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.
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Feb 1, 2022 13:56:27 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. Except it's less than half a dozen bad calls per game on average...
I see the argument for robot umps but I just don't see such a radical change as being warranted, considering the current state of affairs and the promise of better calls in the future as umps are graded and the worst ones flunk out.
I'm fine being in the minority opinion (like I was for Chaim offering E-Rod something like 3y/$45m, which is apparently what he did, although on the subject of E-Rod definitely accepting the QO I was wr- wr- wr-...).
I've reached the point where I've already made all of the points I can make, based on the available data, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and eventually see what they really end up doing. If they do go robot, I'll miss hearing Joe Castig commenting late in a game that "Alfonso Marquez has had a really good strike zone tonight... I don't think we've heard a single complaint from the players or either manager... Very consistent..."
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Feb 1, 2022 17:04:58 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. Except it's less than half a dozen bad calls per game on average...
I see the argument for robot umps but I just don't see such a radical change as being warranted, considering the current state of affairs and the promise of better calls in the future as umps are graded and the worst ones flunk out.
I'm fine being in the minority opinion (like I was for Chaim offering E-Rod something like 3y/$45m, which is apparently what he did, although on the subject of E-Rod definitely accepting the QO I was wr- wr- wr-...).
I've reached the point where I've already made all of the points I can make, based on the available data, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and eventually see what they really end up doing. If they do go robot, I'll miss hearing Joe Castig commenting late in a game that "Alfonso Marquez has had a really good strike zone tonight... I don't think we've heard a single complaint from the players or either manager... Very consistent..."
No, it isn't less than half a dozen bad calls a game on average. Here's an interesting article on the subject that details the depth of the problem. link
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 1, 2022 17:19:31 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. Except it's less than half a dozen bad calls per game on average... I see the argument for robot umps but I just don't see such a radical change as being warranted, considering the current state of affairs and the promise of better calls in the future as umps are graded and the worst ones flunk out.
I'm fine being in the minority opinion (like I was for Chaim offering E-Rod something like 3y/$45m, which is apparently what he did, although on the subject of E-Rod definitely accepting the QO I was wr- wr- wr-...). I've reached the point where I've already made all of the points I can make, based on the available data, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and eventually see what they really end up doing. If they do go robot, I'll miss hearing Joe Castig commenting late in a game that "Alfonso Marquez has had a really good strike zone tonight... I don't think we've heard a single complaint from the players or either manager... Very consistent..."
They don't flunk out though. The bad umps keep doing games. It's the young guys coming up who need to worry and hence why they do better. Also thank you for the RHCP reference if that was on purpose. Well placed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 2, 2022 11:19:35 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. They can make whether the tag beat the runner or not be the only thing that is reviewable.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Feb 2, 2022 15:07:56 GMT -5
Except it's less than half a dozen bad calls per game on average... I see the argument for robot umps but I just don't see such a radical change as being warranted, considering the current state of affairs and the promise of better calls in the future as umps are graded and the worst ones flunk out.
I'm fine being in the minority opinion (like I was for Chaim offering E-Rod something like 3y/$45m, which is apparently what he did, although on the subject of E-Rod definitely accepting the QO I was wr- wr- wr-...). I've reached the point where I've already made all of the points I can make, based on the available data, so I'm happy to agree to disagree and eventually see what they really end up doing. If they do go robot, I'll miss hearing Joe Castig commenting late in a game that "Alfonso Marquez has had a really good strike zone tonight... I don't think we've heard a single complaint from the players or either manager... Very consistent..."
They don't flunk out though. The bad umps keep doing games. It's the young guys coming up who need to worry and hence why they do better. Also thank you for the RHCP reference if that was on purpose. Well placed. I thought I was coming in strong with a Happy Days reference... was it also a RHCP reference? Unfortunately I only have a couple of their albums. Need to put them on my list for the next trip to the record store...
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 23, 2022 7:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 23, 2022 11:09:07 GMT -5
This is absolutely necessary. Sign stealing is what is harming baseball the most and it has gotten so good that it's obvious when it happens. I always feel cheated when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 23, 2022 12:04:03 GMT -5
It's pretty cool, but I think it makes more sense for college than MLB. Just a few issues off the top of my head: - Further diminishes the role of the catcher as the pitching coach would be calling all pitches
- This doesn't do much to enhance pace-of-play aside from theoretically removing the occasional infield mound visit
- Some team(s) would attempt to steal the information to login to the other teams' systems and could theoretically steal EVERY signal if the opposing team didn't figure it out
- The access info would have to be changed daily OR they would have to protect the wrist-band with iron-clad security (i.e. nobody leaves the stadium without turning it in) - this isn't as much an issue in college where the team is mostly consistent throughout the season.
Outside of cheating by using technology to steal signs, I don't really see an issue with sign stealing as it's something that has always gone on (maybe that's just me being old though). But my first thought is that this could create far more issues than it remedies. But open to seeing how it goes in College for a couple of years before making a final determination (just not in any rush to see it implemented in MLB unless the concerns above are satiated). If this takes hold in college, but isn't implemented in MLB, is anyone concerned that college catchers with be drafted without the skills to call a game? Edit: As Chris noted below, this isn't much of an issue as it's already uncommon for catchers to call games in college.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 23, 2022 12:10:38 GMT -5
It's pretty cool, but I think it makes more sense for college than MLB. Just a few issues off the top of my head: - Further diminishes the role of the catcher as the pitching coach would be calling all pitches
- This doesn't do much to enhance pace-of-play aside from theoretically removing the occasional infield mound visit
- Some team(s) would attempt to steal the information to login to the other teams' systems and could theoretically steal EVERY signal if the opposing team didn't figure it out
- The access info would have to be changed daily OR they would have to protect the wrist-band with iron-clad security (i.e. nobody leaves the stadium without turning it in) - this isn't as much an issue in college where the team is mostly consistent throughout the season.
Outside of cheating by using technology to steal signs, I don't really see an issue with sign stealing as it's something that has always gone on (maybe that's just me being old though). But my first thought is that this could create far more issues than it remedies. But open to seeing how it goes in College for a couple of years before making a final determination (just not in any rush to see it implemented in MLB unless the concerns above are satiated). If this takes hold in college, but isn't implemented in MLB, is anyone concerned that college catchers with be drafted without the skills to call a game? Points #3 and #4 that you made would never be an issue. They have enough resources to be able to secure it forever easily. You don't hear any problems with NFL teams hacking into headsets. The government has been begging Apple to let them into encrypted iPhones for years and years because it is not possible to hack before the universe ends. And the worst thing that would happen if they did it half-assed? Signs would be stolen like they already constantly are.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 23, 2022 12:21:06 GMT -5
Very few college catchers call games as it is.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 23, 2022 12:30:46 GMT -5
Very few college catchers call games as it is. Thanks (Obviously I haven't followed the college game in quite some time).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 23, 2022 13:06:35 GMT -5
Yeah the relay system makes more sense in college, imo, because you'd have the pitching coach or manager relaying signs to the catcher, who then gave signs to pitcher. This cuts out a step. The main benefit in the pros would be that all the fielders would also know the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Feb 25, 2022 6:02:50 GMT -5
Not to keep flooding this thread with new rule thoughts but I think this is a popular one for peoples opinions. As far as I am concerned based on the graph that shows how Detroit set up for Gallos at bats, practice laying down a bunt or going the other way. You are a professional hitter so adjust and stop being a one trick pony. Just get on base any way that you can, isn't that what modern day metrics is preaching. It is amazing that the stats say it cost him 59 hits last season, if that is the case why wouldn't you continue to shift. And if that is the case then why don't hitters like him make adjustments to combat it. To me it just adds more strategy to the game, why would the league want to minimize that and make play more standardized. The whole "thats not fair" argument just doesn't do it for me. Adjust or fail and quit your bitchen Joey. To me it is great strategy and a willingness to think beyond the way things have always been done and that is awesome. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it is the way things should stay going forward if new ideas prove to be successful. Just like having good pitchers go out and do there best for 3,4 innings rather than the old way of going 9 or bust. Me personally, I had a successful career that I partially doomed by resisting change and not embracing the "new" way of doing things. So I learned the hard way that innovation is inevitable, so adjust or fail is a very real thing. www.audacy.com/wfan/sports/yankees/joey-gallo-speaks-out-against-the-shift?utm_campaign=www.audacy.com%252Fwfan&utm_content=1645736381&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=WFAN-AM&fbclid=IwAR0M46qDIkIT_LMbi4Pv4aF3qNgIk57WwoP1drzIa_lK3CnT4TO3T91mNkY
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 27, 2022 11:46:45 GMT -5
Rich Hill joined the radio booth during yesterday's game with the Rays and was asked about the possibility of using robo-umps. He doesn't like it and said he doesn't want to lose the "human element" of the game.
