Rules rules rules

[Bellhorn04]

Nice try, but I've already said I'm completely in favor of stuff you can see: foul lines, bases, batters box, pitching rubber, lines defining what's in the park and what's out of the park, bats, balls, gloves, etc.

 

Indeed, since you mentioned football, please name or describe something central the game of football that is analogous to that strike zone which no one can actually see.

 

How about the "tackle box"? You'll have to look it up to find out what that means.

[mvp 78]

Nice try, but I've already said I'm completely in favor of stuff you can see: foul lines, bases, batters box, pitching rubber, lines defining what's in the park and what's out of the park, bats, balls, gloves, etc.

 

Indeed, since you mentioned football, please name or describe something central the game of football that is analogous to that strike zone which no one can actually see. We can see the plate with its odd shape and we can see the varying sizes of the batters, but then we have to interpolate where the strike zone is.

 

What about holding penalties? Theoretically, those could be called almost every play. Is that analogous to the k zone?

[mvp 78]

How about the "tackle box"? You'll have to look it up to find out what that means.

 

What about the Schrodinger's pile of football players where a certain team will theoretically both have and not have the football at the bottom of the pile?

[jad]

What about the Schrodinger's pile of football players where a certain team will theoretically both have and not have the football at the bottom of the pile?

 

Nice one! What about lining up on the line of scrimmage (illegal formation)? What about the way they eyeball ball placement or the first down marker?

[mvp 78]

Nice one! What about lining up on the line of scrimmage (illegal formation)? What about the way they eyeball ball placement or the first down marker?

 

Pish posh! That one is totally an exact science my good man!

[Bellhorn04]

Nice one! What about lining up on the line of scrimmage (illegal formation)? What about the way they eyeball ball placement or the first down marker?

 

Hey, they "call in the sticks" when they have to!

[mvp 78]

Hey, they "call in the sticks" when they have to!

 

You know, I have one simple request, and that is to have sticks with frickin' laser beams attached to themselves!

 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Tz4sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Xc0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=5604,1054593&dq=football+laser+beam&hl=en

[Maxbialystock]

Most of human history has been towards correcting mistakes and trying to find way to make thing right and better. That's also what life is like.

 

Wht accept mistakes, when you don't have to do so?

 

Far be it from me to argue against progress when we know how much humanity has benefitted from it. Language itself, the means by which we are discussing this topic, was a huge step forward.

 

That said, we are talking about a sport, not the internal combustion engine, the advances made in medicine, or the exploration of space.

 

Consider how much science and technology have changed--and changed our lives--since 1901 (advent of the AL) vs. how little baseball has changed.

 

Mounds are lower. The baseball is livelier. The DH. Foreign substances on the pitched ball have come and gone. Gloves are better. Bats are still wood, not aluminum, and about the same sizes/dimensions. Bases are about to get bigger, I think to prevent injuries. And pitch clocks are about to get serious--a massive intrusion which is probably necessary.

 

Nevertheless, watching a game in a ballpark today is very similar to watching one 111 years ago when four umpires were first used.

 

More to the point, think back to all the great games, World Series, records, players, etc you can remember or have read about. All of those wonderful moments were achieved in the context of fallible umpires, who were on the field when Don Larson pitched that perfect game, when Babe Ruth hit 60 dingers, when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, when Sandy Koufax was so brilliant for such a relatively short period, and when the Sox ended the Curse of the Bambino in 2004 and then won again in 2007, 2013, and 2018.

[moonslav59]

Far be it from me to argue against progress when we know how much humanity has benefitted from it. Language itself, the means by which we are discussing this topic, was a huge step forward.

 

That said, we are talking about a sport, not the internal combustion engine, the advances made in medicine, or the exploration of space.

 

Consider how much science and technology have changed--and changed our lives--since 1901 (advent of the AL) vs. how little baseball has changed.

 

Mounds are lower. The baseball is livelier. The DH. Foreign substances on the pitched ball have come and gone. Gloves are better. Bats are still wood, not aluminum, and about the same sizes/dimensions. Bases are about to get bigger, I think to prevent injuries. And pitch clocks are about to get serious--a massive intrusion which is probably necessary.

 

Nevertheless, watching a game in a ballpark today is very similar to watching one 111 years ago when four umpires were first used.

