Manfred says no to machines calling balls and strikes

[OnTheBlack]

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.

 

 

That's a never ending slippery slope that leads to the type of replays that I already cited that I think are ridiculous and an unintended consequences of the new replay rules.

 

This would literally ruin the game for me. Moreso than a few missed calls a game.

[OnTheBlack]

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.

 

 

And maybe you should also tip your hat to the pitchers IF you get a swing at a pitch 1 inch off the plate, or if you get a called strike because you've been hitting your spots all game.

 

This would be the biggest change in the history of baseball. Integration changed the level of talent in the game....advanced metrics have slightly changed the way the game is played. This would fundamentally change the way the game unlike anything ever before.

 

And if you like offense, I suppose you'd like this because you'd likely never see another season like Kershaw has put up recently.

[OnTheBlack]

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.

 

That's like saying if a hitter puts four balls to the wall that are caught for outs, the fourth one should be considered a home run because he's been hitting the ball hard all game. If it's not a strike, it's not a strike. Giving the pitcher a wider zone because he's been throwing strikes breaks the stated rules to benefit him and penalizes the hitter. Just give them an even playing field and see who wins.

 

I think having automated ball/strikes called makes a lot more sense than using super slo-mo to see if a baserunner's foot left the base for 1/10 of a second. That takes time and seems like an overreach, while calling the strike zone accurately is just something that makes sense. The automated strike zone is instant and accurate, so it takes nothing away from the game other than the visual of seeing a guy dressed in black standing behind the plate.

 

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

 

Yeah, it's absolutely nothing like that.

 

I think that comment is about as relevant to this discussion as people talking about what would happen to them in their jobs if they made the same mistakes. These are the best in the world. Most people using the argument are not at the same level in their profession and their profession(speaking generally) are not a comparable level of difficulty. And hitting the ball deep into the OF is absolutely NOTHING like a pitcher getting a pitch just off the plate a strike because he's been able to command the ball regularly and hit his spots and a catcher is able to frame a pitch well.

 

I think there's a group of people who like the game, enjoy the game but who think that virtually everything about the game should be driven by a computer. I'll leave it at this. I love the game. I probably played 700 games in my life(give or take) and I've hated the umps at time. I've caught pitchers who have pitched in the big leagues and this is just my opinion, but this game doesn't need to be called by robots. I find the idea just impossible to wrap my head around. Those who dismiss and laugh at the "human element" I just don't get it. Baseball is a game of error. You do what you can and do the best you can. You don't make it a video game with real players. I've already said I think they went too far with some of the new rules they've implemented with instant replay.

 

And I've never considered myself an old school type of guy. I do know for a fact that the guys playing the game do not want a robot calling balls and strikes. Edit-I should only speak for the players I've known or discussed it with and that's a very small group relative to the entire MLBPA. I don't think this could even come close to passing the Players Union.

[MrTPlush]

Danzig it sounds like you would call pitches an inch out of the zone "wrong". If that is the case it is time to shut down MLB Gameday because that's just getting ridiculous. That is the entire problem with this. People want to perfect this thing down to the centimeter. After every inch let's break out the ruler to see if it was a strike or not. One day people were flipping out in the IGT because a ball literally brushed the strike zone and was called a ball. To know for sure I would have had to blow up the picture and look at pixels. That's not a wrong call. That is a borderline pitch that can be called either way and everyone should be fine with it.

 

I see a few realistic options and one crazy one all way better than robot umps:

 

1) Do nothing, but find a better way to train umpires. Find a way to fire the bad ones or at least make it easier for future years as these old guys probably aren't leaving no matter what we try to do.

 

2) Give each team a few challenges that the batter must use IMMEDIATELY if he feels the call was wrong. The first batter for each team will effectively waste all of them and probably be wrong each time. People will realize the umps actually do a pretty good job. If you are actually smart and don't waste them you can change that one pitch that actually hurts you with runners on base etc.

 

3) Ban FoxTrax and other similar on TV visual aids that show viewers where the ball ended up. This, in my opinion, is gets everyone fired up over every single wrong call even if it is a hair wrong. It's ridiculous. 90% of the calls people get mad at probably wouldn't even know it was wrong if FoxTrax wasn't telling them.

