2015 Pittsburgh Pirates Thread

Postby **Rylan** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:47 pm

But what's the point? Baseball is the ultimate imperfect game. It's a game of consistent failure. The players are incredible failures. Succeeding 30% of the time is admirable. It's a chance at being an all-star.

In fact umpires are the most successful people in the game.

This is the worst possible argument agaisnt additional technology IMO.

That's fine. I'm not here to convince anyone, that's just my viewpoint.

Postby **iamjs** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:51 pm

What does everyone think about this: https://twitter.com/PiratesUmp
Nifty.

I'm interested in how the technology behind that works. Usually those things will hit twitter within seconds of the pitch.

Postby **slappybrown** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:46 pm

But what's the point? Baseball is the ultimate imperfect game. It's a game of consistent failure. The players are incredible failures. Succeeding 30% of the time is admirable. It's a chance at being an all-star.

In fact umpires are the most successful people in the game.

This is the worst possible argument agaisnt additional technology IMO.
That's fine. I'm not here to convince anyone, that's just my viewpoint.

I just don't like "enjoy the glory of it being broken."

I'm opposed to extensive integration of balls and strikes technology because of the time. I think there are some improvements to be made but baseball is a slog on an individual game and season level as it is; I don't know how you implement this without a lot more time being spent on it.

Postby **Rylan** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:59 pm

But what's the point? Baseball is the ultimate imperfect game. It's a game of consistent failure. The players are incredible failures. Succeeding 30% of the time is admirable. It's a chance at being an all-star.

In fact umpires are the most successful people in the game.

This is the worst possible argument agaisnt additional technology IMO.
That's fine. I'm not here to convince anyone, that's just my viewpoint.

I just don't like "enjoy the glory of it being broken."

I'm opposed to extensive integration of balls and strikes technology because of the time. I think there are some improvements to be made but baseball is a slog on an individual game and season level as it is; I don't know how you implement this without a lot more time being spent on it.

I don't see it as broken. I see it as one thing about the game I enjoy. I just really don't see balls and strikes as why the game is slow or in need of being fixed.

Postby **meow** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:51 pm

Have robots play the game too.

Robotsoccer.gif

Postby **slappybrown** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:09 pm

But what's the point? Baseball is the ultimate imperfect game. It's a game of consistent failure. The players are incredible failures. Succeeding 30% of the time is admirable. It's a chance at being an all-star.

In fact umpires are the most successful people in the game.

This is the worst possible argument agaisnt additional technology IMO.
That's fine. I'm not here to convince anyone, that's just my viewpoint.

I just don't like "enjoy the glory of it being broken."

I'm opposed to extensive integration of balls and strikes technology because of the time. I think there are some improvements to be made but baseball is a slog on an individual game and season level as it is; I don't know how you implement this without a lot more time being spent on it.
I don't see it as broken. I see it as one thing about the game I enjoy. I just really don't see balls and strikes as why the game is slow or in need of being fixed.

If there existed a perfect tech that could seamlessly call balls and strikes would you be opposed?

Postby **the errey i breathe** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:15 pm

I think the most realistic opposition is that that technology will be fought tooth and nail by the umpires association. They'll likely take the line of if you're replacing the umpire behind home plate you'll have to replace all of us; which can't be done. MLB would rather deal with the traditionalist aspect that has kept the sport alive for 100+ years rather than cause waves with the umpires.

Ultimately I don't really care, every sport has some element of human error in it. It's frustrating but likely evens out over the course of a season.

Postby **FreeCandy44** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:21 pm

Robots are all good until Skynet becomes self aware.

Postby **columbia** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:24 pm

Postby **FreeCandy44** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:29 pm

Love it

Postby **Factorial** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:34 pm

I think the most realistic opposition is that that technology will be fought tooth and nail by the umpires association. They'll likely take the line of if you're replacing the umpire behind home plate you'll have to replace all of us; which can't be done. MLB would rather deal with the traditionalist aspect that has kept the sport alive for 100+ years rather than cause waves with the umpires.

MLB is afraid of the umpires association or union?

