English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If MLB could properly align Questec or a similar system in each park, would you prefer that to an actual home plate umpire for calling balls and strikes?

2007-07-17 05:13:03 · 15 answers · asked by Craig S 7 in Sports Baseball

Good answers so far, and some strong feelings! Anyone who thinks it's a good idea?

2007-07-17 05:44:01 · update #1

15 answers

Yes, and we can also go to broadcasted simulated games like MLB "The Show"! That would be great.

Of course I'm just messing with you Craig S. Anyways I think too many computers in any sport is a bad thing. The human element is what it's about. There is no emotion in a computer. I love hearing the ump back there making calls during a game. If I didn't it just wouldn't feel right.

It would be pretty hilarious to see a computer toss a Skipper though for arguing Balls & Strikes though!

2007-07-17 05:38:05 · answer #1 · answered by Veritas et Aequitas () 7 · 0 1

I don't think so. By the time that umpires make it to the major leagues, they've probably already umped a thousand minor league games (or more I'm sure). So there shouldn't really be any "inexperienced" umps in the major leagues at all. The home plate umpire sees around 300 pitches per game, and if he only misses 3 or 4 pitches the entire game, that is still pretty good if you ask me. But an umpire can make a bad call at any base, including home. Does that mean that inexperienced umps can't be the umpire at first base either. There are a lot of close plays there too. What if they miss one? I'll tell you what... you show me a referee or umpire in ANY sport that has never made a single bad call. They don't exist. Even the umps that have been in the majors for over 10 years still miss a call every so often. It's just part of the beauty that is baseball.

2016-05-20 02:52:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I have to say no! A computer first of all is only as good as the person who set it up...Computers can do a lot but they are not always right due to the monkey on the other end operating them. Secondly even if humans are getting things wrong I would rather have the human making the calls, it gives us a face to yell at rather than a screen saver! Umpires adjust a strike zone as needed, if guys are hitting a pitch that is out of the conventional zone but very hittable and the umpire feels it should be strike then he can call it the way he sees it, also if something is theorhetically in the zone but the ump sees that it is unhittable then they can adjust as needed, which is why above the belt in the majors is never a strike anymore!

2007-07-17 07:32:03 · answer #3 · answered by bdough15 6 · 0 1

No. I actually think the umps do a pretty good job. Sometimes I'll disagree with a ball / strike call, and then when I see the replay I realize the right call was made.

Of course, they are human beings so they do make mistakes once in a while, but when you consider that there will be at least 250-300 pitches or more in a game, missing one or two isn't really that bad. I'm not sure if a computer would do better anyway.

2007-07-17 05:26:57 · answer #4 · answered by bencas9900 4 · 1 0

No No No. Ghouly has it right, the human element of the game is part of what makes baseball fun and exciting. The great thing about a strike zone is that it's not an exact science. Every ump has their own take on it, and that may change from one game to the next. That gives baseball a dynamic that no other sport has. There are the little things like a pitcher that has been chewing up a corner all game long getting a called strike on that slightly outside pitch - things like that would end. And God forbid the system breaks down in the middle of the game.

2007-07-17 07:34:59 · answer #5 · answered by DoReidos 7 · 0 1

I want to see the game called the way it's supposed to be by human umpires all calling the same. One ump should not be none for a small strike zone and one known for a big zone. High strike is a ridiculous comment used in baseball today. A strike is a strike and all should be called the same by the book.

2007-07-17 08:15:02 · answer #6 · answered by fred l 3 · 0 0

No. A lot of the beauty and science(?) of the game is knowing how any given day's home plate umpire handles the strike zone.

2007-07-17 05:18:34 · answer #7 · answered by bobdanailer69 3 · 2 0

No, no and no.

It's part of the wonder of baseball. The wind (or should they play indoors?) - the lights - the umpire calls - fan interference, etc. Human error is part of the game. Sometimes it goes your way and sometimes it doesn't.

Besides, no one car argue with a machine and we would still need some judgment calls made. Na, it's good the way it is.

2007-07-17 05:39:06 · answer #8 · answered by fanofchan 6 · 0 0

No. Let's not computerize the game. The human element is one of the things that makes baseball so interesting. Besides, who will heave the managers when the complain (and they will complain anyway) about balls and strikes?

2007-07-17 05:16:04 · answer #9 · answered by ghouly05 7 · 6 0

I thought of it, but I don't know if I'd like it. I like when umps and players\coaches argue and kick dirt on eachother. Plus, how would it work for short and really tall players. They have different strike zones.

2007-07-17 05:21:09 · answer #10 · answered by whobeme021 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers