Minor League Team Uses Computer to Call Ball / Strike.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/...rikes-020858975.html

The only people who want this technology is fans.....pro players don't want it, pitchers don't want it and pitching coaches don't want it....esp when they find out the balck isn't a strike, and the letters to the hollow of the knee is.......

 

However...it is most likely that this technology will never find its way down to the levels I am involved with.

 

Some of the schools I do games for, are finding it hard to fund uniforms and baseballs..... 

 

 

This fan doesn't want it...

 

HATE the idea of taking the human element out of baseball...

Tennis' use of HawkEye (I think that's what it's called) is great: doesn't slow the game down, provides linesmen/women with the ability to make a call but can be appealed using the system.

 

Would love to see the technology used at all levels of pro ball, but on an appeal basis only. Each team gets a few appeals of balls/strikes per game. And really that's all you need to readjust each umpire's view of a strike zone: no ump will want an appeal to consistently overturn their view of the world. 

I like the human element of the game, but the use of such system could have its advantages. If umpires were to only be guaranteed half of their salaries, then based on their ability to make the right calls get the remainder. Example, an umpire calls 78% of all balls pitched correctly then he would receive that percentage of their remaining salary. Those under a certain percentage could also face some type of discipline. This would give a little bit of checks and balances in the system.

Originally Posted by piaa_ump:

The only people who want this technology is fans.....pro players don't want it, pitchers don't want it and pitching coaches don't want it....esp when they find out the balck isn't a strike, and the letters to the hollow of the knee is.......

 

However...it is most likely that this technology will never find its way down to the levels I am involved with.

 

Some of the schools I do games for, are finding it hard to fund uniforms and baseballs..... 

 

I agree that right now it sure seems unlikely the technology to do it will be available at levels below professional baseball in my lifetime. But then again, seeing what’s happened with technology in the last several years, I wouldn’t bet large sums against it. It’s hard to believe, but the 1^st IPhone’s been around less than 10 years, and the 1^st IPad just over 6, and look at what’s happened with smart phones and tablets.

 

But don’t say the only people wanting it is fans. I think Mike Schmidt qualifies as a pro player, and I know 2 former ML pitching coaches who feel the same way. I agree that at this point in time the large majority doesn’t want it, but I remember a time when no one wanted it, including me. Times change, and the reason they change is because someone in authority with the power to make the change feels it would benefit the game.

 

So if you don’t want it and want to bolster your point of view by saying that the majority of people who have an opinion on it don’t want it, I’ll gladly agree. But when you make a statement like the one above, I have to disagree.

Bring it on.  Tell me why the human element is romantic when its wrong?  Don't want to revisit the argument from a month or so again but suffice to say I would be ecstatic to erase the human element.

Just play video games if you don't like the human element.

Gotta change with the times bball!

So does the computer also call the plays at the plate?  Does it know it has to be a ball in flight not one that bounces and goes through? What about a straight steal of home?  Check swings?  Foul tips? Catcher's Interference? Running lane interference? Does it have to be adjusted if Able is 5'3", Baker is 6'5", Cain is 5'7", etc. Does it pay dues to the union? I would hope it's "programmed" to know that if any part of the ball, not the whole ball, but any part of the ball passes through the zone it's a strike. Who controls the program - home team? Can it be adjusted inning by inning?  So does one team get nose to toes and dugout to dugout and the other get a 4"x4"x4" cube? What happens when a "bug" (defect) is found in the code?  Think about who wrote the code - a human!

 

If some pitcher is "good enough" (and we know someone will try) - what about an eephus pitch that comes "down" thru the strike zone and hits the plate or just beyond the plate?

 

The concept is a a gimmick to fill seats in a minor/independent league ball park. Neither pitchers or batters will end up liking it. Pitchers won't get corners, but batters will starting having to swing at things between the letters and waist that will result in more popups. Pitchers will pitch more and more "up" in the zone which is just as unhitable as the one low and outside around the hollow of the knee.

 

Be careful what you wish for because when you get it, it may not be what you wanted.

Again not looking for this same arguement but in no way shape or form is a ball at the bottom of the rib cage as unhittable as the ball down and away and three inches off the plate.  The computer is obviously nuetral.  We had a game last weekend.  Two in a riw actually semi final and championship where the umps didn't even switch between games.  Same home plate ump.  Nice guy.  Very consistent for both teams.  Gave the pitch just below the knees and five inches outside to both teams.  Our guys did a better job of hitting that spot and we won both games with shutouts and only gave up a few hits over two games.  It worked well for our team.  Their hitters didn't stand a chance.  He called it there we threw it there.  Sad.  Probably in the 60's or 70's some scouts were doubtful of the radar gun as well.  A lot of folks probably don't trust trackman.  Despite high speed video evidence to the contrary baseball coaches nationwide still think you can hit the top half of the ball and make it go up!  Baseball is notoriously slow to accept science and technology.  Come on baseball people we are better than this!  Wouldn't it be nice to see a real strikezone for a change??

I would miss this - 

 

 

What would happen after a strike 3 with the technology?  The batter looks up to the scoreboard after the pitch, then walks away?  Pretty boring...

 

It's not just the ball/strike call relating to the human element.  It's the reactions of the people involved.  It's just how the game is played.  I just don't want to imagine a batter looking up to the scoreboard after every pitch to see what the call was.  Really takes something away in my mind...

Originally Posted by bballman:

…What would happen after a strike 3 with the technology?  The batter looks up to the scoreboard after the pitch, then walks away?  Pretty boring...

 

It's not just the ball/strike call relating to the human element.  It's the reactions of the people involved.  It's just how the game is played.  I just don't want to imagine a batter looking up to the scoreboard after every pitch to see what the call was.  Really takes something away in my mind...

 

You’re projecting what you THINK will happen, but there’s no way to know until it’s tried. Something as simple as the umpire wearing an earwig would eliminate the need to look at the scoreboard. You have to keep in mind that the computer will know in microseconds of either when the ball touched the zone or passed the plate what the call was. IOW, by the time the ball gets to the catcher the umpire would already be hearing the result. It may well be that the ump gets left out of the mix and the call goes straight to the sound system in the park so everyone hears at the same time. The thing is, until it’s tried we’re all doing nothing but guessing.

 

I’ve always heard that the most important thing about calling pitches is consistency rather than accuracy, then the hitters and pitchers could adjust. Well how kool would it be not only to have consistency during a game from start to finish, but for every game played along, with almost perfect accuracy? Why make the players have to adjust to anything? The hitters who learned the strike zone the best and the pitchers who were able to hit the strike zone the best would benefit the most.

       
       
Agreed it takes away some flare and excitement.  And the other problem is the mlb umps are really pretty good.  Where we need this on the lower levels we will never get it.

So, the umpires become actors with their script relayed to them through an earwig...

 

Ehhhh...  Not my cup of tea.

 

No point in arguing.  Some like it, some don't.  I don't think either side will convince the other.

 

I still don't really like instant replay either.  But that's another story.  Here's what everyone's buddy Domingo Ayala has to say about instant replay:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77kqp3VmyDU

 

The funny thing is that Domingo rags on instant replay, but within the rant he makes a good argument for why it's needed.

I just liked his point about why it takes so long.

 

MLB is so concerned with the length of the game and are talking about putting a time clock on the pitcher, yet it takes FOREVER for them to make a decision about a call.  My son and I sit and complain about it all the time when we are watching a game.  Why not put a time limit on how long it takes to make an IR decision.  Like 45 seconds.  If the play is SO close you can't tell in 45 seconds whether or not to change the call, the call stands.  

 

I like technology.  Couldn't live without my iPhone and access to the old interweb.  But I'm just not big on it during a baseball game.  Honestly, I love the box they put up to show whether a pitch is a ball or strike.  Even if the umpire is wrong.  I love seeing it.  I just don't like it as part of the decision making process and being part of the actual game.  But, that's just me.  I'm not going to try to convince anyone to change their mind.

 

So should we just get the plate umpire a rocking chair or a lazy-boy, since he may as well be comfortable. Or perhaps place him in the stands or in one of the dugouts, because umpires all know it's far easier to call the game from anywhere but on the field in the opinion of everyone at the field other than the umpires.  Never ceases to amaze me how the "fans" down the lines can call a better game or determine fair/foul on the line opposite of where they are looking.  I had a game last weekend where the fans behind the fence 26'+ away between the 1b dugout and plate complained about a fair call I made on a ball that bounded over the 1B bag, but were all saying what a great call I had on the ball that went just over the 3B bag in the same essential spot.

 

Maybe it's time to note one of the funnier FED rules I read to my kids one day...

