SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,521
Member is Online
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 29, 2022 22:44:09 GMT -5
Personally I find the idea of robo umps ans an automated strike zone troubling on many accounts. While it is frustrating when a call doesn’t go your teams way, the human element has always been part of the charm of baseball. I think it’s a mistake and it will further anesthetize a sport that is already struggling to connect with fans. I’d much rather MLB proactively remove guys like Angel Hernandez from the ranks than punish all umpires because he is bad at his job. I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up? Why don’t we just employ robotics to play the game then? I am sorry you are baffled Chris, but it doesn’t change my perspective on the game. Part of the allure of baseball at least to me is the conflict of imperfection. I once had a College umpire call “foul side of the chalk” on a double that I hit down the line that hit the actual chalk. Sure, I could have had the double and been happy with it, but instead I got something more memorable than the actual hit. While I may be a software developer I still enjoy some of the more human aspects of life. I would suggest you get out from behind your algorithms and experience what it is like to be a human. The pursuit of quantifying what we see on the field in various stats actually in my opinion is a disservice to the entertainment value of the game. |
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,521
Member is Online
|
Post by shagworthy on Jan 29, 2022 22:54:24 GMT -5
Personally I find the idea of robo umps ans an automated strike zone troubling on many accounts. While it is frustrating when a call doesn’t go your teams way, the human element has always been part of the charm of baseball. I think it’s a mistake and it will further anesthetize a sport that is already struggling to connect with fans. I’d much rather MLB proactively remove guys like Angel Hernandez from the ranks than punish all umpires because he is bad at his job. I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up? Also, to address your tennis example. I submit John McEnroe’s entire career. I don’t know even follow tennis, and I know of him because of his epic battles with line judges. Robot umps do away with Billy Martin’s antics, Earl Weaver’s profanity laces tyrades, Lasorda going apoplectic. I’d rather have all of that than a 4% chance a robot gets the call right versus a human. |
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Jan 30, 2022 0:45:30 GMT -5
We already have instant replay and it has had a profoundly good effect in correcting errors on impossibly close calls. We do not need screaming arguments in baseball or any other sport for that matter. We have strike zone boxes on every telecast. Baseball will benefit when it employs accurate technology.
The human element in baseball is not in called balls and strikes. It is in pitching, hitting, fielding and managing.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,797
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 30, 2022 5:12:23 GMT -5
I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up? Why don’t we just employ robotics to play the game then? I am sorry you are baffled Chris, but it doesn’t change my perspective on the game. Part of the allure of baseball at least to me is the conflict of imperfection. I once had a College umpire call “foul side of the chalk” on a double that I hit down the line that hit the actual chalk. Sure, I could have had the double and been happy with it, but instead I got something more memorable than the actual hit. While I may be a software developer I still enjoy some of the more human aspects of life. I would suggest you get out from behind your algorithms and experience what it is like to be a human. The pursuit of quantifying what we see on the field in various stats actually in my opinion is a disservice to the entertainment value of the game. Why have scoreboards? Wouldn't it be fun if umps just tried to remember the inning and score and sometimes they forgot and we had 2 7th innings? Oh the fun Cora could have yelling about whether the Sox had 6 runs or 7? Why have baseball reference? Let's have each player count their hits and we can argue about the batting champ at the end of the year? We can all take this conversation to unreasonable extremes. Baseball is plenty beautiful without having to fight about knowable facts. We all deal with that enough in real life. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 30, 2022 8:05:10 GMT -5
I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up? Why don’t we just employ robotics to play the game then? I am sorry you are baffled Chris, but it doesn’t change my perspective on the game. Part of the allure of baseball at least to me is the conflict of imperfection. I once had a College umpire call “foul side of the chalk” on a double that I hit down the line that hit the actual chalk. Sure, I could have had the double and been happy with it, but instead I got something more memorable than the actual hit. While I may be a software developer I still enjoy some of the more human aspects of life. I would suggest you get out from behind your algorithms and experience what it is like to be a human. The pursuit of quantifying what we see on the field in various stats actually in my opinion is a disservice to the entertainment value of the game. I wonder if Armando Galarraga feels the same way about the perfect game Jim Joyce stole from him by incorrectly calling Jason Donald safe at first on what should have been the 27th out of the game. Or when the Astros lost a no hitter this past season after Angel Hernandez blew the call that should have been strike 3 and ended the game. The Jim Joyce scenario still haunts him to this day. So as I said before the robo ump will make it easier on everybody. No more mistakes that negatively affects the game for pitchers, hitters and the umps. You are entitled to your opinion obviously but making unreasonable comments like having robots play the game is not reasonable and only does a disservice to the conversation. And telling someone to go out and experience what it is like to be a human is even worse. It's baseball not life. |
