75 replies to this topic

[SammyBirdland]

Laz Diaz tells Russell Martin he has to “earn the privilege” to throw new balls back to the pitcher.

http://hardballtalk.... ... e-pitcher/

I despise the human element.

[LanceRinker]

Laz Diaz tells Russell Martin he has to “earn the privilege” to throw new balls back to the pitcher.

http://hardballtalk.... ... e-pitcher/

I despise the human element.

That is absolutely insane if it happened just the way Martin says it did, which I wouldn't be surprised if it did with the way umpires have been acting the last several seasons.

Diaz called an O's game earlier in the year and didn't do that bad behind the plate:

Laz Diaz 13.26% MCR

However, I firmly believe umpires should be penalized and/or fined for not only being rude or disrespectful to the players but also fined or 'sent down' to the minors if they can't call a respectable game.

[RShack]

Laz Diaz tells Russell Martin he has to “earn the privilege” to throw new balls back to the pitcher.

http://hardballtalk.... ... e-pitcher/

I despise the human element.

The human element is fine. Professionals are all human, every one of them. It's the a-hole element that bothers me...

[SportsGuy]

Haven't read this thread...just want to say this.

Officiating in all sports is awful..baseball is no different. There is a rule book..which they don't follow. The umps just make stuff up. I am with Sammy..get rid of the human element..it blows. The problem with the human element is that people suck.

[DJ MC]

Laz Diaz tells Russell Martin he has to “earn the privilege” to throw new balls back to the pitcher.

http://hardballtalk.... ... e-pitcher/

I despise the human element.

The human element is fine. Professionals are all human, every one of them. It's the a-hole element that bothers me...

Unfortunately, when the competition is supposed to be between two competitors settling things on the field, any outside human element has a negative impact on the game.

[Mackus]

I think an overwhelmingly large part of this whole issue is the new technologies that allow us to know, after-the-fact, if a call was right or wrong. We have HD and slo-mo and can break things down from 5 or more different camera angles. Every game is televised and we've got message boards and blogs and podcasts and websites and way more radio sports shows to discuss each and every wrong call.

I think it's really unlikely that umpires are getting worse. There is more training and more levels to get through the get to the majors. I do think, it's very possible that with the additional publicity, umpires are trying to be more of a part of the show, at least some of them, and I don't like that. I wouldn't be surprised also if many umps are developing shorter fuses with players based on the fact that each and every one of their calls can be scrutinized so thoroughly.

I definitely think it's absurd for MLB or any sport to ignore the new technology and not use it as an aide to help improve the accuracy of their umpires. If you can figure a way to do things without interrupting the game to much (the only legit argument against any form of replay), then there is no reason not to use it as much as you can. Umpires aren't going to be embarrassed or upset if their calls are changed on the field right after they are made. They are going to be upset and embarrassed when they blow a call and can't fix it and it costs a team a run or a game or a playoff series or a championship.

[Oriole85]

Just a general comment about officiating, people are always going to complain about it even if they use robots. Sometimes it's justified to blame the refs, but there is way too much of it IMO. Everyone always feels like their team is getting slighted, will hardly admit when their team gets the beneficiary of a call. Also, it's a lot easier as Mackus alluded to for us to get the call right with the benefit of a million replays from our couch. All I see through my Twitter TLs it seems sometimes is how bad the officiating is, it gets rather annoying.

[BSLChrisStoner]

SI: 5 suggestions for improving the state of Umpring
http://mlb.si.com/20...wr_a1&eref=sihp

[RShack]

SI: 5 suggestions for improving the state of Umpring
http://mlb.si.com/20...wr_a1&eref=sihp

IMO, the most important one is not there.

Disclaimer: I do not want any part of robot umps. I want human umps who reliably do a good job and who don't act like a-holes. The a-hole issue is simple: establish a code of behavior for the umps and stick to it. The harder part is getting them to do a reliably good job.

Most suggestions I see don't address that. They're mostly about using tech in some fashion to either replace umps or compensate for their inconsistent judgment, combined with some form of discipline for those who don't improve. All of which doesn't do much to help them be better. In much the same way that hitters are way better because of their use of tech, umps can be too... but it doesn't look like they are to me.

If they want umps to be better, they need (a) an honest to God ump development program, not the seemingly haphazard mess they have now, combined with (b) rigorous tech-based rating and reflex training that is going, and © rigorous ongoing evaluation of performance. We know for a fact that the the human ability to perceive things in a consistent way can be trained, and we know that reactive reflexes can be trained to be more accurate too. If MLB knows any of this, the don't seem to have acted on it. So, we'll get more instances of replay slowing the game down even more without the needed improvement in ump performance that would reduce the need for such replay. My problem is not with replay nearly so much as it is with the lack of responsible action to make replay way less necessary.

[DJ MC]

I do not want any part of robot umps.

Why not?

The sole purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules of the game. Over time, this evolved from literally an arbiter, who stayed out unless specifically needed to make a decision, to actively making calls at the plate and in the field, to becoming an active participant in the proceedings as certain rules changed and the competitive nature of the sport increased.

