Cameras vs Umpires -Consistency & Accuracy

Stats4Gnats posted:

 

Frankly I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for sports officials, but the game isn’t about them and shouldn’t be. In the case of baseball, there’s a Hell of a lot more the umpires have to do to win some BS competition about who’s the best umpire or crew than calling pitches not swung at.

I think you're missing the point of competition in this case. With any skill, if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. For officials, the ends aren't to be the best simply for being the best; it's to be the best possible official because that's what we want to be. This is no difference than being a Dr. Andrews or something like that...he's not putting the time into his craft to win awards; he's doing it to provide the best possible service and to be in demand.

So, HBO has been running a special in my area and I was able to actually see the full Real Sports segment with my oldest son.  A couple thoughts as I watched the segment:

1) Eric Byrnes is hell-bent on making this happen a la John McEnroe in tennis 30 years ago.  Based on Byrnes comments and the interviewed minor league coach, this is something they would like to at least try.  Byrnes comments about current players (not) speaking out for something like this is understandable.

2) MLB is using the technology already for various purposes.  However they had no comment for the segment.  I'm willing to guess this has a lot to do with the umpiring union. 

3) Former MLB umpire Jerry Crawford's attitude & comments blew me away especially when they referenced the DVD disk used for postgame umpire self evaluation....helps them improve their umpiring skills.  Crawford said he throws it in the trash.  Really?  That is the kind of attitude that is going to get people fired up about the technology.  That was not a smart comment to be making.

4) The big data analysis of all the pitches called correctly and incorrectly in a typical game and season was interesting.  That is a lot of pitches.  The Yale professor had it narrowed down to approximately 22 pitches (I think that was the number) over the course of any one game could have an influence on the outcome.  How those 22 pitches got called in a 2 inch area inside/outside the strike zone had an impact on the game.  His comments about the home team getting the benefit of strike zone calls was also extremely enlightening.      

5) Bryant Gumbel is still a tool.

JMO.

fenwaysouth posted:

   

5) Bryant Gumbel is still a tool.

 

JMO.

 

+1

Matt13 posted:

I think you're missing the point of competition in this case. With any skill, if you're not getting better, you're getting worse. For officials, the ends aren't to be the best simply for being the best; it's to be the best possible official because that's what we want to be. This is no difference than being a Dr. Andrews or something like that...he's not putting the time into his craft to win awards; he's doing it to provide the best possible service and to be in demand.

Wanting to be the best at one’s endeavor has nothing to do with anything other than one’s internal makeup and pride in self. The “best” don’t need rewards to prove they’re the best. That proof comes from their peers and their own honest self-evaluation. But how does any of that bear on the topic?

No one would lose their job, in fact if anything it would create jobs for more umpires. The outcome of games wouldn’t hinge on someone’s honest mistake, purposeful wrongful call, the fans in the stands, or other things that right now have an effect.  

The entire purpose, at least for me, is to make the “playing field” more even and provide rewards and penalties for what actually takes place. It’s not an indictment on anyone. It’s just that technology can do a much better job than human beings.

bballman posted:

When you say about 33% of umpire calls are incorrect, you're assuming the computer models are 100% accurate. I don't completely trust it due to many of the factors Swampboy pointed out. 

For those of you who've been around a while, you know I'm old school and don't like technology applied to baseball. I really think it would lessen the enjoyment of the game. Just as players are human and make mistakes, so are umpires. Umpires are as much an integral part of the game as players are and to take away from that human element of the game detracts from the character of the game - in my opinion. 

While current replay rules seem ok, I still don't really like it. Mistakes are still made, even with replay...  it's not perfect because you have humans interpreting what they see, or the angle isn't right or whatever the case might be. I also don't like the time it takes. Can't tell you how many times I've seen a replay and it is obvious within 15 seconds what the right call is. Yet we sit around waiting or 2 or 3 or 5 minutes for the call to be made.  Really takes away from the flow of the game. 

If you want 100% perfection on balls and strikes, play MLB 2016 on Xbox. If you want the real deal, keep the human element. 

I think 33% is a Little high and Computers are not right 100% of the time either but I think at the current stage pitch fx is something like 99% correct.

