WAR is the dumbest stat known to mankind (Trout vs. Betts)

[notin]

Yet I am still opposed to robot umps. And instant replay.

 

No on robor umps. OK on replay. It hasn't been the big issue that it had the potential to be...

[Spudboy]

What's amazing is that we still have blown calls that stand even after replays. Human beings can screw up anything.

 

But there are a heck of a lot of overturned calls, so it does kind of justify the use of it.

 

I can understand when there is not enough video evidence to overturn a call. It's the times when they have good video evidence and still make the wrong call. That drives me nuts.

[Slasher9]

Robots for balls and strikes are never going to happen. I'm not going to worry about that one anymore. Just have to have as much fun as possible with the blown calls LOL

 

we have the technology now. I am unsure why so many people are against this idea? why should an "umpire" have all the "human element" of a baseball game?

the technology has proven that home plate umpires on average get 13% of the balls/strikes calls wrong. 13%. that's an 87% success rate. a B grade. that is NOT ok for me when we have the ability to have this number instantly be just about 100% accurate.

btw - it would also speed up the game.

ROBOT UMPS NOW.

[illinoisredsox]

we have the technology now. I am unsure why so many people are against this idea? why should an "umpire" have all the "human element" of a baseball game?

the technology has proven that home plate umpires on average get 13% of the balls/strikes calls wrong. 13%. that's an 87% success rate. a B grade. that is NOT ok for me when we have the ability to have this number instantly be just about 100% accurate.

btw - it would also speed up the game.

ROBOT UMPS NOW.

'

Do we really? This article seems to indicate it's not as good as one might think. It has some extensive and interesting insights from the Director of Technology for Baseball Prospectus on the subject.

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/robot-umpires-electronic-strike-zone-in-mlb-pitchfx-balls-and-strikes/ggv80p4qmsu31d72sohrmbcnj

 

Note - it also quotes Joe West, but he can be ignored.

[illinoisredsox]

Here's another article on the robo-ump subject:

 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/37347/robo-strike-zone-not-simple-think/

[mvp 78]

Mess around with it in the minors and get the kinks out.

[Maxbialystock]

we have the technology now. I am unsure why so many people are against this idea? why should an "umpire" have all the "human element" of a baseball game?

the technology has proven that home plate umpires on average get 13% of the balls/strikes calls wrong. 13%. that's an 87% success rate. a B grade. that is NOT ok for me when we have the ability to have this number instantly be just about 100% accurate.

btw - it would also speed up the game.

ROBOT UMPS NOW.

 

What the heck is wrong with 87%? You take away the balls and strikes from umpires, it would be best to call everything with robot umps.

 

Baseball is a human endeavor, and humans make mistakes. I happen to think the umpires on average are more professional than the players, and I can live with their mistakes. In fact, I prefer mistakes now and then. The only problem I see today with respect to mistakes is how we obsess over them. And it ain't just baseball. Football loves replays and now has lovely little ceremony--throwing a flag--to celebrate each opportunity to review a play and occasionally redress a wrong so egregious that humanity weeps at the injustice. And don't you just love those endless official timeouts in NCAA basketball to verify a shot was in time or how vicious a foul was or, better still, how outrageously a player faked being fouled?

 

 

 

Computer chips, that's another matter. Also the infinitely accurate parts to a jet plane which, if off by a thousandth of an inch, could cause an engine to explode in flight.

[dgalehouse]

I don't like the managers telling the umps to wait while they examine the video. If you want to challenge , do it right away.

[mvp 78]

I don't like the managers telling the umps to wait while they examine the video. If you want to challenge , do it right away.

 

^^^^^^

[Kimmi]

No on robor umps. OK on replay. It hasn't been the big issue that it had the potential to be...

 

One issue that I have with instant replay is how some plays are reviewable while other plays that can affect the outcome of the game just as much are not. OTOH, I don't want them to extend it to the point where every play, including balls and strikes, is reviewable. Better off just not having it, IMO.

[Jack Flap]

Well, bear in mind the thread title we are posting on...

 

What, you mean you don't think WAR is the dumbest stat known to mankind because Player A and Player B were 0.2 bWAR apart on one random date?

[notin]

One issue that I have with instant replay is how some plays are reviewable while other plays that can affect the outcome of the game just as much are not. OTOH, I don't want them to extend it to the point where every play, including balls and strikes, is reviewable. Better off just not having it, IMO.

 

A big part of the reason for certain plays not being reviewable is because it can be difficult to determine placement of baserunners. That's why fair/foul calls are not reviewable except in the case of home runs...

[notin]

we have the technology now. I am unsure why so many people are against this idea? why should an "umpire" have all the "human element" of a baseball game?

.

