Digital Baseball Umpires 403
Dekaner writes "Wired is running an article on an electronic umpire that tracks each baseball pitch and judges whether it is within the "strike zone" has been installed at 10 major league ballparks in the U.S. The QuesTec system uses several cameras that track each pitch and compare the machine's judgment with that of the umpire standing behind the catcher. At the end of each game it provides a summary of its ratings and compares them with the umpire's calls. In general there is reasonably good agreement. In a recent test the QuesTec system judged that 32.1 percent of pitches were within the "strike zone", while the umpire called 31.4 percent as strikes. However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view. "
Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
"However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view."
as, "It points out our mistakes!"
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
By and large, this is a GREAT tool in that it will help get rid of the absurd variance in strike zones as called by different umps. One factor in the Home Run Derby that MLB has become is the incredibly shrinking strike zone...
One problem... (Score:5, Informative)
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't. Catcher seemed to think this was a bad thing. So, in other words, the umpire admits that he doesn't typically enforce the rules as written unless outright forced to? Sounds like he's completely justifying the existence of the machines to me. Maybe now Atlanta pitchers won't get their customary strike zone that stretches between the home and visiting dugouts?
Re:One problem... (Score:3)
That's what I meant. Ball was off the plate, to him it was a "strike," but according to the rulebook it was a ball, and the machine made him ca
Re:One problem... (Score:3)
Re:Subjective umps are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
No, of course it's not. Framing isn't making a bad pitch look good--it's making a good pitch look good. As you say, the catcher isn't a neutral observer, so if th
Re:One problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
called strikes by the umpires is 31.4%. It doesn't say what percentage of the pitches are called strikes by the machine. (Note: The summary of the article is also wrong.)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone, and much more to do with performance enhancing drugs, different composition used in the actual ball, expansion thinning out pitching talent, and the general change in the makeup of ballparks (read: home run alleys as found in PacBell Park, and the new Great American Ballpark in Cinncinati).
Personally, and I believe many die-hard baseball fans feel similarly, this new machine ruins the game. Pitching and hitting are arts, and the ability of a good pitcher to locate pitches just on the corners is something that is special to the game, and makes a great pitcher amazing. This machine has served it's purpose: it has proven that the Umpires are doing a very good job dealing with a highly subjective condition. Leave the subjectivity to the humans, and the web serving to the machines.
Re: strike zone size (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this section is an excellent analysis of the parent post. If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average. The theory would say that by improving the quality of the pitches the batter faces as strikes, they'd be hitting more of everything, not just home runs.
Anyway, some guy's chart [capital.net] bears this out- keep in mind what looks like a big difference on that chart (.006, say) represents about 30 hits per team per season. Given that the NL appears to be hitting a collective
Ease-of-call (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless it doesn't work very well.
Last year, I was invited to the umpire's room before a "Sunday Night Baseball" telecast. Umpiring officials showed me the QuesTec system and explained why they felt it wasn't accurate. And after seeing their demonstration, I could see what they were talking about (from ballpark to ballpark, similar pitches to the same batter were called differently by the computer). I even mentioned it on air that night. - Joe Morgan
Re:Right... (Score:3, Informative)
He still does not understand the value of OBP for leadoff hitters, does not believe in pitch counts and thinks everyone tht played with him on the Big Red Machine is a Hall of Famer (slight exageration but not that far from the truth).
He is quite "old school" and would be naturally distrusting of any new technology in the game. I would hesitate to use Mogan as a source of un
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Shrug. That's part of the game. Some umps have a wide strike zone. Some really squeeze it. Some allow a higher strike than others. As long as they are consistent, no one cares much.
Ron Luciano had a story in one of his books about a game he called early in his career. The pitcher threw a pitch right around the top of the "official" strike zone. Ron called it a ball. The next pitch was right around the batter's knees. Ron called that a ball too. The catcher turned to him and said, "I'm not complaining, but you have to give me either the high pitch or the low pitch or we're going to be here all night." At that moment, Mr. Luciano was enlightened.
Re:They wont get rid of da umps (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure you understand the complaint (Score:5, Informative)
"Even if (the computer operators) were experienced umpires, this system would not work because it's based on a single frontal photograph in comparison with the 3-D, real-time view of the umpire," Gibson said.