So if umpires are wrong 10-20% but Computers only 1% it is an easy decision.

CaCO3Girl posted:

How would the computer account for the batter that moves?  While in THEORY the batter should be set, but what if they scrunch down as the ball is coming in....would the computer be able to adjust to the NEW strike zone that batter just created? 

well a real umpire Needs to do that too.

the rule is specified as normal batting stance I think. if you crouch lower on a take that does not Count it is the stance where you hit from. MLB could Review 10 game swings of a Player and set the upper border accordingly.

maybe Review this every half season or so (or by request of the Team in case a hitter changes.

still a Little potential for error but if you make that public and open for Review of all Teams you should be able to be quite accurate.

I am not a big fan of replay either and I strongly dislike the challenge aspect of deciding if a call will be reviewed. However, I think the greater resolution of the viewing experience requires an improvement in balls and strikes called in order to protect the appearance of integrity in the game. Calling balls and strikes can be a purely objective task with current technology. It is much easier than the play review going on now, which at some level is still subjective.

IMO there is a much greater need at the lower levels where umpiring is almost never good.

PGStaff posted:

Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter.   Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter?  Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes.  A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket?  Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?

I understand this could be a slight disadvantage to extremely short players/hitters.  However, the shorter player and smaller strike zone becomes a disadvantage to the pitcher.

Is there any other sport that adjusts important playing dimensions based on the size of participants?  And seeing they adjust the strike zone, maybe they should adjust the bases so the shorter player with shorter strides doesn't have to run as far.  The shorter pitcher has to throw from the same distance and mound as the extremely tall pitcher throws from.

Probably doesn't make sense, plus it just accounts for high and low.  Out or in is the same for everyone.  Wait, why isn't size or arm length considered for inside or outside?  Most pitches seem to be missed inside or outside.  Most often outside!  Umpires are taught to set up inside, between the catcher and hitter.  I'm not an umpire, but that has to make calling the outside edge the most difficult to get right.  Especially when so many are on the edge or close to it.

At some point, maybe many years from now, I think technology will be used more and more to help officiate all sports and that might even involve calling balls and strikes.  Good umpires or officials want to be right every time.  Problem is, that is impossible even for the very best umpires because they are human.  The way it is now, they are actually players in a way.  If they have a bad day it can affect who wins or loses, almost like a player or pitcher having a bad day.

Many will fight the changes, but sooner or later I think it is going to happen.  Umpires will still be needed to maintain control of things.  There will still be many plays that need to be called on the field.  But when they figure out a way to utilize technology to actually move the game along quicker, it might happen.

Then again, here's a question.   Being that all the technical advances would probably only happen at the Major League level, do MLB organizations want shorter games?  Wonder how much additional revenue is brought in during a 4 hour game vs. a 2 1/2 hour game?  I've never seen numbers that show the difference in actual income or profit between a fast game and a slow game. Most seem in favor of faster games,  MLB has done some things to move the games along faster, but wonder what the owners think?

I know all the above is a bunch of nothing, but we have 250 teams "safe and sound" playing ball with a ton of college coaches watching them in Florida right now, and so far, most of East Florida escaped the worst of the hurricane,  that makes me feel extra good.  Hoping that those farther north  can also escape the worst.

Exactly what I have been saying all along!  Strike zone should be what it is period. A measurement from the ground to the bottom and ground to the top. Short or tall no matter. Stance?  Who cares. A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. And do it electronically. 

2020dad posted:

PGStaff posted:

Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter.   Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter?  Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes.  A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket?  Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?

I understand this could be a slight disadvantage to extremely short players/hitters.  However, the shorter player and smaller strike zone becomes a disadvantage to the pitcher.

Is there any other sport that adjusts important playing dimensions based on the size of participants?  And seeing they adjust the strike zone, maybe they should adjust the bases so the shorter player with shorter strides doesn't have to run as far.  The shorter pitcher has to throw from the same distance and mound as the extremely tall pitcher throws from.

Probably doesn't make sense, plus it just accounts for high and low.  Out or in is the same for everyone.  Wait, why isn't size or arm length considered for inside or outside?  Most pitches seem to be missed inside or outside.  Most often outside!  Umpires are taught to set up inside, between the catcher and hitter.  I'm not an umpire, but that has to make calling the outside edge the most difficult to get right.  Especially when so many are on the edge or close to it.

