Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Home Plate Umps Should Be Replaced by Robots


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JCD said:

No.
There is the actual strike zone and YOUR ZONE, that is smaller. With 2 strike YOUR ZONE becomes the actual strike zone. Hence you expand YOUR zone. Strike zone does not change.

By definition, the strike zone does in fact change if you are expanding it with (2) strikes though. If you are claiming that the strike zone for every individual is different, well of course because everyone's body size is different, etc...But that strike zone should be consistent at all times and shouldn't adjust based on how many strikes there are. At least, that's my opinion...

[...]

Edited by tonycpsu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've been a baseball fan for 35 years. I want robots calling strikes.  Umps are less accurate and have biases. Some of their egos are getting to be a bit much now too, which is the worst part.

Overhead view. If you think this "two seamer" ever crosses the plate, then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.    

Also handing out new baseballs, dusting off the plate, and giving the catchers someone to talk to in between PAs.  No jobs eliminated, just computers helping them do their existing job like they do fo

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, ThreadKiller said:

By definition, the strike zone does in fact change if you are expanding it with (2) strikes though. If you are claiming that the strike zone for every individual is different, well of course because everyone's body size is different, etc...But that strike zone should be consistent at all times and shouldn't adjust based on how many strikes there are. At least, that's my opinion...

*be careful with the all caps, man!

No.
Im not talking about that.
Your Zone is where you want to attack the pitch. And it's not the entire strike zone. To make it simple to understand what Your Zone is, with less than 2 strikes you do not want to swing on a pitch in the strike zone that is located where your weakness is. You want to wait for a pitch where your strength is. That is Your Zone.
When the coach says expand Your Zone with 2 strikes, he wants you to exxpand your zone to the actual strike zone, whatever that may be.
It is also called protecting the plate, as the actual strike zone is always above the plate.
And in this regard the actual strike zone does not change, as the actual strike zone is always the actual strike zone.

Edited by JCD
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, JCD said:

No.
Im not talking about that.

Your Zone is where you want to attack the pitch. And it's not the entire strike zone. To make it simple to understand what Your Zone is, with less than 2 strikes you do not want to swing on a pitch in the strike zone that is located where your weakness is. You want to wait for a pitch where your strength is. That is Your Zone.
When the coach says expand Your Zone with 2 strikes, he wants you to exxpand your zone to the actual strike zone, whatever that may be.
It is also called protecting the plate, as the actual strike zone is always above the plate.

But I was talking about that and you were responding to my comment...I think you're responding to my comments thinking I'm talking about something I'm not talking about...Sorry for the confusion.

We're talking about the strike zone being what is defined as a ball or strike...Not what area of the zone you are looking for a pitch in or your own individual zone within the zone which is where you are looking to hit out of...

Expanding your own zone within the actual strike zone with (2) strikes of course applies. If you're looking for something over the middle of the plate with no strikes then of course you have to be ready for the whole zone with (2) strikes. I feel like that is obvious and goes without saying...

 

I'm talking about what's called a strike or ball...Often what is called a ball would then be called a strike with (2) strikes by the same umpire because the official strike zone expands.

Edited by ThreadKiller
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of this also has to do with a false sense of security some derive from a machine doing something rather than a human doing it.

Throughout this thread, I've pointed out that the static 2D computer box/dot is almost always wrong on the high/low strike, which changes pitch to pitch, sometimes by a lot.

Yet the feeling I get is that because it's a computer, people are -still- more comfortable with that entirely wrong method of measuring the high/low strike -only- because it's a computer and not a human.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

I think some of this also has to do with a false sense of security some derive from a machine doing something rather than a human doing it.

Throughout this thread, I've pointed out that the static 2D computer box/dot is almost always wrong on the high/low strike, which changes pitch to pitch, sometimes by a lot.

Yet the feeling I get is that because it's a computer, people are -still- more comfortable with that entirely wrong method of measuring the high/low strike -only- because it's a computer and not a human.

You keep bringing up a moot point. We aren't saying the static 2d cpu box is what should be used to determine balls and strikes. We are saying that the technology exists to get the strike zone correct and make the right calls. Simple as that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

I think some of this also has to do with a false sense of security some derive from a machine doing something rather than a human doing it.

