Neyer: Computers calling Balls and Strikes!

[M2]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

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

My question is are you talking about aiding the ump there or having him relay what the system has determined? I'm for the latter and against the former. For instance, if the system says strike, but the ump wants to call it a ball, I don't want him to have the authority to make that change.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

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.

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?

Obviously it isn't written anyware. But that the game has survived and thrived for over 100 years even with the flaws and missed calls tells me that defacto it's "part and parcel". It is part of the game simply because it has been part of the game. Doesn't mean that improvements can't be made of course.

I haven't said I wouldn't use it. If we are all dancing around in the world of make believe and fantesy and such a system exists, I have said a few times that I would be ok with it. I might dissagree on how it's implemented but I agree that it would be helpfull.

How is that confusing?

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by 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.

They already have this. It's called Questec and it's been around for a few years now.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

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

Umpires are subject to bias and grudges.

Machines are subject to interfearence. Since we don't know the exact system employed I can't say exactly ABC will happen, but trust me, all machines are subject to errors.

If it's based on light/laser beams they can be blocked, defective, inaccurate. The beams can be distorted by contaminates in the air.

If it's based on a HUD and sensors in the players uniform and balls the sensors can fail and the HUD can lose it's accurcy due to vibrations, shock from foul tips or dirt/dust. Sensors in uniforms will be subject to body heat, body sweat, dirt, dust, shock from sliding/foul tips/collisions. And those sensors have to be robust enough to survive washing after every game, but small enough to not inpede the player.

Again, since the system isn't defined I can't say what can go wrong. But if you know anything about machines/electronics/computers you know that they will go wrong and can be inaccurate if not maintained well.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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".

And if the machine doesn't agree with him? There's already a rule on the books about not debating balls and strikes. It's a good one because the game would devolve into a constant strike zone debate without it.

I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure the way most things get built is to use the best, most accurate option as the primary system and the less accurate options for backup. Just have the machine make the call and then there's never any argument.

Once again, why have the machine "teach" the strike zone to the umps? If the machine does the best job of watching the strike zone, then use the machine.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Obviously it isn't written anyware. But that the game has survived and thrived for over 100 years even with the flaws and missed calls tells me that defacto it's "part and parcel". It is part of the game simply because it has been part of the game. Doesn't mean that improvements can't be made of course.

I just think that's a lousy argument for keeping *anything* around. The idea of a machine--rather than a human--making such calls is very foreign, but if it's an improvement, so what? If/when something like this goes forward, I expect to read a lot of columns from the old guard about how the game will be ruined, the beauty of "human error", and some misguided analogies to having robots pitch and bat. And there will be very little in the way of substantive argument put forth as to why this should not occur--just a play to nostalgia and the "way things should be".

I have said a few times that I would be ok with it. I might dissagree on how it's implemented but I agree that it would be helpfull.

How is that confusing?

I guess what confused me was things like

Because we have the technology, it doesn't follow that we should use it. The game has gotten along fine since the late 1800's with mk 1 eyeballs and humans behind the plate. There are a lot bigger issues jeprodizing the "integrity of the game" than ball's and strikes.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure the way most things get built is to use the best, most accurate option as the primary system and the less accurate options for backup. Just have the machine make the call and then there's never any argument.

Well, that's were we dissagree. There will still be arguments with the technology available today. Now, if down the road a fail safe system is implemented that has been tested in every way imaginable and shown to be accurate then by all means.

Even then, you are subject to mechanical breakdowns and electronic gremlins. But at least in that scenario it's one game every 10 years that's effected due to computer/mechanical freakout.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

I just think that's a lousy argument for keeping *anything* around. The idea of a machine--rather than a human--making such calls is very foreign, but if it's an improvement, so what?

I'm not saying that's "because it's always been done" it's a reason to keep umps around. But I do dissagree with the notion that the integrity of the game is called into question with the current system or that without such an improvement the game will fail. Somehow us lowly humans have stumbled along this long without the game taking on the status of ganip-ganop.

Originally Posted by registerthis

I guess what confused me was things like

Well sure, you pick out the my first quote from eight pages ago and take it out of context. Try reading my reply to Danny Saferni or others since then.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Machines are subject to interfearence. Since we don't know the exact system employed I can't say exactly ABC will happen, but trust me, all machines are subject to errors.

...

But if you know anything about machines/electronics/computers you know that they will go wrong and can be inaccurate if not maintained well.

