turnerfield
Drafted
Jumped the gate
Posts: 240
Likes: 56
|
Post by turnerfield on Jun 28, 2019 16:32:15 GMT -5
I think if we really wanted the robo ump, it would work just fine. Picture nothing being behind home plate except the catcher, and almost instantaneously to when the ball crosses the plate, the ball and strike ticker on TV will automatically tick to a ball or strike. Somewhere, there will be a big ass scoreboard for the players to see this too.
It would actually be cool if each stadium came up with their own robot ump voice so the speaker system can quickly shout out ball or strike to everyone.
My biggest argument against robo ump is the entertainment factor and the drama factor. No more obnoxiously yelling at the TV. No more snickering when the other team gets a horrible call that works out for us. I guess I could run around my house and yell obscenities at the robo ump anyway.
I saw the first two innings of the game yesterday during lunch but should be able to catch the full game tonight.
|
|
|
Post by mauibravefan on Jun 28, 2019 21:39:28 GMT -5
As long as we have inter league play why not have the same rules for all teams no matter where the game is played Every league other then the NL has the DH and we know the players union won't go for abolishing the DH. - its been in there for about 50 yrs so the purity of the game issue is irrelevant on that issue now Got to say I prefer Nick Markakis (or any competent professional hitter) being my DH over having any pitcher hit, you want to talk strategy the best strategy is putting a competent hitter in there instead of a pitcher who really cannot hit The stuff about pinch hitting, double switches anyway is overdone, give me my lineup and let the game play out with competent hitters and move the game on - Universal DH - that is my kind of baseball. I want to see real hitters, not pinch hitters Offense is getting more important than pitching is anyway this day in time. Front line pitching used to be 75 pct or more of the game, when you have SP's going 5 and 6 innings that is not the case anymore. Everyday players and power is the game now - pitchers are just interchangeable parts that get used up after a few yrs this day in time (with a few exceptions) But you gotta have the umpire there for plays at the plate or they all would have to run more thereby losing weight and making Westiedogs compaints even less valid
|
|
|
Post by PABraveFan on Jun 28, 2019 21:47:15 GMT -5
I think if we really wanted the robo ump, it would work just fine. Picture nothing being behind home plate except the catcher, and almost instantaneously to when the ball crosses the plate, the ball and strike ticker on TV will automatically tick to a ball or strike. Somewhere, there will be a big ass scoreboard for the players to see this too. It would actually be cool if each stadium came up with their own robot ump voice so the speaker system can quickly shout out ball or strike to everyone. My biggest argument against robo ump is the entertainment factor and the drama factor. No more obnoxiously yelling at the TV. No more snickering when the other team gets a horrible call that works out for us. I guess I could run around my house and yell obscenities at the robo ump anyway. I saw the first two innings of the game yesterday during lunch but should be able to catch the full game tonight. Where exactly is the strike zone? The corners are stationary points than can be exactly measured. The top and bottom of the strike zone is not. A few inches makes a big difference in high and low calls. How can you tell EXACTLY where a players knees through his uniform to determine the exact bottom of the zone? The letters aren't at the same exact location on every teams uniform. Which letters do you use, the top, the middle or the bottom, some are higher than others, and every team jersey are not EXACTLY the same place on the uniform. Sometime the letters are hard to see at all when a player crouches. How do you make it an exact top and bottom zone? If we're going to be that exact with balls and strikes then the zone must be exactly identified, not approximated, for each player. Unless there is a way to exactly identify the top and bottom of the zone it's difficult to have a robo umpire be accurate. The robo can only call strikes based on a simulated zone. If the zone isn't precise the call won't be either. IMO, using robo umps requires a precision that I don't think we can simulate.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 28, 2019 21:59:19 GMT -5
I think if we really wanted the robo ump, it would work just fine. Picture nothing being behind home plate except the catcher, and almost instantaneously to when the ball crosses the plate, the ball and strike ticker on TV will automatically tick to a ball or strike. Somewhere, there will be a big ass scoreboard for the players to see this too. It would actually be cool if each stadium came up with their own robot ump voice so the speaker system can quickly shout out ball or strike to everyone. My biggest argument against robo ump is the entertainment factor and the drama factor. No more obnoxiously yelling at the TV. No more snickering when the other team gets a horrible call that works out for us. I guess I could run around my house and yell obscenities at the robo ump anyway. I saw the first two innings of the game yesterday during lunch but should be able to catch the full game tonight. Where exactly is the strike zone? The corners are stationary points than can be exactly measured. The top and bottom of the strike zone is not. A few inches makes a big difference in high and low calls. How can you tell EXACTLY where a players knees through his uniform to determine the exact bottom of the zone? The letters aren't at the same exact location on every teams uniform. Which letters do you use, the top, the middle or the bottom, some are higher than others, and every team jersey are not EXACTLY the same place on the uniform. Sometime the letters are hard to see at all when a player crouches. How do you make it an exact top and bottom zone? If we're going to be that exact with balls and strikes then the zone must be exactly identified, not approximated, for each player. Unless there is a way to exactly identify the top and bottom of the zone it's difficult to have a robo umpire be accurate. The robo can only call strikes based on a simulated zone. If the zone isn't precise the call won't be either. IMO, using robo umps requires a precision that I don't think we can simulate. I agree that it would be really difficult or impossible to universally make it perfect, and having said that, I still feel confident they would come way closer than human umps on getting the calls more correct.
