MLB's ABS System used during spring

[jad]

12 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

have any of you people even seen this in action? i've seen a number of AAA games where ABS was used and the amount of time it takes to review a call is insignificant -in fact, it's almost instantaneous. and it is nothing life the NFL if that's what you're thinking. i think it's great for the game and should be used throughout MLB and the minors.

Joe West and Angel Hernandez aside, most MLB umps are really good. AAA umps not as good and AA umps can downright horrible. do you have any idea what this does to a kids psyche? i've seen pitcher and hitters confidence completely shattered by inconsistent strike zones. the ABS will allow more consistency throughout all of baseball. i can't wait.

But unless you review ALL calls, how do you protect this hypothetical kid's psyche?  He'll never know what the right call would be unless he challenges. 

Again, what I'm looking for is the argument showing why they should NOT use ABS throughout.  What is the advantage of having a live ump get, say, 80-90% of the calls right, adding another half dozen on challenge, when you could easily get 100% of the calls right?  That's the argument I want  to see someone to try to advance.

[moonslav59]

21 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

No, because they still need to call plays at the plate, foul tips, check swings, etc. 

...and get hit by foul tips, so the fans can cheer.

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, jad said:

But unless you review ALL calls, how do you protect this hypothetical kid's psyche?  He'll never know what the right call would be unless he challenges. 

Again, what I'm looking for is the argument showing why they should NOT use ABS throughout.  What is the advantage of having a live ump get, say, 80-90% of the calls right, adding another half dozen on challenge, when you could easily get 100% of the calls right?  That's the argument I want  to see someone to try to advance.

It's a half measure, but it's the tool we're currently working with. Eventually we can get to a 100% robozone, but we aren't there yet. 

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

The BOX? That stupid outline that is the exact same size whether the batter is Altuve or Judge? The square that doesn't align with the exact same angle of every centerfield camera at every single ballpark, just to confuse and frustrate viewers beholden to this age of misinformation? The box that is only 2-dimensional and doesn't reflect the depth of a pitch when it actually crosses the plate and/or lands in a catcher's mitt?

How would anyone ever watch baseball again without it?

Consider this: has anyone, at any time in their lives, ever witnessed a spectator at a live ballgame at any level holding a cutout cardboard rectangle in front of their eyes so they could replicate the living room experience?

I don't go to football games anymore because they can't get the yellow first down marker on the field. 

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

So, the job gets easier, so they pay them less? I doubt it.

Pay them the same. They aren't exactly rolling in the dough. 

[jad]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

It's a half measure, but it's the tool we're currently working with. Eventually we can get to a 100% robozone, but we aren't there yet. 

But again, why bother perfecting or tweaking an unnecessary 'challenge' system when there is absolutely no need for such a system whatsover?  you still have the live ump there for tip balls, enforcing time etc.  or to serve as a check (e.g., bounced balls that end up in the zone).  Just turn the ABS on.  Why they didn't do this in the minors is beyond me instead of experimenting with a half-measure?

 

[Duran Is The Man]

25 minutes ago, jad said:

But unless you review ALL calls, how do you protect this hypothetical kid's psyche?  He'll never know what the right call would be unless he challenges. 

Again, what I'm looking for is the argument showing why they should NOT use ABS throughout.  What is the advantage of having a live ump get, say, 80-90% of the calls right, adding another half dozen on challenge, when you could easily get 100% of the calls right?  That's the argument I want  to see someone to try to advance.

i get what you're saying now. and i'm all for ALL of the calls being done by ABS. with that said, it's not a large percentage of calls that are missed by the umps. and if a kid thinks he's right, then he has the right to challenge. it's a great tool. like i said, i've seen a lot of AAA (where it's used) and AA (where it isn't) and i am fully in favor of it, even if it's a limited number of challenges. and i KNOW the players are in favor of it.

