And who gives a #### what the pissant fans want, anyhow?

No, I'm really sympathetic to the players' side of this story. But last week I went to a live MLB game for the first time in years, and watched the game turn on a couple of absolutely indefensible strike calls, which happened because the Phillies were ######## at the home plate umpire a little too vigorously earlier in the game and pissed him off.

On the field, as a player and as an umpire, I can understand why that happens. But it is egregiously rude to fans for games to be decided in that way.

Yes, I can see players' preference for a challenge system. The trouble is that challenges are desert-like breaks in play, and ultimately not all that effective in righting wrong calls. If you lose your first challenge, or even use two successful ones (that is the current MLB rule, right?) then the worst call in the world can still decide the game later on.

The challenge system works in tennis and even adds a bit of ... well, I won't call it excitement but it's presented in a pretty cool way. It takes like 5 seconds. For sure, if it's like the often endless replay reviews then that's terrible but I assume we're just talking about a version of the K-zone thing we've already got where the call is instantaneous. I can't wait for the first time the robo ump disagrees with the broadcast's K-zone. :-)

There are a number of ways of dealing with the "let's move the game along" issues. The most obvious is to engrain it even more fully in baseball culture that, when things are out of hand or the weather's turning, you hack. You shouldn't require 50% bigger strike zones to get that across. Alternatively, just make it official and throw a switch on the robo-ump that increases the strike zone by 5% in each direction. Finally, although this seems unaccaptable in sporting culture, just allow teams to forfeit or put in a mercy rule. Most of the fans and even more of the viewers have left that 18-2 game anyway. Granted I'm not sure robo-umps and getting a few strike/ball calls a game correct is worth any of those changes.

Is there actual evidence that the blowouts have been a problem?

To be honest, the introduction of K-zone on broadcasts has made me more impressed with how good the umpires are ... or maybe it's just how bad I am at calling pitches at home. It's also made me more impressed with how precise the pitehers' control is. These guys really are living on the edge with pitch after pitch where just a slice of the ball nips the zone and just nailing a spot time and time again.

The article seemed a bit tedious. It seems to suggest at various points that ABS

1. Isn't any fun
2. Creates longer games (because more walks )
3. Creates more walks
4. Eliminates framing
5. Has a strike zone different than current strike zone
6. Varies by park
7. Rewards pitchers who make bad pitches

It also says all the technical issues are resolvable and that they are worried about "somebody" not liking it. The fan? The players ? The umps?

Don't lose faith ! Roll out 100% ABS and ditch the challenge version. You'll never regret it

Don't lose faith ! Roll out 100% ABS and ditch the challenge version. You'll never regret it

In much the same way that replay itself was implemented with absolute perfection.

The one thing I am looking forward to about ABS is the possibility (though not certainty) that it will stop so many people from incessantly ######## about balls and strikes.

I think a 100% ABS system will ultimately be best. But, like Tesla self-driving cars, it’s going to kill more people than human operators do for years to come.

I'm glad you used that analogy. It's instructive in its wrongheadedness.

Now, not being an AI scientist, I could be wrong about this. I doubt it, but it's possible. I'm quite certain that even with the AI driving technology we have right now, were it to be universally implemented, it would kill many, many fewer humans per vehicle than human drivers do. It's still well short of perfectly reliable, but computers don't get drunk, angry, or distracted. They aren't instinctively obsessed with not wanting other computers to pass them on the road or pull in front of them, the way 80% of human drivers are. But we will long refuse AI-driven vehicles because we will accept human drivers killing us by the millions, but one human killed by a computer is one too many.

Similarly--human error in umpiring is bloody annoying. But the bigger problem, the real benefit that makes me enthusiastic about RoboUmp, is human bias and emotion in umpiring.

I doubt there's anyway a competent AI driving system could possibly kill more people than humans do. But I'm not sure yet we have competent systems yet

It wouldn't shock me if humans were better drivers in cities than AI currently is (the reverse wouldn't surprise me either), but I am nearly certain that AI can do much better on highways where bikes, pedestrians, cars pulling out, etc. aren't an issue. No speeding, no drunk driving, maybe still the occasional "there was a bend there?". Surely AI won't drive in fog, rain, snow, ice as if there was no fog, rain, snow, ice.