[adambr2]

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.

 

 

And maybe you should also tip your hat to the pitchers IF you get a swing at a pitch 1 inch off the plate, or if you get a called strike because you've been hitting your spots all game.

 

This would be the biggest change in the history of baseball. Integration changed the level of talent in the game....advanced metrics have slightly changed the way the game is played. This would fundamentally change the way the game unlike anything ever before.

 

And if you like offense, I suppose you'd like this because you'd likely never see another season like Kershaw has put up recently.

 

It would no doubt be a big change. The biggest change in the history of baseball, nah, I doubt that. That would be the end of the dead ball era.

 

The last sentence is just not true. In fact, hitting your spots would become even more of a strategy because if you can find that actual bottom outside corner spot and hit it with consistency (not just come close), you'll get the call every time. As pointed out earlier, slow curves that actually cross at the bottom of the strike zone but are always called balls will now be strikes. Batters won't get rewarded anymore for when a catcher gets crossed up and the pitch goes right over the plate and doesn't get called for a strike.

 

I don't see any basis to the theory that pitching will suffer. Plenty of balls in the strike zone are being called incorrectly as well. It's not just the other way around. And even if true, if you're saying that Kershaw has only put up seasons like he has recently because of unfairly getting calls off the plate, that seems like a pretty poor reason to me to keep the current system.

[JosephC]

Concept would be much more sound if the top and bottom of the strike zone was the same for every hitter. If this change ever did occur I'm guessing we'd hear similar complaints. But instead of "the umpire screwed up, that pitch was 2 inches outside" the argument would now be "the system operator screwed up when he set the top of the strike zone, that pitch was 2 inches high if the zone had been set correctly."

[clancyphile]

I think the resistance to machines calling balls and strikes will last and succeed only as long as the umpires remain credible.

 

That said, with that technology, how long before some analytics guy uses this to track how various umps call the balls and strikes, and then passes that on to the pitchers?

 

I could see this really helping a pitcher like Brent Suter, who relies less on blowing it by hitters and more on using control and command.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Just as someone who wants to see a more "middle ground" approach, let me take up for the "human element" a bit.

 

It isn't that I want umpires to be able to do whatever they want and blow calls. When I say "human element," I simply mean preserving the ability to allow for different, legitimate definitions of what counts as a strike.

 

Despite the detailed language around the strike zone in the rule book, there's always an element of uncertainty. The exact same pitch could be a strike to one batter and a ball to another. Pitchers want to get as many strikes in the extreme parts of the zone as possible. Hitters want the middle of the zone to be the only real place strikes are called. This makes the entire thing a negotiation.

 

I think that's okay. I think it enriches the game. Even just watching, it's easy to notice my own aesthetic preferences emerging. Some strikes are ugly. They don't look like strikes (the 12-6 curveball that ends up in the dirt would be one example). Some are pretty (right on the outside edge at the knees). Having different philosophies about what's a good strike and what's an ugly strike can be useful and fun. That's a good part of baseball. I like high strikes, for example. Pitches up in the zone, even up to the letters, look like good pitches that a batter can reasonably hit. Somebody else might want the low pitch, right at the hollow of the knees, called more often. Debating those things is part of what makes baseball fun, and I think having some subjectivity within the strike zone allows for different styles and different ways to achieve success.

 

Of course, there can be too much subjectivity. When zones are wildly inconsistent, that's a big problem. When pitches 3, 4 inches off the inside corner are strikes, that's unfair. That's why I'm a fan of the tennis style system. Allow for clear errors to be corrected. As fans, though, I think it's probably best to recognize that there are "borderline" pitches. The strike zone has gray areas. I'd rather live with some variance in the way different umps call those gray areas than institute one, machine-defined gray area that all of baseball lives by.

 

To put it simply, I'm willing to live with umpires doing different things on very close pitches. I also hope technology can quickly, efficiently, and correctly eliminate obvious mistakes.

[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.

