Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Project Scope For MLB Robot Umpires?
nightcats writes "The League Championship Series of baseball are upon us, and numerous sports media pundits, armies of fans at comment boards, and TV people are openly debating the possibility of robot umpires coming to Major League Baseball, to either replace or enhance the human umps' work on the field. Question: what kind of project are we reasonably talking about here? What would the scope and length be from planning/design to user testing/implementation (presumably in a spring training/minor league setting)? What kinds of hardware (video scanners, touch-sensitive bases/foul lines, etc.) and software would be required?"
And, as long as we're on the subject — do you think it would be good for the game?
There goes your excuse for calling the umpire an idiot.
My opinion? See above.
All we need is a smartphone with stereo vision, and the ump could be a smartphone hooked up to a bullhorn that yells "STRIIIIKE."
Alternately, if MLB offered a $10,000 competition for a Kinect app, and you'll get at least a few dozen different highly polished entires a week later. Half of them will work flawlessly, because they're written by out of work engineers that have been waiting for their big break.
As for whether it would be good for the game? I couldn't give two shits. Baseball is boring as hell. But writing an app to call ball/strike/foul would be VERY interesting ... for about a week.
Spectator-sports are all about emotions. You can feel strongly about the decision of an umpire if he's human and rules against your team or for the "enemy". If that's done by some hidden array of sensors, this aspect of the game is dead and the whole experience just got a whole lot more sterile and less enjoyable.
Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Pretty much everything could be accomplished using cameras, and software like Hawkeye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye).
This is what they use in tennis to track balls moving well over 200km/h. It is supposedly accurate to within the fuzz on the tennis ball. This can handle strikes/balls, foul calls, home runs, and potentially even tag-outs.
The technology is there. I remember hearing that it took a trailer full of electronics to draw the first-down line in football a decade ago, and now it can be run on a high end laptop.
In baseball, with the rising number of incorrect calls at the plate, I'm all for electronic verification. We saw a perfect game (or was it a no-hitter...) stolen last year by a bad call at first base. The strongest argument against using these techniques is that it increases the barrier to entry for kids to "really" be playing the game they see on TV. With sports like soccer, options like these are rarely considered for this reason. To match what the kids see on TV, they need a few posts, a ball, and maybe their favorite player's jersey. Add cameras, and you've added an element no child can hope to include in their own game with their friends.
But all that's changed in tennis is McEnroe's endless rants about bad line calls. Tennis has never been better. Umpires should still call out/safe calls, but ball/strike should have been given to a computer long ago, especially seeing what an inconsistent job the umps do at it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Most broadcasts now have a "pitch zone" and you can watch the umps get it wrong regularly enough that robotic calls and strikes could be useful.
do you think it would be good for the game?
It would be bad because only a couple extremely well financed and large organizations could bribe the ump by reprogramming it, instead of the current system where anybody with cash can do it. Essentially, interference with a free market is gonna screw it up. I'm not sure why anyone other than the mob will benefit from this change.
It could do "strike" "ball" but they will still need a human there anyway to enforce other rules "wait a second, that isn't an approved kind of bat" "the catcher called the batter a n-word to distract him during the pitch, mandatory walk" or "the batter intentionally spit upon the catcher, ejection from game" or whatever other obscure rules they have.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
An automated system for sensing and interpreting play on a baseball diamond wouldn't really be "robotic" would it?
It would rather be a system of cameras and sensors and some calibrated displays so that close plays in the physical world could be replayed and interpreted.
(Killing Bob Costas would not only be good for baseball, but just in general make the world a better place.)
I will gladly provide you an estimate of the scope for such a development effort. My consulting fee is $150/hour.
What, you expected people to plan your project for you gratis? Why would anyone do that? It will take days of work to properly estimate something like that.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Fire Joe Morgan!
It's been a few years since it's been updated, but it's great to get a feel for the crap passed off as sports "journalism". And one strongly suspects non-sports "journalism" is no better....
Give the umpire behind the plate some sort of augmented reality HUD headset that shows the strikezone and highlights the ball as it comes over the plate. The feed from the Umps headset could also be used in broadcasts. Uses technology without removing the human element of the game. I'll start working on it if MLB wants to pony up the cash...most (if not all) of it would just be COTS hardware.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
You could probably just run the whole game on statistics and quantum probability. Despite where the ball actually fell, over the course of N games the ball was statistically most likely to fall over there, based on the records of this batter, pitcher and field. This would be less costly than "optical hardware". So all you need are past statistics and a random number generator. The number of "bad calls" would be statistically equal over time.
Gently reply
I've heard many a player interviewed when they say they're OK with umps making a mistake during the regular season because they all even out during the course of those games. During this last ALDS I thought the umps were terrible with calling balls and strikes, especially during Game 3 of NYY @ DET. There were many instances of CC Sabathia not getting strike calls when his pitches hit the edges of the strike zone (pitchers would very often get that call during the season), while Justin Verlander would get strike calls when the pitches were sailing over the inside edge of the other batter's box. Mistakes like this cannot be evened out during the course of a 5- or 7-game series; such mistakes have an obvious impact on the outcome of a series.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
It would certainly be funny to see a red-faced coach screaming at a camera that it should get its lenses cleaned and sensors calibrated.
~Syberz
Robots can't be bored
Padres struck out Jeeter, he even began walking away from the plate. The ump called it foul. All video replays showed essentially a perfect pitch. Even the commentators couldn't see how it was a foul.
It essentially turned the tide of the world series as Jeter would go on to hit a home run. The Yankees had hitherto been getting their butts kicked. But when you have to pitch 4 strikes, it changes all the odds. This will eliminate a LOT of bought off umps as well.
Likewise, soccer, World Cup last year. The U.S. team won, but the ref called foul on U.S. Video replay showed NO foulable actions on the part of the U.S. However, the opposing team had three U.S. soccer players locked in bear hugs.
Yes, clearly a case of bought off ref. Who essentially affected the playoff season. One might say he's lucky, if he did that to any of the numberous fanatical football following countries he'd be a dead ump. Thankfully for his life, American's are not that big into soccer football.
Catchers would become a lot more useless, no longer being able to try to affect the umpire's call by moving his hand when catching the ball (to move an obvious ball to being in the strike zone), not to mention strike zones can change depending on a batter's height, stance, etc. I could, however, see them use it to judge how accurate umpires are, to at least keep them on their toes.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
Is it good for us? Robot flubs the call - it gets called a programming error and the lynch-mobs are after anyone who has a pocket protector.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Already there. They have been installed in most stadiums for years. That's how they get the graphics to display on telecasts. They have also used this information to determine if there is racial bias in calls. http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/07/01/strike-three-do-mlb-umpires-express-racial-bias-in-calling-balls-and-strikes/ Short answer: there is slight racial bias (umpires of the same race as the pitcher give them a tiny but measurable amount of help). This bias disappears as umpires gain experience.
But why does the MLB limited it so much when there needs to be more?
As someone that has attended one of the two professional umpire schools in Florida and had conversations with the umpires actually working in MLB, I'd like to bring some perceptive to this. These umpires are highly trained, high paid individuals that are the cream of the crop in their profession. They are under constant scrutiny from the Umpire Supervisor (who is Charlie Reliford, an excellent umpire in his own right) and his observers who ensure they are performing to the best of their ability. Obviously, mistakes are made and with instant replay, we can relive them over and over again. Umpiring is about being in the right spot at the right time to see the play and make the call. It is 95% positioning and 5% actually calling what you see. If you aren't in the right position, that is when you get in trouble.
Back to robots and their place in the field of umpiring. I think monitoring fair/foul like in tennis and similar things is a valid application, but anything beyond that is not very feasible as proper positioning is very subjective to the situation. I'd think that some sort of eye piece with a HUD that was able to track the ball and allow the umpire to reply what he saw would be the best option for baseball. Not sure if it at all feasible, but I don't think you'd get too much opposition for the umpire association. Instant reply has problems with when should it be used, how long should it take, and the like. Nearly all plays in baseball have significance and have the chance to alter a game, especially during a close game. Baseball can already be a long game and IR would just add to it.
The official rule:
Strike Zone is the 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 hollow 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.
What if the robot can't see the top of my pants? (My shirt is loose and blouses over)
What if my shoulders are angled? (Where's the 'top'?)
What if I have loose pants and a locked knee stance? (Where's my knee, and thus the hollow below the cap?)
When does the robot determine the boundaries of the zone? (If it's at the windup, I'll crouch during it then stand up. If it's as the pitch comes in, I'll squat on high strikes)
A living, breathing umpire makes all these subjective decisions on every pitch. There's no way to trick the umpire into giving you a smaller or undefined strike zone.
You have to keep umpires, even if there's instant replay.
For another example: on a large fraction of 6-4-3 and 4-6-3 double plays, the infielder making the play at second base doesn't actually tag the bag. Umpires are very generous on the player touching the base on the turn. Relying on a robot to make that call would be incredibly disruptive with the way that call has been made for over a century.
I think all sports should have multiple refs in booths watching video and being able to replay, stop, pause, etc. If they see something call the ump on the field to tell him what happened.
These games are too fast for the officials on the field. Take advantage of technology by having officials watching on film and give them the power to make calls just as the officials on the field.
Don't get rid of the on-field officials, but add some watching on tv.
(goddamn it, I wasn't logged in) The official rule: Strike Zone is the 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 hollow 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. What if the robot can't see the top of my pants? (My shirt is loose and blouses over) What if my shoulders are angled? (Where's the 'top'?) What if I have loose pants and a locked knee stance? (Where's my knee, and thus the hollow below the cap?) When does the robot determine the boundaries of the zone? (If it's at the windup, I'll crouch during it then stand up. If it's as the pitch comes in, I'll squat on high strikes) A living, breathing umpire makes all these subjective decisions on every pitch. There's no way to trick the umpire into giving you a smaller or undefined strike zone. You have to keep umpires, even if there's instant replay. For another example: on a large fraction of 6-4-3 and 4-6-3 double plays, the infielder making the play at second base doesn't actually tag the bag. Umpires are very generous on the player touching the base on the turn. Relying on a robot to make that call would be incredibly disruptive with the way that call has been made for over a century.
Its part of the game. However I can see using the computers to see how often umpires bad calls and getting rid of bad umpires.
I don’t follow sports at all but I think it would be great for the Business of Baseball. There would be no more arguing with an autonomous robo-umpire. Delaying the game penalties for violating game rules would be swift and irrevocable. These robo-umpire would also have on board drug testing for amphetamines and steroids they will test the air surrounding tens of thousands of times a second for contraband, sorry Fairy Ponds. The games out-come would be a measurable statistical, fouls and outs would be regulated to exacting precision with digital censers every where. The field censors would tracking the ball as it flies and determine it’s ultimate path and relaying to the robo-announcer blaring out the results before they happen. This would a be boom to those who thrive on illicit activity of leveraged predications of sporting events, to the point they will finish taking over the game. Wouldn’t it all be better it the players were replaced by robots too, no more strikes or expensive salaries?
If you want to improve the game, replace all the owners and the commissioner with robots!
It would not be good for the game. Some favorite chants of the crowd would no longer be valid. No more "Kill the umpire!" or "The umpire is blind!"? You will take away a vital part of the game.
Hating the ump is not the “fun: part of the game – it’s a defense mechanism called Self Serving Bias.
Remember, the fan is the “10th player” – they contribute to the success or failure of the game. When the picture pitches and fails, the fan has two choices.
Rationally ascribe the failure to their team – and thus themselves – and recognize that they are a failure. Or they can protect their ego and blame the Ump.
With all the high speed multiple angles on all bases - why the hell don't they at least use instant replay. We've all seen the bad game changing calls. Time for that to end.
Pitch f/x can already be used to determine balls and strikes. It may not be perfect, but it's a darn sight better than the inconsistent strike zones we see on a regular basis. Right now each umpire has his own strike zone - and some even talk about it as if the definition of the zone is their own rather than what's defined in the rulebook.
Alternatively - if we could just get rid of C.B. Bucknor the average quality of baseball umpiring would go up dramatically.
FWIW I used to be against any sort of automated ball/strike determination, but I've seen so many bad calls I've come around.
#DeleteChrome
The human element is what makes the game interesting. The umps do the best job they can, and sometimes they blow it. But the game is FAR better with that element than a robot.
What's next? I'd like to see the baseball in play on EVERY pitch. So let's get a pitching machine and a batting machine out on the field. We just need a fielding machine and the game would be so interesting! Why the hell would I want to make my game suck harder by having people involved?
You can use cameras to detect ball location around strike zone. Get rid you that responsibility.
Nearly every play can be called automatically.
It's the close tags that are the only real issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hey, nobody protests when we decide elections by voting machines!
There goes your excuse for calling the umpire an idiot.
Not really. Human or electronic the umpire will be "confronted". "Hey ump clean your glasses" becomes "Hey IT clean the ump's optical sensor", "That umpire has been bought" becomes "That umpire has been hacked".
We could do this today. They have enough HD cameras watching the game and can play anything back in slow motion to make sure every call is 100% accurate. Part of the game IS umpires making bad calls. Sorry but that's true, otherwise they would have been replaced with cameras years ago.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Why stop with just robot umpires? Why not robot players? Robot bats? Robot fans?
Part of the allure of baseball for many fans is that it is a pure sport that hasn't dramatically changed for over 100 years (certainly there have been advances in player training, in the ball, and in bat design, but those are fairly minor compared to the changes in many other sports). While a robot umpire would perhaps be more "accurate," it wouldn't make baseball a better game because it would be fundamentally making it a different game.
Diebold voting machines ;-(
These @55#01E5 have never played baseball or loved the game with a pure heart. Umpires Calls reach deeper than the universe is long for this sport, good or bad(remembering a few of Tim McClellen's calls off the bat), ROBOT UMPIRES?? ARE YOU FRICKING JOKING ?? OK YOU CAN KILL US NOW. Thats the last call.. Thats the LAST Strike against America, I can't stand for this anymore. YOU'RE OUT!!
Eventually we'll see an entire robot EVERYTHING on the team, and i'll tune in to watch the fights.
Not to self-promote (or self-congratulate) but I wrote a story 5 years ago about just this subject, and even produced it as an audio play. It's free to listen at http://planetretcon.com/blog/?p=32
I even set the story in 2011, though my reasoning was that 2011 was 5 years in the future from the time of production. The software works after some initial bugs, but there's just one final bug they can't correct.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
You should have seen it!
I make a good bit of coin betting on pro sports, and participating in fantasy sports leagues. Removing the refs from pro baseball would blow an effective statistical model I've been using for nearly a decade. I've been pretty successful at predicting per game performances for pitchers (especially strike counts) in MLB by correlating the races of the homeplate umpire and the pitcher in question, and if the umpires are replaced by non-racially biased computers, I lose that edge. Unfortunately, somebody has twigged to my model. If this study gets picked up by the press, it might be enough to overcome some of the doubts about robot refs in pro sports, and pave the way for automated officiating.
Why stop with just robot umpires? Why not robot players? Robot bats? Robot fans?
Part of the allure of baseball for many fans is that it is a pure sport that hasn't dramatically changed for over 100 years (certainly there have been advances in player training, in the ball, and in bat design, but those are fairly minor compared to the changes in many other sports). While a robot umpire would perhaps be more "accurate," it wouldn't make baseball a better game because it would be fundamentally making it a different game.
The "purity" of baseball is a myth. Take off the rose-colored glasses and wake up and smell the game-throwing, steroid abusing, racially-biased, and ethically bankrupt reality that is MLB. To cite this fantasy purity as justification for not bringing in a machine that actually *is* pure in the sense you are using the word is fucking ludicrous.
I am all for instant replay and using as much tech as possible to determine EXACTLY what happened at the plate and in the field of play.
But I don't believe that the foreseeable future holds any means of calling a balk.
It isn't the usual calls that are the problem. It is the infrequent ones. Balk. Infield-fly rule. Base runner interference. Batter interfering with the catcher's throw. Pitcher doctoring the ball. Batter using too much pine tar.
These little elements are rules just outside of what could be programmed, IMHO.
Does baseball really need a robot saying 'Strike one'? How about a robot pitcher? Or a robot manager doing all those cool signals that looks like dancing?