Robot Umps?!

[Bellhorn04]

Getting it to work in a satisfactory manner is part of the implementation. I don't think they're going to rush it out there is it isn't right, or at least close.

 

So now you have gone from nonsensical slippery slopes to the other safe-haven of people trying to argue the losing side - the notion that "it isn't perfect, so it shouldn't happen". Will it work better than the existing system? After all, it would be pretty stupid to not implement an improvement solely it up because it was not going to work for the 2 or 3 eephus pitches that get thrown every year...

 

We'll make sure there's an Eephus Pitch Robot in the package.

[mvp 78]

Typo but the fact is I wasn't wrong. The robo ump MLB is using is two dimensional. It remains to be seen whether it can satisfy all MLB stakeholders. I suspect this will be a significant issue in the CBA.

 

In fact, if the robo ump can't smell the fresh cut grass or taste a cracker jack, it should not be allowed on the field.

[moonslav59]

We'll make sure there's an Eephus Pitch Robot in the package.

 

Even a program that misses eephus pitches is vastly greater than the clown brigade calling balls and strikes, now.

[Bellhorn04]

Even a program that misses eephus pitches is vastly greater than the clown brigade calling balls and strikes, now.

 

Some of the umps actually do a good job, of course-as good as is humanly possible, at least.

[moonslav59]

Some of the umps actually do a good job, of course-as good as is humanly possible, at least.

 

True, but I won't miss them.

 

They'll still be standing there, as always- making the calls from an earpiece, and making calls at the plate.

 

Some will remain clowns- some not so much- some respectable.

[Nick]

True, but I won't miss them.

 

They'll still be standing there, as always- making the calls from an earpiece, and making calls at the plate.

 

Some will remain clowns- some not so much- some respectable.

 

100%....at the very least, it will take away 'favoritism' many players are shown. It's human nature to have a bias.

[Bellhorn04]

100%....at the very least, it will take away 'favoritism' many players are shown. It's human nature to have a bias.

 

And there have been plenty of instances of umps taking the law into their own hands.

 

If you've been watching baseball a long time, you've probably heard commentators say things like "He better be swinging at this next pitch, if it's anywhere near the plate!" - because the hitter has done something to piss off the ump, and the ump is itching to ring him up...

[Nick]

And there have been plenty of instances of umps taking the law into their own hands.

 

If you've been watching baseball a long time, you've probably heard commentators say things like "He better be swinging at this next pitch, if it's anywhere near the plate!" - because the hitter has done something to piss off the ump, and the ump is itching to ring him up...

 

yep....or maybe it's the manager.

[notin]

We'll make sure there's an Eephus Pitch Robot in the package.

 

That's like $9.95 extra per month...

[moonslav59]

100%....at the very least, it will take away 'favoritism' many players are shown. It's human nature to have a bias.

 

Exactly. Players known to "have a great eye" are often given the benefit of doubt- not to mention friendly-to-umps players.

[notin]

True, but I won't miss them.

 

They'll still be standing there, as always- making the calls from an earpiece, and making calls at the plate.

 

Some will remain clowns- some not so much- some respectable.

 

They're not going aywhere.

 

Robo-ump or not, there will still be a man in blue behind home plate, since you know, plays happen there. And if that umpire is fed robo ball-strike calls via an earpiece, he will actually have the abiity to override the calls. All he has to do is say the other thing...

[dgalehouse]

So , they still have to have an ump behind the plate. So far , they have not developed a robot that can do the umpire's entire job. Just the ball and strike calls. And we surely can't have the robot take a foul tip to it's robot " brain". Too valuable for that. The umpire is more expendable.

[mvp 78]

Some of the umps actually do a good job, of course-as good as is humanly possible, at least.

 

And if they just kept only the good ones, there wouldn't be the outcry over robot umps.

 

Guys like Bucknor, Hernandez, Eddings, Vanover, Wendelstedt, West, Diaz, O'Nora, Kulpa and Hickox have all overstayed their welcome.

 

If I know an ump's name, it's probably for a not good reason. In reading through the accuracy leaders, I don't recognize any of the names until I get to Vic Carpazza at #35.

[mvp 78]

And there have been plenty of instances of umps taking the law into their own hands.

 

If you've been watching baseball a long time, you've probably heard commentators say things like "He better be swinging at this next pitch, if it's anywhere near the plate!" - because the hitter has done something to piss off the ump, and the ump is itching to ring him up...

 

Only boot lickers like the umps.

