A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?

[MoreWineII]

I know the technology's there so why rely on these inconsistent strike zones that vary from umpire to umpire when some sort of laser or something could probably call balls & strikes with 100% accuracy?

The strike zone is defined in black and white. There's no "judgement" that comes into play. If the ball crosses the plate in the strike zone, it's a strike. If not, it's a ball.

Opinions?

[jstnrgrs]

Because this is baseball where cheaters typically get a 10 game suspension, so you can't expect anything reasonable.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the technology's there so why rely on these inconsistent strike zones that vary from umpire to umpire when some sort of laser or something could probably call balls & strikes with 100% accuracy?

The strike zone is defined in black and white. There's no "judgement" that comes into play. If the ball crosses the plate in the strike zone, it's a strike. If not, it's a ball.

Opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not reliable, it can accurately tell inside and outside, but it can correctly call based on height, because it changes for every batter. Also if you can recall Questec was a massive failure.

[MoreWineII]

seems to me you could program a computer to compensate on a player-to-player basis. c'mon, don't tell me the technology isn't out there, it's just a question of whether or not the powers-that-be want to introduce it or not.

if questec didn't work it's because it sucked. but don't tell me we can guide missiles across the world with pinpoint accuracy but we can't find a [censored] laser/computer machine to call balls & strikes.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the technology's there so why rely on these inconsistent strike zones that vary from umpire to umpire when some sort of laser or something could probably call balls & strikes with 100% accuracy?

The strike zone is defined in black and white. There's no "judgement" that comes into play. If the ball crosses the plate in the strike zone, it's a strike. If not, it's a ball.

Opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not reliable, it can accurately tell inside and outside, but it can correctly call based on height, because it changes for every batter. Also if you can recall Questec was a massive failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it a failure at identifying pitches correctly, or was it just that pitchers whined so much that they gave it up?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO for removing subjectivity from baseball!

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
don't tell me we can guide missiles across the world with pinpoint accuracy but we can't find a [censored] laser/computer machine to call balls & strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rocket scientists >>>>>> baseball front office

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not reliable, it can accurately tell inside and outside, but it can correctly call based on height, because it changes for every batter.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Questec strike zone heights were set for each batter by the operator. Its being termed a failure is a subjective opinion, a lot of non-umpires and pitchers thought it was excellent. It was such a failure that MLB will keep using it though at least 2009:

[ QUOTE ]
Major League Baseball and the World Umpires Association (WUA) have ratified a new collective bargaining agreement, effective January 1, 2005, and extending through December 31, 2009... The agreement included a resolution to the grievance filed by the umpires as to the use of the QuesTec umpire information system. Major League Baseball retained the right to utilize the QuesTec system along with other evaluation methods to review strike zone performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050217&content_id=945062&vkey=ne ws_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)

[J.R.]

It called sweeping breaking balls which caught a piece of the front of the plate strikes even though the pitches landed well off the plate, creating the impression that the system was nuts when in fact it was the umpires who turned out to be mistaken. Along these lines, it didn't reward pitchers who could consistently throw pitches off the corner of the plate by "extending" the strike zone, raising the ire of pitchers like schilling.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
it didn't reward pitchers who could consistently throw pitches off the corner of the plate by "extending" the strike zone, raising the ire of pitchers like schilling.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the game.

[CollinEstes]

This would take away one of hardest aspects to do well in baseball which is recieving.

As a former catcher in college I think this would ruin a great part of the game. People that never caught don't realize how much important catchers are in balls and strikes.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not reliable, it can accurately tell inside and outside, but it can correctly call based on height, because it changes for every batter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a problem at all. It can easily be adjusted based on height in stance.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
if questec didn't work it's because it sucked. but don't tell me we can guide missiles across the world with pinpoint accuracy but we can't find a [censored] laser/computer machine to call balls & strikes.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if the government wanted to sink billions of dollars into developing a ball/strike system, it could.

[hmkpoker]

Because we won't have a big fat guy yelling "STEEEEEEEE-RIKE ONE!!!"

Next week, we'll discuss why professional football still uses two knuckleheads with a chain and an arbitrary eye to measure the distance to the first down line! (nyuk nyuk nyuk)

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if questec didn't work it's because it sucked. but don't tell me we can guide missiles across the world with pinpoint accuracy but we can't find a [censored] laser/computer machine to call balls & strikes.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if the government wanted to sink billions of dollars into developing a ball/strike system, it could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, are the precision missile systems as accurate as the media/gov. portrays? My understanding is that targets are missed a fair amount of times.

craig

[andyfox]

I'm not saying I disagree with you. But what you're saying is that it would take away an important part of the game--cheating. That's what catchers are trying to do in getting a call, isn't it? You could say they're just trying to make sure the umpire gets the call right, but that's not really the truth, is it?

I've posted this before, but a pitcher for the Mets told a good friend of mine that Mike Piazza was a terrible catcher for precisely the reason you allude to--he doesn't know how to catch the ball to get good calls.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
Next week, we'll discuss why professional football still uses two knuckleheads with a chain and an arbitrary eye to measure the distance to the first down line!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.. This came off sounding really well.

