Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
It isn't what I consider a strike. It is what the rulebook considers a strike. You know that blacks weren't allowed in the game at one time. It had always been that way. They changed the baseball at one time. They added helmets. They added MORE umpires. They changed the rules on a home run (ground rule doubles used to be home runs). They changed the rules on the height of the mound. Baseball has changed a whole lot and 99% of it has been for the better of the game.
The rules of the strikezone are an exact measurement. It shouldn't fluctuate based on how someone catches the ball (outside of the strikezone BTW). It should only fluctuate based on the height of the batters knees and the batters upper strikezone point. Not because someone is a rookie. Not because someone said something to the ump. Not because someone looked at the ump funny. Not because someone is a veteran pitcher.
And all that is baseball. Including umpires and their strike zone.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caveman Techie
Actually what was done was someone taking an argument to an illogical extreme to try to ridicule the oppositions opinion and therefore make their own argument seem like the only reasonable position. It is a poor debate tactic and usually used when real points against a position can not be made.
I can respect someones opinion that they don't want an automated ball/strike. I can respect their reasons behind not wanting it, but I can't respect an illogical argument.
Not true at all. I used an argument that you consider illogical and then expanded on my argument. You, apparently, had stopped reading by then. There was also some humor intended, which some on this board have a hard time figuring out.
Bum
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus
Specifically, QuesTech is the one that made that claim though it should be noted I know someone that attended the Sloan Conference this year, and Sportvision claimed accuracy for Pitch F/X at 99% accurate "within an inch." But using that standard, one could conclude that it's probably not much better than the QuesTech results as far as identifying the zone. The only difference is that the error seems to be less.
Yeah that is what I thought. The QuesTech system is obsolete and hasn't been the standard for several years now. We should only be talking about the PITCHf/x system now. I understand it is not yet perfect but it is pretty darn good.
The accuracy of these pitch tracking systems has been growing by leaps and bounds year after year. Now we are to the point where it is extremely accurate and it will only get more and more precise as time goes by.
Perhaps the best aspect of the new technology is that it works the same for all teams and all players during a game. The technology can't be manipulated by the whims of umpires or the antics of players and managers. The strike zone is the same for rookies as veterans, the same for sunny weather and rainy weather, the same in the 1st inning as the 9th, and the same for close games as blowouts.
It also frees up the home plate umpire so he can concentrate on other things, like determining whether or not the batter swung or held back on a check swing or whether he was hit by a pitch or whether the pitcher balked.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bumstead
The above is only your perception of what happens or why strikes that YOU don't think are strikes are called such. Everybody in the stands and at home having a beer or 12 on their couch thinks they are an umpire. It's comical really. At this point you have a system that is 97% accurate when umpires at times are 98% accurate based on something that a 97% accurate systems says...Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.
And don't give me that in 80 games Jose Molina saved 50 runs by moving his mitt into the strikezone. That's horsesh!t. You have no idea if that is a strike the umpire called a strike for both teams the entire game or not. There is no way for anybody to pick out one pitch and say "yeah, Molina got that only because he snapped his glove into the strikezone." That's pure conjecture from the guy who created his "analysis" and from you, the guy getting pulled around by his tongue...why do you get fooled by every new stat that comes out? There is absolutely no way for this guy to know what he is saying is true or not. Pure conjecture and you are eating it up. Why?
Bum
Actually there is a way. You just don't want to believe it.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hebroncougar
And all that is baseball. Including umpires and their strike zone.
So you would rather people who aren't players or managers deciding the outcomes of events on the field based on incorrect calling of the rules in the rulebook because "it is baseball"?
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
So you would rather people who aren't players or managers deciding the outcomes of events on the field based on incorrect calling of the rules in the rulebook because "it is baseball"?
Players and managers do stuff ON THE FIELD INCORRECTLY all the time. Don't act like they're above all of this. You're pretending like umpires decide games on a consistent basis, which they don't. We don't have computer generated perfect players playing (though Barry Bonds tried, through chemical enhancement), so why should umpires have to be perfect down to the tenths of an inch? What would Earl Weaver have done, thrown his hat at a computer monitor? Would Lou have picked up a laptop and tossed it, instead of a base? What happens when the software crashes in the middle of a game? Or a batter crouches, and the computer adjusts, or doesn't adjust the strike zone? What's next? Cameras on bases, and we all wait for the red or green light for the safe or out call?
Nah............I like things the way they are. The occasional instant replay on calls is ok with me, but let's not leave the game in the hands of computers. No thanks. If I want that, I'll fire up some OOTP. It's a whole lot less interesting than the real thing.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hebroncougar
Players and managers do stuff ON THE FIELD INCORRECTLY all the time.
Players and managers break the rules of the game every inning and there is something in place right now that can eliminate them from breaking those rules?
Frankly, I could care less what some crazy manager would have thrown over a blown call. If you want to be entertained by someone losing their cool, find something else. I watch baseball for other reasons.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtomicDumpling
Yeah that is what I thought. The QuesTech system is obsolete and hasn't been the standard for several years now. We should only be talking about the PITCHf/x system now. I understand it is not yet perfect but it is pretty darn good.
