Is it time to let technology call balls and strikes?
 

I admit, it has been a bit frustrating to watch the inconsistency in balls and strikes in such critical games, at such critical times this postseason. We know the technology is there, and then the boo jays can't cry about the umps.

What do you think?

No

We should just let the robots play

It doesn't take away from the game in my opinion, just taking about the only element of human error still present in umpiring out of the game

Replay strike calls.

Not if its that tv strikezone box. They rig that shit to make the broadcast go smoothly

Have you seen the K-zones? They are no better than the ****ing umps. It's probably time, but the technology is far from ready.

I kind of like the small piece of variability in how strikes are called. It'd feel cold and stale to have it be exactly the same strike zone 100% of the time. It's kind of like varying stadium sizes - you have to alter your approach a smidge depending on how things are being called.

people would just bitch about how the robots were programmed.

I don't care who or what is calling strikes, just make the zone consistent already.

No.

No.

^

The problem isn't that there's human error every once in awhile, but the umps are not calling consistent strikes and impacting the game. How much does an ump make a game? How much could a corrupt ump make working under the table with Vegas? The umps have the ability to effect the outcome of the game, and we should be to a place where the athletes should decide the outcome through fair judgements.

And I would argue that we should preserve the purity of the game as much as we can. Replay makes baseball better. This could too, possibly.

No, only because it would not be in the Royals advantage. As it is right now, umps have a larger strike zone than is truly accurate, and this actually helps the Royals because they are not a patient team.

/s

I don't see why we can't give the home ump Google Glass set so that he can see strike zone and pitch track

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs...ime=1397185444http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/mlb.gif

I only pretend to know the nuances of baseball strategy, but wouldn't having robots call strikes disproportionately benefit batters? Seems like half of the challenge of batting is making those split second decisions on whether or not to swing, and removing the uncertainty of what might get called around the edges would make their jobs quite a bit easier.

Let's just have computer simulations and be done with it.

Hell no. I like the gamesmanship of catchers framing pitches. And I like the uncertainty of borderline pitches being called strikes because it forces hitters to attack.

I also like that it rewards teams that do their homework. I read that Roger Clemens used to keep a detailed notebook of umpire tendencies and study the living shit out of it.

No, and that pitch was a strike. Just because you crouch down before you swing does not make your zone smaller. Same with when a pitch breaks to the outside. It was still in the zone.

We had the same thing happen to us in Toronto. It is part of baseball.

So you like when umps squeeze pitchers they don't like and expand the strike zone for the popular pitchers.

An ump can practically decide a game when they do that.

The squeezed pitcher has to basically throw gopher balls while the expanded zone pitcher can force hitters to swing at crap.

Yes

Absolutely not!

Just no F'en way!

It was time about 20 years ago.

Allow 2 challenges a game.

Yeah, but like any other league, that's why you need good oversight to not put up with that shit. It should become obvious right away either to the pitcher or team, or to someone overseeing umpires, that this kind of shit happens.

I do agree that a good use of balls/strikes would be a similar system to tennis. Limited # of challenges per game, but those challenges can be made instantly. That way when pitches are really far off the plate, as with Revere, you can challenge it instantly. And maybe within that system you can build in "margin of error" so that it has to be x% off the strike zone to overturn a strike.

Yes.

Quite ****ing with the game. Thank you.

It happens ALL the time in the MLB

inconsistent strike zone
squeezed pitchers
just plain missed calls

I don't want challenges for strikes because it will slow the game waaaaaaay down. Give the ump a google head set with a real time feed to pitch tracking so he can use technology to get the calls right.

The MLB can run test before implementation to see whether umps can accurately use it during a game or not.

I become as frustrated as anyone with bad strikes and ball calls but taking the game out of the umpire's hand would effectively ruin the game for me.

In many ways, I think that instant replay has destroyed the NFL and making strikes or balls the responsibility of a computer would dehumanize the game.

So, if they did challenge, you're saying when a strike is called, if it's a ball on replay, but it's close to a strike, it's should stand because it was close.

That might very well be the stupidest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a shit ton.

Already happening


We can't challenge strikes unless they implement some kind of computer tracking to begin with. If they are going to computer track the strike zone then the ump might as well use it all the time.

attach it to the inside of the ump's mask and the fans will never even know he's using it.

It's going to happen sooner or later, just do it.

Doesn't take it out of the ump's hands, it gives him a tool to use to do his job.

I'm old school when it comes to baseball.

I'd rather it be a game about humans. I don't even like instant replay in baseball.

I'd rather it remain "pure" and not become a victim of technology.