At a very basic level, actual human umpires are unnecessary. If the level that the game is played is higher than that which can be played without umpires, if the technology is able to do the job and do it much, much better why shouldn't we use it?

[RShack]

I do not want any part of robot umps.

Why not?

The sole purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules of the game. Over time, this evolved from literally an arbiter, who stayed out unless specifically needed to make a decision, to actively making calls at the plate and in the field, to becoming an active participant in the proceedings as certain rules changed and the competitive nature of the sport increased.

At a very basic level, actual human umpires are unnecessary. If the level that the game is played is higher than that which can be played without umpires, if the technology is able to do the job and do it much, much better why shouldn't we use it?

Because my 2nd career was in Computer Science, and I don't want robot masters of any kind. I don't want robot-umps. I don't want automated speed cameras on the roads. I don't want automated computer-trading on the stock market (which has resulted in the average length of time a stock is held being 28 seconds). I think the current Supreme Court is a travesty, but I don't want computer judges either. In most, if not all, of those examples, you can make the same argument you just made: that the only purpose is proper implementation and enforcement of rules. And in all those cases (plus more), I am convinced that having robot's run things is a very, very bad idea.

Human activity should be governed by humans. When there are problems with humans doing that (which there always are), then you do the best you know how to ensure that the humans can and will do better. MLB has not taken rigorous steps to ensure that the umps can and will do better. MLB can take appropriate steps, but they have not. Robots are not a good replacement for having people do things better.

As a matter of principle, having robots run things is a very bad idea. As a practical matter, you can support human umps in ways that will make the argument for robot umps much weaker. So, let's do those things first and talk about robots later.

Right, HAL?
HAL, are you there?

[DJ MC]

Why not?

The sole purpose of the umpire is to enforce the rules of the game. Over time, this evolved from literally an arbiter, who stayed out unless specifically needed to make a decision, to actively making calls at the plate and in the field, to becoming an active participant in the proceedings as certain rules changed and the competitive nature of the sport increased.

At a very basic level, actual human umpires are unnecessary. If the level that the game is played is higher than that which can be played without umpires, if the technology is able to do the job and do it much, much better why shouldn't we use it?

Because my 2nd career was in Computer Science, and I don't want robot masters of any kind. I don't want robot-umps. I don't want automated speed cameras on the roads. I don't want automated computer-trading on the stock market (which has resulted in the average length of time a stock is held being 28 seconds). I think the current Supreme Court is a travesty, but I don't want computer judges either. In most, if not all, of those examples, you can make the same argument you just made: that the only purpose is proper implementation and enforcement of rules. And in all those cases (plus more), I am convinced that having robot's run things is a very, very bad idea.

Human activity should be governed by humans. When there are problems with humans doing that (which there always are), then you do the best you know how to ensure that the humans can and will do better. MLB has not taken rigorous steps to ensure that the umps can and will do better. MLB can take appropriate steps, but they have not. Robots are not a good replacement for having people do things better.

As a matter of principle, having robots run things is a very bad idea. As a practical matter, you can support human umps in ways that will make the argument for robot umps much weaker. So, let's do those things first and talk about robots later.

Right, HAL?
HAL, are you there?

You're taking this way, way down a road it doesn't have to go.

There is a difference between making decisions and enforcing specific rules. The ball getting to first before a runner is not the same thing as deciding whether the guy driving 15 MPH over the speed limit is doing so because it is a clear day in no traffic on the open highway or a teenager flying through a school zone. Either the ball gets to the base first, or the runner does. That is not a judgment call. The strike zone should only change based on the height of the batter (knees to letters), not the pitcher "painting" four inches off the corner or the position the umpire squats in or whether the catcher said something mean the previous game.

You keep an umpire as an arbiter on the field, to mediate disputes and eject troublemakers, but if the technology is available, there is no need to bring a third human element into a two-sided competition.

[RShack]

There is a difference between making decisions and enforcing specific rules. The ball getting to first before a runner is not the same thing as deciding whether the guy driving 15 MPH over the speed limit is doing so because it is a clear day in no traffic on the open highway or a teenager flying through a school zone. Either the ball gets to the base first, or the runner does. That is not a judgment call.

Neither is whether you're doing 15 over the limit: either you are or you aren't.

It's *exactly* the same principle. To claim otherwise is not truthful. In both cases, the sole purpose is enforcing a rule. Even if you don't think so, others will... and they'll do it whether you like it or not...

If you start letting robots govern human activity, well, that's a very slippery slope...

[DJ MC]

There is a difference between making decisions and enforcing specific rules. The ball getting to first before a runner is not the same thing as deciding whether the guy driving 15 MPH over the speed limit is doing so because it is a clear day in no traffic on the open highway or a teenager flying through a school zone. Either the ball gets to the base first, or the runner does. That is not a judgment call.

Neither is whether you're doing 15 over the limit: either you are or you aren't.

It's *exactly* the same principle. To claim otherwise is not truthful. In both cases, the sole purpose is enforcing a rule. Even if you don't think so, others will... and they'll do it whether you like it or not...

