Why do we still have umpires calling balls and strikes?

[Phoenix86]

Tracking the ball is easy, but in football it's not just where is the ball it's where was the ball when the player was down. Or does the player have control of the ball. So along with a ball tracking system you also need to track when a player is down and detrrmine if they have control of the ball.

Which is why it should be done for baseball, like now. The tech is 95% already in place, and it works. Football would be a mess, as you'd have to have hundreds of sensors on the players as well as the ball. Nope.

 

[brianmanahan]

Your argument dont hold water. It is cheaper to wipe than to buy a bidet. In the case of umpiring it would definitely be cheaper to use cameras and computers than to hire all those umpires. Did you know that some umpires make over $300k a year?

my bidet cost me 30$ off of amazon

and i have saved way over 30$ of toilet paper since i bought it

so, i guess that means it is probably a good idea to replace umps

 

[Poulsonator]

So a great example of why we need automated balls and strikes happened tonight. Top of the 9th, Blue Jays batting, runners on 1st and 3rd, 1 out. Ben Revere at the plate, 2-1 count. Ump completely screws Revere with just an awful strike 2 call on a ball that is WAY outside (it's the 4th pitch on the picture):

Instead of a 3-1 count, Revere now has a 2-2 count, which obviously changes everything. Now, I'm not saying Revere is going to beat Wade Davis here, but there's an incredible difference between a 3-1 count and a 2-2 count. Of course Revere struck out on the next pitch.

Ultimately Toronto blew it here because they had a man on third with no outs and couldn't get him home. However, Wade Davis is good enough; he doesn't need the ump helping him. It really takes away my enjoyment of the game of baseball when umps make such blatantly shitty calls like that, especially in such high-leverage situations. I mean, this is the human element some people actually want??

 

[cubby1223]

I used to think the same thing when I was younger (part of me still does). Interestingly though as I've gotten more and more and MORE into baseball as my son has progressed through the sport and I have coached and been to countless games, I realized that part of being a hitter and/or pitcher is figuring out the strike zone for that ump. While strike zones are technically defined, the human element of an ump calling balls and strikes, adds an additional level of complexity to one of the hardest things in sports to do.

I really REALLY don't want this to ever become automated. There needs to be some human element left in sports.

But there still is a difference between learning a strikezone on a given day, and dealing with an inconsistently called strikezone throughout the day. The latter cannot be learned. There is no complexity. It's not so bad during the regular season because over 162 games there is enough for the randomness to even itself out. But during the post season, the inconsistency absolutely is magnified and can change the outcome.

Thankfully even though umps are still calling the balls & strikes, having the tech monitoring them, we no longer witness games as egregious as this one was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3eK5gCChM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHpupwqmSY

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

But there still is a difference between learning a strikezone on a given day, and dealing with an inconsistently called strikezone throughout the day. The latter cannot be learned. There is no complexity. It's not so bad during the regular season because over 162 games there is enough for the randomness to even itself out. But during the post season, the inconsistency absolutely is magnified and can change the outcome.

Thankfully even though umps are still calling the balls & strikes, having the tech monitoring them, we no longer witness games as egregious as this one was:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR3eK5gCChM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwHpupwqmSY

Well said, especially on the impact of calls during the post season. 1 badly called game in the post season can make or break a teams run at the pennant.

 

[Muse]

My feeling exactly, and I've felt it for several years. The technology to accurately call balls and strikes is simple enough with lasers. Over-the-plate is simple enough. High and low is tougher, they'd need to work up some algorithms for that, but that's certainly doable, nothing more than some decisions concerning height of the batter and his stance at the plate.

I've hated the fact that so many umpires have been calling strikes for pitches that are as much as 4-6 inches out of the strike zone for many years. It's very bad for the sport. What are you telling your 7 year old kids about honesty when they see with their own eyes that a ball is not over the plate but the umpire calls it a strike?It's disgusting! You want kids to develop good character. I think umps used to be a lot better decades ago. They may be a little better very recently, but ~5 years ago, bleh! They are loath to break with tradition. They have reviewable calls now, right? That's good. I'm for laser-called balls and strikes.

How many times have you seen "Strike Two" called on a bad pitch and the batter strikes out on the next pitch because he realizes (if just unconsciously) that the next pitch he sees he better swing on, whether it's a ball or a strike because it's likely to be called a strike if he doesn't swing??????

