Are you for or against QuesTech? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Are you for or against QuesTech?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Are you for or against QuesTech?

Poll ended at Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:59 pm

Use it
10
31%
Don't Use it
22
69%
 
Total votes : 32

Postby KolbSaves » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:41 am

as an umpire I agree with the above 100%
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton
KolbSaves
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3477
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby matmat » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:50 am

the problem with questec is that there is still the little geek behind the monitor that needs to set the batter's strike zone, after all, strike zones vary from hitter to hitter and the machine can't really tell where the knees start and the letters end.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]
matmat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4120
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: North cross down

Postby afromangettindrunk » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:39 am

i also agree with kolbsaves, being a former babe ruth umpire.
Image
afromangettindrunk
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 808
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Albany, NY

Postby thehat » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:48 am

Put me on the anti-Questec side.
thehat
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 3721
Joined: 1 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fabulous Las Vegas

Postby phunkadelic » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:35 am

The problem before Questec is that pitchers with a rep (especially Maddux) would get strikes called a good foot and a half outside the plate. It happened all the time and made me sick.

Use Questec, and play baseball by the rules.

The only pitcher I feel a little sorry for however is Curt Schilling. He spent his entire career learning the ins and outs of every umpire... where they called strikes, where they didn't. He used that to his advantage, until all the umps' stirke zones changed in Arizona once Questec came along.
phunkadelic
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 707
Joined: 8 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Riding the Bench with Freel

Postby fishingmn » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:43 am

I'm not in favor of Questec as a tool to remove umpires role.

I am in favor of Questec as a way to grade umpires and make them accountable for their calls.

In my humble opinion, of any of the major sports, MLB umpires seem to inject themselves into the game more than other referees. The game isn't about them - in fact, I think it's too bad they have such a strong union. They should be held accountable for making the correct calls AND for being involved as little as possible in deciding the outcome of games.

In any referee/umpire role you should be held accountable for upholding the rules as written and in too many cases I see umpires making their own rules to suit their own biases.
fishingmn
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 326
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby KolbSaves » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:45 am

They make up rules? Such as what?
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton
KolbSaves
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3477
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby fishingmn » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:50 am

Every umpire seems to have their own strike zone.

Some call a high strike while some don't. Some give you 2-3 inches off the black while some don't.

The strike zone is not meant to be subjective!

That's the whole idea behind Questec. Grade umpires on where they are making the correct calls - hopefully they would use it as a tool to improve. Instead they see it as a device that inhibits them from calling the game "they" want to call it.
fishingmn
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 326
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby KolbSaves » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:50 pm

Ques Tec isn't the way to eliminate these minor interpretations of the rules. Those interpretations cannot be taken out of the game unless umpires themselves are taken out. All Ques Tec does is make umpires afraid of making the close strike zone calls because they will get a bad grade. If they don't call the close ones strikes they can remain safe.

Second, it creates a tentative state among umpires. MLB is basing its All-Star and postseason umpiring assignments on the results generated by this machine. So QuesTec's results directly affect the umpire's livelihood. The last thing we want are umpires second-guessing their decisions during games because of a fear of losing their jobs.
- Dan Patrick http://espn.go.com/talent/danpatrick/s/ ... 60141.html

Until Alderson got a bee up his bonnet, the key to calling balls and strikes was never about adhering to a textbook strike zone. The issue is consistency. If you call a low pitch a strike in the first inning, be sure you're still calling it a strike in the seventh. No two umpires see the strike zone in exactly the same way, anyway. Height, weight, general conditioning and individual perspective all affect an umpire's perception of the zone. There's nothing QuesTec can do to change that.

In other words, the idea of every umpire adhering to an identical strike zone is a physical impossibility.
- Wired http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... 84,00.html

and besides

Besides, QuesTec isn't necessary to identify which umpires are consistently inconsistent. Umpire evaluators, men with decades of experience working behind the plate, have done a good job for years of weeding out the weak sperm. Let them do their jobs.
Wired - http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0, ... 84,00.html

sorry to go all quotation on you, but that's my piece
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton
KolbSaves
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3477
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby fishingmn » Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:00 pm

Hey Kolb - enjoy the banter }:-)

This article sums up my views very well:

First off – it is important to understand what the QuesTec system has been implemented for in the first place.

