Robot Umps?!

[Bellhorn04]

Dan Bellino had a 90.2 accuracy on Saturday, which was the lowest score since Laz Dias on 10/19.

 

Well, at least we're ragging on the right guys!

[notin]

Well, at least we're ragging on the right guys!

 

I think a lot of you are robot critics with programming to highlight the improper calls of the lousier umpires...

[mvp 78]

I think a lot of you are robot critics with programming to highlight the improper calls of the lousier umpires...

 

Critics of robots OR robots that critique?

[notin]

Critics of robots OR robots that critique?

 

Both. Robots criticizing robots.

[S5Dewey]

Dan Bellino had a 90.2 accuracy on Saturday, which was the lowest score since Laz Dias on 10/19.

 

The thing I find astounding about those numbers is that most of the b/s calls are no-brainers, stuff your dog could call right. That means that Bellino must have called most of the borderline (or sometimes even pitches that weren't borderline) pitches wrong!

[Bellhorn04]

The thing I find astounding about those numbers is that most of the b/s calls are no-brainers, stuff your dog could call right. That means that Bellino must have called most of the borderline (or sometimes even pitches that weren't borderline) pitches wrong!

 

And this exemplifies why I think it's time for the robo umps. Getting 10% of the calls in a playoff game wrong is horrendous-especially when, as you say, a lot of the 90% called right are gimmes.

[moonslav59]

And this exemplifies why I think it's time for the robo umps. Getting 10% of the calls in a playoff game wrong is horrendous-especially when, as you say, a lot of the 90% called right are gimmes.

 

How is adding 10% wrong calls making this sort of “human element” enjoyable for anyone at all?

 

I guess I’m missing what makes bad calls fun or exciting.

[Bellhorn04]

How is adding 10% wrong calls making this sort of “human element” enjoyable for anyone at all?

 

I guess I’m missing what makes bad calls fun or exciting.

 

And what really bothers me is that it's a corrupt process - guys as bad as Diaz and Bellino should not be doing postseason games, but they are, and it's always been that way.

[mvp 78]

And this exemplifies why I think it's time for the robo umps. Getting 10% of the calls in a playoff game wrong is horrendous-especially when, as you say, a lot of the 90% called right are gimmes.

 

Yes, there is a big difference between 90 and 95%. We're not talking a calculus exam. This is the difference between one out of every 10 pitches being wrong and one out of every 20 pitches.

 

Why MLB continues to put bad umps in high profile positions is beyond me.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, there is a big difference between 90 and 95%. We're not talking a calculus exam. This is the difference between one out of every 10 pitches being wrong and one out of every 20 pitches.

 

Why MLB continues to put bad umps in high profile positions is beyond me.

 

Like I say, the process is obviously corrupt.

[jad]

Like I say, the process is obviously corrupt.

 

What is really odd about this whole discussion is that fans (whether they are pro- or anti- 'robotic' umps) are judging human umpires primarily on the basis of hypothetical calls by robo-umps. If umpires are good/bad based on how closely their decisions match those of a machine, why not just use the damn machine?

[notin]

What is really odd about this whole discussion is that fans (whether they are pro- or anti- 'robotic' umps) are judging human umpires primarily on the basis of hypothetical calls by robo-umps. If umpires are good/bad based on how closely their decisions match those of a machine, why not just use the damn machine?

 

Exactly.

 

And stop pretending this kind of thing is not done in other sports. Now, if someone has an instance of how one aspect of officiating was done in another sport, and it did not work out or it made matters worse, that would be a good counterpoint...

[moonslav59]

And what really bothers me is that it's a corrupt process - guys as bad as Diaz and Bellino should not be doing postseason games, but they are, and it's always been that way.

 

Even if they fixed their system of choosing who umps playoff games and axed the worst umps, every year, I'm not accepting any percent as being fun and exciting.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if they fixed their system of choosing who umps playoff games and axed the worst umps, every year, I'm not accepting any percent as being fun and exciting.

 

And I agree. I'm just thinking for anyone who's on the fence about it, the dysfunctional process should be the clincher.

[notin]

And I agree. I'm just thinking for anyone who's on the fence about it, the dysfunctional process should be the clincher.

 

Of course, right now you argument focuses solely on the post-season. There are 2,430 other games that could use better and more consistent umpiring before we even get there...

[mvp 78]

Of course, right now you argument focuses solely on the post-season. There are 2,430 other games that could use better and more consistent umpiring before we even get there...

