Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, April 19, 2019

Frustration with MLB umpires growing again after series of heated confrontations

It seems every season there’s a point where frustration with umpires starts to boil over.

We might have already reached that point this season following a series of heated confrontations that culminated with members of the Washington Nationals and San Francisco Giants calling out the umpiring crew from their series.

Specifically, Nationals manager Davey Martinez said he felt disrespected by Wednesday’s home plate umpire Tony Randazzo after disagreeing with his strike zone.

So, how long before the managers end up screaming at robots?

 

QLE Posted: April 19, 2019 at 09:06 PM | 27 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: umpires

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Walt Davis Posted: April 20, 2019 at 12:16 AM (#5833679)
I'm perversely looking forward to this. Remember back when they started giving computer algorithms some weighting in the college football polls -- I recall one was still just the coaches and the other was like 50/50 writers/computer. Anyway, as soon as the computer disagreed with the humans, everybody (OK, "everybody") freaked out. So naturally they dropped the computer weight to 25%.

It's like robot cars. Pedestrian get run over by drivers all the time (although i believe this has been dropping) but one robot but even if robot drivers could cut this rate by 90%, people wouldn't trust robot drivers because of that remaining 10%.
   2. Sunday silence Posted: April 20, 2019 at 01:22 AM (#5833688)
very interesting analogy
   3. Greg Pope Posted: April 20, 2019 at 08:38 AM (#5833702)
It's like robot cars. Pedestrian get run over by drivers all the time (although i believe this has been dropping) but one robot but even if robot drivers could cut this rate by 90%, people wouldn't trust robot drivers because of that remaining 10%.

Yes, this is massively frustrating. The very definition of "the perfect is the enemy of the good". If we can reduce accidents significantly by implementing self-driving cars, we should.
   4. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: April 20, 2019 at 10:34 AM (#5833711)
Back when I was in uni (this would have been around 2003), I had a professor, who had previously worked on computer systems of airplanes. He used to tell a joke, about the future of flying:
When airlines started flying passengers around, there were originally 3 pilots in each cockpit. Now we are down to 2. In the future, there will be just one pilot in the cockpit, together with one large dog. The job of the pilot will be to reassure the passengers. The job of the dog will be to growl at the pilot, anytime he tries to touch any of the controls.
   5. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM (#5833726)
1) It is advocates of self-driving cars that have advertised the technology will be 100% safe.

2) From a liability standpoint, making a product you know is unsafe exposes you to liability for negligence.

3) If a driver hits me, I can sue the driver. Who do I sue if a robot car hits me?
   6. SoSH U at work Posted: April 20, 2019 at 11:31 AM (#5833727)
3) If a driver hits me, I can sue the driver. Who do I sue if a robot car hits me?


I think that has a lot to do with it, and not just from the strict liability standpoint. Human nature says we like having someone to blame. And we like that to be simple. If the uber driver hits you, it's his fault. If the driverless uber vehicle hits you, is it uber's fault, or the car manufacturers fault or the technology manufacturer's fault? And all of them are somewhat faceless.

   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 12:38 PM (#5833734)
If we can reduce accidents significantly by implementing self-driving cars, we should.

I think there are massive civil liberties issues with self-driving cars. Amazon is already deciding which books it want to censor, and is monitoring you in your own home through Echo/Alexa. Now we're going to give a couple of large corporations complete control over where and when you can go places, and complete knowledge of where you do go?

These large tech (and other) companies have shown 100% willingness to cooperate with tyrannical regimes, e.g. China, to censor and monitor their population.
   8. Brian White Posted: April 20, 2019 at 01:19 PM (#5833738)

It's like robot cars. Pedestrian get run over by drivers all the time (although i believe this has been dropping) but one robot but even if robot drivers could cut this rate by 90%, people wouldn't trust robot drivers because of that remaining 10%.


