I guarantee some nerd in the bleachers was watching that count and screaming his fool head off. And that fascist security didn't even listen or look at his book full of stats before throwing him out of the stadium.
There's a Tiger game in the 1980s where Sparky Andersen went out to argue with the umpire because the umpire got the count confused. Like "I’m not arguing the calls. I’m arguing the count." It was before everyone recorded every game and compiled real-time wikis so it's hard to find the exact game it happened.
I'm glad that we've come so far as a society that "being live in the stadium of an athletic endeavor, paying close attention, and caring about the outcome" comes within the definition of "nerd."
Oh, Jeff. You are not cynical enough. Most people will pay for a robot hurling mediocre dad jokes their way. That’s why we have 6,000 super hero movies.
I hate that the NL has the DH now but otherwise I'm a baseball heretic at this point.
I LOVE the runner on second in extras and am now fully on board with, after one extra inning is played (maybe two), to just have a swing off to decide the game. (Regular season only.) Extra innings are brutal. I've been blackpilled on extra innings since the Braves and Pirates played a 19-inning game in 2011. I hate them.
I also want baseball to switch to a different regular season model. Same number of games, but every series win is is what counts as a win. Standings tiebreakers are awarded based on number of overall wins. Just gives the individual games more weight IMO.
And yes, bring on the ball-strike challenge system. Especially for the playoffs. The way a missed pitch call affects an entire inning in October is insane.
I have to disagree. I think it’s a bad idea to put a runner in scoring position. I think they should put a runner on first. I agree that DH is terrible. I think MLB should get rid off it. I think you’ve season model is an interesting idea.
The issue is that they would probably have to change the strike zone rules to get ABS to work. By the existing rules, it’s possible to throw a strike that bounces off the plate or nearly hits the batter in the upper arm. Since no one is going to challenge a pitch in the dirt, you can live with the strike zone being kind of borked.
Somewhat similarly, the existing effective strike zone is an oval. Pitchers who could hit the actual corners would have a huge advantage that would change the game substantially. MLB is already not thrilled by the number of strikeouts, so they might change the strike zone even more.
To be clear, I don’t oppose the idea, but it would be a much bigger change than it seems at first blush.
I couldn’t agree more, Jeff. This is one of the most clear-cut examples I know of of people being terrible at logic. This is such a no-brainer. Getting the call right > “tHe HuMaN eLeMeNt”
Hahaha this one's great! It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. With all the money on line, I'm surprised that the owners haven't demanded that balls and strikes are called by robot umps.
There's a surprising amount of resistance to the robo-ump from the players, and not just the pitchers. MLB wants to institute it next season but the players have to approve.
I think without researching it that more balls are called strikes than vice versa so the current system benefits pitchers. But since the robo-ump will have a very small margin of error, up to half an inch, it makes players (some of the dumb ones) be like, "Well both have a margin of error so we might as well stay with the humans." (They could just be brown-nosing the umps.) One is half an inch, the other is about 4 inches, but hey, margin of error.
"5-pitch walks" are actually quite common. 5-ball walks, however, are extremely rare.
I guarantee some nerd in the bleachers was watching that count and screaming his fool head off. And that fascist security didn't even listen or look at his book full of stats before throwing him out of the stadium.
There's a Tiger game in the 1980s where Sparky Andersen went out to argue with the umpire because the umpire got the count confused. Like "I’m not arguing the calls. I’m arguing the count." It was before everyone recorded every game and compiled real-time wikis so it's hard to find the exact game it happened.
I'm glad that we've come so far as a society that "being live in the stadium of an athletic endeavor, paying close attention, and caring about the outcome" comes within the definition of "nerd."
Oh, Jeff. You are not cynical enough. Most people will pay for a robot hurling mediocre dad jokes their way. That’s why we have 6,000 super hero movies.
I needed extra time to laugh and enjoy the joke around the "Do Not Eat" warning on silica packets.
I hate that the NL has the DH now but otherwise I'm a baseball heretic at this point.
I LOVE the runner on second in extras and am now fully on board with, after one extra inning is played (maybe two), to just have a swing off to decide the game. (Regular season only.) Extra innings are brutal. I've been blackpilled on extra innings since the Braves and Pirates played a 19-inning game in 2011. I hate them.
I also want baseball to switch to a different regular season model. Same number of games, but every series win is is what counts as a win. Standings tiebreakers are awarded based on number of overall wins. Just gives the individual games more weight IMO.
And yes, bring on the ball-strike challenge system. Especially for the playoffs. The way a missed pitch call affects an entire inning in October is insane.
I have to disagree. I think it’s a bad idea to put a runner in scoring position. I think they should put a runner on first. I agree that DH is terrible. I think MLB should get rid off it. I think you’ve season model is an interesting idea.
I see your point, Maurer, but then we’d lose a bit of the thrill of yelling at the TV.
The issue is that they would probably have to change the strike zone rules to get ABS to work. By the existing rules, it’s possible to throw a strike that bounces off the plate or nearly hits the batter in the upper arm. Since no one is going to challenge a pitch in the dirt, you can live with the strike zone being kind of borked.
Somewhat similarly, the existing effective strike zone is an oval. Pitchers who could hit the actual corners would have a huge advantage that would change the game substantially. MLB is already not thrilled by the number of strikeouts, so they might change the strike zone even more.
To be clear, I don’t oppose the idea, but it would be a much bigger change than it seems at first blush.
https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/if-robot-umpires-stick-around-will-a-new-strike-zone-follow/ has some details.
Jomboy does great work on the strike zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK4GO2iOdh8
Thx for the link. This is excellent!
I couldn’t agree more, Jeff. This is one of the most clear-cut examples I know of of people being terrible at logic. This is such a no-brainer. Getting the call right > “tHe HuMaN eLeMeNt”
Hahaha this one's great! It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. With all the money on line, I'm surprised that the owners haven't demanded that balls and strikes are called by robot umps.
There's a surprising amount of resistance to the robo-ump from the players, and not just the pitchers. MLB wants to institute it next season but the players have to approve.
I think without researching it that more balls are called strikes than vice versa so the current system benefits pitchers. But since the robo-ump will have a very small margin of error, up to half an inch, it makes players (some of the dumb ones) be like, "Well both have a margin of error so we might as well stay with the humans." (They could just be brown-nosing the umps.) One is half an inch, the other is about 4 inches, but hey, margin of error.