One instance would be with human umps, the same guy can call the exact same pitch a strike 50% of the time and a ball 50% of the time just in any given game. The computer wouldn't have that instability.
A big advantage I could see is that players and coaches always claim they just want consistent calls, then they know what to take and what to swing at. And our modern day umps are terrible at that. I would think an initial break in period would create a lot of griping, but as a hitter I would love to have a consistent zone. Give me the chance to hone my skills at recognizing exactly where the zone is always going to be and I'd love that.
|
|
|
Post by Hart's Middle Finger on Jun 28, 2019 22:54:01 GMT -5
RoboUmp-
Sides are sides.... Up and down is the issue but I imagine there would be something they would use to determine it. If an ump can determine it, then so can a computer. The computer would also determine it on a predefined and unwavering set of parameters that do not vary from ump to ump. Then in addition to that, it's consistent application would be absolute.
This is coming from the guy who was absolutely opposed to this as he is most changes to the game. I have now decided to at least be open to seeing how it works in trials at the MiLB level. I am still on the wary side, and I would take a lot of things into consideration before wanting it to be used: Things including even the "feel" of the game while using it.
There has been a lot of extreme views expressed about it that just are not accurate. There is still an ump behind the plate who signals the call almost immediately... I think the exciting "punch out" on a called strike 3 would still be there. For me this is very different than steps to speed up the game... or universal DH. Neither of those two things affects the integrity of the game. What does affect it is a horrible strike 3 call on a batter in the 9th in the middle of a rally.
I'll at least have an open mind about this one, but my willingness to change threshold is still pretty high.
|
|
turnerfield
Drafted
Jumped the gate
Posts: 240
Likes: 56
|
Post by turnerfield on Jun 29, 2019 11:08:20 GMT -5
I think if we really wanted the robo ump, it would work just fine. Picture nothing being behind home plate except the catcher, and almost instantaneously to when the ball crosses the plate, the ball and strike ticker on TV will automatically tick to a ball or strike. Somewhere, there will be a big ass scoreboard for the players to see this too. It would actually be cool if each stadium came up with their own robot ump voice so the speaker system can quickly shout out ball or strike to everyone. My biggest argument against robo ump is the entertainment factor and the drama factor. No more obnoxiously yelling at the TV. No more snickering when the other team gets a horrible call that works out for us. I guess I could run around my house and yell obscenities at the robo ump anyway. I saw the first two innings of the game yesterday during lunch but should be able to catch the full game tonight. Where exactly is the strike zone? The corners are stationary points than can be exactly measured. The top and bottom of the strike zone is not. A few inches makes a big difference in high and low calls. How can you tell EXACTLY where a players knees through his uniform to determine the exact bottom of the zone? The letters aren't at the same exact location on every teams uniform. Which letters do you use, the top, the middle or the bottom, some are higher than others, and every team jersey are not EXACTLY the same place on the uniform. Sometime the letters are hard to see at all when a player crouches. How do you make it an exact top and bottom zone? If we're going to be that exact with balls and strikes then the zone must be exactly identified, not approximated, for each player. Unless there is a way to exactly identify the top and bottom of the zone it's difficult to have a robo umpire be accurate. The robo can only call strikes based on a simulated zone. If the zone isn't precise the call won't be either. IMO, using robo umps requires a precision that I don't think we can simulate. Play the MLB the Show game. They even have the natural umpire inconsistencies programmed into the game. Like someone said, the sides of the plate are the sides. I think you would designate a fixed strike zone for each different height a player could be. A 5'9 player would have a slightly different strike zone than a 5'10 player to accommodate for the height difference. They can program the zone to be as precise as they want down to millimeters. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if it would be better for the computer to measure a player's height when they step into the box based on how crouched or upright their stance is, and give them the fixed zone based on that.
|
|
|
Post by PABraveFan on Jun 29, 2019 12:12:51 GMT -5
Where exactly is the strike zone? The corners are stationary points than can be exactly measured. The top and bottom of the strike zone is not. A few inches makes a big difference in high and low calls. How can you tell EXACTLY where a players knees through his uniform to determine the exact bottom of the zone? The letters aren't at the same exact location on every teams uniform. Which letters do you use, the top, the middle or the bottom, some are higher than others, and every team jersey are not EXACTLY the same place on the uniform. Sometime the letters are hard to see at all when a player crouches. How do you make it an exact top and bottom zone? If we're going to be that exact with balls and strikes then the zone must be exactly identified, not approximated, for each player. Unless there is a way to exactly identify the top and bottom of the zone it's difficult to have a robo umpire be accurate. The robo can only call strikes based on a simulated zone. If the zone isn't precise the call won't be either. IMO, using robo umps requires a precision that I don't think we can simulate. Play the MLB the Show game. They even have the natural umpire inconsistencies programmed into the game. Like someone said, the sides of the plate are the sides. I think you would designate a fixed strike zone for each different height a player could be. A 5'9 player would have a slightly different strike zone than a 5'10 player to accommodate for the height difference. They can program the zone to be as precise as they want down to millimeters. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if it would be better for the computer to measure a player's height when they step into the box based on how crouched or upright their stance is, and give them the fixed zone based on that. You can't program a zone base on height because each player is unique in how that height is distributed and their batting stance. If a player crouches you're then calling strikes at his neck or conversely at the shins with a strike zone determined by height alone.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 29, 2019 12:41:26 GMT -5
Play the MLB the Show game. They even have the natural umpire inconsistencies programmed into the game. Like someone said, the sides of the plate are the sides. I think you would designate a fixed strike zone for each different height a player could be. A 5'9 player would have a slightly different strike zone than a 5'10 player to accommodate for the height difference. They can program the zone to be as precise as they want down to millimeters. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if it would be better for the computer to measure a player's height when they step into the box based on how crouched or upright their stance is, and give them the fixed zone based on that. You can't program a zone base on height because each player is unique in how that height is distributed and their batting stance. If a player crouches you're then calling strikes at his neck or conversely at the shins with a strike zone determined by height alone. I think he was saying make the zone based on how crouched they are or how upright they are. I have been thinking all along that would be the best way to go, but I'm also wondering now if that's fair--if two guys who are 6'5" tall step into the box and one stands upright and the other crouches, is it really fair to give the croucher a strike zone that is 4-6 inches smaller? I think one question to ask is how do our human umpires handle that situation now? I brought this up a month or two ago, I said it looks to me like that strike zone box we see on our TV screen is the exact same size when Ozzie is batting as it is when Freddie is batting. The way to tell is look at how the box compares to the catcher when he's in his crouch. I was going to pay more attention to that but totally forgot.
|
|
turnerfield
Drafted
Jumped the gate
Posts: 240
Likes: 56
|
Post by turnerfield on Jun 29, 2019 13:07:15 GMT -5
^^ I want to pay attention to that this afternoon too and see how the ump generally calls the game while paying close attention to the high/low balls and strikes for different players.
If the ump is trying to account for a player's height and stance, I would think there would be different proration calculations to get a fair strike zone for each individual player. For example, measure out a fixed strike zone for a player who has a stance that is the same height as the player's actual height. Then take another player who has a more crouched stance but is the same height as the first player. Measure the difference between the height when the player is in his stance compared to his actual height. Take the difference and divide by the actual height for a percent. Take the height of the original fixed strike zone and multiply it by the percent to get the number for how much you should lower the height of the top of the zone for the player in the more crouched stance.
That's a basic example and it would get more complicated than that if you keep taking more things into account, but the point is it's pretty easily doable if it's your job.
|
|
|
Post by mauibravefan on Jun 29, 2019 15:15:41 GMT -5
A different zone for crouching stances opens up too many options for a guy to reduce the zone prohibitively with exaggerating his stance.gotta be height alone imo
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 29, 2019 15:27:33 GMT -5
No matter how the standards are decided, players could be individually fitted for a strike zone that would be theirs every time they bat. There could be limits on how much a guy can crouch. When he's being fitted, they could have an electrical shock probe attached to his nutsack with a warning if he's judged to be overly crouching he's gonna get zapped. Now, show us your normal batting stance.
|
|
|
Post by mauibravefan on Jun 29, 2019 16:08:40 GMT -5
Any free streaming available?
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 29, 2019 16:29:12 GMT -5
Any free streaming available? bilasport.com
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 29, 2019 18:02:30 GMT -5
I did get a couple of pictures today--I caught the catcher and umpire in the exact same positions, and the box is clearly longer vertically when Freddie batted than when Ozzie did. It's interesting that I've never hear a word about this before. I even measured the box on my computer screen and it was definitely longer.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jun 29, 2019 18:14:00 GMT -5
McNeill seems to get about the same box as Ozzie, it looks smaller than Freddie's, but it also doesn't give him much credit for crouching.
|
|