Time for umps to be replaced.

[24fps]

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.

As a tool for improving umpire skills it would be invaluable and I hope it would be implemented in the course of continuing education and skills maintenance. For in-game use specifically for ball/strike calling it would be off-putting and perhaps downright bizarre.

Indeed perfection in not always the answer even if it is achievable.

[tntoriole]

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!"

Totally disagree. If anyone has ever umpired at even a high school level, they soon find that it requires a bit more skill than rubbing up the balls. The skill set of major league umpires can be maligned and discounted by those who have no idea how difficult an art it is, but those are likely the same fans who expect players to always succeed and are hyper critical when they do not. The only redeeming value thus far in replays are how good the umpires are in the vast majority of split second, extremely fast, highly pressured calls. Everyone who bashes the umpires should try it sometime at a Little League level and see just how simple it is.

[The Wedge]

Totally disagree. If anyone has ever umpired at even a high school level, they soon find that it requires a bit more skill than rubbing up the balls. The skill set of major league umpires can be maligned and discounted by those who have no idea how difficult an art it is, but those are likely the same fans who expect players to always succeed and are hyper critical when they do not. The only redeeming value thus far in replays are how good the umpires are in the vast majority of split second, extremely fast, highly pressured calls. Everyone who bashes the umpires should try it sometime at a Little League level and see just how simple it is.

I got a few people to laugh at the game the other day by yelling after a close call "come on, ump, you only have 80 jobs to do!"

[allquixotic]

Totally disagree. If anyone has ever umpired at even a high school level, they soon find that it requires a bit more skill than rubbing up the balls. The skill set of major league umpires can be maligned and discounted by those who have no idea how difficult an art it is, but those are likely the same fans who expect players to always succeed and are hyper critical when they do not. The only redeeming value thus far in replays are how good the umpires are in the vast majority of split second, extremely fast, highly pressured calls. Everyone who bashes the umpires should try it sometime at a Little League level and see just how simple it is.

Thanks for validating my point. Yes, it's incredible that umps manage to be AS consistent as they are (which isn't very...) considering they're just human. However, I never claimed I could be a better ump than the ones we have. Indeed, the MLB umps are probably world class in the ability they have. But that's all irrelevant.

Why would you want a game that's called fairly only 95-97% of the time (or whatever the metric is) rather than 100% of the time? That's the point. No ump can be perfect, and we're not asking them to be. We're saying, let a computer make the calls correctly 100% of the time, and if the umps don't want to lose their jobs, we can let them stay on the field for the purpose of relaying the call from the computer, using e.g. Google Glass or a headset, as some other people have suggested.

Making this change doesn't take the human element out of the game in the slightest, because the game is still played by humans. I agree it WOULD be pointless if the game were actually played by robots or computer. All I'm saying is, umps were useful and important in their time, but now we can effectively remove their control over the game to make it fairer and more consistent, so why don't we go ahead and do that?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[El Gordo]

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?

Always found this guy highly entertaining. He's made more movies than Joe West:

[joedogg9999]

I hear you. But when the umps call strike three on.a obvious.ball, there is a problem. And.it.happens alot.

I blame the ump for Flaherty striking out and Weeks DP also.

Next year they will allow managers to challenge strikeouts.

Not to mention...what about when a ump has a consistant strike zone all game long. Then decides to make it bigger or smaller later in the game. That's not fair for hitters who have been trying to figure out the strike zone. They finally think they got it, then boom, a pitch at the ankles becomes a strike.

The human element is what makes the pitcher hitter dynamic the best thing in sports. Lets not bring robots into this. All this will do is make things way easier for hitters and run scoring will skyrocket

[joedogg9999]

Thanks for validating my point. Yes, it's incredible that umps manage to be AS consistent as they are (which isn't very...) considering they're just human. However, I never claimed I could be a better ump than the ones we have. Indeed, the MLB umps are probably world class in the ability they have. But that's all irrelevant.

Why would you want a game that's called fairly only 95-97% of the time (or whatever the metric is) rather than 100% of the time? That's the point. No ump can be perfect, and we're not asking them to be. We're saying, let a computer make the calls correctly 100% of the time, and if the umps don't want to lose their jobs, we can let them stay on the field for the purpose of relaying the call from the computer, using e.g. Google Glass or a headset, as some other people have suggested.

Making this change doesn't take the human element out of the game in the slightest, because the game is still played by humans. I agree it WOULD be pointless if the game were actually played by robots or computer. All I'm saying is, umps were useful and important in their time, but now we can effectively remove their control over the game to make it fairer and more consistent, so why don't we go ahead and do that?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The appeal to baseball is its charm. The drama, the history, the imperfections. The more robots put in the game the less of all that what makes baseball special you have.

[24fps]

Always found this guy highly entertaining. He's made more movies than Joe West:

He's better looking too.

[PA724_Oriole]

The human element is what makes the pitcher hitter dynamic the best thing in sports. Lets not bring robots into this. All this will do is make things way easier for hitters and run scoring will skyrocket

Then pitchers will have to get better.

What about players who get tossed for arguing balls and strikes and they are actually right?

An ump can give someone the boot twice without any repercussions when in fact they were wrong on both points. How is that fair?

[El Gordo]

He's better looking too.

Maybe we should dress Joe up in a rubber Robby suit when he goes behind the plate and let him announce the pitch fx results, or better yet sing them. That would sure be entertaining. Or maybe let the booming voice of the HAL computer come over the PA system saying,"Sorry Joe, but you were mistaken, that was a strike".

[russ snyder]

Then pitchers will have to get better.

What about players who get tossed for arguing balls and strikes and they are actually right?

An ump can give someone the boot twice without any repercussions when in fact they were wrong on both points. How is that fair?