 

More to the point, think back to all the great games, World Series, records, players, etc you can remember or have read about. All of those wonderful moments were achieved in the context of fallible umpires, who were on the field when Don Larson pitched that perfect game, when Babe Ruth hit 60 dingers, when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, when Sandy Koufax was so brilliant for such a relatively short period, and when the Sox ended the Curse of the Bambino in 2004 and then won again in 2007, 2013, and 2018.

 

Why actively choose to have many calls made wrongly?

 

I don't get how this helps the game or viewing experience.

 

Watching the game with robo umps can appear no different, at all. The call can be made to an ear piece in the home ump's ear, and he calls the strike or ball seamlessly.

 

Not only does it take away from the frustration of bad calls, but it allows hitters and pitchers to perform to their best ability, and not have to adjust their game to the ump of the day or have to change the way the hit or pitch based on an in- game trend some ump seems to be on.

 

Then, suddenly, the ump reverts back to his norm, which still is never 100%.

[Maxbialystock]

What about holding penalties? Theoretically, those could be called almost every play. Is that analogous to the k zone?

 

Come on. Give me something hard. The refs can see holding penalties and can make a judgment call. I'm in favor of those, just like I'm in favor of the calls umpires currently make, including balls and strikes.

[cp176]

it's amazing what kind of trouble you can get into by making your opinions known - Even in a nice quiet way. I'll choose to hold the line. I do not think that everything has to be perfect nor do I think that you always need to try to make everything better. Often times the people chosen to make things better are extremely opinionated numbskulls.

[cp176]

How about the "tackle box"? You'll have to look it up to find out what that means.

 

 

What takes place within the tackle box needs to stay in the tackle box. And yes I do know what the tackle box is.

[cp176]

Then why not eliminate the chalk lines on a football field? There would be much more 'human element' involved if you just let a line judge call in-bounds or out-of-bounds based on where he believed that line should be. Same thing with the goal line. Get rid of it. When you're within ten yards of an imaginary line 10 yards from an imaginary line centered on the goal-posts, TOUCHDOWN!

 

hmm interesting

[cp176]

Most of human history has been towards correcting mistakes and trying to find way to make thing right and better. That's also what life is like.

 

Wht accept mistakes, when you don't have to do so?

 

I do not necessarily agree with your statement. Many things that we have today have been hailed as making our lives easier and better. Take our technological advancements as an example. It's obvious what the impacts of much of these "improvements " have brought to us all. Not all of which have been positive.

[Maxbialystock]

How about the "tackle box"? You'll have to look it up to find out what that means.

 

It's something you can see--I think defined as the area between the offensive tackles.

[mvp 78]

More to the point, think back to all the great games, World Series, records, players, etc you can remember or have read about. All of those wonderful moments were achieved in the context of fallible umpires, who were on the field when Don Larson pitched that perfect game, when Babe Ruth hit 60 dingers, when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, when Sandy Koufax was so brilliant for such a relatively short period, and when the Sox ended the Curse of the Bambino in 2004 and then won again in 2007, 2013, and 2018.

 

In spite of fallible umpires, not because of fallible umpires.

[mvp 78]

Why actively choose to have many calls made wrongly?

 

I don't get how this helps the game or viewing experience.

 

Watching the game with robo umps can appear no different, at all. The call can be made to an ear piece in the home ump's ear, and he calls the strike or ball seamlessly.

 

Not only does it take away from the frustration of bad calls, but it allows hitters and pitchers to perform to their best ability, and not have to adjust their game to the ump of the day or have to change the way the hit or pitch based on an in- game trend some ump seems to be on.

 

Then, suddenly, the ump reverts back to his norm, which still is never 100%.

 

While my Jim Joyce gently weeps.

[mvp 78]

Come on. Give me something hard.

 

Sir...

[moonslav59]

I do not necessarily agree with your statement. Many things that we have today have been hailed as making our lives easier and better. Take our technological advancements as an example. It's obvious what the impacts of much of these "improvements " have brought to us all. Not all of which have been positive.

 

This is an easy one.

 

Same as not going back to the Model T.

[Maxbialystock]

In spite of fallible umpires, not because of fallible umpires.

 

That's 110 years--or 150 years--of fallible umpires who nevertheless have served the game well because they have been authoritative and decisive where and when those qualities were needed.