The accuracy of these pitch tracking systems has been growing by leaps and bounds year after year. Now we are to the point where it is extremely accurate and it will only get more and more precise as time goes by.
Perhaps the best aspect of the new technology is that it works the same for all teams and all players during a game. The technology can't be manipulated by the whims of umpires or the antics of players and managers. The strike zone is the same for rookies as veterans, the same for sunny weather and rainy weather, the same in the 1st inning as the 9th, and the same for close games as blowouts.
It also frees up the home plate umpire so he can concentrate on other things, like determining whether or not the batter swung or held back on a check swing or whether he was hit by a pitch or whether the pitcher balked.
Being 97% accurate within the zone to 99% accurate "within an inch" of the zone doesn't seem to be improving by "leaps and bounds" to me.
That seems like a miniscule improvement in 5 years.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
So you would rather people who aren't players or managers deciding the outcomes of events on the field based on incorrect calling of the rules in the rulebook because "it is baseball"?
How many games? Is it going to be an exaggeration like the Molina value? And I do not blame you for that Molina number (I know it came from elsewhere), but I do believe it is an exaggeration to the highest degree. Sure I'd guess that some entity will state X number of games are wrongly decided by missed balls-n-strikes. To that entity I call "baloney" (family site). Nothing can substantiate games or runs b/c of this. Some will state they can and once again there is no way you can convince me it can be substantiated in terms of "1 plus 1 equals 2".
Human element. The way the game is meant to be played. Those who say this will be labeled by "the new age thinkers" as old-fashioned or out of touch. That is fine. I also hope "the new age thinkers" will understand when the old-farts call them out of touch with the human element of the game and the enjoyment that is derived by some who like the way it has been done since the game's inception. Of course some things have changed since the beginning (actually lots of things), but umpires and the things they do seem key to a lot of people who love the game.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
Players and managers break the rules of the game every inning and there is something in place right now that can eliminate them from breaking those rules?
In place is a pretty vague term.
Has it been tested in a game?
On different batters or is it just a three dimensional box that sits in the same place for every hitter?
Software is a very volatile item, hardware is prone to breaking down and malfunctioning and giving out bad data.
Talking about instituting a computer based strikes/ball tool is one thing implementing one is likely a far cry form "in place" when you want to use it to replace umpires.
Sure the technology is richer than ever before, but saying "it's in place" is at best a inaccurate statement... one might say it's almost a wild pitch.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
Players and managers break the rules of the game every inning and there is something in place right now that can eliminate them from breaking those rules?
Frankly, I could care less what some crazy manager would have thrown over a blown call. If you want to be entertained by someone losing their cool, find something else. I watch baseball for other reasons.
That's not what I watch the game, but it's certainly part of the game.
Frankly, I think most people would disagree with you. And I'm glad. I think it would be a poor decision.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
In place is a pretty vague term.
Has it been tested in a game?
On different batters or is it just a three dimensional box that sits in the same place for every hitter?
Software is a very volatile item, hardware is prone to breaking down and malfunctioning and giving out bad data.
Talking about instituting a computer based strikes/ball tool is one thing implementing one is likely a far cry form "in place" when you want to use it to replace umpires.
Sure the technology is richer than ever before, but saying "it's in place" is at best a inaccurate statement... one might say it's almost a wild pitch.
The width remains the same. The height of the box changes based on the players stance before each at bat. It has been tested ever since Gameday began using it in 2005. I don't know exactly where the rest of your post is going. The system is in place aside from being able to calibrate it in game, which is a simple fix. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it's almost a wild pitch. You don't seem to have any grasp of the system or how it works, yet you already know it isn't ready.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hebroncougar
That's not what I watch the game, but it's certainly part of the game.
Frankly, I think most people would disagree with you. And I'm glad. I think it would be a poor decision.
It is still going to be a part of the game. Until baseball catches up with other sports and uses replay like football or hockey and can eliminate the ridiculousness of "human element" for non-players in the game.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
It isn't what I consider a strike. It is what the rulebook considers a strike. You know that blacks weren't allowed in the game at one time. It had always been that way. They changed the baseball at one time. They added helmets. They added MORE umpires. They changed the rules on a home run (ground rule doubles used to be home runs). They changed the rules on the height of the mound. Baseball has changed a whole lot and 99% of it has been for the better of the game.
The rules of the strikezone are an exact measurement. It shouldn't fluctuate based on how someone catches the ball (outside of the strikezone BTW). It should only fluctuate based on the height of the batters knees and the batters upper strikezone point. Not because someone is a rookie. Not because someone said something to the ump. Not because someone looked at the ump funny. Not because someone is a veteran pitcher.
If it bothers you this much, you might need to find another hobby to take some of the heat off of a sport.
Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
The width remains the same. The height of the box changes based on the players stance before each at bat. It has been tested ever since Gameday began using it in 2005. I don't know exactly where the rest of your post is going. The system is in place aside from being able to calibrate it in game, which is a simple fix. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it's almost a wild pitch. You don't seem to have any grasp of the system or how it works, yet you already know it isn't ready.
Do you work in the software industry?
If not then yes, you have no idea where the rest of my post is going
