QuesTec - Are you for it or not?

[Keyser Soze]

I've heard that about Schilling. I believe its for evaluating umps, which is causing them to tighten up their strike zone to compensate. Schilling is likely being proactive in his protesting.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by Keyser Soze
I've heard that about Schilling. I believe its for evaluating umps, which is causing them to tighten up their strike zone to compensate. Schilling is likely being proactive in his protesting.

Yeah, I'd definitely call that being proactive. :lol:

Stuff like this makes one of my original statements seem true.

Now some pitchers are bitching and moaning about this system saying it will alter the outcome of games. How, by actually making the right call? I'm sorry, but your job is to pitch and nail strikes based on your ability, not by where the ump is calling them that day. Pitchers are probably scared now that they won't look as good on the mound anymore because according to the early QuesTec results, their pitches are not hitting the strike zone like the umps are saying they are.

They're bitching about the right call being made? That is just sad. :disappointed:
Heaven forbid they actually hit the actual strike zone and not the zone the ump feels like calling that particular day.

[Keyser Soze]

Guys like Glavine and Maddox are really feeling the effects since they built their careers off painting the corners of the outside part of the strike zone.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen

You definitely need the human aspect in the game, but the added technology could be used as a \"backup\" of sorts. Just like Instant Replay.

Maybe something like this. They use this QuesTec, but only as an Instant Replay of sorts. Then when players or managers argue balls and strikes, they could actually go to the system and see what it said.

THAT I would support, without a doubt.

Of course, it would have to be rigged so that the pitch tracking stats could not be manipulated at all during the game by any official. An MLB official, in charge of aligning/calibrating the system, would make sure it was fully operational before every game. This official/technician could also check strike zone calibrations throughout the game as well...

[GreasyItalianPrincess]

The came up with some system for Tennis, but even in that system, it is still the chair umpires that run the show. It is only a secondary system. If they used to to check their own habits, as a secondary system, then I can see it being useful. But not as a main system who's decision carries credence.

[The Brain]

Let's look at this another way as well. Some argue it takes away from the tradition by altering the game. I'm sorry, but just about every other sport besides baseball has altered the game. It's time for baseball to get out of the 19th century and evolve.

I hope you're not implying that major league baseball has <b>never</b> been altered since its creation circa 1880. are you?

The mounds have been lowered, seasons lengthened, baseballs wound tighter, designated hitters instituted. Technology has crafted bats to exact specifications; hitters like Barry Bonds and Mo Vaughn wear protective plastic armor over their front arms so that they can lean over the plate with impunity.

From the <a href=http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseball_basics/mlb_basics_define_terms.jsp target=_blank>MLB webpage on the terms of the game</a>

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 hallow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

And the strike zone-- the <b>legal</b> version as defined in the rulebook-- has been shrunk: where it used to be from a point at the uniform letters to the bottom of the kneecaps, now the "high strike" is called just above the belt.

Notice anything? Most of those changes were done specifically in the name of instituting more offense, the pitcher be damned.

About the only motion made in baseball to actual benefit the <i>pitcher</i> was when managers went to five-man rotations, to give their starters more rest (but that change isn't in the rulebooks).

If they want QuestTec to be a good thing, at least give the pitchers back some advantages:

1) raise the mound back to at least 15 inches (it's currently 10).

2) enforce the letter-high strike zone.

3) force the catcher to <b>stay directly behind the plate</b>, and enforce the Catcher's Balk rule when they do not. A lot of pitchers lose called strikes when their catcher sets up outside, and the pitch is placed outside-- it influences the umpire to think that the pitch is meant to be off the plate.

4) Eliminate the batter's body armor. A hitter should not be so fearless when he goes up to the plate that he can dive out across home plate to swing at pitches that can end up in the opposite batter's box. A pitcher has no intimidation factor at all if the batter won't regret invading what is essentially the pitcher's territory (Pedro Martinez notwithstanding).

5) Since #4 will never occur, at least enforce the defined batter's box-- and <b>place down a thin plastic or rubber area where the batter's box should be rather than a chalk outline</b>. You know what happens to that batter's box when the first batter steps in? He smudges it with his foot, and from that point on, a batter can encroach further on home plate. If a batter's box (made out of the same material used for home plate) is placed in the ground (again, at the same level as home plate so no runner will trip on it), an umpire can call an automatic strike on any hitter leaning unfairly over the plate.

But none of these will happen. The sport would rather squeeze pitchers into 10-7 ballgames, instead of 3-2 pitching gems.

All my main argument is if all these sports have changed in one form or another, <b>why can't baseball especially if it could be for the better</b>.

That depends on your definion of <i>better</i>: more offense, or better pitching, because the two will not always co-exist.

[SO]

I would be completely against this. Brain makes a great case, and I agree with most of what he said, but to add to it:

Ultimately, balls and strikes have been a judgement call for as long as baseball has been around. To say that the game shouldn't evolve is nonsense, but should it evolve this way? To make pitchers, essentially, slaves to the machine? The strike zone is the one boundary in sports that changes with every different player, and it's up to the pitcher to work within the strike zone as defined by the individual he's facing to the best of his ability, and it's up to the umpire to use his discretion to interpret whether the pitcher is working within these defined boundaries. To leave this interpretation to an unthinking, unbreathing machine is to strip baseball of one of its most essential and endearing qualities - it's no longer man against man with a third party as impartial judge. It's now man against man, but under the strict unchanging unthinking guidelines as programmed into a machine. I can't liken this to instant replay in football, because even that leaves judgement calls (ie pass interference) to the discretion of the officials. The NHL doesn't review boarding calls, even though, like baseball's strike zone and football's pass interference, there are clearly rules in place. Only calls with hard, physically defined and visible bounds are able to be contested.

The Questec tool is useful in evaluating an umpire's performance, or in spotting problem areas in a pitcher or a hitter's game. In no way should it be used to enforce the rules that umpires have enforced successfully for the entire history of the game.

[Keyser Soze]

the strike zone is a very real and measurable boundary that exists in different forms according to the body and stance of the batter. it should be rigidly enforced. i believe that the questec machine should determine balls and strikes and umpires be eliminated from the game for they have become no longer useful and also prone to failure and human error.

[SO]

OK, so which is more important: the integrity of the game, or the essence? Or is it possible to find a balance between the two? And if a balance is possible, how?

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by The Brain

All my main argument is if all these sports have changed in one form or another, <b>why can't baseball especially if it could be for the better</b>.

That depends on your definion of <i>better</i>: more offense, or better pitching, because the two will not always co-exist.

Actually my definition of better in this case was about making it more accurate. Don't you want to see actual strikes called strikes and actual balls called balls? I know I do and it's not always the case based on the ump's perspective.

Originally posted by SO
The strike zone is the one boundary in sports that changes with every different player, and it's up to the pitcher to work within the strike zone as defined by the individual he's facing to the best of his ability, and it's up to the umpire to use his discretion to interpret whether the pitcher is working within these defined boundaries. To leave this interpretation to an unthinking, unbreathing machine is to strip baseball of one of its most essential and endearing qualities - it's no longer man against man with a third party as impartial judge. It's now man against man, but under the strict unchanging unthinking guidelines as programmed into a machine.

I may be reading this wrong, but I think you may have missed what QuesTec can actually do. It doesn't see a set strike zone, it changes the strike zone based on each batter that's at the plate. At least that's how I read it. This way the strike zone is always correct.