What Umpires Get Wrong

[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]

No I wouldn’t feel different. That’s effectively the same thing and what it really actually allows is the jump to computer anyway because the umpires will be even more castigated if the sportwriters or commentators feel that the umpire’s “judgement” was unwarranted because the computer said different. The entire point to having an umpire is to have their judgement rule. Besides which it effectively does the same thing the computers do, which is take away a large chunk of the “art” of sports–gaming the umpire, gaming the strike zone, gaming the pitcher (or vice versa the batter).

And to somebody else earlier who said that it wasn’t “replay” but would be a real-time call and preserve game-flow, game-flow disruption not the ground I object to the computer on.

[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]

You know, I really hate to sound like an ass, but…so? I got screwed all the time growing up playing ball, my bro got screwed, it happens. It happens even more when you’re talking to young guys with little experience umpiring. Remember its amateur league for umpires too, often kids just getting started even at the high school level it can happen. THEY have to learn as well.

I got hit by pitches, I got screwed on some ridiculous calls, and I struck out…but that’s the game. That’s WHY I LOVE IT. I don’t hold it against them now because they were only a few years older than me and immature. I saw people I was paired up with as an umpire make really shitty calls. I had to deal with that as an umpire too.

[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]

Like button needed hahaha

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

They are, and I’m critical of some of them too. However I do understand that there are serious health issues at play so it is much more understandable

[quote]Aggv wrote:

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 … [/quote]

Ditto. It really truly is a game within a game, and a LOT of time is spent coaching on this in the upper echelons of the sport, even down to some jr. high school tournament teams. Catchers are coached repeatedly on framing the ball, framing the catch, how to shift body position…pitchers coached relentlessly on how to deliver, how to work the zone, how to test and adapt and how to trick batters.

It is the very core of the game.

I could see this technology being useful as an internal auditing process for umpires. If the MLB recorded all pitches in a game, that data cold be used to look back and try to determine a pattern if anything looks suspicious about an umps calling of a game.

It wouldn’t be made public, but if an egregious blown call occurred, they could look at the game, or previous games involving the ump and particular teams/coaches/players to see if there is a history of ‘bad’ calls.

The data could show that the ump has been calling close pitches the same way for both teams and just missed one…or maybe their is a clear bias.

In terms of real time calling or balls/strikes in game, no.

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Baseball has tripled its revenue in the last 10-15 years. I’m pretty sure it’s more popular than ever.