[mvp 78]

So , they still have to have an ump behind the plate. So far , they have not developed a robot that can do the umpire's entire job. Just the ball and strike calls. And we surely can't have the robot take a foul tip to it's robot " brain". Too valuable for that. The umpire is more expendable.

 

A robot could probably get the foul tip call correct.

[notin]

So , they still have to have an ump behind the plate. So far , they have not developed a robot that can do the umpire's entire job. Just the ball and strike calls. And we surely can't have the robot take a foul tip to it's robot " brain". Too valuable for that. The umpire is more expendable.

 

Plus we already have the chest protectors...

[notin]

And if they just kept only the good ones, there wouldn't be the outcry over robot umps.

 

Guys like Bucknor, Hernandez, Eddings, Vanover, Wendelstedt, West, Diaz, O'Nora, Kulpa and Hickox have all overstayed their welcome.

 

If I know an ump's name, it's probably for a not good reason. In reading through the accuracy leaders, I don't recognize any of the names until I get to Vic Carpazza at #35.

 

 

Except Jim Joyce...

[mvp 78]

Except Jim Joyce...

 

Jim Joyce was right to overturn that perfect game?

[moonslav59]

Only boot lickers like the umps.

 

The winning argument.

[notin]

Jim Joyce was right to overturn that perfect game?

 

At least he admitted his error. Errors are inevitable. Admission isn’t…

[mvp 78]

At least he admitted his error. Errors are inevitable. Admission isn’t…

 

Somebody give the guy a major award. He's won it!

[jad]

And if they just kept only the good ones, there wouldn't be the outcry over robot umps.

 

Guys like Bucknor, Hernandez, Eddings, Vanover, Wendelstedt, West, Diaz, O'Nora, Kulpa and Hickox have all overstayed their welcome.

 

If I know an ump's name, it's probably for a not good reason. In reading through the accuracy leaders, I don't recognize any of the names until I get to Vic Carpazza at #35.

 

Yeah, whenever I hear employers say "Just let's get rid of the bad ones," it always means "Let's just get rid of those employees I don't like."

[mvp 78]

Yeah, whenever I hear employers say "Just let's get rid of the bad ones," it always means "Let's just get rid of those employees I don't like."

 

https://umpscorecards.com/site-data/umpires.html

 

Just go by the actual data?

[moonslav59]

https://umpscorecards.com/site-data/umpires.html

 

Just go by the actual data?

 

I'm pretty sure the guys they bring in to replace "the worst" will not be all that much better, if at all.

[jad]

https://umpscorecards.com/site-data/umpires.html

 

Just go by the actual data?

 

I have never seen an employer "just go by the actual data." Never.

[notin]

I'm pretty sure the guys they bring in to replace "the worst" will not be all that much better, if at all.

 

Just like the old Motorola policy of always laying off the bottom 10%…

[notin]

Somebody give the guy a major award. He's won it!

 

Hey I’ll take one James Joyce over an army of Angel Hernandez’s and Joe West’s….

[illinoisredsox]

Hey I’ll take one James Joyce over an army of Angel Hernandez’s and Joe West’s….

 

Joyce was a very good ump, widely considered one of the best in the game, who made a bad mistake which cost a kid immortality. The fact that he owned up to it should say something about him.

 

Joe West could be one of the best when he wanted to be; he just didn’t choose to care all that often. Remember, he was the one who called ARod slapping the ball out of Arroyo’s glove and properly awarded Bellhorn the homer in Game 6 of the ALCS in 2004. Like I said, when he choose not to make it about himself, he was pretty good. It just didn’t happen all that often. He’s retired now, so we can’t kick Joe around any more.

 

Hernandez is the poster child for incompetence in every facet of umpiring. There is nothing positive you can say about his work.

Edited October 27, 2021 by illinoisredsox

[cp176]

data driven information in baseball obviously works for some. That is all good. Robotic umpires would turn me off to a great extent. I love the game and in part because it is imperfect. It is the human element that works for me. Does that make me a boot licker?

Something I have yet to do. Robotic umpires dealing with balls and strikes I'm afraid would do it for me. And the is ok right. I'm just some old guy now. I'm probably one of just a few people who liked the game more the way it was right? We shall see I guess.

[Bellhorn04]

There was an overturned call in last night's game, at first base. It could have had an impact. The replay didn't take long. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the game, in fact I felt better that they got the call right, even though it went against Atlanta and I was hoping for them.

 

I don't know, I guess we're all just wired differently.