[tdarko]

the answer isn't "cheating." for the most part major league umpires have a "strike zone" and they stick with it, some will give a ball out but not a ball in or vice versa, some like to give a ball below the knees but not anything up in the zone etc. the catcher does help pitchers get calls occasionally but not enough to make a difference and this is coming from the mouths of big league umpires.

the answer is that baseball is a game of adjustments and when you make it black and white its no longer baseball and there is no longer a human element involved anymore. hitters know an umpire is giving a ball out so he makes an adjustment, b/c the pitcher did. umpires are just a part of the overall chess game that is baseball, you take them out and substitute them with a machine and now you not only have lifers losing their jobs but you have pitchers pissed off because the plate has shrunk. do you really think hitters need more help? hell they are trying to get back to the original strike zone.

[jacki]

[ QUOTE ]

This is part of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradition is a lame argument for anything.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if questec didn't work it's because it sucked. but don't tell me we can guide missiles across the world with pinpoint accuracy but we can't find a [censored] laser/computer machine to call balls & strikes.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if the government wanted to sink billions of dollars into developing a ball/strike system, it could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, are the precision missile systems as accurate as the media/gov. portrays? My understanding is that targets are missed a fair amount of times.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

sadly, this isn't nearly as controversial as a missed strike 3.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we won't have a big fat guy yelling "STEEEEEEEE-RIKE ONE!!!"


[/ QUOTE ]

plus, someone's gotta call plays at the plate. what's he supposed to do the rest of the game?

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because we won't have a big fat guy yelling "STEEEEEEEE-RIKE ONE!!!"


[/ QUOTE ]

plus, someone's gotta call plays at the plate. what's he supposed to do the rest of the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can look at the LCD display on his wrist that says "strike" or "ball" and then give it his personalized (and possibly ambiguous *cough*) indication.

[CollinEstes]

I'm not talking about framing, which is what most people call recieving. The big league catchers don't really frame the ball in the aspect of making it look like a strike. Really what you are trying to do is give the umpire the best look at the pitch. Piazza couldn't get low strikes because he would block the umpire's view and if he does that they shouldn't get the call. If you watched Ausmus, he always gives the umpire I nice consistent clean look at each pitch. There is also alot of dialogue that goes on with the ump and catcher at most levels that nobody gets to here or be aknowledged for. It is a cool part of the game if you are a catcher to get to where you feel like you are working together with the umpire. Perfect example of something most people might not know about the right thing to do to keep umps happy is if they get a pitch fouled off their body in any way you always go talk to your pitcher unless the ump tells you he doesn't need a minute. Umps do the same thing for catchers by rubbing the ball alittle longer, etc.

Working umps was one of my favorite parts of catching, and I would hate to see them just start putting big donkeys like Piazza back there because recieving pitches is no longer important.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
'm not talking about framing, which is what most people call recieving. The big league catchers don't really frame the ball in the aspect of making it look like a strike. Really what you are trying to do is give the umpire the best look at the pitch. Piazza couldn't get low strikes because he would block the umpire's view and if he does that they shouldn't get the call. If you watched Ausmus, he always gives the umpire I nice consistent clean look at each pitch. There is also alot of dialogue that goes on with the ump and catcher at most levels that nobody gets to here or be aknowledged for. It is a cool part of the game if you are a catcher to get to where you feel like you are working together with the umpire. Perfect example of something most people might not know about the right thing to do to keep umps happy is if they get a pitch fouled off their body in any way you always go talk to your pitcher unless the ump tells you he doesn't need a minute. Umps do the same thing for catchers by rubbing the ball alittle longer, etc.

Working umps was one of my favorite parts of catching, and I would hate to see them just start putting big donkeys like Piazza back there because recieving pitches is no longer important.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is a really good post.

big league umpires hate catchers that "frame" pitches, it pisses them off and they will actually start to take pitches away. all they want is for you to be "quiet" behind the dish, and do the best job of catching the ball in a presentable manner for the umpire as collin said.

the catcher's that take away strikes are the ones that move to much blocking the sight of an umpire, or ones that feel it necessary to do too much and then resulting of them not getting any calls.

[andyfox]

Nice post.

"There is also alot of dialogue that goes on with the ump and catcher at most levels that nobody gets to hear or be acknowledged for."

Stengel always said Yogi was a genius at this. And being small, Berra would get down real low. Whitey Ford loved Elston Howard, but he claimed he got more calls with Berra precisely because Howard was the bigger man.

Stengel, who managed Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle, when asked for the secret to his success with the Yankees, said, "I never manage a game without my man." By whom he meant Yogi.

BTW, the pitcher who said what he said about Piazza is Al Leiter. I don't think either of them lurk here, so I'm OK with revealing this.

[masse75]

It would give Cubs fans one less thing to cry about.

[daveymck]

There is possible technology available, in cricket here tv developed a system that can judge the trajectory of the ball isnt used by the umpires currently only the tv. The ball is delivered at around 60-100 miles per hour dependant on the bowler and the replay is shown on tv in seconds. Is based around technology used for missle tracking.

For most sports there is a dilemma and discussion of how much technology should be used, football is one sport that the argument comes up again and again but nothing happen. But US football seemed to emabrace it then pull away from it so its hard really to strike balances between letting games flow and utilizing whats available to assist in correct decisions.

An article Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/cricket/features/newsid_3625000/3625559.stm) on hawkeye with a picture as example when on tv though the ball actully moves.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not reliable, it can accurately tell inside and outside, but it can correctly call based on height, because it changes for every batter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only does it change for every batter, but it also changes everytime a batter moves.