why do they need umpires to call strikes or balls?

Question

can't they use infared technology like motion detectors to call balls and strikes ?

Answer 1

because the sensors would detect a checked swing and call a strike. Lets not forget that the strike zone is dependent on the stance of the batter, which varies.

besides, the ump has to call someone out/safe at the plate, provide baseballs to the catcher, instruct the batter to enter the box, check to see if anything iffy is happening with the pitches (illegal substance on ball), inspect the game ball.

If he's going to be back there, might as well use him for calling pitches.

Answer 2

For all you idiots who keep saying "It's too expensive, the MLB is greedy", take a look at MLB.com's Gameday feature and then hang your head in shame. The technology is out there people, and it's not that expensive.

But the point is that it'll take away the tradition and the aspect of drama. Think about it...a close call at the plate, that split second when the home-plate umpire raises his hands to signal safe or out; it's so thrilling either way after the plays of both the runner and the catcher. Also, generic strike zones will call the same thing over and over again while several umpires give the pitcher the benefit of the doubt should the ball miss the plate by a millimeter or two. That would render location pitchers like Glavine and Maddux almost at a complete disadvantage because they can't work the plate anymore.

Finally, it's mostly the human aspect because whether or not you appreciate how an umpire calls the game, it's refreshing to see a game that isn't so hung up on instant replay, shot clocks, and other "technological advantages" that are just that; technology. It's not 100% quite yet, it still has its flaws. That's why baseball is so appealing; because it's simple.

Answer 3

It would be a logistical nightmare. Do you put sensors in every ball? That gets expensive. Even if the ball aren't hit into the stands, they are damaged more often than any other sport's equipment. The sensor in the plate might be easier, but without a sensor in the ball, the bat or the player's hands could trigger the ball/strike call....inappropriately.

You could do something like tennis does with the computer re-enactments, but how long does that take? Do you really want to add all that time to a baseball game. Last time I watched Wimbledon, it took an extra 30 seconds. Could you imagine a baseball game with 2 pitches per minute? Ugh. The ESPN Strike-zone is cool, but still, you can't see that until after the pitch, which would make the game run longer.

MLB Gameday is out there, but don't be fooled. The same guy who types in the action is the same guy who clicks his mouse on the diagram to show where the pitch crossed the plate. He watches the game, then clicks his mouse. There is no computer calling balls and strikes. Check out the Gameday stuff for a game you are watching and you will see that a pitch that is called a strike, but was actually off the plate, will be placed inside the strike zone on your computer.

I'm not saying never, but it is highly unlikely you will see the umpire bested by computers. Frankly, they do a pretty good job.

Answer 4

Infared, dude I don't think that will call a strike. You would still need someone to tell them if it was a strike or not so jsut use the ump. This is a very stupid question. Good and bad umpiring has been a part of the game since its inception. You ar probably one of those idiots who wants instant replay in baseball as well. What works in other sporst may not crossover to baseball. Think a little before you post something next time.

Answer 5

George, I agree with you.

With all the players and managers arguing with the umps nowadays, and the subsequent ejections that almost inevitably follow, I think the human aspect is getting out of control.

Football, basketball have instant replay. Tennis even uses sensors to determine in's or out's. It is just a matter of time before baseball catches up, but it will NOT happen with the current commissioner.

There has to be new blood.

But if ESPN and the play-by-play guys can superimpose a little rectangle above the plate, that demonostrates that the technology is already there and in place, and has been for a long time.

The games would certainly move along at a better pace. How many managers are going to come out and kick sand at the computer?

Answer 6

The day that happens is the day I stop watching Major League Baseball.

That is infact the dumbest idea i have ever heard of...who came up with that? It sounds like an idea Bud Selig may have come up with. What an idiot.

And MLB better not bring instant replay into baseball. Bud Selig has come up with the dumbest ideas ever. He's just a puppet for the owners. You hear that idea about the first 2 games of the World Series being playing at neutral sites??? OMG what a stupid idea. Money is all this sport is about anymore, i'm glad Joe Torre had the guts to say it publicly too.

Answer 7

This kind of stuff has been a sore spot for me since I was a kid ( I am 36 now).

The strike tracker on the computer and Fox sports are inaccurate because it does not take into account the camera angle down and to leftcenter field. Plus the vertical dimensions of the zone are different for each player.

If you used this for the 30 MLB teams then you would have to develop this for the 220 minor league, various indy leagues and down through college, HS, Pony, LL, etc.

It is a horrible idea (as is replay) because replay has ruined NFL officiating, NBA (only for altercations and end of period shots/clock resets). The NHL with scoring plays is the only one who got it right.

Until you try to umpire even at pee-wee level do not try to make suggestions on how to make umpiring better because you cannot. Sorry to inform you of that.

Answer 8

Hello George.
I see a few of my fellow traditionalists want to lop off your head of declare it empty, yet took the time to post interesting thoughtful answers. LOL. I thank you and them for sharing.

My "take" on having machines call balls and strikes is pretty simple. The machines in use today are there to ensure the umps call balls and strikes fairly. To me, that seems like the ideal application.

You'll still need a home plate ump for plays at the plate and to talk to the batter and catcher (ex: asking for a timeout).
And let's not forget umps are trained to move around the field to get in the best viewing angle for developing plays.

Answer 9

It's a long-standing tradition in an incredibly traditional game. Who would be in control of these machines if they're used? They'd have to be well-maintained or they risk the woes of wear-and-tear.

The implementation of a universal strike zone (machine calibrated) makes pitching too easy, if you ask me. Pitchers can control where they put the ball 99% of the time, and if they knew the clear-cut boundaries, they would do nothing but paint corners, making it nearly impossible to hit. With the human element, mistakes are made, but it makes the game more enjoyable to watch, because there's the added drama.

Answer 10

lots of people feel this way. Not many things, such as rules or the way the game is played are changed, because it breaks tradition. Some people think that the world series should be 9 games, 2 at a designated field, and the rest in the 2 teams respective stadiums, but this will never happen because it breaks tradition.