 

I like those qualities and do not think making home plate umps infallible will in any way improve the game as it is played. It remains to be seen whether their authoritativeness and decisiveness will be eroded.

 

Moonslav says umpires--at least, when they are behind the plate--should jump all over robo-umps because of the seamlessness with which that will occur. A little voice will whisper ball or strike to the umpire alone, and he still gets to signal or shout ball or strike. He's still the guy in charge. Or is he?

 

I am of course aware that how the game is played is not nearly as important as the lens through which we see it. Thanks to technology, those authoritative, decisive umps are showing some warts, and goodness knows we can't have that in a game which is all about being perfect.

[Maxbialystock]

This is an easy one.

 

Same as not going back to the Model T.

 

You do realize, I hope, that the game of baseball is much, much, much, much more like that Model T Ford than it is to the latest Ford electric vehicles or the Ford Thunderbird or whatever.

[Bellhorn04]

You do realize, I hope, that the game of baseball is much, much, much, much more like that Model T Ford than it is to the latest Ford electric vehicles or the Ford Thunderbird or whatever.

 

The sport of running is as ancient as it gets. But I don't think anyone would want to abandon electronic timekeeping and go back to manual.

[moonslav59]

You do realize, I hope, that the game of baseball is much, much, much, much more like that Model T Ford than it is to the latest Ford electric vehicles or the Ford Thunderbird or whatever.

 

...and?

[moonslav59]

The sport of running is as ancient as it gets. But I don't think anyone would want to abandon electronic timekeeping and go back to manual.

 

I liked it better when the declared the second place guy the winner.

 

It brought the human element into the sport.

[Maxbialystock]

While my Jim Joyce gently weeps.

 

Great point! I love it! Galarraga loses a perfect game 12 years ago because a very competent ump called a runner safe when he was actually out, which would have been the final out of the game.

 

That story is still told because it's so great. Joyce, just as you say, was hugely remorseful and said so publicly--that he blew the call at 1b. Amazingly, Galarraga commiserated with Joyce immediately after the game was over and Joyce came to him and apologized. I defy anyone on Talksox to recite from memory even half the perfect games that have been pitched, but almost everyone remembers this imperfect game.

 

Need I also add that a perfect game is simply one in which one team not only gets no hits, but gets no one on base. But such perfection is not entirely in the hands of the pitcher who gets the credit. There are usually one or more amazing defensive plays, to say nothing of hard hit balls which simply go straight to a fielder. If you want real perfection, it would have to be 27 K's--with all strikes and no balls thrown and, of course, a robo-ump calling balls and strikes.

 

It's one of the better stories about the great game of baseball and is all the more memorable because it's about imperfection and being human.

[moonslav59]

Great point! I love it! Galarraga loses a perfect game 12 years ago because a very competent ump called a runner safe when he was actually out, which would have been the final out of the game.

 

That story is still told because it's so great. Joyce, just as you say, was hugely remorseful and said so publicly--that he blew the call at 1b. Amazingly, Galarraga commiserated with Joyce immediately after the game was over and Joyce came to him and apologized. I defy anyone on Talksox to recite from memory even half the perfect games that have been pitched, but almost everyone remembers this imperfect game.

 

Need I also add that a perfect game is simply one in which one team not only gets no hits, but gets no one on base. But such perfection is not entirely in the hands of the pitcher who gets the credit. There are usually one or more amazing defensive plays, to say nothing of hard hit balls which simply go straight to a fielder. If you want real perfection, it would have to be 27 K's--with all strikes and no balls thrown and, of course, a robo-ump calling balls and strikes.

 

It's one of the better stories about the great game of baseball and is all the more memorable because it's about imperfection and being human.

 

It's not a great story. It's a s***** story.

 

Imagine, if a call like that was made that lost the Sox a WS win.

 

Great story, right?

 

Told for decades.

[notin]

Far be it from me to argue against progress when we know how much humanity has benefitted from it. Language itself, the means by which we are discussing this topic, was a huge step forward.

 

That said, we are talking about a sport, not the internal combustion engine, the advances made in medicine, or the exploration of space.

 

Consider how much science and technology have changed--and changed our lives--since 1901 (advent of the AL) vs. how little baseball has changed.