Anyone who roasted me for using the exact same phrase in opposition to robo-umps is welcome to throw Rich onto the fire with me. Once again, I am proud to be on the players' side of the argument, not the tinkerers'.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Mar 28, 2022 9:50:39 GMT -5
Rich Hill joined the radio booth during yesterday's game with the Rays and was asked about the possibility of using robo-umps. He doesn't like it and said he doesn't want to lose the "human element" of the game. Anyone who roasted me for using the exact same phrase in opposition to robo-umps is welcome to throw Rich onto the fire with me. Once again, I am proud to be on the players' side of the argument, not the tinkerers'. lol This was about as polite a conversation as you'll see, no roasting. I haven't seen any data on what the players think on this issue. Why do you think players favor more vs less bad calls? Or is Rich Hill the voice of MLB?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 28, 2022 19:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 28, 2022 20:21:03 GMT -5
My point exactly. It's not the players calling out for robo-umps or pitch clocks or all the other tinkering that the owners can now enact without the players' consent. It's not the managers and coaches, either. It's people outside the game, like the owners, who I would remind people again, did not become baseball team owners because they know a lot about baseball. They became owners because they know a lot about making money and half of them would change the game to six bases with beach balls and tennis racquets if they thought it would increase their profits. Most of the players have a profound respect for the game and feel honored to be able to call places like Fenway Park and Wrigley Field their workplace. They love the game just the way it is and so do I.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Mar 29, 2022 0:57:34 GMT -5
My point exactly. It's not the players calling out for robo-umps or pitch clocks or all the other tinkering that the owners can now enact without the players' consent. It's not the managers and coaches, either. It's people outside the game, like the owners, who I would remind people again, did not become baseball team owners because they know a lot about baseball. They became owners because they know a lot about making money and half of them would change the game to six bases with beach balls and tennis racquets if they thought it would increase their profits. Most of the players have a profound respect for the game and feel honored to be able to call places like Fenway Park and Wrigley Field their workplace. They love the game just the way it is and so do I. I don`t see how you can have a strong stance when most of what you are saying is speculation on your part. You think all owners are the same and all players are the same. Well I guess only half the owners want beachballs though. Most owners are in it because they do love sports. They are also businessmen. A lot of businessmen are in it for profit, but that is because money is just another scorecard to them. You shouldn`t just dislike someone because they are successful. See what I mean if I speculate about you isn`t it foolish?
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,678
|
Post by gerry on Mar 29, 2022 2:42:01 GMT -5
Nope. Johnson and others have been making the same valid points for ages, and I will add my own: 1. Bad calls average about 6 per game. Not bad. Just a few % per season across the board. 2. Umpire training is now a serious thing with job security and advancement based on documented performance. That % should keep improving, though it is already fairly miniscule. 3. Not a ton of interviews by players or coaches on the matter but they do seem to be against the change. 4. Manipulation by pitchers, catchers, hitters, fielders, coaches has been part of the game for 150 years. Change it now to satisfy whom exactly? 5. Do we really want to place AB’s in the virtual hands of technology? At 175-200 MLB and miLB parks? Really?!? Why!! Too many computer systems regularly, frequently, frustratingly misbehave. Imagine a reboot in the seventh of a tie with two on base? In a nationally televised playoff game?? You know it will happen. Not a doubt. Do we call or protest a game because the roboump messes up? If roboump is related to SIRI or Alexa or a telephonic customer service line, think of the possible fubars. If we think 60 plate umpires can mess things up on a given day, imagine the possibilities with 60 complex computer systems. LOLOL. 6. And with (increased) ticket money that would be better spent, (such as improving umpire training) These are very expensive systems to create, install, maintain, upgrade, operate, resulting in such a small actual (potential) improvement over the course of thousands of games per season. 7. It not only trivializes the human umpire involvement in this historic game, it demeans them and their humanity. Never a good thing in a game played and followed by humans.