 

10-1-7 (Umpire section)

"Casts, splints, and braces may be worn, if padded. Umpires may wear prostheses and use mobility devices"

 

All I can picture is the umpire coming in from A on his "mobility device", doing his pivot, and motoring into B. Or the plate umpire sitting on the same such device calling balls/strikes, then hitting it into overdrive to watch the play at first or go down the line at 3rd for the play at 3rd.

Originally Posted by 2020dad:   
Agreed it takes away some flare and excitement.  And the other problem is the mlb umps are really pretty good.  Where we need this on the lower levels we will never get it.

 

You said mlb umps are really pretty good. I think this article pretty much sums things up. A good reason for doing it can be seen using the number of pitches for 2013. Using the numbers and percentages in the article. Out of 720,954 pitches, 382,826 were called, and if the 15% is accurate for incorrectly called pitches, it means 57,423 were incorrectly called. Even if the improvement were only 5%, that’s a pretty significant number.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...ll-balls-and-strikes

 

The last 2 paragraphs say a great deal, but especially this. Calling balls and strikes adds nothing to the game and removing it would generate about a week of outrage until people realize how little they miss it.

 

With the rapid advance of technology, don’t be too sure there won’t soon be an app that can be downloaded and only costs a few bucks that will do at least as good a job as many low level umps do now. No one any longer has to lay out $500 or so to be able to take some dang good videos. $.99 will get you a radar gun app that’s darn close to the gun you’d pay $1,000 for or the pocket radar you’d pay $200 for. I saw a ZEPP baseball outfit on sale for $80 that will give you more information about a baseball swing than any ML team had in 1980.

Originally Posted by JohnF: 

So should we just get the plate umpire a rocking chair or a lazy-boy, since he may as well be comfortable. …

 

Are you saying the PU has nothing else to do other than call pitches not swung at?

 

Maybe it's time to note one of the funnier FED rules I read to my kids one day...

 

10-1-7 (Umpire section)

"Casts, splints, and braces may be worn, if padded. Umpires may wear prostheses and use mobility devices"

 

All I can picture is the umpire coming in from A on his "mobility device", doing his pivot, and motoring into B. Or the plate umpire sitting on the same such device calling balls/strikes, then hitting it into overdrive to watch the play at first or go down the line at 3rd for the play at 3rd.

 

I happen to be someone who needs both prosthetics and a mobility device, and fail to see much humor in that. I get that the sight of an umpire on a Rascal scooter zooming around trying to call a ball game would be funny, but a cane is a mobility device too, and that’s what they were thinking. At least that’s what NFHS told me when I asked.

 

No, I’m not offended or insulted. I just think that kind of humor is best kept to one‘s self, rather than teaching any kids of bias to children, just like ethnic or gender humor. Nuff said.

Interesting little article in the most recent RefMag about an umpire who uses a wheelchair.

 

Also does football and basketball.

I am one for the human element as well. Baseball is the one game without a time limit (unless your kid is in certain tourney games scheduled back-to-back-to-back). Oh and bballman, love your technology video, with the ump and "bow and arrow" call.  The only thing better would have been if the batter wore #13.

Originally Posted by Ripken Fan:

I am one for the human element as well. Baseball is the one game without a time limit (unless your kid is in certain tourney games scheduled back-to-back-to-back). Oh and bballman, love your technology video, with the ump and "bow and arrow" call.  The only thing better would have been if the batter wore #13.

 

Do you realize that when you say you like the “human element”, you’re saying you like the fact that a player can bust his backside for 20 years so he can execute as perfectly and repeatedly as possible, only to lose because someone who hadn’t attained his level of skill benefitted from a rotten call because of human failure?

 

In the end, it wouldn’t matter if all the umpires were replaced by technology. The “human element” would still be front and center as long as humans played the game. People say the umpires should never be in the forefront because the game isn’t about them, then turn around and demand the umpires should be allowed to fail, in this case 15% of the time because it’s “human”.

 

Why not require higher standards for this so other skills have the opportunity to reap rewards. FI, take 2 pitchers. One has significantly better control than the other but has a catcher that couldn’t frame the Mona Lisa, while the other’s catcher could frame the Pope for committing armed robbery on the International Space Station on Easter Morning. Wouldn’t it make more sense if both pitchers got rewarded or penalized for whatever their skills were rather than the luck of who their catcher happened to be?

