Time for umps to be replaced.

[PA724_Oriole]

I also agree with who said it's hard for umps to see the pitches at different speeds and angles. But don't you think umps woild welcome the help?

They already make thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, why wouldn't they want to make their jobs easier if there was a easy accurate way of doing so.

Btw, the Google glasses would be Fn awesome!

I wonder if there would be a delay with that and hire long would it be if so?

[Pheasants]

A few years back they came up with an automated system. The umps rejected it. As I recall. (and I may be wrong), they even rejected the idea of keeping the results secret from teams and fans and just using it to "help" umps get better by showing them their patterns. I think umps right now are too afraid of being shown up ; they would rather look wrong as long as no one could prove it. I would like to see them forced to compare their calls to an objective system so they would learn.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[purple@orange]

Every ump having their own strike zone and not even being able to see a obvious pitche is getting old.

People say this every year in every sport. "I'm sick of the umps, the refs are screwing us, how much did the other team pay the refs, etc."

People assume that anyone can come in and replace sports officials/umps/refs, w/no problem. Remember the NFL replacement refs in 2012? How did that work out?

These guys are the best at what they do, some better than others, some have bad days like we all do at our jobs, because like us, they're human. But they're still 50x better than anyone else MLB can put out there. The Umps aren't going anywhere, their union's protecting them, so let it go.

The one exception might be that fat bloated joke, Joe West. It's not that he's necessarily a bad ump, but he's one of those egomaniacs that think people pay to watch him, instead of the players. I wouldn't mind seeing him disappear

[PA724_Oriole]

People say this every year in every sport. "I'm sick of the umps, the refs are screwing us, how much did the other team pay the refs, etc."

People assume that anyone can come in and replace sports officials/umps/refs, w/no problem. Remember the NFL replacement refs in 2012? How did that work out?

These guys are the best at what they do, some better than others, some have bad days like we all do at our jobs, because like us, they're human. But they're still 50x better than anyone else MLB can put out there. The Umps aren't going anywhere, their union's protecting them, so let it go.

Disagree.

1. No one said replace current umps with other human replacements. We are saying replace by something that could be 100% accurate 100% percent of the time. Or, giving them help somehow.

2. Everyone knows every team gets screwed at some point. Even though ppl say those things they dont always feel that way. It's just emotion talking.

3. Those refs aren't necessarily the best. If anyone of us who had good eye vision could go to "officiating school" and be just as inconsistent as most (but not all) refs/umps.

The problem is (say in the NFL for example) when you have a definitive angle and see the ref looking right at a obvious hold and dont throw the flag, what excuse is there for that? Now obviously you couldn't replace or give to much help to NFL refs, but.you very well.coild in baseball.

Answer this. You would agree that by the MLB instituting the replay and challenge system that they are concerned about getting calls.correct? I would disagree.

They want you to believe that's what they want because adding challenges becomes more intriguing to the fan. But if they were really concerned on getting calls right, they would replace refs with something that would be 10x more accurate.

[El Gordo]

A few years back they came up with an automated system. The umps rejected it. As I recall. (and I may be wrong), they even rejected the idea of keeping the results secret from teams and fans and just using it to "help" umps get better by showing them their patterns. I think umps right now are too afraid of being shown up ; they would rather look wrong as long as no one could prove it. I would like to see them forced to compare their calls to an objective system so they would learn.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

They do this now. They go over every game checking their calls against a pitch fx type system, and are graded. Don't know what they do with the scores or how they effect their performance.

[PA724_Oriole]

They do this now. They go over every game checking their calls against a pitch fx type system, and are graded. Don't know what they do with the scores or how they effect their performance.

If that's the case I don't understand how they can keep the results behind closed doors. Maybe they start coming out as umps retire maybe?

[crawjo]

Every ump having their own strike zone and not even being able to see a obvious pitche is getting old.

It's been that way for at least 150 years, and now it's getting old?

[Il BuonO]

Umps wear ties?

I thought I was the only one confused by the thread title.

[allquixotic]

Disagree.

1. No one said replace current umps with other human replacements. We are saying replace by something that could be 100% accurate 100% percent of the time. Or, giving them help somehow.

2. Everyone knows every team gets screwed at some point. Even though ppl say those things they dont always feel that way. It's just emotion talking.

3. Those refs aren't necessarily the best. If anyone of us who had good eye vision could go to "officiating school" and be just as inconsistent as most (but not all) refs/umps.

The problem is (say in the NFL for example) when you have a definitive angle and see the ref looking right at a obvious hold and dont throw the flag, what excuse is there for that? Now obviously you couldn't replace or give to much help to NFL refs, but.you very well.coild in baseball.

Answer this. You would agree that by the MLB instituting the replay and challenge system that they are concerned about getting calls.correct? I would disagree.

They want you to believe that's what they want because adding challenges becomes more intriguing to the fan. But if they were really concerned on getting calls right, they would replace refs with something that would be 10x more accurate.

