SchizoAg said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)

---

Your team will still lose a lot of games to inferior teams and beat a lot of better teams. That's the nature of the game. Elite teams only win 60% of their games.

Umpiring, assuming it's unbiased, just adds an extra source of "noise" to the signal. So you'll win another occasional game against a better team, and lose another occasional game against a worse team.

Robot umpires will never ensure that "the better team wins".

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

who?mikejones said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.

I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)

---

You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.

Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.

---

It goes WAY beyond that, though.

There is a provable umpiring bias. For instance, when the count is 3-0, umpires increase the size of the zone similar to how they shrink it at 0-2 because they don't want to make a call that sends someone to first or back to the dugout. They want a batter to swing and miss to be out, or to actually get a hit to reach first. This has been proven. How many times have we seen a player get away with watching what should've been called strike 3 only to slap a base hit afterward? That completely changes the game.

It's not a "bad apple ump", nor is it "overstated on Texags". Umpires in the MLB missed 34,000 ball/strike calls last year, roughly 15 per game. The umpire has "worked" in that we never had anything better. Having a single umpire standing behind the pitcher worked..... Until they could afford to pay someone to stand behind the plate as well. Things are and have always been changing. It won't put anything "on a tee". It'll just ensure that the correct call is made.

---

who?mikejones said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

who?mikejones said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.

I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)

---

You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.

Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.

---

It goes WAY beyond that, though.

There is a provable umpiring bias. For instance, when the count is 3-0, umpires increase the size of the zone similar to how they shrink it at 0-2 because they don't want to make a call that sends someone to first or back to the dugout. They want a batter to swing and miss to be out, or to actually get a hit to reach first. This has been proven. How many times have we seen a player get away with watching what should've been called strike 3 only to slap a base hit afterward? That completely changes the game.

It's not a "bad apple ump", nor is it "overstated on Texags". Umpires in the MLB missed 34,000 ball/strike calls last year, roughly 15 per game. The umpire has "worked" in that we never had anything better. Having a single umpire standing behind the pitcher worked..... Until they could afford to pay someone to stand behind the plate as well. Things are and have always been changing. It won't put anything "on a tee". It'll just ensure that the correct call is made.

---

So the average pro game has about 292 pitches. 15/292= .05. So umps call about 95% pitches correctly?

Is my very quick math correct?

I also disagree that removing a set zone isnt the equivalent of putting a ball on a tee. It most definitely will make pitching far more difficult. Pro batters already have an amazing feel for the theoretical strike zone. Making the zone 100% predictable batters gives the batter an edge by removing hesitation. They will undoubtedly get that advantage.

---

who?mikejones said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

who?mikejones said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Alright. Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for out of baseball, then, whether you think it's "part of the game" or not.

I'd personally like my team to win or lose because they're the better team or not, not because they happened to get an umpire calling strikes that aren't strikes. That said, I understand the argument of those who consider "being a better team" being able to adjust to an umpire, but I feel like that messes with what they're taught (to swing at strikes, watch balls, etc)

---

You swing at what the ump is calling strikes. Just like you pitch to where the ump is calling strikes. It's usually pretty clear how an ump is going to call the game after the first inning or two.

Do you get a bad apple ump sometimes? Sure, but it's far overstated on texags. For about 170 years, the umpire has worked for this game and they've been an essential part of the experience. Putting the ball on a virtual tee for batters wont necessarily make the game better nor will it improve the fan's experience, imo.

---

It goes WAY beyond that, though.

There is a provable umpiring bias. For instance, when the count is 3-0, umpires increase the size of the zone similar to how they shrink it at 0-2 because they don't want to make a call that sends someone to first or back to the dugout. They want a batter to swing and miss to be out, or to actually get a hit to reach first. This has been proven. How many times have we seen a player get away with watching what should've been called strike 3 only to slap a base hit afterward? That completely changes the game.

It's not a "bad apple ump", nor is it "overstated on Texags". Umpires in the MLB missed 34,000 ball/strike calls last year, roughly 15 per game. The umpire has "worked" in that we never had anything better. Having a single umpire standing behind the pitcher worked..... Until they could afford to pay someone to stand behind the plate as well. Things are and have always been changing. It won't put anything "on a tee". It'll just ensure that the correct call is made.

---

So the average pro game has about 292 pitches. 15/292= .05. So umps call about 95% pitches correctly?

Is my very quick math correct?

I also disagree that removing a set zone isnt the equivalent of putting a ball on a tee. It most definitely will make pitching far more difficult. Pro batters already have an amazing feel for the theoretical strike zone. Making the zone 100% predictable batters gives the batter an edge by removing hesitation. They will undoubtedly get that advantage.

---

sellthefarm said:

---

And y'all are talking about MLB umps. College umps easily miss twice as many calls

---