Should balls and strikes be called electronically?

[sylar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't think so. This could be done essentially in real time, and the costs shouldn't be too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could not be done in real time. It could be done kind of quickly maybe, but not real time. Also, those HD cameras they use to shoot sporting events cost $15k/camera. You would a minimum of 3 cameras to pull this off correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right, this sounds too rich for any major league team. negotiating a pay raises with the umpire's union is way cheaper.

[tdarko]

JoA,

Back-door sliders don't hit the front of the plate but often the back part--this is fine b/c you hit an outside pitch extremely deep (almost behind the plate), the opposite being inside pitches you hit in front of the plate. A 12/6 curveball adds to the other dimension, it may be too high at the front of the plate but a strike at the back part of the plate.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They should just take all the stats generated thus far in baseball and simulate the entire season with computers. That way baseball is nothing but statistics and there's no danger of anyone actually enjoying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your grandpa was the guy who thought cars were a bad idea, right? Hey, wtf do we need that for, nothing more fun than walking to work or riding a horse!

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad analogy. The purpose of cars/horses is primarily to get you from A to B. Obviously any technological improvements in this area should be welcomed.

Baseball is not just about efficiency. It's a friggin' game. One with a lot of history--more than any other American sport. Replacing umpires, which are an integral part of the history and tradition of baseball, would just be taking a [censored] all over it. imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

The purpose of baseball is to be played by the rules. Thats why they invented the rules. And the rules clearly define the OBJECTIVE strikezone. All this technology would do would be to provide a better way to accomplish the goal of playing baseball by the rules. Like painting the foul poles yellow or putting that yellow line on the outfield wall so the umps know what is a homerun. These are all advances geared towards following the rules better.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The yellow line, as it stands now, isn't accurate enough. It's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your evidence for this? How can you distinguish between errors of the yellow line, and slop in bringing the chains down the field?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Do you understand how the chains work? There can be maybe half an inch of "slop" in the chains when they're moved, if the official isn't paying attention and places his marker on the chain incorrectly.

The yellow line, as currently implemented, is *routinely* off by as much as a foot.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They should just take all the stats generated thus far in baseball and simulate the entire season with computers. That way baseball is nothing but statistics and there's no danger of anyone actually enjoying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your grandpa was the guy who thought cars were a bad idea, right? Hey, wtf do we need that for, nothing more fun than walking to work or riding a horse!

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah because baseball = social progress. great analogy. now go rate me based on my PECOTA stats or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you bother to nitpick a completely useless part of the analogy? Why didn't you just say "ZOMG baseball has a 'b' in it and cars doesn't, invalid analogy!" Seriously, that is ridiculous. The comparison is about resisting improvements because "thats the way its always been done." I guarantee you there were MANY people who hated the automobile when it was just a new idea for EXACTLY the same reasons you hate this electronic balls/strikes idea.

It was a pretty good analogy. I'm awesome at them.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the nature of the plate, it seems physically impossible to actually miss the front of the plate and catch the back end. That would be the greatest slider of all time, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.. I think I said somewhere there's practically no difference. But then I thought about knuckleballs and big 12-6 curves. My guess it's it's plausible that it crosses the front plane high but drops through the zone.

edit: seems darko already responded to this. carry on

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't think so. This could be done essentially in real time, and the costs shouldn't be too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could not be done in real time. It could be done kind of quickly maybe, but not real time. Also, those HD cameras they use to shoot sporting events cost $15k/camera. You would a minimum of 3 cameras to pull this off correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right, this sounds too rich for any major league team. negotiating a pay raises with the umpire's union is way cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

great use of the sarcastic non-sequitor argument tactic, jackass. this thread is about the strike zone and new technology, not how much to pay umpires.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The little yellow line solution is way too expensive and slow.

edit: and you will still have arguments on close calls about whether or not the ball is touching the yellow line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expense is a dumb objection. We're talking MLB here. They can afford it. And it's only going to get cheaper over time.

Slow is another thing. Are we talking about a system where the apparatus spits out a "strike" or "ball" ruling? Or are we talking about a system where a live person sits in front of a screen and tries to figure out of the ball is touching some imaginary line?

Instant replay as implemented in the NFL, for instance, has made the game unbearable for me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of all the arguments against electronic balls/strikes, the only one which isn't completely 100% terrible is from the person who enjoys the umpire acting as a third agent in the game

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the important argument. The different umpires making players adjust, pitchers and hitters (and fans) getting mad about calls, players getting tossed, different umpire personalities, all of these are part of what makes the sport entertaining to watch, which (in case you've forgotten) is the entire point of sports and of being a sports fan. People making mistakes is entertaining. Blown calls changing games resulting in talk of curses and whatnot, vendettas against teams by umps and umps by players etc, all of this just makes the sport more interesting to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well shoot, why don't we just have all the players spin around with their forehead on a bat before taking the field, there would be way more errors, inconsistencies and mistakes. The point is there are OBJECTIVE RULES to baseball and they are not being followed due to incompetence. I just cannot fathom why this is a good thing.

Can you give me an example of some way in which it is even possible for change to be a good thing in sports, using your logic? ANY proposed change could be argued against by saying "Aspect X is part of what makes the game great!"

[sylar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't think so. This could be done essentially in real time, and the costs shouldn't be too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could not be done in real time. It could be done kind of quickly maybe, but not real time. Also, those HD cameras they use to shoot sporting events cost $15k/camera. You would a minimum of 3 cameras to pull this off correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right, this sounds too rich for any major league team. negotiating a pay raises with the umpire's union is way cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

great use of the sarcastic non-sequitor argument tactic, jackass. this thread is about the strike zone and new technology, not how much to pay umpires.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's also a thread about which technologies are feasible and which are too expensive. i could argue that using an umpire is a technology that's more expensive than some others. ...








jackass.