4/16 Twins @ Sox

[moonslav59]

Agree, but likely not for why you think. Replay should only cover "what can be seen" (what could be seen from a real or ideal view-point). I still don't understand your objection to Ball/strikes called through 'the rectangle'. Hell, what the ump sees in his mind isn't visible to anyone either. Why would you want the standard to be an imperfect application of an 'idea' of the strike zone that is known to one person alone?

 

The ump can't even see the whole strike zone, so there is that, too.

[oldtimer]

The ump can't even see the whole strike zone, so there is that, too.

Umpires differ quite a lot. Some give strikes with pitches clearly outside the zone while others call balls that are clearly in the zone. I believe technology assisted umpiring would help the game and would not be noticed by the fans.

[Maxbialystock]

Agree, but likely not for why you think. Replay should only cover "what can be seen" (what could be seen from a real or ideal view-point). I still don't understand your objection to Ball/strikes called through 'the rectangle'. Hell, what the ump sees in his mind isn't visible to anyone either. Why would you want the standard to be an imperfect application of an 'idea' of the strike zone that is known to one person alone?

 

Good question. And my answer is still the same. The umpires are not an impediment, a problem to be solved. They have always been part of the game, the humans who do the essential job of helping to determine the outcomes of games by rendering quick decisions on balls, strikes, out, safe, foul, fair, obstruction or not, HBP or not, balk or not, etc, etc.

 

I agree with moonslav that the home plate umpires direct view of the strike zone is imperfect, but I would still rather have an imperfect human call balls and strikes than a computer hooked up to cameras.

 

Computers--and I well aware I am using one right now to type this--have already initiated dramatic change in how the game is played. By determining hitters tendencies, they cause three infielders to routinely be put to the right or left of 2d base. Indeed, those new configurations sometimes prevent infielders from being able to make a double play. Bunts and stolen bases are being computerized away, but swinging for the fences is definitely in.

 

Meanwhile, games still last longer and longer because dawdling by pitcher and batter remains sacrosanct. Why not use the almighty computer to fix that?

[Bellhorn04]

Good question. And my answer is still the same. The umpires are not an impediment, a problem to be solved. They have always been part of the game, the humans who do the essential job of helping to determine the outcomes of games by rendering quick decisions on balls, strikes, out, safe, foul, fair, obstruction or not, HBP or not, balk or not, etc, etc.

 

I agree with moonslav that the home plate umpires direct view of the strike zone is imperfect, but I would still rather have an imperfect human call balls and strikes than a computer hooked up to cameras.

 

Computers--and I well aware I am using one right now to type this--have already initiated dramatic change in how the game is played. By determining hitters tendencies, they cause three infielders to routinely be put to the right or left of 2d base. Indeed, those new configurations sometimes prevent infielders from being able to make a double play. Bunts and stolen bases are being computerized away, but swinging for the fences is definitely in.

 

Meanwhile, games still last longer and longer because dawdling by pitcher and batter remains sacrosanct. Why not use the almighty computer to fix that?

 

This Red Sox-Twins game lasted 2:45. That's not bad.

[Kimmi]

Note to Dugo. Being a good hitter doesn't make you exempt from running hard on every grounder.

 

It bothered me a bit that Verdugo did not run hard out of the box on that grounder. Might he have beaten the throw if he were running hard? We'll never know.

[Kimmi]

Mazz did a good job in the booth, IMO.

[jad]

Good question. And my answer is still the same. The umpires are not an impediment, a problem to be solved. They have always been part of the game, the humans who do the essential job of helping to determine the outcomes of games by rendering quick decisions on balls, strikes, out, safe, foul, fair, obstruction or not, HBP or not, balk or not, etc, etc.

 

I agree with moonslav that the home plate umpires direct view of the strike zone is imperfect, but I would still rather have an imperfect human call balls and strikes than a computer hooked up to cameras.

 

Computers--and I well aware I am using one right now to type this--have already initiated dramatic change in how the game is played. By determining hitters tendencies, they cause three infielders to routinely be put to the right or left of 2d base. Indeed, those new configurations sometimes prevent infielders from being able to make a double play. Bunts and stolen bases are being computerized away, but swinging for the fences is definitely in.

 

Meanwhile, games still last longer and longer because dawdling by pitcher and batter remains sacrosanct. Why not use the almighty computer to fix that?

 

Well aren't mechanical devices being used to speed the game up? With the pitch clock. Also, I don't see an important relation between computers generating statistics and tendencies and the simple matter of calling balls and strikes correctly. Lots of things have been 'part of the game' since the beginning, but not all those things need to be retained (e.g., racism, inconsistent strike zones, violence, and yes arguing with umpires).

[moonslav59]

Good question. And my answer is still the same. The umpires are not an impediment, a problem to be solved. They have always been part of the game, the humans who do the essential job of helping to determine the outcomes of games by rendering quick decisions on balls, strikes, out, safe, foul, fair, obstruction or not, HBP or not, balk or not, etc, etc.

 

I agree with moonslav that the home plate umpires direct view of the strike zone is imperfect, but I would still rather have an imperfect human call balls and strikes than a computer hooked up to cameras.

 

Computers--and I well aware I am using one right now to type this--have already initiated dramatic change in how the game is played. By determining hitters tendencies, they cause three infielders to routinely be put to the right or left of 2d base. Indeed, those new configurations sometimes prevent infielders from being able to make a double play. Bunts and stolen bases are being computerized away, but swinging for the fences is definitely in.

 

Meanwhile, games still last longer and longer because dawdling by pitcher and batter remains sacrosanct. Why not use the almighty computer to fix that?

 

Robo balls and strikes will be quick and more importantly, consistent. The home plate ump can even yell out "Strike" or "ball," if that's what MLB wants to do.

 

I just don't get the fear and loathing surrounding robo umps.

[Maxbialystock]

Well aren't mechanical devices being used to speed the game up? With the pitch clock. Also, I don't see an important relation between computers generating statistics and tendencies and the simple matter of calling balls and strikes correctly. Lots of things have been 'part of the game' since the beginning, but not all those things need to be retained (e.g., racism, inconsistent strike zones, violence, and yes arguing with umpires).

 

Actually, baseball did more to attack racism than the Congress, the Senate and House, and the Supreme Court when the Dodgers integrated in 1947, one year before President Truman integrated the armed services. Indeed, one could well argue that one led to the other and that MLB and baseball writ large have done a better job of integrating and mitigating racism then has the government and/or the armed services.

 

Violence and racism were/are endemic to American society.

 

And one could fairly say that arguing with umpires was therapeutic for managers, players, and fans alike. Those arguments were time-consuming, but sixty and more years ago they still played games quickly (compared to today).

[Maxbialystock]

Robo balls and strikes will be quick and more importantly, consistent. The home plate ump can even yell out "Strike" or "ball," if that's what MLB wants to do.

 

I just don't get the fear and loathing surrounding robo umps.

 

Fear and loathing? I would rather say that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

 

Part of the beauty of sports is the ever present threat and reality of inconsistency. Crash Davis: just one more hit a week is the difference between batting .250 and .300.

 

Yesterday Houck threw strikes just 56% of the time--with 4 K's and 3 BB's--but he still managed to go 5.2 shutout innings.

[Maxbialystock]

This Red Sox-Twins game lasted 2:45. That's not bad.

 

Terrific, in fact. Just 10 hits in the game, 8 BB's, and 10 K's--and four glorious DP's, including the K + throw to 2b by Vazquez.