MLB considering instant replay for everything (except balls & strikes)

[George Anderson]

Strikes and Balls are still the most important calls made in the game. I won't be happy until they're automated.

I really dont think you will see that in our lifetime. The proven technology simply isnt there yet.

I have no problem with replay as long as it is not abused. If the games are held up numerous times to review a play then that will not work. If it can be more of an instant thing or only one review is allowed per game then im fine with it.

I think if we learn anything it is that the MLB umpires are awfully darn good.

[AtomicDumpling]

I really dont think you will see that in our lifetime. The proven technology simply isnt there yet.

I have no problem with replay as long as it is not abused. If the games are held up numerous times to review a play then that will not work. If it can be more of an instant thing or only one review is allowed per game then im fine with it.

I think if we learn anything it is that the MLB umpires are awfully darn good.

The technology is already here and works great. It is just a matter of time before it is implemented. Likely within the next 5 years or less. You seriously don't think they could implement ball/strike calls in our lifetimes? Industries do things that are 100x more technically advanced than that every day. An industry as huge as MLB with billions of dollars at stake could very easily implement automated ball/strike calls in a very short amount of time.

If anything, the new technology has proven that umpires make a LOT of mistakes. Like more than 10 in an average game, but we already knew that.

Just get the calls right MLB!

[powersackers]

Even with replay, 3 MLB umpires got this one wrong. (see Chris Young video)

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb

[George Anderson]

The technology is already here and works great. . !

No its not. We have covered this a million times and its not true.

[Wonderful Monds]

No its not. We have covered this a million times and its not true.

Oh it most certainly is true, no matter how dense you want to be about it.

Cry about it all you want, your kind won't be necessary sooner than later. Deal with it.

[Brutus]

No its not. We have covered this a million times and its not true.

Correct. There is still some (apparently) misunderstanding about how the technology actually works and its limitations.

The technology itself claims to be 99% accurate to "within an inch" of the calibrated target. That in itself sounds wonderful.

The problem, however, is that aside from missing that inch or so horizontally (on the corners), the calibration depends on a human setting the parameters at the beginning of each at-bat. If the calibration is off by an inch or two, you could wind up being off 3-4 inches total and could wind up only getting 90-95% of the calls correct, which is no different than the current success rate.

Furthermore, as I've stated several times here in the past, one of the other issues is that the calibration is only done once per plate appearance currently. This means even though the strike zone is technically set on each pitch, the calibration only adjusts one time based on the player's batting stance when first stepping into the box. This is problematic because it does not account for the player changing his stances based on the situation, nor does it account for the fact the strike zone is technically established as the batter is ready to go into his stride when the pitch is being delivered.

In theory, Pitch F/X is an upgrade. In practice, it's not yet ready to be depended on as a completely reliable alternative. Would it be more accurate than humans? Probably, but the difference would be negligible as a whole. The only clear advantage that it would hold over human umpires, as of now, is that you'd not see a lot of outliers missed. But the overall accuracy wouldn't necessarily improve much (if any).

[Brutus]

Oh it most certainly is true, no matter how dense you want to be about it.

Cry about it all you want, your kind won't be necessary sooner than later. Deal with it.

IMHO, this kind of post serves no purpose. It's unnecessarily hostile and doesn't do anything to help conversation.

[Wonderful Monds]

IMHO, this kind of post serves no purpose. It's unnecessarily hostile and doesn't do anything to help conversation.

Besides calling a spade a spade?

[Brutus]

Besides calling a spade a spade?

I don't see any redeeming value in that post. It sure doesn't do anything to encourage civil conversation.

[757690]

Correct. There is still some (apparently) misunderstanding about how the technology actually works and its limitations.

The technology itself claims to be 99% accurate to "within an inch" of the calibrated target. That in itself sounds wonderful.

The problem, however, is that aside from missing that inch or so horizontally (on the corners), the calibration depends on a human setting the parameters at the beginning of each at-bat. If the calibration is off by an inch or two, you could wind up being off 3-4 inches total and could wind up only getting 90-95% of the calls correct, which is no different than the current success rate.

Furthermore, as I've stated several times here in the past, one of the other issues is that the calibration is only done once per plate appearance currently. This means even though the strike zone is technically set on each pitch, the calibration only adjusts one time based on the player's batting stance when first stepping into the box. This is problematic because it does not account for the player changing his stances based on the situation, nor does it account for the fact the strike zone is technically established as the batter is ready to go into his stride when the pitch is being delivered.

In theory, Pitch F/X is an upgrade. In practice, it's not yet ready to be depended on as a completely reliable alternative. Would it be more accurate than humans? Probably, but the difference would be negligible as a whole. The only clear advantage that it would hold over human umpires, as of now, is that you'd not see a lot of outliers missed. But the overall accuracy wouldn't necessarily improve much (if any).

Tennis uses automated line calls and it has been nearly perfect.

The technology is there. We see it work everywhere. It just may not be PitchFx.

[Brutus]

Tennis uses automated line calls and it has been nearly perfect.

The technology is there. We see it work everywhere. It just may not be PitchFx.

Tennis only needs to monitor a straight line with a fixed width no matter who's playing or when.

Baseball's strike zone is a three-dimensional zone that is unique to each individual batter and can change from pitch to pitch and the technology must be manually calibrated by a human before each batter steps into the box.

Apples to oranges.

[Wonderful Monds]

the technology must be manually calibrated by a human before each batter steps into the box.

[757690]

Tennis only needs to monitor a straight line with a fixed width no matter who's playing or when.

Baseball's strike zone is a three-dimensional zone that is unique to each individual batter and can change from pitch to pitch and the technology must be manually calibrated by a human before each batter steps into the box.

Apples to oranges.

I agree. I doubt it works fully automated. But there definitely is the technology to combine human and automated calls.

I've suggested this before. Something that tells the homeplate ump if the pitch crosses the plate. Then all he needs to do is judge if it's the right height. That should drastically improve the accuracy of called pitches.

[George Anderson]

IMHO, this kind of post serves no purpose. It's unnecessarily hostile and doesn't do anything to help conversation.

As a fellow umpire you know we deal with chaps like this quite often.

Referring to an umpire as dense or as "your kind" are both ejectable offenses btw.

[Brutus]

I agree. I doubt it works fully automated. But there definitely is the technology to combine human and automated calls.

I've suggested this before. Something that tells the homeplate ump if the pitch crosses the plate. Then all he needs to do is judge if it's the right height. That should drastically improve the accuracy of called pitches.

I actually like that suggestion for the time being, because the corners could be called with Pitch F/X more accurately than the umpires would. It's the vertical angles that aren't necessarily any better. I'm really not opposed to going fully to Pitch F/X, but I just don't think people have fully thought about the issues that still exist with the system. The overall accuracy of the system is a bit inflated.