Of course technology has existed for decades to deal with lots of these issues. Speed governors and anti-drunk-driving ignition devices could be standard on every car. But driving culture won't accept it. (I'm more in that group than not too.)

I went to a speech by some MIT guys a few years back and they showed a demo of a robot going around a building. It was carrying a basket and going up and down the elevator (with the help of a human to hit the button). It was really basic - I couldn't understand why this was cutting edge. Then the programmers discussed that inside a building there is no GPS. So doing the simplest things is very hard to program. The robot couldn't hit the up/down button because it didn't have an arm that could do that. That was their next task to see if they could build an arm that could automate that process

So basically without GPS we are in the dark ages of robotics. It was quite eye opening. I'm sure a lot has changed in 6 years but it made me think we have a lot way to go.

IMO once MLB got in bed with the gambling industry robo-umps for balls and strikes became unavoidable. If there's another Black Sox like scandal it will almost certainly involve a single umpire rather than a bunch of players, and it'll be an umpire calling balls and strikes. Hell, it might have already happened and they just weren't caught. Using an electronic strike zone eliminates that risk.

I, too, believed AI would be much better at driving. Per mile driven, it has been more fatal, so far. Problems as basic as not being able to distinguish the white side of a truck from the open road, to the intricacies of what is a pedestrian and how do you avoid hitting one. And even, as you allude, driverless cars following the rules so precisely that other human drivers cause accidents because they anticipate the driverless car will act like other cars on the road.

AI-driven vehicles will save lives. So far, the opposite has been true.

IMO once MLB got in bed with the gambling industry robo-umps for balls and strikes became unavoidable. If there's another Black Sox like scandal it will almost certainly involve a single umpire rather than a bunch of players, and it'll be an umpire calling balls and strikes. Hell, it might have already happened and they just weren't caught.

Or they were, by MLB--they would do everything humanly possible to keep such a thing quiet.

Sooner or later there will be a gambling scandal so explosive it'll make the Black Sox look like a child's sparkler. That's inevitable. There's far too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

“How Frequently Are Self-Driving Cars Involved in Auto Accidents? In a 2022 report by Insurer Axa, automatic cars cause 50% more autonomous vehicle accidents than human-driven vehicles.”

It’s about 9 per million miles vs 4.1 per million miles driven for human-controlled vehicles. (In another analysis, which implies a rate that’s twice as high.)

The article seemed a bit tedious. It seems to suggest at various points that ABS

1. Isn't any fun
2. Creates longer games (because more walks )
3. Creates more walks
4. Eliminates framing
5. Has a strike zone different than current strike zone
6. Varies by park
7. Rewards pitchers who make bad pitches

Most of these points are kind of silly - I don't know why anyone would care about framing, the strike zone can be adjusted on the machine or adjusted to by the players, park variance can almost certainly be corrected. I have no idea how automated balls and strikes could reward bad pitches (and it's not the strike zone's job to punish bad pitches anyway, it's the hitter's job).

That being said, automated balls and strikes will inevitably lead to both more strikeouts looking and more walks. And I don't think either of those is a particularly favorable outcome; I'm not at all sure that perfectly accurate strike zone calls (even assuming that's what happens) is worth the tradeoff for a more boring game.

That being said, automated balls and strikes will inevitably lead to both more strikeouts looking and more walks.

I don' see that at all. An automated strike zone will simply mean that pitches will be called the same no matter the count, no matter how many outs there are, no matter the inning, no matter the score, and no matter the competence of the umpire or what he thinks of the players or teams involved in that game. Right now those are all variables that the pitcher, the batter, the managers, and the fans have to constantly guess at. Some people think that's not a big deal because we've always had to guess at that, but it should be a big deal. In football the offense and defense don't need to guess at whether it'll take nine, ten, or eleven yards to make that next first down. An NBA player taking a shot doesn't need to guess at whether the hoop is a couple inches lower or higher than his last shot. But in baseball you never know what the strike zone is going to be from pitch to pitch, inning to inning, or game to game. If the technology is available to fix that then it needs to be fixed.

