Rob Neyer has a nice sidebar describing a QuesTec evaluation requested by the umpires' union, performed by a Yale physics professor... which seems to have been stifled because the findings were not to the umps' liking!
The brainiac says "There are problems, but it's a pretty good system...
"The umpire's strike zone and the QuesTec strike zone are consistent, but in different ways. The umpires' strike zone is much wider than home plate: at least a ball width on the outside corner, and half a ball on the inside. And the umpires' strike zone is smaller by a ball and a half at the bottom, and half a ball at the top."
Full Version: objective analysis of QuesTec: "pretty good"
On a local TV show former umpire Eric Gregg was saying that current umpires have told him that QuesTec called pitches strikes even though they bounced in the dirt at home plate.
Seem to me that even if they work out whatever bugs are in its system, if it's not in every ballpark it shouldn't be used in any and it shouldn't be used in umpires' performance evaluations.
Seem to me that even if they work out whatever bugs are in its system, if it's not in every ballpark it shouldn't be used in any and it shouldn't be used in umpires' performance evaluations.
I don't know how Gregg has the chutzpah to address this issue -- it was his *atrocious* ball-strike calls in a playoff game that dramatized how variable the zone had become...
The bounced "strikes" can be (and are, one would hope) thrown out of the results, if they happen to cross the area where the machine (which has no interpretive ability, after all) would register them. See the longer article that accompanies the Neyer piece I linked above.
The bounced "strikes" can be (and are, one would hope) thrown out of the results, if they happen to cross the area where the machine (which has no interpretive ability, after all) would register them. See the longer article that accompanies the Neyer piece I linked above.
With all due respect, Bill, the Questec system is a joke. Based on a question from an Outsports member, I commented on this in the Misc. section of Ask the Ump above.
FYI, BTW, I'm not against evaluations. I was one of several umpires who helped to design an evaluation system for MLB umpires.
FYI, BTW, I'm not against evaluations. I was one of several umpires who helped to design an evaluation system for MLB umpires.
Another interesting article on QuesTec.
[ June 13, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]
QUOTE
Umpire John Hirschbeck is in a groove at Yankee Stadium, confident he's doing a good job calling balls and strikes. A total of 382 pitches are thrown in the Yankees' messy 10-9 victory over the Blue Jays. But in a game that lasts 4 hours, 8 minutes, no one from either team complains that Hirschbeck misses a pitch.
The next day, Hirschbeck receives a CD that offers a different view of his performance. According to the QuesTec Umpire Information System, he was wrong on 37 ball-strike calls. Hirschbeck is aghast, even though his number of correct rulings exceeds 90 percent, the standard mandated by Major League Baseball.
\"I don't miss 37 pitches in a month,\" says Hirschbeck, who is president of the World Umpires Association -- the umpires union. \"You're going to have faith in a system like that?\"
VP of umpiring resigns amid QuesTec controversy. The next day, Hirschbeck receives a CD that offers a different view of his performance. According to the QuesTec Umpire Information System, he was wrong on 37 ball-strike calls. Hirschbeck is aghast, even though his number of correct rulings exceeds 90 percent, the standard mandated by Major League Baseball.
\"I don't miss 37 pitches in a month,\" says Hirschbeck, who is president of the World Umpires Association -- the umpires union. \"You're going to have faith in a system like that?\"
QUOTE
Ralph Nelson, Major League Baseball's vice president of umpiring, resigned Thursday, ending a three-year tenure marred by disagreements between the league and baseball's umpires, most recently over the QuesTec Umpire Information System.
Nelson, whose job it was to coordinate all of the league's umpiring activities, only a week ago had compared baseball's umpires to the children of a dysfunctional family.
Nelson, whose job it was to coordinate all of the league's umpiring activities, only a week ago had compared baseball's umpires to the children of a dysfunctional family.
