Guess I'm too old, as I don't like robo umps, mic'd up players, bat flips, pitch clocks, elbow guards, infield shifts, sabermetrics, SP only going 5 innings, disappearance of the bunt/SB and a lack of collisions at 2B and home plate.

Don't mind replays, for some reason though...

As an umpire, I do NOT subscribe to the “human element is part of the game” rationale for accepting bad calls.

 

I want to get the calls right, and I welcome tools that improve accuracy—as long as they don’t disrupt the game or put the calls under the jurisdiction of someone other than the on-field umpires. 

The way this demonstration was conducted makes sense. The plate umpire had the information but he knew the tool’s limitations, such as not being able to measure the 3-dimensionality of the zone, and was able to override when it seemed right. 

I would also welcome video replay, especially on plays we know that the two-man system puts umpires in sub-optimal positions. 

I’m almost with FenwaySouth: Bring it on—carefully. 

CTbballDad posted:

Guess I'm too old, as I don't like robo umps, mic'd up players, bat flips, pitch clocks, elbow guards, infield shifts, sabermetrics, SP only going 5 innings, disappearance of the bunt/SB and a lack of collisions at 2B and home plate.

Don't mind replays, for some reason though...

Age has nothing to do with it.  I'm an old dude too!  But I have seen what technology has done to make other sports better and more accurate, and that should be the goal.   I don't like many of the things you've listed bat flips, SPs going 5, disappearance of the bunt/SBs)  but they have nothing to do with implementing a tool to make a more accurate call.   The title is "robot umpires" but that is not what it is.   Think of this as an umpire tool (it's Artificial Intelligence plain and simple)  to make their jobs easier and their calls more defensible.  The umpire is still in control of HIS game.

CTbballDad posted:

Guess I'm too old, as I don't like robo umps, mic'd up players, bat flips, pitch clocks, elbow guards, infield shifts, sabermetrics, SP only going 5 innings, disappearance of the bunt/SB and a lack of collisions at 2B and home plate.

Don't mind replays, for some reason though...

I don’t have a problem with technology being an aid to umpires. What I don’t want to see is the possible future of umpires removed from the field, making calls from a booth and the call is on the scoreboard.

A couple of years ago I watched a Rays broadcast where someone explained the 3D limitations of robotic strike zones with 3D graphics. Umpires are definitely needed. Otherwise pitchers would start dropping strikes from over the top like we did as kids with the strike zone being the squares on the garage door.

If we could blend eras imagine this scenario ...

Earl Weaver: What kind of a chicken bleep call is that? Are you bleeping blind? 

Umpire Hal: I honestly think you ought to calm down; take a stress pill and think things over.

 
Catcher-in-the-Rye posted:

My son is a catcher for high school and a travel team. I asked him before what his opinion on robot umps was and he said he did not like it because it took away the catchers framing skills.

 

The number of high school catchers  whose receiving skills increase the number of strike calls is pretty small. 

It’s far more common for me to go out on a limb and call strikes so as not to punish pitchers for the catcher’s actions.

Too many yank the ball toward the zone even on borderline pitches (and remember, by rule, borderline is a strike), which tells the whole world they think the ball was out of the zone.  

On occasion I have told catchers, “Look, I want strikes almost as much as you do. Stop yanking the ball in. My butt is more than 17” wide, so your best chance is to just stick it where it is, and you and I will be the only ones who know.”

The best high school receiver I’ve worked behind, a young man who has since played in Omaha, was great about sticking it only when it was a plausible strike. I worked about a half dozen of his games and gave him about 95% of his sticks.  On occasion, he’d try to stretch it a couple inches but would cheerfully correct when I’d tell him that was a little too far.

Swampboy,

 

Thank you for the response but his response was not about machines calling the strike zone at the high school level. (LOL) He will be long out of HS by the time these things make it there if ever. Though he has been complemented by a number of umps on his "sticks".

 

His response was more in relation to MLB catchers and this would take away the need for that skill.

I like the robo ump. In tennis hawk eye has improved it a lot too as there are almost no umpire arguments anymore, players just challenge and if they are wrong they accept the machine. 20 years ago players would insult umps all the time now the game is much quieter and less emotional.

Sometimes it makes it tough mentally though as in extreme high pressure moments it can help a player to blame the umpire and go off a little while now you just have to give in to a god like machine.

But still in most cases it is better to have the better decision and in tennis players players learned to deal with this too.

Forget the robo-ump, anyone paying attention knows it is only a matter of time and that has been true for 10 years at least.  Ending the ball/strike arguments will be awsome...it really will be.

The bigger deal is stealing 1st base.  If that gains traction it totally changes the game bacuse it would probably end forever pitching in the dirt as a tactic.  A 54' curve now could become a baserunner.  A defensive catcher premium will happen.  Blocking will be more valuable than ever.  A lousy catcher could cost a run or two a game.

Anything that forces the ball into the strike zone and contact is worth considering IMO.  I'd like to see at bats limited to 5/6 pitches.  Pitch clocks.  There are a bunch of other things that can be done to address the 5 Inning starter, ball in play and time of game that baseball is way overdue for doing. 

If I were king of baseball I would focus on getting the game down to 210 to 225 pitches.  This would make things better than any other single thing that can be done.  If that happened complete games would be 100 to 110 pitches and they would return to being a big part of the game.

Swampboy posted:
Dominik85 posted:

And yes, the robo ump will kill framing but this a collateral damage you have to accept.

It's not collateral damage; it's removing two sources of distortion at the same time. 

A disadvantage might be aesthetic. Here is a robo ump called strike

https://twitter.com/BaseballQu...092060424364035?s=09

 

Catchers might just sit on their ass and slap at the ball with their glove, no need for "proper" receiving anymore. So why waste energy doing it?

Still I think the advantages of the robo ump are bigger than the disadvantages.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×