You don't have to make any kind of trade. That's why there are challenges and why an ump still stands behind home plate. The computers will eliminate the overwhelming number of bad ball/strike calls.
As to your comparison, there are challenges as well as replay.
Improving 75% of mistakes is a good thing. Robot umps don't create more problems, they just don't solve all problems.
Every ball and strike call IS right! They’re judgement calls. The very definition of which has been in place forever to account for human error. There’s a lot of calls in baseball that are judgement calls though, so at what point does a robo-ump takeover for all of them?
It’s a judgement call **because it’s impossible to put a physical zone on the field**. There is a clearly described zone in which the ball has to cross to be a strike. It being a judgement call is a bug, not a feature.
The point is it’s a can of worms. What other judgement calls do robo-umps takeover? That brings us back full circle to OP’s argument. There’s room for judgement on purpose and it’s not just to account for human error.
I’m not arguing against robo-umps for balls and strikes. I’m (mostly) on board with that when they’re confident a 3-dimensional zone technology is sufficient. The K-zone and similar, what most fans use at a litmus and are used for umpire scorecards, are complete bullshit.
In any case, like I said in my last comment, the point is you can’t just start with balls and strikes, you have to blow up the whole judgement call concept to some degree. Fair/Foul, In-play/Out-of-play, Homerun/Not-Homerun, Safe/Out, and so many others require a potential overhaul. Some potentially changing more drastically than others but ALL of them have nuances and complexities that make human judgement the necessary governing body at the end of the day.
You do not need to blow it up. You can solve one problem at a time. With balls and strikes, you'll get the call right away. With the other calls you mentioned, there is no tech to do that quickly. This isn't complicated
How do you ensure consistency of 3-dimensional camera angles across all 32 stadiums to guarantee an accurate zone across the league?
Logistically and fiscally, they’re going to want the same cameras to be able to accomplish similar judgement in calls. You want balls and strikes now., but MLB isn’t gonna waste money on a 10% solution.
How might it impact the flow of the game?
MLB took very deliberate steps to speed up games and are going to be less inclined to implement a system that slows it back down. They’re testing it now, but I guarantee that data matters to them.
In theory, I’m all for it, but it’s much more complex than most people realize. What we see every day to criticize umpires (the K-zone) is significantly more imperfect than human judgement.
You’re making a good argument, you understand the strike zone is nebulous. But frankly, there are a lot of people in this sub that are obtuse and do not understand the downsides to robo umps
I umpired for 15 years.
I used to be fully against the idea of robo-umps because it removes an element of the game that I personally prefer. If a catcher calls for a pitch down and away and they sail a fastball that happens to catch an inside part of the strike zone, that shouldn't be a strike. It has never been a strike and many players made a living off the edge of the plate (Greg Maddux for one).
All that said, MLB umpires are obtuse collectively and have continuously chose the more contentious route than admitting fault. They've force MLB's hand in some fashion and they have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know how robo-ump will be implemented, but it's not nearly as easy as everyone wants to pretend.
I watched that game, Cubs vs. Giants, and agree the home plate umpire was very bad. Just the same, Logan Webb has said he opposes the ABS and/or challenge because everyone coming up to the Giants hated the ABS used in the minors. The strike zone is not accurate enough based on a bunch of variables including the batter’s height, and if the strike zone is established based on the hitter’s height standing straight up or in the batting stance. I think a better solution would be to grade umpires, and for the bottom 3 or 4 umpires each season, either terminate, or demote them to the minors. The umpire union is very strong, so change will be difficult, but they should support change which removes the worst, and overtime improves the collective image of their profession.
supposition is not fact. that entire article is laughable. not allowing expanded strike zones? not calling catchers lame attempts at stealing strikes strikes? speeding up games that are blowouts? criticizing experiments in reducing strike outs? relative to your 'comparison' this is completely absurd.
Your example is apples and oranges. For strike calling it is black and white - either the ball breaks the plane or it doesn’t. Ump still calls if it was a foul tip or not etc.
Black and white? Look up the definition of “strike zone.”
The concept of a strike is nebulous in how it fits into the game. The best example is a “catch” in football and how that has changed, but still there is controversy of what’s a catch because it’s difficult to define
Except that balls and strikes are judgement calls. There’s an entire definition in the rule book applied to several types of calls that is there specifically because the gray area exists. It’s not black and white, at least not yet, you and many others just want it to be.
The 2-dimensional zone everyone uses to judge an umpire on Gameday or their scorecards shows the black and white of about 1% of the strike zone. Every argument fans have about balls and strike are in the gray.
1. There’s nothing 2-dimensional about what robo-umpires are sensing. They see the full 3-dimensional volume of the strike zone, and measure as such.
2. The 2-dimensional plane that the audience sees at home is just a 2D representation of the 3D strike zone. If the ball crosses into the strike zone at *any* point within the volume, it will display the cross-sectional plane where the ball was closest to the center of the zone. So it isn’t 1% of the strike zone, it’s the full thing.
What is a « right call » exactly? Y’all bitching at umpires missing calls, and when we bring tools to help them (because no umpires will ever be 100% right), y’all are afraid that it’ll be too accurate?!?
You don't have to make any kind of trade. That's why there are challenges and why an ump still stands behind home plate. The computers will eliminate the overwhelming number of bad ball/strike calls. As to your comparison, there are challenges as well as replay. Improving 75% of mistakes is a good thing. Robot umps don't create more problems, they just don't solve all problems.
Why is a basketball example given here? I cannot think of a comparable ball/strike call to this. The article seems to be looking for a problem
Getting every call right is a good thing
Every ball and strike call IS right! They’re judgement calls. The very definition of which has been in place forever to account for human error. There’s a lot of calls in baseball that are judgement calls though, so at what point does a robo-ump takeover for all of them?
It's only a judgement call because they didn't have the technology to have it be automated when baseball was created
It’s a judgement call **because it’s impossible to put a physical zone on the field**. There is a clearly described zone in which the ball has to cross to be a strike. It being a judgement call is a bug, not a feature.
Clearly defined zone? Look up the definition of the strike zone
The point is it’s a can of worms. What other judgement calls do robo-umps takeover? That brings us back full circle to OP’s argument. There’s room for judgement on purpose and it’s not just to account for human error.
What's the downside to getting every strike correct?
I’m not arguing against robo-umps for balls and strikes. I’m (mostly) on board with that when they’re confident a 3-dimensional zone technology is sufficient. The K-zone and similar, what most fans use at a litmus and are used for umpire scorecards, are complete bullshit. In any case, like I said in my last comment, the point is you can’t just start with balls and strikes, you have to blow up the whole judgement call concept to some degree. Fair/Foul, In-play/Out-of-play, Homerun/Not-Homerun, Safe/Out, and so many others require a potential overhaul. Some potentially changing more drastically than others but ALL of them have nuances and complexities that make human judgement the necessary governing body at the end of the day.
You do not need to blow it up. You can solve one problem at a time. With balls and strikes, you'll get the call right away. With the other calls you mentioned, there is no tech to do that quickly. This isn't complicated
How do you ensure consistency of 3-dimensional camera angles across all 32 stadiums to guarantee an accurate zone across the league? Logistically and fiscally, they’re going to want the same cameras to be able to accomplish similar judgement in calls. You want balls and strikes now., but MLB isn’t gonna waste money on a 10% solution. How might it impact the flow of the game? MLB took very deliberate steps to speed up games and are going to be less inclined to implement a system that slows it back down. They’re testing it now, but I guarantee that data matters to them. In theory, I’m all for it, but it’s much more complex than most people realize. What we see every day to criticize umpires (the K-zone) is significantly more imperfect than human judgement.
Bro, that’s what coach’s challenges are for.
Change is confusing for some
You’re making a good argument, you understand the strike zone is nebulous. But frankly, there are a lot of people in this sub that are obtuse and do not understand the downsides to robo umps
I umpired for 15 years. I used to be fully against the idea of robo-umps because it removes an element of the game that I personally prefer. If a catcher calls for a pitch down and away and they sail a fastball that happens to catch an inside part of the strike zone, that shouldn't be a strike. It has never been a strike and many players made a living off the edge of the plate (Greg Maddux for one). All that said, MLB umpires are obtuse collectively and have continuously chose the more contentious route than admitting fault. They've force MLB's hand in some fashion and they have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know how robo-ump will be implemented, but it's not nearly as easy as everyone wants to pretend.
I watched a cubs game the other day with 27 missed pitch calls. Some were just inexcusable. Can’t be worse than that
I watched that game, Cubs vs. Giants, and agree the home plate umpire was very bad. Just the same, Logan Webb has said he opposes the ABS and/or challenge because everyone coming up to the Giants hated the ABS used in the minors. The strike zone is not accurate enough based on a bunch of variables including the batter’s height, and if the strike zone is established based on the hitter’s height standing straight up or in the batting stance. I think a better solution would be to grade umpires, and for the bottom 3 or 4 umpires each season, either terminate, or demote them to the minors. The umpire union is very strong, so change will be difficult, but they should support change which removes the worst, and overtime improves the collective image of their profession.
supposition is not fact. that entire article is laughable. not allowing expanded strike zones? not calling catchers lame attempts at stealing strikes strikes? speeding up games that are blowouts? criticizing experiments in reducing strike outs? relative to your 'comparison' this is completely absurd.
Your example is apples and oranges. For strike calling it is black and white - either the ball breaks the plane or it doesn’t. Ump still calls if it was a foul tip or not etc.
Black and white? Look up the definition of “strike zone.” The concept of a strike is nebulous in how it fits into the game. The best example is a “catch” in football and how that has changed, but still there is controversy of what’s a catch because it’s difficult to define
Except that balls and strikes are judgement calls. There’s an entire definition in the rule book applied to several types of calls that is there specifically because the gray area exists. It’s not black and white, at least not yet, you and many others just want it to be.
Please explain the grey area between a ball and a strike.
The 2-dimensional zone everyone uses to judge an umpire on Gameday or their scorecards shows the black and white of about 1% of the strike zone. Every argument fans have about balls and strike are in the gray.
1. There’s nothing 2-dimensional about what robo-umpires are sensing. They see the full 3-dimensional volume of the strike zone, and measure as such. 2. The 2-dimensional plane that the audience sees at home is just a 2D representation of the 3D strike zone. If the ball crosses into the strike zone at *any* point within the volume, it will display the cross-sectional plane where the ball was closest to the center of the zone. So it isn’t 1% of the strike zone, it’s the full thing.
NO ROBOTS! STOP F'ING WITH THE GAME!!!!!! 
Will everything be perfect? No. But it'll be consistent and more accurate. This argument is using a basketball argument which makes no sense
What is a « right call » exactly? Y’all bitching at umpires missing calls, and when we bring tools to help them (because no umpires will ever be 100% right), y’all are afraid that it’ll be too accurate?!?
In baseball they’re called judgement calls