I'm with you 110%. It's 2014. We have self-driving cars. I have a $650 phone with a processor in it that has enough computational power to do all the needed calculations to be a home plate umpire. In fact, a modern microprocessor is so powerful that it could land multiple teams of astronauts on the moon simultaneously if it were using similar software as they used in the Apollo missions. With the budget MLB has, you could sling together a whole rack of high-end modern servers and multiply your processing power by a factor of 1000 -- I can't imagine why you'd need all that just to call balls and strikes, but hey, if you need it, here's a hint: if the MFYs "accidentally" forgot to pay A-Rod for 1 day of his salary, it could pay for the entire technology budget for the balls and strikes system.

MLB has an enormous IT budget (just look at MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM); they produce MLB At Bat, At The Ballpark, Franchise, MLB.TV, Gameday, and a slew of other stuff!). MLB likes information technology and they have a lot of expertise in applying it sensibly to the game of baseball. Their camera / baseball tracking technology is world-class (see: PitchFX, excellent instant replay, etc.) They probably have even had outside organizations come to them trying to sell them ready-made home plate auto-umpire systems, or at least the core software/hardware you'd need to implement one.

Baseball is a game about skill, technique, and willpower, all very human elements; but the game has never been about, and never should become about, the umpires. In a perfect world, the umpires would be as invisible as the people who rub up the baseballs with the special mud. I'm fine with umps keeping their jobs, and they can dance around behind home plate all they want and take home a paycheck for it, but I am simply not satisfied with umpires tainting the raw skill, technique, and willpower of the players. When they blow a call, they're bringing undue attention to themselves and detracting from the game. It'd be like if the mud guy put paint or glue on the ball instead of mud: WTF dude, why are you interfering with our game?

Until recently (the past decade and a half or so), we didn't have enough computing power for a system like this to be practical and affordable, so we had no other choice. But this capability has snuck up on us out of nowhere: while the game of baseball has only changed in small increments here and there, the computing world has come roaring in and revolutionizing the world around us. MLB has embraced it in numerous ways, which is commendable, but I think the next step is pretty much inevitable: eliminate the umps for all but the most bizarre plays. Given enough cameras and the right software, any play should be able to be called by computer; but in case of some ambiguity or the computer deciding it doesn't have enough info to make a fair call, it could automatically send an "appeal" of its own accord to the N.Y. office where a human ump can review the evidence and make a call.

I hope baseball moves aggressively towards making the game about human athleticism and talent, rather than a soap opera about umpires' special snowflake tendencies and editorials.

"Join us tomorrow at 1:05pm on the Orioles Radio Network, where the Orioles will take on the Twins for Game 2 in the series. Will the umpires favor the Orioles tomorrow as they did today? Tune in tomorrow to find out. This has been Jim Hunter with Dave Johnson on the Orioles Radio Network; so long everybody!"

[24fps]

If life has taught me anything it's that when emotion stops talking and lack of emotion takes over that's when you should start to get worried - at least when entertainment is the topic at hand. Has anyone contemplated how utterly sterile a baseball game would be on a play-by-play basis with a machine calling balls and strikes?

[AdamK]

Sensors are the future. Put one in the balls, put some in home plate.

Only the umps and MLB get access to what home plate tells them, but the ball sensor could be used to tell teams all sorts real time data about their pitchers. A large percentage of fans would eat that kind of data, and on screen data visualization up. Make that something you can "turn off" when watching the games on your smart HD digital screens.

OR...do away with all technology in the game and, outside of improvements to player safety, keep the game as close to it's original state as possible for historic reasons in an ever developing world.

I could be excited for either.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Malike]

It's been that way for at least 150 years, and now it's getting old?

For the majority of the 150 years it's been that way, the technology didn't exist to show how incompetent they are. People only had their eyes to show them, and we all know how effective the eye test is.

[FlaO'sFan]

And if a consistent strike zone means Greg Maddux doesn't have such a great career, then to hell with Greg Maddux.

Maddux would have been fine. Glavine on the other hand, without the 4-6 inches he used to get off the plate, not so much.

[russ snyder]

If life has taught me anything it's that when emotion stops talking and lack of emotion takes over that's when you should start to get worried - at least when entertainment is the topic at hand. Has anyone contemplated how utterly sterile a baseball game would be on a play-by-play basis with a machine calling balls and strikes?

This is a good point. i have no problem with some of this technology being used to grade the umpires. However, like yourself, to have the ball/strike call being made by a machine or laser light would be the definition of sterile. Players know which umps have a high or low strike zone. and they adjust accordingly. I don't believe that perfection is the answer to the issue. I expect the umps to have a consistent strike zone. Most of these guys are consistent.

[PA724_Oriole]

It's been that way for at least 150 years, and now it's getting old?

I've only been around for 24 and only really.be paying attention since about age 8. Yes, to me.its getting old.