Do You Support A Technology-Assisted Strike Zone?

[O's are Legends]

CB Bucknor once again showing everyone how awful of an ump he is. Some of his strikes would have been high to Hakeem Olajuwon. Other pitches get a good chunk of the inner and outside corners and aren't called strikes for both starters.

[Il BuonO]

Would like to see that last pitch to Flaherty on the pitch tracker. Looked like an awful call. Think he called one like that to Flaherty on a previous AB too.

Then he had this ridiculous grin on his face, too, as Flaherty looked away after saying something to him about the call. What a jerk.

[BobbyWoontz]

I'd rather support a technology-assisted review booth! Oh-h, wait........:smile11:

[scottbbfm]

If baseball could actually meaningfully hold the umpires accountable by firing umpires who can't meet a certain competence level, it wouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of umpires who do a good job. There's about a dozen who are just awful.

[srock]

Would like to see that last pitch to Flaherty on the pitch tracker. Looked like an awful call. Think he called one like that to Flaherty on a previous AB too.

It was a ball, but not as bad as it looked on TV.

Linky

[Tx Oriole]

If baseball could actually meaningfully hold the umpires accountable by firing umpires who can't meet a certain competence level, it wouldn't be an issue. There are plenty of umpires who do a good job. There's about a dozen who are just awful.

Now you have a good idea. I hope I never see an umpire in the booth checking

a video to see if there was a mistake by the umpire behind the plate. The

manager throwing a red flag because he thinks the ump blew it. That is what

ruined the NFL. IMO

[EddieO'sSC]

Now you have a good idea. I hope I never see an umpire in the booth checking

a video to see if there was a mistake by the umpire behind the plate. The

manager throwing a red flag because he thinks the ump blew it. That is what

ruined the NFL. IMO

Sorry, that is not how electronic calling of balls and strikes would ever implemented. WHEN it is eventually implemented.(It will be, whether in my life time or not. I don't know) It will be real time. No wait or review.

[srock]

Sorry' date=' that is not how electronic calling of balls and strikes would ever implemented. WHEN it is eventually implemented.(It will be, whether in my life time or not. I don't know) It will be real time. No wait or review.[/quote']

The logical way to implement is to tie pitch f/x into a device worn by the umpire that vibrates when a strike is detected. That way the umpire can override if he detects something is amiss.

[EddieO'sSC]

The logical way to implement is to tie pitch f/x into a device worn by the umpire that vibrates when a strike is detected. That way the umpire can override if he detects something is amiss.

Exactly, an example would be if a ball hits in front of home plate and bounces through the strike zone. Imagine the look on a hitters face if a ball bounces 5 feet in front of home plate and he is rung up. Bryce Harper would be worth the price of admission.

[Scrat1]

Nope. Very much against the introduction of more technology in baseball.

I know being against the idea of more technology in baseball is viewed as reactionary and more than a little silly, but I don't care. I'm 28, and not at all a technophobe, nor am I romanticizing a more "pure" era of baseball that never actually existed. But ultimately part of what makes sports so fascinating to me is the interaction of human personalities. The gray area that exists because of fallible umpires adds a lot of drama to the game. To give just one example, with the assistance of technology, Armando Galarraga would have a perfect game under his belt. But Jim Joyce blew the call. After Joyce apologized, Galarraga graciously accepted, which I'll remember more than I would have the perfect game.

To me, there's something slightly puerile about getting sanctimonious about #umpshow and all that. "It's not fair!" Of course it's not always fair.

Ultimately all sports are about so much more than the wins and losses. More technology would definitely help us more accurately determine who was the better team but, in my opinion, it would be a Pyrrhic improvement--the game would lose so much of what makes it fascinating.

[Gurgi]

The techzone is coming. One way or another it is coming. Maybe not now or tomorrow. But it is coming and nothing can stop it.

[El Gordo]

If these stupid umps can't be held accountable, I like the idea of replacing them with machines.

[srock]

Nope. Very much against the introduction of more technology in baseball.

I know being against the idea of more technology in baseball is viewed as reactionary and more than a little silly, but I don't care. I'm 28, and not at all a technophobe, nor am I romanticizing a more "pure" era of baseball that never actually existed. But ultimately part of what makes sports so fascinating to me is the interaction of human personalities. The gray area that exists because of fallible umpires adds a lot of drama to the game. To give just one example, with the assistance of technology, Armando Galarraga would have a perfect game under his belt. But Jim Joyce blew the call. After Joyce apologized, Galarraga graciously accepted, which I'll remember more than I would have the perfect game.

To me, there's something slightly puerile about getting sanctimonious about #umpshow and all that. "It's not fair!" Of course it's not always fair.

Ultimately all sports are about so much more than the wins and losses. More technology would definitely help us more accurately determine who was the better team but, in my opinion, it would be a Pyrrhic improvement--the game would lose so much of what makes it fascinating.

Buck had a great quote last year about the game being decided by the players not the umpires. Basically the perfect counter to this argument.

[Scrat1]

Buck had a great quote last year about the game being decided by the players not the umpires. Basically the perfect counter to this argument.

Yeah, except it's not. It's just a rehash of the original argument. First off, you (and Buck) are providing a false dichotomy. It would only be a relevant example if the teams sat in the dugouts and then the umps went out and flipped a coin to decide who wins. Obviously that's not the case. The players are still "deciding" the game. Game by game, the players are still the primary agents of a game's outcome. Sometimes an ump blows it in such a bad way that it affects the outcome of a game. But then the team that unfairly won it will probably get some calls and games that go unfairly their way. Over the course of 162 games, the odds of the umpire being a significant factor to whether or not your team made the playoffs are not very good. It happens, of course, and the stakes are higher in the playoffs, but Buck's assertion that umpires are "deciding" the games is ridiculous, even if he's just making a rhetorical point.

And all that just goes back to my original point: Buck's comment is about wins and losses. Of course technology is going to lead to greater accuracy. That's obvious. My point is the sport will become less interesting as a whole because it loses a large chunk of the human dynamics that make the sport interesting in the first place. I don't watch baseball just because I want to see the best team win.

It's an aesthetic thing. Sure, Moby Dick would be a sleeker book if Melville had edited out some of his ramblings on whale anatomy, but would it be a better book? No.

[srock]

Yeah, except it's not. It's just a rehash of the original argument. First off, you (and Buck) are providing a false dichotomy. It would only be a relevant example if the teams sat in the dugouts and then the umps went out and flipped a coin to decide who wins. Obviously that's not the case. The players are still "deciding" the game. Game by game, the players are still the primary agents of a game's outcome. Sometimes an ump blows it in such a bad way that it effects the outcome of a game. But then the team that unfairly won it will probably get some calls and games that go unfairly their way. Over the course of 162 games, the odds of the umpire being a significant factor to whether or not your team made the playoffs are not very good. It happens, of course, and the stakes are higher in the playoffs, but Buck's assertion that umpires are "deciding" the games is ridiculous, even if he's just making a rhetorical point.

I would argue the primary point is consistency. We have seen, over the years, the strikezone vary by width and height and between leagues. Recall the 3 extra inches routinely given Maddox and Glavine?

Something can be done about this, so why not do it?

The only argument against is tradition. Which is not enough in my opinion.