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,989 
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 30, 2022 8:44:17 GMT -5
Umpiring is a skill and most umps are actually very good at what they do. That's how they get to and stay in the big leagues. Can anyone name a game that was decided by a bad ball/strike call? The closest I can come is a Braves-Marlins NLCS game in the 90s (must've been '97) [...] I'm late to this discussion, but isn't the answer to this question Sox-Astros 4th game, 10/19/21, when Eovaldi seemed to have struck out the side, but Laz Diaz called what seemed to be strike three a ball, and the Red Sox fell apart and lost the game and the series? Laz Diaz has been mentioned in this thread, but I don't think this question was explicitly answered. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2022 11:47:39 GMT -5
I seriously do not understand this line of thinking. I'm out singling shagworthy out intentionally as my point is that I'm stunned at how often I'm seeing this. Bringing back the tennis example, does anyone here think going to a computer to call the lines has harmed the sport of tennis or its "aesthetic value?" How about soccer and the goal line? How does "there is a human who makes this quantitative call and he might screw it up!" add to the game? Conversely, what baseball fan, when asked what they love most about baseball, answers "there are fallible human umpires calling balls and strikes?" I get being worried about how it'll functionally work, or if there'll unintended consequences, or some other on-field concern, but I do not understand the "aesthetics" argument at all. There's still going to be an ump there. He's going to tell you what the call is. He's just going to be right more often (because they're not going to implement it until he is). I'm baffled by this line of argument and how many people are thinking that way. Like when is the last time anyone other than other umpires (speaking from experience) thought about the umpires at any time other than when they screwed up? Why don’t we just employ robotics to play the game then? I am sorry you are baffled Chris, but it doesn’t change my perspective on the game. Part of the allure of baseball at least to me is the conflict of imperfection. I once had a College umpire call “foul side of the chalk” on a double that I hit down the line that hit the actual chalk. Sure, I could have had the double and been happy with it, but instead I got something more memorable than the actual hit. While I may be a software developer I still enjoy some of the more human aspects of life. I would suggest you get out from behind your algorithms and experience what it is like to be a human. The pursuit of quantifying what we see on the field in various stats actually in my opinion is a disservice to the entertainment value of the game. The entire point of making umpiring better is so that the players on the field are what determines the outcome of the game to the maximum extent possible. Quantifying statistics also has nothing to do with this, so I'm not sure what your point is there. You'll have to forgive me if "one time a college umpire said something stupid and it was funny" doesn't really mean DH to my perspective on how Major League Baseball games would be officiated. The first season I played travel basketball, I think 4th grade, a referee called a foul and allowed the basket based on continuation when the kid took like 5 more dribbles. Hilarious, but that doesn't color how I think NBA games should be officiated. ----- Separate point, if you want to watch arguments over balls and strikes, I get that you're not going to be swayed. As Michael Caine once said, some men just want to watch the world burn!  |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 30, 2022 13:12:48 GMT -5
Umpiring is a skill and most umps are actually very good at what they do. That's how they get to and stay in the big leagues. Can anyone name a game that was decided by a bad ball/strike call? The closest I can come is a Braves-Marlins NLCS game in the 90s (must've been '97) [...] I'm late to this discussion, but isn't the answer to this question Sox-Astros 4th game, 10/19/21, when Eovaldi seemed to have struck out the side, but Laz Diaz called what seemed to be strike three a ball, and the Red Sox fell apart and lost the game and the series? Laz Diaz has been mentioned in this thread, but I don't think this question was explicitly answered. And let's not forget the check-swing call to end the Giants-Dodgers series, though I guess an automatic strike zone wouldn't resolve that issue.
Anyway, if you follow the ump scorecard twitter account, you can see that missed calls play a pretty huge role in game outcomes on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 30, 2022 15:01:14 GMT -5
I'm late to this discussion, but isn't the answer to this question Sox-Astros 4th game, 10/19/21, when Eovaldi seemed to have struck out the side, but Laz Diaz called what seemed to be strike three a ball, and the Red Sox fell apart and lost the game and the series? Laz Diaz has been mentioned in this thread, but I don't think this question was explicitly answered. And let's not forget the check-swing call to end the Giants-Dodgers series, though I guess an automatic strike zone wouldn't resolve that issue.