 

 

And maybe you should also tip your hat to the pitchers IF you get a swing at a pitch 1 inch off the plate, or if you get a called strike because you've been hitting your spots all game.

 

This would be the biggest change in the history of baseball. Integration changed the level of talent in the game....advanced metrics have slightly changed the way the game is played. This would fundamentally change the way the game unlike anything ever before.

 

And if you like offense, I suppose you'd like this because you'd likely never see another season like Kershaw has put up recently.

 

It would no doubt be a big change. The biggest change in the history of baseball, nah, I doubt that. That would be the end of the dead ball era.

 

The last sentence is just not true. In fact, hitting your spots would become even more of a strategy because if you can find that actual bottom outside corner spot and hit it with consistency (not just come close), you'll get the call every time. As pointed out earlier, slow curves that actually cross at the bottom of the strike zone but are always called balls will now be strikes. Batters won't get rewarded anymore for when a catcher gets crossed up and the pitch goes right over the plate and doesn't get called for a strike.

 

I don't see any basis to the theory that pitching will suffer. Plenty of balls in the strike zone are being called incorrectly as well. It's not just the other way around. And even if true, if you're saying that Kershaw has only put up seasons like he has recently because of unfairly getting calls off the plate, that seems like a pretty poor reason to me to keep the current system.

 

Ya, I have no idea what point that guy is trying to make.

 

 

I think the resistance to machines calling balls and strikes will last and succeed only as long as the umpires remain credible.

 

That said, with that technology, how long before some analytics guy uses this to track how various umps call the balls and strikes, and then passes that on to the pitchers?

 

I could see this really helping a pitcher like Brent Suter, who relies less on blowing it by hitters and more on using control and command.

 

Teams already have scouting reports on umps. They all know who calls what where.

[jerichoholicninja]

Just as someone who wants to see a more "middle ground" approach, let me take up for the "human element" a bit.

 

It isn't that I want umpires to be able to do whatever they want and blow calls. When I say "human element," I simply mean preserving the ability to allow for different, legitimate definitions of what counts as a strike.

 

Despite the detailed language around the strike zone in the rule book, there's always an element of uncertainty. The exact same pitch could be a strike to one batter and a ball to another. Pitchers want to get as many strikes in the extreme parts of the zone as possible. Hitters want the middle of the zone to be the only real place strikes are called. This makes the entire thing a negotiation.

 

I think that's okay. I think it enriches the game. Even just watching, it's easy to notice my own aesthetic preferences emerging. Some strikes are ugly. They don't look like strikes (the 12-6 curveball that ends up in the dirt would be one example). Some are pretty (right on the outside edge at the knees). Having different philosophies about what's a good strike and what's an ugly strike can be useful and fun. That's a good part of baseball. I like high strikes, for example. Pitches up in the zone, even up to the letters, look like good pitches that a batter can reasonably hit. Somebody else might want the low pitch, right at the hollow of the knees, called more often. Debating those things is part of what makes baseball fun, and I think having some subjectivity within the strike zone allows for different styles and different ways to achieve success.

 

Of course, there can be too much subjectivity. When zones are wildly inconsistent, that's a big problem. When pitches 3, 4 inches off the inside corner are strikes, that's unfair. That's why I'm a fan of the tennis style system. Allow for clear errors to be corrected. As fans, though, I think it's probably best to recognize that there are "borderline" pitches. The strike zone has gray areas. I'd rather live with some variance in the way different umps call those gray areas than institute one, machine-defined gray area that all of baseball lives by.

 

To put it simply, I'm willing to live with umpires doing different things on very close pitches. I also hope technology can quickly, efficiently, and correctly eliminate obvious mistakes.

 

So even though the zone is clearly defined, each umpire should individually decide what they think is a strike or not? That really makes no sense. Then why not the same thing on a force out or fair/foul? Every rule is up to the umpire's discretion on how to enforce it.

[Thurston Fluff]

I see a few realistic options and one crazy one all way better than robot umps:

 

1) Do nothing, but find a better way to train umpires. Find a way to fire the bad ones or at least make it easier for future years as these old guys probably aren't leaving no matter what we try to do.

 

2) Give each team a few challenges that the batter must use IMMEDIATELY if he feels the call was wrong. The first batter for each team will effectively waste all of them and probably be wrong each time. People will realize the umps actually do a pretty good job. If you are actually smart and don't waste them you can change that one pitch that actually hurts you with runners on base etc.

 

3) Ban FoxTrax and other similar on TV visual aids that show viewers where the ball ended up. This, in my opinion, is gets everyone fired up over every single wrong call even if it is a hair wrong. It's ridiculous. 90% of the calls people get mad at probably wouldn't even know it was wrong if FoxTrax wasn't telling them.

 

The first option assumes there is a limitless supply of people capable of determining if a ball is an inch off the plate more often than current umps do. I think the problem isn't that MLB just doesn't try to find good umps who can call balls and strikes better than the ones now. I don't believe the problem is MLB doesn't train them properly. I don't believe firing the weakest ones will help. There is always a weakest one so we would always be firing one. All the umps got there because they were better than others to begin with so changing them out seems like a futile effort. MLB already has standards that umps have to meet or they are removed. I think making the standards more rigid would only lead to not enough umps meeting the standard. Believe it or not these are the best available. I think the problem is it's not humanly possible to judge a 99 MPH fastball on the black followed by a curve ball at the knees- without knowing in advance which was coming when- any more accurately than they are currently being called. Add in every pitcher's stuff moves differently and every catcher is trained to trick umps on close pitches out of the zone and I think umps are doing about as well as humanly possible. Thus the only option to get more accurate is to go with some sort of non human assist.

 

The second option doesn't at all address bad calls as much as say you're not perfect either so shut up. That doesn't make anything better.

 

The third takes away from the fan experience. I like seeing if the pitch was in or out of the zone. Not to judge the ump but to judge the players.

 

None of the options seems to me to be way better than giving the umps technological assistance that is readily available and doesn't slow the game down.

[JCREW]

I've thought about this for a while and I have an idea of a zone system that would have a human element.

 

For starters, the 3D zone is set up with a border region. The rules for the border region could be set up in a number of ways (percentage of the ball over an infinitely thin line, percentage of the ball within a region of determined width, etc.). The gist of the idea is that if the ball is in the border region, the call is completely up to the umpire. If the pitch is in the non-border-region of the strike zone, it is a strike. The umpire can either call it correctly or be notified that he was incorrect and have his call overridden. If the pitch is outside of the border region, it is a ball. The umpire can either call it correctly or be notified that he was incorrect and have his call overridden.

 

So essentially, the system does not make a judgment when the pitch is in the border region, leaving those calls completely up to the umpire. The system becomes corrective when the ump makes an egregious error. The border region could be as narrow as the league/players wanted. It could even get narrower as the season progresses so that the umps are trained to work toward perfect accuracy for the playoffs.

 

It's just something I thought I'd run up the flagpole.

[adambr2]

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.

 

That's like saying if a hitter puts four balls to the wall that are caught for outs, the fourth one should be considered a home run because he's been hitting the ball hard all game. If it's not a strike, it's not a strike. Giving the pitcher a wider zone because he's been throwing strikes breaks the stated rules to benefit him and penalizes the hitter. Just give them an even playing field and see who wins.

 

I think having automated ball/strikes called makes a lot more sense than using super slo-mo to see if a baserunner's foot left the base for 1/10 of a second. That takes time and seems like an overreach, while calling the strike zone accurately is just something that makes sense. The automated strike zone is instant and accurate, so it takes nothing away from the game other than the visual of seeing a guy dressed in black standing behind the plate.

 

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

 

Yeah, it's absolutely nothing like that.

 

I think that comment is about as relevant to this discussion as people talking about what would happen to them in their jobs if they made the same mistakes. These are the best in the world. Most people using the argument are not at the same level in their profession and their profession(speaking generally) are not a comparable level of difficulty. And hitting the ball deep into the OF is absolutely NOTHING like a pitcher getting a pitch just off the plate a strike because he's been able to command the ball regularly and hit his spots and a catcher is able to frame a pitch well.

