Jump to content

Do You Support A Technology-Assisted Strike Zone?


Spy Fox

Do you support the technology-assisted strikezone plan below?  

202 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support the technology-assisted strikezone plan below?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No one in the game has a problem with a consistently called strike zone. As long as it's the same for both sides there's no problem.

Sure it is. You're allowing the judge to write the laws. I think the legislators should write the laws, and the judge sits there and impartially rules. If the judge says a letter-high strike is a ball, or a pitch 8" off the plate is a strike you find a new way to judge balls and strikes, you don't chalk it up as fair because the judge is equally incompetent for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it is. You're allowing the judge to write the laws. I think the legislators should write the laws, and the judge sits there and impartially rules. If the judge says a letter-high strike is a ball, or a pitch 8" off the plate is a strike you find a new way to judge balls and strikes, you don't chalk it up as fair because the judge is equally incompetent for both sides.
Like I said no one in the game has a problem with a consistent strike zone. Just kibbitzers. Do you really believe the interpretation of the law is the same with every judge?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe the interpretation of the law is the same with every judge?

I appreciate the analogy you're trying to draw but I just don't think it's valid in the context of baseball.

The rules make it crystal clear where that zone is, and if any portion of the rules are ambiguous they can be amended so they're not. We're not trying to interpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the context of 21st century technology and 21st century terminology. It's just an invisible box over a plate. If any umpire decides the box is different than how the rulebook defines it, his interpretation is wrong and he is not doing his job correctly. Doesn't matter if it's 125 degrees and three pitchers have died of heat stroke and you're going to be late for your dinner reservations and you're watching a 21-year-old rookie get his feet wet by tossing 89 MPH sinkers in the opposite batter's box in a 25-0 game, it's the same strikezone.

Now I will say this, I don't really blame the umpires for getting calls wrong most of the time, I think they have a job that's often very difficult and nearly impossible to do with, say, 99% accuracy. And I bet most of them are better than me at it. But they need the computer help. I'm so tired of thinking about what-ifs when a guy goes down looking on ball 4 with ducks on the pond. It ruins the integrity of the game when the game is literally decided in ways that do not reflect how it was actually played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the analogy you're trying to draw but I just don't think it's valid in the context of baseball.

The rules make it crystal clear where that zone is, and if any portion of the rules are ambiguous they can be amended so they're not. We're not trying to interpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the context of 21st century technology and 21st century terminology. It's just an invisible box over a plate. If any umpire decides the box is different than how the rulebook defines it, his interpretation is wrong and he is not doing his job correctly. Doesn't matter if it's 125 degrees and three pitchers have died of heat stroke and you're going to be late for your dinner reservations and you're watching a 21-year-old rookie get his feet wet by tossing 89 MPH sinkers in the opposite batter's box in a 25-0 game, it's the same strikezone.

Now I will say this, I don't really blame the umpires for getting calls wrong most of the time, I think they have a job that's often very difficult and nearly impossible to do with, say, 99% accuracy. And I bet most of them are better than me at it. But they need the computer help. I'm so tired of thinking about what-ifs when a guy goes down looking on ball 4 with ducks on the pond. It ruins the integrity of the game when the game is literally decided in ways that do not reflect how it was actually played.

How can it "ruin the integrity of the game" when the game has always had umpires-good or bad? Why not get rid of managers too since nobody "comes to see them"? For some of us, we appreciate the history of the game, we appreciate the Earl weaver and Lou Piniella tirades and we appreciate that teams sometimes might have to overcome adversity like blown calls and we appreciate that major league umpires are talented at what they do. But some people just want beeps like a tennis match or instant replay like a football game....not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the analogy you're trying to draw but I just don't think it's valid in the context of baseball.

The rules make it crystal clear where that zone is, and if any portion of the rules are ambiguous they can be amended so they're not. We're not trying to interpret "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the context of 21st century technology and 21st century terminology. It's just an invisible box over a plate. If any umpire decides the box is different than how the rulebook defines it, his interpretation is wrong and he is not doing his job correctly. Doesn't matter if it's 125 degrees and three pitchers have died of heat stroke and you're going to be late for your dinner reservations and you're watching a 21-year-old rookie get his feet wet by tossing 89 MPH sinkers in the opposite batter's box in a 25-0 game, it's the same strikezone.

Now I will say this, I don't really blame the umpires for getting calls wrong most of the time, I think they have a job that's often very difficult and nearly impossible to do with, say, 99% accuracy. And I bet most of them are better than me at it. But they need the computer help. I'm so tired of thinking about what-ifs when a guy goes down looking on ball 4 with ducks on the pond. It ruins the integrity of the game when the game is literally decided in ways that do not reflect how it was actually played.

