A computer to call balls & strikes - why not?
 

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?

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

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

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

[ 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.

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

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.

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

[ 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?

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

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO for removing subjectivity from baseball!

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

[ 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

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 ]

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

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

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.

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

[ 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.