At some point, maybe many years from now, I think technology will be used more and more to help officiate all sports and that might even involve calling balls and strikes.  Good umpires or officials want to be right every time.  Problem is, that is impossible even for the very best umpires because they are human.  The way it is now, they are actually players in a way.  If they have a bad day it can affect who wins or loses, almost like a player or pitcher having a bad day.

Many will fight the changes, but sooner or later I think it is going to happen.  Umpires will still be needed to maintain control of things.  There will still be many plays that need to be called on the field.  But when they figure out a way to utilize technology to actually move the game along quicker, it might happen.

Then again, here's a question.   Being that all the technical advances would probably only happen at the Major League level, do MLB organizations want shorter games?  Wonder how much additional revenue is brought in during a 4 hour game vs. a 2 1/2 hour game?  I've never seen numbers that show the difference in actual income or profit between a fast game and a slow game. Most seem in favor of faster games,  MLB has done some things to move the games along faster, but wonder what the owners think?

I know all the above is a bunch of nothing, but we have 250 teams "safe and sound" playing ball with a ton of college coaches watching them in Florida right now, and so far, most of East Florida escaped the worst of the hurricane,  that makes me feel extra good.  Hoping that those farther north  can also escape the worst.

Exactly what I have been saying all along!  Strike zone should be what it is period. A measurement from the ground to the bottom and ground to the top. Short or tall no matter. Stance?  Who cares. A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. And do it electronically. 

2020 and PGStaff -- wait just a minute here, you guys are both, what, 6'5"?? And your kids are/were pitchers, right? LOL 

The idea behind the strike zone is to give the batter a decent chance of hitting the ball (Heck, in the early days of baseball (circa 1860s) the batter could specify where he wanted the ball pitched). With all the strikeouts nowadays, the last thing baseball needs is rule changes to advantage pitchers. Plus, it would be a trivial thing for an electronic system to be adjusted slightly for the height of the batter (and store that setting for all of the future at bats of that hitter). If spin rate, etc. can be tracked, a hitter's strike zone ought not to pose a problem.

Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure...  But in favor of the hitter!  The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter?  Of course was the reply.  I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball.  Try it tall guys!  And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees.  Darn near impossible.  Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+.  And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter.  Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair. 

2020dad posted:

Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure...  But in favor of the hitter!  The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter?  Of course was the reply.  I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball.  Try it tall guys!  And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees.  Darn near impossible.  Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+.  And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter.  Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair. 

The strike zone doesn't end at the knees.

Swampboy posted:

About 35 years ago I had a job on a ship that placed the buoys that mark ship channels. This was before GPS and before satellite navigation. The most accurate means of positioning available to us was observing horizontal sextant angles from known charted objects on shore like smoke stacks and radio antennas and occasionally a lighthouse.

Partially deleted for brevity by Luvbaseball

From time to time, the objects we wanted to use for our positioning would be obscured by haze or background lights, and we'd have to find other suitable objects ashore to use as our reference points.

Once in a while, if there was nothing suitable available we'd joke around and say things like, "I've got 35 degrees, 14. 2 minutes from the large fluffy cloud to the seagull on the end of the refinery pier."

It was funny because we all knew that a precise measurement to an imprecise object was meaningless.

Not sure everyone on this board would get that joke.

Swamp - This was funny...especially the part about now we have GPS and can find spots the size of a dot anywhere on the planet....except in the Strike Zone...or at least so it seems.  The Burmuda Triangle of Sports!

2020dad posted:

Oh no 2019. My opinion is biased for sure...  But in favor of the hitter!  The tall hitter specifically. Now I realize we are apples to oranges talking youth and MLB but I am so sick of the shin high strike on tall kids. I am 6'4". A couple years ago I was sitting talking to an ump who showed up way early. We were talking about the strike zone. I put a ball on the ball bucket in front of me. The normal size ball bucket not some smaller variety. I asked him, where that ball is sitting right now is that a strike for a tall hitter?  Of course was the reply.  I got off the bench and stood up. My knees were well above the ball.  Try it tall guys!  And we ask this 6'4" kid to get that ball three inches off the plate and below his knees.  Darn near impossible.  Again as I have mentioned before there are very very few great hitters in the history of the game that are 6'5"+.  And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of pitchers in that category. The strike zone is biased AGAINST the tall hitter.  Simple as that. A computerized one size fits all would be much more fair. 

