Originally Posted by Brutus
There's nothing to acknowledge. Again, they were measuring and attempting to do two different things. Sorry but it's clear to me that you did not understand the QuesTech system or how it was operated.
By the way, where is this "proof" that it's more effective and accurate? Where are these definitive, conclusive studies that show it is a more accurate system?
The only reason it's being used is because it does more things. MLB didn't go to it because it was more "accurate" at calling balls and strikes. Again, that narrative is only being used if you don't understand what it was the two systems were built for. They went to it because it could do other things beyond grading umpires.
Right, they decided to go with an expensive new system but it wasn't an upgrade. OK. Makes sense.
You are the one that doesn't seem to understand MLB's system, after all you are the one that was quoting the old system's numbers until I corrected you. Now you want to pretend to be an expert on the technology. You aren't.
Feel free to pretend the QuesTech system is the best system available and keep using old QuesTech stats to show why using technology to call balls and strikes is inadequate. You can use 2002-2007 figures while the rest of use the 2012 Pitch F/X numbers.
It is clear that the technology has improved a great deal over the last decade and every indication is that it will continue to improve. This means the league has the tools they need at their disposal to make the switch to robo-umps if they decide to make the move. It is not accurate to claim that it can't happen because the technology is not up to the task. If MLB wants it to happen a highly accurate system could be implemented very quickly.