 

[Darwin333]

I personally would love to see this but I am biased. My daughter is a travel team softball pitcher and her team has won back to back World Series as the starting pitcher, she got the golden glove for best defensive player of the game this year, so she's damn good. When we play against teams with weak pitching the umpire will often narrow our teams strike zone while widening theirs. That's some bullshit in my opinion and drives me nuts. She is a breaking ball pitcher so most of the times she is hitting the corners of the plate and an ump calling a strike a ball, despite us kicking ass this particular game, can effect her mentally in the next game.

Then every umpire is different, some like it low and some like it high. Is part of the game really figuring out what pitches the umpire likes instead of just pitching in the damn strike zone?

BTW, this isn't speculation. I record most of her games in 120fps so we can review her progress on pitches that she is developing and it helps me not scream at the ump quite as much.

 

[brianmanahan]

tbh, i think it is funner with an actual ump and a little randomness/luck involved

 

[Jeff7]

tbh, i think it is funner with an actual ump and a little randomness/luck involved

You can always add true randomness to a computer program.

 

[Phoenix86]

tbh, i think it is funner with an actual ump and a little randomness/luck involved

Which are completely indistinguishable from being paid off.

 

[brianmanahan]

Which are completely indistinguishable from being paid off.

that's part of the fun!

without opportunity for conspiracy, what would we conspire about?

 

[destrekor]

I used to think the same thing when I was younger (part of me still does). Interestingly though as I've gotten more and more and MORE into baseball as my son has progressed through the sport and I have coached and been to countless games, I realized that part of being a hitter and/or pitcher is figuring out the strike zone for that ump. While strike zones are technically defined, the human element of an ump calling balls and strikes, adds an additional level of complexity to one of the hardest things in sports to do.

I really REALLY don't want this to ever become automated. There needs to be some human element left in sports.

This, so much this.


I might agree with football utilizing RFID tags or other accurate spotting system so that the game is always truly a game of inches, but baseball? No, just... no.

What is often seen as the center piece of the sport, the battle between the pitcher and batter, is made that much more dynamic due to the nature of the human element. The game cannot be played the same if the human element is removed, and at a time when (IIRC) baseball viewership and attendance is shrinking (at least in some markets), such a change will only harm the sport.

 

[destrekor]

My feeling exactly, and I've felt it for several years. The technology to accurately call balls and strikes is simple enough with lasers. Over-the-plate is simple enough. High and low is tougher, they'd need to work up some algorithms for that, but that's certainly doable, nothing more than some decisions concerning height of the batter and his stance at the plate.

I've hated the fact that so many umpires have been calling strikes for pitches that are as much as 4-6 inches out of the strike zone for many years. It's very bad for the sport. What are you telling your 7 year old kids about honesty when they see with their own eyes that a ball is not over the plate but the umpire calls it a strike?It's disgusting! You want kids to develop good character. I think umps used to be a lot better decades ago. They may be a little better very recently, but ~5 years ago, bleh! They are loath to break with tradition. They have reviewable calls now, right? That's good. I'm for laser-called balls and strikes.

How many times have you seen "Strike Two" called on a bad pitch and the batter strikes out on the next pitch because he realizes (if just unconsciously) that the next pitch he sees he better swing on, whether it's a ball or a strike because it's likely to be called a strike if he doesn't swing??????

Seriously?

You think the human element of baseball is ruining the development of character in children?

You have got to be joking. As a kid who grew up on a diet of baseball, I never once viewed anything in the game to be remotely about dishonesty.

 

[MongGrel]

Seriously?

You think the human element of baseball is ruining the development of character in children?

You have got to be joking. As a kid who grew up on a diet of baseball, I never once viewed anything in the game to be remotely about dishonesty.

Pete Rose is on hold on line 3 and wants to have a discussion with you.

J/K a bit.

 

[brianmanahan]

Pete Rose is on hold on line 3 and wants to have a discussion with you.

J/K a bit.

also shoeless joe jackson

(except he's dead)

 

[destrekor]

Pete Rose is on hold on line 3 and wants to have a discussion with you.

J/K a bit.

And I'm not arguing that it doesn't encourage some dishonest tactics or other behavior as a result of a competitive spirit, but let's not kid ourselves here: that has nothing to do with baseball, and everything to do with competitive sports.

All I am stating is that the human element of baseball does not lead toward bad character development any more so than any other competitive sport. It is what parents and coaches and the individual player make of it. Competitive sports can be very rewarding for character development, baseball included. There are players of every breed, and some bad seeds (like Suh of Lions stomping fame) will always develop dirty tactics while others rise above and remain humble with good sportsmanship.

