Manfred says no to machines calling balls and strikes

[markedman5]

Not a surprise

 

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/578381001/

[3and2Fastball]

Manfred says: "The fact of the matter is they (human umpires) get them right well over 90% of the time."

 

Why is that acceptable, in this modern era where we have the technology? Why accept having 1 in 10 calls wrong?

 

Manfred says: “There is a human aspect to that, a work aspect to it, that’s always been an important part of our game.

“I don’t think you can just jump to the conclusion that if you have to technology to do it that’s the right thing for your product.’’

 

The "always been a part of our game" is what bothers me. I know it would be a big step, but over the years Baseball has changed many things that were at one point "always part of the game" from integration to expansion, lowering the mound, adding DH's, expanding the postseason, going from 154 games to 162, testing for steroids etc....

[DocLuna7]

I support manfred not because I don't believe in change but because I love the human aspect of the game. If it was up to me all replay would be eliminated and we would just deal with the fallout come what may.

[trwi7]

Could be great for teachers. I give students correct information over 90% of the time. So, you know, I'm pretty awesome.

[djoctagone]

shouldn't this thread be called "commissioner what you don't want"?

[FVBrewerFan]

shouldn't this thread be called "commissioner what you don't want"?

 

Bassebale problems WHOAA SOLVD

[LaprilOne]

Ok fine, but nine out of ten is not a good standard. However, the real stinker is there seems to be a growing arrogance from the Umps. Kind of a "hey I called it, shut up." Tack that on to the maddening in game consistency, it is almost like more and Umps are sending the message that "I am in control".

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think there needs to be sort of an invisible fence thing applied to home plate umps with the strike zone for the next few seasons - allow them to make balls and strike calls as they wish to preserve that "human aspect of the game", but then also have a system in place to give them a little shock therapy when they make an incorrect call using the technology already available to log pitches.

 

Not that it would ever be implemented, but you could base the intensity of a shock on how egregiously bad a call is, similarly to how much a pooch gets jolted based on how far beyond the yard marker they venture. I'd put all this post in blue, but the premise of it has merit if there's a way for a home plate ump to get real time feedback on his ball/strike calls during a game from something other than a PO'd catcher or hitter arguing balls and strikes. Maybe some sort of vibrating facemask or wristband that goes off whenever a call is missed, just to get the ump's attention without making it obvious to the hitter/catcher that the incorrect call was made.

[OnTheBlack]

Manfred says: "The fact of the matter is they (human umpires) get them right well over 90% of the time."

 

Why is that acceptable, in this modern era where we have the technology? Why accept having 1 in 10 calls wrong?

 

Manfred says: “There is a human aspect to that, a work aspect to it, that’s always been an important part of our game.

“I don’t think you can just jump to the conclusion that if you have to technology to do it that’s the right thing for your product.’’

 

The "always been a part of our game" is what bothers me. I know it would be a big step, but over the years Baseball has changed many things that were at one point "always part of the game" from integration to expansion, lowering the mound, adding DH's, expanding the postseason, going from 154 games to 162, testing for steroids etc....

 

It's not "an always part of the game" reason for me, I just think it takes too much nuance out of the game. You're taking away from that pitcher who keeps hitting his spots, moving the ball around in the zone and then gets that strike call just outside the zone. I get some people don't like that, but I think that's a part of the game, the matchup between the pitcher and hitter I want to see preserved.

 

Having someone watch a screen, relay down the call and then have the Ump repeat said call would make the game a lot less fun for me. I already think they review certain plays they shouldn't. For example, when a guy slides into a base and does a popslide. If the Ump can't see his toe come a quarter inch off the bag for a split second, that shouldn't be an out.

 

I think replay should be just for the basics. Where did the ball hit, did he beat the throw, the tag...did the runner avoid the tag, did the OF'er trap the ball. That's pretty much it IMO.

[OnTheBlack]

Ok fine, but nine out of ten is not a good standard. However, the real stinker is there seems to be a growing arrogance from the Umps. Kind of a "hey I called it, shut up." Tack that on to the maddening in game consistency, it is almost like more and Umps are sending the message that "I am in control".

 

 

Umps have pretty much always had that. And I think 9 out of 10 actually is a good standard...especially when the majority of those 10 pct are pitches that are borderline calls. It's not like you see a ball over a guys head or a foot outside being called a strike very often.

[rickh150]

How about very limited replay until Labor Day? After, include even more replay with balls/strikes, with no reviews after a call isn't overturned

Also, get rid of Foxtrax after each pitch

[Ennder]

Well hopefully he isn't commissioner long because this statement is just awful. Being right 90% of the time is failing and doing something because it is how it always has been done is the dumbest excuse out there.

[rickh150]

Well hopefully he isn't commissioner long because this statement is just awful. Being right 90% of the time is failing and doing something because it is how it always has been done is the dumbest excuse out there.

 

True, but are we ready for robot strike calls on big breaking balls that look rather low (or high)?

[rickh150]

Also, technically, you could have slow pitch type softball pitches drop on the plate and be called a legit strike since the ball went through the 3D zone. Nit picky, I know, but I imagine big breaking balls nipping the strike zone low or high would be the pitch of choice for many, since batters would be thinking it would be an obvious ball by today's umps.

[Ennder]

Well hopefully he isn't commissioner long because this statement is just awful. Being right 90% of the time is failing and doing something because it is how it always has been done is the dumbest excuse out there.

 

True, but are we ready for robot strike calls on big breaking balls that look rather low (or high)?