 

I understand wanting to see the game continue the way it is, but with all the rule changes over the years, this isn’t the same game they were playing in 1845 when the 1^st box score was published even though they’re both called baseball. In every one of life’s endeavors there’s a resistance to change. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any changes. It only means the people controlling the game resist changes. But make no mistake. If the majority of ML owners decided technology should be calling pitches not swung at, what us peons want won’t make one whit of difference.

In essence, the game hasn't changed.  They still play on a field with 90' bases and a 60'6" mound.  They still play with 9 players per team.  You still need to record 27 (or 24 if the home team is ahead) outs for the game to end.  There is still no time limit,  And umpires (humans) still make the calls and enforce the rules.  It's all part of the game.

 

Part of what makes a pitcher good is adjusting to the idiosyncrasies of each ump.  I would say that a pitcher that can make adjustments IS the better pitcher.  By and large, umps are pretty consistent at the higher levels.  So minor adjustments are part of the game.  And part of what makes a great pitcher great is recognizing and making those adjustments.

 

I'm not striving for perfection.  Part of the charm of baseball is seeing things that are not perfection.  Seeing things that are not the norm.  It is learning to deal with things you don't think are right or fair.  Part of it is getting mad at and yelling at the umpires.  Either on the field or from those of us fans from the stands.  It is learning to accept failure and unfairness and overcome it.  It is not a game of perfection.  It is, by design, a game of imperfection.  A game where failure 7 out of 10 times makes you one of the best in the world.  Players make mistakes.  They are called errors.  Umpires make mistakes and we get mad and argue about it.  It's part of what makes the game fun and gives you something to talk about.  

 

If everything were perfect, it wouldn't be as interesting.

 

Once again, JMHO.

Originally Posted by bballman:

In essence, the game hasn't changed.  They still play on a field with 90' bases and a 60'6" mound.  They still play with 9 players per team.  You still need to record 27 (or 24 if the home team is ahead) outs for the game to end.  There is still no time limit,  And umpires (humans) still make the calls and enforce the rules.  It's all part of the game.

 

Were those the rules when the game 1^st began?

 

Part of what makes a pitcher good is adjusting to the idiosyncrasies of each ump.  I would say that a pitcher that can make adjustments IS the better pitcher.  By and large, umps are pretty consistent at the higher levels.  So minor adjustments are part of the game.  And part of what makes a great pitcher great is recognizing and making those adjustments.

 

I'm not striving for perfection.  Part of the charm of baseball is seeing things that are not perfection.  Seeing things that are not the norm.  It is learning to deal with things you don't think are right or fair.  Part of it is getting mad at and yelling at the umpires.  Either on the field or from those of us fans from the stands.  It is learning to accept failure and unfairness and overcome it.  It is not a game of perfection.  It is, by design, a game of imperfection.  A game where failure 7 out of 10 times makes you one of the best in the world.  Players make mistakes.  They are called errors.  Umpires make mistakes and we get mad and argue about it.  It's part of what makes the game fun and gives you something to talk about.  

 

If everything were perfect, it wouldn't be as interesting.

 

You’re assuming players wouldn’t have to continue to make adjustments, but you’re wrong. It would just be different adjustments. You’re also assuming there wouldn’t be plenty of mistakes made or people yelling at umpires. None of that is true because humans would still be playing the game and we know all players make mistakes no matter how good they are. As for the umpires, the only difference would be the PU wouldn’t be calling pitches not swung at, and as that article shows, that only happens on about half the pitches. On the others not one thing would change other than possible the PU could do a little better job of watching for balks, being out of the box, checked swings, fouls, and all the other things the PU has to do other than call pitches not swung at.

 

IOW, you’re assuming a lot of things that may or may not happen. The difference between us is, I’m willing to keep an open mind and not judge the future until it gets here, while you’ve already made up your mind. I did the same thing when they talked about lowering the mound, when they were deciding to put in the DH rule. Until BBCOR came about, I was one of the loudest voices screaming for going back to wood. After I saw how the 1^st 2 worked out, I wondered why I was so resistant. As for the 3^rd one, I was right that metal bats were ruining the amateur game, and now that there’s literally no difference between wood and metal, at least where BBCOR is the standard, I can’t understand why anyone complains about metal.

 

Circumstances change and if you aren’t willing to change with them, you’ll be steamrolled over and very unhappy when they do change, and change they will. Until then it makes for great conversation, and the more conversation there is, the more likely there will be change.

