Slashdot Mirror


Intel's Big Bet On Baseball (axios.com)

Ina Fried, reporting for Axios: Intel has been traveling the country this year, broadcasting one major league game a week in virtual reality. On Tuesday, the company's crew was close to home as the San Francisco Giants defeated the Cleveland Indians 2-1 in extra innings. How it works: The games are free to watch, but require the person to have a Samsung phone and Gear VR headset. To broadcast a game in VR, Intel has camera rigs on the first and third base side, as well as the traditional "deep home" shot. It also aims to have an additional camera or two in a spot unique to each stadium. In Arizona, for example, it has one near the stadium's swimming pool. Each camera setup has six pairs of cameras to capture high-definition footage in 180 degrees. In the parking lot, meanwhile, separate teams work in two adjoining vans. One group works on the sound and stitches the images together, while a second van houses a more traditional broadcast setup, including play-by-play announcer J.B. Long. Tweaking the product: Still new at this, Intel is constantly adding new tricks to its arsenal. Last night's game, for example, was the first time the company added real-time VR graphics to the mix, showing baseball cards with stats above the players. Intel CEO has said he wants VR sports to be a billion dollar business for the company.

57 comments

  1. You're wasting your time in India unless... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3

    You're wasting your time in India unless it's 3D cricket. Never seen an Indian in the parking lot with a baseball bat, and the "out of the park" highlight clips most likely shown in my neck of the woods aren't from US footage.

    1. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can bring VR to baseball and it will still be boring. Not as boring as cricket mind-you, but still boring.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2

      Twenty-Twenty Cricket is far from boring. Baseball is definietly snooze fest material.
      I'd like them to try to do VR Rugby Union.... People would see what really goes on in a Scrum (and not that poncy IT version)

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    3. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you bitch, a feckin-A TWITCHER ?

    4. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What does this have to do with India? These VR baseball games are being broadcast in the US. They're trying to simulate the feel of actually being at a game, which isn't a bad idea. I'm not sure how interested casual fans would be in this, but I think it would be possible to add some things that would appeal to more avid fans. Showing stats in a broadcast isn't a bad idea, but that's really no different from what you get on TV, and I can think of other ways to improve the experience. The main advantage so far is that you can choose your own view rather than being stuck with what the producer gives you.

      When watching on TV, especially depending on the camera angle, it's not always easy to tell how much pitches move. If the camera well is offset toward left center field, as is often the case, pitches from lefties will appear to move horizontally a lot while righties appear to have much less movement. Sometimes the camera is in center field, but it's positioned a little higher to avoid distracting the batter. You see the horizontal movement, but not as much of the vertical movement. If the camera pods are automated, it might be possible to put them in places where they don't normally get positioned. I'd love to see a lower camera angle straight on from center field, or perhaps from behind the plate. As a baseball nerd, I'd love to be able to get a better feel for how pitches are moving and what the hitters are facing.

      I'd also love to see this for racing. A lot of times, there's action going on somewhere on the track, but you don't get to see it because the focus is on something else. I'd love to see these positioned at different locations around a track or, perhaps, on the cars. If this could be done for F1, that would be very cool.

    5. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, we're not VR-watching the game. We're creeping on the crowd for hotties.

    6. Re: You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that even mean?

    7. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your opinion that baseball is boring. I disagree with that opinion, but there is an issue with the pace of play. When the pitchers work quickly and the hitters don't waste time between pitches, baseball really isn't all that slow. The problem is that in the late innings, when there are more high leverage situations (where the outcome of a play has a large impact on the probability of a team to win or lose the game), the play tends to slow down dramatically.

      Hitters step out of the box more, pitchers spend more time stepping off the rubber and throwing over to first base to keep runners in check, catchers and coaches make more visits to the mound, and there are more pitching changes. If a pitcher gets into trouble in the innings, the team will often stall to allow a relief pitcher to warm up in a hurry. It would actually improve the game, in my opinion, if this stalling was cut out and managers had to plan ahead more.

      Limit the ability of the batters to call time and the pitchers to step off the rubber or throw to the bases. Pitchers can still attempt pickoffs, just not as many. Often times, the pitcher gives away his pickoff move to the runner and, as soon as he actually delivers a pitch instead of throwing to first, the runner steals second anyway. Eliminate most of the useless pickoff attempts and control the running game with the element of surprise (pickoffs when the runner isn't expecting it as much) or with the catcher throwing out or picking off runners. I'd bet a good catcher like Yadier Molina of the St. Louis Cardinals could control the running game anyway. It just means that less time will be wasted because you won't have three straight pickoff attempts, the pitcher stepping off, finally delivering a pitch, then making another two pickoff attempts.

      Pitchers are already supposed to deliver their pitches within a certain amount of time with no runners on base. I'd place clocks around the stadium that are like the 24 second shot clocks in the NBA (these already exist in the minors) and require the pitcher deliver a pitch or attempt a pickoff within 24 seconds, regardless of whether runners are on base.

      Basically there's a lot of stalling for time that could be eliminated without adversely affecting the experience for fans. Speed up the pace of play in the late innings in high leverage situations and you'll greatly improve the fan experience. Baseball doesn't have to be boring at all, and it really isn't boring at all when there's good pace to the game. When the pitchers are working quickly, baseball isn't slow at all. Just eliminate a lot of the stalling between pitches, especially in the late innings in close games. I'd also point out that baseball takes a lot of criticism, but it's hardly the only sport with this problem. The final minute of a close basketball game, when there's lots of fouling and clock stoppages, is really awful to watch. Basically, all the end to end action goes away and the team that's trailing hurries to get a quick shot that may be of poor quality, then fouls the other team as soon as they get possession.

      I'd agree that the VR might be boring if the pace of play is terrible. But speed up the pace of play and baseball really is quite entertaining to watch.

    8. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by jIyajbe · · Score: 1

      I like and agree with most everything you've said here. I have a different opinion about the late innings/high leverage situations. I really enjoy the psychological games that the pitcher, hitter, and runner (if any) play with each other. It winds up the tension, and gets me on the edge of my seat. And when at the game IRL, the crowd gets amped up, chanting, booing the (visiting team's) pickoff attempts...Great fun!

      --
      "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    9. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sports are a waste of time for everyone but the athlete. Everyone is just sitting there...? I've never understood the appeal.

      I will neither consume this content for free or pay. (Or even if they pay me. I still would not.)

    10. Re:You're wasting your time in India unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck cares?

      This is just useless anti-america off-topic trolling. GO AWAY.

  2. Big bet on VR, not Baseball by captaindomon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title is way off. This doesn't have anything to do with Intel betting on baseball, unless they are buying a team or something we don't know about. They're betting on VR, and refining their approach, and baseball is an easy, cheap, repeatable way to do that, and provides a "cool" experience in surround. They can move their setup within minutes to any other venue I'm sure.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> doesn't have anything to do with Intel betting on baseball...refining their approach, and baseball is a...cheap...way to do that

      However, it does have to do with Intel betting that legacy, large-stadium-based sports (you know, stuff ESPN rose and fell on) will still be a thing in 10-20 years. For the rest of us who watch more eSports than 3-hour meatspace snoozefests the action is going to be more on how video games can be made more interesting for a wider viewing public (i.e., choosing our viewing angles, showing more live stats that are hidden from players, switching from player view to strategic view, etc.) than whether legacy sports will translate into 3D.

      And since when was a major US sport cheap to cozy up with? As a business, you can't even say "Superbowl" out loud without writing a check.

    2. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eSports are the most boring thing I can possibly imagine. Watching someone else play a video game is right up there with watching paint dry.

    3. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Sports (including stadium-style) have been around, more or less, since the dawn of civilization. They are going nowhere.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by clampolo · · Score: 1

      Baseball is a great choice for VR. I can't wait to see the spit and pumpkin seeds flying out of the players' mouths. I'm also looking forward to see the crotch scratching and ass slapping from new and unique viewing angles. Thanks, Intel!!

    5. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by bws111 · · Score: 1

      ESPN hardly 'rose and fell' on stadium based sports. They rose and fell on cable subscription deals, which isn't remotely the same thing.

