Neyer: Computers calling Balls and Strikes!

[Ltlabner]

By the way, where is the laundry list of games that have been decided by bad ball and strike calls?

Bad calls have been made that effect games but those are typically out in the field (plays at the plate, etc) where only fantesy land automation could make a decision.

But has there been an actual study done (not just people on the other side of the TV griping at bad balls and strike calls) that shows that the course of baseball history has been altered by the strike zone being poorly enforced?

My guess is that it's more of a cumulative effect that single games being won or loss. RFS's example of the Braves in the 90's for example. That is, a single game might not be decided by one strike/ball call, but certian teams get advantages, etc.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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.

I'd rather see the athletes focusing on other things.

I have a big problem if missed calls could have been avoided.

I'd rather see the athletes influence the game rather than externalities.

[GullyFoyle]

If you watch MLB Enhanced Gameday with the Pitch FX you can see that the strike zone changes depending on the batter (not every game has this feature)...

I'm not advocating that this system is ready for prime time but the way it tracks balls in flight is amazing. Much better than having people guess where the ball was over the plate (edit: not meaning umps but the guys they pay to watch the game). It tracks speed of ball leaving the pitchers hand, speed over the plate, degree it diverted from a straight line and in what direction. Once they get it calibrated better watch out...

http://www.slate.com/id/2172223/fr/flyout

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

By the way, where is the laundry list of games that have been decided by bad ball and strike calls?

I don't have a laundry list, but Game 5 of the 1997 NLCS is the only one I'd need on it.

Beyond that, I want the most accurate system, period. Seems to me if the argument is to have the electronic system to monitor how well umps call the strike zone then it's time to cut out the middle man and go with what has already been determined to be the more accurate system.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by M2

IBeyond that, I want the most accurate system, period.

Yep. I'm really not getting the arguments that missed calls are simply a part of the game. Since when? And, of course, if an electronic system wasn't an improvement, there'd be no sense implementing it. I'm all for anything that could remove or significantly interefere with an attempt at bias on the part of the umpires--whether intentional or not. This wouldn't change the way the game is played one iota--it would only ensure that the calls being made are the correct ones. Who wouldn't want that?

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

I don't have a laundry list, but Game 5 of the 1997 NLCS is the only one I'd need on it.

Beyond that, I want the most accurate system, period. Seems to me if the argument is to have the electronic system to monitor how well umps call the strike zone then it's time to cut out the middle man and go with what has already been determined to be the more accurate system.

You will need an ump at home plate to determine foul tips, close plays at the plate, etc. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the 3b/1b umps to run home for those sorts of plays.

If you only have the machine, then you are short an ump for the other home plate duties. If you have a home plate ump, but let the machine call the strikes you end up with more of an "on deck circle ump" which doesn't make much sense.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by RFS62

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.

Here's what I have to say to Clint Hurdle:

"Being quotable and funny is a great thing, but sometimes it comes at the expense of knowing how to manage a bullpen."

It's sinful that the Rockies have multiple quality bullpen arms, yet Hurdle continues to kill their wild-card chances by putting Jorge Julio into key situations.

[end thread hijacking]

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

If you only have the machine, then you are short an ump for the other home plate duties. If you have a home plate ump, but let the machine call the strikes you end up with more of an "on deck circle ump" which doesn't make much sense.

I haven't read anyone here who advocates getting rid of the home plate umpire. His role would essentially become like that of the other umpires on the field.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Yep. I'm really not getting the arguments that missed calls are simply a part of the game. Since when? And, of course, if an electronic system wasn't an improvement, there'd be no sense implementing it. I'm all for anything that could remove or significantly interefere with an attempt at bias on the part of the umpires--whether intentional or not. This wouldn't change the way the game is played one iota--it would only ensure that the calls being made are the correct ones. Who wouldn't want that?

Since the inception of the game? Last I checked, there we're quite a few MLB games going on tonight.

Speaking only for myself, I agree that reducing the number of bad calls (in all aspects of the game, not just balls and strikes) is an desirable goal.

I'm just not sold that a system that can accuraltey call balls in strikes considering the number of variables and the mechanical limitations (i.e. you can't have probes and sensors hanging down like a boom mike) is possible in the forseabable future.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

You will need an ump at home plate to determine foul tips, close plays at the plate, etc. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the 3b/1b umps to run home for those sorts of plays.

I don't think a single person here has suggested not having an ump behind the plate.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Since the inception of the game? Last I checked, there we're quite a few MLB games going on tonight.

Show me where it says that missed calls are part and parcel with the baseball contest. Simply because it's been allowed to happen doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent it from happening in the future.

I'm just not sold that a system that can accuraltey call balls in strikes considering the number of variables and the mechanical limitations (i.e. you can't have probes and sensors hanging down like a boom mike) is possible in the forseabable future.

Clearly, what's being argued here is theory. You keep coming back to this point of not believing that a computer could call a game better than a human being. Fine--I disagree, but putting that aside, the argument being put forth is *if* a computerized system could be implemented that was more accurate than an umpire, why would you not use it? Why the opposition to such a clear improvement to the game?

[Johnny Footstool]

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.

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.

See my post at the top of Page 2 of this thread.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

I don't think a single person here has suggested not having an ump behind the plate.

I missread what you wrote earlier about cutting out the middle man.

Basically have a home plate ump who's duties are limited to plays at the plate, calling foul tips, throwing out managers, and carying the offical score card in his back pocket.

I guess I'd rather have the ump make the calls and the machine back him up because it provides a fail safe. If either the machine or ump soley makes the call, it can be questioned ony any number of levels (bias, grudges, interfearence, whatever). If the ump makes the call and a manager freaks out about it, the ump can quickly refer to the electronic system and say, "see, even the machine agrees with me".

That manager/fan may still question the call, but now they are questioning two sources which tends to make them look silly. If the goal is accruacy and integrity, it seems this system would provide more of both.

It also beneifts umps with....flexable strike zones who are otherwise decent umps. The league can show him the results of the electronic scoring and use it as a teaching aid. The game benefits because an otherwise good ump will overcome a weakness.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

See my post at the top of Page 2 of this thread.

I don't think the umpire should have the discretion of whether or not to call a ball or strike after a computer has told him what the pitch was. If the system is calibrated to accurately read balls and strikes, then I don't see why the ump's judgment should play a role. Line judges in tennis don't take the computer's reading under advisement--it is what it is.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

I If either the machine or ump soley makes the call, it can be questioned ony any number of levels (bias, grudges, interfearence, whatever).

How, exactly, could a computer be accused of bias, grudges or interference?