The problem is, once things change, they won't go back to the way they were.  It's too late.  Do you think they will ever take away IR now that it's here?  I don't.  I don't like the DH.  I don't think they should have changed it.  But, now that it's here, do you think it will ever change back?  I don't.  

 

I like wood bats.  I think you are right in your feeling about that.  But BBCOR is NOT the same as wood.  Is BBCOR closer to wood?  Yep.  Is it the SAME as wood?  Nope.  A pitcher will never saw off a BBCOR bat at the handle.  The batter will still be able to muscle that pitch over the infield.  

 

It's neither here nor there.  Like I said, it's not about being scared of change.  It's the historical probability that once things change, they will not go back.  I'll voice my opinion that it is not a change that will be good for baseball, or for me as a fan.  You will say, keep an open mind, it MIGHT be a good thing and you won't know till they do it.  But, if I don't like it after it has been changed, it's already too late to change it back.  Such is the way it is...

stats - the humor was the scooter and the concept of it being allowed, not the individual on it... Mea culpa as humorous wasn't the best choice of words, but there's more of a backstory than I have time to write. I'm certainly not teaching bias - just the ludicrous rule that could *easily* be misinterpreted. Players have restrictions to being out there, but umpires don't. There is humor and irony in that especially when it's called out in rules. There are rules when you read them, you realize there was some situation some day that caused this specific rule to be written. Some times it's laughable to think someone got so upset about some situation that caused the rule to be created.

 

Originally Posted by bballman:

The problem is, once things change, they won't go back to the way they were.  It's too late.  Do you think they will ever take away IR now that it's here?  I don't.  I don't like the DH.  I don't think they should have changed it.  But, now that it's here, do you think it will ever change back?  I don't.  

 

Why would any major sport do away with IR when it works? Can it be improved? Of course it can. Anything can be improved. You don’t like the DH and I do. But we don’t count other than to state our opinions. More importantly the majority of team owners and the majority of MLBPA members want it or it would be gone, and the same can be said for IR. If there ever comes a time when those two groups don’t want either or both of them, they’ll be gone.

 

I like wood bats.  I think you are right in your feeling about that.  But BBCOR is NOT the same as wood.  Is BBCOR closer to wood?  Yep.  Is it the SAME as wood?  Nope.  A pitcher will never saw off a BBCOR bat at the handle.  The batter will still be able to muscle that pitch over the infield.  

 

It’s close enough for me. Like so many other people, your perception is that no one using a wood bat ever fists a ball for a hit. Heck, almost every ML game I watch I see a duck fart off the end and/or a fister off the hands. The only real difference is, the bat often breaks. When you look at what’s going on closely and without bias, the “lucky” hits happen no matter what kind of bat is used.

 

It's neither here nor there.  Like I said, it's not about being scared of change.  It's the historical probability that once things change, they will not go back.  I'll voice my opinion that it is not a change that will be good for baseball, or for me as a fan.  You will say, keep an open mind, it MIGHT be a good thing and you won't know till they do it.  But, if I don't like it after it has been changed, it's already too late to change it back.  Such is the way it is...

 

I guess we’re just looking at things from such different perspectives we’ll never agree. That’s fine by me because we’ll both still watch the game and we’ll have something to argue about.

Human element.  See?  It's fun to argue!!    If everything were perfect, we wouldn't have any fun...

Originally Posted by JohnF:

stats - the humor was the scooter and the concept of it being allowed, not the individual on it... Mea culpa as humorous wasn't the best choice of words, but there's more of a backstory than I have time to write. I'm certainly not teaching bias - just the ludicrous rule that could *easily* be misinterpreted. Players have restrictions to being out there, but umpires don't. There is humor and irony in that especially when it's called out in rules. There are rules when you read them, you realize there was some situation some day that caused this specific rule to be written. Some times it's laughable to think someone got so upset about some situation that caused the rule to be created.

 

I told you I wasn’t offended or insulted, but I am sensitive to that kind of humor. I don’t think you’re a better or worse person than I am, and I’m sure there’s something you’re sensitive to that if I made what I thought was a humorous remark about, wouldn’t find it very humorous either. It’s unfortunate that all humor is based on some type of misfortune or denigration, but that’s the way it is.

I remember the last time this came up ... I read through all the opposing points of view, and landed squarely on the fence. I'm still there. This is REALLY a tough one for me -- because I see it as a clash of absolutes. 

