Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ 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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ 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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

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)

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ 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

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ 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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

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.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is part of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradition is a lame argument for anything.

Re: A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

[ 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.