Blackmailed

[Josh 12,363]

When does an equation make an error?  If a chip goes through a zone, it went through a zone.  It's pretty foolproof.

[Dalton26 16,891]

When does an equation make an error? If a chip goes through a zone, it went through a zone. It's pretty foolproof.

So chips and technology have never messed up before? I mean you can be a smart ass all you want but it's not as simple as you'd like to believe. Technology believe it or not isn't perfect either.

[Dalton26 16,891]

When does an equation make an error? If a chip goes through a zone, it went through a zone. It's pretty foolproof.

So chips and technology have never messed up before? I mean you can be a smart ass all you want but it's not as simple as you'd like to believe. Technology believe it or not isn't perfect either.

[Josh 12,363]

So chips and technology have never messed up before? I mean you can be a smart ass all you want but it's not as simple as you'd like to believe. Technology believe it or not isn't perfect either.

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a smartass.  Asking a serious question.  If a chip goes through a zone, it's recorded.   How is this not an improvement from umpires error?

[Dalton26 16,891]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a smartass. Asking a serious question. If a chip goes through a zone, it's recorded. How is this not an improvement from umpires error?

I understand what you're saying but what happens if the technology monitoring the chip data crashes? What happens if a stick hits a puck too hard and it breaks the chip inside? What if fans(hackers) find a way to cause interference with the technoloy?

[LIHoosier 24,997]

Is a geofence variable? As in, players of different heights have different strike zones, can that be adjusted for each player, or is it a set feature?

Ah hah, there's the rub. It's definitely adjustable, but I suppose the human element lies in adjusting it to each batter's stance

Perhaps during spring training, a rep from Hawkeye or a similar company in conjunction with MLB would be able to measure the vertical height of major and minor leaguers in their regular stance. Then enter them to a database so it can be applied to each hitter in each game. The computer/video replays seem to apply to constants, i.e. the ball/object or the goal/boundary line.

[Josh 12,363]

I understand what you're saying but what happens if the technology monitoring the chip data crashes? What happens if a stick hits a puck too hard and it breaks the chip inside? What if fans(hackers) find a way to cause interference with the technoloy?

If it's a closed system, there is no hacking or crashing. The old (current) way is much more fallible.

Nobody is saying the new system is perfect. Just that it's billions of times more perfect than the current plan.

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

Yeah I fail to see how going to a system that might occasionally make an error is so egregious when we are currently using a system that is guaranteed to average around 45 a game. 

 

We literally have the technology to get over 99% of calls correct in real time.  And we are refusing to do it because thats not how things were done 50 years ago. 

 

For gods sake a guy extorted umps to cheat for him and nobody even noticed because we are so accepting of umps sucking at their jobs. 

[Dalton26 16,891]

Yeah I fail to see how going to a system that might occasionally make an error is so egregious when we are currently using a system that is guaranteed to average around 45 a game.

They don't average 45 mistakes a game. The website you posted is the only site I've seen even come close to the numbers you keep throwing out. The worst I've seen from any other site is 85% with most sites saying officials get it right anywhere from 95% to 99.4% of the time.

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

They don't average 45 mistakes a game. The website you posted is the only site I've seen even come close to the numbers you keep throwing out.

 

Show me some other figures.  You didn't post any competing data.  And yes they do.  Average of about 300 pitches per game, 15% error rate.  Thats 45 pitches.  They get bailed out of some of those mistakes because the guy swings, but on about 45 pitches their determination is wrong. 

[Brass Cannon 24,064]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/what-umpires-get-wrong.html?_r=0

 

Heres a story about a study conducted by MLB that says its 14% so thats 42 missed calls a game. 

[Josh 12,363]

I don't understand how anybody could be against improvement. Baseball fans are weird.

[Dalton26 16,891]

Show me some other figures. You didn't post any competing data. And yes they do. Average of about 300 pitches per game, 15% error rate. Thats 45 pitches. They get bailed out of some of those mistakes because the guy swings, but on about 45 pitches their determination is wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-league-baseball-umpires-balls-and-strikes-2015-9

This one claims 86% which equals to 20-21 missed calls a game.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/911552-defining-the-human-element-mlb-umpires-call-995-of-plays-correctly

This one claims they are right 99.5%.

I've searched many articles and have yet to see this 45-50 missed calls claim that you believe to be true.

[Dalton26 16,891]

Show me some other figures. You didn't post any competing data. And yes they do. Average of about 300 pitches per game, 15% error rate. Thats 45 pitches. They get bailed out of some of those mistakes because the guy swings, but on about 45 pitches their determination is wrong.

Batters swing on 46% of 288 average pitches per game so umpires don't make calls on these pitches. So they call on average 154 pitches per game. 15% of that equals to just a little over 20 pitches a game which is already half of what you're claiming. You can't count 15% of 288-300 pitches because umpires aren't making calls on all of those pitches. You're using those numbers to inflate the numbers for your argument.

[mdn82 25,456]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/what-umpires-get-wrong.html?_r=0

Heres a story about a study conducted by MLB that says its 14% so thats 42 missed calls a game.

We could easily do the same for basketball and football. How can a computer manage a pitcher throwing at a player? There are so many judgement calls that couldn't be computerized. That is why it would never come to this. Same as football and basketball.

[Alford Bailey 12,250]

How bout a pitching machine that throws perfect strikes at 125 mph?

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Reductio ad absurdum.

[OliviaPope40 6,297]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Define that please.

[JSHoosier 19,568]

Reductio ad absurdum means reduction to absurdity.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Define that please.

It means "reduction to the absurd". It's a fallacy where the argument is essentially broken down to "if you do or accept blank then absurd result". Slippery slope is a subset. In this context, the reduction is "if you have computer-assisted umpiring then you might as well have computerized everything else". If this were a serious debate and not fun pattering on a message board, that would be a silly and ineffective argument.

 

But of course, don't automatically count arguments out because they're technically fallacies. Argumentum ad logicam. The reduction to the absurd is frequently a true and accepted method of serious arguments and in an extreme form is essentially the basis of a lot of physics. We know there is dark matter because if not then all existing gravitational calculations in space would have failed.

 

For a more serious usage in argument, look to the Durham thread. It's the foundation of most of my points.

 

I dropped it in this thread as a subtle signal this discussion had gotten a little off-the-rails.