• they/them

plural system in Seattle, WA (b. 1974)
lots of fictives from lots of media, some horses, some dragons, I dunno. the Pnictogen Wing is poorly mapped.

host: Mx. Kris Dreemurr (they/them)

chief messenger and usual front: Mx. Chara or Χαρά (they/them)

other members:
Mx. Frisk, historian (they/them)
Monophylos Fortikos, unicorn (he/him)
Kel the Purple, smol derg (xe/xem)
Pim the Dragon, Kel's sister (she/her)


cathoderaydude
@cathoderaydude

it's wild to me that

  • in baseball, half of the umpires job is to call strikes
  • as far as i can tell, it's agreed upon that they fuck this up all the time
  • it's incredibly hard for a human to do
  • it's one of the very few tasks that a computer is actually good at
  • there's no other sport where computer analysis could add any value. cameras can't keep track of hockey pucks or footballs, and a lot of other sports don't have the level of precision of baseball pitching
  • baseball is the only sport where a camera has an absolutely unfettered view of the ball on 100% of plays
  • they've already built computer systems to analyze pitches
  • they've been completely universal and reliable for over a decade
  • they still make it an umpire's call

it's just so bizarre. there's no value in this being a human decision, there's no "analog warmth" element to an umpire staring into the audience and daydreaming during a pitch and getting the call wrong. it's not like there's a judgment call to be made. it's a literal, scientific question of where the ball was, and nobody could come up with a good reason that answering that precisely on every single pitch with electronics would be a bad thing, that somehow makes the game less human.

i saw some shit saying that players would still argue with the "computerized ump" and i'm like, okay, right now they have an excuse, because the umps are sometimes wrong. whereas, if you want to argue with a machine that's provably 100% accurate... i mean, hell, you can't get thrown out for it, so it would actually make some games run smoother! sure, go bounce your helmet off the LCD screen. nobody cares. there's acrylic over it. i'm making the hand signal for time, get it all out

this is one of the very few cases where I think it's absurd to not use a computer. we only use them for shit they're like 15% good at, and then we pretend they're 100% accurate. this is a case where 100% accuracy is actually possible! we have sixty years of military R&D behind this, and it's just not a very hard thing to do! people write code that does this on a weekend, for fun, and it works!

apparently computerized calls might be coming in the next couple years, maybe, but there's no reason it should be this late. it doesn't even require computers, they could have solved it in the 50s with Electronic Eyes on either side of the plate and left only the altitude vs. height question up to the umpire. absolutely inexplicable

footnote: i do not actually care viscerally about any of this, i am just confused


pnictogen-wing
@pnictogen-wing

...what if you could simply eliminate the concept of a strike zone altogether, and still get a playable game. you might get very entertaining attempts to throw barely-hittable pitches that run up against the mischance of throwing a wild pitch. baseball might be more fun without ANY umpiring, human or electronic!


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @cathoderaydude's post:

My understanding, only barely following baseball, is at least the on screen graphics are not as obviously correct as they lead on. They're probably still more accurate than the computer umpire, but not always.

I want to say the technical exact edge of the box depends on the size (+ stance?????) of the batter as well. The on screen graphics are always just "put the box here relative to the surroundings and it always stays the same.

A computer COULD do this even if the box depends on how the batter is squatting or how tall they are, my understanding (not a baseball expert, citation needed, if this is something I'm wrong about please let me know because I would be interested in reading about it and learning more) is that it's not a 100% solved problem as things stand right now.

Also having a single human being make calls in sports without a computer to verify sucks ass. There's enough cameras and math to prove any call right or wrong depending on how much time and effort you want to put in, and they're probably gonna show that to the audience so why try and pull rank?

idk, the parameters are so simple. even if the tv graphics aren't 100% accurate - and honestly they look pretty damn accurate, i think jomboy does a good job of proving that - it wouldn't be hard to trim up the remaining slop. the camera is a known distance from the plate, known focal length lens, known size ball, known everything. this is literally something we could do with mechanical computers in the 40s. i think they just don't want to solve it because the MLB is like that.

on that point, and re: the last paragraph, MLB hates replays. they have a thousand cameras watching the game, and they hate it. they don't want anyone to see the replay footage during the game, they have incredibly strict rules about who can see it and when and who's allowed to make decisions based on it and it's just very clearly meant to keep things chaotic. the only possible explanation is that they like the fact that wrong calls happen and they want them to continue happening.

