Yes. Yes it is. I'm sick of watching games with multiple missed calls. HDTV just makes mistakes too obvious to be bearable..

There are already plenty of differences at the different levels of the game: metal bats, fewer umps, smaller parks, etc, who cares if players have to make another small adjustment to their approach when they get to a level with robo-umps.

How about this . . . umps wear augmented glasses that show a three dimensional strike zone. Even without a chip in the ball they should be able to get more calls right. But it still necessitates them to stay behind the plate, and they still get to call the balls and strikes.

Edited for spelling.

The way to do this is to use technology to call the constant part of the strike zone-the edges of the plate-and let the umpire judge the part that can change based on the batters actions-the top and the bottom of the sz. The umpire would have less to do, which would most likely improve his performance, it gives the umpire something to do other than move the game along, and it would get the union on board with just a little persuasion.

“Questionable. I don’t very much buy into that,” Port said

I'm glad they finally laid that one to rest.

I think they should have a hologram strikezone box, and whenever the ball nips the box, the hologram immediately changes colors. The casual viewer will also get to learn if the ball was in the strike zone when the batter swings.

Yeah, that wouldn't distract the hitter or the catcher at all.

The way to do this is to use technology to call the constant part of the strike zone-the edges of the plate-and let the umpire judge the part that can change based on the batters actions-the top and the bottom of the sz. The umpire would have less to do, which would most likely improve his performance, it gives the umpire something to do other than move the game along, and it would get the union on board with just a little persuasion.

But is there any reason to do this, when technology exists to call the entire strike zone perfectly, other than mollifying the umpires' union?

Maybe we should put a sheet of tissue paper over the strike zone, and if the ball breaks through the tissue paper, it is a strike. After each pitch, a new piece of tissue paper will be installed.

Or, maybe we could just do what the baseball version of what tennis does, with the "HawkEye" system. The technology is already there, and no umpire jobs need to be lost doing it.

Here's the wikipedia page about the HawkEye system, which is said to accurately measure the flight of the ball to within a margin of error equal to the fuzz on the ball.

To me, determining whether a hard-hit tennis shot is in or out is probably as close to replicating calling a ball/strike as anything in sports. And it works in tennis.

The way to do this is to use technology to call the constant part of the strike zone-the edges of the plate-and let the umpire judge the part that can change based on the batters actions-the top and the bottom of the sz. The umpire would have less to do, which would most likely improve his performance, it gives the umpire something to do other than move the game along, and it would get the union on board with just a little persuasion.

what do you do about pitches on the corners?

Even if robot strike zones do emerge you'd still need umps call swings or no swing. Until of course we get robots for that.

But is there any reason to do this, when technology exists to call the entire strike zone perfectly, other than mollifying the umpires' union?

I am not an expert in technology, but it seems to me that the ability to call the top and bottom of the sz is a lot more problematic than whether the ball crosses the plate. The home plate umpire also is in charge of the pace of the game (insert sarcastic remarks here), he calls foul balls at the plate, and I am sure there are other things he does that you would not want a machine to do. If the tech exists to call high and low pitches, then we could discuss if his other duties are that important.

what do you do about pitches on the corners?

If a ball touches the edge of the plate, the tech would call it a strike. The pitchers would probably like this feature.

#10 I used to work with guys who processed satellite data (more importantly the guys who worked on the logic) I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there's a clever trick for recognizing the top and bottom of the strike zone. They do things that to me seem much harder.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be that tricky (though I don't know how to do it myself)to handle the black the way the rule book specifies.

I'll be having lunch with some of these guys on Friday. I'll see if they've ever given any thought to the problem.

and I am sure there are other things he does that you would not want a machine to do.

like where to find the best groupies in MLB?

Ron J-My idea for handling the calls on the black is a laser beam field that would register if the ball interupted it, but I am sure the guys you are talking about will have better ideas. I would love to hear what they have to say.

Sunday Silence-isn't that what they mean by veteran presence?

Also, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be that tricky (though I don't know how to do it myself)to handle the black the way the rule book specifies.

The rule book specifies that any part of the ball crossing over any part of the plate is a strike (assuming it also meets the height criteria). So I guess I'm not seeing why this a more difficult engineering problem than cases where the entire ball is over the plate. But anyway, the black is not technically part of home plate.