Someone put a tent on this circus?! Please

[Thunderheads]

good lord ...................

[ricka56]

A JDAM on it would look better.

[UmpJeff]

Brian Kenny and Eric Byrnes...MLB Network's two biggest TOOLS...UGH!

Unbelievable.

[maven]

Any new technology has to be adapted to its use, and our activities adapt to the technology in a process of mutual accommodation.

Baseball is figuring out how to use new technologies. One of the guys makes this point at about 6:00. Umpires, players, coaches, and fans will adjust.

The old timers will cry about any change at all, regardless of any actual benefit to baseball. Technophiles will be excited for reasons unrelated to improving baseball.

The tricky thing is that the game itself will change in ways that are impossible to predict, making assessment of the new technologies difficult. This issue is not unique to baseball.

[scrounge]

The scary thing is....I think they're more right than wrong. I think we will see some sort of system like this. But even tennis, where they do have similar optic systems, haven't eliminated line judges. It will evolve.

[Lindsay]

FYI, it's a publicity stunt. Eric Byrnes is working the San Rafael "experiment" (which is actually a charity fundraiser) as the strike zone umpire, essentially calling balls and strikes based on what PFX says.

[JHSump]

We would be fooling ourselves to dismiss these sorts of discussions. Yes, there are aspects of umpiring, specifically calling balls and strikes, that players, coaches, and commentators do not fully understand. In the end, umpiring will involve some combination of human input and technological assistance. There will probably never be a time where human umpires are gone. There are too many unpredictable events that can occur and can't be fully judged by machines. As we like to say, sometimes you just have to umpire, and that involves human judgment.

In many ways, the Pitch F/X system is not as close to perfect as these commentators think. And it probably won't take account of all the necessary factors involved in calling balls and strikes, no matter what the technological improvements. For example, consider that the upper and lower parts of the defined strike zone are ill defined, of course. Some human must decide on how to apply the system to those boundaries. In addition, as we all know, there are a whole host of other issues that come into play. Look at the replay system. Even with ultra-slow motion replays some human needs to make a decision, and a set of "new" issues have come into play (e.g., when, exactly, is the ball "caught" by F3?).

Umpires need to be part of this discussion and help baseball by educating the other participants as to the subtleties involved. It may take umpires that have some understanding of the technology. There are some of us with a more than passing understanding of the sorts of technology that might be involved.

[maven]

FWIW, the exact same conversation happened 30 years ago in football when replay was added. No need for officials, blah blah blah.

NCAA major conferences are ADDING an 8th field official this season, and have 2-3 more in the booth, plus alternates. The dirty little secret of our "labor saving devices" is that they frequently make more (though different) work.

[VAUmp]

Is it just me, or does Eric Byrnes always seem like he's on the tail end of a 40 hour coke bender?

[JHSump]

Will the San Rafael game be recorded and available for replay? I think it would be at least entertaining to watch. I imagine most ball/strike calls will be fine, but perhaps slower than normal. Then there will be the times when Byrnes will have to umpire. It would be interesting to see and hear his reaction to the realities of the situation. And, it would be interesting to see the reactions of players and coaches. When the system seems to be making a mistake, how would he judge the result? Guess? Flip a coin? Keep a running tally and give one call to one team, the next call to the other team?  

I thought was funny that one of the commentators suggested that Byrnes should be behind the plate during the game, not in the booth. That would certainly add more entertainment value.

[Umpire in Chief]

Robots cannot (at least at this time) replace umpires. We have too much discretion and judgement involved in our work. 

Yes there could be technology to perfectly call safes/outs on most plays and balls and strikes. But where would that lead us. IMO it would be into the realm of over officiating robots which are completely binary. They would have no read on the situation and context of things happening where we apply our judgement and expertise. And that's actually what we are there to do. How many times have we complained about overly officious partners and how many times have we said some of the best calls are the ones you never make; a robot cannot do that. 

Perfect example, would be a HBP situation. It would be seemingly impossible to load a computer/robot with all the information that we use in determining if it was intentional or not and then still it is a judgement call. Was it truly a bad pitch which plunked the batter, who gust so happened to jack one out of the park earlier and just stand in the box to admire his hit, or was it to send a message???

Balks would be a whole other issue. We constantly say that's an MLB balk, but imagine some of the subtle, innocuous balks which are either not noticed or ignored altogether were being called on a strictly black & white basis. Sure we could program some "tolerance level" as a substitution for judgement, but then you have the issue of how much is too much. A certain tolerance level is fine in situation 1 but could be inappropriate for situation 2.

Finally and maybe most importantly a robot wouldn't be able to be an effective game manager. The subtlety, discretion and nuance that we exercise as umpires is not seen by the public. From a quick whisper to a player to knock something off, to pulling out your line up card to discuss something completely unrelated to a manager or even giving "the look" 

[zm1283]

The strike zone is called closer to the book zone than ever and the zone is more consistent from umpire to umpire than ever before as well. These guys on MLB Network do this all the time to generate discussion and ratings. 

And yes, Byrnes is the biggest clown on there. 

[LMSANS]

Ratings?

[DVA7130]

What a bunch of worthless talk. This is what the whole "get it right at the cost of the game" bs mentality is coming to. I still hate IR and I will talk about it in 60 years still.