Anyway, if you follow the ump scorecard twitter account, you can see that missed calls play a pretty huge role in game outcomes on a regular basis. And they shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2022 15:53:11 GMT -5
I'm more concern about pitchers manipulating the strike zone than hitters. Hitters gaining confidence that the strike zone is consistent feels like a good thing to me and would lead to more hitting. For pitchers, I get concerned about them learning how to throw the pitch that hits the very front bottom of the zone but dives down and is optically out of the zone. Or the pitch that starts high but then drops down at the last minute into the strike zone at the very last minute. Something on a lesser scale of how we would throw a whiffle ball to hit the chair in a way that it was impossible to hit. I'm more concerned with the league manipulating the automated strike zone to draw in more fans or to get what they see as more preferred results. I'm talking about when it comes to the majors. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2022 16:04:17 GMT -5
Because there's nothing to be gained from the "human element" of the person there to enforce the rules? I don't get why the "human element" of enforcing the rules is something worth preserving. We're not talking about having robots pitch/hit/catch the ball. We're talking about making sure the rules are enforced properly, and in a manner that doesn't disrupt the game in any way. If the groundskeeper stumbles while drawing the foul line and makes it uneven, we don't shrug our shoulders, leave it, and say "welp, human element!" and enforce the crooked line. So I don't get why we'd actively want to preserve humans occasionally screwing up a strike zone defined in the rulebook. I guess I just like humans.
Humans have been calling balls and strikes for 150 years and we've all loved baseball our whole lives nonetheless.
It's just really, really low on my list of things that could be changed and there's already a program in place to evaluate and improve human strike calling. To me it's not broke to the point where it needs to be fixed.
I also think replay should only be done at regular game speed, not super slo-mo.
If it's not obvious enough to overturn at regular speed, give the ump who was standing right there the benefit of the doubt. That would get rid of those ridiculous off-the-base-for-a-millisecond outs, for sure. But that's a subject for another thread...
We've all loved baseball despite the umps, not because of them. I agree with your last paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2022 16:16:44 GMT -5
One thing I bring up when talking about umpiring. In the 2004 ALCS, the umpires made at least 3 if not more major, major decisions in the comeback. The ARod/Arroyo purse swinging incident, the home run call that Joe West got right and the Dave Roberts steal which easily could have been called either way before replay. They got all 3 right. If they did not, the Red Sox would not have won. We are so lucky that they got it right because replay didn't exist then.
We should not be deprived of something so amazing because the umps made one mistake. And just one pitch call can change the outcome of an entire season. Just one missed pitch call can make a pitcher throw another 25 pitches to get out of the inning, even if it didn't directly affect the score.
|
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jan 30, 2022 18:15:23 GMT -5
One thing I bring up when talking about umpiring. In the 2004 ALCS, the umpires made at least 3 if not more major, major decisions in the comeback. The ARod/Arroyo purse swinging incident, the home run call that Joe West got right and the Dave Roberts steal which easily could have been called either way before replay. They got all 3 right. If they did not, the Red Sox would not have won. We are so lucky that they got it right because replay didn't exist then. We should not be deprived of something so amazing because the umps made one mistake. And just one pitch call can change the outcome of an entire season. Just one missed pitch call can make a pitcher throw another 25 pitches to get out of the inning, even if it didn't directly affect the score. So many good points made on one side of the coin and really none on the other other than a good tangent point about replays calling someone out at second when standing up and being off the bag for a nano-second rather than the play itself being replayed. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2022 18:49:20 GMT -5
One thing I bring up when talking about umpiring. In the 2004 ALCS, the umpires made at least 3 if not more major, major decisions in the comeback. The ARod/Arroyo purse swinging incident, the home run call that Joe West got right and the Dave Roberts steal which easily could have been called either way before replay. They got all 3 right. If they did not, the Red Sox would not have won. We are so lucky that they got it right because replay didn't exist then. We should not be deprived of something so amazing because the umps made one mistake. And just one pitch call can change the outcome of an entire season. Just one missed pitch call can make a pitcher throw another 25 pitches to get out of the inning, even if it didn't directly affect the score. So many good points made on one side of the coin and really none on the other other than a good tangent point about replays calling someone out at second when standing up and being off the bag for a nano-second rather than the play itself being replayed. I agree and I don't like those replays . But I do care about whether he beat the tag before hitting the base and like that replay is used to get that at least that right. Getting rid of the coming off the bag for 1 frame of the video replays can change instead of getting rid of all replays. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 30, 2022 19:19:08 GMT -5
So many good points made on one side of the coin and really none on the other other than a good tangent point about replays calling someone out at second when standing up and being off the bag for a nano-second rather than the play itself being replayed. I agree and I don't like those replays . But I do care about whether he beat the tag before hitting the base and like that replay is used to get that at least that right. Getting rid of the coming off the bag for 1 frame of the video replays can change instead of getting rid of all replays. This is exactly the problem with technological solutions to ambiguities on the field of play, though. Inevitably a technical interpretation replaces a "common sense" interpretation of the rules. For instance, how can you get the "player comes off the bag for one frame of the replay" rule to change? Do you add a caveat to the rule that's like "the runner is out if he is tagged while not making contact with the basee, unless, like, come on, you know?"
