Kill the umpire! Or just get rid of them

[dougie_monty]

@iamthewalrus_3

:rolleyes:

Well, there you go. No need to respond to the points if they sound like something a commie might say.

I mentioned that because Marx wrote that capitalism was so deeply entrenched that it would take a dramatic effort to wrest control from it. I see a parallel in the alleged vested interests holding on to the traditional use of umpires, as insinuated upthread. Something like pulling teeth, to use a less politically charged metaphor.

[TriPolar]

@iamthewalrus_3

There it is in a nutshell. The machine is acknowledged to be better than the human, but somehow, we shouldn’t use it until it can be actually perfect.

Why do you hold the machine to a higher standard than the human? Why shouldn’t we just choose the best solution we have, imperfect though it may be?

I acknowledge. Call me back when MLB does. And further, the standard is not higher, it’s actually lower. The machine works by making assumptions. If an umpire’s performance was reviewed and he justified his calls on the basis that he assumed the ball was in or out of the strike zone then he’d be fired. So on that basis we can’t allow the machine to make a single call.

And once again I have outlined the means by which a machine could be used but you ignore that in favor of some other faulty machine. Do own stock in that company?

[dougie_monty]

Walter Johnson, maybe the best fastball pitcher ever, did not get into a World Series until 1924, when he was about 37. The NL umpires who worked the plate when Johnson pitched said, after the series (Johnson threw the first and last pitches for the Senators in that Series), that they were doing some “mighty fancy guessing” about where Sir Walter’s pitches crossed the plate. One wonders how the AL umps handled Johnson’s pitching through 17 seasons.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@TriPolar

And further, the standard is not higher, it’s actually lower. The machine works by making assumptions. If an umpire’s performance was reviewed and he justified his calls on the basis that he assumed the ball was in or out of the strike zone then he’d be fired. So on that basis we can’t allow the machine to make a single call.

I’m not sure I understand what assumptions the machine is making in this case. Do you mean that it has a model of physics that it uses to interpolate between video frames?

What is an umpire supposed to do when he can’t determine with 100% accuracy whether the pitch was a ball or a strike? He still has to make a call, right? How does he justify it? How do umpires justify bad calls?

And once again I have outlined the means by which a machine could be used but you ignore that in favor of some other faulty machine. Do own stock in that company?

I don’t know anything about PitchF/X except what I’ve read in this thread.

I do know that making an automated system that can determine where a ball was using a few cameras is not a major technical problem.

[TriPolar]

@iamthewalrus_3

I’m not sure I understand what assumptions the machine is making in this case. Do you mean that it has a model of physics that it uses to interpolate between video frames?

Nevermind, I take that back because I’m not sure what it’s doing. It does analyze the pitch trajectory but it might actually be catching all of the necessary information on video. If it does that so it’s accuracy can be confirmed then I have no problem with it. I apologize for responding hastily without checking on the details.

I still see the need for an umpire to be there. He has other plays to call and he needs to be a check on the machine to make sure it’s working, he needs to be there in case it is malfunctioning.