Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

[hebroncougar]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It is still going to be a part of the game. Until baseball catches up with other sports and uses replay like football or hockey and can eliminate the ridiculousness of "human element" for non-players in the game.

If you think football does it right, I'll leave on that note. And let your opinion speak for itself.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Do you work in the software industry?

If not then yes, you have no idea where the rest of my post is going

Machines also are the fail proof way for the stock markets to run.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by hebroncougar

If you think football does it right, I'll leave on that note. And let your opinion speak for itself.

Football does it better than baseball. Still needs plenty of work, but I will take their replay over what baseball does.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by westofyou

In place is a pretty vague term.

Has it been tested in a game?

On different batters or is it just a three dimensional box that sits in the same place for every hitter?

Software is a very volatile item, hardware is prone to breaking down and malfunctioning and giving out bad data.

Talking about instituting a computer based strikes/ball tool is one thing implementing one is likely a far cry form "in place" when you want to use it to replace umpires.

Sure the technology is richer than ever before, but saying "it's in place" is at best a inaccurate statement... one might say it's almost a wild pitch.

At the Sloan Conference, Sportvision even acknowledged that consistency with calibration is still a problem.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus

At the Sloan Conference, Sportvision even acknowledged that consistency with calibration is still a problem.

It is, but they also don't check it before each game. If they did, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

[blumj]

There have been lots of times, even in the last year or two, that Dan Brooks of brooksbaseball.net has been aware that a system at a particular park needed to be recalibrated for a while before it would get done, there just hasn't been the urgency that you'd expect if there was more at stake.

[Roy Tucker]

I'm not against the technology. But I've done enough large scale systems integration and computer software projects to know there are an *awful* lot of things to work out to put a system like this into live play. And a gazillion things can (and do) go wrong and need to be worked out.

It's one thing to say that "oh, they have it all now, it will all work perfectly" and then take a *really* close look at it (because baseball wonks like us will) and work out the technical minutiae of everything that's done.

If MLB is serious about it, put it in place in a pilot down in single A ball where the mistakes won't be magnified. Work out all the kinks, fixes mistakes, work out issues, and take a season to get it right and prove it out. Because from what I've read in here, umps are right 92-95% of the time and the current technology is right 97% of the time. This is a *huge* change in the game for that extra 3% and you damn well get it right the first time out in a MLB park. Because if you don't, you'll get crucified over it. My favorite saying when asked about a project is "anything is possible with time and money". So put some time and money in at it.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

. There are a handful who should be replaced but the impression I get from you that they all could be fired and new ones will be brought in with no drop in quality is something I think is way off.

Well, no disrespect, but don't you have about 20 years of umpiring experience (or something like that).. If they let you ump the minors for a few years fulltime, do you really think there'd be that much of a drop off in quality from a MLB ump to you? I kind of doubt it (assuming you have decent eyesight).

Umpiring is not that difficult, and it will be even easier when the computer is calling balls and strikes.

Can I prove that the scab umpires were as good as the regular umps? Well, since we can't agree on what the criteria is, it can't be proven.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Umpiring is not that difficult,

.

Its funny, I call my best games sitting on my couch watching the game on TV with slow motion replays and numerous different camera angles. The thing that sucks is they make me go out in the heat or cold and force me to judge a 90MPH pitch without benefit of an instant replay or different camera angle. To bad they wont just let me sit here on my couch, put the games on TV and let me some how call it from here. If I could do that then I would definitely agree with you that umpiring really is not that difficult.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Its funny, I call my best games sitting on my couch watching the game on TV with slow motion replays and numerous different camera angles. The thing that sucks is they make me go out in the heat or cold and force me to judge a 90MPH pitch without benefit of an instant replay or different camera angle. To bad they wont just let me sit here on my couch, put the games on TV and let me some how call it from here. If I could do that then I would definitely agree with you that umpiring really is not that difficult.

Do you not see how that's an argument FOR the system?

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Do you not see how that's an argument FOR the system?

I sure do.

However I don't think MLB will want 5 hour games because we are waiting for someone to judge several different camera angles and slow motion replays to make calls.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

I sure do.

However I don't think MLB will want 5 hour games because we are waiting for someone to judge several different camera angles and slow motion replays to make calls.

Luckily that doesn't have to happen either.

[M2]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

So where is this technology

In every ballpark in the league. You can see it in action when you watch a game on TV or when you open up a Gameday link on the MLB site. It's pervasive.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by M2

In every ballpark in the league. You can see it in action when you watch a game on TV or when you open up a Gameday link on the MLB site. It's pervasive.

But its not good technology.

See Roy Tuckers post at 9:21 pm.

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Do you work in the software industry?

If not then yes, you have no idea where the rest of my post is going

This isn't software, it's instrumentation. And they figured that out before WWII. An automated strikezone isn't that much more complex than the motion sensor for the lights in my neighbor's driveway or electronic toll payment. It's a thing passing through a space.

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

This is a *huge* change in the game for that extra 3% and you damn well get it right the first time out in a MLB park. Because if you don't, you'll get crucified over it. My favorite saying when asked about a project is "anything is possible with time and money". So put some time and money in at it.

I agree they ought to take a year to perfect the system before they switch. Test it to death, work out any glitches. But this isn't hard. I was talking to folks about laser-fired disaster recovery systems more than a decade ago. As has been noted, we've created Higgs-Boson particles in a super collider. We've mapped the human genome. If we really wanted to, we could probably monitor the strikezone via satellite. Just for giggles.