Let Computers Call Balls and Strikes

[Perham1]

Too many umpires are either ignorant, incompetent, or apathetic about calling balls and strikes according to the rules.

Is it too hard to expect baseball umps to follow those rules? Apparently so.

Therefore, let computers do it. We have the technology.

 

[Horns11]

Baseball is the one sport where stuff like this is allowed to happen, and I honestly think that's part of its appeal. It would become somewhat meaningless if the "human element" was eliminated.

 

[YearOfTheSteer]

I don't mind having umpires call balls and strikes, but I think they should incorporate some sort of process to challenge certain calls on the base paths, whether a ball is fair or foul, caught or not caught, etc.

A prime example occurred last night in the 9th when the ball was fouled off of Beltre's foot and was ruled a fair ball. That should have been able to be reviewed, and Beltre should have been given a strike rather than out. In that sense, baseball needs to catch up to the modern game to ensure the right call is made on the field.

 

[Horn69]

Agree with Horn11. I have had no qualms with home plate umps in the WS. Base umps have been perfect. There was one game in the ALCS where there was a bad home plate ump, but other than that, very good.

Hook'em!!!

and Go Rangers!

 

[accuratehorn]

I don't know, sitting there in the stands and yelling "Kill the Computer" just doesn't seem quite right.

 

[notanative]

I can see/hear it now. Computers compute strikes and balls, and the call blares over the PA system; then we attach ads to them so that every call has a sponsor; Indy racing starts sponsoring the radar gun, and the mechanical voices of our favorite passtime call "Indy Racing brings you a 96 mph slider in there for Strike Two. The next time you have a full count, why not ..."

Fear not, however, you can watch it all on the TV while standing in line for beer - or leaving.

 

[CedarParkFan]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[wherzwaldo]

I used to agree that computers should take over making the calls. After all, the majority of calls in baseball are plenty black-or-white for a computer to easily discern - out or safe, ball or strike, fair or foul, home run or not, etc. - and there are fewer judgment calls than in a sport like football. But handing over most of the control to computers would take too much of the human element out of the game.

Instead, I think computers should be used to evaluate umpires' performances retroactively and hold them accountable to their mistakes. Dock pay if certain thresholds of accuracy are not met. Maybe then assclowns like Joe West and Angel Martinez might feel less entitled and at least a little pressure to be less inept/arrogant.

And if they're going to do it then they should do it consistently, not with that half-assed subjective Questec crap they tried in the last decade. Of course, the umpires' union would never agree to it, and even if they did I would fully expect Selig & Associates to screw it up somehow.