 

[Darwin333]

I used to think the same thing when I was younger (part of me still does). Interestingly though as I've gotten more and more and MORE into baseball as my son has progressed through the sport and I have coached and been to countless games, I realized that part of being a hitter and/or pitcher is figuring out the strike zone for that ump. While strike zones are technically defined, the human element of an ump calling balls and strikes, adds an additional level of complexity to one of the hardest things in sports to do.

I really REALLY don't want this to ever become automated. There needs to be some human element left in sports.

So when you lose a game because an umpire called a pitch thrown in the strike zone a ball, you are ok with that? Or when umpires have different strike zones for one team than he has for the other or simply doesn't have a consistent strike zone, that's a good thing because it's complex?

I will grant you that it does add complexity to the game but it goes against everything we train the kids to do. Low/high pitches that you are screaming at kids for swinging at are now strikes the next game because you have a new ump.

 

[Darwin333]

This, so much this.


I might agree with football utilizing RFID tags or other accurate spotting system so that the game is always truly a game of inches, but baseball? No, just... no.

What is often seen as the center piece of the sport, the battle between the pitcher and batter, is made that much more dynamic due to the nature of the human element. The game cannot be played the same if the human element is removed, and at a time when (IIRC) baseball viewership and attendance is shrinking (at least in some markets), such a change will only harm the sport.

You do realize that in this particular case you are saying that the "human element" is at best bad calls and at worst potentially dishonest and/or game rigging? All we are talking about is calling a friggen strike a strike and a ball a ball, no more and no less. The human element should be between the batter and the hitter, not the batter, hitter and the ump.

 

[Phoenix86]

You do realize that in this particular case you are saying that the "human element" is at best bad calls and at worst potentially dishonest and/or game rigging? All we are talking about is calling a friggen strike a strike and a ball a ball, no more and no less. The human element should be between the batter and the hitter, not the batter, hitter and the ump.

Pretty much every argument against an automated strike zone comes down to feels.

 

[Phoenix86]

Human error and human judgment is part of the game.

It's the human part of the sport.

Part of going to a baseball game is booing calls made by the umpires.

There needs to be some human element left in sports.

tbh, i think it is funner with an actual ump and a little randomness/luck involved

Since you guys are into subjective scoring in sports, how do you guys feel about this:

 

[local]

Since you guys are into subjective scoring in sports, how do you guys feel about this:

I don't care. Always saw that as more of a impress the judge thing.

 

[Phoenix86]

I don't care. Always saw that as more of a impress the judge thing.

An obvious ball called strike just means the pitch impressed the ump.

:whiste:

 

[zinfamous]

Since you guys are into subjective scoring in sports, how do you guys feel about this:

That is the score, though; and with those type of sports, the athletes are only competing with themselves.

Umps calling balls and strikes is not the score. It is very, very, very rarely a subjective issues of "tagging first base = 1 run."

 

[zinfamous]

An obvious ball called strike just means the pitch impressed the ump.

:whiste:

Which is fine, really. One thing that would have to happen in the horrible hell that this enterprise is turned over to robots, is that we would need to add a shitload of asterisks to the record books, or just create an entirely new record book that separates the eras.

Honestly, how would one fairly judge hitters and especially pitchers between both eras?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Holy shit, the technophobia exhibited by people on a tech forum never ceases to amaze me.

The umpires are faster and better? Bull fucking shit. Maybe if you're comparing it to the weakass buster replay shit baseball uses (which is mostly shit in large part because it is too relying on dumbshit humans) then sure. We absolutely have the technology to make it faster and more accurate.

Not only that but the people acting like this will kill the sanctity of baseball...JHumeC. Any such sanctity is long dead and gone and frankly never existed (hey, you remember how they used to deliberately ban certain races from playing?).

And "it'll get rid of the human element"? What the fuck? Seriously WHAT THE FUCK kind of logic is that? No one is saying replace the players with robots (actually I am calling for that now, it'd be monumentally more entertaining to me personally, especially with robots right now, where we'll get all manner of hilarity from them not operating perfectly well). The human element should come from the competitors, not their tools. Why do we allow them to have bats? Fuck that they should have to hit with their bare arms. And gloves? Just more pussification of America bullshit! If you can't barehand catch you don't deserve to be playing.

But getting rid of refs will ruin things because then fans won't have anyone to drunkenly blame for their team's failures.