Once the umpire variable is removed from baseball the pitchers and batters will both make some small adjustments and statistically things will go on pretty much as they are now. If Ks or BBs start to increase then the zone can be tweaked to mitigate those trends. MLB has to limit the human factor of these games to the humans that are actually playing the game, rather than that of the umpires.

I don' see that at all. An automated strike zone will simply mean that pitches will be called the same no matter the count, no matter how many outs there are, no matter the inning, no matter the score, and no matter the competence of the umpire or what he thinks of the players or teams involved in that game.

I think it's likely, but we'll have to see. My suspicion is it will further reward the take and rake guys and further marginalize the contact guys. The former walk and K more frequently than the latter.

If Ks or BBs start to increase then the zone can be tweaked to mitigate those trends.

If I'm right, not that one.

Furthermore, the idea that MLB can tweak things to get it right when it hasn't tweaked replay to improve it since its inception is optimism that is in no way justified.

The suggestion that a robo-system will put out of work catchers who are excellent at framing (which I've seen here and heard on several podcasts) is especially baffling to me. if a catcher's only real skill behind the plate is framing...well, I'll not finish that thought because the premise is so absurd. Stark's proposal that the system would be taking men who had spent years honing their singular craft of framing and telling them to find something else to do with their life? These guys had to learn framing - most likely in college or the minors, so near the end of their professional journey - and they can also learn to do something else, like block the plate better or improve their pop time. And how long is the average catcher's career, anyway? No, more than that - how long is the average career of the catcher whose ONLY ABOVE AVERAGE SKILL IS FRAMING? I'm guessing no one would be losing years of earning power. And who truly loves "the framing catcher" when that catcher is stealing strikes for that day's opposing team? You love YOUR team's framing catcher, and you curse the rest.

Why would robo-umps lead to more K's and walks? I just don't see the connection.

Furthermore, the idea that MLB can tweak things to get it right when it hasn't tweaked replay to improve it since its inception is optimism that is in no way justified.

MLB has tweaked the replay system to improve it. You may not believe it's been improved enough, but that's another matter.

Why would robo-umps lead to more K's and walks? I just don't see the connection.

The idea is that if pitchers stop getting gift strikes, batters will start laying off pitches outside the zone, and walks will therefore increase. As for strikeouts, I've seen people arguing that automated strike zones will result in more strikes being called at the top of the rectangle.

There may be an element of truth to both of these arguments, but it completely overlooks the fact that both pitchers and batters can make adjustments to the rule book strike zone, just as some pitchers and batters now claim to be able to adjust to the current 70+ personalized strike zones.

The consistently worst ball and strike calls are gift strikes awarded on pitches that are low and / or outside. Why on Earth should batters be forced to choose between getting (wrongly) rung up or chasing an unhittable pitch? And if a pitcher can consistently deliver pitches inside the top of the rule book zone, why should he not be rewarded for it?

The rest of the arguments against robo-umps are just trivial and silly: What will happen to pitch framing? What about late inning calls in blowout games? Etc. These are about on the same level as the argument against the pitch clock, that the poor batter / pitcher will have his carefully honed sense of rhythm fatally disrupted if he's not allowed to spend half a minute adjusting his batting glove or scratching his crotch between pitchers, or if pitchers aren't allowed to walk around the mound three times and throw over to first as many times as they want. These arguments simply amount to saying that Major League ballplayers are incapable of adjusting to the rules, and I don't buy it.

The idea is that if pitchers stop getting gift strikes, batters will start laying off pitches outside the zone, and walks will therefore increase. As for strikeouts, I've seen people arguing that automated strike zones will result in more strikes being called at the top of the rectangle.

Don't speak for me Andy. You don't do it well.

I don't know how I could be more clear in my answer Ziggy. We have two kinds of hitters (we have more, but let's reduce this for simplicity sake). You have your take and rake types, guys who walk and strike out a lot because of their approach. Your Joey Gallos. You also have your contact hitters, guys who are good at putting the ball in play. Juan Pierre types. My fear is that an automated zone will reward the former (the guy who really knows the strike zone) and penalize the latter (even more than the game already does), and thus we will see more of the former and fewer of the latter.

