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

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby StlSluggers » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:20 am

jayman wrote: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.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby J35J » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:44 am

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.
J35J
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 10467
(Past Year: 421)
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby WickedSmaat » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:48 am

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 ;-7
Image
WickedSmaat
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Shooting for par

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby Art Vandelay » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:59 am

Bloody Sox wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote: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.

Bloody Sox"}The comparison to parks being uniform makes no sense - when a player goes to Fenway or Coors or wherever, every player in the game knows EXACTLY what the dimensions are. If every umpire is free to make up his own strike zone, its a big mystery to everyone.[/quote]
haha...yeah, it's a huge mystery. Nobody knows what's going to happen. Pitches above the head called strikes, umpires free to call a pitch a strike if it goes behind the batter...we have utter chaos in the batting box right now. Order! WE NEED ORDER!

[quote="Bloody Sox wrote:
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.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby buffalobillsrul2002 » Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:48 pm

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.
buffalobillsrul2002
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1349
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby J35J » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:59 pm

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!
J35J
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 10467
(Past Year: 421)
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby chargerss24 » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:12 am

I am totally against computers calling balls and strikes. :-t

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?
chargerss24
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1617
(Past Year: 62)
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Playing on the Field of Dreams

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby buffalobillsrul2002 » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:31 am

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....
buffalobillsrul2002
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1349
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby Grouperman941 » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:36 am

J35J wrote: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.
Be excellent to each other.
Grouperman941
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2079
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Rays Country

Re: Are you for or against QuesTech?

Postby Bloody Sox » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:43 pm

chargerss24 wrote:I am totally against computers calling balls and strikes. :-t

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.

Art Vandelay wrote:
Bloody Sox wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote: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"?
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
Bloody Sox
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2148
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fenway Park, RF Roof Deck

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ayebatter, Ray Zorback and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(9:35 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

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