Is It Time? [technology assisted umpiring in baseball]

If I can expand a little bit, the way baseball is officiated is idiotic. It is literally not the 50th best way you could do it.

Baseball’s officiating system is a relic of the past; it just does not make any sense at the professional level, and is set up the way it is not only because it started when there were no computers, cameras or replays, but because it started when even major league teams didn’t have a lot of money and couldn’t afford to have a lot of officials.

Setting automation aside, the way umpires are aligned on the field is silly. The fact that there are only four umpires is silly, too. (Or six, in the playoffs.) If a top professional tennis match can have 11 officials, why can’t baseball? the most egregious problem with this is the chekced swing call, which is sent by appeal to either the first or third base umpires, who are in a terrible position to make the call, a call which by the way is based totally on opinion and precedent and not any sort of specific rule. Logically, you should have officials parallel to the front pof the plate off to the sides whose job it is to make that specific call. You should have outfield wall officials whose job it is to make home run calls, as opposed to asking a second base umpire who may be 200 feet away. Having just 4/6 officials and then being surprised when they blow calls-by-inches that are 100, 200 feet away from them is imbecilic, and given that baseball is rolling in money, pointless.

As to opposition to automation, it’s stupid. I’m sorry, but it’s just stupid. Bad calls add no value to baseball, none whatsoever. It create bitterness and takes attention away from the real sport. I have never in my life known a bad call to make baseball, in total, a better thing.

And of course we would never go backwards in any other sport. Imagine if, instead of having electronic timing, we just had a ref eyeball who won the Olympic 100m dash. Hey, don’t want to take the human element out! Wouldn’t that be stupid? Of course it’s stupid. If Smith beat Jones 9.92 to 9.93 but the track and field version of Angel Hernandez gave the gold medal to Jones, that would not make track a better sport; it would make it WAY worse.

Asking umps to make ball and strike calls is asking them to fail. Umpires miss a huge, huge percentage of close calls. The overall percentage they get right is something like 90 percent but that includes pitches right down the middle and ones that bounce in front of home plate; for pitches where you really need the call made, they get two out of three at best. During the course of a game, at least a few at bats, and often more, are determined not by the skill of the players but by the umpire blowing calls, and it’s not always split evenly between the two teams.

There’s no benefit to this, none. Baseball is not better for having outcomes altered by umps blowing calls; in no way does it helps the game. It transfers the outcome from player skill to umpire incompetence, which is bad. It creates resentment and doubt over outcomes, which is bad. It causes arguments and ejections, which is bad. Everything about it is bad. It’s every bit as bad as having people eyeball the results of 100m dashes and the only reason anyone accepts it is because they don’t know any other way and have put no thought into it.

This is nonsensical on so many levels.

One person? So, we still have an umpire calling the zone.

Not seeing the difference here.

He’s setting the zone on a large computer monitor from the comfort of a chair, while the batter is getting set inside the box. He’s not trying to watch a 104mph sinker hit the outside corner and make a split second decision as to whether it caught the black or not.

You don’t think that a person equipped with electronic measuring devices, setting the correct line once into a computer, based on the reasonably easy to assess matter of where the batter’s knees are (and nothing else) might be a tiny bit more accurate than someone just kinda taking a shot at it while trying to track a 97-mile-an-hour fastball on every pitch?

I mean I know which one I’d rather do, from an easiness point of view.

How about a compromise solution in which we get rid of Angel Hernandez and C.B. Bucknor and other guys that have for years been universally known as terrible umpires?

It doesn’t just stop with their absurd balls and strikes. As soon as the pitcher gives them an ugly look, he gets ejected and so does the manager who comes out to try to save him. I go to games or watch them on TV to see my favorite players actually play, not to see a bad umpire upset the balance of the game by ejecting people.

The problem I have with replay, especially in baseball, is how it changes the game. I really hate the stolen base but keep the tag on him and look on camera to see if he came .0003 inches off of the base. That has been a safe call for 140 years and it should remain a safe call. Same way in football. If we need insta slo-mo to see that the ball moved a fraction of an inch when it hit the ground, then that has always been a catch and should remain a catch.

The stated purpose of replay was to reverse the “worst of the worst” calls. If so, why do we review mere inches?

I have, unfortunately, because of Fantasy Football. The actual game is boring, but seeing if the QB will pass to the right guy is kinda fun :stuck_out_tongue: In all seriousness – it’s a matter of opinion. No accounting for taste.

