Robot Umps?!

[notin]

Actually the slippery slope argument is a valid point regardless with you agree with it or not. But it is typical of you, you can not refute it so you try to dismiss it. Inappropriately I might add.

 

No. The slope you chose was nonsensical.

 

Tennis uses technology to determine in/out calls. And yet not a single robot participated in Wimbledon.

 

Heck, track and field has been using technology for decades to run the times on sprints. Do people really think those times are established by a guy with a stopwatch. And horse racing has used tech even longer. Photo finishes are not taken by a guy at the finish line holding a Polaroid.

 

Yet in all of these sports - no robots participate. So either you slope was baseless and nonsensical or they all involve blatant discrimination…

[notin]

Yeah, but comparing robo umps with robo players and robo fans isn't.

 

Especially given how widespread that type of thing is in other sports…

[dgalehouse]

If I understand it correctly , the Robo ump would strictly be limited to calling balls and strikes. Nothing else. Even then , I am against it. I do think that improvement in the performance of some umpires should be more of a concern with MLB. There are some who should not be behind home plate , especially in big games. Yet , they are still there and nothing seems to be done about it. If you continually stink at your job , you should be replaced by someone who will do it better. But not by a robot. I could say more , but Alexa is listening , and I don't want to make her angry . I do need my parcel delivered today.

[notin]

If I understand it correctly , the Robo ump would strictly be limited to calling balls and strikes. Nothing else. Even then , I am against it. I do think that improvement in the performance of some umpires should be more of a concern with MLB. There are some who should not be behind home plate , especially in big games. Yet , they are still there and nothing seems to be done about it. If you continually stink at your job , you should be replaced by someone who will do it better. But not by a robot. I could say more , but Alexa is listening , and I don't want to make her angry . I do need my parcel delivered today.

 

 

It’s a very big concern for MLB and they have numerous protocols in place to evaluate the umpires. The problem is and always will be the inability of a human being to determine if a baseball traveling 90-100 mph touches any part of an invisible box of varying size. It’s just something that is not only remarkably difficult and, as pitchers continue to throw harder, will never get any easier and no amount of evaluation and training will change this.

 

I have zero issues with ball/strike calls being electronic, and this includes the inevitable bugs that will be in the system upon implementation. MLB has made numerous far more tangible rule changes throughout its history that have had a bigger impact on game play than determining the accuracy of the officiating. Instant replay was implemented for the same reason, and while flawed, has yet to destroy the game, or even make it less watchable…

[jad]

If I understand it correctly , the Robo ump would strictly be limited to calling balls and strikes. Nothing else. Even then , I am against it. I do think that improvement in the performance of some umpires should be more of a concern with MLB. There are some who should not be behind home plate , especially in big games. Yet , they are still there and nothing seems to be done about it. If you continually stink at your job , you should be replaced by someone who will do it better. But not by a robot. I could say more , but Alexa is listening , and I don't want to make her angry . I do need my parcel delivered today.

 

Oh yeah. Like 160 games a year isn't enough training. I'm sure MLB can just go out on the streets and find hundreds of people (guys of course; only MLB does not have female umps), who would do much better than those who have a decade or two of experience.

[Bellhorn04]

If I understand it correctly , the Robo ump would strictly be limited to calling balls and strikes. Nothing else. Even then , I am against it. I do think that improvement in the performance of some umpires should be more of a concern with MLB. There are some who should not be behind home plate , especially in big games. Yet , they are still there and nothing seems to be done about it. If you continually stink at your job , you should be replaced by someone who will do it better. But not by a robot.

 

If they haven't done anything about upgrading the umps by now, they never will.

 

That's a big part of why the robo umps are the only solution.

[notin]

If they haven't done anything about upgrading the umps by now, they never will.

 

That's a big part of why the robo umps are the only solution.

 

Correct.

