Teaching Elder posted: There are certainly more arguments than just appealing to tradition.
1) There's the argument that the technology does not allow automated zones.
Who argues that?
2) There's the argument that interacting with actual human beings and watching human beings do jobs and interact with one another is preferable to sitting around watching a machine crunch data and spit it out.
Sure. But who would even notice that it was a machine or a human “spitting out the data”? NOTHING CHANGES! There’s still an umpire behind the plate. The only difference is, that umpire won’t be calling the pitches not swung at.
3) Then there is indeed tradition, which, by the way, is not inherently bad.
True, but it’s also not inherently good either. Think about Jackie Robinson.
I explained the link to fatalism with the statement in quotations in my original post. But, I will break it down into more plain terms if needed. A true fatalist would lack any excitement, meaning or pleasure in life, because everything is just the sterile result of fate. No personal responsibility. No moral good or bad. Not even pleasure in a sublime effort - for all is the result of fated events. The home run that one hit would not be a matter of talent meets hard work, but simply it was fated to happen. The strike out would elicit no reaction either. It is just the movement of fate. I really don't want to see players walk away from the plate after being called out on a borderline pitch and not care because the ball went through this 100% accurate zone and thus they are really unfazed by having struck out. That would suck and the game would suck too.
Well, in the current game with strikeouts no longer being looked at as something bad as they TRADITIONALLY have been, we’re pretty much seeing players walk away after having struck out unfazed. In fact, I never have liked seeing a player who just swung at a rotten pitch or called out because a pitch froze him, fist bumping as he comes back to the dugout.
In fact, my guess is when the zone is accurate and a player takes a close one, he’s gonna be even more PO’d because it will not only be his mistake, everyone in the world will know it.
I believe that the argument for automated zones is precisely about removing all human error in that realm.
Actually, what it does is place the onus on the hitters. The better their ability to read a pitch’s location relative to the strike zone is, the fewer bad pitches they’ll swing at and the fewer times they’ll strike out.
You just contradicted your earlier claim that you are keeping human errors in the game.
I didn’t clam any such thing. There will always be human error in the game. The difference would be that it wouldn’t be on the umpires to make or not make that error. It would be on the players.
And, who, by the way, hates change? Are you really making the inference that a person's lack of support for one change means they universally hate all change? Friend, you do not have the data to be able to make such a deduction.
To begin with, I’m neither you friend nor your enemy. Secondly I didn’t say you universally hated change.
This is a question better directed at you than me.
Why? I don’t mind umpires at all. I asked you since you’re the one who wants to see them keep making mistakes.
Sigh. Most all of your post/argument has been intemperate, irrational and emotionally driven. But this is the icing on the cake.
No. It hasn’t been irrational or emotionally driven. If anything, someone who argues for unconditional tradition is the one being irrational.
What it boils down to, is you only believe in changes that you think are good.
) and some tennis stars hated that helpless feeling initially but if you get used to it it is good and you can actually incorporate such a machine for training and get more accurate.