 

• It's absolutely true that bad calls on balls and strikes by umpires affect the outcome of games, and no baseball fans -- inside or outside the game -- like it when it happens to their team. And given the time, effort and expense this game demands and commands, accuracy in play-calling matters a lot.
• It's absolutely true that umps calling balls and strikes is core to this great sport, and switching to technology -- even if perfect -- would be a seismic change. We'd be losing something foundational. 

Ugh. I hate both options. Just like I hate thinking about my truck driving itself -- even if it can and should because it reduces driving fatalities.

 

What we NEED ... are absolutely perfect umpires and absolutely perfect drivers -- which I'm absolutely sure we'll never have.

 

 

As an umpire I think this is a great idea and would love to see it at all levels.

 

People love to argue about stuff.  They argue about anything and everything.  And everybody has an opinion... about EVERYTHING.  Even when they're DEAD WRONG they still want to argue.

 

Take the other day, we're in a 3 man.  Line drive down the left field line so I go out.  Now I'm straddling the line and the ball hits about 3 inches FOUL.  No chalk, no dust, no nothing, but a foul ball.  So I call it and signal.  Now I'm about 40 feet from the play.  And I KNOW I'm right.

 

The idiots 300 feet away in the stands want to argue.  Even the FOOLS who are NOT straddling the line want to argue.  They convince their FOOL COACH to come out.  He states, and I give you AN EXACT QUOTE:

 

"Blue, that ball hit about six inches outside the line.  How can you call it fair?"

 

Those were his EXACT words.  So I asked him to repeat himself, which he did... to his credit, he repeated himself EXACTLY!!!

 

So, I said, "Well coach, I guess that about sums it up doesn't it?"

 

He thought for a moment... tick, tick, tick.  Then said, "Aw shit!"

 

And went back to his box, no doubt thoroughly embarrassed.

 

See having cameras at every level including T-Ball, while ridicoulisly expensive would solve a lot of the foolishness. I hope they seriously want to spend the money.  Then they can dither away all that cash just to prove that we get most of the calls right.  At a far higher percentage than the players.

 

That would be great.

 

 

Would you replace "wave 'em in Wendall" in the 3B coaching box for a computer that can signal "STOP" or "GO" to a player based on the "statistical" value of the speed of the ball getting to the outfielder, location on the field, the known velocity and accuracy of his throw relative to the position he has or will field(ed) the ball, and the relative speed of the runner accounting for the distance he's already run and whether he 'slows' after 90', 180, or 270' feet. Throw in the variables of the catcher's ability to block the plate and/or catch a thrown ball, some wind speed at the given time, etc. etc.

 

Sports in general are great because of the human element. It's not all black and white. I think a game played where that isn't involved becomes very bland. It's the excitement of the decisions and the varying opinions about what should have been done or called that makes baseball such an "interesting" game. I overheard a couple fielders yesterday commenting how they loved that low and away strike being called - I laughed and thought, except for when you're at bat, right?

I almost agree with the framing of both sides of your argument.  You lose me at

 

"It's absolutely true that umps calling balls and strikes is core to this great sport".

 

I would say that it's absolutely true that the calling of balls and strikes is core to this great sport.  Frankly, I don't care who calls them as long as they're correct and consistent.  If humans can do this (and I believe we have more than a century of evidence that they cannot), then allow them to continue.  If we can improve on this, then let's do so.

 

On a similar note that bballman states above (and I usually am in agreement with his perspective on this board and another 99% of the time) "In essence, the game hasn't changed".  Nothing could be further from the truth.  A few things that have changed are batting helmets, night games, television, instant replay, money, bats, balls, athletes, condition/quality of field maintenance, spring training, air travel, integration, number of teams, number of games in a season, number of teams making playoffs, number of games in a playoff series.  While the core dimensions of the bases and pitching rubber relative to the plate have remained the same, as well as the bulk of the rules, the GAME has changed significantly.

 

And on the point of striving for perfection, I think that Lombardi put it best.  "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."  

 

Does anyone really want to watch out of shape guys running around in flannel uniforms, fielding with oven mitts and swinging telephone poles?  You'll have to buy a ticket or move close your favorite team to listen to it on the radio 'cause there'll be nothing televised or broadcast nationally.  But the good news is you can read about it in the box score of the next day's paper.

 

Sorry to the traditionalists who side with human error.  I'll take "right" over "romantic" any day.  I'm sure there are some logistics to work through, but can anyone really argue that the NFL is worse for having replay or that tennis would be better without reversing or confirming the in/out calls?