 

It's not that MLB does nothing about it. They're actually very active in the umpiring. They've just arrived at or close to the limits of what they can do, and saying "it's not very good and they simply need to do better" is as impractical as coaching a sprinter by saying "run faster!"

[Bellhorn04]

Correct.

 

It's not that MLB does nothing about it. They're actually very active in the umpiring. They've just arrived at or close to the limits of what they can do, and saying "it's not very good and they simply need to do better" is as impractical as coaching a sprinter by saying "run faster!"

 

Right, but we're still treated to the spectacle of Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes in the ALCS.

[Maxbialystock]

Kinda off on a tangent.

 

No pitcher or batter should need to study who is upping that game.

 

Consistent strike zones are what every ump strives for. It’s their job, and it’s impossible for them to do it because of the catcher blocking their view plus human frailties.

 

You’ll get used to it. It’s coming soon.

 

One more time. The rectangle you have fallen in love with is only an image on your screen. No one on the field of play can see it even though every thing else on the field of play is visible.

 

In addition, that rectangle on your boob tube can't possibly be accurate because of the idiosyncracies of each batter's dimensions and stance, to say nothing of that weird shape of home plate and the variety of trajectories which pitches follow when they approach the plate.

 

What I find especially laughable is your insistence that players, hitters and pitchers and catchers, crave perfection in the call of balls and strikes even though they cannot actually see small differences. No other sport on earth requires accuracy greater than the human eye can normally see.

 

My other complaint is based on my preference for human umpires calling a game played by human players because to me that is the quintessential nature of sport and especially baseball.

 

Would you not agree that players errors are far, far more egregious than anything an umpire would commit? Do you remember that play--and thank goodness I've forgotten the name of the Sox baserunner--when a Sox player was on 2d base and the another Sox player at the plate hit one off the right field wall and could only get to 1st base because--wait for it--the Sox guy on 2b slid back into 2b!!!! Compared to the players, umpires are the soul of consistency and demeanor (well, most of the time).

 

More than that, the umpires ensure a competitive environment that assures fair play and, for the most part, quick determination of play outcomes--fair, foul, safe, out, yes or no infield fly rule, ball, strike, balk or no balk, ground rule double or not, etc, etc--all of which are outlined in a voluminous rule book. To me the umpires are very much the pros from dover. They do make mistakes, but very rarely do those change the outcome of the game.

 

Umpires are visible on the field as they should be because they are vital to the game being played by the rules. I cannot imagine a game which seems to be your ideal: all players, no visible umpires. Instead, a computerized voice announcing, "ball, strike, out, safe, fair, foul, infield ground rule in effect, ground rule double, etc, etc."

Edited October 23, 2021 by Maxbialystock

[Bellhorn04]

What I find especially laughable is your insistence that players, hitters and pitchers and catchers, crave perfection in the call of balls and strikes even though they cannot actually see small differences. No other sport on earth requires accuracy greater than the human eye can normally see.

 

Untrue. Most sports now use replay or technological aids of some sort.

[moonslav59]

Untrue. Most sports now use replay or technological aids of some sort.

 

Tennis, Basketball, Football...

[moonslav59]

If they haven't done anything about upgrading the umps by now, they never will.

 

That's a big part of why the robo umps are the only solution.

 

I don't think it's the televised strike box that is causing the uproar. I think the umps are really getting worse.

[Maxbialystock]

Untrue. Most sports now use replay or technological aids of some sort.

 

Yes, they do, but those replays don't rely on that mythical rectangle you guys have all sworn allegiance to. In tennis, the replay looks at the actual line on the court. In football, the actual line on the field. And so on. Only baseball fans want to go by a made-up rectangle on a screen that we already know is flawed.

 

 

 

And don't forget that in the most popular sport in the world there is just one ref making all kinds of calls without benefit of some stupid rectangle you can see on your screen.

[Maxbialystock]

Tennis, Basketball, Football...

