Baseball
I've been making my annual attempt to get into baseball. It's a bit easier this year, as I've joined my brother's ESPN league, and therefore need to understand enough to get out of the cellar (which, so far is not working). So I watched the Jays-Tigers game last night. Jays lost.
But what struck me was the strike zone. As in, the computerized strike zone that showed all the pitches, just like in a computer game. Apparently, this kind of thing has been around since 03, but I've never seen it used in a broadcast before. It was somewhat shocking.
The first thing that surprised me was that the pitches and calls were so accurate. Pitches hit the corners of the zone with precision, and were usually called strikes when they did.
Bu there were a could of glitches. DH Frank "The Big Hurt" Thomas got K'd on a called strike on a full count with two out and two on. When the pitch arrived, he did a quick belly-in-arms-out as though avoiding a pitch that might have hit his midsection. The ump called him out, and I thought: "what an actor - jumping away to get the walk."
Then they showed the computer image.
The pitch was well inside. It was a fastball and missed substantially - enough to make Thomas jump. Side retired - that was that. There was another that a Detroit batter discussed with the ump - and was shown to be well outside.
My question it this - why are umps still calling balls and strikes? Why not let them run the rest of the game without having to do that? Okay, the technology wasn't there in 2001 or 2003 when they started, but it's there now. Why not have every pitch evaluated electronically?
There are some who say that the human element - error - needs to stay in the game, but I think that's real crap. Watch your team go down in an important game due to bad calls, and then tell me how important it is that human error remain a factor.
The Refs eliminated the Patriots from the Super Bowl last year by their bad calls and non-calls. It was so quaint and warm-hearted to see people embrace their natural flaws in that way.
Right.
I read back in the 80's that they tried putting a chalk line on the pitcher's mound so you could see when a pitcher baulked. They got rid of it - it was too revealing. It took all the guesswork out of making the call.
That was obviously another day and age. I don't see any use in keeping a flawed system because there is some sort of blue-sky antiquarianism associated with making mistakes.
Umpires, on their side, have been messing up baseball for decades. In 2001, they were called on to re-learn the strike zone and start calling it by the book. Players were accustomed to have to watch a couple of innings to find out where the strike zone was that day. Ridiculous.
In another baseball aside, I saw the indefinably annoying Gegg Zaun get a single on a blooper that went over the heads of the infield but dropped down before an outfielder could get it. Isn't that called a "Texas Leaguer?" The announcers were calling it bloopy or limp or something (that was obviously on their mind), but they didn't use the term.
Which makes you wonder if the old baseball dinosaurs are already out of the game.
But what struck me was the strike zone. As in, the computerized strike zone that showed all the pitches, just like in a computer game. Apparently, this kind of thing has been around since 03, but I've never seen it used in a broadcast before. It was somewhat shocking.
The first thing that surprised me was that the pitches and calls were so accurate. Pitches hit the corners of the zone with precision, and were usually called strikes when they did.
Bu there were a could of glitches. DH Frank "The Big Hurt" Thomas got K'd on a called strike on a full count with two out and two on. When the pitch arrived, he did a quick belly-in-arms-out as though avoiding a pitch that might have hit his midsection. The ump called him out, and I thought: "what an actor - jumping away to get the walk."
Then they showed the computer image.
The pitch was well inside. It was a fastball and missed substantially - enough to make Thomas jump. Side retired - that was that. There was another that a Detroit batter discussed with the ump - and was shown to be well outside.
My question it this - why are umps still calling balls and strikes? Why not let them run the rest of the game without having to do that? Okay, the technology wasn't there in 2001 or 2003 when they started, but it's there now. Why not have every pitch evaluated electronically?
There are some who say that the human element - error - needs to stay in the game, but I think that's real crap. Watch your team go down in an important game due to bad calls, and then tell me how important it is that human error remain a factor.
The Refs eliminated the Patriots from the Super Bowl last year by their bad calls and non-calls. It was so quaint and warm-hearted to see people embrace their natural flaws in that way.
Right.
I read back in the 80's that they tried putting a chalk line on the pitcher's mound so you could see when a pitcher baulked. They got rid of it - it was too revealing. It took all the guesswork out of making the call.
That was obviously another day and age. I don't see any use in keeping a flawed system because there is some sort of blue-sky antiquarianism associated with making mistakes.
Umpires, on their side, have been messing up baseball for decades. In 2001, they were called on to re-learn the strike zone and start calling it by the book. Players were accustomed to have to watch a couple of innings to find out where the strike zone was that day. Ridiculous.
In another baseball aside, I saw the indefinably annoying Gegg Zaun get a single on a blooper that went over the heads of the infield but dropped down before an outfielder could get it. Isn't that called a "Texas Leaguer?" The announcers were calling it bloopy or limp or something (that was obviously on their mind), but they didn't use the term.
Which makes you wonder if the old baseball dinosaurs are already out of the game.
posted by fiduciary at 11:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home