Such a shift, if it happens, will result in more Ks and walks because of the distribution of types of players in the game. More Ks and walks will be an indirect result of the automated zone, but a result nonetheless.

I may very well be wrong (I hope I am, because this thing is coming). But the idea that the robo ump can only lead to peace and beauty and goodness and no unintended consequences is just so detached from reality. And spare me the idea that MLB can just tweak it to improve it. MLB doesn't work that way.

As I said earlier, the only absolutely positive thing that will come from robo umps is that it should stop the incessant whining about home plate umpires' strike zones that pollutes every type of fan-based baseball commentary. Or, anyone that Santa is involved in.

Why would robo-umps lead to more K's and walks? I just don't see the connection.

One of the first pieces of research I remember when PitchFX data became available was how the called strike zone varies by count. As it turns out, umpires call a larger strike zone when the batter is ahead in the count, and a smaller one when the pitcher is ahead.

If you go to an automatic strike zone, that means more called strikes on 0-2 and 1-2 counts, and more called balls on 3-0 and 3-1 counts. Those calls will be accurate, and they will make the game less interesting.

But again, that assumes that neither batters nor pitchers have the ability to adjust to the new reality.

Not to mention that we're long past the point where a batter rung up on a 3rd gift strike makes the game more "interesting". All that does is to alter the game's possible outcome in a way that's out of the player's control.

And spare me the idea that MLB can just tweak it to improve it. MLB doesn't work that way.

Ultimately, this is The Problem.

But again, that assumes that neither batters nor pitchers have the ability to adjust to the new reality.

I mean, do you think pitchers are trying to miss on 3-0 now, or batters are trying to take pitches in the strike zone on 0-2? Their objectives on these counts don't change, just the calls they'll get when they fail them.

Not to mention that we're long past the point where a batter rung up on a 3rd gift strike makes the game more "interesting". All that does is to alter the game's possible outcome in a way that's out of the player's control.

The batter is MORE LIKELY to be rung up by a robot ump than by a human one, and therefore the batter is more likely to chase on 0-2 if he thinks the pitch might be a strike.

An enormous amount of digital ink has been expended on BTF over the years arguing that baseball is more exciting when the ball is put in play more often (which I agree with). Robot umps are extremely likely to result in the ball being put in play less often. You're welcome to think the tradeoff is worthwhile; I'm skeptical.

After watching Laz Diaz and his merry crew of guesstimaters egregiously miss call after call this weekend, I would embrace robo-umps even if they used a random decision making program to call balls and strikes. Even that would be more accurate than this crew.

I don't know how I could be more clear in my answer Ziggy. We have two kinds of hitters (we have more, but let's reduce this for simplicity sake). You have your take and rake types, guys who walk and strike out a lot because of their approach. Your Joey Gallos. You also have your contact hitters, guys who are good at putting the ball in play. Juan Pierre types. My fear is that an automated zone will reward the former (the guy who really knows the strike zone) and penalize the latter (even more than the game already does), and thus we will see more of the former and fewer of the latter.

BUt why? As I recall the last time you weighed in on this it had to do with pitchers: you said high velocity high K guys would benefit and control type pitchers would not. But again: why?

how long is the average career of the catcher whose ONLY ABOVE AVERAGE SKILL IS FRAMING?

Jeff Mathis' was 17 years. Actually I had to check to make sure he hadn't climbed out of his tomb for another stint this year.

An enormous amount of digital ink has been expended on BTF over the years arguing that baseball is more exciting when the ball is put in play more often (which I agree with). Robot umps are extremely likely to result in the ball being put in play less often. You're welcome to think the tradeoff is worthwhile; I'm skeptical.

This is where I wish MLB was run by people who understood that there are a hundred little things that can be done to move baseball in this direction. Yes, it would take a few years of tweaking to get it to where we want to be (which ideally would be something like the baseball of the 1920s: plenty of runs being scored but not so many home runs and many fewer strikeouts and walks.) There are steps that can be taken that have nothing to do with the strike zone to make it easier for batters to make contact, but harder for them to hit home runs, and harder for the fielders to turn those hit balls into outs.