If you start letting robots govern human activity, well, that's a very slippery slope...

If you let people govern human activity, well, that's a very slippery slope.

[RShack]

Neither is whether you're doing 15 over the limit: either you are or you aren't.

It's *exactly* the same principle. To claim otherwise is not truthful. In both cases, the sole purpose is enforcing a rule. Even if you don't think so, others will... and they'll do it whether you like it or not...

If you start letting robots govern human activity, well, that's a very slippery slope...

If you let people govern human activity, well, that's a very slippery slope.

We have met the enemy and he is us

[JeremyStrain]

I think everyone in this thread should read Robopacolypse.

[mweb08]

http://blogs.provide... ... sible.html

Valentine talking umpiring and mentioning technology.

[RShack]

http://blogs.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/2012/06/valentine-umps-shouldnt-be-asked-to-do-the-impossible.html

Valentine talking umpiring and mentioning technology.

His premise is wrong...

"I think they're very well trained, and I think they're very good at what they do. I think it's almost impossible to do what they do, so why do we ask them to do the impossible?" Valentine said. "If in fact you can't see the ball the last five feet, and now pitchers are throwing pitches that are moving in that zone, cutting and splitting and moving in the zone your eye can't see what's happening. Your lens doesn't snap that photograph and register in the time the ball is moving the last five feet. So if you can't see it, why are we asking them to call it? They can't see it. They're humans. We're asking humans to do a feat a human can't do."

The idea that it's impossible is bogus. Good hitters can do it, and they're looking at it sideways. Umps don't have to hit it, they don't have to even swing at it, they just have to call it when they're looking right at it. And they get it right most of the time, despite the glaring holes in their training and supervision. That proves it's not impossible.

The problem here is a combo of his bogus premise, combined with the error in his 1st sentence. If the umps benefit from rigorous use of tech in their training and in their ongoing supervision, I don't know about it. He's talking about the needless "tech goes here" shortcut to compensating for their supposedly unavoidable errors, rather than in reducing them...

Plus, if Bobby V wants it, doesn't that make you wonder?

[hallas]

SI: 5 suggestions for improving the state of Umpring
http://mlb.si.com/20...wr_a1&eref=sihp

IMO, the most important one is not there.

Disclaimer: I do not want any part of robot umps. I want human umps who reliably do a good job and who don't act like a-holes. The a-hole issue is simple: establish a code of behavior for the umps and stick to it. The harder part is getting them to do a reliably good job.

Most suggestions I see don't address that. They're mostly about using tech in some fashion to either replace umps or compensate for their inconsistent judgment, combined with some form of discipline for those who don't improve. All of which doesn't do much to help them be better. In much the same way that hitters are way better because of their use of tech, umps can be too... but it doesn't look like they are to me.

If they want umps to be better, they need (a) an honest to God ump development program, not the seemingly haphazard mess they have now, combined with (b) rigorous tech-based rating and reflex training that is going, and © rigorous ongoing evaluation of performance. We know for a fact that the the human ability to perceive things in a consistent way can be trained, and we know that reactive reflexes can be trained to be more accurate too. If MLB knows any of this, the don't seem to have acted on it. So, we'll get more instances of replay slowing the game down even more without the needed improvement in ump performance that would reduce the need for such replay. My problem is not with replay nearly so much as it is with the lack of responsible action to make replay way less necessary.

We are really close to being able to give umpires more technology to do their job right without takIng the decision making away from them. (AR glasses or some such that help the umpire track the ball more easily.) are you okay with that?

[RShack]

We are really close to being able to give umpires more technology to do their job right without takIng the decision making away from them. (AR glasses or some such that help the umpire track the ball more easily.) are you okay with that?

I'm not OK with that as a first resort. What's happening now is that they sit on their collective ass and just wait for stuff of that ilk to come along and be optimized. I'd feel a whole lot better about it if they'd take today's tech and use it to train the umps to be better, rather than just wait for tomorrow's tech so they can insert it into the game.

Now, if they did what they could be doing, then we could see what optimized ump performance is like before we decide if we need Borg attachments on their heads. If they did everything they can do to improve ump performance, and if it then becomes clear they've hit a wall of human capability that glasses could fix, then I'd be way, way more receptive to it. But that's not what they appear to be doing.

My main gripe is that they're not doing what they could/should be doing. We know that peoples' reflexes can be trained to be more accurate and reliable... but AFAIK they're not doing beans about that. Meanwhile, because they permit things to suck, everybody else wants to insert technology into the game (rather than into ump-prep for the game, which is where it belongs) to fix what is essentially a human performance issue. They should fix that issue as much as can be done with tech-enabled training and supervision, not wait for techno-fairy-dust to intrude into the game itself in order to solve a problem that MLB has their head in the sand about. They're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about umps being so crappy that we need tech *in* the game.

BTW, if the umps get to wear smart glasses, can hitters wear battery powered glasses that help them see the ball better? How about radio beacons in the ball that prevent OF'ers from losing it in the sun or in the lights?