Postby **Craig** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:44 pm

If they got rid of the home plate umpire they could just more or less hire people off the street to be field ump. That would be the most enjoyable strike busting i ever saw.

Postby **TheHammer24** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 12:11 am

If they got rid of the home plate umpire they could just more or less hire people off the street to be field ump. That would be the most enjoyable strike busting i ever saw.

HAHAHAHA! I legit LOL'ed at that.

Postby **LITT** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:07 am

But what's the point? Baseball is the ultimate imperfect game. It's a game of consistent failure. The players are incredible failures. Succeeding 30% of the time is admirable. It's a chance at being an all-star.

this sounds like something don cherry would say

Postby **scb147** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:16 am

Have robots play the game too.

Robotsoccer.gif

Postby **dodint** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 8:26 am

All this talk of robot baseball and no Twilight Zone reference.

Kids these days.

Postby **King Colby** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:02 am

Do people think that certain hitters/pitchers should have a more favorable strike zone than others?

Realistically, if there's a borderline pitch do you think Brandon Wood deserves the same benefit of the doubt as Andrew McCutchen? Which of the two fills seats?

It's fine how it is. The bad calls generally normalize. I believe you do need to have the flexibility to tighten certain players strike zones when there is that amount of dollars at stake.

However to have foul tips not be reviewable is beyond absurd.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:11 am

Isn't there also data showing that the Yankees get more favorable strike zones? I feel like Rocco was beating that drum for a while. If there is legitimate data that shows the umps allowing perception to dictate their calls, then I would most definitely prefer an automated strike zone. But that would require some evidence.

I think that's a factor, but there are things like check swings and foul tips that the umpires are missing. While the strike zone is more fluid and based on the size of the hitter, swinging and missing is an objective call. If anything is a case for fixing the game, it's blown calls by the umps. There are plenty of instances to go to them to allow replay. At least allow replay with the non strike zone issue balls and strikes.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:14 am

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/ron- ... 1507140075

But Huntington has done his best work since the end of the 2014 season. His only mistake was trading reserve outfielder Travis Snider to the Baltimore Orioles for a minor league pitcher. Snider, who is hitting .257 with three home runs and 20 RBIs, would look nice on the Pirates bench.

Is it possible to get through a Ron Cook article without a strong negative reaction to something he says?

Postby **genoscoif** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:15 am

From 2008-2013:

13.2% of the time there was a strike and an umpire had to make a call, he called it a ball.
15% of the time there was a ball, and an umpire had to make a call, he called it a strike.

That's way too much / not just "part of the fun of the game".

Just use computers, it'll be here eventually anyways.
Are those in favor of computer umpires also for the DH in the NL and aluminum bats in MLB?

...or every NFL play being reviewed for O-line holding, illegal contact past the 5 yard mark, defensive/offensive pass interference, etc.? I mean, we have the technology to pull that off, right?

Postby **dodint** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:24 am

That is a dumb analogy. Balls and Strikes are objective, everything you listed is subjective.

Postby **meow** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:26 am

Have robots play the game too.

Robotsoccer.gif

Postby **Dickie Dunn** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:26 am

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/ron- ... 1507140075

But Huntington has done his best work since the end of the 2014 season. His only mistake was trading reserve outfielder Travis Snider to the Baltimore Orioles for a minor league pitcher. Snider, who is hitting .257 with three home runs and 20 RBIs, would look nice on the Pirates bench.
Is it possible to get through a Ron Cook article without a strong negative reaction to something he says?

No. And he's wrong. It was two minor league pitchers.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:32 am

That is a dumb analogy. Balls and Strikes are objective, everything you listed is subjective.

I think you could actually list every penalty and rule in sports as objective. I think the issue is the rigidity of the rule. That sort of negates the point I made earlier..but that's how I see it after this exchange.

Postby **genoscoif** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:32 am

That is a dumb analogy. Balls and Strikes are objective, everything you listed is subjective.

Um, how are any of those things subjective (you can't objectively define 'holding'?!?)...or at least any more subjective than what the strike zone actually is?