 

But none of those sports' replays rely on a mythical rectangle that no one on the field of play can see. The basket in basketball is not not fabricated. It is not an estimate based on the shooters height, stance, etc. The tennis replays are of the actual ball and line, not an imaginary line.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't think it's the televised strike box that is causing the uproar. I think the umps are really getting worse.

 

What uproar? I've read or heard about none of it.

 

Baseball is both a human event/competition and good TV. Umpires, precisely because they are human and visible and even, heaven forbid, capable of errors, are good TV. Robo-umps are horrible TV. They provide absolutely no fodder for the announcers or us fans.

 

Thus my picture of what you seem to yearn for: a playing field, players, and no umpires; instead, a computerized voice announcing, "ball, strike, safe, out, fair, foul, infield fly rule, ground-rule double, etc." You may want this brave new world, but I sure don't.

[dgalehouse]

How about using just the best umps behind home plate instead of rotating the crew? Pay them more if need be. You wouldn't use a baggage handler to rotate with the air traffic controller. Why use a third base ump to call balls and strikes.

[Bellhorn04]

But none of those sports' replays rely on a mythical rectangle that no one on the field of play can see. The basket in basketball is not not fabricated. It is not an estimate based on the shooters height, stance, etc. The tennis replays are of the actual ball and line, not an imaginary line.

 

The strike zone is not imaginary. All that's required is height adjustments. The real umps have to do the same.

[Bellhorn04]

How about using just the best umps behind home plate instead of rotating the crew? Pay them more if need be. You wouldn't use a baggage handler to rotate with the air traffic controller. Why use a third base ump to call balls and strikes.

 

It's a reasonable proposal, Denny, but at some point it becomes obvious that this is something that's never going to change. When Laz Diaz is still home plate umping in the ALCS, no progress is being made and never will be.

[notin]

The strike zone is not imaginary. All that's required is height adjustments. The real umps have to do the same.

 

It’s imaginary to human umpires. Software can make it a definitive yes/no situation…

[notin]

One more time. The rectangle you have fallen in love with is only an image on your screen. No one on the field of play can see it even though every thing else on the field of play is visible.

 

In addition, that rectangle on your boob tube can't possibly be accurate because of the idiosyncracies of each batter's dimensions and stance, to say nothing of that weird shape of home plate and the variety of trajectories which pitches follow when they approach the plate.

 

What I find especially laughable is your insistence that players, hitters and pitchers and catchers, crave perfection in the call of balls and strikes even though they cannot actually see small differences. No other sport on earth requires accuracy greater than the human eye can normally see.

 

My other complaint is based on my preference for human umpires calling a game played by human players because to me that is the quintessential nature of sport and especially baseball.

 

Would you not agree that players errors are far, far more egregious than anything an umpire would commit? Do you remember that play--and thank goodness I've forgotten the name of the Sox baserunner--when a Sox player was on 2d base and the another Sox player at the plate hit one off the right field wall and could only get to 1st base because--wait for it--the Sox guy on 2b slid back into 2b!!!! Compared to the players, umpires are the soul of consistency and demeanor (well, most of the time).

 

More than that, the umpires ensure a competitive environment that assures fair play and, for the most part, quick determination of play outcomes--fair, foul, safe, out, yes or no infield fly rule, ball, strike, balk or no balk, ground rule double or not, etc, etc--all of which are outlined in a voluminous rule book. To me the umpires are very much the pros from dover. They do make mistakes, but very rarely do those change the outcome of the game.

 

Umpires are visible on the field as they should be because they are vital to the game being played by the rules. I cannot imagine a game which seems to be your ideal: all players, no visible umpires. Instead, a computerized voice announcing, "ball, strike, out, safe, fair, foul, infield ground rule in effect, ground rule double, etc, etc."

 

90% of your objections rest on your belief that the rectangle on ESPN is the limits of the technology…

[Maxbialystock]

90% of your objections rest on your belief that the rectangle on ESPN is the limits of the technology…

 

Actually, no. I'm just pissed that all you proponents think it's real and precise and tantamount to the holy grail.

