Re: Why we need computers calling balls and strikes
Originally Posted by M2
. I agree it was plenty bad in the past, but I'm not going to call modern umpiring good.
Well according to the computers you want to use to replace humans, it is pretty darn good.
MLB currently utilizes a program referred to as the “zone evaluation system,” which grades major league umpires on their accuracy when it comes to ball and strike calls. According to Port, umpires this season are averaging a 95 percent accuracy rating
Analysis of 2008 data by the Elias Sports Bureau showed only a small difference in how the strike zone was called depending on whether QuesTec was being used: umpires in QuesTec parks called a pitch a strike 31.5 percent of the time, compared with 31.2 percent without QuesTec, a difference of about three pitches a game.
The problem lies within the culture of the game, that no one seems to agree with the computer 100% of the time, even when raw data overwhelmingly proves that a pitch is unequivocally a strike.
Bobby Valentine is for computerized balls and strikes. Anything this guy thinks automatically makes it a bad idea. I think without question, this ends the argument in my favor.
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard