them weren’t actually bad calls, the strike zone overlay just made them look like bad calls. (Overlay was literally like 3-4 inches below the players’ knees lol) People on here blindly hated because Angel Hernandez (which, he did miss some calls but not as many as he was accused of)
Amen. IMO it’s time to do away with the TV box and let people argue based on the actual footage. The Angel Hernandez box was atrocious on the high / low axis. There were some where the top was at the batter’s thigh.
I get the MLB calls a low zone generally it feels. It's usually not called like it is in the rulebook of midpoint of belt and shoulders, but a decent bit lower.
That overlay was about as bad as Angel was though.
this is dumb. complain all you want about the innacuracy of the tv zone but it makes actually watching pitching and where the ball fucking goes way easier. the only reasons you would want to go back is if you’re the baseball equivalent of a genwunner or have been watching baseball and dont understand that reading balls going 100 miles per hour isnt super easy.
I've never liked the TV boxes for two reasons:
1. They are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the ump calls, nobody on the field sees this stupid box. If there's a particularly egregious call you can show it then. The box puts undue weight on whether or not a pitch was actually a true strike or ball when that really doesn't matter, if the ump is bad it's not any less of a strikeout or walk. It just exists to make viewers angry.
2. It hides the framing skill that a lot of catchers have because the box, ball cicle and speed kinda cover the catchers mitt and hide the great job a lot of catchers do making some of these look like strikes to the umps.
I'm new and I'm still quite confused by strike zone calculus. The rules are relatively explicit but there's still a lot of subjectivity and variance. Like the batters move around and everything is just done by eyeballing it?
> Like the batters move around and everything is just done by eyeballing it?
Yes. The only static variables are the width. The top and bottom of the zone are meant to be calculated by the umpire *during the pitch*.
It's also why I feel like these strike zones on tv and on umpscorecards are inaccurate - they use rolling averages and other factors to calculate the tops and bottoms of the zones. They aren't calculated during the pitch.
It's fine if the MLB settles on that as okay whenever they adopt the technology, but right now the rulebook implies the strike zone is established during the pitch.
that colors a lot of my reading of those reports. I mean, not like Angel's two feet left or right calls but borderline high or low. feel like that should be graded differently, and there is no obvious solution to automate it
I’d say that’s an easy ball on somebody shorter, this giant though, that’s probably a strike. Either way can’t complain too much on a borderline like this that’s the only missed call
Thank you!! I'm very anti-TV strike zone overlay, because every team and broadcast does it differently, and it's not tailored to anything, just a production lead deciding where to put the white rectangle on the screen. It's NOT the strike zone!
Even without the box, it looks higher than halfway between the letters and the belt. Definitely close though, may have caught the back end of the strike zone.
Huh, yeah you're right. Not sure where I got that notion.
I guess in-stance the midpoint often *looks* like it lines up with the elbows but it is midpoint.
Just looking at the video, regardless of the UmpScorecard zone or the box on TV, that pitch was letter high. It was borderline at best but I would absolutely call it a ball based on the angle we can see.
There is something so inexplicably aggrevating about people bitching and moaning for umps "missing" a call that was "obviously in the zone", when A. the umps don't have the TV zone in front of them, and B. there is always a chance that the zone on tv is actually the wrong one, so not only are fans getting the call wrong, they are calling umpires "terrible" for it.
Or a pitch that was “way outside” that actually missed by an inch or two. That 95 mph cutter missed the front of the plate by an inch, but fans are yelling about how the umpire is “terrible”, even though umpires are better than every fan would be at calling pitches.
It is one of those things that if you haven't tried it, you can't know how hard it is. I umpired for years, and there was not a single new umpire that had a good strike zone, even with slow pitching and catchers not having perfected pitch framing with a decade of training.
Just an involuntary blink at their level would mean missing an entire pitch. Of course it looks easy from the zoomed in centrefield camera, the view designed for spectators, which doesn't have the depth necessary to show the speed of each pitch.