Well the kneecap of a 6"5 hitter is maybe half an Inch or so higher than the kneecap of a 6"0 hitter but the middle of the upper Body of that 6"5 hitter is at least 3 inches higher.

that means a one size fits all K Zone would be a big disadvantage for a short hitter.  it also will actually promote lower strikes for tall batters because it uses a Standard kneecap height (probably would use a 6"1 guy or so as a model).

BTW if there is computerized umping of an adapted K Zone there will be no shin high strikes since the lower border is adapted.

and lastly in MLB short hitters are in a disadvantage too, because the MLB umps do at least partially call a standardized Zone against short hitters

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-altuve-strike-zone/

your Notion that the K Zone is biased against tall hitters specifically is not really true.

What you could say is that it is biased out of norm sized batters (6"-6"3 which is the height of most elite hitters).

BTW I'm all for the robo ump but would that mean that framing and receiving skills become obsolete? I would assume that with robo ump it would not matter how a catcher receives that ball as Long he prevents it from rolling to the backstop. he would still Need to catch the ball and throw out runners as well as signaling pitches but robo ump could really Change how catching is taught and scouted. catchers would lose some defensive value (it still wouldn't be an easy Position but it would Change).

I am not sure that the value of catching would diminish significantly.  While the whole business of framing might go away - the job of keeping the ball in front and throwing out base runners will always be there. 

You know when baseball has turned real when the catcher can stop a walk from turning into a triple.  That will never change.

If you are on Twitter check out this page.  https://twitter.com/UmpireEjections    They post the pitch f\x ball strike calls per game.  

Wow, those guys are good!   90% plusses all over the place.  Some in high 90s.  That's impressive.    I am as impressed by a guy being able to routinely call MLB pitches correctly as I am a guy whose able to throw them or a guy who can hit them out of the park.   These guys are amazing.

I've always felt that "misses" are often misses by degrees.  There are big misses and there are small misses.  I would love to see some stats on the "margin of error" for umps and maybe some indication of biases (maybe they are more apt to call the low strike).  Any data like that floating around?

Teaching Elder posted:

Wow, those guys are good!   90% plusses all over the place.  Some in high 90s.  That's impressive.    I am as impressed by a guy being able to routinely call MLB pitches correctly as I am a guy whose able to throw them or a guy who can hit them out of the park.   These guys are amazing.

Of course they’re good! That’s never been at issue. The issue is, they could be a lot better and a lot more consistent without affecting the game adversely.

A lot better?  Many are already in the high 90th percentile.  

These guys are amazing in their own right, and deserve a place in baseball.  Guys who are really bad, yeah, get rid of them.  But, man.  Over 90% accuracy.  I can definitely live with that.

Any automated system will have it's degree of error.  It may be smaller, so not as noticeable, but it will still be there.  We aren't going to find an air-sealed perfectly called game.  Can't happen.  

To me it is just protesting too much to quibble over 10 out of 350 pitches called.  Could one make a difference in a game?  Yes.  That's possible.  But so can a lot of other things, including a computer that misses by 1/25th of an inch one way or another.

Let the humans do the work that they already do very-very well.

Teaching Elder posted:

... But, man.  Over 90% accuracy.  I can definitely live with that.

 

....

Teach,

Not advocating for either side of this argument but I do have a different view regarding this statement.  The "over 90% accuracy" includes ALL pitches, which means it includes the majority of pitches which are clearly balls or strikes.  What we really want to see is their accuracy on close calls not swung at.  And combine those with calls that were wrong that weren't really close.  I think we would only be only talking about maybe 35-50 pitches per game so when they are often missing 10-17 of those calls (per the stats on the link), that's far less impressive...   particularly for the group that is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

Yeah, I know... right now, the hitters for all four teams aren't exactly performing at a high level right now either, and they are supposed to be the very best.