[Mudisfun]

So let's take this to the final end game... as it is now balls and strikes can be 'argued' as a judgement by the umpire. If a player gets rung out on a borderline pitch the players, managers and fans get the luxury of flaming the umpire, most of who are faceless to the majority of the crowds.

Remove the human element and where are all of these people going to start placing their ire for a rung out batter on what the batter thought was a ball but according to the computer just nicked the zone by .00001 of an inch? That favorite player who some fan has elevated to God like status in their mind cannot be held accountable for making mistakes so who will become the new scapegoat for the short comings of their favorite team?

Players make serious errors all of the time. They blow plays, they misread situations, they (gasp!) strike out... I don't see the outrage for them to 'get it right' all of the time. Sure some finally get sent down to the minors but if a player bats .300 he is a stud... 30% performance factor. The proportions just seem ridiculous and these talking heads demanding 100% accuracy need to be careful for what they wish for as they are looking to open Pandora's box not just on Umpires but on the game as a whole.  

[basejester]

They're going to have to figure out the low curve ball.  It's currently expected to call a ball on a pitch that travels through the zone but drops near the ground before reaching the catcher. We could see batters move toward the front of the batter's box or the strike zone moved upward.  I hope that we don't see a convoluted rule or a wink and nod like the status quo.  I think it might even be OK to have a two dimensional strike zone defined at the point of home, extending upward and the width of the plate.

 

[BillKen]

It does need a tent...and a band with a big drum!

I don't think it bodes well at all for the game to put this sort of thing in just because of the 24-hour news cycle.  The one and only place where this technology would exist is in the big leagues.  So for a kids entire career, he comes up with actual umpires and learns the intricacies of catching, hitting, fielding, etc based within this system.  Then you throw him into the fire in the big leagues where money drives the car.  If he can't adapt the the new technology very quickly, he loses everything he's worked his entire life for.  Some might argue that it is fair because all players will be expected to do the same thing.  But it changes the game so drastically that it hardly seems right.  It makes the pro game a completely different game in my opinion.  I can't see the players union liking this.  Surely this would be worse than a couple of missed calls a week?

If the new MLB umpires are just overseers, you have to ask how would the MLB Umpire Development Program even exist?  Why would someone do 10 years in the minors learning to umpire the pro game for peanuts, just to then be a screen jockey?  The pay?  Surely they wouldn't need to pay a staff of 6-figure salaries for a video game job?  The current MLB guys are already starting to show the effects of having replay to fall back on.  They don't sell calls hard anymore, they make calls and immediately look to the top step of the dugout, and show no emotion when their calls get flipped by NY.  And finally there is no way MLBUA will back this.

Byrnes is why some mothers eat their young.

[zm1283]

The only other thing they beat into the ground more than this is check swings. It's a nightly discussion on the network. That and Harold Reynolds' unnatural obsession with runner's lane interference. 

[ElkOil]

If you want to introduce machines so calling balls and strikes is more accurate, why not replace the pitcher with a pitching machine to throw more consistent pitches?  Gee, when I say it like that, it sounds stupid.  Oh yeah, because it is stupid.  Removing the judgement from what is a judgement call removes something necessary in the game, because if you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, it would eliminate the need for umpire.  How weird will it be to see this happen, then trickle down to college only to have HS be the highest level of play requiring a human umpire?

[basejester]

I think automatic balls and strikes is a good idea in principle.

[WIUMP]

Brian Kenny and Eric Byrnes...MLB Network's two biggest TOOLS...UGH!

Unbelievable.

Brian Kenny actually made several really good points on this topic. I don't watch MLB Network regularly so I don't know what his usual schtick is. It seemed like he actually did his homework on this and had good responses to the other hosts.

[BillKen]

If you want to introduce machines so calling balls and strikes is more accurate, why not replace the pitcher with a pitching machine to throw more consistent pitches?  Gee, when I say it like that, it sounds stupid.  Oh yeah, because it is stupid.  Removing the judgement from what is a judgement call removes something necessary in the game, because if you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, it would eliminate the need for umpire.  How weird will it be to see this happen, then trickle down to college only to have HS be the highest level of play requiring a human umpire?

Do you really think that every MiLB is going to put in a Ball/Strike machine and have it connected to a central operations center?  I just don't see them putting in a $500,000+ system in place at Bristol for a nightly attendance of 1000 people so that they to improve the accuracy of the umpiring from 95% to 99%.

[ElkOil]

Do you really think that every MiLB is going to put in a Ball/Strike machine and have it connected to a central operations center?  I just don't see them putting in a $500,000+ system in place at Bristol for a nightly attendance of 1000 people so that they to improve the accuracy of the umpiring from 95% to 99%.

Just thinking about that makes my head hurt.

[stkjock]

an added ESPN piece on the topic

I think most of the members here will like the last paragraph at least.. 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/65689/are-you-ready-for-robot-umpires-in-the-world-series

 

 

[Richvee]

I think it;s comments like this that really bother us...I know it does me

"As Joe Sheehan wrote about Nelson in particular after that game and umpiring in general, "They're guessing whether this small object moving at ridiculous speed went through an imaginary box. Much of the time, they guess right. Some of the time, they guess wrong.""

Far too many talking heads, players, and fans think this.  Apparently, a guy whose dedicated his life to calling balls and strikes, learning how to track, etc. is guessing, but the batter knows for a fact what a ball or strike is. he knows for sure...he's not guessing he knows.  Cracks me up.