What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official - 2025 Major League Baseball Thread (8 Viewers)

ok c'mon Topper. All we need to do is not pick up the phone and call for Kimbrel. Anything else and we may get out of here with a win
 
FreeBaGeL said:
FreeBaGeL said:
FreeBaGeL said:
This ump better give the steps these ridiculous outside strikes too.
Click to expand...

Narrator: he didn't. He is trash.
Click to expand...

And it costs the Astros 2 runs when he didn't give strike 3 on the exact same pitch he gave to eovaldi 3 times the inning before (eovaldi's were probably even further off the plate).

Bring us robo umps already. These guys suck.
Click to expand...
I don't know. That change up was pretty far outside. Only saw it once but think eovaldis was closer. At least the strike called on abreu in his last at bat. Still was off the plate tho.
 
FreeBaGeL said:
FreeBaGeL said:
FreeBaGeL said:
This ump better give the steps these ridiculous outside strikes too.
Click to expand...

Narrator: he didn't. He is trash.
Click to expand...

And it costs the Astros 2 runs when he didn't give strike 3 on the exact same pitch he gave to eovaldi 3 times the inning before (eovaldi's were probably even further off the plate).

Bring us robo umps already. These guys suck.
Click to expand...


He was pretty bad.
 
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I am also a lifelong baseball guy but I am not a fan of the robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller. Part of the beauty of the game is that the strike zone can be minimally different game to game and that the batters and pitchers need to adjust and adapt. This does require an umpire to be consistent which seems to be impossible to get these days. With the consistency it does make this nuance moot as it becomes guesswork on both sides which is terrible.

What I don't like about the robo-ump as a solo caller is that there are many "strikes" that are unhittable as they catch a sliver of the plate as it dives out of the zone and by technical definition it is a strike. I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect. I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
 
Gally said:
I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
Click to expand...
I tend to think this is a good compromise. I'm not sure if there's a limit or what the penalty is for being wrong but think this seems to work pretty well in the, albeit few, examples I've seen.

I'm also OK with full on robo plate umps tho. If a pitcher can hit that little sliver of the plate that you mentioned more power to him.
 
Gally said:
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I am also a lifelong baseball guy but I am not a fan of the robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller. Part of the beauty of the game is that the strike zone can be minimally different game to game and that the batters and pitchers need to adjust and adapt. This does require an umpire to be consistent which seems to be impossible to get these days. With the consistency it does make this nuance moot as it becomes guesswork on both sides which is terrible.

What I don't like about the robo-ump as a solo caller is that there are many "strikes" that are unhittable as they catch a sliver of the plate as it dives out of the zone and by technical definition it is a strike. I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect. I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
Click to expand...
unless its a knuckleball nothing that catches a sliver of the actual strike zone is unhittable brohan take that to the bank
 
Gally said:
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I am also a lifelong baseball guy but I am not a fan of the robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller. Part of the beauty of the game is that the strike zone can be minimally different game to game and that the batters and pitchers need to adjust and adapt. This does require an umpire to be consistent which seems to be impossible to get these days. With the consistency it does make this nuance moot as it becomes guesswork on both sides which is terrible.

What I don't like about the robo-ump as a solo caller is that there are many "strikes" that are unhittable as they catch a sliver of the plate as it dives out of the zone and by technical definition it is a strike. I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect. I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
Click to expand...
I go to quite a few AAA games and can confirm the current challenge system there isn’t burdensome. It’s a few seconds; not like NBA or NFL review at all.
 
Gally said:
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I am also a lifelong baseball guy but I am not a fan of the robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller. Part of the beauty of the game is that the strike zone can be minimally different game to game and that the batters and pitchers need to adjust and adapt. This does require an umpire to be consistent which seems to be impossible to get these days. With the consistency it does make this nuance moot as it becomes guesswork on both sides which is terrible.

What I don't like about the robo-ump as a solo caller is that there are many "strikes" that are unhittable as they catch a sliver of the plate as it dives out of the zone and by technical definition it is a strike. I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect. I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
Click to expand...

So a pitched ball that meets the definition of a strike, shouldn't be a strike because it's unhittable? What's wrong with being able to throw perfect pitches. The hitability of the pitch should not be a factor in whether it's called a ball or strike.
 
Snotbubbles said:
So a pitched ball that meets the definition of a strike, shouldn't be a strike because it's unhittable? What's wrong with being able to throw perfect pitches. The hitability of the pitch should not be a factor in whether it's called a ball or strike.
Click to expand...
i didn't say it shouldn't necessarily be a strike. What I was trying to allude to is that there will be public outcry with robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller as pitches that are technically strikes that are essentially unhittable will drive people nuts because they will not look like strikes leading to people complaining about the robo-ump being "wrong". People are crazy and you can't please everyone.

I personally like the human element for balls/strikes. I think that is a nuanced part of the game. It does get frustrating when the umps aren't consistent though. In my perfect world, a human ump is consistent and has their own slightly off strike zone (or not) that pitchers and hitters must adapt to game to game. It is a part of the strategic game I like. Just my preference.
 
Gally said:
Snotbubbles said:
So a pitched ball that meets the definition of a strike, shouldn't be a strike because it's unhittable? What's wrong with being able to throw perfect pitches. The hitability of the pitch should not be a factor in whether it's called a ball or strike.
Click to expand...
i didn't say it shouldn't necessarily be a strike. What I was trying to allude to is that there will be public outcry with robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller as pitches that are technically strikes that are essentially unhittable will drive people nuts because they will not look like strikes leading to people complaining about the robo-ump being "wrong". People are crazy and you can't please everyone.

I personally like the human element for balls/strikes. I think that is a nuanced part of the game. It does get frustrating when the umps aren't consistent though. In my perfect world, a human ump is consistent and has their own slightly off strike zone (or not) that pitchers and hitters must adapt to game to game. It is a part of the strategic game I like. Just my preference.
Click to expand...
or players will have to learn how to hit strikes that flirt with the edge which you know they do already with what is generally a bigger strike zone as called by most umps basically there isnt any good logical reason not to lets robots call the balls and strikes when you come down to it people just want to say they dont like the computers but the reasoning is specious at best take that to the bank brohans
 
Snotbubbles said:
Gally said:
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I am also a lifelong baseball guy but I am not a fan of the robo-ump as the sole ball/strike caller. Part of the beauty of the game is that the strike zone can be minimally different game to game and that the batters and pitchers need to adjust and adapt. This does require an umpire to be consistent which seems to be impossible to get these days. With the consistency it does make this nuance moot as it becomes guesswork on both sides which is terrible.

What I don't like about the robo-ump as a solo caller is that there are many "strikes" that are unhittable as they catch a sliver of the plate as it dives out of the zone and by technical definition it is a strike. I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect. I would much prefer a hybrid where the catcher/batter can ask for a confirmation (like they are doing in some leagues in the minors). It works really well and doesn't take time away from game flow and fixes the egregious misses.
Click to expand...

So a pitched ball that meets the definition of a strike, shouldn't be a strike because it's unhittable? What's wrong with being able to throw perfect pitches. The hitability of the pitch should not be a factor in whether it's called a ball or strike.
Click to expand...

Has more to do with the shape of pitches moving thru the zone and when. It can be hard to say it was in the zone when it crossed the front of the plate, that's the reason for robo umps.
 
balls and strikes shouldnt be subjective unless it means that everything thrown generally in the direction of the plate against the yankees dodgers and cheaterstros is a strike take that to the bank brohans
 
As long as roboump is setup for the full 17" front to back of the plate I'm ok with it :) I want it to be a 17x17xH box
 
culdeus said:
Has more to do with the shape of pitches moving thru the zone and when. It can be hard to say it was in the zone when it crossed the front of the plate, that's the reason for robo umps.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can get a pitch that touches the front corner of the plate only as it moves past the batter so by definition it is a strike but with vertical and horizontal break it quickly is out of the zone and essentially unhittable. By definition a strike but in practice people will go berserk when it gets called

Although, I see that as opposite of you. That's the reason I don't want strictly robo-umps.
 
