|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
|