Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Caveman Techie

Well for you old foggies I guess this would be appropriate then. http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.50021...83821&pid=15.1

If 37 is an old fogey, then I am guilty.

But in my business it seems like every 5-10 years a new crew of MBAs/PhDs come in and think that they are smarter than everyone who has ever walked the Earth. The last crew almost blew up the financial system since the housing market never went down.

Were they smart and have good ideas? Of course. But there are always limits, especially when the ideas are on the newer side.

[Caveman Techie]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Old fogies.

With job titles like "Systems Analyst"

I also work in IT, and I have to deal with people who are scared of technology. But the fact remains today I can support 10 times the number of systems I could support just 10 years ago. And I did it by automating as much of my job as I could. Did mistakes happen? You betcha! However today I support over 2,000 servers with a three man team. 10 years ago it was a five man team and we only had about 200 servers back then.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

It has been proven to be more reliable than human umpiring on balls and strikes. Emphatically. Both Questek in the past and now the current Pitch F/X are used to grade the umpires. If it weren't better than the umpires are, MLB wouldn't use it to determine how good/bad the umpires are doing their job.

It has? What MLB games has it been used in as the main apparatus to call balls and strikes? It has been proven in theory, not application. There is a wide difference between the two.

I am in favor of working towards getting it implemented so questions can be answered, procedures put in place and ironed out, and the technology arrives in good working order. Nothing will set it back farther than rushing it and having it be a bigger pain in the butt than its worth.

GL

[RANDY IN INDY]

Is anyone, outside of Redszone, even considering this?

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Is anyone, outside of Redszone, even considering this?

Bobby Valentine wants it.

Nuff said.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

If 37 is an old fogey, then I am guilty.

But in my business it seems like every 5-10 years a new crew of MBAs/PhDs come in and think that they are smarter than everyone who has ever walked the Earth. The last crew almost blew up the financial system since the housing market never went down.

Were they smart and have good ideas? Of course. But there are always limits, especially when the ideas are on the newer side.

Same experience here. Newer is not automatically BETTER.

[Roy Tucker]

Heck, I'm not a 37 yr. old fogie, I'm a 37 yrs. in the IT industry old fart ranging from junior Fortran programmer to advanced development on a CTO's staff.

I'm sure if you talk to the MLBAM folks, they've taken much further all the stuff me and others have mentioned in here and thought much more about it. I'm sure they have ideas and maybe already have planned out the project and/or started on prototypes and POCs. They are sharp people and I'm sure there have been much discussion and lots of bar napkins with diagrams and boxes and arrows. The pieces that are in place are a darn fine start on a total system.

I think my question going into the future is would be, after a system has been developed and its been implemented with video camers and support staffs and earbuds and blinkie lights on the scoreboard and mouse clicks and star wars technology or whatever, we'll have to ask the question "is this really what we want? Is this really how we want the game of baseball to be from now on?". I think that assessment can't be made till a system is in place and, till then, it's an unanswered question.

[M2]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

Uh yes, there are these things called cameras that have been used for sometime in other sports to overturn calls and get the play right. You however want to ignore this function of technology but instead install a controversial technology system that has yet to be been tried at any level of professional or amateur baseball.

What was that comment about being absurd again?

I was unaware that they've invented cameras that can make an instant and independent assessment of whether a tag has been made before a runner touches the plate.

The problem here is you don't seem to understand the term "automated."

[M2]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Then we start getting into the harder stuff. We need this system to be able to detect where the strike zone is on a batter by batter, pitch by pitch basis. Each batter is different and can adjust his stance on a pitch by pitch basis. So we need to be able to accommodate that. I think that crosses off any pre-configuration of a strike zone for a batter, e.g. before a season or a game, the batters strike zone is measured and he is stuck with that for that game, series, month, or season. It needs to be done on each pitch in real time.

Thoughtful post, I wanted to concentrate on this point though, because this is where I disagree. You're not growing or shrinking when you go to the plate. If a batter wants to crouch himself out of being able to reach a high strike that strikes me as his problem. In fact, an ever-shifting strike zone strikes me as one of the fundamental flaws with the current system. Umps are constantly making imprecise perceptual adjustments.

The top and bottom of a given hitter's strike zone should be hardwired. Hitters will learn their zones and, I suspect, ultimately come to appreciated the consistency. The pre-configured zone adds stability and reliability. Constant recalibration strikes as fairly glaring design flaw.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by M2

Thoughtful post, I wanted to concentrate on this point though, because this is where I disagree. You're not growing or shrinking when you go to the plate. If a batter wants to crouch himself out of being able to reach a high strike that strikes me as his problem. In fact, an ever-shifting strike zone strikes me as one of the fundamental flaws with the current system. Umps are constantly making imprecise perceptual adjustments.

The top and bottom of a given hitter's strike zone should be hardwired. Hitters will learn their zones and, I suspect, ultimately come to appreciated the consistency. The pre-configured zone adds stability and reliability. Constant recalibration strikes as fairly glaring design flaw.

The rule is based on the strike zone as the batter is in the box. If you calibrate a zone for a player to be hardwired, then you will not be accurately enforcing the strike zone as it is in the rulebook.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The rule is based on the strike zone as the batter is in the box. If you calibrate a zone for a player to be hardwired, then you will not be accurately enforcing the strike zone as it is in the rulebook.

The umpires don't enforce the strikezone as it is in the rulebook.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The umpires don't enforce the strikezone as it is in the rulebook.

But they could, it would be EASY to enforce.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The umpires don't enforce the strikezone as it is in the rulebook.

Yes they do to the best of their abilities.

Now I know your going to say their ability is not good and there is a better way to call balls and strikes using technology. My response is then to get MLB to get moving on this project and show us how its done.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by M2

I was unaware that they've invented cameras that can make an instant and independent assessment of whether a tag has been made before a runner touches the plate.

."

The NFL does a very good job of using instant replay to overturn calls and get them right. A system does not have to be automated or instant if the desire is to get all the calls on the field as accurate as possible.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The rule is based on the strike zone as the batter is in the box. If you calibrate a zone for a player to be hardwired, then you will not be accurately enforcing the strike zone as it is in the rulebook.

And I've always considered that practice flawed by nature, so what I'm saying is I'm in favor of ditching it.