You make some good points.  And yes, those misses would probably come on close pitches.  However, the Twitter link had some interesting graphics about how close a number of pitches were and the fact that the ump had them called correctly while the fans and such griped about them.  

Also, probably more than 50 or so pitches are really close.  Big League pitchers make a living off of being consistently close.  That would be another interesting factor to look at (at which to look).

Teaching Elder posted:

A lot better?  Many are already in the high 90th percentile.  

These guys are amazing in their own right, and deserve a place in baseball.  Guys who are really bad, yeah, get rid of them.  But, man.  Over 90% accuracy.  I can definitely live with that.

Any automated system will have it's degree of error.  It may be smaller, so not as noticeable, but it will still be there.  We aren't going to find an air-sealed perfectly called game.  Can't happen.  

To me it is just protesting too much to quibble over 10 out of 350 pitches called.  Could one make a difference in a game?  Yes.  That's possible.  But so can a lot of other things, including a computer that misses by 1/25th of an inch one way or another.

Let the humans do the work that they already do very-very well.

1^st – Many in the high 90^th percentile means at least some aren’t. But even if they all were, why is it such a crime to want to improve? Who’s getting hurt?

2^nd – No one’s arguing to get rid of anyone and I really get tired of people implying anything different.

3^rd – Yes, there will be a degree of error no matter how it’s done but why not do everything possible to reduce that error as much as possible?

4^th – I don’t know where you get “350 pitches called”. What level of games are you watching where there are 350 pitches not swung at? That’s close to 40 pitches an inning not swung at for both teams. Even in kid pitch there’s less than that. Sure a lot of things other than what the players do can affect the outcome of a game, so what?

5^th – Once again, no one’s advocating getting rid of umpires! All we’re talking about is doing the best possible job of calling pitches not swung at!!!!!!!

You seem to think it’s charming to have something in the game to argue about. While it would certainly cut down if not eliminate any arguing about pitches not swung at, I assure you that there’s plenty of other things to argue about during a baseball game.

Part of any game is the human element.  The more humanness taken out, the less intriguing it becomes.  I don't like it.  And any of you say that umpires should not be part of the game, let the players play.  Well, the game was designed to have umpires...  Umpires - and ALL their calls, good or bad - have always been part of the game.  I still believe that taking away umpire judgement is fundamentally taking away part of the game.  It just wouldn't be the same...

I have no problem with improvement.  I think umpires should constantly seek to improve.  But, this is where we have some fundamental disagreements, and where I think you are myopic in your perspective.  When the human element is removed it has a negative effect on humans.  We are social creatures, designed to interact with one another.  What if I told you right now that I am not a human, rather I am a computer program designed to simply interact with you? I have no feelings, emotions or cares.  I am just rote computer data responding to your inputs.  What if everyone else in here was the same?  Would you still drop by Hsbaseballweb to chat?

When one talks about automated or computer aided strike zones, it is not at all unreasonable, as you imply, to see that people will be taken away.   We are smart people.  We can foresee the repercussions of this.  When Walmart has self checkout kiosks, they don't hire 8 people to run those.  They have one who oversees them all.  The purpose is to get rid of humans.  But again.  That is not as wise as some might think for reasons stated above.

The cascading lust for the perfectly called game inevitably leads to increased dependence upon machinery, computers, etc.  Hence the eventual removal of the human umpire altogether.  Or do you just think that at some point people will have a "charming" affinity for umpires and not let that happen? At what point will that be?  And, why shouldn't it be now?   

We disagree fundamentally on your position that we should "do everything possible to reduce that error as much as possible."    1) I have to ask, would removing humans altogether fall within your range of "everything possible?"  If so, how does this comport with your statement that "No one is advocating removing umpires?"    2)  You seem to be treating baseball as if it's national security or fighting childhood cancer.    No.  We don't need to do everything possible to seek out the perfectly called baseball game.   

As to finding it "Charming to have something in the game to argue about."  I will freely stipulate that I think that emotions and passion are a huge part of fandom.  The more one sterilizes the game the less appeal it has to humans.  Even computer geeks like to go to a game and yell and be passionate.  If we aren't passionate then we aren't human.  And such is why we need to keep humans in the game, and quit complaining because they don't do a 100% accurate job.  

