Neyer: Computers calling Balls and Strikes!

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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.

Great post. You have me on board. It just makes too much sense.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Does the computer change its zone if the player changes his zone during an AB??What would keep someone like Adam Dunn going to a Pete Rose type crouch when he has a 3-0 count in order to get a walk??

Not all umps called Pete Rose and Rickey Henderson "by the book." Some umps routinely called the high strike on these guys, and they probably should have. I don't blame either one of them for stretching (or crouching) the rules to their own advantage, but they were probably frustrating the purpose of the knees-to-armpits rule. They did it to psych out the pitchers (fine) and to confuse the umpires (not fine).

I imagine they'd have to do it with some sort of height matrix. The league would measure the guys at spring training. If they were 6'2", the machine would uniformly call balls/strikes the same for 6'2" guys.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by cincinnati chili

I imagine they'd have to do it with some sort of height matrix. The league would measure the guys at spring training. If they were 6'2", the machine would uniformly call balls/strikes the same for 6'2" guys.

You could measure every player accurately and use his profile when he came to bat.

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by oneupper

You could measure every player accurately and use his profile when he came to bat.

What would prevent a hitter from crouching a little deeper when he was being "measured?"

And then what if someone makes a significant change in his stance during the course of the season?

Would you also measure every player in professional baseball on the chance that they might be called up?

[camisadelgolf]

If a computer judge balls and strikes, I think there will be pitchers who throw pitches that would normally be called balls but trick the computer into calling them strikes.

[Danny Serafini]

If the ball passes through the strike zone you're not exactly tricking the computer. The problem is with those pitches being called balls in the first place.

[bucksfan2]

I think this would be a horriable idea. Part of a baseball game is adjusting to the umpire. I have no problem if a strike zone call or two is missed in a game. All I want is consistancy. Personally I enjoy the human error factor of the game. I think close judgement calls make being a fan even better. It gives you something to talk about. When you take human error out of the game IMO you make the game a little less interesting and a little worse off.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Several people have stated that the computer system 'would be better' or 'elminates the errors' yet there been nothing offered here that substantiates these claims.

Which specific "computer system" has been advocated to be implemented in this thread? Of course a computer system "would be better" or "eliminate the errors" ... otherwise nobody would bother to implement it.

Its not about 'get off my lawn' (which is an arrogent and condesncending pile of crap anyway) its about actually acheiving the intended benefit.

Once you get your undies out of the drastically unreasonable bunch they are in, go ahead and toss the in the wash while you are at it.

No one has provided any evidence that the existing systems wouldn't have their own issues with adjustment, callibration , accuracy, interfearence and claims of fudging.

No one has provided any evidence that any future system that is implemented would have any issues with adjustments, callibration, accuracy, interference, and claims of fudging.

Without an actuall improvment in the accuracy of calls, you are just replacing one problem for another.

Keep on tilting at those windmills.

GL

[RFS62]

You want to see a system that works, look at tennis.

It's a resounding success.

Let the umpires still make the indication of ball or strike, prompted by some kind of electronic interface. That way they get to keep their little signature calls.

But turn the decision making over to the machines. I'm beyond sick at seeing things like 10 years of the Atlanta Braves pitching staff getting the six inch outside strike because of their reputation.

Level the playing field. Make the calls accurate. The umps still get to call all the plays except balls and strikes.

And use instant replay on disputed home run calls. It's much faster than a 15 minute argument.

Clint Hurdle was on XM today and had a great quote on this subject.

I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "tradition is a great thing, but sometimes it comes at the expense of vision."

It takes vision to make this change, not dogged adherence to tradition.

[George Anderson]

I think instead of totally blowing up the way a game is called by replacing humans with computers you would be better off using the computer to gauge how well a umpire calls a game and use this gauge to better help the umpire improve his zone. I have forever wanted to see MLB umpires that dont perform sent down to the minor leagues just as the players are sent down when they dont perform. As with alot of union jobs the umpires that are protected by their very strong union dont have the incentive to improve their work. They become lazy and complacent because they have strong job security and very little if anything will happen if they dont perform their jobs adequately.

The players union will be more likely to accept umpires demoted to the minors before they would ever be for computers replacing their umpires. Lets just tweak the system and not totally blow it up.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by RFS62

It takes vision to make this change, not dogged adherence to tradition.

Voice of experience there.

[M2]

The strike zone is the strike zone. Hitters and pitchers deserve to know exactly where it is and how it will be called. Whatever system can do the best job of calling it accurately is the one I want.

Seems to me that an electronically-monitored zone is an inevitability. You'll still need an umpire as a backup in case the electronic system fails. I think RFS has it right (loved the tennis analogy). Let the umpire signal ball or strike, but have the computer system feed him the information.

[BCubb2003]

We'll probably be complaining that the Diebold programmer set up the ESPN RoboUmp metrics to favor the Yankees and Red Sox.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by M2

The strike zone is the strike zone. Hitters and pitchers deserve to know exactly where it is and how it will be called. Whatever system can do the best job of calling it accurately is the one I want.

Agreed.

Seems to me that an electronically-monitored zone is an inevitability.

Without a doubt. Might as well get there sooner rather than later.

You'll still need an umpire as a backup in case the electronic system fails. I think RFS has it right (loved the tennis analogy). Let the umpire signal ball or strike, but have the computer system feed him the information.

An excellent idea from RFS. The umpires will still have a feeling for the strikezone since they will still be seeing it and could be an adequate replacement in a pinch.

GL

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by gonelong

Once you get your undies out of the drastically unreasonable bunch they are in, go ahead and toss the in the wash while you are at it.

Originally Posted by gonelong

No one has provided any evidence that any future system that is implemented would have any issues with adjustments, callibration, accuracy, interference, and claims of fudging.

Your lack of understanding of mechanical/electronic devices is apparent. ALL machines require adjustements and callabration to maintain their accuracy especially those that measure things. Many machines, especially those with electronics are subject to interfearence and outright malfunction.

That's not to say a system could be developed that greatly reduces the chances for error or "fudgery" but it might be helpfull to understand machines before day-dreaming about what is possible.