I've always interpreted fear of self-driving cars to people judging risk based on what's on the news, rather than what's actually likely to kill them, and any fatality with a self-driving car gets put on the national news, whereas the 40,000 fatalities every year involving human drivers do not. But the analogy to CFB polls is actually pretty interesting, and I guess I have to acknowledge that people do have a fundamental bias against any process where a machine is making decisions. Although, as post #4 illustrates, we're accepting of robotic decisions as long as there's some kind of human veneer to the whole process.
   9. Jack Sommers Posted: April 20, 2019 at 01:33 PM (#5833745)
3) If a driver hits me, I can sue the driver. Who do I sue if a robot car hits me?


The owner of the car of course.
   10. A triple short of the cycle Posted: April 20, 2019 at 01:37 PM (#5833748)
If the driverless uber vehicle hits you, is it uber's fault, or the car manufacturers fault or the technology manufacturer's fault? And all of them are somewhat faceless.

This is what I was wondering about.

The owner of the car of course.

Okay. Seems like it will come down to the insurance industry - e.g. how much will it cost to insure a driverless car? Theoretically less, if safer?
   11. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 20, 2019 at 01:51 PM (#5833755)
Seems like it will come down to the insurance industry - e.g. how much will it cost to insure a driverless car? Theoretically less, if safer?


Presumably. I think the liability issue, while real, is overstated as an insurmountable obstacle. As #9 says, it's obvious, if something injures you, the proper party to sue is the owner of said thing. Car owners are already required to insure their vehicle (if it drives on public roads, but driverless cars that don't actually drive are unlikely to be a huge liability problem), so no change there. If I'm hit by a driverless car, I get recompense through the insurance policy held by the owner of said car. If there are software or hardware issues that may have contributed to said accident, then the insurance company could subsequently turn around and sue the manufaturer for reimbursal of whatever they paid me. This all seems pretty straightforward. It may require additional laws or re-wording of some existing laws to get there, but it seems pretty obvious where the process ends up and how we get there.

And yeah, what's going to spur the rush for people to actually buy and use driverless cars is when insurance companies start offering big enough discounts for doing so.

That said, I don't think we're there yet (where "there" means "driverless cars are safer than human-driven cars"). I think we'll eventually get there. But we're not there yet.
   12. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 02:55 PM (#5833778)
I don't necessarily "fear" driverless cars, but I've always had an inherent distrust of the idea. The fact that they are programmed to crash themselves and potentially kill the passengers if their calculations say that would reduce overall damage gives me great pause where I'd want to grab the wheel and override out of self preservation -- which may be how it's ultimately implemented. But then snapper in [7] lists what I always knew but hadn't really associated with the technology yet.... that some 3rd party would inevitably know when, where, and how long I went somewhere for everywhere I went, and that they would undoubtedly maintain permanent records of each trip taken, and I'm really not comfortable with that idea. Not that I necessarily think I have anything to hide (yet), but just that it's none of their GD business.
   13. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: April 20, 2019 at 03:10 PM (#5833785)
But then snapper in [7] lists what I always knew but hadn't really associated with the technology yet.... that some 3rd party would inevitably know when, where, and how long I went somewhere for everywhere I went, and that they would undoubtedly maintain permanent records of each trip taken, and I'm really not comfortable with that idea.


That doesn't require a car to be self-driving. Your car (and your phone) already tracks everywhere you go. New cars are already rolling off the line with sound systems that cannot be muted (or that can, but they will just unmute themselves when they decide it's ad time), so as to force you to listen to ads. The space-age display screens are soon going to begin playing ads whenever the car is stopped. There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago about the battle going on right now between tech companies (by which we mostly mean Google) and auto manufacturers over who gets the lion's share of all the advertising revenue this will bring.

This is all coming very soon, and your options will be only two: submit to being bombarded with advertising, or don't go anywhere you can't reach on foot or bicycle.