I like the idea of only running the video replay at full speed, but then some things will be obvious to the viewers at home (who will see the slo mo replay) that won't be seen by the umpires on the field, and then we're back to a problem like we have now with the strike zone box, where the ruling on the field goes directly against what the tv audience can see with its own eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 30, 2022 21:55:21 GMT -5
I agree and I don't like those replays . But I do care about whether he beat the tag before hitting the base and like that replay is used to get that at least that right. Getting rid of the coming off the bag for 1 frame of the video replays can change instead of getting rid of all replays. This is exactly the problem with technological solutions to ambiguities on the field of play, though. Inevitably a technical interpretation replaces a "common sense" interpretation of the rules. For instance, how can you get the "player comes off the bag for one frame of the replay" rule to change? Do you add a caveat to the rule that's like "the runner is out if he is tagged while not making contact with the basee, unless, like, come on, you know?"
I like the idea of only running the video replay at full speed, but then some things will be obvious to the viewers at home (who will see the slo mo replay) that won't be seen by the umpires on the field, and then we're back to a problem like we have now with the strike zone box, where the ruling on the field goes directly against what the tv audience can see with its own eyes. As someone (1) as a person who has gone to minor league games where I've been able to sit close enough to see the zone, and (2) who has umpired at much, much lower levels, I can tell you that happens anyway. Fans don't get that a good curve is going to look way out of the zone but was in the zone when it crossed. Robo strike zone isn't going to change that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 31, 2022 0:41:06 GMT -5
...and there will be junkball pitchers with outstanding control who quickly figure out how to just nick the corners and game the machine. That's just human nature and technical skill. Batters will have to adapt.
I don't think that changes the equation. The magic box that networks use to highlight the zone is one more example of the force of technology. Viewers expect to be able to critique the calls now. That's at the heart of this change.
Leveraging automation to assist umpires should make those calls less confrontational. I miss Earl Weaver also, but the tantrums didn't do much for the game. They certainly didn't speed it along (I don't miss Billy Martin).
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Jan 31, 2022 14:11:04 GMT -5
Another thing I like about a machine calling balls and strikes is catchers can't con/persuade/influence a machine by setup or framing. To me that's probably the source of half the errors made by the umpires.
In any case this is a curious "debate". I sincerely believe most of the people that are against this change would be for it in pretty short order after it's implemented because it will make the game more enjoyable to watch. Baseball is meant to be both exciting AND relaxing. A dozen bad calls a game makes relaxing harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 31, 2022 15:02:00 GMT -5
One more item that I don't think has come up yet on why we need the robo-umps:
MLB has partnered with Draft Kings and MGM, with I'm sure more partnerships and far more gambling to follow. If the call is missed and we know it was missed, even if it doesn't matter to the outcome of the game, it's causes issues and distrust among the gambling circuits.
The more MLB can assure that their product isn't faulty, the greater revenue potential from gambling.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 31, 2022 19:08:07 GMT -5
To everyone who thinks this tech can only do good things. Is there any concern that we will see more walks ? More walks isn't really good. it doesn't speed up the game and when pitchers can't hit the broad side of a barn, no one is happy.
