Who's with me?
After the called strike that, if not cought, would have hit the back stop next, missing the catcher and ump completely on Vlad's foot outside strike. I say the MLB should have the home plate umpire behind a booth in the press box with camera monitors and hand radios to the other three umps. The strikes can be called via pitch traxs placing the pitch where the pitch was and then the home plate ump can say ball or strike based on where the pitch actually was. Then he has no excuse to call a pitch a strike a foot outside so he can get off the field and get off. That home plate umps call on the final pitch should get him fined and suspended.
about 2 years ago
Ryan2907
29 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
No thanks.
Radical changes are usually ill-advised and almost certainly so when made in the heat of an emotional event.
seriously?
I’m ok with change but this is the dumbest idea yet
by blueballlefty on May 24, 2010 2:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Come on man...
that was like a piece of chewed up gum on a hook as far as bait goes.
You’re better than that.
by ghostofErikThompson on May 23, 2010 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I think
The umps should still be behind the plate but with an ear piece. If the computer shows it is a strike (or the other way around and it is a ball) then it will either say strike/ball or a beep or something into the umps ear. At least this way it is still the umps decision but they at least get a little reminder/feedback on each pitch on how they are doing.
or a 5th ump
in the booth and if there’s a mistake he get’s a beep to correct it, it wouldn’t take long to say hey, that last pitch read as a ball. On final out of innings on called strikes there can be verification on the pitches location that would only take like 5-10 seconds.
This is an interesting idea.
My sci-fi idea is a heads-up display that fits in the umpiring mask and superimposes a pitch tracker over his actual view of the field. Either way, something that assists them would be a step in the right direction, and maybe the best solution period.
It would have to come with an increase in accountability, though, to keep umpires from just completely ignoring what they’re being told.
Get out of my head.
I’ve been wondering why they can’t do this. Some sort of crazy futuristic sunglasses is what I’m thinking.
Let them call 50-50 balls how they see fit, perhaps allowing for how much time it spends in the strike zone in 3 dimensions instead of just in the one plane that officially defines a strike. It’s not radical change if it’s just there to assist, right?
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on May 24, 2010 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
I actually got the idea (it's not really mine) from an ex that use to post here and still posts a ton of places like FanGraphs.
Don’t suppose maybe you saw her say it and it went in to your head and then you didn’t realize it wasn’t your original thought? Heh. That would at least make it less weird.
BTW, going to FanGraphs and reading a post and preparing to respond and then realizing it’s your ex is. . . unusual. . .
I proposed a similar idea in a thread over at
Hardball Talk a week or so ago. But my idea is to combine that tech with the idea of a pitcher/hitter having the right to appeal a call, like a checked swing now. The ump goes to the earpiece and a guy watching the video/gameday/pitch f/x, whatever, makes the call.
Ceterum censeo, Ron Washington esse delendam
radical?
There’s to much technology available today to have umps continue to decide the game on inconsistant balls and strikes and bad calls. Today’s game is a classic example of how an ump can decide a game. It’s like playing baseball or football today with the equipment they used 60 years ago. Football has done what they needed to keep the game fair and consistant, baseball has decided to remain in the past and let mistakes control the outcome of games.
I'm not with you on making this its on FanShot.
But I am with you on doing something to make officiating more accurate.
Any umpire isn’t going to be with you because they’re defensive about their jobs and think the human element is more important than accuracy.
What about a football type scenario?
Give each manager 2 or 3 challenges throughout the game to review any play, whether it’s a strike/ball, homerun, whatever and they would be able to overturn crucial plays in the game that the call was missed. This would only take minmal time, less time than the manager running out to argue, and it would put a lot of these messes behind us.
my better is better than your better.
by rangerjake on May 23, 2010 9:39 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
No offense taken...
What’s the problem with it? Seems highly unlikely that their going to give umpires robot masks to help them see the strike zone more clearly. I’d prefer for the team that gets cheated by a bad call to have some sort of power to force the umps to review a play. I think the challenge system works well in the NFL.
my better is better than your better.
by rangerjake on May 23, 2010 11:18 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'll give reasons in list form.
