[quote]Silyak wrote:
I understand that you can adapt to different umpires if you have to, but just knowing ahead of time what is expected is better. [/quote]
Here’s the thing, you have a general idea going in on what the strike zone is (knees to letters, plate to plate), and adapting to the strike zone is an important part of the game.
This push to perfect sports (across all sports) ruins it for me.
Sports will always be more art than science.
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]
That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.
Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.
The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).
That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]
All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.
It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.
[/quote]
I think batting average, HRs, RBI, and on base % will all go up (as well as ERA) with an electronic umpire. Just look at how the game has evolved over the last 50 years. [/quote]
Better and more consistent equipment, better PEDs, and Body Armor.
My question is how much will it go up? We will never know if there is not a test case.
guys I am not for or against an electronic pitch caller. I am just trying to make you guys see both sides of the argument.
I got screwed so many times growing up that it was ridiculous.
[/quote]
I think you’d see these go up quite a bit. You’re taking an entire element out of hitting.
I guess for me the difference is I rarely got screwed at the plate because if it was even remotely close I’d swing at. I guess that’s just how I was coached. I considered striking out looking acceptable and not to tut my own horn (why would I, it’s not like I was some allstar) I very very rarely did.
[/quote]
I was in a game where the umpire was calling strikes 12 inches away from the plate and only against my team. The Father’s told the ump to start calling it correctly or they would all escort him out. Needless to say the strike zone was changed and we won the game by 15.
I was also taught if it was close to make contact. This was a pitch no one could have reached.
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
This is not a bad idea, but if the umpire over rules the google glass then the umpire is deciding who wins and who loses. Not very sportsman like and you run into Las Vegas running the sport.
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
So you’re suggesting that we implement a system where the umpire will know whether it was a strike or a ball but can chose to rule the other way anyways? At least in the current system it’s just an honest mistake on the umpire’s part.
I can see allowing the umpire to overrule the computer if the computer makes a mistake. But I don’t really see a situation where it would be justified for the empire to call a ball when it was in the strike zone or vice versa.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
It is one thing if the ball is a cm outside and it is called a strike. It is another thing if the ball is 5 inches outside and it is called a strike.
[/quote]
That’s true but you rarely see that in a pro level umpire.
Not to mention what YOU see at home from behind the mound is NOT what you see from behind the plate. You can have a ball sliding so hard it was caught 6 inches outside but it skimmed the corner of the plate and is therefore a strike (according to some umpires). But to you it will look asininely wide.
The other thing is, the strike zone isn’t defined as “all of the ball” or “more than half the ball” or “must travel the entire distance of the plate front to back within the strike zone but not including the black border” or anything so specific. This yields–and rightfully so–a variety in how umpires call the game. One ump likes to call the black. Another doesn’t like to call anything if part of the ball is even questionable. Another ump will call it catching a corner of the plate rather than the whole side (this actually does get called quite frequently, and is legitimate).
That IS the point. That is why the strike zone has been left as it is.[/quote]
All the ball has to do is pierce the strike zone at some point by just the red thread on the ball. The strike zone is a 3 dimensional cube. It is larger for tall hitters and smaller for shorter hitters.
It is a standard for all hitters and in the rule book. If the pro’s were so good they would do better than a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball. Take away all body armor and the hitter is at a disadvantage all the time. You have curves, sliders, slurves, fast balls, knuckles, change ups, two seam fast balls, cutters, 4 seam fast balls, splitters, and I probably missed a few. The idea that a hitter can make a split second decision 100% of the time on every pitch even if the strike zone is called by a machine is ludicrous.
[/quote]
I think batting average, HRs, RBI, and on base % will all go up (as well as ERA) with an electronic umpire. Just look at how the game has evolved over the last 50 years. [/quote]
Better and more consistent equipment, better PEDs, and Body Armor.
My question is how much will it go up? We will never know if there is not a test case.
guys I am not for or against an electronic pitch caller. I am just trying to make you guys see both sides of the argument.
I got screwed so many times growing up that it was ridiculous.
[/quote]
I think you’d see these go up quite a bit. You’re taking an entire element out of hitting.
I guess for me the difference is I rarely got screwed at the plate because if it was even remotely close I’d swing at. I guess that’s just how I was coached. I considered striking out looking acceptable and not to tut my own horn (why would I, it’s not like I was some allstar) I very very rarely did.
[/quote]
I was in a game where the umpire was calling strikes 12 inches away from the plate and only against my team. The Father’s told the ump to start calling it correctly or they would all escort him out. Needless to say the strike zone was changed and we won the game by 15.
I was also taught if it was close to make contact. This was a pitch no one could have reached.
[/quote]
Lol, I can picture it!
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I love watching pitchers hit. Especially the American League pitchers in the World Series. It is like they are using chop sticks for the first time.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I love watching pitchers hit. Especially the American League pitchers in the World Series. It is like they are using chop sticks for the first time.