 

Mounds are lower. The baseball is livelier. The DH. Foreign substances on the pitched ball have come and gone. Gloves are better. Bats are still wood, not aluminum, and about the same sizes/dimensions. Bases are about to get bigger, I think to prevent injuries. And pitch clocks are about to get serious--a massive intrusion which is probably necessary.

 

Nevertheless, watching a game in a ballpark today is very similar to watching one 111 years ago when four umpires were first used.

 

More to the point, think back to all the great games, World Series, records, players, etc you can remember or have read about. All of those wonderful moments were achieved in the context of fallible umpires, who were on the field when Don Larson pitched that perfect game, when Babe Ruth hit 60 dingers, when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941, when Sandy Koufax was so brilliant for such a relatively short period, and when the Sox ended the Curse of the Bambino in 2004 and then won again in 2007, 2013, and 2018.

 

 

Having automated balls and strikes doesn’t mean removing all the umpires from the game and banishing them to the most outer of the Aleutian Islands with nothing but a bottle of Aquafina and some plastic ware.

 

Just Angel Hernandez and CB Bucknor…

[notin]

Great point! I love it! Galarraga loses a perfect game 12 years ago because a very competent ump called a runner safe when he was actually out, which would have been the final out of the game.

 

That story is still told because it's so great. Joyce, just as you say, was hugely remorseful and said so publicly--that he blew the call at 1b. Amazingly, Galarraga commiserated with Joyce immediately after the game was over and Joyce came to him and apologized. I defy anyone on Talksox to recite from memory even half the perfect games that have been pitched, but almost everyone remembers this imperfect game.

 

Need I also add that a perfect game is simply one in which one team not only gets no hits, but gets no one on base. But such perfection is not entirely in the hands of the pitcher who gets the credit. There are usually one or more amazing defensive plays, to say nothing of hard hit balls which simply go straight to a fielder. If you want real perfection, it would have to be 27 K's--with all strikes and no balls thrown and, of course, a robo-ump calling balls and strikes.

 

It's one of the better stories about the great game of baseball and is all the more memorable because it's about imperfection and being human.

 

The Joyce call had nothing to do with balls and strikes. So far MLB is ONLY talking about automated ball/strike calls. Do not lose sight of that.

 

Standing on a slippery slope is not the same as being planted on firm ground…

[notin]

Great point! I love it! Galarraga loses a perfect game 12 years ago because a very competent ump called a runner safe when he was actually out, which would have been the final out of the game.

 

That story is still told because it's so great. Joyce, just as you say, was hugely remorseful and said so publicly--that he blew the call at 1b. Amazingly, Galarraga commiserated with Joyce immediately after the game was over and Joyce came to him and apologized. I defy anyone on Talksox to recite from memory even half the perfect games that have been pitched, but almost everyone remembers this imperfect game.

 

Need I also add that a perfect game is simply one in which one team not only gets no hits, but gets no one on base. But such perfection is not entirely in the hands of the pitcher who gets the credit. There are usually one or more amazing defensive plays, to say nothing of hard hit balls which simply go straight to a fielder. If you want real perfection, it would have to be 27 K's--with all strikes and no balls thrown and, of course, a robo-ump calling balls and strikes.

 

It's one of the better stories about the great game of baseball and is all the more memorable because it's about imperfection and being human.

 

 

Also without looking anything up, the following pitchers threw perfect games:

 

Felix Hernandez, Matt Cain, Roy Halladay, Philip Humber, Mark Buehrle, Dallas Braden, David Wells, David Cone, Dennis Martinez, Tom Browning, Mike Witt, Len Barker, Don Larsen, Sandy Koufax, Jim Bunning, Addie Joss, Cy Young.

 

I think that’s more than half…

[illinoisredsox]

Also without looking anything up, the following pitchers threw perfect games:

 

Felix Hernandez, Matt Cain, Roy Halladay, Philip Humber, Mark Buehrle, Dallas Braden, David Wells, David Cone, Dennis Martinez, Tom Browning, Mike Witt, Len Barker, Don Larsen, Sandy Koufax, Jim Bunning, Addie Joss, Cy Young.

 

I think that’s more than half…

 

Excellent rebuttal.

 

Off the top of my head you’re missing Randy Johnson and Catfish Hunter.

 

I then looked up the number of perfectos on MLB history. It’s 23 (21 since 1900). You were able to come up with over 80% of the ones in the “modern” era and just shy of 75% of all of them.