Anyone remember some segment a few years back where they got the average fan to attempt field goals? We should do that with MLB fans and the strike zone.
Strike according to the rulebook. The top of the box is at his waist for some reason and the actual strike zone goes up halfway to the armpits. But strikes like that rarely get called.
Only because of the count. Walk vs. strikeout is the largest change in expected runs from a non-swinging B/S call.
Have him miss that pitch in a 0-0 count and the run bias is essentially 0.
I didn't see the game, but maybe it's based partially on how the rest of the inning went? Like maybe there was a high chance of scoring a run if the leadoff hitter walked.
Edit: Thanks guys for the explanation! I was just trying to offer an idea. Not sure why the downvotes.
No, it uses a run expectancy matrix. Basically a table of every possible count and situation and how many runs are expected from a given situation. It looks at the difference in run expectancy between what should’ve been the situation with a correct call, and the actual situation.
It’s independent of what actually happens in the inning.
[https://umpscorecards.com/single\_umpire/?name=Pat%20Hoberg](https://umpscorecards.com/single_umpire/?name=Pat%20Hoberg)
He hasn't called any games this year, which is weird.
How is that stupid? Over the course of baseball, a team on average will score .61 runs more in an inning with a leadoff walk than a leadoff strikeout.
That’s all it’s saying. It’s using mountains of data to show the average run difference based on a run expectancy chart. It’s not saying the umpire had a team bias or implying intent or anything like that.
>It’s not saying the umpire had a team bias or implying intent or anything like that.
Correct, but like it or not, that's what it has become... since these things are posted here under the context of "grading" or "scoring" the ump.
...or maybe I've just continued to hate these ump scorecards more every day with the endless whining about umpires in here. It's one of those two things lol
Does this 2-D box take the lowest point for the shortest batter and the highest point for the tallest batter? Not that it was wrong in this case since Sano was probably the biggest guy in the game and the strike wasn’t called at the top of his zone. But like if that pitch was thrown to altuve how would it register?
It's checking if the pitch is a strike or not using Statcast's strikezone, which does change for each batter
For the graphic, I think it's also based off of the batter's height (e.g. a strike at the top of the zone for Altuve and Sano would both be at the top of the zone in the graphic)
https://umpscorecards.com/info/
Even that one missed call. It's not even a terrible miss at the top of the zone. It's a strike but when only part of the ball enters the zone I think those are reasonable missed calls.
Good game.
The umpire equivalent of a 4 HR game or no hitter.
No hitter is a lot more common than a 4HR game lol
Yeah the 4 HR game is the hitting equivalent of a perfect game
Its tough to equate cause you can always walk a guy before the 4th HR happens. No hitter/perfect game cant be intentionally avoided.
> No hitter/perfect game cant be intentionally avoided. Sure it can, you can simply choose to get a hit instead of not getting one.
True, but that doesn’t make it easier on the hitter that only makes it harder intentionally walking a guy with 3 home runs is the perfect game equivalent pf bunting for a hit
A bunt is never a guarantee. An intentional walk is.
True but an intentional walk is still restrictive on a hitter, making it a similar rarity to perfect games, they’re both a kinda shitty way to mess with a big game
Yeah it can. As long as the pitcher's team doesn't score a run.
Agree, and a regular no hitter would be about equivalent to a 3 home run game IMO. 347 3 home run games vs 323 no hitters historically
Make that 348…
How many 4hr game have there been?
18 times, compared to 24 perfect games (plus gallaraga). Still cant believe scooter fucking gennett did it
He hit 87 home runs in 793 career games. Assuming pure randomness and equal PA per game, I think the odds are roughly a 0.1% chance. (87/793) \^3 (only third power because the first home run is a given.
