Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

Why not give the umpire behind the plate an ear piece and give him a tennis-like beep when the ball is a strike? You still have a human in charge who can deal with the unforeseen. The umpire isn't shown up, but he will be trained to call the objective strike.

High and low might be a challenge, but inside and outside seem doable.

Because if you did that, umpires would ignore the beep and call whatever the felt like. Seriously, these umps have huge egos (no disputing that).. that's why every ump has his own zone, some ump change the zone midgame to "teach the pitcher a lesson", etc. To implement your suggestion, there would need to be a shocking device in the ear piece to give them a good zap when they contradicted the computer

Just leave the homeplate ump at the plate to make the calls on the play at the plate.. The computer can flash the ball strike count after the pitch is delivered, so everyone knows the call. And IMO, it would speed up the game a little bit.
It would get rid of those times when a batter takes a 3-1 count, waits a few seconds, hears nothing , starts walking to 1b, only to hear the delayed strike call from the ump... No delayed call from the computer.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Of course I'd love it when they have that first glitch with the computer system (you ever have a glitch at home or work?). Will it take one pitch or fifty pitches to realize that something does not seem right? Pitches that cannot be changed or re-done. That could present a problem.

We already live with many more glitches (errors) with a human calling the game.

It probably wouldn't be too expensive to have two machines monitoring the strikezone. If there's a disagreement between the machines (which I expect would be extremely rare), a human could review the call, and the errant machine could be ignored the rest of the game.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

IMO you are right. The dozen or so former pro umpires I know would be very much opposed to this. I have mentioned before that umpires see themselves as athletes and want to perform their job as an umpire as well as possible in the same manner an athlete does..

They've already broken the umpire's union once. They've proven that scab umps are just as good as the MLB ones.
I honestly don't care if umpires decide to strike or quit over this.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

They've already broken the umpire's union once. They've proven that scab umps are just as good as the MLB ones.
.

Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to back it up?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Is this your opinion or do you have factual evidence to back it up?

Baseball did just fine with the scabs. They broke the union.
As I recall, baseball was nice and let some of the striking umps back in (on MLB's terms, not the ump's terms).
There was a good article about this, about how arrogant/stupid/greedy the umpire's union was. The ump's union clearly thought the game could not survive without them. Baseball did just fine.

Do you recall any significant complaining about the quality of the scab umps?
I sure don't.

I would honestly laugh if there was another umpire's strike. I think the umps learned their lesson. They know what a sweet job they have now. They also know they can and will be replaced if they attempt another power play like that again.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Baseball did just fine with the scabs. They broke the union.
As I recall, baseball was nice and let some of the striking umps back in (on MLB's terms, not the ump's terms).
There was a good article about this, about how arrogant/stupid/greedy the umpire's union was. The ump's union clearly thought the game could not survive without them. Baseball did just fine.

Do you recall any significant complaining about the quality of the scab umps?
I sure don't.

I would honestly laugh if there was another umpire's strike. I think the umps learned their lesson. They know what a sweet job they have now. They also know they can and will be replaced if they attempt another power play like that again.

So you have no proof that replacement umpires were better than the MLB umpires other than not recalling anyone complaining about them.

I have zero love for organized labor in anyway and in fact I think the term you used "scab" to be insulting and offensive to the vast majority of individuals such as myself who choose to work without being represented by a union. Regardless I think you are stretching it badly when you try to make the claim that replacement umpires are just as good as the regular MLB umpires. IMO the current crop of umpires are pretty darn good and without question the best in the history of MLB.

[M2]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

IMO the current crop of umpires are pretty darn good and without question the best in the history of MLB.

Well, since there's no way to measure it objectively I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, my frustration level with the umps is at an all-time high.

As an aside, scab generally refers to a person who vultures someone else's job during a labor dispute, not a non-union worker.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by M2

Well, since there's no way to measure it objectively I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, my frustration level with the umps is at an all-time high.

As an aside, scab generally refers to a person who vultures someone else's job during a labor dispute, not a non-union worker.

Well i have alot of quality training in my 15 year career as an umpire so I think my opinion kinda carries a little more weight than the average fan. Take time one day to watch a game from say pre 1990. I have a very hard time watching the umpiring is so bad. Any profession can be improved but as I mentioned before this idea many have on this board where a computerized strike zone will improve things is very questionable and as I stated before will not happen in our lifetimes if ever.

