Robot Umps?!

[mvp 78]

Americans have embraced baseball with fallible umpires for 150 years. Now, because of that rectangle on your TV screen which none of players can see, you want to get the umpires out of the business of umpiring.

 

You don't think strategy meetings about how home plate umpires call balls and strikes haven't been going on for at least 100 years?

 

Where was your outrage when instant replay was added?

[mvp 78]

Don Denkinger fans rise up!

[Maxbialystock]

Where was your outrage when instant replay was added?

 

Actually, I was outraged, but decided that the replays prevented managers from going into lengthy tirades. Plus now I think there are limits on how many replays can be requested. In any case, they do help speed up the game. Of course, the kabuki dance by every batter and almost every pitcher then slows the game back down again.

 

Those replays, I hasten to add, are a far cry from what the advocates of robo-umps are clamoring for. They simply don't want human umpires because baseball in their eyes is fundamentally about achieving perfection.

[mvp 78]

Actually, I want my ticket proceeds to go directly to Jim Joyce. That's the product I want.

 

Not me.

[Maxbialystock]

Good thing Branch Rickey wasn't a fan of tradition...

 

Very good point. I well remember the many articles he wrote about how useless umpires were because, well, they couldn't tell a ball from a strike.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Maxbialystock

[Bellhorn04]

Americans have embraced baseball with fallible umpires for 150 years. Now, because of that rectangle on your TV screen which none of players can see, you want to get the umpires out of the business of umpiring.

 

People complained about bad balls and strikes calls long before the rectangle came along. The rectangle simply made the errors easier to see.

[moonslav59]

I thought we reached a unanimous decision.

[Maxbialystock]

Baseball is based on the assumption that umpires are always going to get it right - but they don't. When an pitcher throws a pitch that is outside the zone and the umpire calls it a strike the pitcher then has a HUGE advantage. He can then throw another (unhittable) pitch outside the strike zone and the hitter then has to decide whether to swing at another (unhittable) pitch in that same place or hope that the umpire will get it right this time. IMO that has a bigger impact on games than isolated calls that the ump got wrong.

 

I've been somewhat ambivalent about robo-umps in the past but the more I see of the game the more I think they're needed, probably not for every pitch but managers should be allowed to 'challenge' a certain number of pitches per game that could be reviewed.

 

Baseball has never been based on umpires always getting it right because that is an unrealistic, impossible standard. Baseball has always depended on umpires to make timely, authoritative calls.

 

As for pitchers getting a strike called on a pitch outside the strike zone and then exploiting it, more power to them. It takes excellent command to do that. My only complaint is not with the umpire but with the fact that Sox pitchers seldom seem able to pull that trick off.

 

As for Sox hitters getting screwed by the sneaky opposing pitcher aided and abetted by that mean umpire, I offer in rebuttal defense exhibit A--JDM, the Sox hitter who finds sliders low and away both irresistable and unhittable.

[notin]

Very good point. I well remember the many articles he wrote about how useless umpires were because, well, they couldn't tell a ball from a strike.

 

We have the ability to improve the officiating of baseball, especially in the most difficult task for any referee/umpire in any sport. Why is that a bad thing?

[notin]

Baseball has never been based on umpires always getting it right because that is an unrealistic, impossible standard. Baseball has had that.

 

“The way it’s always been” is not a good reason to maintain the status quo. Ever. Anywhere. In any field or any job or any situation…

[Elktonnick]

Seriously?

 

THAT is the example you're going to use? It's not even pertinent, since you used an example where the automation did the same job as the people who were replaced. Calling balls and strikes is not the province of the players.

 

Or are you thinking bout how when pin boys were replaced by a system that reset the pins automatically in every bowling alley, and then within hours, there was nothing but robot bowlers? Oh wait. That didn't happen.

 

And really, proving it is foolish is done quite easily. The last few pages of this thread offer evidence to that effect. Just because you deny this proven truth does not make it less proven...

 

You haven 't proven anything but merely asserted your opinion. Unless and until MLB starts the process of automating officiating no one will no its ultimate effect. All you have is your conjecture.

[Bellhorn04]

I predict that once this goes into effect most people are going to like it. It'll speed things up, it'll take away the distraction of checking the ump's calls.

 

It won't disrupt the playing of the game at all.