[ June 13, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]
Canmark,
Nelson was fired and did not resign, even though the "official" word was that he had resigned. His departure bears striking similarities from his February 1992 departure as asst. GM of the Giants. Then, the Giants said in a press release that he resigned for "personal reasons." People close to the team said he was fired.
Now, Sandy Alderson's head is on the block, as word has it that he may be fired soon as well.
There is a God after all, if that happens.
Nelson was fired and did not resign, even though the "official" word was that he had resigned. His departure bears striking similarities from his February 1992 departure as asst. GM of the Giants. Then, the Giants said in a press release that he resigned for "personal reasons." People close to the team said he was fired.
Now, Sandy Alderson's head is on the block, as word has it that he may be fired soon as well.
There is a God after all, if that happens.
Interesting strike-zone note from Joe Sheehan's All-Star diary :
"Alfonso Soriano has enormous talent, but if I'm an American League pitcher, I do nothing but throw fastballs at his left elbow and force the issue of him hanging in the strike zone. Some umpire will eventually make the right call.
"This is also the solution for Mo Vaughn, Craig Biggio, Jason Kendall and all the other hitters who set up in the strike zone. Umpires want to complain about Questec; maybe if they enforced the rules in the rule book it wouldn't be necessary for a machine to point out that they don't. "
"Alfonso Soriano has enormous talent, but if I'm an American League pitcher, I do nothing but throw fastballs at his left elbow and force the issue of him hanging in the strike zone. Some umpire will eventually make the right call.
"This is also the solution for Mo Vaughn, Craig Biggio, Jason Kendall and all the other hitters who set up in the strike zone. Umpires want to complain about Questec; maybe if they enforced the rules in the rule book it wouldn't be necessary for a machine to point out that they don't. "
*Yawn* 
It's always the umpire's fault. Perhaps if Mr. Sheehan did our job he'd have an idea of just what it takes and of just what the game entails.
It's always the umpire's fault. Perhaps if Mr. Sheehan did our job he'd have an idea of just what it takes and of just what the game entails.
But Ump, do you agree that hitters who crowd the plate should get "rulebook" inside strikes called on them?
I think most serious fans (and intelligent writers) appreciate the difficulty of your job, but there's quite a range in performance by different individuals, especially on ball-strike calls.
[ July 18, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
I think most serious fans (and intelligent writers) appreciate the difficulty of your job, but there's quite a range in performance by different individuals, especially on ball-strike calls.
[ July 18, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]
QUOTE
The Umpire:
*Yawn*
It's always the umpire's fault. Perhaps if Mr. Sheehan did our job he'd have an idea of just what it takes and of just what the game entails.
Well, if the issue is whether an umpire is calling the correct strike zone ... and it turns out he's not ... well, then, it is the umpire's fault.*Yawn*
It's always the umpire's fault. Perhaps if Mr. Sheehan did our job he'd have an idea of just what it takes and of just what the game entails.
The same personality trait that is absolutely essentially for someone to serve as an umpire -- decisiveness coupled with supreme self- confidence -- is the exact reason that so many umpires hate QuesTec worse than cancer. It's a machine, controlled by a human tool of baseball ownership, that exists to second-guess umpires. What decent umpire wants to be second-guessed when he already knows in his own mind that he's made the best call possible?
I understand why an umpire would hate QuesTec. I understand why Curt Schilling would rather blame QuesTec than face up to the fact that he's 40 years old. Neither is evidence that QuesTec is bad for the game.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Bill W
But Ump, do you agree that hitters who crowd the plate should get \"rulebook\" inside strikes called on them?
I believe that no matter how far inside a batter stands, if the pitch is a strike, it should be called a strike. To many of these batters, it looks like a ball because they're so stupidly crowding the plate to the point that they're practically on top of it. Then, if we call them out on strikes, they turn and bitch to all hell.But Ump, do you agree that hitters who crowd the plate should get \"rulebook\" inside strikes called on them?