Gally said:
FreeBaGeL said:
I'm a lifelong baseball guy but I just don't get why people are so against robo-umps because of "tradition". It's even worse now that we have the little box so we can see how bad they are. There were tons of bad calls in both games but several in the Stros/Rangers game that were just awful. A few strikes called way way way off the plate in key circumstances, and another in the opposite direction where it was such an obvious strike (I'm guessing the entire ball was inside the edge of home plate with a gap in between) that the ump had to kind of get everyone's attention to let them know the last pitch was called ball 4 and the guy should be going to 1st.
Click to expand...
I think it could swing the game too much over time as pitchers learn how to take advantage of that aspect.
Click to expand...
But it would also make the catcher skill of pitch framing obsolete. That could mitigate your point.
 
Gally said:
culdeus said:
Has more to do with the shape of pitches moving thru the zone and when. It can be hard to say it was in the zone when it crossed the front of the plate, that's the reason for robo umps.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can get a pitch that touches the front corner of the plate only as it moves past the batter so by definition it is a strike but with vertical and horizontal break it quickly is out of the zone and essentially unhittable. By definition a strike but in practice people will go berserk when it gets called
Click to expand...
Mariano Rivera threw a bunch of those in his career.
 
Pip's Invitation said:
But it would also make the catcher skill of pitch framing obsolete. That could mitigate your point.
Click to expand...
I think that will make my point more real. If a catcher doesn't worry about framing because robo-ump doesn't need it then even more strikes will look terrible to the joe blow fan that they will cry even more about robo-ump being rigged because those pitches won't look remotely like strikes. The optical illusion will make fans even more frustrated because they don't "look" like strikes.
 
Gally said:
Pip's Invitation said:
But it would also make the catcher skill of pitch framing obsolete. That could mitigate your point.
Click to expand...
I think that will make my point more real. If a catcher doesn't worry about framing because robo-ump doesn't need it then even more strikes will look terrible to the joe blow fan that they will cry even more about robo-ump being rigged because those pitches won't look remotely like strikes. The optical illusion will make fans even more frustrated because they don't "look" like strikes.
Click to expand...

I've not really seen anyone questioning the accuracy of robo-ump we see on TV even though at times the catcher is catching it in a different spot than the little dot shows up on our TV.

Likewise soccer now uses technology to determine if a ball broke the plane of the goal and I've never really seen any issue with people claiming it was incorrect or rigged because it looked different in the live TV angle.
 
FreeBaGeL said:
I've not really seen anyone questioning the accuracy of robo-ump we see on TV even though at times the catcher is catching it in a different spot than the little dot shows up on our TV.

Likewise soccer now uses technology to determine if a ball broke the plane of the goal and I've never really seen any issue with people claiming it was incorrect or rigged because it looked different in the live TV angle.
Click to expand...
When it isn't the actual thing being used fans typically won't begrudge it because they use it to their favor when the ump screws up. Have it be the only thing being used and I have no doubt homer fans will complain conspiracy theories all over the place when pitches that don't look like strikes are being called in key moments. Fans need something to complain about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

titusbramble
  • Poll Poll
2026 FIFA World Cup megathread
2 3 4
Replies
160
Views
2K
QuizGuy66
QuizGuy66
Yo Mama
**** OFFICIAL FFA 2025-2026 Fake NBA Draft **** - Draft Has Started
18 19 20
Replies
983
Views
12K
Master of Subservience
Master of Subservience
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange - OCT 12 SHIPPING DEADLINE (extended 2 weeks)***
3 4 5
Replies
226
Views
6K
Dennis Castro
Dennis Castro

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top