Furthermore, imagine if someone showed up at your job and said, "You do a 90% plus good job.  But it's not quite 100%.  Here's 6 months severance.  We've got a computer to do your job better."  Talk about taking all sense of personal accomplishment and will to improve away.  Talk about sucking the life out of people.  You feel called to a vocation, and you are exceptional at doing it.  But it turns out your not perfect so, in essence, you're worthless and unneeded.  A computer will be replacing you.  This is not a world that we want to enter into.

As I have stated before, I have a high degree of respect and appreciation for the work done by human umpires.  Sometimes they get things wrong.  Sometimes it affects a game.  But that is how life goes.  Until, of course, GPS comes along and insures that there are no injustices or misunderstandings, that no one gets promoted for kissing up to the boss, there's income equity and everybody marries everybody for the right reasons.

bballman posted:

Part of any game is the human element.  The more humanness taken out, the less intriguing it becomes.  I don't like it.  And any of you say that umpires should not be part of the game, let the players play.  Well, the game was designed to have umpires...  Umpires - and ALL their calls, good or bad - have always been part of the game.  I still believe that taking away umpire judgement is fundamentally taking away part of the game.  It just wouldn't be the same...

Of course it wouldn’t be the same!  The game’s not the same now as it was prior to IR, but I doubt you’d find anyone whose team has had a call overturned pitch much of a bitch even though it might have taken a few minutes to get it right. No one’s asking for anything other than getting calls correct, and in this case it would actually shorten games and keep lots of participants from getting tossed.

Teaching Elder - They've made that movie a bunch of different ways.  My favorites are Terminator and War Games.  Machines have been changing and eliminating jobs on people for 200 years. 

The pace is accelerating and with the advent of Artificial Intelligence and nearly human appearance - the robot will become the vessel of immortality.  All it takes is the ability to download memories onto a computer chip and you can live forever.  We are probably much closer to it than anyone really contemplates.  Think about this for a moment - no more children or the need for them.  All the people that will ever be born - have been born when it becomes reality. 

It really is a serious topic for a different forum since it is probably the most important issue in the world's future.  Sorry to the climate change folks - they are wrong.

It is possible Gene Roddenberry will be right about one thing....once people become immortal and no longer have to consider survival - profit and property may no longer have the central place in the affairs of the world.

On a lighter note:

Once the umpires have been replaced - we can begin the process of eliminating the players.  The $6MM Man will eliminate the need for TJ surgeries.

LB.  I will agree with you on the issue of AI.   It is indeed becoming more and more of a reality.  Computers are a lot smarter than humans.  They have the ability to store information, fragment information, compile information in ways that we simply cannot do.  They are the person with a photographic memory.  Once programed to act in certain lifelike ways, they will be very scary.  Computers could dominate us.  

Google and others are already working algorithms to predict people's habits.  Pandora, Spotify, etc., pull in your music preferences, including nuancing out such things as; "You like the Eagles but not Stevie Nix or Poco.  You like 'Already Gone' in the morning, 'Hotel California' in the afternoons and 'Peaceful Easy Feeling' in the late evening."  This is based on us clicking "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down" on various songs.

I disagree that a person can live forever through memories downloaded.  Part of living is the soul.  Once it is gone a person is gone.

Elder

Luv B, your AI references are good but quite dated.  The film "Ex Machina" and the TV series "Humans" are much more relevant now. Both really good BTW.  Also good, "Mr. Robot" is not about AI per se but has a lot to say about the risks of computers being in charge of everything.  And the new HBO series "Westworld" may be the new standard very soon.

Teaching Elder posted:

  Computers could dominate us.  

Elder

Personally, I am willing to risk world domination if I can get a consistent strike zone. Small price to pay really.

This has gotten a little out there .

Bottom line, baseball is an athletic contest, not a video game. Part of the perfection of the game is the imperfection of the game. I think people need to quit taking that away piece by piece. JMHO. 

The code of conduct discussion reminded me that I recently read this well reasoned opinion piece from Straight 108 Baseball on this topic.

http://straight108.com/2017/08/21/k/

MidAtlanticDad posted:

The code of conduct discussion reminded me that I recently read this well reasoned opinion piece from Straight 108 Baseball on this topic.

http://straight108.com/2017/08/21/k/

This paragraph from the above article says it perfectly...happens at every level, HS, College and MLB.  When the zone varies 6" from the 1st to 9th innings, that's where the issue comes in.  My son is a pitcher and this could apply to them too.