I’m not sure in what way I’m wrong though. Sure, I’m exaggerating, but you’re really gonna tell me the last few minutes of a football game don’t stretch on forever?

Yep. Soccer games are played for 45 minutes straight, and are not interrupted by so many goddamn “downs” that you may as well be playing a turn-based game. That’s why rugby is a much more entertaining sport to watch than soccer.

Har har har. You must think you’re pretty clever.

The biggest hurdle to actually implementing robot umpires is probably the umpires union. Obviously they don’t want to lose jobs. So I wonder how this could go into practice. Would we replace the human behind home plate? With what? Red or green lights? Or keep the human back there and give him an earpiece in which the robot tells him ball or strike and then he verbalizes the call?

I think you’d still need him (or her) to be there for plays at the plate. (and, freed up from balls and strikes, could pay more attention to checked swing questions)

This is incredibly silly status-quo bias.

Imagine taking an existing sporting event that is decided by non-split-second human judgment and making the argument that we should replace the precise and effective determination with a human who’s going to screw it up sometimes because it’s more fun when we screw it up.

No need for those electronic pressure plates in swimming. We’ll just have someone squint down the end of the pool and guess who got their first. It’ll be more fun that way!

Why have cameras at the finish line in footraces. More fun to have a human call it.

We can get rid of targets in sharpshooting contests. We’ll just put someone in a trench at the end of the range and have them judge how close the bullet whizzed by. Given the speed of the projectile here, this should introduce the maximum amount of fun into the sport.

This Hawk-Eye page claims their system already works for football, tennis, cricket, and hurling. Technologically, any game where there are several television cameras should enable 3-D ball tracking. AFAIK it’s not automated, though; it assists the umpires rather than distracting them as it potentially could.

And you don’t think this one person could have an agenda? Not like a certain player or team? Or league? Maybe receive gifts to help him enhance or shrink the zone?

I think these issues need to be resolved first.

No they don’t, because they’re already a problem in the current system.

Not that I’m disagreeing with the point, but don’t TWO lines need to be set? As I understand it, the top of the zone is set by the “midline” between the top of the shoulders and the top of the pants. I suppose you could redefine it to be set by a certain distance above the knees, but that inevitably means short guys have a really ‘high’ zone, and tall guys don’t.

As to the overall point: of course MLB should use it. But it has to be the full version that we’re seeing in the playoffs, which is a three-dimensional space. Because I’ve seen more than a few pitches that ‘nibble’ at the corner by hitting the plate AFTER passing the front of the plate. :eek:

  1. What the hell? Can’t an umpire have an “agenda”?

  2. It would take about ten seconds and all of twenty bucks an hour to solve that “problem.”

Well, it seems to me you still need a home plate umpire. Absent the introduction of some really advanced technology that isn’t even close to existing yet, a human umpire assisted by replay review is the most efficient way of making safe/out calls and foul/fair calls. I don’t see why you couldn’t just have the scoreboard say STRIKE or BALL, or an earpiece or whatever experience shows works best.

Do it! And I am on board.

First, coaches can’t make challenges in the last two minutes. All challenges are from the officials only.

And as for drawn out, you’re thinking of basketball, which indeed does take 15 minutes for the last two minutes more often that I would like.

More often than not, the last two minutes take exactly two minutes to play. If the team with the ball has the lead and the opposing team has no time outs, the final two minutes take two minutes.

Now, teams do use their time outs in the last two minutes, but that’s not challenges. That’s strategy.

I would agree that time outs used strategically should just be stoppages of the clock and not take two minutes each. There usually isn’t a lot of strategizing going on. The team just wants the clock stopped. Or the stupid “icing the kicker” time out.

AIUI the high and low parameters of the strike zone change from one batter to the next. They can probably program a machine to find the ever-changing top and bottom boundaries of the strike zone but I think it better to have a human making the high/low decisions. OTOH, a machine will likely always do a better job calling inside and outside.

Another vote here for automated ball/strike calls. It’s just not something that umps can do as well as a computer can.

And here’s the real selling point for me: if the automated calls are less than perfect, they can be improved. More and better cameras can be provided, and better software can be written (and tested in the minors before bringing it to the show). Umps, OTOH, are never going to get much better at ball/strike counts than they are now.

Look, this is a debate. Stop reporting it for forum change.