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, jad said:

But again, why bother perfecting or tweaking an unnecessary 'challenge' system when there is absolutely no need for such a system whatsover?  you still have the live ump there for tip balls, enforcing time etc.  or to serve as a check (e.g., bounced balls that end up in the zone).  Just turn the ABS on.  Why they didn't do this in the minors is beyond me instead of experimenting with a half-measure?

There are a lot of things they could do to make certain that every call is right (camera placement, microchipped balls/bags, laser foul lines, etc.), but there isn't the appetite for it. I'd rather have every call 100% correct down to the micrometer. 

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

i get what you're saying now. and i'm all for ALL of the calls being done by ABS. with that said, it's not a large percentage of calls that are missed by the umps. and if a kid thinks he's right, then he has the right to challenge. it's a great tool. like i said, i've seen a lot of AAA (where it's used) and AA (where it isn't) and i am fully in favor of it, even if it's a limited number of challenges. and i KNOW the players are in favor of it.

The worst umpire, Larry Vanover, was correct 92% of the time. The best umpire, Derek Thomas, was correct 96% of the time. Things could be better, but they've been worse. Umps are better than they've ever been before. I feel gross for saying that.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

19 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The worst umpire, Larry Vanover, was correct 92% of the time. The best umpire, Derek Thomas, was correct 96% of the time. Things could be better, but they've been worse. Umps are better than they've ever been before. I feel gross for saying that.

They're all better than meteorologists -- none of them even study meteors.

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

They're all better than meteorologists -- none of them even study meteors.

They study hydrometeors. I can blame that ding dong Aristotle for the confusion. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They study hydrometeors. I can blame that ding dong Aristotle for the confusion. 

And I can hear them say:

Hey, you've got to hydro love away...

[jad]

1 hour ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

And I can hear them say:

Hey, you've got to hydro love away...

Now we're getting somewhere.  Who says rational discussion cannot lead to a consensus?

 

[mvp 78]

16 minutes ago, jad said:

Now we're getting somewhere.  Who says rational discussion cannot lead to a consensus?

I'll move past that dotard Descartes and agree with Bertrand Russell when he said "man is a rational animal — so at least I have been told. Throughout a long life I have looked diligently for evidence in favour of this statement, but so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it." I mean, you've all read the posts on here, right? 

[jad]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

I'll move past that dotard Descartes and agree with Bertrand Russell when he said "man is a rational animal — so at least I have been told. Throughout a long life I have looked diligently for evidence in favour of this statement, but so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it." I mean, you've all read the posts on here, right? 

I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!!!   What is wrong with you?????

[Jasonbay44]

15 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

No, because they still need to call plays at the plate, foul tips, check swings, etc. 

The point is, with how good technology is, the umpires become pretty replaceable. 
 

Regarding check swings, I’m pretty sure they just guess most of the time anyway, especially since the check swing “rule” is so vague and kind of differs from game to game and umpire to umpire 

[Bellhorn04]

7 hours ago, Jasonbay44 said:

The point is, with how good technology is, the umpires become pretty replaceable. 
 

Regarding check swings, I’m pretty sure they just guess most of the time anyway, especially since the check swing “rule” is so vague and kind of differs from game to game and umpire to umpire 

That call could probably be automated too.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

7 hours ago, Jasonbay44 said:

The point is, with how good technology is, the umpires become pretty replaceable. 
 

Regarding check swings, I’m pretty sure they just guess most of the time anyway, especially since the check swing “rule” is so vague and kind of differs from game to game and umpire to umpire 

The rules are clearly laid out in the Umpire's Style book. An official swing by a batter includes the following:

- hand movements that cause a decreased angle of the bat from approximately 90 degrees from the elbows to 45 degrees... or 65 degrees... or 89 degrees

- chin juts forward at least three inches (or 10 centimeters in international play)

- any grin or grimace that shows teeth

- raised back eyebrow

- walking to the front of the batter's box like Juan Soto for anyone who is not as good as Juan Soto

- whatever a base ump 90 feet away from the plate decides, as long as when all eyes and tv cameras are on him, he gets to punch the sky