 

I think there's a group of people who like the game, enjoy the game but who think that virtually everything about the game should be driven by a computer. I'll leave it at this. I love the game. I probably played 700 games in my life(give or take) and I've hated the umps at time. I've caught pitchers who have pitched in the big leagues and this is just my opinion, but this game doesn't need to be called by robots. I find the idea just impossible to wrap my head around. Those who dismiss and laugh at the "human element" I just don't get it. Baseball is a game of error. You do what you can and do the best you can. You don't make it a video game with real players. I've already said I think they went too far with some of the new rules they've implemented with instant replay.

 

And I've never considered myself an old school type of guy. I do know for a fact that the guys playing the game do not want a robot calling balls and strikes. Edit-I should only speak for the players I've known or discussed it with and that's a very small group relative to the entire MLBPA. I don't think this could even come close to passing the Players Union.

 

How in the world does an automated strike zone make the game a video game with real players? It literally leaves everything up to the guys on the field and takes the umpire element out completely. What player would have a problem with that, and why? I know there are many who still do, and no doubt it's in part because getting people to change anything at all is hard. But there are already many starting to shift to the new way of thinking. It's gradual, but it is happening. I'm not saying this will happen in the next 5 years, or even 10, but inevitably, yes, this will happen. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when.

 

And no, conversely, I don't understand people who are so attached to the "human element". How is that any different than me saying, "Tennis has been ruined by replay. It was so much better when the judges could get an "in" or "out" call wrong. Do any tennis fans actually ever say that?

 

There is the human element. It's the 18 guys on the field that play the game. That's the human element. Why there should be anyone other than the guys playing the game, that actually decide the game, when you have the ability to prevent it, I can't wrap my head around.

 

Also, even if they implemented fully automated strike zones, there would still be an umpire behind the plate making the calls. The strike calls, everything, would be the same. Literally the only difference is that he is not the one deciding the calls. Why some believe it is so crucial to the game that an imperfect middle aged man be the one deciding these calls, rather than a far more accurate system, even though the umpire is literally still telling what the calls are, is a mystery to me.

[FVBrewerFan]

Let some of the guys from the IGT call balls and strikes for MLB. They are right 100% of the time.

 

Seriously now. It's the union, plain and simple. They protect bad umps, which are most of them. Let them each have their take on the strike zone etc. They could easily get to 99% correct calls with humans.

[danzig6767]

Danzig it sounds like you would call pitches an inch out of the zone "wrong". If that is the case it is time to shut down MLB Gameday because that's just getting ridiculous. That is the entire problem with this. People want to perfect this thing down to the centimeter. After every inch let's break out the ruler to see if it was a strike or not. One day people were flipping out in the IGT because a ball literally brushed the strike zone and was called a ball. To know for sure I would have had to blow up the picture and look at pixels. That's not a wrong call. That is a borderline pitch that can be called either way and everyone should be fine with it.

No, i want more consistency. What really annoys me is there will be games when an ump decides on his own that he just won't call most pitches at the knees a strike because well, that's what he thinks a strike should be. Or he'll randomly call half of the pitches at the knees a strike and the exact same pitch a ball, sometimes with the same batter at the plate.

 

Then the next game, the ump that day will decide that most pitches on the inside edge of the plate will be called balls or balls off the plate strikes.

 

So basically, from game to game batters and pitchers have to get a feel for what each given home plate umpire is likely going to decide what a strike is or have games where that umpire is wildly inconsistent on whether say a low strike will be called a ball or strike. Batter is at the plate in a key moment and pitches hit nearly identical spots, yet it's pure guessing as to whether a ball or strike will be called.

 

This is what drives both pitchers and batters crazy. Hitters and pitchers could adjust much easier over time to an automated system because it would be consistent instead of every game having a different umpire decide his own interpretation of what a strike or ball is.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Just as someone who wants to see a more "middle ground" approach, let me take up for the "human element" a bit.

 

It isn't that I want umpires to be able to do whatever they want and blow calls. When I say "human element," I simply mean preserving the ability to allow for different, legitimate definitions of what counts as a strike.