 

Probably the wisest comment in this thread was from bballman "I don't think either side will convince the other."

 

I agree.

Originally Posted by JohnF:Would you replace "wave 'em in Wendall" in the 3B coaching box for a computer that can signal "STOP" or "GO" to a player based on the "statistical" value of the speed of the ball getting to the outfielder, location on the field, the known velocity and accuracy of his throw relative to the position he has or will field(ed) the ball, and the relative speed of the runner accounting for the distance he's already run and whether he 'slows' after 90', 180, or 270' feet. Throw in the variables of the catcher's ability to block the plate and/or catch a thrown ball, some wind speed at the given time, etc. etc.

 

Sports in general are great because of the human element. It's not all black and white. I think a game played where that isn't involved becomes very bland. It's the excitement of the decisions and the varying opinions about what should have been done or called that makes baseball such an "interesting" game. I overheard a couple fielders yesterday commenting how they loved that low and away strike being called - I laughed and thought, except for when you're at bat, right?

 

How do you get from calling pitches not swung at to replacing base coaches? You must have a pretty low view of the game if you think even for a micro-second that there wouldn’t be plenty of acrimony and discussion in the game if technology were calling pitches. Heck, watch an ML game where there’s an IR in progress and for the next few minutes there’s all kinds of opining going on about it. And if you switch between the home team and visiting team broadcasts, you’ll almost always see differences of opinion.

 

I honestly believe much of the fuel firing discussion in this argument comes from people getting incorrect information. Here’s a great example.

 

In today’s Sacramento Bee there was an article about this subject. See http://www.sacbee.com/sports/mlb/article28733107.html

 

Notice this sentence. When the right-hander starts for Vallejo against host San Rafael in a Pacific Association game at Albert Park, there won’t be an umpire behind the plate. That isn’t even remotely true, but you can bet your butt there’s gonna be a raft of people glomming onto that sentence and raising almighty Hell about it.

 

I'm old school and like the human element in officiating.

 

In life, and in baseball, things don't always go your way.  Life isn't always fair.

 

When an official makes a bad call, you can understand those things happen and move on, or you can throw a temper tantrum which won't change the call, and simply make you look like a jerk.  Keep things in perspective. After all, it is just a game and your life does not depend on getting 100% of the calls correct.

 

But where will this end? Eventually we will need a system to rule on checked swings. How about a machine to call balks?  We also need a machine to determine if a base runner touches a base or if a runner leaves early on a caught fly ball.  Braves fans will want a machine to determine whether or not a batted ball should be ruled an infield fly.

 

Many feel as I do that the human element adds to the game and there are many who want to use technology to get the call right.

 

I prefer to see the game as it was played prior to instant replay.

These arguments make no sense.

 

Because you can't present a solution that is 100% fail safe for 100% of every possible future scenario you can conceive, you prefer to use that as support that NOTHING should be improved, changed or corrected.  So because someone can't provide you a solution for a machine to call a balk, we can't use the machines currently available to call balls and strikes?  Remember, they flew a plane off Kitty Hawk before they sent a man to the moon.  Good thing someone didn't tell the Wright brothers that they couldn't launch until they could figure out a way to fly it to the moon. The "where will it end" argument is completely baseless to the point at hand.

 

And to state that life isn't fair, so everyone should accept shortcomings instead of seeking movement toward betterment of things?   Silly.

 

With that same logic, one could make the same *compelling* argument against racial integration in sports.  Really, you think that holds any water....life isn't fair....in this discussion?  Likewise, we have technology today that can make something more fair. But because "life isn't fair", we shouldn't adopt it and take one step closer to fairness?

 

 

I think what some people might be missing here is that we talking about moving from a system in which an umpire's calls are reviewed to a system where technology is making the calls to start. That's a huge jump in my opinion.

I still don't like IR, but at least the umpires are making the calls first, then maybe a couple times a game those calls get reviewed. Going to a system where umpires do not even have the opportunity to call balls and strikes at all is way beyond IR.

Don't twist my words.

 

You inferred many thing from what I wrote that just are not true.

 

We are talking about a game here, not technology required to send a man to the moon.  

I never said we should accept shortcomings, and I do think we should find solutions to minimize them.  I just don't believe the idea of a bunch of machines making the calls is the solution.  I'm simply saying these things happen and sometimes we have to live with injustices.

 

I'm not making an argument either way, just expressing my opinion.

 

Welcome to the real world.