 

 

But isn't the "human element" one of the big arguments about WAR and advanced metrics? That they cannot capture it?

 

Had to bring this thread back around full circle...

[mvp 78]

But isn't the "human element" one of the big arguments about WAR and advanced metrics? That they cannot capture it?

 

Had to bring this thread back around full circle...

 

Which is EXACTLY why they haven't been able to disprove the existence of clutch.

[Bellhorn04]

But isn't the "human element" one of the big arguments about WAR and advanced metrics? That they cannot capture it?

 

Had to bring this thread back around full circle...

 

The human element in umpiring is a bit different, no?

 

All that matters with the human element in umpiring is bad calls.

[notin]

Which is EXACTLY why they haven't been able to disprove the existence of clutch.

 

Or prove. Shall we try and roll all the major debates into one great big massive argument? "The WAR of Clutch Robot Umps"?

[notin]

.

ROBOT UMPS NOW.

 

But then what do you do when the robot umps turn on you?

 

What if the ump we get is HAL, or worse, Bender from Futurama?

[Bellhorn04]

Or prove. Shall we try and roll all the major debates into one great big massive argument? "The WAR of Clutch Robot Umps"?

 

Get Tom Cruise and you've got a summer blockbuster.

[notin]

Get Tom Cruise and you've got a summer blockbuster.

 

Is the Dwayne Johnson unavailable? Is it legal to make an action movie without him?

[Bellhorn04]

But then what do you do when the robot umps turn on you?

 

What if the ump we get is HAL?

 

"Affirmative, Dave, you're out of there."

[notin]

"Affirmative, Dave, you're out of there."

 

Bad robot ump quote jokes?

 

"Danger Dan Robertson! Danger! The count is 0-2!"

[Kimmi]

A big part of the reason for certain plays not being reviewable is because it can be difficult to determine placement of baserunners. That's why fair/foul calls are not reviewable except in the case of home runs...

 

But they still have plays where they leave it to the discretion of the umpires as to the placement of base runners. I don't see the difference.

[Kimmi]

But isn't the "human element" one of the big arguments about WAR and advanced metrics? That they cannot capture it?

 

Had to bring this thread back around full circle...

 

Nicely done.

[Kimmi]

The human element in umpiring is a bit different, no?

 

All that matters with the human element in umpiring is bad calls.

 

Which kind of takes me back to my point. Balls and Strikes are very subjective. IMO, they are more subjective than any advanced metric. Yet, none of the people who discount WAR and UZR because of its subjectivity ever criticize the validity of stats like Ks and BBs.

[Bellhorn04]

Which kind of takes me back to my point. Balls and Strikes are very subjective. IMO, they are more subjective than any advanced metric. Yet, none of the people who discount WAR and UZR because of its subjectivity ever criticize the validity of stats like Ks and BBs.

 

Possibly because in theory balls and strikes aren't supposed to be subjective? I don't know. You have to admit that some of the baseball metrics have a lot of little nuances and issues. It doesn't surprise me that people get befuddled by some of it and want to stick with what's more familiar and supposedly simpler.

[devildavid]

Which kind of takes me back to my point. Balls and Strikes are very subjective. IMO, they are more subjective than any advanced metric. Yet, none of the people who discount WAR and UZR because of its subjectivity ever criticize the validity of stats like Ks and BBs.

 

The biggest weakness in the sport of baseball is that the home plate umpire greatly impacts the most crucial part of the game; the battle between the pitcher and the batter.

[mvp 78]

The biggest weakness in the sport of baseball is that the home plate umpire greatly impacts the most crucial part of the game; the battle between the pitcher and the batter.

 

^^^^^^

[Bellhorn04]

The biggest weakness in the sport of baseball is that the home plate umpire greatly impacts the most crucial part of the game; the battle between the pitcher and the batter.

 

It's kind of sad to think that the grand old game has a flaw that only be corrected by twenty-first century technology.

[Emp9]

But then what do you do when the robot umps turn on you?

 

What if the ump we get is HAL, or worse, Bender from Futurama?

 

Yeah, or what if Roberto wanted to practice his stabbing between innings?

[Kimmi]

Possibly because in theory balls and strikes aren't supposed to be subjective? I don't know. You have to admit that some of the baseball metrics have a lot of little nuances and issues. It doesn't surprise me that people get befuddled by some of it and want to stick with what's more familiar and supposedly simpler.

 

I really have no problem with people wanting to stick with what's more familiar or with what they are comfortable with. What I have a problem with is people denouncing/discrediting advanced metrics because they don't understand them or because the metric don't support the person's opinion. And that's basically what the denouncements come down to.

 

My defense of advanced metrics is by no means an edict that everyone has to use advanced metrics. That said, I will continue to believe that one cannot get the most accurate assessment of a player without using them.