May 8, 2014

Guess The Count #2 - With Brian Gorman

Hello again, everybody, and welcome to Guess The Count!, the umpiring game where we give you the pitches and you make the calls. Test your skills as an arbiter against those of a real Major League Baseball umpire.

Today's man behind the plate is Brian Gorman and we will be looking at the Reds/Red Sox game from Wednesday, May 7, 2014. Make your guess and then see how you matched up against our big-time ump. One explanation before we start: There are no tricks. All of the pitches were taken by the batter; he did not swing at any of them.

Ready? Let's begin! The pitcher rocks and deals ... and it's time for you to ... guess the count!



How about this one?

Last one:

Check the comments for how Gorman called the pitches. ... How did you do? Do you have what it takes to be a major league umpire? If not, better luck next time!

And that's all for today from ... Guess The Count!


allan said...

Shane Victorino against Mike Leake, 1st inning: ball, strike, ball

Brayan Pena against Jake Peavy, 2nd inning: strike, strike

Roger Bernadina against Jake Peavy, 2nd inning: ball, ball, strike

Jackie Bradley against Mike Leake, 2nd inning: strike, strike

Roger Bernadina against Chris Capuano, 7th inning: strike, strike, ball, ball

johngoldfine said...

I take your point and, hmmmm, I guess perhaps I'm maybe slowly coming around to your POV on electronic ball and strike calls.

Maurice said...

As cavalier as the old-school method seems to be, my last read (can't source, so it's kind of useless) is that cameras track the ball but for some reason can't follow it all the way in and lose it over the plate. The final track (and therefore strike/ball decision) is calculated.

Does that jive with what you know? Got something else on how electronic strike calling works? I'm happy for RTfM kind of answer, if you could point me something manual-esque.

If my description is accurate, then I'd need to know more about how electronic strike calling would affect different pitchers before I'd make the jump. Call me paranoid, but if there's math involved, then there's a way to game the implementation of it.

allan said...

cameras track the ball but for some reason can't follow it all the way in and lose it over the plate. The final track (and therefore strike/ball decision) is calculated.

No idea about that, but I have read the exact same thing about the human eye - I cannot find the link now, but I believe I posted it over the winter - and that is one problem with entrusting humans to call pitches that have a lot of late movement. It is *literally* an impossible job for any human being to do.

allan said...

Over the winter or June 2012 - whatever!!!

Here is something, though it does involvement a long quote from Bobby Valentine:

[A 1980s study found that eye muscles are too slow to track a fastball over the final several feet because it covers that distance in one-twentieth of a second.] "Now pitchers are throwing pitches that are moving in those last five feet, cutting and splitting and moving in a zone that your eye can not see what's happening. So, if you can't see it, why are we asking them to call it? They can't see it. They're humans. We're asking humans to do a feat that humans can't do."

Also, Casey Stengel was pro-robots.

Maurice said...

When you rely on a quote from Bobby V, you should just nod politely, hang up your hat and move along... ;)

If we had technology that could determine the path of the ball through the strike zone within an inch, then I'd say call balls and strikes electronically. But I'd like to see it better tested than, say, replay.

Until then, I prefer the devil I know. One old fart's opinion...