    6. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      I agree, yet twitch.TV still exists

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    7. Re:Big bet on VR, not Baseball by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      Yep. Colosseum comes to mind from the past. From the future, you have Star Trek TOG "Bread and Circuses".

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
  3. 360 VR is a Silly Gimmick by DatbeDank · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much like 3D glasses, 360 VR is a silly gimmick that appeals to a very small hardcore group of early adopters.

    360 VR does not have a future outside of a small niche. To the average non-video game player/early tech adopter, the headsets are big, bulky, and dorky (sis said it not me).

    Have you seen your average TV baseball demographic? Do you really think they're going to spend money on something like this? This is a silly fad that will be replaced with the next silly entertainment gimmick designed to encourage consumers to keep buying new equipment every 1 to 2 years.

    The only way this would be successful is if Intel gave away its 360 VR headsets for free to thousands of fans in those cities.

    The sooner 360VR dies for Immersive VR, the better.

    1. Re: 360 VR is a Silly Gimmick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was younger, I'd occasionally borrow some seasons tickets from a friend because I liked the hot dogs. I don't think I've actually seen a sports game since I was 10, though have gone to a few.

      I do recall that RealNetworks survived a few years on sports. Of course, they offered something "meaningful" in the sense that you could watch games online at work.

      I suppose that while VR will be purely gimmick and less than a tenth of a percent of viewers will bother, the stream itself will allow viewers to use a cheap device like ChromeCast or AppleTV to change their viewing angle from a remote or phone. I would imagine that should justify the cost of the technology.

      3D isn't worth much for VR, but with good on-field motion capture and 3D streams based on wireframe as opposed to fixed interpolated frames, there could be an actual market for the tech. It would allow viewers to zoom in on what entertains them most.

      Of course the tech is more likely to be of interest for concerts and "adult content", but Intel can probably make a billion on advertising revenue for sports as well as get a great platform to peddle their own products on.

    2. Re: 360 VR is a Silly Gimmick by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      to change their viewing angle from a remote or phone

      My old region-free dvd player allowed me to see alternate camera views for dvds for scenes that provided them. I can't recall anyone ever using it. More hassle than it's worth. Same with 3d tv and VR.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  4. Who would buy this? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who in the hell would pay to watch other people play sports?

    1. Re:Who would buy this? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I weep at the supreme ignorance and vile classism displayed in this post.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Who would buy this? by show+me+altoids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Have you ever been outside of your cave?

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    3. Re:Who would buy this? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Who in the hell would pay to watch other people play sports?

      The majority of the world's population. It's why almost any country you visit on earth has multimillionaire sports stars, even countries that are impoverished.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Who would buy this? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, why would I go outside? I can have pizza delivered!

    5. Re:Who would buy this? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It was uncharacteristically short, though.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Who would buy this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. a lot of people. In fact, it isn't even sports so much now as video games. People are interested in watching people play video games. You know why? Because thanks to ESPN, sports is not easy to watch anymore without some kind of cable subscription or something. Before it used to be free on TV, now nobody can either watch it and it is expensive to buy tickets... soooo... video games for the win! The next generation is going to be doing that instead of sports.

      The nerds have won.

      out of curiosity, in this day and age, why the fuck do I have to put html tags in my comments on this site?

    7. Re:Who would buy this? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Why would you have pizza delivered? Can't your mom just bring it downstairs? /s

    8. Re:Who would buy this? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The same people who watch gay porn, i.e. men who like to see other men work out all over each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if I were forced to watch some sports, it would be something like female gymnastics.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:Who would buy this? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No I moved out of my parents's house to live alone. Who would want to live with their parents?

    10. Re:Who would buy this? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Marsupials?

  5. How about using VR for calling balls and strikes? by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    Give a VR device to the home plate umpire so he can see if the pitch was in the strike zone. It won't slow the game down and will make it more fair.

    With 200+ pitches a game the home plate ump is bound to get some calls wrong or is just having a bad day. The umps get fatigued, their view gets blocked by the catcher, catcher framing the pitch making it look like a strike and the catcher moves the mit back into the strike zone in such a way that the ump thinks it was a strike.