QUOTE
Charlie in the Trees:
The same personality trait that is absolutely essentially for someone to serve as an umpire -- decisiveness coupled with supreme self- confidence -- is the exact reason that so many umpires hate QuesTec worse than cancer. It's a machine, controlled by a human tool of baseball ownership, that exists to second-guess umpires.
No, this isn't the reason why we don't like Questec. I would recommend you consult the June 16 issue of The Sporting News. They have an in-depth article on it, with a lot more information than I can provide here. The same personality trait that is absolutely essentially for someone to serve as an umpire -- decisiveness coupled with supreme self- confidence -- is the exact reason that so many umpires hate QuesTec worse than cancer. It's a machine, controlled by a human tool of baseball ownership, that exists to second-guess umpires.
Permit me to summarize but one or two main reasons why we are against Questec: (1) It's highly inaccurate; (2) It cannot and does not take into account the many factors that go into determining and calling a pitch. There are other reasons, but these are two of the main ones.
QUOTE
I understand why an umpire would hate QuesTec. I understand why Curt Schilling would rather blame QuesTec than face up to the fact that he's 40 years old. Neither is evidence that QuesTec is bad for the game.
[ July 18, 2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]
Wild pitch: Ex-umpire supervisor alleges MLB foul play with QuesTec system
by Dave Wedge
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
A former Major League Baseball executive shredded documents about a controversial umpire evaluation system, while the league offered hush money
to the whistleblower who witnessed the alleged incident, according to affidavits obtained by the Herald.
Ex-umpire supervisor Phil Janssen made the claims to the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that former MLB vice-president Ralph Nelson
destroyed evidence that showed the Questec pitch tracking system was being manipulated.
The alleged shredding occurred in Commissioner Bud Selig's New York City office on July 19, 2002 - the day news broke that the umpires' union was challenging the league's use of the controversial system.
``Nelson was feeding the shredder,'' Janssen wrote in an affidavit. ``I could see that the documents had the Major League Baseball logo in the upper left hand corner and that across the page were numerical breakdowns of Questec data for each umpire. ... He said to me, `Don't want to have any of these around.'''
Questec, which many players and umpires claim is ruining the integrity of the national pastime, digitally records balls and strikes and compares them to umpires' calls. The system was first installed in Fenway Park in 2001 and is now in 11 of 30 big league ballparks with plans to expand.
As one example of his claim that MLB was manipulating Questec umpire evaluations, Janssen said the documents that were shredded were the same ones presented at a June 5, 2002, meeting at which umpire Gerry Davis was chosen over Bruce Froemming for the All-Star Game in Milwaukee.
Davis got the plum assignment because higher-ups said he had a better Questec rating, but Janssen said the documents showed Froemming's was
actually higher.
``They've got physical numbers on a piece of paper. It's about control, manipulation and coercion,'' Janssen said.
Nelson, who inked the five-year deal with Questec, worked under MLB executive vice president Sandy Alderson until resigning last month for ``personal reasons.'' (Sources, however, say that he was fired.) He vehemently denied the accusations yesterday.
``The thing absolutely did not happen. It was an accusation made by a disgruntled employee that I let go,'' Nelson said.
NLRB investigator Jamie Rucker said the shredding claim was investigated but was withdrawn by the umpires' union before a finding was made. Larry S.
Gibson, attorney for the World Umpire Association, said the complaint was not handled by the union. An MLB spokesman said the league had no comment because there is a pending arbitration case over Questec.
Janssen, who was fired in February, provided the Herald with a contract from MLB offering him a $50,000 lump sum severance package that included a clause barring him from speaking out against the Commissioner's Office for 10 years. A longtime minor league ump who supervised and trained big league umpires for 11 years, Janssen declined the buyout.
``I refused it because what is happening here is wrong,'' he said. ``It's really a sad situation and it's corrupt.''