 

Despite the detailed language around the strike zone in the rule book, there's always an element of uncertainty. The exact same pitch could be a strike to one batter and a ball to another. Pitchers want to get as many strikes in the extreme parts of the zone as possible. Hitters want the middle of the zone to be the only real place strikes are called. This makes the entire thing a negotiation.

 

I think that's okay. I think it enriches the game. Even just watching, it's easy to notice my own aesthetic preferences emerging. Some strikes are ugly. They don't look like strikes (the 12-6 curveball that ends up in the dirt would be one example). Some are pretty (right on the outside edge at the knees). Having different philosophies about what's a good strike and what's an ugly strike can be useful and fun. That's a good part of baseball. I like high strikes, for example. Pitches up in the zone, even up to the letters, look like good pitches that a batter can reasonably hit. Somebody else might want the low pitch, right at the hollow of the knees, called more often. Debating those things is part of what makes baseball fun, and I think having some subjectivity within the strike zone allows for different styles and different ways to achieve success.

 

Of course, there can be too much subjectivity. When zones are wildly inconsistent, that's a big problem. When pitches 3, 4 inches off the inside corner are strikes, that's unfair. That's why I'm a fan of the tennis style system. Allow for clear errors to be corrected. As fans, though, I think it's probably best to recognize that there are "borderline" pitches. The strike zone has gray areas. I'd rather live with some variance in the way different umps call those gray areas than institute one, machine-defined gray area that all of baseball lives by.

 

To put it simply, I'm willing to live with umpires doing different things on very close pitches. I also hope technology can quickly, efficiently, and correctly eliminate obvious mistakes.

 

So even though the zone is clearly defined, each umpire should individually decide what they think is a strike or not? That really makes no sense. Then why not the same thing on a force out or fair/foul? Every rule is up to the umpire's discretion on how to enforce it.

 

The key word is legitimate. It isn't totally up to the individual umpire because some strike zones are indefensible. My view, though, is that slightly different strike zones can be rationally defended. The width of the plate is clearly mentioned in the rule book. The vertical limits, though? They're made to vary based on the batter, and there's just no way to draw a hard and fast border when the batter is moving all the time.

 

It's not like tennis. The boundaries in tennis are fixed. The fair/foul lines in baseball are fixed. The strike zone isn't. I don't see how saying there's room for differing, reasonable definitions equates to letting each individual make up their own rules. There is room for individual decisions within limits. The challenge for any system is to decide what that limit is. We understand this with close plays at first. Sometimes, a "bang-bang" call is possibly wrong but replay doesn't let us overturn it. It's the same concept here. The system would have to decide what's bad enough to correct and what has to be allowed to stand based on the information we have.

[MrTPlush]

I'm just going to say I enjoy the art of framing and catchers that are actually good receivers. It provides another skill to make yourself better than your opponent. It would be a shame to lose that.

[danzig6767]

I'm just going to say I enjoy the art of framing and catchers that are actually good receivers. It provides another skill to make yourself better than your opponent. It would be a shame to lose that.

I enjoy that aspect of the game also, but i'm more concerned with the chance that the Brewers at some point in the future are in a key game for a playoff berth or actually in the playoffs and say in the 9th inning down a run with guys on base, one of our hitters wrongly gets rung up on a pitch two inches off the plate to end the game because baseball and some fans wanted to protect this socalled human element. Or in reverse, our closer has a key two strike pitch wrongly called a ball and that leads to us losing.

[Ennder]

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.

 

That's like saying if a hitter puts four balls to the wall that are caught for outs, the fourth one should be considered a home run because he's been hitting the ball hard all game. If it's not a strike, it's not a strike. Giving the pitcher a wider zone because he's been throwing strikes breaks the stated rules to benefit him and penalizes the hitter. Just give them an even playing field and see who wins.

 

I think having automated ball/strikes called makes a lot more sense than using super slo-mo to see if a baserunner's foot left the base for 1/10 of a second. That takes time and seems like an overreach, while calling the strike zone accurately is just something that makes sense. The automated strike zone is instant and accurate, so it takes nothing away from the game other than the visual of seeing a guy dressed in black standing behind the plate.