On the term scab , it is more so used against anyone in an industry where organized labor is present. I sadly hear the term often and it is used as nothing more than a tool to harrass and intimidate others.

[BCubb2003]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Because if you did that, umpires would ignore the beep and call whatever the felt like. Seriously, these umps have huge egos (no disputing that).. that's why every ump has his own zone, some ump change the zone midgame to "teach the pitcher a lesson", etc. To implement your suggestion, there would need to be a shocking device in the ear piece to give them a good zap when they contradicted the computer

I could go for that. Or the league, which also hears the beep, could go to the ump later and say, "Dude, you ignored 20 beeps that game. What's the deal?"

[mdccclxix]

I'd get bored with the beep and ask for a ringtone. Tony the Tiger on strikes, the Simpsons bully on balls. Then switch it up.

[MikeS21]

It seems to me that with all the inconsistencies we've seen in umpires calling balls and strikes, this may be a good idea. In viewing games, it seems that we have seen a lot of pitchers for one team being squeezed, while the pitcher for the other team is given an oversized strike zone. I even seen umpires change their strike zones 2-3 times a game.

This may give some players an unfair advantage as they seem to have a better sense of the strike zone than other players. And pitchers may be forced to throw hittable pitches rather than getting a hitter to chase pitches.

It would be interesting to see if something like this ever came to fruition.

[M2]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Well i have alot of quality training in my 15 year career as an umpire so I think my opinion kinda carries a little more weight than the average fan. Take time one day to watch a game from say pre 1990. I have a very hard time watching the umpiring is so bad. Any profession can be improved but as I mentioned before this idea many have on this board where a computerized strike zone will improve things is very questionable and as I stated before will not happen in our lifetimes if ever.

Don't need umpire training to spot the steady stream of missed calls in game after game after game. I agree it was plenty bad in the past, but I'm not going to call modern umpiring good.

And I suspect it will happen in the next decade or two. Like with most things, it's older fans defending the status quo and younger fans who don't see the point in resisting a simple technological fix. It's a function of the modern world that we adopt technology easily and readily. In fact, it's becoming odder to resist innovation than to embrace it.

Originally Posted by George Anderson

On the term scab , it is more so used against anyone in an industry where organized labor is present. I sadly hear the term often and it is used as nothing more than a tool to harrass and intimidate others.

I'm sure some people use it that way. It's certainly not an endearing term. FWIW, I've found myself up against union members on various issues in the past and some folks were definitely less than charitable. Yet I suspect most people use the term scab properly.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

If the foul lines were invisible and changed from pitch to pitch, I think you'd see a push for greater standardization.

What about the foul areas that change from stadium to stadium? The height of the walls? The distance to the fence? Is invisibility where we draw the line and that's why it is a problem?

I am all for improving the quality of the umpiring, I just think going electronic might not necessarily be for the best.

[lidspinner]

Why not give Molina the credit he deserves? Maybe more catchers should be better at framing pitches.....not saying l like it but I sure as hell like it better than computers calling balls and strikes

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by M2

. I agree it was plenty bad in the past, but I'm not going to call modern umpiring good.

.

Well according to the computers you want to use to replace humans, it is pretty darn good.


MLB currently utilizes a program referred to as the “zone evaluation system,” which grades major league umpires on their accuracy when it comes to ball and strike calls. According to Port, umpires this season are averaging a 95 percent accuracy rating.
http://nesn.com/2012/06/bobby-valent...t-complaining/


Analysis of 2008 data by the Elias Sports Bureau showed only a small difference in how the strike zone was called depending on whether QuesTec was being used: umpires in QuesTec parks called a pitch a strike 31.5 percent of the time, compared with 31.2 percent without QuesTec, a difference of about three pitches a game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/sp...ires.html?_r=0

The problem lies within the culture of the game, that no one seems to agree with the computer 100% of the time, even when raw data overwhelmingly proves that a pitch is unequivocally a strike.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9...-pitch-calling

Bobby Valentine is for computerized balls and strikes. Anything this guy thinks automatically makes it a bad idea. I think without question, this ends the argument in my favor.

http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/...y-help-umpires