 

My fundamental objection is that I want real umpires, humans, calling the games as they always have with authority, alacrity, attention to detail, and a real zest for the game. You guys want to get rid of them, and I think they are a crucial part of the game. They are even good TV.

 

What you want may well be more accurate, but it will also be as soulless and as sterile as the moon. There are zero sports where you can't see human referees, umpires, whatever.

[Maxbialystock]

The strike zone is not imaginary. All that's required is height adjustments. The real umps have to do the same.

 

The strike zone is real, I agree, but also an approximation. You guys treat that rectangle as extremely accurate because it has that skinny line, but in fact it's made up by some guy (or gal) back in the studio who is approximating height, stance, etc.

[notin]

Actually, no. I'm just pissed that all you proponents think it's real and precise and tantamount to the holy grail.

 

My fundamental objection is that I want real umpires, humans, calling the games as they always have with authority, alacrity, attention to detail, and a real zest for the game. You guys want to get rid of them, and I think they are a crucial part of the game. They are even good TV.

 

What you want may well be more accurate, but it will also be as soulless and as sterile as the moon. There are zero sports where you can't see human referees, umpires, whatever.

 

 

Calling automated balls and strikes doesn’t get rid of umpires; it just takes one task away. There is still going to be an umpire behind the plate. He just won’t have to call balls and strikes. But foul tips, check swings, plays at the plate,etc. still need an umpire to make a call. Heck, tennis has automated in/out calls but they still use line judges.

 

And baseball has always done what it had to to get calls right. Foul poles, for example, didn’t exist until 1931, because they were better than running ropes up through the stands as extensions of the foul line. (It probably helped that someone realized it was silly to take away a home run because the ball drifted foul after leaving the field of play.). And of course, instant replay is another technological means of ensuring proper officiating.

Edited October 24, 2021 by notin

[moonslav59]

What uproar? I've read or heard about none of it.

 

Baseball is both a human event/competition and good TV. Umpires, precisely because they are human and visible and even, heaven forbid, capable of errors, are good TV. Robo-umps are horrible TV. They provide absolutely no fodder for the announcers or us fans.

 

Thus my picture of what you seem to yearn for: a playing field, players, and no umpires; instead, a computerized voice announcing, "ball, strike, safe, out, fair, foul, infield fly rule, ground-rule double, etc." You may want this brave new world, but I sure don't.

 

That's not even close to what I envision.

 

I've already explained how you wouldn't even notice.

[notin]

That's not even close to what I envision.

 

I've already explained how you wouldn't even notice.

 

I think Max likes to sled on the same slippery slope as Elktonnick.

 

Are there any anti “automated calling of balls and strikes” arguments that don’t devolve into fans secretly fearing MLB will turn into Westworld, with the robot umps turning on their creator(s)?

[Deja Doh]

You robot fans must really hate people.

[notin]

You robot fans must really hate people.

 

Target … locked…

[moonslav59]

I think Max likes to sled on the same slippery slope as Elktonnick.

 

Are there any anti “automated calling of balls and strikes” arguments that don’t devolve into fans secretly fearing MLB will turn into Westworld, with the robot umps turning on their creator(s)?

 

Put the invisible earpiece in the homeplate umps ear, and the calls can be made just as now, with no delays- no replays- no fuss.

 

Consistent and correct calls are the goals of every ump, every manager, every batter, every pitcher and should be wanted by every fan, too.

 

I'm not sure why they should care if the call is always right, just because the call is whispered into the umps ear.

[Bellhorn04]

You robot fans must really hate people.

 

I don't hate people, I just hate bad calls on balls and strikes deciding games. Kind of a big difference.

[Kimmi]

I agree. Baseball is a game and and a sport. It is not supposed to be perfect. Instant replay takes the spontaneity out if the game. Let the boys play. Let the umps make the calls. If they make mistakes such is life. The quest for automation is ruining sport.

 

You and I are on the same page here.