In addition, many batters move during the course of the pitch, which an umpire sees and weighs in determining the strike zone, he said.
See, each time a batter steps to the plate, the system has to be calibrated for that batter's particular size, crouch, stance angle, etc. But that calibration is only done once (at the beginning of the at bat), and it's done by...a human being, just like the umpires. And often, this operator, while he may know the system, doesn't understand the game of baseball.
So the umpires' beef is not that they don't want to be evaluated, it's just a question of whether the measuring stick is really doing a better job than they can do standing right behind the plate.
Belloc
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Re:Right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
These machines will never replace actual human umpires. Traditionalists like myself would launch a Butlerian jihad before that were to happen.
What good I think can come of this is the absolute lunacy of umpires with different strike zones. The actual strike zone as described in the rules hasn't been called in decades. If this system can force umpires to call close to the real zone instead of their "personal"
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Seems like this QuesTec company is just trying to turn a profit in the anemic American technology sector.
Re:Right... (Score:2)
No.
Seems like nothing's sacred, these days. (Score:3, Interesting)
Cool but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cool but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cool but... (Score:5, Funny)
Frustrated Schilling smashes QuesTec machine [cnn.com].
And the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the average pay for an ump is well over $100k. I'm not talking about your little league ump, I'm talking about the "Big Boys", the major league umpires.
It's hilarious reading the article with this in mind, with the machine doing the same job better and the umps jumping up and down crying foul. Of COURSE they don't want these machines. They'd lose their Lexus.
Just something to think about.
Re:And the reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Informative)
"NEW YORK (9/5/00) _ Umpires will get raises of 10.2 percent to 14.9 percent this year under their new five-year contract, boosting the minimum salary this season to $104,704 and the maximum to $324,545. In 2004, the contract's final season, the minimum will be $108,716, up 14.4 percent from the $95,000 minimum in 1999, the final year of the old contract."
(from: http://www.umpire.org/frames/fmlb.html)
Well, I'm in full support of robots replacing them.
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the reason... (Score:2)
But, um, what else to umps do?
Taxpayer involvement (Score:3, Informative)
Given that taxpayers typically paid for the useless-almost-every-day-of-the-year giant ballpark in which umpires "work", it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that ridiculously high umpire salaries are made possible by the fact that other parts of the baseball enterprise are financed by taxpayer money.
ASA
Re:Taxpayer involvement (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, the umps make a decent amount, but two points:
1) Their job is difficult, in that they travel for half the year and have thousands of people screaming bloody murder at them every night
2) Although their salaries are nowhere near basball players, if they aren't at least making above the median for an USian/Canadian professional
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the "fat men" standing behind the plate are a dwindling minority in MLB. It takes a lot of hustle to be in the correct position to make a call, especially at third base or in the outfield.
Second, his job is physically dangerous. Why do you think the plate man wears so much protective equipment? Let's see how well you recover from a 90+ mph fastball between the eyes, off the inside of your knee, or (God forbid) a tipped ball that gets by the catcher and goes right off your nuts. Broken bones are a fact of life for any umpire with a full schedule of high-level ball.
Third, his job is mentally and techincally demanding. He must make an immediate ruling on action that occurs in a fraction of a second, and is expected to get it right every time by the fans sitting in the stands or in the their air-conditioned homes, who, btw, also have the benefit of slo-mo instant replay from multiple camera angles. They also must have a complete mastery of probably the most convoluted and counter-intuitive set rules for any major sport.
And just for fun, he gets to be the target of the wrath of the fans for every call that doesn't go their way.
The average MLB umpire does between 130-160 games a year, not counting spring training or postseason assignments. All those games require travel, which puts a huge burden on their families. Most of them spend the offseason training for the regular season, just like all the other athletes. And all of this is after they've spent several years working their way up through the minors, making $1700/month, traveling by bus, and staying in cheap motels nine months out of the year.
Hmmm, I guess paying $300k to someone who has over 15 years experience at their physically, mentally and emotionally challenging job just wouldn't be fair to everyone else.
Now, as far as QuesTec goes, I think it is a usefull tool for evaluating umpire performance, but nothing beyond that.
Re:And the reason... (Score:2, Informative)
Hard to feel like the umps are being overpaid.
So why not robotic players? Lets get people totally out of the game.
Re:And the reason... (Score:2)
Besides, all this machine does is call strikes-- and not appreciably more accurately than the umpires. It can't judge whether someone is out, or properly judge the laws of baseball.
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Funny)
$100K pretax dollars is more than I make in pretax dollars.
Anyone that makes more than me obviously does not deserve it.
Therefore, they should be replaced with robots.
QED
By far the best proof I've ever seen.
*golf clap*
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
I respect the ups more than some athletes. They work hard, get hit with balls, and are highly trained professionals.
Don't go off on umps for making decent money $100K a year is still middle class, they have to travel all over the damn country, and work pretty damn hard too.
The computer may be able to see strikes more accuratly, but they could never replace the umps for the interp of rules, calling out players at base, etc...
Re:And the reason... (Score:5, Funny)
I said the same things in defense of pornstarlets once, but I don't think anyone took me seriously.
Re:And the reason... (Score:2)
That cannot possibly be true. Umpires are well known for how they call a strike zone.
Scouting reports are given to the pitcher about the style of strike zone they will get with a given umpire. And if you watch baseball, you can notice how a high strike will change throughout the game.
It isn't skill, it's choice. Is a high pitch hittable or not?
How high, what angle, what angle did it reach the plate?
Each Umpire has a style, and there are
Re:And the reason... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And the reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Rules of Baseball [mlb.com] are complex and arcane. The strike zone is a mundanity embedded within them. There are nuances on swinging and tipped strikes, plus batters-box infractions, catcher's interference, dead balls, etc.
Few humans understand the Balk Rule; forget about teaching such recognition procedures to a machine.
If the QuesTec system is not testably 100% reliable on called balls and strikes, then the umpires are right, it does n
Re:And the reason... (Score:2)
The Umpires still have plenty to do on the field, so there is no need to cut anyone's pay.
Re:And the reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard. Nobody is asking for any umpires to be removed. Baseball by its nature is a very subjective game, and I don't think that anyone is stupid enough to think that a few machines will do a decent job of evaluating a game played at about 100 miles p
A few words about officiating (Score:5, Insightful)
And they deserve it too. Being a good official is really, really, really hard. I know first hand because I've been an official (different sport but same deal) for a number of years. Major league officials show as much skill as the athletes do. I know because I've been a division 1 college athlete (yes a few of us read slashdot believe it or not) and an official too.
It is damn hard to know all the rules of a game, have them on instant recall, apply them to the situation at hand, and do so correctly and without pissing anyone off. If you do your job right, no one notices you and if you do get noticed you get screamed at, usually by some halfwit who has never picked up a rule book in their life.
It annoys the hell out of me when I see some twit complaining about officials "trying to determine the outcome". Let me get out the cluebat. NO official I have ever met (and that is a LOT of officials) would ever try to determine the outcome of a game. We really don't care who wins. We just want to have a fair contest and really prefer it when one team kicks the crap out the other. Less chance of anyone getting their panties in a bunch over a *game*. If you don't take my word for it, read anything by Ron Luciano [barnesandnoble.com] and you might get the idea. The only thing any official wants is for the game to get over with as quickly and fairly as possible. That's it.
As for the measuring equipment being used. As an official I don't really have a problem with it being used as an evaluation tool. Most officials would welcome a tool to make them better at their job. I would however have a problem with it being used in a game I was officiating. No official wants to be second guessed because it undermines our ability to keep control of a game. People start becoming unnecessarily rough, unsportsmanlike, and generally begin to behave like cretins when they think they have a right to question the judgement of the officials. (This isn't a supposition of mine, I've seen it happen countless times)
Now there are problems when the officials in some sports (basketball is notorious for this) start calling the game differently depending on the situation instead of how the rulebook specifies. That's a problem. But most officials at a high level do a very good job at what is a very difficult job. If they get paid well to do it, believe me, they've earned it.
Re:And the reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
You also don't eat then. On a modern farm, a single farmer can produce as much food as 100 farmers 200 years ago. That means 99% of the population who would have been farmers 200 years ago is doing other things today, such as programming computers, flying airplanes, and doing hundreds of other things
Sorry, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, you'd still need an ump for the home plate tag calls...so it's not like the umpires are going to disappear.
I think the machine is fun for the home-viewing audience, but the ump is necessary for the game. Until you can put in a Johnny-5 to call the game, I'll take my umpires and their strike calls and punch-out flourishes.
Facing your accuser: the American way (Score:2)
There's nothing like having a batter stare down an ump or kick dirt or get thrown out of a game.
In addition to the crowd-pleasing aspect of man-on-man confrontation, there's also the wrinkle that having a batter judged by a machine is somewhat at odds with the entire American way of doing things. Our criminal justice system, for example, gives the accused the right to confront the accuser in a court of law. A lot of Americans believe very strongly in that type of system. I imagine that lots of fans ar
I agree with the umps... Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, with all the money that is in sports these days maybe it is a good idea -- from the point of view of owners, players, and sponcers. I think it takes something away from the fans.
Re:I agree with the umps... Maybe (Score:2)
"I have been programming my entire life and I must say that it is the human factor that makes it interesting. To take all the errors out of programs is to take away something -- and as I have recieved many a bad crash I can't believe I am saying this -- special from it."
The real question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real question is... (Score:2)
Re:The real question is... (Score:2)
Whee, hacking to win (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Whee, hacking to win (Score:2)
Human Element (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like any sport (football, tennis, hockey) there is an element of human error. It's just one of those things that we come to accept.
I'm all for technology that helps to prevent game-changing bad calls, such as instant replay, but I think something like this is better suited for the ESPN analysts and home viewers.
Re:Human Element (Score:2)
However, I personally would like to see the Hawkeye [channel4.com]technology used in cricket, being actually used in match decisions, rather than purely a toy for the television.
How to cheat it? (Score:2)
"But ump, the COMPUTER said it was a strike!"
I mean seriously! (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, I think it'd be an argument on why to KEEP umpires.
Roughing Up the Ump (Score:2)
Why remove the human element? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or even by a working apparatus.
This can go wrong in so many ways, false positives and false negatives along every border of the strike zone. But aside from the mathematical reasons, why take away the human element even more from baseball?
You know one of the most fun parts of playing sports in my neighbourhood as a kid was watching my big brother argue whether something was a goal or not, who was safe or out. It was subjective and it was fun!
Now we have photo radar and cars that will apply the brakes themselves too. Sheesh.
A similar technique has been used for cricket (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A similar technique has been used for cricket (Score:2)
game tradition (Score:2, Interesting)
I for one will miss seeing the coaches run out on the field kicking dirt everywhere throwing equipment yelling at the umpires. Now there will be no reason.
Re:game tradition (Score:2)
That is not the only reason. Aluminum bats make the ball go further, for they have a higher performance factor. Kinda like corking a bat gives the ball a little extra jump on it. Letting pros use aluminum bats would just be lethal. In fact there are many softball bats that are outlawed cause you can hit the damn thing too hard. Do a Google for the Miken II, its the latest to be going
Sand tossers (Score:2, Funny)
Computer UMP: Yes that's what I said a strike.
Computer UMP: Yes that's what I said a strike.
away in the
Heck... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heck... (Score:2)
I'm just old fashioned. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know humans will make mistakes, but questionable/bad calls are part of the game. The small bit of randomness that can have a surprise effect.
As long as the margin of error is as reasonable as it has been.
Yes I have heard all the technical arquements about this, but this is how I enjoy the game. I don't like astrturf or indoor games either.
As a kid I remember watching the browns play in snow. It is assome. There is nothing like watching a quarter back hit a reciever 20 yards away when the visability is 20 feet.
Re:I'm just old fashioned. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah I just love when that "surprise effect" is my team getting tossed out of the playoffs because of a bonehead official (NY Giants vs. SF Niners). Really helps out the game.
"Bad" calls must be reduced to zero. If this is done through electronic means, video replay, more officials, it doesn't matter. Bad calls are horrible for any sport when there are 6 angl
Pitchers are unhappy too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pitchers are unhappy too (Score:5, Funny)
This, of course, is the same Curt Schilling who gave up two homers to a fellow player he abandoned in "Everquest," allowing said player's character to die [go.com].
what the? (Score:2)
If I were an ump I would try to think about where you will be working in the next few years. If these things take off then there will be little if any need for them.