Gibson, the union's attorney, said Questec's Umpire Information System is easily manipulated, has never been proven accurate, and is being used in violation of the union's contract to rate the umpires and determine who gets prestigious All-Star and World Series games. A Baltimore arbitrator is currently hearing the case.
``If Pete Rose doesn't belong in baseball, then Questec doesn't belong in the ballpark,'' Gibson said.
Documents show that the 2002 All-Star selection meeting consisted of top baseball brass reviewing Questec data with Edward Plumacher, a disgraced
stockbroker who runs the financially disastrous company.
Plumacher has been fined for a litany of securities violations and banned by the American Stock Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In 1996, the New York Attorney General found Questec to be a ``repeat offender'' for
reporting violations and fined the company $20,000.
Once selling for as much as $1.24 per share, Questec shares now sell for 1/100th of a penny and the company has been de-listed publicly. Plumacher could not be reached for comment and messages left at the company's Deer Park, N.Y., office were not returned.
Alderson and other MLB officials have stood behind Questec. On the company's Web site, Alderson is quoted as saying, ``The real problem with the system might be that it works too well, not that it doesn't work well enough.''
But the cameras, located overhead behind the plate and on the first and third base lines, routinely miss pitches when players block the cameras, lighting changes or railings are shaken. Umpires also argue that Questec operators, most of whom have no formal baseball experience, can create their own strike zone at will and selectively eliminate pitches from the data.
``They don't know what the hell they're doing,'' said retired umpire Eddie Vargo. ``I wish the hell they would just throw the damn cameras out.''
Scores of players, including Billerica native and New York Mets pitcher Tom Glavine, have slammed the system, saying it shrinks the strike zone and
makes umpires call games differently in parks with the technology.
Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek said he sees a difference in the way umpires call games in Questec ballparks.
``They won't say Big Brother's watching but if a pitch is borderline. They'll say, `That's a pitch right there that they want called a ball
now,' " Varitek said.
by Dave Wedge
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
A former Major League Baseball executive shredded documents about a controversial umpire evaluation system, while the league offered hush money
to the whistleblower who witnessed the alleged incident, according to affidavits obtained by the Herald.
Ex-umpire supervisor Phil Janssen made the claims to the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that former MLB vice-president Ralph Nelson
destroyed evidence that showed the Questec pitch tracking system was being manipulated.
The alleged shredding occurred in Commissioner Bud Selig's New York City office on July 19, 2002 - the day news broke that the umpires' union was challenging the league's use of the controversial system.
``Nelson was feeding the shredder,'' Janssen wrote in an affidavit. ``I could see that the documents had the Major League Baseball logo in the upper left hand corner and that across the page were numerical breakdowns of Questec data for each umpire. ... He said to me, `Don't want to have any of these around.'''
Questec, which many players and umpires claim is ruining the integrity of the national pastime, digitally records balls and strikes and compares them to umpires' calls. The system was first installed in Fenway Park in 2001 and is now in 11 of 30 big league ballparks with plans to expand.
As one example of his claim that MLB was manipulating Questec umpire evaluations, Janssen said the documents that were shredded were the same ones presented at a June 5, 2002, meeting at which umpire Gerry Davis was chosen over Bruce Froemming for the All-Star Game in Milwaukee.
Davis got the plum assignment because higher-ups said he had a better Questec rating, but Janssen said the documents showed Froemming's was
actually higher.
``They've got physical numbers on a piece of paper. It's about control, manipulation and coercion,'' Janssen said.
Nelson, who inked the five-year deal with Questec, worked under MLB executive vice president Sandy Alderson until resigning last month for ``personal reasons.'' (Sources, however, say that he was fired.) He vehemently denied the accusations yesterday.
``The thing absolutely did not happen. It was an accusation made by a disgruntled employee that I let go,'' Nelson said.
NLRB investigator Jamie Rucker said the shredding claim was investigated but was withdrawn by the umpires' union before a finding was made. Larry S.
