Slashdot Mirror
Digital Baseball Umpires
Dekaner writes "Wired is running an article on an electronic umpire that tracks each baseball pitch and judges whether it is within the "strike zone" has been installed at 10 major league ballparks in the U.S. The QuesTec system uses several cameras that track each pitch and compare the machine's judgment with that of the umpire standing behind the catcher. At the end of each game it provides a summary of its ratings and compares them with the umpire's calls. In general there is reasonably good agreement. In a recent test the QuesTec system judged that 32.1 percent of pitches were within the "strike zone", while the umpire called 31.4 percent as strikes. However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view. "
Does anyone read:
"However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view."
as, "It points out our mistakes!"
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
How do you kick dirt on a digital umpire?
The reason umpires don't want these machines on the field is that they make a KILLING doing their job.
Seriously, the average pay for an ump is well over $100k. I'm not talking about your little league ump, I'm talking about the "Big Boys", the major league umpires.
It's hilarious reading the article with this in mind, with the machine doing the same job better and the umps jumping up and down crying foul. Of COURSE they don't want these machines. They'd lose their Lexus.
Just something to think about.
There's nothing like having a batter stare down an ump or kick dirt or get thrown out of a game.
Of course, you'd still need an ump for the home plate tag calls...so it's not like the umpires are going to disappear.
I think the machine is fun for the home-viewing audience, but the ump is necessary for the game. Until you can put in a Johnny-5 to call the game, I'll take my umpires and their strike calls and punch-out flourishes.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I have been playing sports my entire life and I must say that it is the human factor that makes it interesting. To take all the errors out of sport is to take away something -- and as I have recieved many a bad call I can't believe I am saying this -- special from it.
Then again, with all the money that is in sports these days maybe it is a good idea -- from the point of view of owners, players, and sponcers. I think it takes something away from the fans.
I do not control the Sig, the Sig controls me.
The fact that people are COMPLAINING that there is a 0.7%(!!) margin between the accuracy of machines to humans is insane! I'd be congratulating my umpires for being so accurate!
If anything, I think it'd be an argument on why to KEEP umpires.
"These are proud professionals who don't want to be evaluated by a faulty apparatus"
Or even by a working apparatus.
This can go wrong in so many ways, false positives and false negatives along every border of the strike zone. But aside from the mathematical reasons, why take away the human element even more from baseball?
You know one of the most fun parts of playing sports in my neighbourhood as a kid was watching my big brother argue whether something was a goal or not, who was safe or out. It was subjective and it was fun!
Now we have photo radar and cars that will apply the brakes themselves too. Sheesh.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
The ICC adopted a similar scheme some time ago, but it was to assist the umpires rather than replace them.
I would like to change the world,
but they won't tell me the source code.
Replace the batter and the pitcher with robots, and I still won't give a damn about baseball. :)
However, the umpires association has filed a complaint about the system's unreliability and incapability to replace the human 3-D, real-time view.
... instead only giving an accurate 3-D, real-time view.
"Dave.... Dave.... 3 strikes and you're out, Dave".
Some pitchers are really mad about it. Curt Schilling was fined earlier in the season for destroying a QuesTec camera in Bank One Ballpark, his home park in Arizona.
This, of course, is the same Curt Schilling who gave up two homers to a fellow player he abandoned in "Everquest," allowing said player's character to die.
For more information, click here.
I recall that one catcher was supposedly told by an umpire that he wanted to call a lot of those pitches strikes, but he couldn't. Catcher seemed to think this was a bad thing. So, in other words, the umpire admits that he doesn't typically enforce the rules as written unless outright forced to? Sounds like he's completely justifying the existence of the machines to me. Maybe now Atlanta pitchers won't get their customary strike zone that stretches between the home and visiting dugouts?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I'm sure you could build a system that will measure strikes and balls better than any human. That's not the point. There's plenty of sports where automated systems could be used to replace human judges, but the question you have to ask is "does it make the game better?"
I argue that most of the time, the answer is no. Sports are not meant to be an exersize in perfection, and there is an element to every sport that involves playing 'outside' the rules. In the specific case of Baseball, for example, a human umpire knows when to call a ball as a strike because the batter is being a dick. Competition can be more about manipulating the human and social factors than about following the rules, and we shouldn't take that aspect out of the game just because we can.
The main problem that the umps have is not that it might replace them, but that it might not really be more accurate than them. This quote is from the article (which is the little clicky linky thing that you often find in the story text...we should all try clicking it sometime!):
"Even if (the computer operators) were experienced umpires, this system would not work because it's based on a single frontal photograph in comparison with the 3-D, real-time view of the umpire," Gibson said.
In addition, many batters move during the course of the pitch, which an umpire sees and weighs in determining the strike zone, he said.
See, each time a batter steps to the plate, the system has to be calibrated for that batter's particular size, crouch, stance angle, etc. But that calibration is only done once (at the beginning of the at bat), and it's done by...a human being, just like the umpires. And often, this operator, while he may know the system, doesn't understand the game of baseball.
So the umpires' beef is not that they don't want to be evaluated, it's just a question of whether the measuring stick is really doing a better job than they can do standing right behind the plate.
Belloc
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
The reason umpires don't want these machines on the field is that they make a KILLING doing their job.
And they deserve it too. Being a good official is really, really, really hard. I know first hand because I've been an official (different sport but same deal) for a number of years. Major league officials show as much skill as the athletes do. I know because I've been a division 1 college athlete (yes a few of us read slashdot believe it or not) and an official too.
It is damn hard to know all the rules of a game, have them on instant recall, apply them to the situation at hand, and do so correctly and without pissing anyone off. If you do your job right, no one notices you and if you do get noticed you get screamed at, usually by some halfwit who has never picked up a rule book in their life.
It annoys the hell out of me when I see some twit complaining about officials "trying to determine the outcome". Let me get out the cluebat. NO official I have ever met (and that is a LOT of officials) would ever try to determine the outcome of a game. We really don't care who wins. We just want to have a fair contest and really prefer it when one team kicks the crap out the other. Less chance of anyone getting their panties in a bunch over a *game*. If you don't take my word for it, read anything by Ron Luciano and you might get the idea. The only thing any official wants is for the game to get over with as quickly and fairly as possible. That's it.
As for the measuring equipment being used. As an official I don't really have a problem with it being used as an evaluation tool. Most officials would welcome a tool to make them better at their job. I would however have a problem with it being used in a game I was officiating. No official wants to be second guessed because it undermines our ability to keep control of a game. People start becoming unnecessarily rough, unsportsmanlike, and generally begin to behave like cretins when they think they have a right to question the judgement of the officials. (This isn't a supposition of mine, I've seen it happen countless times)
Now there are problems when the officials in some sports (basketball is notorious for this) start calling the game differently depending on the situation instead of how the rulebook specifies. That's a problem. But most officials at a high level do a very good job at what is a very difficult job. If they get paid well to do it, believe me, they've earned it.
From a baseball purist standpoint, MLB has become a Home Run Derby of sorts, but that has VERY little to do with strike zone
.262 right now, I think I'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that umpires' collective decisions about strike zones can move overall batting averages so minimally yet be the cause of an increase in home runs.
I think this section is an excellent analysis of the parent post. If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average. The theory would say that by improving the quality of the pitches the batter faces as strikes, they'd be hitting more of everything, not just home runs.
Anyway, some guy's chart bears this out- keep in mind what looks like a big difference on that chart (.006, say) represents about 30 hits per team per season. Given that the NL appears to be hitting a collective
I remember having a conversation about this some 20 years ago, when I was playing little league. After seeing so many bad calls, I brought up to my coach that someday we would have computers and robots making all of the decisions. He balked, saying it would ruin the game.
Now that Iâ(TM)m older, I tend to agree with him; at least for the major leagues. But I still think this technology could be well used in little league, where itâ(TM)s hard to find someone to be an umpire, even harder to find one thatâ(TM)s any good. Some would show up drunk, would have some bone to pick against a team who had a player with a parent he didnâ(TM)t like, or simply be idiots.
Whatâ(TM)s worse is the way parents react to calls (even good ones) they donâ(TM)t agree with. I can only imagine how it would change the dynamic of the game for kids if these officiating robots could be made cheaply and be available to kidsâ(TM) leagues.
It wouldnâ(TM)t be without precedent: We already allow little leaguers to use aluminum bats, while the big leagues still have wood. Keep the majors pure and traditional, but it would be nice to see a little technology around to help keep the games fair for kids.
The Internet is generally stupid
I sense sarcasm, but I feel I should give the facts anyway. For a regular season major league baseball game there are four umpires (one for each base), compared to the nine defensive players that are always on the field, plus the batter and as many as three runners on base. So there are four umpires for as many as 13 players on the field. This is about the same ratio as the NBA (3 refs for 10 players) and the NFL (7 officials for 22 players).
For the playoffs, major league baseball adds 2 umpires, one down each foul line so the outfield is covered better. In the minor leagues, there are usually only 3 umpires per game during the regular season.