Technically, a player, coach, or manager is not allowed to argue balls and strikes. It is and has always been punishable by ejection. It does not matter if the players or fans think that they are right in arguing the ball/strike call.

[tntoriole]

Thanks for validating my point. Yes, it's incredible that umps manage to be AS consistent as they are (which isn't very...) considering they're just human. However, I never claimed I could be a better ump than the ones we have. Indeed, the MLB umps are probably world class in the ability they have. But that's all irrelevant.

Why would you want a game that's called fairly only 95-97% of the time (or whatever the metric is) rather than 100% of the time? That's the point. No ump can be perfect, and we're not asking them to be. We're saying, let a computer make the calls correctly 100% of the time, and if the umps don't want to lose their jobs, we can let them stay on the field for the purpose of relaying the call from the computer, using e.g. Google Glass or a headset, as some other people have suggested.

Making this change doesn't take the human element out of the game in the slightest, because the game is still played by humans. I agree it WOULD be pointless if the game were actually played by robots or computer. All I'm saying is, umps were useful and important in their time, but now we can effectively remove their control over the game to make it fairer and more consistent, so why don't we go ahead and do that?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Yes, that same 100 percent consistent technology that locks up millions of times a day, that goes down regularly, that leads me down the dumbest routes ever when driving, that cant even stream a video correctly half the time. Thousands of people waiting while there is a Windows hourglass spinning or a message that the software needs a JAVA update. Nope, I don't want technology driving my car for me and I don't want technology inserted in the heart of the game.

Oh, and, then there is this guy...[video=youtube_share;qSWWsadXzq8]

[allquixotic]

Yes, that same 100 percent consistent technology that locks up millions of times a day, that goes down regularly, that leads me down the dumbest routes ever when driving, that cant even stream a video correctly half the time. Thousands of people waiting while there is a Windows hourglass spinning or a message that the software needs a JAVA update. Nope, I don't want technology driving my car for me and I don't want technology inserted in the heart of the game.

Oh, and, then there is this guy...[video=youtube_share;qSWWsadXzq8]

You seem to be confusing consumer technology with other types of technology (safety-critical systems, aerospace systems, enterprise systems, etc.) Consumer systems are a special case, because it simply isn't worth the company's time or money to test things to the point where they're 99.999999999% confident that there are no defects. If your Windows locks up or you get a Java update, nobody dies; there are very few consequences. The cost of failure is minimal, so they don't bother.

On the other hand, computers run peoples' pacemakers. You can of course find individual cases where software may have been at fault for pacemaker failures, but compared to the millions of them that operated 100% correctly throughout their expected lifespan, the failures are in the noise. Similarly for cars: if you have a car newer than 1997 or so, I can practically guarantee you that the engine uses an Engine Control Unit (ECU), which is software+hardware that regulates various aspects of the engine, from the amount of throttle, to engine braking (if applicable), to sometimes on newer cars, direct injection of fuel into the cylinders with extremely precise timing. Yes, there's the famous Toyota unintentional acceleration incident, but again, compare that to the world's enormous car fleet (52 million cars were produced in 2008 alone), and you have trillions of successful, error-free operation hours compared to a few errant **seconds** of operation for the people who crashed in their Toyotas with slightly buggy ECUs. And that's with dozens or hundreds of different models of ECUs having been independently developed, tested and mass-produced over the 12-15 years they've been in all cars and trucks.

In other words, if MLB's balls and strikes system were developed to similar rigor as your typical car's ECU, it would call a ball a strike (or a strike a ball) about once every millennium. Compare that to today, where almost every single game you can point out at least 6 or 7 different pitches that were clearly called incorrectly, unless you have a super-elite ump who's really on his game and extremely consistent all night -- and that doesn't happen too often.

[tntoriole]

You seem to be confusing consumer technology with other types of technology (safety-critical systems, aerospace systems, enterprise systems, etc.) Consumer systems are a special case, because it simply isn't worth the company's time or money to test things to the point where they're 99.999999999% confident that there are no defects. If your Windows locks up or you get a Java update, nobody dies; there are very few consequences. The cost of failure is minimal, so they don't bother.

On the other hand, computers run peoples' pacemakers. You can of course find individual cases where software may have been at fault for pacemaker failures, but compared to the millions of them that operated 100% correctly throughout their expected lifespan, the failures are in the noise. Similarly for cars: if you have a car newer than 1997 or so, I can practically guarantee you that the engine uses an Engine Control Unit (ECU), which is software+hardware that regulates various aspects of the engine, from the amount of throttle, to engine braking (if applicable), to sometimes on newer cars, direct injection of fuel into the cylinders with extremely precise timing. Yes, there's the famous Toyota unintentional acceleration incident, but again, compare that to the world's enormous car fleet (52 million cars were produced in 2008 alone), and you have trillions of successful, error-free operation hours compared to a few errant **seconds** of operation for the people who crashed in their Toyotas with slightly buggy ECUs. And that's with dozens or hundreds of different models of ECUs having been independently developed, tested and mass-produced over the 12-15 years they've been in all cars and trucks.

In other words, if MLB's balls and strikes system were developed to similar rigor as your typical car's ECU, it would call a ball a strike (or a strike a ball) about once every millennium. Compare that to today, where almost every single game you can point out at least 6 or 7 different pitches that were clearly called incorrectly, unless you have a super-elite ump who's really on his game and extremely consistent all night -- and that doesn't happen too often.

Yes indeed, take me out to the ball game. Where it's one independently developed, tested, pitching control video translation verdict, two independently developed, tested, pitching control translation verdict, three ....oh, the heck with it.

[tntoriole]

And...my grandson will never see or understand what a baseball rhubarb was. Thank you, technology!