What you're describing would likely occur so infrequently as to scarcely warrant a mention. I can't imagine baseball installing a system that hadn't been tested under every conceivable condition in order to assuage the concerns of the players, managers, umpires and fans. If a little dirt or a foul tip were enough to throw the sensor off, then it has no business being used in the first place.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Well, that's were we dissagree. There will still be arguments with the technology available today. Now, if down the road a fail safe system is implemented that has been tested in every way imaginable and shown to be accurate then by all means.

Even then, you are subject to mechanical breakdowns and electronic gremlins. But at least in that scenario it's one game every 10 years that's effected due to computer/mechanical freakout.

And when you've got a system on the fritz, then you'd have an ump behind homeplate to take over. Manual backup. It's as old as the hills.

I don't think anyone's saying the machine will never miss a call, but anyone taking the position that the machine can be used to "teach" the umps what is and isn't a strike has already made a de facto that the machine is more accurate. So, if it's more accurate, use it.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Somehow us lowly humans have stumbled along this long without the game taking on the status of ganip-ganop.

Nor have I called the integrity into question, simply because everyone has to play under these conditions (although there are more than a handful of players who can attribute at least a portion of their success to their reputation with the umpires). But enough with the human being pity party--the game is all about human achievement, this discussion relates only to ensuring that what is achieved is done under the fairest possible conditions.

Well sure, you pick out the my first quote from eight pages ago and take it out of context.

I don't believe it was taken out of context, and it wasn't your first quote. What context should it be placed in? Perhaps you've changed your mind or position on the issue since you wrote that, which is fine. But since you asked why some might find your position confusing, I posited an answer.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by registerthis

What you're describing would likely occur so infrequently as to scarcely warrant a mention. I can't imagine baseball installing a system that hadn't been tested under every conceivable condition in order to assuage the concerns of the players, managers, umpires and fans. If a little dirt or a foul tip were enough to throw the sensor off, then it has no business being used in the first place.

Well, back to my question about balls and strikes actually effecting the outcome of a game. M2 replied with one game 10 years ago. That qualifies as "occuring so infrequently as to scarely warranting a mention" to me. See, we are where we need to be already!

Kidding aside, I think the effect on the game is more cumulative than anything. Some umps have horrable strike zones that penalize both teams. Others favor the big-name player so the effect isn't a game winning run due to a bad ball being called, but it does put extra base runners on the paths, or keep them off.

Someone else mentioned it earlier but the cost of such a system will be pretty stiff. It will be an interesting hot-potato to see who ends up paying for it (although ultimatley it will be the fans, most of whom don't care about balls and strikes anyway).

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by gonelong

History? Good, put it in the musuem with the rest of it.

Yeah, that will go over well in a sport absolutely steeped in history and record-keeping.

What influence would the computers have? The whole idea of them would be to remove or at least minimize the influence umpires have, not replace it.

A computer calls a borderline strike against the home team, and the players get upset and end up losing the game "because of the machine."

In other words, the same kind of influence that the umpires can have on the game.

I guess I understand why people might not wan them taken out of the equasion ... they are grumpy old farts with "get of my lawn", "things were better back in my day", don't need "this new-fangled do-hickey" syndrome. :

GL

I for one don't want to have to listen to Bob Feller grouse about how many more strikeouts he would have had if the computer would have been calling the game. Or, conversely, to endure endless debate about how many times Adam Dunn was rung up on borderline pitches that the computer would have called balls.

But there's that history thing again. We should really put that out to pasture.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

And when you've got a system on the fritz, then you'd have an ump behind homeplate to take over. Manual backup. It's as old as the hills.

I don't think anyone's saying the machine will never miss a call, but anyone taking the position that the machine can be used to "teach" the umps what is and isn't a strike has already made a de facto that the machine is more accurate. So, if it's more accurate, use it.

And I'm saying that if you have an ump back there, why not use him and use the technology to improve what he is already doing. There's really no need to reinvent the wheel. You need him back there anyway for the other duties, so why not use the technology to improve what he does?

Besides, I'd love to see fans howling when an ump who hasn't "really" called balls and strikes in years has to jump into the game when the machine melts down. I'm sure there will be no issues then.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Well, back to my question about balls and strikes actually effecting the outcome of a game. M2 replied with one game 10 years ago. That qualifies as "occuring so infrequently as to scarely warranting a mention" to me. See, we are where we need to be already!

Boy you missed the point. Nowhere did I say that was the only case of blown ball and strikes calls over the last decade. However that game was beyond egregious and if it were the only case of balls and strikes being a problem (and it isn't), I'd still be for the change just so something that awful could never happen again.