BUt why? As I recall the last time you weighed in on this it had to do with pitchers: you said high velocity high K guys would benefit and control type pitchers would not. But again: why?

That's also true. The reason is because of what framing really is. Framing is about catching the ball quietly, with little movement. Or, from the vantage point of the pitcher, hitting the target. Think Maddux, Glavine, or the ultimate case, Livan Hernandez. These guys were really good at hitting their spots. If their catchers set up right off the outside corner and these guys hit the spot, they're more likely to get strikes called. These types of pitchers should be hurt when the robo ump arrives, because they won't get that benefit.

Likewise, some big galoot reliever who throws 98 but doesn't have much command will get strikes when his catcher sets up outside and he throws it on the inside corner, pitches that today he'd be more likely to lose based on the catcher's movement across the plate.

The former group of pitchers are, by and large, not strikeout pitchers. The latter group is. If the robo ump makes life more difficult for the soft tosser with good command and easier for the flamethrower, we'll see more of the latter and fewer of the former. Thus, more Ks.

so you're arguing in favor of the kind of strike zone Maddux was given?

so you're arguing in favor of the kind of strike zone Maddux was given?

I don't mind pitchers who hit their spots (or catchers skilled in receiving) getting rewarded, but that's kind of immaterial.

The point is, the automated zone will change the game (the strike zone has always been the personalized strike zone) and not all of those changes will make for a more enjoyable product to a lot of us. To Andy, it probably will because he's really obsessed with it, seemingly above all else. To others, it may very well for a less entertaining product, even if it's more fair.

I just think it's folly to believe that a) it will be an unmitigated good, and b) that MLB will be able to successfully tweak it to deliver the desired outcome.

your pt about MLB's inability to tweak things I do agree with. Thats always cause for concern.


On the larger pt. It seems there's always been a back and forth adjustment to these things and at some pt the game will find a happy medium. Say for example ABS or whatever its called delivers more walks at the start of the season. Well of course pitchers will probably compromise and put more balls in the k zone. Until those get hit and ba and slug increase. At some pt they will find a happy medium and the game will go on from there.

it just depends on how far its out of kilter to start with. My impression is that more out of zone strikes get called then in zone balls. So I think ABs would favor more walks initially.

I don't know if MLB would have the stomach for it, but tweaking the electronic strike zone seems like a far easier prospect than tweaking the replay rules. Too many high strikes being called? Lower the top of the zone by half an inch. Robots can do that kind of thing much more readily than humans can.

I don't know if MLB would have the stomach for it, but tweaking the electronic strike zone seems like a far easier prospect than tweaking the replay rules. Too many high strikes being called? Lower the top of the zone by half an inch.

In theory, though in practice, I suspect that it could become a mess much like the recent issues with the ball, in that it will not be done transparently and will fuel all sorts of conspiracies about how this is not being applied evenly, especially if it happens mid-season or when Gerrit Cole is approaching 3000 strikeouts or something. Especially considering that it's not like Statcast would provide independent data on this.

As much as I favor robot umps - I generally don't think the players should be competing against two teams and find the apparent unwillingness of umpires to call strike 3 or ball 4 unless it's a full count or utterly obvious frustrating when watching a game from the stands (and idly wonder if reducing that tendency might help bring pitch counts down) - I'm not sure "we can tweak this with little effort!" is the best argument for it.

What'll bring the pitch counts down is making it less productive for a hitter to wait until he has two strikes to seriously begin the at-bat. Like for instance by actually consistently calling strike three if it's in the zone.

As ever, it would be wrong and it would backfire to just do that one thing. The game needs a series of gentle tweaks that work together to change hitters' incentives, in a way that encourages them to put the ball in play and run, and encourages teams to acquire and develop some players who can put the ball in play and run.

What'll bring the pitch counts down is making it less productive for a hitter to wait until he has two strikes to seriously begin the at-bat.

Perhaps I have not been keeping up but are pitch counts really an issue nowadays, or ever?

