Unlike replay, which I detest, a roboump wouldn't result in game delays

"And we've got a stoppage here as Morris from IT comes down to do a quick reboot of the Ump-o-matic 2000. Ump-o-matic 2000's new upgrade is brought to you by Apple. Apple, when you're sense of self-worth is tied up in the products you buy, Apple is your vendor."

Kidding aside my concern with the roboumps is that I think the game would change dramatically. I think we'd see a game that makes the 90s/00s look like a pitcher's era. Walks would skyrocket and with hitters able to truly lock in on a strike zone we'd see home runs and offense in general jump in numbers.

I am also not entirely convinced that the roboumps are as accurate as we think they are.

Kidding aside my concern with the roboumps is that I think the game would change dramatically. I think we'd see a game that makes the 90s/00s look like a pitcher's era. Walks would skyrocket and with hitters able to truly lock in on a strike zone we'd see home runs and offense in general jump in numbers.

From what I've seen, I think you'd also get a countering force in strikes being called at the upper end of the rulebook strike zone, which is almost never done today. Some of these marvelous personalized strike zones we've got now barely extend above the belt.

I am also not entirely convinced that the roboumps are as accurate as we think they are.

As I said, that's a legitimate objection. For now. But if we can send a man to the Moon, yada yada yada....

But beyond the mild ad hominen, what exactly is wrong with roboumps for balls and strikes? I can see the argument that the technology isn't yet perfect, but any other objection is purely sentimental horsecrap.

Don't go all Ray on me (now that's an ad hominem, unlike the imaginary one in my previous post). I think adjusting to the way the individual umpire is calling balls and strikes is a skill, one the better players take advantage of and the weaker ones whine about. It requires paying attention to the game, understanding what the umpire's preferencs are early on (or, going into the game with a working knowledge of the guy behind the plate) and using that knowledge (along those lines, I also like the fact some catchers can frame pitchers better than the others, and parenthetical thoughts). Moreover, and this is just a theory, as a fan of put-in-play ball, rather than TTO tediousness, I suspect that a uniform zone will lead to even more of the latter, which I don't want.

Look ma, no sentimental horsecrap.

But beyond the mild ad hominen, what exactly is wrong with roboumps for balls and strikes? I can see the argument that the technology isn't yet perfect, but any other objection is purely sentimental horsecrap.

Don't go all Ray on me (now that's an ad hominem, unlike the imaginary one in my previous post).

Well, we 600 year olds are rightly sensitive about being called 700, but I did call it mild.

I think adjusting to the way the individual umpire is calling balls and strikes is a skill, one the better players take advantage of and the weaker ones whine about. It requires paying attention to the game, understanding what the umpire's preferencs are early on (or, going into the game with a working knowledge of the guy behind the plate) and using that knowledge (along those lines, I also like the fact some catchers can frame pitchers better than the others, and parenthetical thoughts). Moreover, and this is just a theory, as a fan of put-in-play ball, rather than TTO tediousness, I suspect that a uniform zone will lead to even more of the latter, which I don't want.

Look ma, no sentimental horsecrap.

Maybe not, but it still sounds as if you're justifying different sets of rules for some players in a kind of social Darwinist sort of way.

I'll make a pool analogy here, and try to explain it for those not familiar with the game.

One of the biggest pain in the butts in the game of nine ball when it's played at a high level is the excruciating amount of time it takes for some players to "freeze the rack", meaning that all nine balls are touching each and every adjacent ball within the diamond shaped rack, without even a microscopic gap between any of the balls. The reason for this is that a frozen rack results in a far better break shot and a far better opportunity to run the rack without giving one's opponent a shot.

The problem is that on many tables, surface imperfections make "freezing the rack" virtually impossible without spending insane amounts of time racking and re-racking, up to even 10 or 15 minutes in some cases. Players who find this tiresome and accept imperfect racks** are at a major disadvantage.

About three years ago, seeing this time delay problem, and realizing that it was making nine ball an impossible game to present to TV packages, some genius invented what's called a "Magic Rack", a piece of ultra-thin plastic that serves as a substitute for the traditional rack. With it, you just place it on the spot and drop the balls in little grooves. This automatically freezes the rack perfectly in about ten seconds, every time, with no variation.

Problem solved, right? Wrong! Instead, what you get are a number of players who insist that racking the balls as a definable "skill", even though there's no "skill" involved other than patience. Even though this "skill" has nothing to do with the game itself. And even though the Magic Rack can make a match proceed at a less than glacial pace. It's the same sort of reasoning behind the idea that players have some sort of inherent obligation to conform to an umpire's individual peculiarities, rather than obliging the umpires to just learn and follow the strike zone that's in the goddam rule book. I'm a great believer in the intangible attributes and pleasures of baseball, but the idea of different strike zones for superstars and scrubs isn't among them.

**In high level nine ball, unlike "sociable" pool, you rack your own rack, not your opponent's.

Maybe not, but it still sounds as if you're justifying different sets of rules for some players in a kind of social Darwinist sort of way.

How the hell would you come to that conclusion? I've said nothing that would indicate I prefer different strike zones for different players, and in fact support just the oppposite.

Moreover, I see little evidence of it in baseball (now, with baskeball, you're on to something). Data last year showed that Livan Hernandez got far more strike zone breaks than Felix Hernandez, and I'm pretty sure it isn't because Livan is more superstarry. I'd reckon it's because Livan does a better job hitting the glove (because, with his stuff, he has to) than the King.

I've simply stated my preference for the game as it is and always has been - the umpires calls their strike zone - as I think that leads to a better product. This isn't to say that any strike zone is acceptable. It must be reasonable - which, I find it generally is. And it must be consistent, which is a major concern and one where I will side with the legion of BTF strike zone shriekers.

But if this guy gives the pitch a couple of inches off the plate but doesn't like the inside corner, or that ump likes a high strike but won't give the low one, that's not some peculiarity that never cropped up until Fox put the little tracking box on the corner of your screen. That's baseball. And adjusting to the day's strike zone has been a part of baseball forever. And in my view, the ability of both the batter and the pitcher to make those adjusments on a daily basis is a feature of the sport, not a bug.

Also, except in milk, homogeneity sucks.