Worst idea ever

even with the tech, humans will still **** up the right call

Unless you're 100% sure that a machine is 100% accurate on tracking a strike, you really want a machine with a margin of error to be overturning borderline strikes/balls? A machine should be used to overturn really obvious balls and strikes. It's no different from all other instant replay where you need 100% confirmation on something to overturn a call.

1 or 2 challenges a game isn't going to slow the game down much at all. And that's what this should be used for, if at all. And if they do it right, the review can happen in seconds, just like it happens in tennis.

Absolutely bring consistency and 100% accuracy with electronic strike zones.

I can't comprehend whatsoever how anyone is fine with a human behind home plate placing the outcome of the game on bad call after bad call. WTF people????

Yay.

The NFL Offices in New York get to determine what's a catch and what's not a catch, often altering the outcome of a game.

Yet several people want the same for a ball or strike?

Wha?

The idea of replay to challenge balls and strikes is pretty ridiculous.
However, if you are going to use it, then it better be god damned definitive.

Your idea is just a ****ing joke.

These "electronic strike zones" you are probably imagining are not actually accurate. Many of those pitchtrack boxes on TV are just plain incorrect. They can probably achieve some accuracy for inside and outside, but high/low literally changes for each batter.

The technology is there to automatically adjust the e-strikezone in comparison to a players height in the database.

Now, adjusted to a certain stance... probably not, but I would still hypothesize it is more accurate than a human.

Holy snikies games would last 6 hours.

In almost every sport that has replay, leagues focus on obvious mistakes. They try to avoid borderline shit. A call has to be 100% conclusive to overturn a call.

I don't trust machines to be 100% accurate on borderline strikes. But I'm sure you can get pretty close to 100% accurate if you extend the strike zone on a reviewable call. That does a few good things... 1) it takes away incentive to review borderline strikes, which would be annoying; 2) it focuses attention on blatantly missed calls, which is the only purpose I can see for allowing machines track balls/strikes.

I'd just as soon not review balls/strikes at all. But I'm ok with it if it helps overturn pitches that are blatantly off the plate.

Not if you limit the # of reviews.
And if you do it the way tennis does, where the review happens in a matter of seconds.

It happens all the time in tennis and adds maybe a few minutes at most to any match.

Yea I still dont like it.

yep, you can even have a guy sitting there with the track screen who can adjust the strike box if it's not right.

just like making a box with the photoshop outline tool

takes less than a second

no reviews, live feed directly to home plate ump head set

how about inside/ outsidewith the eye vision thing that does a red-light or something but ump still has discretion on height up to a certain point?

Why don't we leave it just like it is? Umps have always been part of the game. And the current replay needs to be tweaked. Replaying those bag pop-ups is not good and not within the intent of the replay rules.

don't the rules state that if you come off the base you're out?

IF you're tagged and not on the base, yes. The Royals have been called out a few times when they haven't stayed on the base, and I imagine that's why so many on here don't want it subject to replay. But yeah, you're supposed to stay on the base. Not sure why it should suddenly be acceptable to come off of it.

**** No.

I don't think that was the original intent of replay. But yea, stay on the bag.

Hell no.

Poll pitchers and catchers. I was a pitcher for 12 years, through college. The inconsistency was ridiculous and it didn't get any better even at the higher levels. A batter complaining about a single pitch in a game is nothing compared to throwing the same pitch, pitch after pitch, and getting different calls. You can see the inconsistency at the MLB level. I'm surprised more pitchers/catchers that don't complain, but oh, the ump has total authority no matter his incompetence. Don't piss him off, he'll ring you up the ladder.

If it's a strike, the batter gets shocked.
If it's a ball the pitcher gets shocked.
If the player can take the shock without showing a response he gets a point.
High scoring baseball.

Same - pitched through college. Would do anything to have had automated strikes/balls throughout my career. It's not about robots - it's about letting the players skills and execution decide outcomes - not shitty umpires.

From another thread discussing the same thing - compliments RM:

<iframe width="600" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mR3eK5gCChM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Eric Gregg? Yea, he was terrible. I can't remember which player laid a cheeseburger on 2nd base between innings for him.

I forgot Eric Gregg had a stroke and died.

no.
"hey blue...we know you're blind, we saw your wife!!!"
he's gotta be there.
sec

x10

I still enjoy watching a pitcher earn a corner with a specific pitch.

I completely understand it, but the searching for daylight between home plate and the tip of a cleat to determine a call annoys the hell out of me.

I guess the human element and spirit of the game allow me to overlook the inconsistency.

you're right. the pro game is played just the same as little league. the rules are the same.