 

In exchange for a faster, fairer game, all you can lose is whatever kick it was you got out of bad calls.

[jad]

Actually, I was outraged, but decided that the replays prevented managers from going into lengthy tirades. Plus now I think there are limits on how many replays can be requested. In any case, they do help speed up the game. Of course, the kabuki dance by every batter and almost every pitcher then slows the game back down again.

 

Those replays, I hasten to add, are a far cry from what the advocates of robo-umps are clamoring for. They simply don't want human umpires because baseball in their eyes is fundamentally about achieving perfection.

 

That is not correct.

[Maxbialystock]

“The way it’s always been” is not a good reason to maintain the status quo. Ever. Anywhere. In any field or any job or any situation…

 

Baseball is a sport and 150 years old at that. It's been tweaked over the years, but fans of 150 years ago would still recognize the game played today because it's timeless, and part of that timelessness is that it's still played and umpired by human beings, as indeed are all other sports played around the world. No umpire or referee in any sport anywhere in the world is going to make perfect decisions all the time, so why in the wide, wide world of sports are you demanding such perfection in the call of balls and strikes as measured, I hasten to add, by a rectangle which is itself an approximation of the strike zone?

[jad]

Baseball is based on the assumption that umpires are always going to get it right - but they don't. When an pitcher throws a pitch that is outside the zone and the umpire calls it a strike the pitcher then has a HUGE advantage. He can then throw another (unhittable) pitch outside the strike zone and the hitter then has to decide whether to swing at another (unhittable) pitch in that same place or hope that the umpire will get it right this time. IMO that has a bigger impact on games than isolated calls that the ump got wrong.

 

I've been somewhat ambivalent about robo-umps in the past but the more I see of the game the more I think they're needed, probably not for every pitch but managers should be allowed to 'challenge' a certain number of pitches per game that could be reviewed.

 

You're certainly right about the way a pitcher plays an empire. But selective review? God no! That would be combining the worst aspects of replay (which I despise, by the way) with the worst of robo-umps. If you have a machine that can call balls and strikes instantly, then use it.

Edited October 25, 2021 by jad

[Maxbialystock]

That is not correct.

 

What's incorrect? The notion that advocates of robo-umps seek perfection in all calls by umpires?

[Maxbialystock]

I predict that once this goes into effect most people are going to like it. It'll speed things up, it'll take away the distraction of checking the ump's calls.

 

It won't disrupt the playing of the game at all.

 

In exchange for a faster, fairer game, all you can lose is whatever kick it was you got out of bad calls.

 

It won't speed things up by much because far and away the biggest game delays are the gyrations of the pitcher and hitter between pitches, each trying to upset the timing of the other. So disruptions will continue unabated.

 

As for the "bad calls," I consider griping about them laughable when I look at how pitchers sometimes can't throw strikes to save their lives or simply aim at the center of the zone hoping for the best. At the same time hitters often just look at strikes in the middle of the zone and on the same at bat swing like the dickens at pitches well outside the zone.

 

Just throwing strikes is extremely hard to do--let alone hit the corners--and on top of that pitchers have to impart spin, etc. Pitching is nowhere near as precise as your insistence on robo-umps suggests it is.

 

Same goes for a batter seeing balls and strikes accurately when a pitch is coming in at 75-100 mph with a variety of spins and angles. On top of that, the hardest thing for a hitter isn't recognizing a ball or strike, but trying to hit a round ball with a round bat squarely.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Maxbialystock

[Elktonnick]

I do not think Robo umps will speed up the game because the act of calling balls and strikes is not the cause of today's slow game. The amount of time between pitches and the number of pitching changes are the main culprits in that regard. Moreover the relative modern strategy of driving up pitch counts also is a factor.

[Kimmi]

And what makes you think there's any chance that'll ever change?

 

You're probably right that they're not going to change that, but my point is that they could improve the umpiring without adding technology if they wanted to.

[Kimmi]

I'd like to see a little more info on this. Not saying you have to dig it up. But it would be interesting to know.

 

According to one database called UmpScores, Diaz was ranked 64th out of 74 full time umpires, with a bad call rate of 9.6%. The major league average was 8.3%. The best bad call rate was 6.4%. As of October 20, of the 28 umpires who called a postseason game, half of them were rated as below average.

 

While younger umpires typically do a better job of calling games, the older umpires with seniority are getting much of the postseason action.

