What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
I'm wholly in favor of a computer calling balls and strikes. As written up for the "David Price Incident," his home plate ump had a ball-strike accuracy of 83% that game. And while his lifetime accuracy of ~85% is bad, there are a number of umps who are even worse.
Back in the day, we didn't have a better system, so we had to make do with human error. Now, the technology is already doing it for every single game and we just choose to ignore it. In any case, how realistic is it to ask a human to stand in one spot for 3-4 hours, doing something that requires constant focus? I know I couldn't do it. Free up the home plate ump's concentration so he can call safe-out, swings, hit by pitch, foul tip, etc. He has enough to do with that.
I remember when Mitch Williams was relieving for Texas and he complained about pitches so much, there came a time when a perfect pitch was called a ball just so the Rumps could watch the kid implode and eventually he had to be traded out of the league. Some are vindictive and aggressive even when wrong. I would like a ball strike robot but a setting would have to be adjusted for each batter and would probably need 3 different people setting the parameters for high and low with an average or high and low setting thrown out for each batter each time. A 6-7 player would have a different setting than a 5-8 player. It would be controversial in several ways. The settings would still be human and baseball does not accept change very well. My first suggestion would be have a really liberal strike zone so if it appears it is close the batter would know he needs to be a swinging. Right now the batter often sits waiting for the grooved mistake because the zone is so small. It would also speed the game up some. IMO
Good Lord. Love baseball for what it is. We don't need panty waist nerds injecting their half baked ideas into the fray
All for computer umps. Stupid that we don't use now.
Then you are ignorant
In theory this sounds good, Gunnar. The Umpires union would get paranoid, though. They would see this as the first step to eliminating jobs. They may have protections against it, contained within the Umpire Working Agreement (their contract). At the very least, you're looking at strike threats, lawsuits and job actions.
Yeah make it into a union thing
I understand your reasoning on 100% accuracy but I think the human part of it is part of the game. human error gives the fans something to bitch about or cheer for. "hey that ump is giving your pitcher everything and squeezing mine." believe it or not it's a big part of being a fan and probably why we enjoy the game so much. Also adjusting to the ump's strike zone is part of the game.
Been a proponent for computer based ball/strike calls for a long time now. Selig is quitting soon, so maybe the new guy will get modern and understand that fans come to see PLAYERS not umpires. And my proposal would not eliminate ONE SINGLE umpiring job, so the union would have no leg to stand on. In fact, if it was me, I'd ADD an umpire in the booth to quickly review close plays and boundary calls. The home plate umpire would simply be another base umpire, standing off to the side calling plays at the plate, balks, foul tips etc. In his hand he would hold a small device that would make one sound for a ball, and another for a strike all called by the computer. MLB would design software to design the strike zone. The game would be fair since the strike zone is a finite area and not up for debate. Fewer needless, pointless, arguments and in the end a quicker more equitable game.
No. Absolutely not. Never, please God no.
I have no basis for my distain for this, other than that I resent it for every reason that is good and pure in this world. I'm all for technology and replay for missed calls on the bases, home runs, and trapped balls, but balls and strikes would be tinkering too much.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.