I don’t think the challenge system is a good idea for baseball. Appeals and reviews can be lightening quick if down right, so slowing down the game. That’s the primary reason to limit reviews, and I think there are more than 2 or 3 times in a baseball game that visual real-time evidence results in inaccuracies.
I do agree that some solutions are more likely than others, but that doesn’t change how much I do or do not like certain ideas.
I do think the challenge system works well for the NFL, but it’s a different sport. I think a review system for baseball should be tailored for baseball without borrowing what’s worked for other sports necessarily. I think NFL review has become kind of the go-to example (both for pro and con arguments) because it’s the league people know the best.
I also think the crew going off the field to review home runs is an idiotic waste of time. Have a 5th up looking at it and give the call to him. Each crew could have one “booth” ump who’s trained specifically to know the rules and how to review them on tape. On a close play, they signal or radio or w/e, in seconds you have the call, and then you DO NOT ALLOW ARGUING. That said, I don’t think it’s a big deal right now since it’s only used for home run calls, and that doesn’t come up too often.
The time issue is exactly why I think the challenge system would work...
I think you would have to have someone upstairs reviewing each play, and if a manager uses one of their limited challenges then that person signals the call immediately, it would take a matter of seconds. I agree with not allowing arguing if this went through, and so I think it would be a break-even time wise. Also it’s true there are more than 3 plays that happen in baseball, but limiting the review to only the most crucial plays would help keep the games pace up as well as adding an element of strategy to the managers job. There probably is a better solution, but I think it would be a good first step, completely agreed though that it should be tailored to fit baseball, I just think certain things that work can be borrowed.
my better is better than your better.
by rangerjake on May 24, 2010 7:55 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
GPS tracking
Ever played Top Golf where they put a chip in the ball?
GPS tracking has become so precise that you could put a chip in the baseball and know where it is at all times.
If it goes over the wall – you know it. If it’s caught and doesn’t hit the ground – you know it. If it’s in the strike zone – you know it.
The game could be umpired from a computer in India.
Hmmm...
Threaten outsourcing. I like it.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on May 24, 2010 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Honestly, I think they would need to define the strike zone better.
Currently the way it is defined
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a
horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall
be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
They go on to picture the strike zone as a rectangle. However, we live in a 3D world, and home plate has 17 inches of depth. Plenty of pitches can be called balls, or strikes, depending on how far into the plate the ball is. A curve can easily be a strike at the front of the zone and a ball at the back of the zone and vice versa. I think they would need to come up with a uniform definition at what plane they are measuring balls and strikes. I would assume they would measure at 8.5 inches from the front plane of the plate, or halfway through the plate.
"No, I'm not a pessimist. At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."-https://twitter.com/shitmydadsays
"determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing"
If you could hit squatted down like you’re in a rice paddy (with your knees above your chest) you would have no strike zone.
by Evil Monkey on May 24, 2010 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions
See, I disagree...
…I like the idea that you are throwing it through a window. If you get it through the window, it doesn’t matter where it goes afterwards.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on May 24, 2010 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
You may like that idea
but when that window is 17 inches thick, the ball can simultaneously be in and out of the window, and as pitchers are better at hitting corners, it often happens.
A lot of the balls that umps get killed on can either be called a ball or a strike, depending on how close or far away from the catcher you call the pitch at.
"No, I'm not a pessimist. At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."-https://twitter.com/shitmydadsays
Combine the NFLs and tennis's replay system for baseball
Give each team a set number of challenges and for balls and strikes you use the tracker and easily pop it up on screen for everyone to see. Home runs or calls that may require more camera angles to show you either use a 5th ump in the booth or have the umps do like they do now and go off the field to view it.
Calling balls and strikes shouldn’t be taken entirely from umps but allow teams to question close calls which may sway the outcome of a game
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lone Star Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