Gibson, attorney for the World Umpire Association, said the complaint was not handled by the union. An MLB spokesman said the league had no comment because there is a pending arbitration case over Questec.
Janssen, who was fired in February, provided the Herald with a contract from MLB offering him a $50,000 lump sum severance package that included a clause barring him from speaking out against the Commissioner's Office for 10 years. A longtime minor league ump who supervised and trained big league umpires for 11 years, Janssen declined the buyout.
``I refused it because what is happening here is wrong,'' he said. ``It's really a sad situation and it's corrupt.''
Gibson, the union's attorney, said Questec's Umpire Information System is easily manipulated, has never been proven accurate, and is being used in violation of the union's contract to rate the umpires and determine who gets prestigious All-Star and World Series games. A Baltimore arbitrator is currently hearing the case.
``If Pete Rose doesn't belong in baseball, then Questec doesn't belong in the ballpark,'' Gibson said.
Documents show that the 2002 All-Star selection meeting consisted of top baseball brass reviewing Questec data with Edward Plumacher, a disgraced
stockbroker who runs the financially disastrous company.
Plumacher has been fined for a litany of securities violations and banned by the American Stock Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In 1996, the New York Attorney General found Questec to be a ``repeat offender'' for
reporting violations and fined the company $20,000.
Once selling for as much as $1.24 per share, Questec shares now sell for 1/100th of a penny and the company has been de-listed publicly. Plumacher could not be reached for comment and messages left at the company's Deer Park, N.Y., office were not returned.
Alderson and other MLB officials have stood behind Questec. On the company's Web site, Alderson is quoted as saying, ``The real problem with the system might be that it works too well, not that it doesn't work well enough.''
But the cameras, located overhead behind the plate and on the first and third base lines, routinely miss pitches when players block the cameras, lighting changes or railings are shaken. Umpires also argue that Questec operators, most of whom have no formal baseball experience, can create their own strike zone at will and selectively eliminate pitches from the data.
``They don't know what the hell they're doing,'' said retired umpire Eddie Vargo. ``I wish the hell they would just throw the damn cameras out.''
Scores of players, including Billerica native and New York Mets pitcher Tom Glavine, have slammed the system, saying it shrinks the strike zone and
makes umpires call games differently in parks with the technology.
Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek said he sees a difference in the way umpires call games in Questec ballparks.
``They won't say Big Brother's watching but if a pitch is borderline. They'll say, `That's a pitch right there that they want called a ball
now,' " Varitek said.
Now, who still believes Questec is good?
The fact that the allegation comes from someone who was fired, and thus has an axe to grind, makes me wonder about whether it's true or not. Which isn't to say I'm a Questec fan.
Ump--what do you think of that "K-zone" or whatever it's called that ESPN uses on its Sunday Night Baseball telecasts? How accurate does it seem to you?
(Off-topic a bit--when ESPN had a Cubs-Braves game from Wrigley before the All-Star break, there was a power problem which caused their telecast to be interrupted. So for a while, they switched to the ESPN Deportes broadcast and the announcers switched from Spanish to English while the problem was being corrected. But the ESPN Deportes broadcast was missing the K-zone and other extra-fancy graphics that you normally see. I don't know if it was related to the power problem on the other broadcast or if they just spend less money on their Spanish-language telecast.)
Ump--what do you think of that "K-zone" or whatever it's called that ESPN uses on its Sunday Night Baseball telecasts? How accurate does it seem to you?
(Off-topic a bit--when ESPN had a Cubs-Braves game from Wrigley before the All-Star break, there was a power problem which caused their telecast to be interrupted. So for a while, they switched to the ESPN Deportes broadcast and the announcers switched from Spanish to English while the problem was being corrected. But the ESPN Deportes broadcast was missing the K-zone and other extra-fancy graphics that you normally see. I don't know if it was related to the power problem on the other broadcast or if they just spend less money on their Spanish-language telecast.)