To begin with it was Drungo's analogy not mine. Second where have you been? The strike zone has been changing over the course of the last 100 years or so, not just from the various umpires interpretations, but from MLB interpretations. It is certainly not the same one that Bob Gibson had.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take the beeps like a tennis game. Let's go back to 5 balls and 4 strikes too (or whatever it was) to preserve the integrity of the game. It's called progress. If you have the tools to get it right and keep the game moving, there is no reason not to get it right. Blown calls have been part of the game. They've cost teams World Series. Are you guys (El Gordo) against the Homerun revue calls?
I have said I am in favor of the 5th umpire in the booth reviewing the plays on video. I am not in favor of him calling balls and strikes as well. You may struggle to discern the difference there but to me it is obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can it "ruin the integrity of the game" when the game has always had umpires-good or bad?

The game has always had umpires, the game has not always had the technology to make their umpiring better. Now they do. They easily have the money, the technology is there. There's really no excuse not to get it right other than nostalgia.

Why not get rid of managers too since nobody "comes to see them"?

Managers aren't umpires, have almost nothing to do with umpires and fulfill lots of roles besides yelling at them, roles which can't be replaced by technology.

For some of us, we appreciate the history of the game, we appreciate the Earl weaver and Lou Piniella tirades and we appreciate that teams sometimes might have to overcome adversity like blown calls and we appreciate that major league umpires are talented at what they do.

I appreciate those tirades sometimes too, and while I can't speak for Earl Weaver, I have the feeling he's the kind of guy that would just prefer the umpire would get the call right. I remember Bobby Cox saying he doesn't enjoy yelling at umpires or being ejected, it's just what he had to do when he felt the calls were wrong.

But some people just want beeps like a tennis match or instant replay like a football game....not me.

I want the game called as it is played because that's what I paid to see.

To begin with it was Drungo's analogy not mine. Second where have you been? The strike zone has been changing over the course of the last 100 years or so, not just from the various umpires interpretations, but from MLB interpretations. It is certainly not the same one that Bob Gibson had.

The bottom line is, somewhere, it's written down exactly what the strike zone is supposed to be. That's it. The next goal should be putting in place the best possible system to enforce that strike zone. Humans lose to cameras and computers.

If MLB wants to change what that strike zone is, fine, but it should be enforced as well as possible, as consistently as possible. Human umpiring doesn't offer that anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really terrible example.
It's Drungo's example not mine. "I think the legislators should write the laws, and the judge sits there and impartially rules." As someone who claims to be a lawyer do you really think this is the way it works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it is. You're allowing the judge to write the laws. I think the legislators should write the laws, and the judge sits there and impartially rules. If the judge says a letter-high strike is a ball, or a pitch 8" off the plate is a strike you find a new way to judge balls and strikes, you don't chalk it up as fair because the judge is equally incompetent for both sides.
Like I said no one in the game has a problem with a consistent strike zone. Just kibbitzers. Do you really believe the interpretation of the law is the same with every judge?
It's Drungo's example not mine. "I think the legislators should write the laws, and the judge sits there and impartially rules." As someone who claims to be a lawyer do you really think this is the way it works?

"As someone who claims to be a lawyer"? Remarkable.

Clearly there's wiggle room in the application of law to fact. That can be cabined in a number of ways, however - for instance, by mandatory minimums and maximums.

That said, if what we're discussing here is a "difficulty" in applying the "law" (i.e., the zone) to the "facts" (i.e., the pitch) and we have the opportunity to do this more accurately, and more consistently, then we should clearly take advantage of it. The law adapts to new technology all of the time. It embraces all sorts of things that allow the law to be applied to the facts more accurately and consistently. Here, we're talking about a very tightly clustered grouping of "facts" (pitches) that could be relatively easily corralled. In any case, where the law provides an objective or bright-line that can be easily applied, it should be w/o interfering judicial discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As someone who claims to be a lawyer"? Remarkable.

Clearly there's wiggle room in the application of law to fact. That can be cabined in a number of ways, however - for instance, by mandatory minimums and maximums.

That said, if what we're discussing here is a "difficulty" in applying the "law" (i.e., the zone) to the "facts" (i.e., the pitch) and we have the opportunity to do this more accurately, and more consistently, then we should clearly take advantage of it. The law adapts to new technology all of the time. It embraces all sorts of things that allow the law to be applied to the facts more accurately and consistently. Here, we're talking about a very tightly clustered grouping of "facts" (pitches) that could be relatively easily corralled. In any case, where the law provides an objective or bright-line that can be easily applied, it should be w/o interfering judicial discretion.

Typical lawyers waffle, although if you really are one, based on your writing, I would never hire you.:laughlol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law adapts to new technology all of the time. It embraces all sorts of things that allow the law to be applied to the facts more accurately and consistently.

PitchFX, QuesTec, and similar technologies are basically the DNA testing of baseball. A game isn't as serious as a murder but I have no idea why, if the information is there to allow us to call these things correctly, we wouldn't use it. Does it really add to people's enjoyment when we get screwed out of a rally? And even when it's actually bad umpiring that saves us I still feel like it's cheap and stupid. I don't need to keep a tally in the back of my mind of plays and calls the crew "owes" us. It's such a stupid concept, I just want things done accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...