Northland posted:USA Today has of history of 'baseball is dying' articles. This one is nothing more than the equivalent of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. The MLB is thriving and is better than it has ever been. Modern MLB players are far superior to those in the past. MLB parks are far superior to those in the past. The MLB is putting a quality product out through numerous mediums and languages. And there are millions world wide who are still fans and ballpark attendance is not the only measure of how MLB is doing.
And if a robo-ump does a better job why would we not want to use it?
There are definitely different and viable perspectives from each opposite end on this. I certainly lean with RJM that the net net is not good for baseball going forward. Declining kid participation, declining access to middle class and below, the over-compensation to make more HR's happen at the MLB level, excess specialization and analytics that even most of the professional players don't currently understand, a traditionally slower moving game in a present world that demands everything at once, trying to create in-game "experiences" that will have more appeal to the younger crowd but, in turn, just make it like any other form of entertainment, etc. are not working in the favor of the game. Too many fixes are temporary patches. I often wonder if the better course would be to celebrate and promote the deep tradition and purity of the game instead of chasing new technology, etc. I suspect the best direction is to keep the game between the lines pure and traditional and the rest of the experience can be geared toward the modern world.
I do have a question for you though, Northland... (this also came up in another thread here recently...) you said ...
"And if a robo-ump does a better job why would we not want to use it?".
So, then, if robo-players would do a better job too, would you also want to use them?