The Wall Street Journal Calls Out Umps

[DrungoHazewood]

Oh stop. It's a naive and uninformed assumption to conclude, based on nothing, that getting trustworthy ball/strike calling requires computer-based perception. That's the point, and I think it's mostly Drungo's fault. If he hadn't started with that crap, and acted like anybody who doesn't buy his unsupported story is a retrograde anti-progress knucklehead who doesn't know what they're talking about, then I bet fewer people would have assumed that using computers to call strikes is necessary, when it's actually not necessary. But let's not worry about that. You've asked various questions, and I've tried to answer them, and you mainly seem interested in being in a snit about it. So, howsabout if you get over that before you waste either your time or mine by asking more questions, if you're just gonna take the answer as yet another reason to take umbrage.

So maybe I was a little over-the-top, much like you.

But I've still seen nothing that suggests that we have a real idea of how accurate well-trained umps will be. We have your guesses. And your suggestion that those guesses mean that umps don't need technological aides.

That's possible, sure. But know how they'll judge the accuracy of the trained umps? With technology. They'll have a Pitch f/x kind of system, which is current technology - not some futuristic rocket science fraught with problems and hurdles, and they'll judge the umps against that. The technology will be the standard. I don't see why you have to have the intermediate step. Why go through a process of training umps, firing the ones that don't take to training, fighting the union (including probably dealing with lawsuits), restructruing the whole system of MLB dealing with umps, accepting that fatigue and inattention and free will will lower the accuracy of the system... when you can just use the technology with the current umps to get similar or better results?

It seems to me this is a debate over ease of implementation and accuracy against aesthetics. You don't like the idea of the technology, so in your mind that trumps the many potential pitfalls in your solution.

[byrdz]

Wow the officiating in that Angels-Yankees game last night was legendary.

[RShack]

So maybe I was a little over-the-top, much like you.

I said that you can do it either way, and it comes down to just a preference about how you want to do it. You want robot-umps and I don't. That's what it boils down to.

Wow the officiating in that Angels-Yankees game last night was legendary.

I think we can all agree that the way MLB handles officiating now sucks. It's irresponsible, and there's no good excuse for it.

[DrungoHazewood]

I said that you can do it either way, and it comes down to just a preference about how you want to do it. You want robot-umps and I don't. That's what it boils down to.

That's pretty well said. Robot umps vs. SciFi Channel Jedi mind training.

[RShack]

That's pretty well said. Robot umps vs. SciFi Channel Jedi mind training.

You just can't help yourself, can you...