I just see a situation where hitters get so used to a standardized zone they don't chase. And subsequently, walks become too frequent an occurrence. This is the kind of thing that I have concerns about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2022 21:57:55 GMT -5
To everyone who thinks this tech can only do good things. Is there any concern that we will see more walks ? More walks isn't really good. it doesn't speed up the game and when pitchers can't hit the broad side of a barn, no one is happy. I just see a situation where hitters get so used to a standardized zone they don't chase. And subsequently, walks become too frequent an occurrence. This is the kind of thing that I have concerns about. If this were the case, you would consistently see pitches outside of the strike zone being called strikes on UmpScorecards. The argument being made by many in here is that the umps for the most part call the zone correctly now, so I don't know why you'd see a significant change in hitter behavior. Hitters don't chase pitches because they think the umpire will call a ball a strike. They chase pitches because they've been induced to chase by the pitcher. Might be a bit different with two strikes but I doubt you'd see that kind of effect. |
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 1, 2022 2:08:07 GMT -5
To everyone who thinks this tech can only do good things. Is there any concern that we will see more walks ? More walks isn't really good. it doesn't speed up the game and when pitchers can't hit the broad side of a barn, no one is happy. I just see a situation where hitters get so used to a standardized zone they don't chase. And subsequently, walks become too frequent an occurrence. This is the kind of thing that I have concerns about. If this were the case, you would consistently see pitches outside of the strike zone being called strikes on UmpScorecards. The argument being made by many in here is that the umps for the most part call the zone correctly now, so I don't know why you'd see a significant change in hitter behavior. Hitters don't chase pitches because they think the umpire will call a ball a strike. They chase pitches because they've been induced to chase by the pitcher. Might be a bit different with two strikes but I doubt you'd see that kind of effect. I think the umpires, through the review processes which have been implemented, have fairly standardized zones (in general). But this does seem like a concern that would be larger if this technology had been implemented 20 years ago when there seemed to be more variation from umpire-to-umpire and less pressure to make calls reflective of the standard zone. |
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 1, 2022 8:34:26 GMT -5
If this were the case, you would consistently see pitches outside of the strike zone being called strikes on UmpScorecards. The argument being made by many in here is that the umps for the most part call the zone correctly now, so I don't know why you'd see a significant change in hitter behavior. Hitters don't chase pitches because they think the umpire will call a ball a strike. They chase pitches because they've been induced to chase by the pitcher. Might be a bit different with two strikes but I doubt you'd see that kind of effect. i have to disagree. I am sure they get advanced scouting reports on umpires and if you have really bad home plate umpire on any given night, i am pretty sure that enters in the calculus of whether to swing or not. We'll see what happens, but I would bet my bottom dollar that walks will go up over time. More importantly, I think the game will change in ways that can't be foreseen. That may be a good thing, as the current product is not as exciting as 20 years ago, but the change will not just render better ball and strike calls. The old maxim.....be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 1, 2022 9:32:00 GMT -5
I dunno, it’s a dynamic game. If walks go up due to pitchers losing that outside strike, it incentivizes them to throw more pitches down the middle (or incentivizes teams to develop/promote/sign those kinds of pitchers), which incentivizes hitters to swing more, which incentivizes pitchers to throw more borderline pitches, and so on and so forth. What I’m trying to say is that there are elements of the game that seek equilibrium, which makes me leery of any suggestion that robo umps are going to change the on-field in any drastic way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Feb 1, 2022 13:33:10 GMT -5
Umpiring is a skill and most umps are actually very good at what they do. That's how they get to and stay in the big leagues. Can anyone name a game that was decided by a bad ball/strike call? The closest I can come is a Braves-Marlins NLCS game in the 90s (must've been '97) [...] I'm late to this discussion, but isn't the answer to this question Sox-Astros 4th game, 10/19/21, when Eovaldi seemed to have struck out the side, but Laz Diaz called what seemed to be strike three a ball, and the Red Sox fell apart and lost the game and the series? Laz Diaz has been mentioned in this thread, but I don't think this question was explicitly answered. I agree that Laz Diaz had no business umpiring in the playoffs, let alone the regular season. The current system is designed to prevent that from happening. Should he be hustled out the door faster? Yes. Does that mean we need to just scrap the whole system and install robot umps? Not IMO.
I disagree (and I think any person in the Red Sox org would, as well) that one bad pitch call set the Sox on a death spiral to the end of the series. They were going to lose that series, with or without bad umpiring by Laz Diaz. Let's say Diaz calls that borderline pitch a strike (or even the first ball earlier in the count, which was not even close to borderline) and the game stays 2-2. Does that mean that Martin Perez comes in for the 10th and strikes out the side instead of giving up five baserunners before getting one out? (Also, does it count as "striking out the side" if you intentionally walk someone?)
When I think back to that series, I don't think "Dammit, if Eovaldi gets that call, we go to the World Series!" I think "Man, did our pitching fall apart at the end, not to mention the fact that we scored only 1 run in the last 26 innings and our defense sucked."
I definitely didn't come out of that series thinking that robot umps are necessary, no matter how terrible Diaz is. Do a better job of choosing playoff umps and get rid of the stupid strike zone box on TV (which some broadcasts have already done).
|
|
|
