Are you for or against QuesTech?

[StlSluggers]

Use QuesTech, make the pitchers get the ball over the plate. If Glavine did that he wouldn't be a HOF.

I read a great article on game theory and competing to win the other day, and it basically said that the difference between most winners and losers is that the winners understand that you can and should do anything legal to win. Losers, on the other hand, often place arbitrary rules on themselves that limit their competitive range, thereby confining them to an eternity of losing. Those same arbitrary rules also result in the losers bemoaning the winner, often by labelling them as cheaters, since the winner doesn't follow the same arbitrary rules that the loser uses.

Tom Glavine did exactly what he had to do to win. To hate on him for it is nothing more than sour grapes.

[J35J]

I'm fine either way...keep it as is or I wouldn't complain if they used a machine to call strikes. I will say if they use a machine to call strikes they need to add an inch or 2 to both sides of the plate....the plate isn't wide enough right now if you call strikes by the book.

[WickedSmaat]

Personally the way it makes me feel is this, those that are for it have never played baseball or have never played at a competitive level. I would rather blame it on the umpire then blaming it on a teammate. It makes a difference.

I suppose we should get questec to invent a ref for the NFL too to call the penalties and spot the ball

[Art Vandelay]

I am definitely in the anti-QuesTech camp. Why is there such a desire for everything to be uniform and perfect? And why stop at the strike zone? Shouldn't all dimensions and materials be uniform at major leage parks? Every park will be 330' down the lines, 370' in the alleys, and 415' to center with no odd angles in the outfield and only 8' high green, padded walls. No more brick or chain link, definitely nothing ridiculous like ivy or the Green Monster.

Are you really suggesting that the players should be forced to GUESS what the definition of a strike is and isn't every time they step into the box/mound? That's insane. There is not a desire for everything to be perfect and uniform, you just want people to know what the rules are.

Players don't have to guess what the definition of a strike is. For the most part, umpires have a pretty consistent strike zone. Players have a good idea of what is going to be a strike and what isn't. This 'insane' idea is working perfectly well right now, and has been for almost 150 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

By your logic, an umpire could call strikes that are 5 feet out of the strike zone or that hit the dirt before the plate. What's the difference?

You really want the final point in your argument to be that umpires can call strikes on pitches that are five feet outside of the strike zone or don't reach the plate? Really? Although I guess you're right: an umpire could do that. But it'd be the last game he ever umped.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

I see points both for and against QuesTech. I love it as a tool to evaluate and teach umpires. However, using a machine to call strikes during a game would be unfair, as certain situations (for example, weather) demand a different strike zone.

This made me think of something. What if umps were forced to have a pre-game meeting with both teams and explain how they make their calls (especially ball/strike). I wrestled in high school and the pre-match meeting with referees actually did help us out as to know what judgment calls would be made when (especially stalling)... I think players would be a lot happier if umps explained their strike zone to them before the game, and I also think that this would help umpires to call the strike zone closer to how it is definied in the rule book.

[J35J]

I don't know, this talk makes me think back to my whiffle ball days when our strike zone was a chair. If it hits the chair, strike, if it misses the chair, ball! Simple! Cut and dry, no whinning and complaining!

[chargerss24]

I am totally against computers calling balls and strikes.

Imagine a nice little square over home plate that's called the strike zone for the computer. It's going to be like that every single game and every single venue, minors and majors. Batters are going to be studying that strike zone like a bookworm and you'll see an inflation of offensive numbers. Common players hitting 30 homeruns, star players hitting 50-60 on average, and chances would be pretty good to see some .400 hitters again. With no variation in the strike zone, batters are going to know exactly if a pitch is going to be a ball or a strike.

Umpires bring their own strike zone. Batters won't know for an at bat or two where that strike zone is going to be, or how large/small it is. Umpires aren't perfect, and neither are any of you. Would YOU like to have a computer take over YOUR job because it's more efficient than YOU?

Besides, what's wrong with a few controversial calls to create some debates between you and your buddies at a bar?

[buffalobillsrul2002]

I find the whole would "you want to be replaced by a machine?" point to be worthless. IN the world today, if a computer/robot can do your job better and cheaper than you, then you should and will be replaced....

[Grouperman941]

I don't know, this talk makes me think back to my whiffle ball days when our strike zone was a chair. If it hits the chair, strike, if it misses the chair, ball! Simple! Cut and dry, no whinning and complaining!

LOL -- that's exactly what I was thinking!

Do the arms count? Legs? That's a house rule.

[Bloody Sox]

I am totally against computers calling balls and strikes.

Is *anyone* really saying that computers should call balls and strikes? I think all anyone is saying is that a computer should measure the effectiveness of umpires calling balls and strikes. Maybe I'm missing the entire argument - if anyone believes that a computer should actively be part of the game, that is ridiculous.

I am definitely in the anti-QuesTech camp. Why is there such a desire for everything to be uniform and perfect?

Are you really suggesting that the players should be forced to GUESS what the definition of a strike is and isn't every time they step into the box/mound? That's insane. There is not a desire for everything to be perfect and uniform, you just want people to know what the rules are.

Players don't have to guess what the definition of a strike is. For the most part, umpires have a pretty consistent strike zone. Players have a good idea of what is going to be a strike and what isn't. This 'insane' idea is working perfectly well right now, and has been for almost 150 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Just because something is not broke doesn't mean it can't be improved. I think the crux of the argument is in the words "for the most part" and "pretty consistent". Why would there NOT be a desire for the strike zone to be called as accurately as possible? That should be the goal of the umpire when he calls a game - the umpires job is not to dictate the result, only to enforce the rules. There's not subjectivity as to what a strike is. And I don't think anyone is arguing that umpires do a terrible job, but there are many pitches every game that you look at and say "how was that a ball/strike?!?" Those mistakes can come at critical times that decide the outcomes of games. I actually think that since MLB overhauled the umpiring system that umpires have actually been a lot better at calling balls and strikes - I'm sure in no small part to Questec.

As someone earlier said, why have baselines or foul poles? Can't the umpires just be "close enough"?