 

As to the curveball thing mentioned earlier, that's a good thing. The 12-6 curveball has largely been taken out of the game because umpires have a hard time calling it correctly. That's a bad thing. If automation allows for pitchers to throw their best pitch and have it called correctly, that's a good thing.

 

 

Yeah, it's absolutely nothing like that.

 

I think that comment is about as relevant to this discussion as people talking about what would happen to them in their jobs if they made the same mistakes. These are the best in the world. Most people using the argument are not at the same level in their profession and their profession(speaking generally) are not a comparable level of difficulty. And hitting the ball deep into the OF is absolutely NOTHING like a pitcher getting a pitch just off the plate a strike because he's been able to command the ball regularly and hit his spots and a catcher is able to frame a pitch well.

 

I think there's a group of people who like the game, enjoy the game but who think that virtually everything about the game should be driven by a computer. I'll leave it at this. I love the game. I probably played 700 games in my life(give or take) and I've hated the umps at time. I've caught pitchers who have pitched in the big leagues and this is just my opinion, but this game doesn't need to be called by robots. I find the idea just impossible to wrap my head around. Those who dismiss and laugh at the "human element" I just don't get it. Baseball is a game of error. You do what you can and do the best you can. You don't make it a video game with real players. I've already said I think they went too far with some of the new rules they've implemented with instant replay.

 

And I've never considered myself an old school type of guy. I do know for a fact that the guys playing the game do not want a robot calling balls and strikes. Edit-I should only speak for the players I've known or discussed it with and that's a very small group relative to the entire MLBPA. I don't think this could even come close to passing the Players Union.

 

He is actually completely right. Giving you a strike because you have hit the corner a bunch and you know the ball was outside the zone but you have established the corner is just bad umpiring. It is completely the same as 3 balls hit to the wall and the 4th one hit to the wall should be just an auto HR, it is just as absurd. People accept it because that is how it has always been, which is the worst rationalization for keeping something the way it currently is.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

Weird and counter-intuitive as it sounds, I wonder what a consistent zone would do to the game itself? It might have an effect no one intends.

 

Part of the give-and-take of the game is pitchers and batters adjusting to a strike zone. Be it large, small, wide or narrow.

 

Take away that element and it takes away an adjustment players have to make. It makes it much more likely they master something that's a moving target at present.

 

Whether that would mean pitchers would become ascendant or batters would, there's a good chance it might throw off the balance of the game. And no one wnats that.

[MrTPlush]

Are we putting sensors in the bases and gloves and cleats and the foul line to make sure we don't screw up a call there too? Why are we stopping at the strike zone? We have technology to know the ball beat the runner by a millisecond. Can we get that too? All these too close to call plays on the basepaths need to be fixed too. We have to know for sure.

 

Why do we have to be so precise for a strike zone, but nothing else. I understand we want bad calls out, but do we really need to be correct to the centimeter for strike/ball calls?

 

That's what bothers me about current replays. We want bad calls out. Not review everything that is close to see if maybe a lace on the glove brushed his jersey.

[jerichoholicninja]

Are there any numbers that show if umps are giving more strikes than taking away strikes? Meaning, are they calling more balls as strikes than calling strikes as balls. I can understand an ump missing a call giving a strike a 1/2 inch off the plate but not so much missing when 1/2 inch of a baseball is over the plate.

[502 to Right]

I don't want a "human element" that is wrong 1 out of 10 times. I want consistency and accuracy.

 

I am seriously sick of umpires right now. They need to shut the hell up.

[MrTPlush]

JESUS!!! Jesus!!!!

[danzig6767]

I don't want a "human element" that is wrong 1 out of 10 times. I want consistency and accuracy.

 

I am seriously sick of umpires right now. They need to shut the hell up.

They get the close pitches wrong a lot more than 1 out of 10 times and the close pitches are what matters more than the clearly obvious balls and strikes which they get right probably 98-99 percent of the time.

 

If they got the close pitches correct 90% of the time, there would be less complaints.