Why we need computers calling balls and strikes

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Again, is anyone that matters even talking about this?

I am sure it has been discussed. Every team in Major League Baseball uses this system as a scouting tool right now and has been for years. They are all aware of the system and its capabilities and are using it to help inform their players. Heck, some teams are even using it in the minor leagues to help their players. The teams know its value. It is only a matter of time.

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

That's a bad approach

The game is organic, part of that is the ability for adjustments to factor in to the way one approaches the game. Limit the approach and you end up with generic results.

Sounds even worst than having to deal with a strike zone that is defined by a trained professional

The game's organic. The strike zone doesn't need to be.

And constraints don't lead to generic results, quite the opposite. Poetry is constrained and far from generic. A guitar's fret board is constrained and the music it can make is far from generic. Hell, the baseball field is constrained and the game is far from generic.

Some things, like the rules and enforcement of a game, should be standardized as much as possible. If anything, the uneven enforcement of the rules detracts from athleticism and skill being able to take over the game.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by westofyou

That's a bad approach

The game is organic, part of that is the ability for adjustments to factor in to the way one approaches the game. Limit the approach and you end up with generic results.

Sounds even worst than having to deal with a strike zone that is defined by a trained professional

How many players significantly shrink the vertical part of their strikezone over the course of the season? My guess is that it's not common, but I am willing to be corrected. It seems to me that most batting adjustments are so subtle and minor that they are difficult to notice... I've never seen someone change from a completely standing up stance to a Ricky Henderson crouch during the season, but maybe it has happened in a few rare instances, I guess.

If the players were guaranteed to have a consistent vertical strike zone all year, wouldn't it make it easier for them to adjust?

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

How many players significantly shrink the vertical part of their strikezone over the course of the season? My guess is that it's not common, but I am willing to be corrected. It seems to me that most batting adjustments are so subtle and minor that they are difficult to notice... I've never seen someone change from a completely standing up stance to a Ricky Henderson crouch during the season, but maybe it has happened in a few rare instances, I guess.

If the players were guaranteed to have a consistent vertical strike zone all year, wouldn't it make it easier for them to adjust?

How many players don't adjust their stance?

My guess is you don't know and I don't know.

Anecdotal evidence bears no weight in this as far as I'm concerned, especially since this debate is centered around having what some are calling TRUE data and TRUE results.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by westofyou

How many players don't adjust their stance?

My guess is you don't know and I don't know.

Anecdotal evidence bears no weight in this as far as I'm concerned, especially since this debate is centered around having what some are calling TRUE data and TRUE results.

Yes, I agree, we don't know for sure and it's not worth watching a lot of tape to find out.

If the players prefer a vertical strikezone that is adjusted on every pitch, it could be made to happen.. In other words, I don't think it's a valid reason not to computerize balls and strikes.

[Roy Tucker]

I don't recall any drastic changes in batting stances, but I have seen subtle adjustments by guys like Votto as they get deeper in the count. And the MLB strike zone is one of the most fiercely contested pieces of real estate in sports so an inch or 2 very much matters.

Like I said, make the technology fit how the sport is played. If you do it, do it completely right. Otherwise you're echanging one set of issues for another.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I don't recall any drastic changes in batting stances, but I have seen subtle adjustments by guys like Votto as they get deeper in the count. And the MLB strike zone is one of the most fiercely contested pieces of real estate in sports so an inch or 2 very much matters.

Like I said, make the technology fit how the sport is played. If you do it, do it completely right. Otherwise you're echanging one set of issues for another.

Well said, Roy!

[westofyou]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...3243/index.htm


Sensor baseballs In 1970 MLB experimented with a laser device placed behind the plate that would call balls and strikes. Alas, anything that went over the plate--including the glove of a wily catcher--resulted in a strike call. The inventors fixed that by placing a metal chip in the ball. But the balls cost $300 each and came with the request that they not be hit lest they break. The idea was quickly abandoned.

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...3243/index.htm


Sensor baseballs In 1970 MLB experimented with a laser device placed behind the plate that would call balls and strikes. Alas, anything that went over the plate--including the glove of a wily catcher--resulted in a strike call. The inventors fixed that by placing a metal chip in the ball. But the balls cost $300 each and came with the request that they not be hit lest they break. The idea was quickly abandoned.

To be fair, we were also fascinated with Pong in the 1970s.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by M2

To be fair, we were also fascinated with Pong in the 1970s.

The Quisp vs Quake battle still haunts me

[AtomicDumpling]

The clincher for me was in game 7 of the 2011 World Series when the umpire blew 17 ball/strike calls according to PITCH f/x. Of course 14 of those missed calls went in favor of the Cardinals, including a very bad blown call on a 3-2 pitch to Yadier Molina in a crucial situation.

Here is one of many articles about the terrible umpiring in that game: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9...-pitch-calling

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The clincher for me was in game 7 of the 2011 World Series when the umpire blew 17 ball/strike calls according to PITCH f/x. Of course 14 of those missed calls went in favor of the Cardinals, including a very bad blown call on a 3-2 pitch to Yadier Molina in a crucial situation.

Here is one of many articles about the terrible umpiring in that game: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9...-pitch-calling

That article contains a poll in which 60.6% of readers voted that balls and strikes should be called by computers, always, as opposed to 18.1% by umpires always (the remainder a series of intermediate options, which included review options).
It's not only Redszone that's concerned about this.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by oneupper

That article contains a poll in which 60.6% of readers voted that balls and strikes should be called by computers, always, as opposed to 18.1% by umpires always (the remainder a series of intermediate options, which included review options).
It's not only Redszone that's concerned about this.

Right, but that population is flawed. And not only because they are bleacher report readers.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Right, but that population is flawed. And not only because they are bleacher report readers.

This is true. But let's say that the population of all baseball fans were shown the data. Do you really think it would be all that different of a vote?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

This is true. But let's say that the population of all baseball fans were shown the data. Do you really think it would be all that different of a vote?

I think it would be different, with less people wanting it. But I still think a material portion of fans would want this if they could be assured that it would work. And that's a big if.