The way we watch baseball on TV is distorted

An interesting article about the two different ways baseball is broadcast on television, and how drastic a simple 14-15 degrees in perspective can make to a single pitch. As demonstrated by an at-bat between Peter Moylan vs. Kevin Youkilis.

over 2 years ago royhobbs 14 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting. Now all ESPN has to besides change their camera angle is fire about 3/4 of their announcers and analysts. Then we’re good!

AB: Jeff Francoeur
Pitching: Any pitcher in MLB
Runners: Escobar at 3rd, Chipper at 2nd, McCann at 1st.

Pitch 1: In play, out(s)

by Scott Coleman on Jun 26, 2009 3:06 PM EDT reply actions

The pitch looked like a strike in both those shots to me

by tchoup on Jun 26, 2009 4:10 PM EDT reply actions

Hah...

Kind of about how I saw it.

Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.

by MichaelProcton on Jun 26, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know about y'all

But I thought the straight ahead camera actually showed Moylan’s pitch snag the outside corner…

by asolem on Jun 26, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

good article

but isnt this all common sense?

by Doghnut on Jun 26, 2009 4:47 PM EDT reply actions

You would think so, but if you ever watch a game at a bar, I’m sure you hear the people flipping out about borderline calls from one angle, but on instant replay from the straight-forward angle, it shows differently.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Jun 26, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Is it just me, or does it look MORE like a strike in the dead-center angle than on the off-center angle?

The man’s premise makes sense, but his example kind of sucks.

by Bronn on Jun 26, 2009 8:18 PM EDT reply actions

Exactly what I thought.

by tchoup on Jun 26, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I know

Somehow, his article doesn’t jive with the physical evidence presented. I mean, when the example pauses and the telestrator circles the ball, it’s dead center of the plate. Of course, this is before the ball actually reaches home, and all of Moylan’s pitches have a lot of lateral movement because of his arm angle, but if you pause the playback immediately after the video editor paused it (right around the 12 second mark) you can clearly see the ball catching the corner of the plate.

by Bronn on Jun 26, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I definitely think it looked like a strike from both angles. The ball path was entirely different from straight on but I’ve watched so many baseball games from the offset camera angle that I know what’s a strike and what’s not a strike from that angle. I don’t think my judgement is skewed or distorted at all. Maybe there’s a different example that better illustrates his point but I doubt it.

by ajones2522 on Jun 27, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions

You guys ever remember

When FOX took a stab at broadcasting NHL, and they did that goofy “slapshot technology” but basically had a computerized chip inside of the physical puck itself, so that when it exceeded a certain speed (slapshot velocity) it would appear on television to have this lame red light streak of speed? Obviously it, and the rest of the NHL didn’t last long, but I have to admit it was some interesting theory to make the game more epic and exciting to the fans at home who may not realize the concept.

Imagine if something similar were incorporated into MLB, where a similar chip was inserted into baseballs, and umps wore special visors that kind of beamed a universally consistent strike zone square only visible to them, that lit up when the ball, going say, faster than 55 mph passed through the plane, whether it be straight down the middle, or clipping an edge.

Sure, it sounds all crazy technological and detrimental to the integrity of the game itself, but I think it would be cool to see on an experimental stage. It could lead to more consistent strike zones and less error, perhaps.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Jun 27, 2009 12:45 AM EDT reply actions

It would be cool...

But I think we’re years (and the cries of thousands of purists) away from such a system being implemented.

Remember, kids...don't ever let facts get in the way of your argument.

by MichaelProcton on Jun 27, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I remember the hockey thing. IIRC, it was primarily so that fans not familar with watching hockey could see the puck mroe easily. Targeting “casual fans” like that was the problem, IMO. The hardcore fans and purists went crazy.

Your chip idea and dead-center cameras, to me, are a different issue. They enhance the experience for all fans, especially hardcore ones. There’s always some resistance to technology, but I think overall a more accurate idea of the strike zone would be cool.

by Yakker on Jun 29, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Great stuff

I’ve always wondered about the parallax issue. Nice to see it getting addressed, albeit slowly. MLB should require all new stadium design to allow for dead-center cameras at an uniform height.

by Yakker on Jun 29, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions