Seriously: Robot umpires!
I posted the news in the What’s new, Atlas? thread but I really wanted to hear what baseball fans think of this. It’s already generating some controversy, with some saying that the human ump shouldn’t be allowed to change the bot’s call.
“It won’t replace humans”…. suuuuuuure it won’t. By the way, have I mentioned this sure-fire investment opportunity of mine to you yet? 
What do y’all think? Welcome change? Hideous idea? A little of both?
It’s a fantastic idea. Long overdue. The important thing is to get the calls right and now the tech exists to do that.
You still need a home plate ump. Were I the King of Baseball, MLB would have MORE umps on the field, not fewer, even with robot umps calling balls and strikes.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the technology doesn’t exist for an AI to call whether a runner was safe or out. So you still need a home plate umpire. Also for things like catcher’s interference.
While I am generally in favor of this, I wonder how well the computer can call the vertical part of a ball/strike. How does it know where the batter’s knees are?
TV cameras? That’s how ball tracking works in cricket, and the batsman’s knees would be visible on camera. But note that the total system is not completely “AI”; for instance, to figure out whether someone was run out the (human) umpire can bring up slo-mo HD footage, it’s not completely automated.
I 100% endorse using technology to call balls and strikes. It’s going to be more accurate than a human. You still need a human home plate umpire to adjudicate all the other duties though (and there is plenty for them to do).
Some say that human umps and vague judgement calls are an inherent part of the game. I’m not one of them. The purpose of the umps is to get the calls right, and if a machine can do that better than the human, then it should be a machine’s job.
OK, so this system still can’t account for things like bounced pitches, so you still need the human for that. That just means that there’s still room for improvement. You have to make the imperfect tech before you can develop the perfect tech.
I expect that the implementation of an AI strike/ball caller will result in a modification of the strike zone’s upper and lower limits, so that those can be easily determined by an AI.
I am somewhat surprised at the enthusiastic welcome the technology is getting here; that’s fantastic!
They also talked about stealing 1B and moving the mounds back…fuck that.
You could make tech to call runners safe at 1B. But personally i think replay is close enough without spending millions on chipped balls and bases.
Looking forward to the day that advances in AI and robotics technology renders the ballplayers themselves superfluous. I’m sure a mechanical batter could do a much better job of knocking 'em out of the park.
Hell yeah, I played that as a kid!
First of all, I loved Base Wars. Safe/out calls were settled by robots fighting.
Second of all, yes please, more computers calling balls and strikes. There is no good reason not to in MLB. But the umpires have a fairly strong union.
Calling balls and strikes should definitely be done solely by computer.
If an umpire can figure out where a man’s knees and torso are, why can’t the guy setting the Statcast machine?
Obviously this is a sarcastic argument against the idea - and it’s senseless. I have never, ever understood why anyone makes this argument.
Saying that robot umpires is somehow as bad as robot players is like saying that taking a car to the game as as bad as robot players. The umpires aren’t the point of the game. I don’t pay my money to watch the umps, and in truth, no one does unless they’re the ump’s family. The game is about the players, and their humanity is what makes the sport interesting. The humanity of the umps does not make the sport better, it makes it worse, because it detracts from the impact of the players. The game should be decided by the actions of the players. When the ump blows a call, the players’ actions are rendered irrelevant; the runner beat the throw, but he was called out because of the ump’s mistake.
In addition to the fact that it would be hard to figure out how to do this, it’s just not a very big problem.
Umps actually don’t blow very many calls on the cases. When they do really, really blow one, there’s now instant replay - that system could be wildly improved and sped up, but it’s there. They still inexplicably miss calls, but it’s very rare.
The accuracy rate of ball and strike calls is dreadful; depending what source you believe and how you define a close call, they probably miss a third of all close ball and strike calls and even the odd one that isn’t close at all. Those calls are NOT always evenly distruibuted, either from team to team or situation to situation. Home plate umps affect the outcomes of games a lot more than we are maybe willing to admit, and we have the tech to fix it right now.
Personally, I’d tell the manager before the game stuff like “I call a high zone, but you probably also know that. And I’m gonna call them if if they cross the GD plate, not based on where they end up. The edge of the plate IS the plate. Thats a strike. If i absolutely blow one, I’ll make it right somehow, don’t bother bitching at me and cursing at me.”
I’d try and be a friendly ump.
The point is to make it so that a human doesn’t have to get involved in that at all. That way, you don’t have any possible complaint that human bias was involved.
I’m in favor of robo balls and strikes. I wish were far enough along that we could have android umps that would yell steeeeeeeee-rike three and make dramatic yer out gestures.
Take a look at this pic. Will a ball that just kisses the zone like the one on the right be considered a strike on all four sides?
It will be interesting to see what Manfred does with power inherent in determining the zone. Much tinkering will occur, I suspect.
And that’s why we need technology - too many umps with personal strike zones and not rulebook strike zones.
