Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
January 06, 2004
Player-Fan Internet Interactions

Edward Cossette voices an important concern today. Curt Schilling has made negative statements about Questec on the Sons of Sam Horn, and Cossette has reservations about accepting them at face value.


OK. Those are two statements that we are supposed to take as fact. But are they? I don't know. I assume so. I know Curt Schilling knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do. But where's the chance to hear the opposing view? If this statement were on the record with a reporter, the reporter would at some point pick up the phone and call Questec and MLB to verify and/or get further explanation/elucidation on these points.

Perhaps Questec and/or MLB wouldn't answer or wouldn't return the calls or whatever and our trusty reported would indicate that in the story and that lack of info would be meaningful on it's own. ("Hmm," the reader thinks, "if Questec is unwilling to publicly deny Mr. Schilling's claims, then those claims are probably true.")

See what I'm saying? In these cases the media acts as an arbiter, a middle man, between two opposing sides. And, to push this point, how is a player making statements in a vacuum about something, be it Questec or another subject, that different from a reporter saying "so and so player doesn't want to play in Boston anymore" without hearing it from the player himself. Isn't this the very thing players like get pissed off about with the media and what has, in the case of Schilling, prompted him to go direct to the fans?

Moreover, am I the only one who gets a queasy feeling over the whole off the record and this can only be used by SoSH and DirtDogs? Does that mean we aren't even supposed to link to it? And if it's off the record yet exists on the mother of all public spaces, the web, can it really be off the record? (Cue sounds of Star Trek computer. "Illogical. Does not compute. Illogical.")


Schilling has gone out of his way to reveal that he is on SoSH. So a statement he makes there is a public statement. It's just as public as an exclusive interview to ABC. Once it's public, you can't stop people from talking about it. And you can't stop a blogger from asking questions about it.

The answer here is that it's up to us to discover the veracity of Schilling's statements. To that end, I have written the following letter to Questec:


Dear Sir,

I write Baseball Musings (http://www.baseballmusings.com), a web log about major league baseball. Curt Schilling made the following statement on a Boston Red Sox fan web site last night:
"Questec calls balls and strikes approximately 4 feet or so from where the umpire is standing … You know how they measure a hitters K zone? First AB they take a still photo, regardless of hitters stance, even if you square to bunt, and thats your zone for the game. "

Is that statement true?

Thanks,

David Pinto
http://www.baseballmusings.com


I'll update if and when I hear back.

Update: Read the first comment below and this new post that contradicts Schilling's statement. I still have not heard from Questec directly.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:35 AM | News Media | TrackBack (0)
Comments

David,
Here is an archived Q&A with Bsaeball Prospectus with Ivan Santucci, who is a project manager for the Questec Umpire Information System. It may help answer some the questions on the strike zone:

BP: It seems as if critics' primary contention is the technician's designation of the top and bottom of the strike zone. My understanding is that currently the technician sees a photo of the first pitch to each batter and creates one boundary at the bottom of the knee and one at the top of the belt, which the computer then moves 2.5 balls up. Please fill in the blanks and let me know if I'm wrong on any details.

Santucci: If you were to see the operator in action, you would realize what a non-issue this is. The operator sets the top line at the top of the belt buckle. This eliminates any eye-balling he/she would have to do in order to set the top of the strike zone. The system then lifts the top of the zone to set it at 2.5 ball widths.

The bottom of the strike zone is set by the height of the hollow of the back knee (closest to the catcher).

There is a lot more than this - Hope it helps.

Posted by: Brad at January 6, 2004 10:34 AM

Schilling is opposed to Questec because it reduces the element of uncertainty for pitchers. If a hitter knows what a strike is *and* that it will be called as such, he is on an even footing with the pitcher. If the pitcher can plant seeds of doubt about the dimensions of a strike zone, it ups the odds that the hitter will swing at borderline pitches - now, not only must a hitter know the strike zone, but he must know the borderline-strike zone, and the more those vary, the larger the plate becomes, and the larger the pitcher's target becomes. Logically speaking, every pitcher should oppose Questec; every hitter should support it.

Posted by: Chris at January 6, 2004 10:45 AM

And, I ask, why doth Mr. Schilling protest so much? I can understand Greg Maddux or (Mets fans!) Tom Glavine feeling threatened by Questec but Mr. Power Pitcher who supposedly slew the Yankees? Red Sox fans ought to be a little concerned, eh?

Posted by: Johnny C at January 7, 2004 05:48 PM