Minor League Team Uses Computer to Call Ball / Strike.

stats: I'm pointing out the fallacy of the argument that we should replace umpires because there's a faction of those that believe a computer makes a better decision. A computer is programmed by a human.  The human designs the cores, the programs, the hardware, etc. etc.  Those designs through history have flaws in them. There was a design flaw at one time that resulted in Excel providing an incorrect result in what amounts to a simple addition and division problem.

Furthermore does a coach not make bad decisions throughout the game? Why are not replacing the coach with something that can make decisions based on some logic? Logic that can be written into computer programs.

nuke: w/r/t: I think you partially missed the point - while it's true certain parts of the game have changed through the years, the *core* of the game hasn't changed that much. It's still 9 innings, 3 outs per side, 4 balls, 3 strikes, 90' basepaths, 60'6" rubber to plate. There's still 9 players on defense and 9 players batting. The bags are the same size, the plate is the same size, the ball is the same size, the bats are roughly the same size. A fair or foul ball definition hasn't changed.

Yes, technology has made certain things better and pointed out the "flaws" in other areas. The 3D strike zone on the TV has made everyone a better umpire. Freeze frame digital technology has shown that there is no such thing as a tie (going to the runner) - although whatever frames per second is used still doesn't account for *sound* which as any umpire can tell you is very important.

I dislike IR and the time it takes. If you cannot make a decision in 15 seconds, then the original call stands. In fact, by the time those headsets are on, there should already be a decision made. If not, the call stands. It's BS that we wait for 1, 2, 3 or more minutes while someone in NYC decides the call - do they also get a call from their bookie ;-)? I'm waiting to see Game7 of the World Series decided by a controversial and incorrect IR call - that'll be the end of it.

If the result of a baseball game meant all the worlds "problems" were fixed, then let's spend the extra $$$ in order to make it "perfect" and "predicable". It's imperfect and totally unpredictable, but that's the glory of the game. On any given night someone can be "perfect". On any given night the worst team can beat the best team. It takes human decisions and shows how imperfect we all are. Getting so fixated on an umpires "mistakes" just doesn't seem right especially when "statistically speaking" I'm pretty sure they make better decisions than others involved in the game. No pitcher, batter, manager, etc. has ever had a perfect season.  Bat .300 you are in the HoF, only get 30% of your decisions right as an umpire and you don't last long...  You don't get "stats" displayed on the screen for an umpires called ball/strike accuracy nor their fair/foul or safe/out accuracy. There's no umpire baseball cards in bicycle spokes. But yet they get singled out because we now have technology that can prove "without a doubt" (depending on which broadcast you listen to) that their call was wrong even though it can take up to 5 minutes to do so. It takes so long because some other human has to review the play multiple times in super slow motion, from many different angles, in order to ascertain, what a single human decided in a fraction of a second. That's his job, let him do his job, and let whomever supervises him be the arbiter of whether he's "good enough" to continue on in the job.  That's how the rest of the game, system, or business works.

Well said John.

Originally Posted by JohnF:stats: I'm pointing out the fallacy of the argument that we should replace umpires because there's a faction of those that believe a computer makes a better decision. A computer is programmed by a human.  The human designs the cores, the programs, the hardware, etc. etc.  Those designs through history have flaws in them. There was a design flaw at one time that resulted in Excel providing an incorrect result in what amounts to a simple addition and division problem.

Your argument is ill conceived from the outset. No one is suggesting replacing even one umpire with a machine except those arguing against having technology call pitches not swung at! You’re acting as though all the other things a PU does will be lost because one of the things he’s tasked to do can be done better by technology and that fallacious on its face.

In cases where there’s a question of “here’s the criteria(definition of strike zone), does the situation meet those criteria(did any part of the ball touch it)” there’s absolutely no question that a computer will make accurate decisions faster and more often. What possible correlation to this argument does Excel having bugs in it have? Did everyone quit using it? I don’t think so. Did it get fixed? Yes. Can Excel still be improved? Absolutely, and it is being looked at for improvements every day.

Furthermore does a coach not make bad decisions throughout the game? Why are not replacing the coach with something that can make decisions based on some logic? Logic that can be written into computer programs.

Now you’re off on some tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, but I will say this. Every ML club analyzes stats, video, and many other things that don’t come from the manager? Why? Not to replace him, but to enhance what he does.

The difference in the two camps isn't a difference in and of itself--it's a symptom of how they gain entertainment from baseball. Here's how I've assessed people when it comes to how they enjoy it.

For some, it's like a movie. While the ending (outcome) is important, the entertainment value is found in the game in its entirety--from before the first pitch to the last out, every play, every interaction, every everything. The plot is the key--a missed call adds color to the plot, makes it more interesting. These people tend to be against things like automated pitch calling and replay.

For others, it's more outcome-driven and goal-oriented. These people watch baseball to see their team win more than how they get there--success is their enjoyment and failure does not add to their entertainment value. These people generally support the things I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Matt13:

The difference in the two camps isn't a difference in and of itself--it's a symptom of how they gain entertainment from baseball. Here's how I've assessed people when it comes to how they enjoy it.…

I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem like I fall into one group or the other. I enjoy watching the game for its own sake.  I appreciate success in any form on the field, but appreciate the failures as well. Since I understand completely that it’s a game of much more failure than success, “normal” to me is failure.