Major League Baseball wants to have a standard strike zone not one that is subject to the caprices of maverick umpires. In the rule book what is supposed to be the strike zone is clearly spelled out. However, some umpires have differing views and for years have gotten away with calling the strike zone as each umpire saw fit.

That is clearly unacceptable to MLB and should also be unacceptable to everyone else.

It is no secret that for years – MLB pitchers have had to scout the umpires just as much as the opposing team’s batters. Each umpire had their own idea of what they considered a strike. No uniformity what so ever.

Baseball purists will try to call this “the human element” but that is pure BS!

When foul poles were erected to help tell foul balls from home runs did people cry “You’re taking the human element out of the game.” Of course not.

When chalk lines were first put down from home plate down the first and third base lines – did people say – “you are taking judgments out of the hands of the umpires?” Of course not.

Those two innovations were simply viewed as useful tools to help umpires make the correct calls. QuesTec is just a new tool that will also help the umpires make correct calls based upon what MLB says is the strike zone.

Please note that QuesTec is only being used as a guide to help MLB evaluate the performance of the umpires. All MLB is asking is that 90% of the strikes called match up to what QuesTec also said was a strike.

Think about that. MLB just wants them to agree 9 out of 10 times. At your job is it OK for you to do what the boss wants 9 times and then decide for yourself what you want company policy to be on the 10th time? This seems to be very fair and flexible on the part of MLB.

That 10th time also gives the umpire the chance to make those tight calls on rising fastballs and backdoor breaking stuff. The calls that the umpires argue QuesTec won't be able to see.

What is the problem with trying to have a standard strike zone and trying to insure that the men behind the plate are competent to do the job?

The umpires will argue that they are being judged using an imperfect system. They say that the QuesTec machines vary from park to park and are subject to pre-game calibrations that are also subject to human error.

I find these arguments funny. In the first place – the results are only tabulated after the game. The umpire has to go into the game thinking the measurements are correct. They have to go into the game thinking that they will have to call strikes the way that MLB says they should be called. If a machine were clearly out of whack then the post game comparisons would show that.

If there are differences between parks then because of the technology involved they would be miniscule – maybe a 1/10th of an inch. The umpires are trying to find a loophole to hang their hats on to get out of being properly evaluated for their performance.

The funniest thing is the argument that the umpires have to learn what the strike zone is for each park. Isn’t that what pitchers have been forced to do with umpires for decades? Oohh – it is so unfair to the umpires that there may be slight variances between parks and they have to learn those variances to compensate. Tell that to the pitching coaches who have been forced to watch hundreds of hours of film to try and figure out the strike zone was to each ump. I wonder if the pitching coaches have any sympathy for that argument.

Two other major benefits of the QuesTec system that are rarely discussed include:

1. The umpires are supposed to be impartial judges but that “human element” may creep into their calls in a bad way. What if they just dislike a player or a team and they squeeze that player or team for their own personal reasons? Well that sort of bias would show up in the QuesTec reviews and I’m sure that would put an end to it. Can you imagine an umpire having to explain why the only mistakes he seems to make are against Mets (or Yankees or Red Sox) batters?

2. Baseball – like any major league sport – has millions of dollars a year bet on it. Probably the person who could be compromised the easiest with payoffs would be the umpire. QuesTec helps prevent even the thought of that because all performance would be reviewed. QuesTec thus helps protect the integrity of the game in more ways than one.

I have heard the arguments by the umpires and they are all bunk. Gone are the days when the umpires could make calls based upon what they thought of as “strikish”. I say good riddance to those days.

MLB is right in implementing the QuesTec system. I urge you to view the PR coming out against the system for what it is – pure bull shit.

http://www.sportspages.com/content/blog ... 275&more=1
fishingmn
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 326
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Oct. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Detroit at Baltimore
(5:37 pm)
Kansas City at LA Angels
(9:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact