Re: Neyer: Computers calling Balls and Strikes!
I see absolutely nothing wrong with replacing a human function with something that can be more reliably done through an automated system. Bottom line is that the only reason umps/refs exist is to enforce the rules of the game. They are not the game itself. If you can improve the accuracy and consistency with which the rules are enforced, without otherwise negatively affecting the game, then by all means do it.
I'm sorry, but I do not see umpiring as a core part of the game that should not be changed, particularly for the sake of improvement. If we can prove that a computer can call balls & strikes more accurately than a person, then why wouldn't we want that? I refuse to believe that the game is better for having inconsistent strike zones and incorrect calls.
However, this doesn't mean that the umpire is gone. The umpire is still there to make the calls that a computer cannot. This includes plays at the bases, catches vs. traps, and behavioral issues. Heck, you can still have the ump announce the ball/strike calls -- just have the quest-tec send him a signal on his counter. Maintaining the flow of the game is important. There is a legitimate argument about not moving to computer when it cannot make decisions at the same speed as an ump. But bottom line, the umps exist to enforce rules. The goal should be to do so as well as possible and they should have whatever tools at their disposal allow them to do so.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 09-11-2007 at 11:54 AM.