[/quote]
Lol, it can be funny.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.[/quote]
The difference with football is that there are serious health and safety issues.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.[/quote]
The difference with football is that there are serious health and safety issues.[/quote]
What does that have to do with extending the extra point line, adding coaches challenges, or excessive celebration penalties (like no dunking over the field goal this year), etc…?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.[/quote]
The difference with football is that there are serious health and safety issues.[/quote]
What does that have to do with extending the extra point line, adding coaches challenges, or excessive celebration penalties (like no dunking over the field goal this year), etc…? [/quote]
Nothing. But I thought you were referring to all the new contact rules, which IMO are a much bigger change.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.[/quote]
The difference with football is that there are serious health and safety issues.[/quote]
What does that have to do with extending the extra point line, adding coaches challenges, or excessive celebration penalties (like no dunking over the field goal this year), etc…? [/quote]
Exactly. Or how about trying to add more playoff teams, more regular season games, more games over in merry England, trying to add a game on Friday night now too. I know none of those things have happened yet, but it seems like some of them will in the NFL which is a joke to me.
My general feel from reading this thread is that most real baseball fans (let’s say those that will actually watch complete games on a regular basis) are in favour of keeping the umps, and it’s the casual fans or less (those who check out highlights, follow the standings, and maybe watch during the post-season) are the ones in favour of the electronic ump. If that holds true, shouldn’t that really say something?
[quote]IronMaiden144 wrote:
My general feel from reading this thread is that most real baseball fans (let’s say those that will actually watch complete games on a regular basis) are in favour of keeping the umps, and it’s the casual fans or less (those who check out highlights, follow the standings, and maybe watch during the post-season) are the ones in favour of the electronic ump. If that holds true, shouldn’t that really say something? [/quote]
Yeah X2 although I don’t watch as much baseball as I used to I’m afraid baseball is just going to change so much just to become more popular to make more money.
baseball is already making tons of money. It’s not as popular as the nfl, but the nfl’s popularity is largely based on gambling, not the game itself. It’s harder to bet on baseball.
The game of baseball is fine. They should use replay for the objective calls, but balls/strikes is 100% subjective and a game within the game between pitchers/catchers and the ump. If you dont understand that aspect of baseball, and then bitch about the subjective nature of the game you’re just an ignorant hater.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mcincinatti wrote:
To those of you against getting rid of the umps in favor of a standardized, computerized strike zone, would you feel differently if the ump himself wore a camera (I’m imagining a google glass style device) and instantly had the result of the standardized strike zone, but was allowed to ultimately make the call if they “felt” somehow the situation justified a different call? i.e. let the ump make every call but give them the technology to see fixed strike zones, prone to less error.[/quote]
I donno, you’re opening up a can of worms. Should we add cameras to see if a check swing is really a checked swing. It would make the call right 100% of the time, would be lame though.
I guess I’m just a purist, I prefer the game with all it’s issues. I wish they’d get rid of the DH too, FWIW. [/quote]
I agree with you. I’m a purist too and think the game is fine the way it is. I’m not a big fan of the DH either, but probably because I have watched national league ball my whole life.
I feel like football is constantly changing the rules and it is getting worse. I don’t want that to happen to baseball.[/quote]
The difference with football is that there are serious health and safety issues.[/quote]
There are serious health and safety issues with baseball. For one, collisions. For another, a ball traveling between 80-100 MPH that can hit your fucking head. Case in point: Adam Greenberg.
Also, everyone please watch this. It will brighten your day.
[quote]IronMaiden144 wrote:
My general feel from reading this thread is that most real baseball fans (let’s say those that will actually watch complete games on a regular basis) are in favour of keeping the umps, and it’s the casual fans or less (those who check out highlights, follow the standings, and maybe watch during the post-season) are the ones in favour of the electronic ump. If that holds true, shouldn’t that really say something? [/quote]
I was a die hard fan. Used to watch virtually every braves game and go to games a number of times a year. Now I don’t really keep up with it anymore.
There are a number of reasons I don’t watch anymore. Ridiculous blown calls at the end of games is a reason. The handling of steroids really made me fall out with the game though.
I actually just moved and had to sign up for cable internet. My wife asked me if I wanted cable so I could have the ESPNs. I considered getting back into really following baseball again and decided it really just isn’t worth the time. So, take my opinion for what it’s worth.
[quote]IronMaiden144 wrote:
My general feel from reading this thread is that most real baseball fans (let’s say those that will actually watch complete games on a regular basis) are in favour of keeping the umps, and it’s the casual fans or less (those who check out highlights, follow the standings, and maybe watch during the post-season) are the ones in favour of the electronic ump. If that holds true, shouldn’t that really say something? [/quote]
That’s not entirely true. I’m a die-hard but am intrigued by this. I think baseball fades a little more into irrelevancy every year, so something has to be done to ensure future success of the game, IMO.