I remember a similiar situation in history books about the time the mechanized assembly line came around and the factory workers were laid off. This is nothing new, just getting applied to sports
I doubt the players like the machines, either... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the major league level, there are pitchers who thrive upon umpires giving them a few inches off the outside corner. With a machine, their pitching careers would be over because now they'd have to throw all of their pitches within a tightly-defined strike zone to get a batter out.
With hitting being so much better than pitching (for most teams) these days, the balance w
Use for all those robot soccer players (Score:3, Funny)
"Bender like Beckham" indeed.
Base Out System Next? (Score:2)
Re:Base Out System Next? (Score:2)
It doesnt seem like it would be that hard using EM fields/very low power radio..
A very simplified explanation:
The ball emits a low power electric current
Each player has a sensor that detects that current
Guy on base catches ball, the ball's current travels through his body.
When the guy sliding onto base touches the 1st guy, the current flows over/thru his body and activates the sensor.
Similarly, the base em
"incapable?" (Score:5, Funny)
However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view.
... instead only giving an accurate 3-D, real-time view.
This stuff will ruin baseball (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the fun of baseball is second guessing the umpire, complaining about a bad call, arguing with your friends about whether or not a call really was bad, etc. Just like part of the fun is seeing whether or not someone is going to hit a home run or strike out, or watching someone pitch, or whatever.
Everyone on the field comes together and interacts in a complicated ecosystem. If they start mucking around with it at such a fundamental level, they're going to break the game more than they already have by their tweaks designed to produce more hits.
Why stop with the umpire? Why not making pitching and hitting robots? Why don't we have modified sony aibo's roaming the outfield, with baskets to catch the balls?
I'm not saying there isn't room for geekery at the ball park. The machines that shoot the hotdogs way up into the stand are pretty cool. But that's the sort of thing that technology should do at a ball park. Leave the game to the people.
Umpire 2003: A Baseball Odyssee (Score:5, Funny)
FIFO (Score:2)
It is an evaluation tool (Score:2)
Umpires don't think they're going to lose their jobs. They're just a bunch of overpaid, whiney biatches who want to be viewed as infallible. They don't want any oversight at all. Some of these guys are making upwards of $400,000 per year.
I, personally, am all for it. MLB probably should have worked more closely with the umpire's union on this (their PR is a
Blernsball anyone? (Score:2)
Learn to use statistics! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there's some stupid science. Hey, I bet I'd call 32% of pitches strikes too, too bad they wouldn't be the right damn 32%. We need to know what % they agreed, not what % they called. For all we know the umpires are constantly making bad calls that cancel each other out. Anyway, it's the close calls that matter more then anything, how many of those calls were totally obvious? I think we need a lot more info before this study means anything.
And yes, I am assuming that the umpires are worse then the machines. That's because machines are better at judging the exact spacial positioning of fast moving things then people-even trained people.
A good example of technology which should never... (Score:2)
If we are going to replace umpires with radar units, why not replace pitchers with pitching machines? And shortstops with Phalanx anti-missle guns? After all, those are "more accurate" than their human counterparts.
Sheesh!
sP
Articles for the Non-Baseball Types (Score:2)
QuesTec not yet showing consistency from umpires [go.com]
A look at the QuesTec system [go.com]
MLB striking out on QuesTec [go.com]
Bad idea in general (Score:5, Insightful)
I argue that most of the time, the answer is no. Sports are not meant to be an exersize in perfection, and there is an element to every sport that involves playing 'outside' the rules. In the specific case of Baseball, for example, a human umpire knows when to call a ball as a strike because the batter is being a dick. Competition can be more about manipulating the human and social factors than about following the rules, and we shouldn't take that aspect out of the game just because we can.
The main lesson of sports is in the officiating (Score:2)
-dB
It's really all a question of "What's a strike?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Now owners are trying to take away that leeway and create a uniform strike zone because they (somehow) think that there isn't enough offense in the game.
What I really like is that not even the MLB follows its own strike zone ru
Players' view (Score:2)
Boohoo (Score:2)
In other news, the UAW has declared that robots are unable to replace humans' unique 3d peception in the construction of automobiles.
Can it do ALL the umps duties? (Score:2)
It can't kick out an arguing manager. It can't decide to take a break if someone gets beaned. It can't yell "Play Ball" when someone is tactically delaying a bit.