    Baseball should have a goal to get every call correct.

  6. No dog in the fight by subk · · Score: 1

    I am curious why Intel would even be the entity to do this? Especially given that they are delivering the "product" on a Samsung platform which doesn't even have Intel Inside(TM).

    --
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    1. Re:No dog in the fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel does have a stake in GearVR and anything that pushes VR in general. Its a cart/horse issue and they working on the cart portion now so that all those horses (VR headsets) will have something to pull (content).

    2. Re:No dog in the fight by enjar · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the "stitching of the images" and "sound" part happens on Intel. They could be working on chips/algorithms that do that live/quickly. As a parallel example, Silicon Graphics (far diminished from what it used to be) was/is a big part of painting the first down line and other graphics "on field" for NFL games. http://insightreplay.com/the-s... . I'd actually consider a VR rig if they started putting NFL games out in this format.

  7. Re:How about using VR for calling balls and strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are already systems to track pitches and determine if they are balls or strikes. Questec has been used to grade umpire performance in balls and strikes. Pitchfx, which is also used to track the performance of pitchers, has been used to call balls and strikes in minor league games in place of the home plate umpire. You don't need VR when it's possible to completely automate that function of the umpires altogether. It wouldn't replace umpires, just free them up to focus on calling other aspects of the game.

  8. Virtual World by midifarm · · Score: 1

    I have no place in that world. I would MUCH rather go to a game, concert, or event. Why are tech companies trying to keep me in my house? We need MORE human interaction, not less.

    1. Re: Virtual World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word...Ads

    2. Re:Virtual World by enjar · · Score: 2
      I'm a NFL fan. I can carve out three hours to plop down on the couch and watch my team in a week. During that three hours, I can do other things like fold laundry, cook a meal, keep an eye on my kids. To attend a game requires me spending a non-trivial amount of money for tickets, an hour or two each way to get to the stadium and return, plus spending other non-trivial amounts on parking and food at the stadium. Not to mention the fact I live in a northern city where the weather can suck. If I wanted to take all four members of my family to a game we'd likely spend at least $600 a game, probably more. If I wanted to see the whole season with the family in tow I'd probably be out (very conservatively) $10K a year. Or I can sit at home, watch the game for free on the antenna, and feed my family for about $20-30.

      I also love live music, but even cheap tickets for a small venue end up getting to $60/each pretty easily. If it's a big name, well established band, the tickets very easily break $100, and commonly head on up to $150 or $200 a head. I can do that a couple times a year but not nearly the number of times I'd actually like to see a band -- I'd be broke.

    3. Re:Virtual World by midifarm · · Score: 1

      This is more incumbent on us the consumers and FOMO. Promoters and marketers have done an amazing job at jacking up prices and making it sound like it'll be the only opportunity to see whatever. The first time I had ever heard of a $50 ticket was for Pink Floyd in 1995. Given the spectacle it was worth it. But since then shows and sporting events have become cost prohibitive. The $20 concert has become a $110 nosebleed seat plus "convenience" charges. The $30 NFL ticket has become $275. This is all assuming that you can buy them at face value. The legalization of ticket scalping by places like Stub Hub increases that price even more. The only way to combat that is to sacrifice attendance and voting with your wallet. As far as your NFL watching, I agree 3 hrs was all it used to be, but the constant barrage of hyped, nonsensical media coverage throughout the year and them increasing the schedule from all the games on Sunday afternoon (late morning and afternoon game) and one Monday night spectacle (all on broadcast BTW) to a Thursday night game, Sunday late morning, afternoon, and sometimes two at night, plus a Monday night game (sometimes an early and late) I think dilutes the product and has forced me, as the consumer, to become disinterested. Taking the whole family to a game requires either dedication or a vast amount of disposable income that the average fan just doesn't have. I'm not sure where all this leads, but I know for myself I will be paring back my concert attendance and sporting events are going to be severely limited as well. Not that I don't enjoy them, they've become increasingly less important in my life and too expensive.

