2011-08-06 Brewers (Narveson) at Astros (Myers) - [Brewers win, 7-5]

[geddymd73]

Yuni is 4 for 4. Simply awesome.

[adamb100]

San Diego is mowing down the Pirates 11-1 so far.

[liveforoctober]

.265 obtained. Next stop .270. Do your thing Betancourt.

[FoxyFoxes]

I still don't get why Counsell is first off the bench. When Weeks gets back he should be 3rd off the bench AT BEST.

[pebadger]

Nothing is perfect. Therefore, it follows that any replay system will itself be imperfect and will introduce its own type of error into the game. What's worse from a perception standpoint: getting the call wrong on the field or having replay and getting the call wrong anyway? Sooner or later replay will overrule a decision that was made correctly on the field. The call will be made, the replay will be viewed and a new call will be made. Then, after the game, or even during it, a new piece of evidence will come to light demonstrating that the umpire was indeed correct. Even though it will be rare, it will happen and that fact needs to be considered.

[owbc]

Betancourt now with positive WAR this year. He also is still below his 2010 numbers, so there is reason to think he may further improve.

[umphrey]

Astros must not have read the scouting report if they are walking Counsell

[jwill535]

CC on base machine.

[pebadger]

I still don't get why Counsell is first off the bench. When Weeks gets back he should be 3rd off the bench AT BEST.

 

You'd rather save Counsell for the bottom of the 9th? Why does it matter who is first off the bench? The only thing that matters in terms of PH is situation.

[Schlitz001]

Nothing is perfect. Therefore, it follows that any replay system will itself be imperfect and will introduce its own type of error into the game. What's worse from a perception standpoint: getting the call wrong on the field or having replay and getting the call wrong anyway? Sooner or later replay will overrule a decision that was made correctly on the field. The call will be made, the replay will be viewed and a new call will be made. Then, after the game, or even during it, a new piece of evidence will come to light demonstrating that the umpire was indeed correct. Even though it will be rare, it will happen and that fact needs to be considered.

So we shouldn't institute replay because it will only correct 95% of wrong calls? That's like saying we shouldn't have amoxicillin because 5% of people may have diarrhea.

 

I understand the resistance to replay because it has never been used and it's not part of the tradition of the game, but it's been incorporated seamlessly and successfully in every other sport and improved them. It can easily be used in baseball in a similar fashion.

[dlk9s]

I really, really wish J.C. Romero was on the Astros so they could have a J.A., J.B., J.C., and J.D. on the roster.

[owbc]

Baseball should be the easiest sport (besides Tennis) to eliminate the human element completely.

 

Football, basektball, and hockey all have penalties, fouls, etc. which are often subjective. Baseball has almost none of that. The only exceptions are balks and check swings.

 

Ball vs. Strike? The Foxtrax in the corner of my screen already answers that. Put it on the scoreboard.

 

Safe vs. out? The only problem is lack of camera angles. They can add more if they start replay. There will never be a single call wrongly overturned--there will only be ones that literally will be a tie--and then you go with the call on the field like the NFL does.

 

Fair vs. Foul is the same way, and even that can probably be automated like Tennis.

 

I even think check swings could be automated, you just need a little laser/sensor in front of home plate or one of those tiny cameras looking straight up.

 

They do not need to fire the umpires, they will be responsible for keeping the game moving and dusting off home plate and the little sensor.

[jwill535]

Check swings couldnt work, because the bat could go over the spot and there wouldnt be any intent to swing. Check swings are a judgement call on intent, not breaking of the wrists or the bat going past a certain point. Even then its subjective.

[owbc]

Check swings couldnt work, because the bat could go over the spot and there wouldnt be any intent to swing. Check swings are a judgement call on intent, not breaking of the wrists or the bat going past a certain point. Even then its subjective.

The umpire can press a little button when the pitcher starts his throwing motion to activate the sensor.

 

It will also be used for the scoreboard ball/strike tracker because if the batter swings at a ball, the computer will know to call it a swinging strike.

[jwill535]

Check swings couldnt work, because the bat could go over the spot and there wouldnt be any intent to swing. Check swings are a judgement call on intent, not breaking of the wrists or the bat going past a certain point. Even then its subjective.

The umpire can press a little button when the pitcher starts his throwing motion to activate the sensor.

You didnt read what I wrote.

[geddymd73]

I don't see why intent can't be judged by scanning overall movement. Starting and stopping are easily visualized events for a computer. Process the view from the lines and I bet it would be spot on. I see no reason why a scan of breaking at the wrists can't be visualized.

[owbc]

I see what you mean now. I thought it was based on whether the bat crossed home plate. I don't understand how it can be judged on intent--if it's a check swing, you intend to swing and then you change your mind and stop.

[Schlitz001]

Corey Hart exited the game because of a left hand contusion.

[jwill535]

Then you would have to define intent then, which the rule book does not do. Check swing is = PI in football. There is a rule, but no one really knows how to truly define it. Its like the old saying on porn, "i know it when i see it."

[owbc]

Not sure if I can trust Wikipedia, but:

 

The Major League Baseball

rulebook doesn't contain an official definition for a checked swing; it

is the decision of the umpire presiding. Generally, factors such as

whether the bat passes the front of the plate or the batter pulls his

wrists back are considered in the ruling. Some umpires prefer to use the

"breaking of the wrists" as the method to decide a checked swing.

[geddymd73]

Any batter movement can be scanned and interpreted these days within a couple of seconds. Its not a psychological evaluation for the machine to interpret a check swing at any point.

[markedman5]

Lucroy taps the glove inside and then sets up on the outside corner.......KROD throws it on the inside corner..........all is well.....lol

[jwill535]

Any batter movement can be scanned and interpreted these days within a couple of seconds. Its not a psychological evaluation for the machine to interpret a check swing at any point.

But what about a batter that never breaks his wrists, keeps that bat pointed bat at a 45 but his body spins around to avoid a pitch and the bat crosses the plate, which happens often. Its not called a strike but a computer might call it that way.

[owbc]

But what about a batter that never breaks his wrists, keeps that bat pointed bat at a 45 but his body spins around to avoid a pitch and the bat crosses the plate, which happens often. Its not called a strike but a computer might call it that way.

I have seen that called a strike and a ball. It depends on the umpire. In my scenario, MLB would redefine the check swing as the bat crossing home plate, which would be done for the purpose of making the game as objective as possible.

[owbc]

Nice to get a 325 foot home run on our side for a change.