 

IDK, if I turn on a weekend game and Angel Hernandez is behind home plate, it clears up my schedule and I can just turn the game off.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course, right now you argument focuses solely on the post-season. There are 2,430 other games that could use better and more consistent umpiring before we even get there...

 

Agree with that too.

 

But there seems to be a notion out there that the postseason assignments have something to do with merit, with scores earned during the season, and the reality is it's not so.

[mvp 78]

Agree with that too.

 

But there seems to be a notion out there that the postseason assignments have something to do with merit, with scores earned during the season, and the reality is it's not so.

 

No, the assignments are to share the postseason $$$ with as many umps as possible, especially senior ones.

[Kimmi]

And this exemplifies why I think it's time for the robo umps. Getting 10% of the calls in a playoff game wrong is horrendous-especially when, as you say, a lot of the 90% called right are gimmes.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with this thinking. You would hope that the calls that are being missed are the borderline calls, not the clear cut ones. Also, are 90% of the calls really clear cut?

 

The problem, IMO, is not that an umpire is missing 10% of the calls. The issue is that MLB is allowing that umpire to continue to call games, especially postseason games. They could do better without the need for robo umps.

[Kimmi]

How is adding 10% wrong calls making this sort of “human element” enjoyable for anyone at all?

 

I guess I’m missing what makes bad calls fun or exciting.

 

Stop.

[mvp 78]

Stop.

 

Never.

[Kimmi]

And what really bothers me is that it's a corrupt process - guys as bad as Diaz and Bellino should not be doing postseason games, but they are, and it's always been that way.

 

The process is corrupt. There are ways to fix it without resorting to the use of technology.

[Kimmi]

What is really odd about this whole discussion is that fans (whether they are pro- or anti- 'robotic' umps) are judging human umpires primarily on the basis of hypothetical calls by robo-umps. If umpires are good/bad based on how closely their decisions match those of a machine, why not just use the damn machine?

 

There's a difference between the use of a machine to collect data after the fact versus the use of a machine during a live game.

[Kimmi]

Even if they fixed their system of choosing who umps playoff games and axed the worst umps, every year, I'm not accepting any percent as being fun and exciting.

 

Stop.

[mvp 78]

Stop.

 

Hammer time.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure if I agree with this thinking. You would hope that the calls that are being missed are the borderline calls, not the clear cut ones. Also, are 90% of the calls really clear cut?

 

You mis-read that, I think, Kimmi. Dewey and I are saying "a lot" of the 90% called right are clear cut.

 

If you take out the clear cut ones the error rate might be 20% or more.

[Bellhorn04]

The process is corrupt. There are ways to fix it without resorting to the use of technology.

 

It's 2021. Time's up. Hoping they might actually fix an entrenched, corrupt process isn't good enough. Those kind of hopes seldom pan out.

[moonslav59]

It's 2021. Time's up. Hoping they might actually fix an entrenched, corrupt process isn't good enough. Those kind of hopes seldom pan out.

 

I still ask, how is even a 2 or 3% error rate a fun and exciting part of baseball?

 

The "human element" in players is part of the game. They make mistakes, and it is certainly part of the game.

 

Bad calls should not be, and more importantly, need not be part of the game.

[jad]

Yup. Nothin' more exciting than that moment of your life which you will never get back when you see a pitch is CLEARLY a strike and you get all excited--DAMN! OH WOW, will he CALL it a strike???!!! Will he????

 

Then the announcer says "GREAT CALL!!! GREAT CALL!!" (to praise a call that has a 50% chance of being right in the first place). And then you get to ruminate, WOW! So much like life! Was that REALLY a great call? or just a lucky one??? Damn!! That's why we watch!

 

My favorite part of sports.

[moonslav59]

Yup. Nothin' more exciting than that moment of your life which you will never get back when you see a pitch is CLEARLY a strike and you get all excited--DAMN! OH WOW, will he CALL it a strike???!!! Will he????

 

Then the announcer says "GREAT CALL!!! GREAT CALL!!" (to praise a call that has a 50% chance of being right in the first place). And then you get to ruminate, WOW! So much like life! Was that REALLY a great call? or just a lucky one??? Damn!! That's why we watch!

 

My favorite part of sports.

 

Pretty much how I view the absurdity of the "human element" argument.

 

Why is this even part of the game, if it doesn't have to be?