"As a hitter, the biggest issues with homeplate umpires has nothing to do with the individual missed calls. The problem occurs when an umpire calls the same pitch in the same location differently, more or less making it impossible for a hitter to develop an effective way to approach each pitcher. Hitters can hit balls than are a half-inch or an inch off the plate when they know they need to cover that location. But the minute they’re unsure of how far away they have to go, they leave themselves fully exposed to the inner half of the plate. This is why so often, you’ll see an umpire nod his head after a called-strike early in the game because the hitter, usually looking at the ground to make sure he isn’t “showing up” the umpire, is asking the umpire if that location was the outermost part of the zone."

I think the robot ump will come in the next decade. I don't think the missed calls are a huge issue and baseball is doing well with them but it is a little better if you get it correct. Humanity has always used all available technology. Sometimes that means lost jobs or even lost lives but generally technology makes live easier and more convenient.

I work in machine technology often with vision systems. I generally do not like to see technology enter into sports. I was mostly against the instant replay in baseball and believe it has absolutely destroyed the flow of football. The last 2-3 minutes of every game is now one big timeout. But calling balls and strikes seems to be extremely difficult for humans and slightly above trivial for electronic vision systems. With the increase in velocity and speed of breaking pitches I feel baseball could lose integrity as a sport if technology is not employed. It could wind up like basketball which has admitted it doesn't really have a game any longer and is best compared to WWE.

Edited to point out that the technology can also be corrupted and may be harder to discern than human error.

Are children going to die if human umps make mistakes on balls and strikes?  Nope.  

Just sit back, relax and enjoy watching people play a game very well.

Teaching Elder posted:

Are children going to die if human umps make mistakes on balls and strikes?  Nope.  

Just sit back, relax and enjoy watching people play a game very well.

You obviously are not taking this seriously enough.

Ted22 posted:

I work in machine technology often with vision systems. I generally do not like to see technology enter into sports. I was mostly against the instant replay in baseball and believe it has absolutely destroyed the flow of football. The last 2-3 minutes of every game is now one big timeout. But calling balls and strikes seems to be extremely difficult for humans and slightly above trivial for electronic vision systems. With the increase in velocity and speed of breaking pitches I feel baseball could lose integrity as a sport if technology is not employed. It could wind up like basketball which has admitted it doesn't really have a game any longer and is best compared to WWE.

 

Edited to point out that the technology can also be corrupted and may be harder to discern than human error.

I would also point out that the last two big controversies involving this (Zobrist and Kinsler) both showed that the umpires were correct.

Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

Matt13 posted: …Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

 Feasible? I guess you forgot they’ve already done it in a pro ball game. And that was with Pitch F/X. With the technology available now, not to mention what’s undoubtedly in the pipe, to question the feasibility of it is akin to shoving one’s head in the dirt.

 Here’s just a few articles written about that game.

 https://www.theverge.com/2015/...me-balls-and-strikes

 http://www.pacificsbaseball.co...mputer-balls-strikes

 https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...ball-game-no-umpire/

 https://arstechnica.com/inform...a-pro-baseball-game/

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted: …Right now, the issue is being able to get results in real time. That technology is not feasible for MLB.

 Feasible? I guess you forgot they’ve already done it in a pro ball game. And that was with Pitch F/X. With the technology available now, not to mention what’s undoubtedly in the pipe, to question the feasibility of it is akin to shoving one’s head in the dirt.

 Here’s just a few articles written about that game.

 https://www.theverge.com/2015/...me-balls-and-strikes

 http://www.pacificsbaseball.co...mputer-balls-strikes

 https://www.wired.com/2015/07/...ball-game-no-umpire/

 https://arstechnica.com/inform...a-pro-baseball-game/

I guess that you forgot that we still don't have true three-dimensional strike zones in Pitch F/X, which is why the results have to be modified post-game to determine accuracy ratings. This was merely a test to see if the procedure would work, not a test of its accuracy.