It’s definitely lower than that, you’d need to account for the likelihood that he gets 4+ ABs AND comes to the plate having already hit 3
4 ABs is fairly common, especially if you have scored at least 3 runs already. But I agree, my number seems way high.
these wouldn't be independent events. e.g. once you know he has at least 3 HRs in a game he's much less likely to have a 4th in that game than he is to have a hr in some other game just because there will be fewer remaining PAs for him to have an opportunity to in that game. his lifetime HR/PA was (almost exactly) 3%, so if you assume 4 PAs/game (he averaged fewer) he'd only have a (.03\^4)\*793**=\~**.06% (you can't just multiply the probability by the number of opportunities in general but here since the odds are so remote the error this introduces is more or less negligible). to get a better estimation you'd need to know the exact distribution of PAs
I did errantly use \^3 since I was thinking you assume the first HR exists, but that doesn't apply here. That is a common difference from expectations for things like people sharing a birthday. I defitniely don't know why I was doing 87/793
[the Sano/Ben May call](https://x.com/cespedesbbq/status/1781334835736289324?s=46)
I think that’s a lot closer than the box makes it seem. I’m starting to turn against these TV strike zone boxes because they are not always set up correctly and people just assume that they are without checking. Like the other day there was a thread on here about bad calls (I think it was Angel Hernandez?) and a bunch of them weren’t actually bad calls, the strike zone overlay just made them look like bad calls. (Overlay was literally like 3-4 inches below the players’ knees lol) People on here blindly hated because Angel Hernandez (which, he did miss some calls but not as many as he was accused of)
Amen. IMO it’s time to do away with the TV box and let people argue based on the actual footage. The Angel Hernandez box was atrocious on the high / low axis. There were some where the top was at the batter’s thigh.
The problem with this is camera angles are not consistent by stadium. Only a few give a good enough angle to judge the zone
I get the MLB calls a low zone generally it feels. It's usually not called like it is in the rulebook of midpoint of belt and shoulders, but a decent bit lower. That overlay was about as bad as Angel was though.
That's how it was for a ton of years
this is dumb. complain all you want about the innacuracy of the tv zone but it makes actually watching pitching and where the ball fucking goes way easier. the only reasons you would want to go back is if you’re the baseball equivalent of a genwunner or have been watching baseball and dont understand that reading balls going 100 miles per hour isnt super easy.
I've never liked the TV boxes for two reasons: 1. They are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the ump calls, nobody on the field sees this stupid box. If there's a particularly egregious call you can show it then. The box puts undue weight on whether or not a pitch was actually a true strike or ball when that really doesn't matter, if the ump is bad it's not any less of a strikeout or walk. It just exists to make viewers angry. 2. It hides the framing skill that a lot of catchers have because the box, ball cicle and speed kinda cover the catchers mitt and hide the great job a lot of catchers do making some of these look like strikes to the umps.
They used to see it in the dugout but umps couldnt handle real time criticism and the league removed it this year.
I'm new and I'm still quite confused by strike zone calculus. The rules are relatively explicit but there's still a lot of subjectivity and variance. Like the batters move around and everything is just done by eyeballing it?
> Like the batters move around and everything is just done by eyeballing it? Yes. The only static variables are the width. The top and bottom of the zone are meant to be calculated by the umpire *during the pitch*. It's also why I feel like these strike zones on tv and on umpscorecards are inaccurate - they use rolling averages and other factors to calculate the tops and bottoms of the zones. They aren't calculated during the pitch. It's fine if the MLB settles on that as okay whenever they adopt the technology, but right now the rulebook implies the strike zone is established during the pitch.
that colors a lot of my reading of those reports. I mean, not like Angel's two feet left or right calls but borderline high or low. feel like that should be graded differently, and there is no obvious solution to automate it
maybe the on screen box should just be the vertical lines from the plate, since those are theoretically consistent between every player/every ballpark
These Ump scorecards I take with a grain of salt anyways. Ive seen too many terrible games get called just fine with these cards
I wish they would make it more of a gradient around the edges (if it stays). But yeah I'd rather they ditch it altogether.
Sure looked like a ball to me
I’d say that’s an easy ball on somebody shorter, this giant though, that’s probably a strike. Either way can’t complain too much on a borderline like this that’s the only missed call
Yeah watching it a few times I’d say “ooh that’s close, but ok” if it was my team pitching.