(If you have money enough and know a guy, you may have the third option of paying someone to disconnect the audio and cover the screen. But then you'll likely have no access to your speed/od/tachometer, gas gauge, etc, and also it will be illegal, and therefore expensive.)
   14. It was something about the man-spider and sodomy, Posted: April 20, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5833792)
New cars are already rolling off the line with sound systems that cannot be muted (or that can, but they will just unmute themselves when they decide it's ad time), so as to force you to listen to ads.


That would make me want to kill people; as if sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic doesn't already.
   15. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 20, 2019 at 03:39 PM (#5833797)
New cars are already rolling off the line with sound systems that cannot be muted (or that can, but they will just unmute themselves when they decide it's ad time), so as to force you to listen to ads. The space-age display screens are soon going to begin playing ads whenever the car is stopped. There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago about the battle going on right now between tech companies (by which we mostly mean Google) and auto manufacturers over who gets the lion's share of all the advertising revenue this will bring.
Seems like every auto manufacturer would have to collude to include those systems in every model, because who would choose to buy a car with such an atrocity? That's like the crap the airlines get away with, but are there few enough auto manufacturers for it to work? Of course it would create a huge market for used cars from the few years before the change.
   16. JJ1986 Posted: April 20, 2019 at 03:43 PM (#5833798)
New cars are already rolling off the line with sound systems that cannot be muted (or that can, but they will just unmute themselves when they decide it's ad time), so as to force you to listen to ads.
In America?
   17. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: April 20, 2019 at 04:34 PM (#5833822)
New cars are already rolling off the line with sound systems that cannot be muted (or that can, but they will just unmute themselves when they decide it's ad time), so as to force you to listen to ads.
This...seems really unlikely, unless it is referring to cars for rental fleets or something.

It's obviously *possible*, but unless such a thing was VERY clearly disclosed prior to purchase (and, probably, came with an associated discount), they'd get returned to dealerships within a week, if not a day.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 04:54 PM (#5833826)
That doesn't require a car to be self-driving. Your car (and your phone) already tracks everywhere you go.

My cars are 11, 16, and 48 years old. I don't think they track me. Great question to ask when I finally need a new one. If the tracking can't be turned off or disabled, I'm not buying.

You can always leave your phone at home you know. They aren't actually necessary.
   19. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: April 20, 2019 at 05:00 PM (#5833828)
You can always leave your phone at home you know. They aren't actually necessary.
Eyeroll. And you can always get rid of your car and get where you're going by other means, too.
   20. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 05:07 PM (#5833830)

3) If a driver hits me, I can sue the driver. Who do I sue if a robot car hits me?

The owner of the car of course.
For...?
   21. Greg Pope Posted: April 20, 2019 at 05:16 PM (#5833834)
I think there are massive civil liberties issues with self-driving cars. Amazon is already deciding which books it want to censor, and is monitoring you in your own home through Echo/Alexa. Now we're going to give a couple of large corporations complete control over where and when you can go places, and complete knowledge of where you do go?

You're not wrong. But 99% of Americans have shown that they won't actually care about any of that. This won't be the reason why self-driving cars will be delayed. It will be people being stupid about the math, regarding safety. Now, you may say that they're right for the wrong reasons, but still.
   22. Jack Sommers Posted: April 20, 2019 at 05:19 PM (#5833835)
NYT article, so if you don't want to use up one of your free articles, don't click link.

It's just nutty what people out here do to the Waymo cars

Wiedling Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self Driving Cars

At least 21 such attacks have been leveled at Waymo vans in Chandler, as first reported by The Arizona Republic. Some analysts say they expect more such behavior as the nation moves into a broader discussion about the potential for driverless cars to unleash colossal changes in American society. The debate touches on fears ranging from eliminating jobs for drivers to ceding control over mobility to autonomous vehicles.



People also like to cut these vehicles off intentionally to see how they react.
   23. Jose is Absurdly Unemployed Posted: April 20, 2019 at 06:47 PM (#5833848)

My cars are 11, 16, and 48 years old. I don't think they track me. Great question to ask when I finally need a new one. If the tracking can't be turned off or disabled, I'm not buying.


