Neyer: Computers calling Balls and Strikes!

[M2]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Or your bathoom scale.

That one's probably telling you the truth. You just don't want to hear it.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by M2

That one's probably telling you the truth. You just don't want to hear it.

Personally, I'd rather have somebody who has spent the last 30 years judging people's weight tell me how much I weigh. Definitely better than some machine.

Heck before scales, people had to guess how much things weighed. They got pretty close. If it was good enough then, why'd they event invent the stupid scale?

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by M2

That one's probably telling you the truth. You just don't want to hear it.

Hey wait a cotton-picken second. I'm tired of your.......

Oh wait.

Damn...you are right! :

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Please move on from the "it won't make it perfect so we might as well not even try to improve it" line.

I have no issue with using technology to reliably improve the accuracy of balls and strikes if such technology existed. Since I have made that clear on a number of occasions, and you continue to hound on it, I'd suggest you move on along yourself.

I do, however, take exception with the notion that has been floated early on and often in this discussion that with the advent of a mechanical/computerized system all will be wonderfull and perfect and delightfull. And that somehow all problems related to the calling of all balls and strikes would dissapear.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

I have no issue with using technology to reliably improve the accuracy of balls and strikes if such technology existed. Since I have made that clear on a number of occasions, and you continue to hound on it, I'd suggest you move on along yourself.

I do, however, take exception with the notion that has been floated early on and often in this discussion that with the advent of a mechanical/computerized system all will be wonderfull and perfect and delightfull. And that somehow all problems related to the calling of all balls and strikes would dissapear.

Would you mind directing me to the happy happy joy joy posts to which you refer? A lot of us said it would be an improvement. I don't think anybody said it would be perfect and that all problems would magically vanish.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Would you mind directing me to the happy happy joy joy posts to which you refer? A lot of us said it would be an improvement. I don't think anybody said it would be perfect and that all problems would magically vanish.

Sure...re-read the thread.

If you aren't able to descern where people were making the case that it would eliminate perception issues, a strike would be a strike, their would be no arguing calls and with the right bit of technology everything would be accurate then I don't know what to tell you.

[Roy Tucker]

Interesting BP article on Questec at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3326. The article is from 2004 so I don't know what kinds of improvements have been made.

I always worry about people thinking technology is the universal panacea to a problem. I'd be cautious about using it as a primary source of calling balls and strikes. At least till it can be proven and documented that its better.

I'd opt for training and measuring umps based on Questec. Tell them, "this is the strike zone, call it". and then measure them on how well they do call it. And put teeth in what happens if they don't.

Right now, nobody playing the game really knows or cares about Questec. Once it becomes the primary source of balls and strikes, there could very well be a whole new set of issues and gamemanship that hasn't developed yet. Not to mention the curse of unintended consequences.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

[RFS62]

Well, I tried to read the 4 pages since my last post, but it's just too much. So, if I'm repeating something already stated, I apologize.

Let me tell you, all the same arguments and concerns were voiced ad infinitum when tennis first went to their system. Pretty much a carbon copy of this debate. And since they've gone all in, the technology has evolved into something incredible, far superior to the old "totally human" system.

It's a simple fact that humans can't possible judge the movement of a hurtling sphere, spinning and curving at speeds up to 100 mph, and detect it's position in space with near 100% certainty and precision.

The idea that umpires are right as much as they are is a tremendous testimony to their incredible skill and talent.

Doesn't matter. We've got a better system, and it's only going to improve. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when the change takes place.

And just like tennis, there will be a staunch group of traditionalists who think the game will somehow be diminished by adding this technology.

They're wrong. The game will be made better. The game is what's important here, not the ego of the umpires union.

Nothing is bigger than the game. No person, no union, no group, no tradition.

The prime directive of all umpires is to get the call right. Physician, heal thyself.

[red-in-la]

Originally Posted by M2

That one's probably telling you the truth. You just don't want to hear it.

Mine just keeps telling me to come back alone next trip.

[GAC]

Who is Bobby Cox gonna argue with now?

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

Your lack of understanding of mechanical/electronic devices is apparent.

Only to you.

ALL machines require adjustements and callabration to maintain their accuracy especially those that measure things.

Some require more care than others. I said it wouldn't be an issue, not that it wouldn't be neccessary.

Many machines, especially those with electronics are subject to interfearence and outright malfunction.

Many seem to operate just fine on a daily basis. Do some R&D, testing, and implement one that will work if/when it is found.

GL

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

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.

The player can get upset all he wants. A strike is a strike no matter if a human or non-human umpire calls it.

I think the difference is that a non-human system would call that strike each and every time (or darn close to it) while a human would have a wider variance (be more likely to miss one here and there). That is the influence I was thinking of.

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.

Ah, we'll have endless debates about one thing or another.

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

I'm really not sure what we are debating with the "history" angle. Umpires have been in the game for a century. They have just been a mechanism to allow the players to play the game. Changing the mechanism that allows the players to play the game won't devalue the grand history of the game IMO.

GL

[Cyclone792]

Interesting discussion, I must say.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, though I'll be honest and say that my initial reaction was "no, I don't think I'd want this."

But then I asked myself why. And honestly, I really couldn't come up with any type of viable reason why I wouldn't want new technology aiding (or in some cases, replacing) some calls on the field. Probably the best reason I could think of was tradition, but tradition is just the product of a specific environment. And that specific environment (i.e. tradition) can be (and has been) altered in the past, sometimes for the good (wildcards), and sometimes for the bad (DH). So there stands a good chance that my initial thought isn't the best route to take.

After thinking about it for a bit, the single most important key for me with calls on the field is that they're the correct calls on any given play or pitch. It pretty much doesn't matter to me who (or what) is making the calls, just that the calls are correct. If new technology presents an option to improve what the game currently has, then it probably needs to be considered for implementation.

All that said, I do think woy may be correct though with his comment on the very first page stating that it could be 80 years for this type of change to take place. There's no other reason for it except that's just the way baseball is. If this type of change takes place anytime soon, I'd be extremely shocked.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by gonelong

I'm really not sure what we are debating with the "history" angle. Umpires have been in the game for a century. They have just been a mechanism to allow the players to play the game. Changing the mechanism that allows the players to play the game won't devalue the grand history of the game IMO.

GL

Well, the game is steeped in history, especially historical statistics (much more so than tennis). Those statisitics were influenced by human umpires. Take the human umpires out of the equation, and suddenly statistics will start to change. We'll have ushered in a new era, sure, but we'll also have burned a bridge in terms of the history of the game.

I kind of see this like comparing live music to a digitally mastered recording. Sure, you can use technology to remove all the fret buzzes and missed notes, but some of us actually like the idea that there's a human performing who can potentially make a mistake.

[RFS62]

If I thought humans could do the job better and get the calls correct more consistently than machines, I'd be all for keeping humans making the calls.

Ask yourself this... do you want Eric Gregg and Angel Hernandez or do you want the Hal2000?

I want Hal. He may lock me outside the pod doors every now and then, but I'll bet he doesn't give Glavine that call six inches outside and low just because he's Glavine.