.
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Mar 29, 2022 3:07:48 GMT -5
Nope. Johnson has been making the same valid points for ages, and I will add my own: 1. Bad calls average about 6 per game. Not bad. Just a few % per season across the board. 2. Umpire training is now a serious thing with job security and advancement based on documented performance. That % should keep improving, though it is already fairly miniscule. 3. Not a ton of interviews by players or coaches on the matter but they do seem to be against the change. 4. Manipulation by pitchers, catchers, hitters, fielders, coaches has been part of the game for 150 years. Change it now to satisfy whom exactly? 5. Do we really want to place AB’s in the virtual hands of technology? At 175-200 MLB and miLB parks? Really?!? Why!! Too many computer systems regularly, frequently, frustratingly misbehave. Imagine a reboot in the seventh of a tie with two on base? In a nationally televised playoff game?? You know it will happen. Not a doubt. Do we call or protest a game because the roboump messes up? If roboump is related to SIRI or Alexa or a telephonic customer service line, think of the possible fubars. 6. And with (increased) ticket money that would be better spent. These are very expensive systems to create, install, maintain, upgrade, operate, resulting in such a small actual (potential) improvement over the course of thousands of games per season. 7. It not only trivializes the human umpire involvement in this historic game, it demeans them and their humanity. Never a good thing in a game played and followed by humans. . Sorry, I didn`t make myself clear. I`m talking about the speculations in his post. I really don`t care if they robo ump or not. I`m going to watch baseball just as much either way. Just like the DH, I didn`t care either way, and still enjoy the game just as much. The post is not based on facts or opinions like yours. It`s just the "players are like this" and "owners are like that". The majority of the post is just speculating, on what is in whole groups of peoples heads.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 102
|
Post by hank on Mar 29, 2022 9:53:18 GMT -5
Interesting. I think it's true that most people just don't like changes. I think with the umpire vs machine you'll need to use it in the minor leagues first for some time. There needs to be clear evidence of the benefits to persuade people, players included. But what isn't really open to debate is that younger people are not watching baseball as much. The sport is in trouble long term unless changes are made. Younger people are simply not going to deal with 4 hour Red Sox Yankees games. In my opinion it needs to be a comprehensive approach to get these games under 3 hours, 2 1/2 would be better. My personal feeling is after a year or so at the major league level with robo umps nobody would be talking about it anymore, just like in tennis where exactly zero people that watched tennis before no longer watch it because of a lack of arguments over obviously blown calls or because of a pining for the "old days" .
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2022 11:43:19 GMT -5
I bet they would also prefer for umps to not make blatant mistakes that completely alter a game's results, like just one wrong pitch call.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 29, 2022 14:28:33 GMT -5
Looks like this never got posted, but the way they're doing it in the Low-A league that I think is going back to being called the Florida State League now is interesting: www.si.com/mlb/2022/03/14/mlb-rule-changes-robo-umps-pitch-clocks-experiment-minor-leaguesIf instant and not the "go under the hood", wait 5 minutes for an answer-type stuff the NFL and NBA do, this might be a nice way to split the difference so that the important calls that need to be right are the only ones we're really going to the tape for.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 29, 2022 14:33:33 GMT -5
If they're retaining successful challenges, then at least at the MLB level, that is more or less full robo umps. It'd be pretty tough to keep Alex Cora from knowing what the robot will rule on every pitch.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 29, 2022 17:01:15 GMT -5
If they're retaining successful challenges, then at least at the MLB level, that is more or less full robo umps. It'd be pretty tough to keep Alex Cora from knowing what the robot will rule on every pitch. The worst possible robot ump will be 100% better than human umps. Because no matter how bad they are they will give both sides the same strike zone no matter what the circumstance.
|
|
|