MLB specifically does feel a bit, stuck in the mud like that. Unfortunately. Glad I only care about it when the Mariners are fighting for the playoffs :)

quietly moves a couple of eggs into the NBA... erm, basket

And it for sure, 100%, would not be difficult at all to automate the calls with a computer and a couple of cameras. It's not hard, there doesn't need to be a noisy guy behind the plate to do it. Big agree. With my pedantic hat on, I'd say bad calls mean engagement? That'd be pretty lame.

i like to think of baseball as a game between three teams. the umps can never "win", but they sure can play spoiler. this would unfairly nerf the umps mlb pls fix

more seriously: the rules around the strike zone are completely bonkers. the ball needs to pass through a pentagonal prism extending above the shape of home plate, so it's not as simple of a question of "well did the ball go left or right of the plate". the ability to electronically adjudicate the other dimension, between "the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants" and "the hollow beneath the kneecap", is fairly recent.

i think we're only at this level of "this could simply be automated" because of statcast, and in the statcast era it seems like (most) umpires have taken the home plate position more seriously. hell last season was a home plate ump's first "perfect game". baseball is an incredibly slow sport to change, and given we've only played 8 seasons with statcast, i'm not surprised we're still here.

maybe we'll have automation in a few seasons, with the ability for umps to reverse a call on the spot if they feel like it. or maybe umps will continue to get better? you still have to have a guy stand back there to watch for other violations, like balks, which everybody definitely completely understands

computerized calling balls/strikes wouldn't lose anyone their jobs, you still need a guy behind home plate to watch for specific things outside of the pitch. if anything it'd reduce the amount of abuse they get from players and fans about balls/strikes

yeah but they don't want to do that, they enjoy calling balls and strikes. also, if they have less talent expected of them, there is less leverage that they have with their employer.

One thing that comes up when the robo-ump is brought up is the concept of "framing", where in catchers uses essential slight of hand to make balls look like strikes to the umpire. It's one of the ways that a catcher can add value to a team. I don't think it's enough of a reason to not use a robo-ump, but it would adversely affect the careers of some of the catchers who are really good at it.

They've had ball-tracking for LBW decisions in cricket for years now. It is only for (player requested) reviews though.

It's a similar problem to balls vs strike and it's been pretty accurate, though not foolproof. One thing it isn't though, is quick. There would have to be significant advances for the MLB's system not to disrupt the flow of the game, particularly with their new time limits.

Another interesting side-effect is that human umpires have improved in a lot of edgecases as a result of being corrected by machines repeatedly.

if they have a computer call the shots, baseball is no longer a game you and your friends can play at the park

to me, this has always seemed like the no-brainer reason to keep it umpire-based, and i just canonised it as the obviously correct one, based on no evidence whatsoever

came here to post this. the trickle-down incentives on aspirational players "needing" to get in front of a "real" digital umpire as soon as possible are back breaking to the sport's ability to remain affordable for casual play. I'm fine with managers having some amount of check on the system but human referees are integral to sports being approachable at all levels of play.

coming from a different cultural tradition, i don't really know baseball, but "there's no other sport where computer analysis could add any value" doesn't seem right? as someone else says, cricket has cameras for LBW calls, football (soccer) has VAR, tennis uses camera to call outs. or take fencing - admittedly that's not necessarily a computer, but it's still completely dependent on electronic scoring, even at an amateur level. none of this removes the need for referees, of course - plenty of rules that aren't clear cut, and in the case of VAR it's just a different referee making a decision based on the ability to rewind the footage.

so anyway: yeah, sounds like they should! plenty of other sports do & they still get to have all the fun of people making bad calls that everyone gets outraged about!