Throughout this thread, I've pointed out that the static 2D computer box/dot is almost always wrong on the high/low strike, which changes pitch to pitch, sometimes by a lot.

Yet the feeling I get is that because it's a computer, people are -still- more comfortable with that entirely wrong method of measuring the high/low strike -only- because it's a computer and not a human.

I don't get that feeling at all. I get the feeling that people are looking for alternatives because the current method has proven to be poor. The best course of action may be to just get the best strike zone umps and keep them there rather than rotate. But the strike zone should be consistent throughout...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TribeFoo said:

It'll take all of a few seconds for people to start complaining it's not calibrated properly or something.

Ultimately I think you have to get the umpires fully on board and behind it for there to be any chance of success. If you can convince them, and get them to support a ball/strike system that has been proven to work through extensive minor league research, then it would be far more palatable to get fans, players and managers on board with it. If they try to jam it down everyone's gullet, you can bet there will much pushback.

Its a lot like making policy in Congress now. Nothing will ever get done without MAJOR compromise. With so many different interests fighting from within the parties, its impossible for compromise; I'm sure there are some voices in the union saying its inevitable, others saying to fight like hell. There is surely a common ground, but sorting through all the issues will take negotiating in good faith. Saving themselves the physical punishment of being hit by foul tips and the like is probably THE argument to sway umps in favor of eliminating the position. Its like when George offers the security guard the chair in Seinfeld....

George offers a chair to the security guard in Susan's uncle's store. in  2021 | Seinfeld, Seinfeld quotes, American comedy

Edited by Richard Kimble
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Richard Kimble said:

Ultimately I think you have to get the umpires fully on board and behind it for there to be any chance of success. If you can convince them, and get them to support a ball/strike system that has been proven to work through extensive minor league research, then it would be far more palatable to get fans, players and managers on board with it. If they try to jam it down everyone's gullet, you can bet there will much pushback.

Even if there are no issues and the computer system always works (lol), there is going to be push-back anyway...  I would not be surprised to see some kind of strike by the umpires...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, posty said:

Even if there are no issues and the computer system always works (lol), there is going to be push-back anyway...  I would not be surprised to see some kind of strike by the umpires...

What if I told you you could keep your job (because they have a union) but we will eliminate the ONE aspect of said job that results in the most scrutiny from players, coaches, and the public? In some cases blown calls even resulting in death threats. No change to salary. Just an easier job behind the plate with a little assistance from an AI. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, collucho said:

What if I told you you could keep your job (because they have a union) but we will eliminate the ONE aspect of said job that results in the most scrutiny from players, coaches, and the public? In some cases blown calls even resulting in death threats. No change to salary. Just an easier job behind the plate with a little assistance from an AI. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Personally if I was an umpire, I would hate it...  I used to umpire when I was younger and LOVED calling balls and strikes...  When I wasn't the home plate umpire, I was bummed...

Plus when I played (up through high school) and was the catcher, I always loved to frame pitches and try to get the call...  If I did, it was a win and if not, I worked harder for the next frame...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

And the umps can even keep their cartoonishly exaggerated strike and punchout calls.

So not a Dutch Rennert fan? 

RIP

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most mind boggling thing reading this thread is people actually think technology doesn't exist in 2021 that can detect if a ball hits a rectangle. Even if that rectangle is evolving and not constant.

Just because the MLB doesn't have perfect technology right now doesn't mean it can't easily get the needed technology if it wanted.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, posty said:

Personally if I was an umpire, I would hate it...  I used to umpire when I was younger and LOVED calling balls and strikes...  When I wasn't the home plate umpire, I was bummed...

Plus when I played (up through high school) and was the catcher, I always loved to frame pitches and try to get the call...  If I did, it was a win and if not, I worked harder for the next frame...

You might feel differently if millions of people were watching intently as opposed to the parents of 20 little kids that have no view from behind the pitcher and probably couldn't tell if something was a ball or strike or not anyway. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

The most mind boggling thing reading this thread is people actually think technology doesn't exist in 2021 that can detect if a ball hits a rectangle. Even if that rectangle is evolving and not constant.