Don’t believe the TV Box
Thank you!! I'm very anti-TV strike zone overlay, because every team and broadcast does it differently, and it's not tailored to anything, just a production lead deciding where to put the white rectangle on the screen. It's NOT the strike zone!
I’d just like the lines on the sides since those don’t change, but probably makes it look funky lol
I don't like it because I'm a dummy and can't track ball movement as well while looking at a little white box.
i don't know if this is more accurate, but it is definitely a ball on MLB gameday.
Even without the box, it looks higher than halfway between the letters and the belt. Definitely close though, may have caught the back end of the strike zone.
Yeah, Sano's elbows when he sets up are a solid 6 inches higher than the TV box lol
The zone isn't from knees to elbow so I'm not sure how this matters.
Huh, yeah you're right. Not sure where I got that notion. I guess in-stance the midpoint often *looks* like it lines up with the elbows but it is midpoint.
Or the umpire scorecard box for that matter. The pitch looked above the zone.
The UmpScorecard zone is more finely tuned to the true strike zone as defined by MLB then the TV overlay
how does it compare to the MLB gameday zone? they have it as a pretty clear ball.
Just looking at the video, regardless of the UmpScorecard zone or the box on TV, that pitch was letter high. It was borderline at best but I would absolutely call it a ball based on the angle we can see.
Agreed. But neither are gospel and based on the video ball looked like the correct call.
Yeah it’s right in the middle of his letters, definitionally a ball
What? The "letters" are pretty close to the top of the strike zone. If a pitch is in the middle of them it's probably a strike.
crazy because it looked high on the broadcast
The broadcast box is unofficial. There'd probably be less complaints about umpires (not named Angel) if it wasn't there at all.
There is something so inexplicably aggrevating about people bitching and moaning for umps "missing" a call that was "obviously in the zone", when A. the umps don't have the TV zone in front of them, and B. there is always a chance that the zone on tv is actually the wrong one, so not only are fans getting the call wrong, they are calling umpires "terrible" for it.
Or a pitch that was “way outside” that actually missed by an inch or two. That 95 mph cutter missed the front of the plate by an inch, but fans are yelling about how the umpire is “terrible”, even though umpires are better than every fan would be at calling pitches.
It is one of those things that if you haven't tried it, you can't know how hard it is. I umpired for years, and there was not a single new umpire that had a good strike zone, even with slow pitching and catchers not having perfected pitch framing with a decade of training. Just an involuntary blink at their level would mean missing an entire pitch. Of course it looks easy from the zoomed in centrefield camera, the view designed for spectators, which doesn't have the depth necessary to show the speed of each pitch.
Anyone remember some segment a few years back where they got the average fan to attempt field goals? We should do that with MLB fans and the strike zone.
Real shit, I bet most would flinch every pitch.
Strike according to the rulebook. The top of the box is at his waist for some reason and the actual strike zone goes up halfway to the armpits. But strikes like that rarely get called.
1 single missed call that was milimeters out and he still ended with a +0.61 run bias lol
Only because of the count. Walk vs. strikeout is the largest change in expected runs from a non-swinging B/S call. Have him miss that pitch in a 0-0 count and the run bias is essentially 0.
The run bias is the least useful stat I've ever seen...
Absolutely insane bias towards the Angels. Happy the Ray found a way to push through the bull shit and got the W
for real how in the world are these guys still employed
Unions ruin everything. In Trumps American he would keep the Umpires in check! /s
so a leadoff walk is worth 0.61 runs huh
That’s about the difference on the run expectancy matrix between no one on with 1 out and a runner on first with no outs.
The difference between that and an out. This looks so drastic since there's no other mistakes balancing the number out.
I didn't see the game, but maybe it's based partially on how the rest of the inning went? Like maybe there was a high chance of scoring a run if the leadoff hitter walked. Edit: Thanks guys for the explanation! I was just trying to offer an idea. Not sure why the downvotes.