 

 

We are at least ready for some sort of call assistance. It doesn't have to be pure computerized. It is just sad that the viewers get help knowing whether it is a strike or a ball yet the people actually calling the plays do not. Every game I watch as 4 or 5 completely clear cut strikes or balls are missed, you could at least assist them with those clear cut cases.

[Vgmastr]

Why not something like tennis where they have a line judge but a player can challenge and the result is immediate based on the technology? Have the umps call balls and strikes, but if a batter disagrees they must immediately challenge and the computer immediately makes a call. It would only take 5-10 seconds. Allow each team a certain number of unsuccessful challenges a game.

[jjgott]

I'm fine with it staying with umps calling balls and strikes so long as the umps are ACTUALLY reviewed for accuracy at the end of the season with the ability for MLB to fire bad umps. They also should have to have their eyes checked periodically.

 

Plus, getting rid of umps calling balls and strikes means getting rid of home plate screaming matches which I still enjoy from time to time.

[MrTPlush]

We don't need computer umps. One of the worst ideas people constantly preach for. What need to be done is improving the current system so it is more accurate. I don't k ow if it is the union or what, but some umps suck and need to find a new career. This was not a huge issue 5 years ago. Now with all the technology love people literally are throwing giant fits every time a strike is a cm off the strike zone.

 

This game does not need to be called perfectly.

[jerichoholicninja]

I hate to be that guy but maybe batters should swing at pitches 1 inch off the plate with two strikes. Don't let the umps decide your fate.

[tmwiese55]

I'd like to see their % on what could actually be considered close calls, I bet it's a heck of a lot closer to 50%. And I don't blame them, it's nearly impossible to get that right as they can go either way when you have one look at it when it's going 95mph. It's just that you have technology there to fix it, why not use it. Ump can have a buzzer on his arm similar to what you get when waiting at a restaurant, buzzes for a strike. That way the ump can still have his head up for everything else he needs to do. It would eliminate all complaining and whining by teams and fans too, which would be a big plus for me.

 

Also, the curveball argument made above. I think technically what you describe would accurately be called a strike. If it crosses the plate at that spot it's a strike.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Ok fine, but nine out of ten is not a good standard. However, the real stinker is there seems to be a growing arrogance from the Umps. Kind of a "hey I called it, shut up." Tack that on to the maddening in game consistency, it is almost like more and Umps are sending the message that "I am in control".

 

I agree with this. I think the electronic zone is a fascinating idea, and I really like the tennis-style proposals thrown out here. The biggest issue to me, though, is that the "human element" (which I can appreciate the value of) sometimes resorts to acting like blind authority. If all umps committed to using the performance review system to get better and were incentivized to do so, that would be just fine. This doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing answer. Technology can be used to help improve the quality of the human element without removing it completely. Now, maybe most umps do or are doing this, or maybe the incentive system is working and I just can't see it because I'm not behind the scenes, but it does seem like a lot of umps have trouble admitting they missed one. Even more, it seems like the league trots out the same umps year after year, and those guys keep acting the same and missing the same calls. That's an issue.

 

Players are to blame a bit too, especially when they complain about borderline pitches. Even an electronic zone is going to have a fuzzy border, and we should recognize the technology's margin of error (lately, on Brewer broadcasts, FoxTrax looks real bad to me, as if the CF camera angle is throwing off the true location of the pitch--maybe the reliability of the tech just isn't good enough yet), especially since the vertical limits of the zone are harder to track than the fixed lines in tennis. Save the vigorous dissent for the really bad ones. There are enough of those to let everyone blow off steam.

[adambr2]

We don't need computer umps. One of the worst ideas people constantly preach for. What need to be done is improving the current system so it is more accurate. I don't k ow if it is the union or what, but some umps suck and need to find a new career. This was not a huge issue 5 years ago. Now with all the technology love people literally are throwing giant fits every time a strike is a cm off the strike zone.

 

This game does not need to be called perfectly.

 

Why not? I mean, if you have the ability and technology to call the game with 99.999% accuracy, why would you settle for 90? What makes sense about that?

 

There is no way to improve the current system so it is more accurate, at least not substantially. As long as you have humans calling the zone there will be human error.

 

I'm sure the zone wasn't being called markedly better 5 years ago, it just sticks out more now because everyone is aware of the technology and how often they actually are getting the call wrong.

[RobDeer 45]

I have a hard time liking the idea of a computer calling balls and strikes. It just seems like the game would have less soul and personality that way. I'd totally be fine with a handful of challenges each game, but that would be the most I'd like to see. Just my opinion.

[tmwiese55]

Some info on how it works in this article. For example, they're not using the offcenter camera in CF that we see on TV

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/158512610/electronic-strike-zone-would-be-a-game-changer/

[Fear The Chorizo]

We are at least ready for some sort of call assistance. It doesn't have to be pure computerized. It is just sad that the viewers get help knowing whether it is a strike or a ball yet the people actually calling the plays do not. Every game I watch as 4 or 5 completely clear cut strikes or balls are missed, you could at least assist them with those clear cut cases.

 

This is exactly why I think there should be a real-time monitoring system that communicates with the umps during the game, not sitting them down after the game to go through the missed pitches. It wouldn't necessarily be something that players/teams could challenge, but giving an ump instant feedback after missing a strike or ball call in the first few innings could help them realize they're missing on a certain corner or high/low end of the strike zone, and they could potentially make an in-game adjustment. This type of system could be calibrated to only notify the ump if a drastic error was made on a call instead of just being an inch off. This could also be a helpful ump evaluation tool - if certain umps prove to be slow, unable to adjust, or consistently make egregious calls during games, they can be replaced.