Well yeah, if your team as at bat.
Just get rid of Joe West. The others can stay.
That’s the argument I’m making. Human error in the judging of a sport is bad in all forms because it results in the outcome of the game being based on favoritism, or unconscious bias, or simple randomness instead of player skill and effort and strategy. Thus, we should seek to minimize it.
Your argument is (I guess?) that sometimes its bad and sometimes its good. Care to elaborate?
Yes, I did. It’s literally the first question in the post you responded to. If there are areas where removing human error makes the game worse, surely there’s at least one where adding human error makes the game better, right? So what are they?
I don’t understand the basis on which you would draw a distinction. This human error that causes the outcome of the game to be based on something other than the players’ skills and actions is ok, but that human error over there is bad?
Why?
Obviously, you can like whatever you like about baseball. But hopefully you can also apply some introspection. Hopefully, you can understand your beliefs well enough to derive and explain the essence of them to others. I did so above for my beliefs about sports.
There are lots of good arguments in favor of removing human error. Is the best argument against really “I like what I like”?
No reason that can’t be done with an automated system. Just like we can have different sized fields, we can have different sized/shaped strike zones.
The real question is, do you like watching a game and seeing that a given umpire has a different-sized strike zone for different players? Or, as Hentor’s link points out, a strike zone that’s biased against racial minorities? Because that’s what you get with human umpires.
You’re still confusing variation with error. No reason we can’t have a variable-sized strike zone in a way that provides for interesting and quirky gameplay without subjecting the game to human bias.
Wrong. Logical fallacy. Just because “A” is not chosen doesn’t mean “B” is. This isn’t a binary problem. In fact, in the opinion of quite a few of us, it isn’t a problem at all.
So it is the perfect balance as it stands after all. That’s good luck!
Again, not binary. Is it perfect? No. Would switching to electronic ball and strike calls help? No. Plenty of other ways to improve accuracy without electronics. Are we seeking perfection? No. Is it a “problem” that must be dealt with? No. We live in an imperfect world. Some of us are willing to accept that and don’t need to tear everything apart in search of “improvement” that has yet to be shown to be desirable, much less necessary.
Babe Pinelli wrote an article for The Second Fireside Book of Baseball, titled “Kill the Umpire? Don’t Make Me Laugh!”
Pinelli, who became famous at the end of his career by calling balls and strikes in Don Larsen’s perfect game in the 1956 World Series, started out in 1935, the year Babe Ruth was calling it quits.
Veteran NL umps told him the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not call a strike on Ruth.
Pinelli didn’t see it that way. The first time he was plate umpire in a game at Braves Field that season, Ruth came to bat and Pinelli called a close pitch a strike. Ruth turned to him and bellowed, “There’s 30,000 people in this park that know that was a ball, tomato-head!”
“Perhaps,” answered Pinelli, “but mine is the only opinion that counts.” Ruth had no answer for that.
The League offices have always backed up the umpires’ field decisions. I wouldn’t rely on a computer to do that.
You don’t think it’s desirable to have everyone playing by the same set of rules?
I recall reading about American baseball players in Japan in the 1970s and '80s who were told straight up by the umpire that he was creating a tougher strike zone for them, because he essentially considered their longer arms an unfair advantage.
I don’t think that any American umpire has gone that far, but in my view letting umpires choose their own standards for a strike zone is the same thing in kind, if not degree. The strike zone should be explicitly defined and applied. There should be no ambiguity there.
I don’t get it; are you saying a computer won’t back up the umpires, or the league won’t back up the computer?
Of course the league has always backed up judgment calls (albeit not rules issues) but it could hardly be otherwise; if you didn’t back up the umpires it would be total chaos. That requires, however, acceptance of the umps blowing it. It’s just that up until recently, umpires were the best option there was. Even instant replay wasn’t really a great idea prior to recently, since we didn’t have HD video.
You don’t need that now. We don’t have to continue pretending it’s 1935.
What is this business about playing games at night? Under electric lights? Your technology is tearing everything apart!!!
To answer your question, the issue is the league backing up computers.
They aren’t infallible, you know. Who designs, manufactures, programs, and operates them? Humans. The same species from which our umpires come. And in case you never noticed, umpires have to go to a special school themselves, where among other things they learn the rule book.
are not infallible. And there are other things computers can’t do–or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Remove unruly players, coaches, or managers from the field.
Act on appeal plays–for example, a batter batting out of turn.
Order a game stopped temporarily because of rain, until the rain stops. (Calling the game permanently because of rain, curfew, light failure, or other reason is another matter.)
I probably haven’t thought of everything, but there is no question in my mind that there are a great many things that umpires do that an electronic substitute cannot.
I don’t believe anyone is seriously saying the game should have no human umpires. It’s all about ball/strike calls. I would think even the strongest proponent of robo-umps still wants a plate ump for the rest of the calls - close plays, HBP, foul tip, examining the ball for minute scratches, dusting the plate (no roombas!), etc.
The trouble with the league always backing the umps is it looks pretty silly when every human on the planet can see they blew the call, but no, it can’t be changed because of tradition. “We couldn’t have corrected that call in 1909, so we’re not going to correct it now” is a stupid attitude.
So, was the strike call on Ruth an actual strike, or not?
Pinelli said it was, and as far as NL President Ford Frick was concerned Pinelli’s opinion was the only one that counted. Ask the last Brooklyn batter in Game 5 of the '56 World Series.
P. S. The old Comiskey Park in Chicago had a blower built into home plate; I don’t know if its successor does.
What is a “blower?”
And yet they had no problem changing the criteria for no-hitters and re-writing the record books.
Can someone tell me how the current robot umps would call balls and strikes? I’m quite surprised that there’s a question of their accuracy. I assumed video was tracking the ball from multiple directions. If you can get a camera facing the plate, parallel with the front of the plate, and one directly above or below you can tell where the ball is in 3D space (limited by the speed and resolution of the cameras). Are they doing something else? Is the only problem now about the camera angle?
Here is the best explanationfor PITCHF/x. Basically, they use 2 cameras - one above home plate and one at first base - to track every pitch. With this, you have the exact location of the ball when it crosses home plate.
The link is a PDF, by the way.
Maybe home plate had an integral fan to dust off the plate so the umpire didn’t have to.
This.
And everything that RickJay has said in this thread.