It can't confer with the other umps as to the validity of a call. It can't be the impartial inspector and giver of new balls when there is the slightest question.
It can't be an object of derision by the fans when the game is going badly for the home team. Yelling at a camera controlled CPU is futile at best.
If it cannot fully replace a h
Part of the problem... (Score:2)
The intention of the system, however, isn't to remove the human from being the umpire-- there will always be judgement calls (did the catcher tag the runner before the runner touched h
Ahhh Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
The machines won't replace the umpires. That's not the umpires concern. Please stop posting that.
The core of beef on this system is a struggle for control between the umpires union and MLB. Ever since Richie Phillips (head of the Umpires Union) Tried to wrestle control of umpiring from MLB [roadsidephotos.com] the two sides have been fighting over exactly who controls the game. MLB has been trying to get umpires to call the rulebook strike zone and Umpires have been trying to maintain their autonomy (a difficult task after the massive f**kup Phillips organized). Questec is a grading system for umpires and umpires don't like it. Players (Curt Schilling most famously [go.com]) don't like it because they feel it makes the umpires tentative and inconsistent.
So far the system has had no affect [go.com].
The editors are apparently not quite capable of discerning exactly what the story is about or they wouldn't have titled it "Digital Baseball Umpires", which in turn would have kept the slashdot masses from posting random contributions pulled out of their ass. Honestly, do you think that a system which grades strike zone judgement is in anyway a threat to umpiring jobs? Will the strike zone grading system handle calls at the plate? Ejections? Can it call a ground rule double? Infield fly? Seriously people, think about it for about 30 seconds before you post the kneejerk crap that's flooding this story (Umpires == factory workers losing thier jobs to technology? What the hell are you smoking).
Heh. (Score:3, Funny)
I know I do.
The need for consistency. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can make a machine that calls a rule book strike. Not easy and questech dosn't do that by a damn sight that I am aware of ( it does good and in and out but the variance of hitters hights and stances calls for a modicum of human judgement in the grading phase ). But it can be done however I don't know how desriable that would be. Hell the umps in the majors or college havn't called rule book strikes for years. These days for the most part above the belt is a ball and somewhat above halfway up your shins is a strike ( rule book states kneecaps to armpits more or less... forget the exact wording ).
There are inumerable subtle nuances invovled in the whole process of the game that leads to how the strike zone is called and it is a huge part of the game as anyone who actually plays it for long becomes aware of, especially at the higher levels. A mechanical zone would proove benificial in some ways and detrmental in others. It certainly won't stop complaining about strike/ball calls. People will just complain the system wasn't calibrated right, or a system was malfunctioning.
I am not against change. But I am against removing such an intergral and human element to a great game as a plate umpire calling balls and strikes. As for the idea of grading umpires with questech it A) needs to be agreed upon by all involved, not just the owners and B) needs to be universal with a universal calibration instead of the individualistic methods used in the various systems currently. ( ie sensors/cameras can't be put in the same relative locations due to variences in foul territory and avialability of overhangs etc... the systems are also tuned by different people and the settings can vary from location to location ) finally C) all of the systems need to be verified as consistent in what they consider a strike across the variences of hitters hights and stances out to a pretty significant factor which is where right now there is a good bit of fudge factor covered by the system operators.
little league (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that Iâ(TM)m older, I tend to agree with him; at least for the major leagues. But I still think this technology could be well used in little league, where itâ(TM)s hard to find someone to be an umpire, even harder to find one thatâ(TM)s any good. Some would show up drunk, would have some bone to pick against a team who had a player with a parent he didnâ(TM)t like, or simply be idiots.
Whatâ(TM)s worse is the way parents react to calls (even good ones) they donâ(TM)t agree with. I can only imagine how it would change the dynamic of the game for kids if these officiating robots could be made cheaply and be available to kidsâ(TM) leagues.
It wouldnâ(TM)t be without precedent: We already allow little leaguers to use aluminum bats, while the big leagues still have wood. Keep the majors pure and traditional, but it would be nice to see a little technology around to help keep the games fair for kids.
Re:Umpires? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umpires? (Score:2)
Re:A possible tweak? (Score:2)
Re:You guys are WAY ahead of this one! (Score:3, Informative)
For the playoffs, major league baseball adds 2 umpires, one down