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

[ 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?

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

[ 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.

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

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.

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

[ 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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 on hawkeye with a picture as example when on tv though the ball actully moves.

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 ]

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