Eric's info in 23 is interesting. Although if strikes start getting called more often when the pitcher is ahead in the count, you'd expect batters to notice that (or analytics guys to tell them about it) and so get more aggressive when the pitcher is ahead. Which might even lead to more balls in play. (In fact, I'd predict that it would lead to more at bats ending with the pitcher up in the count due to a combination of balls in play and swinging strikeouts. The pitchers will adjust to the batters' adjustments by throwing more stuff outside the zone, which leads to batters becoming more selective again, until we reach an equilibrium of more pitches outside the zone than currently, but also more balls hit than currently.)

I guess I don't have any real strong feelings about robo-umps, but please please please don't make it a challenge system. The replay challenge system is also a silly gimmick. Lets not do any more of it.

Perhaps I have not been keeping up but are pitch counts really an issue nowadays, or ever?

Some people think it would be nice if starting pitchers could routinely go beyond the fifth inning.

Hello, old friends. As it appears this website could go kaput at any moment, I'm hijacking a popular thread to invite BTF members to our vibrant little ex-BTF chat community:

https://discord.gg/sAGxRyme

Discord is a very different interface, with rapid comments, pictures and gifs. I happen to love it, which is why I switched communities a few years ago and haven't really looked back. We chat about baseball, politics, art, polar bears, döner kebabs, whatever. We'd love to have you.

That's also true. The reason is because of what framing really is. Framing is about catching the ball quietly, with little movement. Or, from the vantage point of the pitcher, hitting the target. Think Maddux, Glavine, or the ultimate case, Livan Hernandez. These guys were really good at hitting their spots. If their catchers set up right off the outside corner and these guys hit the spot, they're more likely to get strikes called. These types of pitchers should be hurt when the robo ump arrives, because they won't get that benefit.

Lost in this love for the recipients of these gift strikes is the flip slide: The batters are getting screwed by these fanboy umpires.

I admire Maddux, Glavine and other control artists, but the rewards for their pinpoint control should come when batters are induced to swing at those out-of-zone pitches, not when they (rightly) lay off them and find themselves victimized by an umpire's faulty vision.

Take a hypothetical matchup between Maddux and Ted Williams, whose knowledge of the real strike zone was unmatched. Is it right that Maddux should be able to ring up Williams on pitches that aren't really strikes?

The point is, the automated zone will change the game (the strike zone has always been the personalized strike zone) and not all of those changes will make for a more enjoyable product to a lot of us. To Andy, it probably will because he's really obsessed with it, seemingly above all else. To others, it may very well for a less entertaining product, even if it's more fair.

Forget "fairness". What on Earth is "more entertaining" about rallies being broken by gift strikes, or rallies being sustained by gift balls? What's "entertaining" about seeing strikes called that are well below the knees?

I admire Maddux, Glavine and other control artists, but the rewards for their pinpoint control should come when batters are induced to swing at those out-of-zone pitches, not when they (rightly) lay off them and find themselves victimized by an umpire's faulty vision.

Nothing is better inducement to swing than the possibility they will be called strikes.

Forget "fairness". What on Earth is "more entertaining" about rallies being broken by gift strikes, or rallies being sustained by gift balls? What's "entertaining" about seeing strikes called that are well below the knees?

See. Obsession.

Lost in this love for the recipients of these gift strikes is the flip slide: The batters are getting screwed by these fanboy umpires.

Lost in this claim of gift strikes is two assumptions. One, that all good framing only takes away balls rather than ensure strikes are strikes. The other assumption is that poor framers are doing an honest job with no consequences when many poor framers probably cost their pitchers strikes through bad technique. As a Yankees fan, St. Nick, I suggest you go watch highlights of Posada and Sanchez, both of whom likely turned many strikes into balls by being bad framers (especially Posada, who regularly jabbed at the ball he was catching).

how long is the average career of the catcher whose ONLY ABOVE AVERAGE SKILL IS FRAMING?

Jeff Mathis' was 17 years. Actually I had to check to make sure he hadn't climbed out of his tomb for another stint this year.

I hear that, but Jeff Mathis was overall an average to above average defensive catcher who couldn't hit. Framing wasn't the only part of the defensive game that he brought. I realize my argument trended toward the absurd, but my point is just that a good framer certainly could (probably does) have other defensive value, and probably does, so the argument that eliminating framing eliminates a large category of people is a straw man.