 

https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2195340

[Kimmi]

Embrace tradition. Throw away modernity. Get rid of all electronic scoreboards now!

 

From an article in the Washington Post:

 

The sport is more interesting when the way a pitch is received by the catcher matters.

 

The ability to manipulate an umpire’s eyes is part of the game’s artistry. Pitches such as Liván Hernández and Tom Glavine made careers out of nibbling at the corners, finding out what they could get away with and slowly inching pitches farther out, making the umpire widen his strike zone without even realizing it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/robot-umpires-mlb-playoffs/

 

 

Yes, embrace tradition.

[Kimmi]

I predict that once this goes into effect most people are going to like it. It'll speed things up, it'll take away the distraction of checking the ump's calls.

 

It won't disrupt the playing of the game at all.

 

In exchange for a faster, fairer game, all you can lose is whatever kick it was you got out of bad calls.

 

Stop.

[Kimmi]

I do not think Robo umps will speed up the game because the act of calling balls and strikes is not the cause of today's slow game. The amount of time between pitches and the number of pitching changes are the main culprits in that regard. Moreover the relative modern strategy of driving up pitch counts also is a factor.

 

Robo umps will not speed up the game. If anything, they will slow the game down a bit.

[moonslav59]

Robo umps will not speed up the game. If anything, they will slow the game down a bit.

 

Not even one second.

 

Think of all the times a batter or pitcher think a call is missed and step back to regroup. Not anymore.

[moonslav59]

From an article in the Washington Post:

 

The sport is more interesting when the way a pitch is received by the catcher matters.

 

The ability to manipulate an umpire’s eyes is part of the game’s artistry. Pitches such as Liván Hernández and Tom Glavine made careers out of nibbling at the corners, finding out what they could get away with and slowly inching pitches farther out, making the umpire widen his strike zone without even realizing it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/10/20/robot-umpires-mlb-playoffs/

 

 

Yes, embrace tradition.

 

Stop.

[Elktonnick]

Not even one second.

 

Think of all the times a batter or pitcher think a call is missed and step back to regroup. Not anymore.

What makes you think that wouldn't happen with Robo umps. Besides even in the circumstance you describe, it adds mere seconds to game.

In 1940 the average major league lasted 2 hours. Now it is over three. The additional time was not caused by players questioning balls and strikes.

 

I suspect the player's union and the umpires union will all find that Robo umpires aren't in their interests. Moreover I suspect ownership will eventually decide that Robo umps just are not in their financial interests either.

If you are an owner you are not selling an antiseptic sport.

[moonslav59]

What makes you think that wouldn't happen with Robo umps. Besides even in the circumstance you describe, it adds mere seconds to game.

In 1940 the average major league lasted 2 hours. Now it is over three. The additional time was not caused by players questioning balls and strikes.

 

I suspect the player's union and the umpires union will all find that Robo umpires aren't in their interests. Moreover I suspect ownership will eventually decide that Robo umps just are not in their financial interests either.

If you are an owner you are not selling an antiseptic sport.

 

I am 99.9% certain the strike-ball call will be whispered in the ear of the ump in a split second. What makes you think it won’t?

 

It will be seamless and unnoticeable. There is no hint of antiseptic, except it might clean up the swearing by

Drunk fans not screaming at umps as much.

[Elktonnick]

I am 99.9% certain the strike-ball call will be whispered in the ear of the ump in a split second. What makes you think it won’t?

 

It will be seamless and unnoticeable. There is no hint of antiseptic, except it might clean up the swearing by

Drunk fans not screaming at umps as much.

 

No technological innovations are always introduced seamlessly without customers ever noticing their implementation just ask anyone who has introduced any such systems into their operations. That is like saying I am from the gov't and I am here to help.

[Bellhorn04]

No technological innovations are always introduced seamlessly without customers ever noticing their implementation just ask anyone who has introduced any such systems into their operations. That is like saying I am from the gov't and I am here to help.

 

Some technological advances are immediately noticed as big improvements. Like e-passes for bridges and other tolls, for example.

[moonslav59]

No technological innovations are always introduced seamlessly without customers ever noticing their implementation just ask anyone who has introduced any such systems into their operations. That is like saying I am from the gov't and I am here to help.

 

Exactly. It will be seamless and unnoticeable.