I suspect this means you are never buying a new car again.

That said I’m sympathetic to your argument. I don’t particularly like how many ways there are to get my information but I think it’s a war that is already lost. Between other people taking photos, laptops, watches, phones, cars, closed circuit TV I think there is just too much information out there and it is only getting worse.
   24. Master of the Horse Posted: April 20, 2019 at 07:14 PM (#5833856)
18– I thought an old guy thing is to buy a new car every year or so.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 10:30 PM (#5833879)
18– I thought an old guy thing is to buy a new car every year or so.

Middle aged, thank you very much.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 20, 2019 at 10:31 PM (#5833881)
At least 21 such attacks have been leveled at Waymo vans in Chandler, as first reported by The Arizona Republic. Some analysts say they expect more such behavior as the nation moves into a broader discussion about the potential for driverless cars to unleash colossal changes in American society. The debate touches on fears ranging from eliminating jobs for drivers to ceding control over mobility to autonomous vehicles.


I approve.

People also like to cut these vehicles off intentionally to see how they react.

Good. I also hope self-driving trucks become open season for hijacking the cargo. Much like Amazon drones should become skeet shooting, with presents.

I really see no reason why the American people should be expected to stand by and see their jobs automated out of existence so the 0.01% can get even richer.

It's the oddest thing being a conservative who's now a re-distributionist, and not really disturbed by the idea of our titans of industry being violently deposed. At this point if a mob sacked an Amazon warehouse, or occupied Facebook headquarters and destroyed their servers, I'd say good on them, and hope the police ignored it.

Really, anyone who doesn't yet see that the continued monopolies of Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google are inimicable to a free society is either a fool, or a stooge.
   27. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: April 20, 2019 at 10:43 PM (#5833887)
That doesn't require a car to be self-driving. Your car (and your phone) already tracks everywhere you go.


Yup. I drive a Chevy Volt that's almost 2 years old now. Every month I receive an email telling me how many miles I drove, how many were on gas and electric, the pressure in my tires and a couple other maintenance statistics. I never opted in to getting these emails and didn't even realize this would all be tracked by their software when I bought the car.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe moral argument for keeping Barry Bonds out of Cooperstown doesn’t hold up
(8 - 8:34pm, Jul 19)
Last: Captain Supporter

NewsblogThe Transformation of Alex Rodriguez (SI)
(55 - 8:26pm, Jul 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (July 2019)
(609 - 8:26pm, Jul 19)
Last: It was something about the man-spider and sodomy,

NewsblogDeadspin: Baseball Writer Jonah Keri Arrested, Charged With Assault On His Wife
(36 - 8:23pm, Jul 19)
Last: .

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Baldrick Reports Live
(1190 - 8:18pm, Jul 19)
Last: It was something about the man-spider and sodomy,

NewsblogHey, $20 bucks is $20 bucks to OMNICHATTER! for July 18, 2019
(61 - 8:14pm, Jul 19)
Last: It was something about the man-spider and sodomy,

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(6210 - 7:46pm, Jul 19)
Last: shout-out to 57i66135; that shit's working now

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-19-2019
(23 - 7:40pm, Jul 19)
Last: The Run Fairy

Newsblog2019 Trade Value:
(4 - 7:39pm, Jul 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2016 - January 2017)
(412 - 7:24pm, Jul 19)
Last: shout-out to 57i66135; that shit's working now

NewsblogWhy gambling used to scare baseball and why it doesn’t anymore
(98 - 6:43pm, Jul 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogLet’s make a deal? Assessing the Mariners’ likely trade chips as deadline looms | The Seattle Times
(1 - 6:21pm, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Five Trends That Could Define Baseball’s Future - The Ringer
(2 - 5:56pm, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrice responds as Eckersley dispute resurfaces
(10 - 5:44pm, Jul 19)
Last: villageidiom

Gonfalon CubsThat was fun
(427 - 4:01pm, Jul 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

Page rendered in 0.3560 seconds
46 querie(s) executed