    4. Re:Virtual World by enjar · · Score: 1
      I agree with pretty much everything you said. I was able to swing a Metallica ticket in high school no problem, working a part-time minimum wage job. We all got tickets, grabbed some fast food on the way to the show and had a great time. This was for the Justice tour, so they were a pretty big name by then and they played a local arena (and rocked!). Metallica just came by where I live playing an arena show. The crap tickets were well over $100. AC/DC also came around for what seems like their third or fourth retirement show and the tickets were also similarly ridiculously priced. I was moderately interested in U2, but not $700 for a pair of tickets interested.

      I agree on the NFL schedule. The Thursday night game needs to go, if only because it can put teams at a severe disadvantage if they have a Sunday game. With all the effort the NFL puts into trying to keep teams evenly matched, it seems an anomaly and as you said, dilutes it. I liked the tradition of MNF, but after it went off broadcast I can't see it anymore unless my local team is playing. I also don't get ESPN or NFL Network so I skip the year round drama and keep football as my fall/winter favorite miniseries.

      I also gave up on baseball since my local team's games are all on cable and we cut that cord long ago, as the value cable was delivering to my house was pretty low relative to the cost.

    5. Re:Virtual World by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Baseball is the exception -- you can still get a $15 seat. Pretty good deal if you don't mind going a few hours without eating.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:Virtual World by enjar · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, there are $15 seats at Fenway ... but realistically you are going to be out at least $75, probably more. The Fenway Frank is also very hard to resist. I've heard of people going to Cleveland, Baltimore or Toronto to see the Sox for the same money as going to a game at Fenway depending on what seats you are willing to pay for.

    7. Re:Virtual World by midifarm · · Score: 1

      Yeah a $12 oor$ light is asinine. The only people trying to do it right are the Foo Fighters. Tickets go on sale at the arena a day or two BEFORE they go on sale at Ticketdisaster to the public/ internet. All seats max out at $65 with at least a third of the arena available at $35. They want the fans to attend. Last show of theirs I saw was about 3 hours. That's how it's done!

  9. Watching Baseball Online by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

    I had a subscription to MLB.tv for a couple years, I'm also one of the five baseball fans in Canada (hi there) one thing that annoyed me is that they blackout the games that are shown locally, as if I'm sitting in front of my TV all the time. The whole point of me getting a subscription to the damn service was so that I could watch a game on my mobile device or at my computer on their site, but nope, if a team I follow was on TV it was blacked out on the site / app service.

    So yeah, cancelled that PDQ. I understand that the MLB and the MLBPA makes cash from broadcasting rights but I'm trying to give you the money here and you lock me out anyway. Kinda pointless

    Anyway, on topic, seems like a fairly specific setup you need to have in order to use this, kinda defeats the purpose really. (I'm sure somebody else has made the same comment already by now RIP)

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Watching Baseball Online by chipschap · · Score: 3, Interesting

      About those mlb.tv blackouts ... I'm in Hawai`i and MLB blacks out all California teams as being "local market." Right, I'm going to travel 2,400 miles to see a "local" game.

    2. Re:Watching Baseball Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for the blackouts is not the same reason the NFL blacked out games locally. The NFL did that to try to make people buy tickets, and in recent decades, the games weren't blacked out as long as they were sold out 72 hours in advance.

      Aside from the national broadcasts (Fox, ESPN, TBS, and MLB Network), MLB doesn't control the rights to broadcast the games. Each team has a TV market and they negotiate the rights to broadcast their games within that market. Many teams have deals with Fox or Comcast to show the games on regional sports networks. There are other networks such as MASN (Orioles and Nationals), NESN (Red Sox), and YES (Yankees). Those networks pay the teams for the rights to show their games in those regional TV markets. The networks can afford to pay for those rights because they sell advertising during games.

      Those commercials aren't shown on MLB.TV broadcasts, meaning those networks can't charge higher rates for commercials during games. Instead, MLB gets the money from your MLB.TV subscription, and that money gets distributed to the teams. If MLB.TV showed in-market games, that cuts into the amount of people seeing the commercials during games and the networks can't charge as much money for advertising during games. Naturally, they object to that. MLB could negotiate a deal to give some of the MLB.TV revenue to the TV networks in exchange for in-market streaming. However, that money is then going to the TV networks instead of to MLB and the teams. They won't like giving up that money, either. That's why there isn't in-market streaming for MLB.TV.

      Alternatively, I suppose they could find a way to deliver the ads as part of the in-market streaming. That might actually be the best solution to keep everyone happy. I don't know why this hasn't happened yet. I believe that in many cases (27 of 30 teams, I believe) the networks that broadcast the games can and do provide in-market streaming independent of MLB.TV. However, that requires you to subscribe to the networks that broadcast those games, either by cable or satellite. It really isn't a good deal if you're already paying the $129/year for MLB.TV, though MLB has been pushing for that because it's better than no streaming at all.

      If you can't get the games from the California games on TV in Hawaii, I'd recommend that you complain to MLB about this. There has been some talk that teams claiming areas as their local markets and not showing the games there might lose the right to claim those areas as part of their TV markets. If enough people complain to MLB, you might be able to get that changed, which would then allow you to stream the games in Hawaii.

      MLB isn't blacking out those games to protect the teams and try to force you to attend the games. They're doing this to protect the networks that have the rights to broadcast the games in the teams' TV markets. But if the teams and networks aren't actually showing the games in those areas, MLB could intervene. I think that's your best bet here, at least for now.

    3. Re:Watching Baseball Online by chipschap · · Score: 1

      You're right and I missed the point about TV rights. However it just seems absurd for any mainland team to claim that Hawaii is in their broadcast market.

      I did look into this a little more. Some California teams can be seen here if you buy expensive cable packages, but not the SF Giants. You can't watch them, period. And Hawaiian residents have complained to MLB for years about it with no success.

  10. Re:How about using VR for calling balls and strike by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    The ump should have a real-time display in his mask showing the pitches in proximity to the strike zone.

  11. Arriving without traveling by Yergle143 · · Score: 1

    Like there is not enough branding at a Major League Game?
    Like Ad revenue isn't way way off.

  12. Re:How about using VR for calling balls and strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm in favor of this, even if it's not implemented in precisely that way. I wouldn't want augmented reality in the umpire's mask to be a distraction from making another call like a balk or catcher interference. In the test, it wasn't implemented that way. Someone else (in the test, former major leaguer Eric Byrnes) was responsible for operating the equipment and making the calls, but it actually went well. You can read about it at https://www.wired.com/2015/07/baseball-game-no-umpire/. I believe it would be an improvement because it would get rid of a lot of the biases in the calls umpires make, which are documented at http://www.fangraphs.com/community/the-2016-strike-zone-and-the-umpires-who-control-it/. That last link is a really interesting read and shows that there are a lot of biases in the calling of balls and strikes.

    This also isn't something you'd want to implement right away. Pitchfx has its own errors, partially due to technical limitations that the flight of the ball is extrapolated over the last few feet before getting to the plate. While the overall biases during the course of a season are normally distributed about zero, there can be larger systematic biases over smaller scales like within the course of a game. These are discussed in quite a bit of detail at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=13109. I'm okay with a randomly distributed error of a half inch or even an inch, provided that there's no systematic bias. On the other hand, if the calibration is off and the horizontal error is two or three inches, that's pretty significant. If the goal of automating calling balls and strikes, you don't want to implement a system that has some of the same systematic biases that human umpires have. The solution is to commit to the technology and put the resources of MLB toward fixing the calibration issues with Pitchfx.

    I'm absolutely in favor of doing this. But even if the "baseball purists" immediately dropped their opposition, it would take a little while to properly implement this. I think there's more involved here than, say, implementing instant replay over the course of an offseason.

  13. Second Life redux by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this already tried many years ago in Second Life? I imagine this will be just as popuar

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  14. Think locally, act locally by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Baseball is quite limited in its popularity in the world stage. If you want to make serious money, choose a global sport.

  15. It's a small bet, not a big one. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The title makes it sound like Intel is betting the family jewels on VR. However, "Intel CEO has said he wants VR sports to be a billion dollar business for the company" means he doesn't see it growing to even 2% of revenue.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  16. Re:How about using VR for calling balls and strike by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Bad calls are a part of baseball. Instant replay is the devil.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!