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
The fact that the allegation comes from someone who was fired, and thus has an axe to grind, makes me wonder about whether it's true or not.
Joe, The fact that the allegation comes from someone who was fired, and thus has an axe to grind, makes me wonder about whether it's true or not.
Oftentimes this is the only way one can learn the truth--when someone \"in the know\" finally blows the whistle, so to speak. A whistleblower is often fired for threatening to come forward. Then said whistleblower is discredited by his/her former employer, and when he/she comes forward with allegations, he/she is often dismissed with the ole \"oh, he/she got fired, so it's all sour grapes now.\"
This is rather common in any line of work.
QUOTE
Ump--what do you think of that \"K-zone\" or whatever it's called that ESPN uses on its Sunday Night Baseball telecasts? How accurate does it seem to you?
I am NOT opposed to evaluations and the like. Indeed, having been instrumental in developing, along with others in the game, a training and evaluation program for MLB Umpires, I am in favor of much of this. However, this whole Questec and pitch judgment thing really frosts my ass to no end. How the hell can an umpire be accurately judged on balls and strikes by something or someone not in the proper position to tell? I'll go one better: I do not believe there is a good way to judge an umpire's ball and strike calls.
There are other ways to evaluate an umpire's plate work. Let's just admit that not EVERYthing a plate umpire does may be able to be evaluated.
Positioning, timing, appearance, and other aspects can be evaluated, but judgment cannot. It's just too subjective. The former, though, will lead to an improved latter.
[ July 24, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]
Lengthy analysis in this week's ESPN Mag, not so much of the QuesTec system, but of the sleazy politics and business practices behind the scenes, which include accusations of identity theft and financial malfeasance. The article's closing quote: "If Pete Rose doesn't belong in baseball, then QuesTec certainly does not belong in the commissioner's office evaluating umpires."
redsox, that article is a follow-up to the one I C&P'd above. It was written by a friend of mine and offers a great analysis of things.
Peter Gammons:
"Lord, please save us from the endless prattling about QuesTec. At the All-Star break, the ERA in games with QuesTec was 4.44, in games without it 4.43. What it's become is the convenient excuse for players and umpires alike..."
"Lord, please save us from the endless prattling about QuesTec. At the All-Star break, the ERA in games with QuesTec was 4.44, in games without it 4.43. What it's become is the convenient excuse for players and umpires alike..."
QUOTE
The Umpire:
Questec operators, most of whom have no formal baseball experience, can create their own strike zone at will and selectively eliminate pitches from the data.
I was shocked to read that Questec operators are paid only $50 per GAME -- WHEN they're paid at all! Gee, that's a real incentive to take your job responsibility seriously...Questec operators, most of whom have no formal baseball experience, can create their own strike zone at will and selectively eliminate pitches from the data.
QUOTE
It was written by a friend of mine
Sorry Ump, which, the article you quoted above by Dave Wedge (same guy who used to write for the Herald?), or Luke Cyphers, who authored the piece in ESPN Magazine? Cyphers also participated in Jim & Cyd's panel discussion on "The Portrayal of the Gay Athlete in the Media" at the sports conference last March in Boston.
Sorry, redsox, my error. I've read so many articles on Questec it's kinda difficult to remember to which one I was referring.
There are actually two lengthy articles about an in-depth look at Questec and the behind-the-scenes decisions to utilize it. Both articles were written by Scott Stabler, currently a PhD candidate in Arizona.
I'd post them here, but as I said, they're lengthy. Besides, Bill W. will probably think I'm whining about Questec when I'm not.
There are actually two lengthy articles about an in-depth look at Questec and the behind-the-scenes decisions to utilize it. Both articles were written by Scott Stabler, currently a PhD candidate in Arizona.
I'd post them here, but as I said, they're lengthy. Besides, Bill W. will probably think I'm whining about Questec when I'm not.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.