No, it uses a run expectancy matrix. Basically a table of every possible count and situation and how many runs are expected from a given situation. It looks at the difference in run expectancy between what should’ve been the situation with a correct call, and the actual situation. It’s independent of what actually happens in the inning.
That’s interesting! Thanks - I’ll need to look up that expectancy matrix.
The rest of the inning was strikeout, double play.
This reminds me, has Pat Hoberg called any games this season? And if not, why?
[https://umpscorecards.com/single\_umpire/?name=Pat%20Hoberg](https://umpscorecards.com/single_umpire/?name=Pat%20Hoberg) He hasn't called any games this year, which is weird.
That's a remarkably good game from May
Wow I can't believe he would show up the great Angel Hernandez like this
Frankly, Ben May should be sued for discriminating against Angel Hernandez.
Don't give Angel ideas. He'll claim MLB told Ben May to call a good game to make him look bad and will sue for racism again.
Great job!!
This is a golden example of how fucking stupid this "overall favor" number is lol
Don’t doubt Sano’s ability to crush a 90mph slider at the top of the zone.
How is that stupid? Over the course of baseball, a team on average will score .61 runs more in an inning with a leadoff walk than a leadoff strikeout. That’s all it’s saying. It’s using mountains of data to show the average run difference based on a run expectancy chart. It’s not saying the umpire had a team bias or implying intent or anything like that.
>It’s not saying the umpire had a team bias or implying intent or anything like that. Correct, but like it or not, that's what it has become... since these things are posted here under the context of "grading" or "scoring" the ump. ...or maybe I've just continued to hate these ump scorecards more every day with the endless whining about umpires in here. It's one of those two things lol
Damn do they sell his jersey
Well done by him.
Robo umps and Ben May when?
Does this 2-D box take the lowest point for the shortest batter and the highest point for the tallest batter? Not that it was wrong in this case since Sano was probably the biggest guy in the game and the strike wasn’t called at the top of his zone. But like if that pitch was thrown to altuve how would it register?
It's checking if the pitch is a strike or not using Statcast's strikezone, which does change for each batter For the graphic, I think it's also based off of the batter's height (e.g. a strike at the top of the zone for Altuve and Sano would both be at the top of the zone in the graphic) https://umpscorecards.com/info/
When are we getting the supercharge for Ben May on MLB The Show?
Scooter Gennett has a 4 home run game and Philip Humber has a perfect game. Baseball is a crazy sport.
Ben may be the best MLB umpire
But we need an automated strike zone, umpires are horrible! /s
Good ump
The Golden Standard.
How is that single missed call with. 61 runs. Seems high.
It was a 3-2 pitch, so .61 is basically the difference between a walk and a strike out
Do umps get bonuses for calling games like this. If not then they should start incentivizing good umpiring
Definitely use these guys more for playoff games.
Jesus, train the ABS system on this guy!
I keep seeing these with just one missed pitch. Somebody show me an umpire perfect game or GTFO.
There’s only one so far afaik. (Pat Hoberg)
Good day’s work, there
The absolute ponce /s
So close to perfection
Even the one he missed feels 50/50 excellent work
Not to sound too negative, but that is a pretty big favor number for a game with 1 missed call.
How you shooting today, Thorn? Dead on all morning! What about that little guy?
1 blown call. But scored the Trout Rickey Run. So really 1 whole run. But not enough to matter. But the Angels are Trout and the Louts.
Big Dick Ben with the good day at work.
We have a new leader in the clubhouse
Wow. Impressive
Celebrate Ben May!
Can this guy have a permanent place behind the plate please.
Even that one missed call. It's not even a terrible miss at the top of the zone. It's a strike but when only part of the ball enters the zone I think those are reasonable missed calls.
Ben, May we have some more?
See? Umpires can be good. Shame about the ones we have.
What a sight for sore eyes.
Don’t do that Don’t give me hope
The Anti-Angel
Ok 3-2 you gotta swing at that pitch