I admire Maddux, Glavine and other control artists, but the rewards for their pinpoint control should come when batters are induced to swing at those out-of-zone pitches, not when they (rightly) lay off them and find themselves victimized by an umpire's faulty vision.

Nothing is better inducement to swing than the possibility they will be called strikes.

And nothing guarantees more strikeouts than batters swinging at bad pitches that they're afraid will be called a strike.

Forget "fairness". What on Earth is "more entertaining" about rallies being broken by gift strikes, or rallies being sustained by gift balls? What's "entertaining" about seeing strikes called that are well below the knees?

See. Obsession.

In your case it's simply an obsession with an obsolete tradition, with nothing but tradition in its favor.

--------------

Lost in this claim of gift strikes is two assumptions. One, that all good framing only takes away balls rather than ensure strikes are strikes. The other assumption is that poor framers are doing an honest job with no consequences when many poor framers probably cost their pitchers strikes through bad technique. As a Yankees fan, St. Nick, I suggest you go watch highlights of Posada and Sanchez, both of whom likely turned many strikes into balls by being bad framers (especially Posada, who regularly jabbed at the ball he was catching).

I only mentioned framing because SoSH brought up Maddux & Co. My view on framing is simple: With a robo-ump in charge, framing will be rendered as irrelevant as a manager's yelling from the dugout, and like the pitch clock, it'll be accepted before you know it.

my point is just that a good framer certainly could (probably does) have other defensive value

Oh, definitely. I just couldn't resist a Jeff Mathis snark :-D

In your case it's simply an obsession with an obsolete tradition, with nothing but tradition in its favor.

I'm not the one who spends every game caterwauling about the number of strikes that missed the outside corner by a half-inch.

Yeah, I probably do complain more about bad ball / strike calls than most people here, but it's almost entirely when a bad call changes the narrative of the game, or when there are so many bad calls in a particular game that it's impossible not to notice, even by the announcers on the team that benefits from them. And I notice just as many bad calls that favor the Yankees as I do the ones that go against them.

Install the robo-umps and my complaining with be confined to players who can't adjust to the rule book zone. And I doubt if you'll be complaining about the robo-umps, because it's kind of hard to argue with a straight face that some players deserve a strike zone that's outside the strike zone rectangle.

Yeah, I probably do complain more about bad ball / strike calls than most people here.

Here, undeniably. But ever since that stupid invisible box was introduced to telecasts, ######## about the strike zone has absolutely exploded all over the place. It's horrible, and the one good thing about the robo umps is that, presumably, I don't have to listen/read about it any longer. Not having that pollute every baseball discussion is almost enough to welcome our robo ump overlords.

I doubt if you'll be complaining about the robo-umps, because it's kind of hard to argue with a straight face that some players deserve a strike zone that's outside the strike zone rectangle.

I spend virtually no time ######## about umpire's calls. The ump calls the strike zone. He misses some, hopefully consistently within his given zone. Same as it ever was. On an individual batter level, I don't see how it will affect my enjoyment of, or my reaction to, the game either way. We'll see what kind of larger effect it has on the game as time goes on.

I'm positive I will find it less annoying than existing replay, which simply sucks.

Sooner or later there will be a gambling scandal so explosive it'll make the Black Sox look like a child's sparkler. That's inevitable. There's far too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

possible.

and whether sports betting was mostly illegal, or now mostly legal, will have nothing to do it. as you note, it's about the money. larger salaries across the board do mitigate the chances. but a compulsive gambler athlete who is in serious financial - and physical - jeopardy - can arise no matter how high the salaries are.

but a compulsive gambler athlete who is in serious financial - and physical - jeopardy - can arise no matter how high the salaries are.

Yeah I agree. Way back when you used to here people say: You wont see anything like the black sox scandal-salaries are much higher.

I dont hear it as much anymore. Obviously the value of money is relative. Inflation calculator says the $10k the black sox received would now be worth $177k. Maybe if Shoeless Joe had put it in a Roth IRA. IDUNNO.