Just because the MLB doesn't have perfect technology right now doesn't mean it can't easily get the needed technology if it wanted.

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, collucho said:

You might feel differently if millions of people were watching intently as opposed to the parents of 20 little kids that have no view from behind the pitcher and probably couldn't tell if something was a ball or strike or not anyway. 

Where did I say little?

Plus, you obviously haven't been to a game with parents watching their kids...  They are much more relentless to an umpire than fans are...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Fiveohnine said:

I think some of this also has to do with a false sense of security some derive from a machine doing something rather than a human doing it.

 

There's three reasons for this:

1.)At least if the computer sucks, people won't suspect it's because the computer has a grudge against a player for showing them up five years ago on a blown call or because the umpire has an ego and secretly wants to be the star of the game.

2.)In general, machines are better than people at repetitive tasks (such as taking measurements ) across nearly every spectrum of human endeavor and thus a certain amount of presumptive deference has logical justification.

3.)Quite a few umpires are f**king atrocious at calling balls and strikes and people are desperate for some sort of change cause ... how could it be worse?

Edited by Overlord
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It's all a human drama. Bad calls are good.  There should be bad calls. There should be controversy. It's fun to yell at or boo the umps. There should be umps many fans hate. The players and managers should occasionally get mad at the umps, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes correctly.  When sports are completely staged (WWE) we want comically bad refs because it makes a better story. Even that guy who lost a perfect game on a terrible call... that will be remembered for far longer than if he'd gotten it.

2) It's a zero sum game. And an inconsequential one. Doesn't matter who wins.  One group of fans will be happy, the other unhappy. This isn't international relations. All that matters is it's engaging and entertaining. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GamblorLA said:

1) It's all a human drama. Bad calls are good.  There should be bad calls. There should be controversy. It's fun to yell at or boo the umps. There should be umps many fans hate. The players and managers should occasionally get mad at the umps, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes correctly.  When sports are completely staged (WWE) we want comically bad refs because it makes a better story. Even that guy who lost a perfect game on a terrible call... that will be remembered for far longer than if he'd gotten it.

2) It's a zero sum game. And an inconsequential one. Doesn't matter who wins.  One group of fans will be happy, the other unhappy. This isn't international relations. All that matters is it's engaging and entertaining. 

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611666474981535f7fced

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, GamblorLA said:

2) It's a zero sum game. And an inconsequential one. Doesn't matter who wins.  One group of fans will be happy, the other unhappy. This isn't international relations. All that matters is it's engaging and entertaining. 

Riiight so when the Pirates play the Cubs, no matter who wins, the same number of fans will be happy. Same thing with the Yankees and Rays. Every team has the same sized fan base . Totally makes sense too since they all have the exact same revenue and payrolls right? I mean, Zero Sum Game!

 

What a well thought out argument there.

Edited by cs3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cs3 said:

Riiight so when the Pirates play the Cubs, no matter who wins, the same number of fans will be happy. Same thing with the Yankees and Rays. Every team has the same sized fan base . Totally makes sense too since they all have the exact same revenue and payrolls right? I mean, Zero Sum Game!

 

What a well thought out argument there.

That's not really the point.  Not many people just root for the team with the most fans out of some utilitarian view. If we go down that road... which fans are most dedicated? Maybe fans for teams that have sucked a long time will be happier with the win etc etc. I assume you aren't arguing that these things should be the basis for who gets the calls. 

I wasn't saying there is an exactly perfect balance of happiness, obviously. I mean, one side wins, one side loses and it's all for entertainment. In the grand scheme it doesn't matter.

In contrast to, say, landing a man on the moon, where we (more or less, don't nit pick!) all want the same result and it's a tragedy if they all die and a historic achievement if they pull it off.  Or finding a cure for an illness, or a business succeeding or failing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, posty said:

Personally if I was an umpire, I would hate it...  I used to umpire when I was younger and LOVED calling balls and strikes...  When I wasn't the home plate umpire, I was bummed...

Plus when I played (up through high school) and was the catcher, I always loved to frame pitches and try to get the call...  If I did, it was a win and if not, I worked harder for the next frame...

I guess pitch framing would not be a thing with a robot ump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...