Bour's strikeout pitch in the ninth

[Torridd]

Did anyone see it? Bour and Ausmus said it was definitely outside.

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Torridd said:

Did anyone see it? Bour and Ausmus said it was definitely outside.

 

 

[Jay]

Move on.

[Slegnaac]

We can put a car on Mars, but we can't have a technical solution for a strike zone?

[Taylor]

It was a terrible call, and everyone knew it. 

[floplag]

The only fairness i can say is that he had been calling that pitch all night it seemed on everyone, but it wasnt a strike by definition to any of them obviously 

[nate]

The strikezone was awful all night

[kevinb]

But no one wants robot umps because that's silly and takes away from the tradition of getting calls wrong. 

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

But no one wants robot umps because that's silly and takes away from the tradition of getting calls wrong. 

i dont think robots solve anything personally, however, VAR as its used in many sports should be an option in key circumstances including balls and strikes in critical places in the game.  Its the whole "you cant argue balls and strikes" thing thats the real issue.  The situation last night was easily as critical as a possible home run review as it effectively took us out of the game instead of tying it, that should be reviewed by any logic as we easily have the technology and it could have been corrected in seconds.

[GrittyVeterans]

The need to go to the digital strike zone has been obvious for at least 5 years, maybe longer. It's absurd they haven't honestly

[nando714]

Turn the page 

we got the mariners tonight 

we both suck right now

Someone is gonna win a game tonight 

[floplag]

19 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

The need to go to the digital strike zone has been obvious for at least 5 years, maybe longer. It's absurd they haven't honestly

i truly dont believe they do, fully automated inst he answer to me.  They do need to open up calls like this to review, which to date they have not been.
Baby steps my friend, baby steps. 

[kevinb]

22 minutes ago, floplag said:

i dont think robots solve anything personally, however, VAR as its used in many sports should be an option in key circumstances including balls and strikes in critical places in the game.  Its the whole "you cant argue balls and strikes" thing thats the real issue.  The situation last night was easily as critical as a possible home run review as it effectively took us out of the game instead of tying it, that should be reviewed by any logic as we easily have the technology and it could have been corrected in seconds.

Wrong. The way you are thinking is wrong. It isn't one pitch last night. How many pitches during the course of the game can change the outcome. Get the calls right. Whether it is in the first inning or the last doesn't matter. Robot umps computerized strike zones how ever you want to say it needs to happen.

[floplag]

11 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Wrong. The way you are thinking is wrong. It isn't one pitch last night. How many pitches during the course of the game can change the outcome. Get the calls right. Whether it is in the first inning or the last doesn't matter. Robot umps computerized strike zones how ever you want to say it needs to happen.

Or, it isnt always based on the rule book.
We all know the strike zone varies ump to ump day to day, how often do you even see the pitch at the letters called anymore?  
One of the first things i learned to hard way in this game as a youth was exactly this, that the player has to adjust to this and its never going to be based on the rule book definition.
I personally dont have a problem with that, every single pitch is never going to be right and to start suddenly calling everything that has been a ball a strike is another game changed the game doesnt need.
All it needs is the ability to review them when its outcome affecting.  The rest, the players need to just play the game and make adjustments.   

[floplag]

12 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Problem is, is the HPU going to change his own call on review?

And if it's NY, then you have a guy with a completely different idea of the strike zone changing the call of the HPU who has established his own idea of the strike zone. So we use the HPU zone all game and then switch to the NY zone for a critical situation, and after the fact?

How could he not?  We see on video everynight missed calls on balls  and strikes, if he see it on film like we do and refuses to change the call, he has no business umpiring at this level as his ego is overriding his mind.
I personally think review for this should have a little fluff zone and not be strictly by the rules.... but that pitch wasnt close enough under any definition. 
It happens all the time in other sports, although soccer still leaves the final decision to the referee as it should be... but when the evidence is obvious thats just ego. 

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Again, if all this is true then reviews would be pointless.

If thats what you got form that, i dont know what to tell you.  
There is a big difference between slight adjustments and balls that far off, thats where VAR helps. 
If its close at all, the player should adjust... this is not an example of that.  Youre not going to argue shit on or near the black for example, nor are you going to argue even the same call in a scoreless game on a 2-1 count in the third.  
The situation matters. 

[maestro]

it was some bullshit

[AngelsLakersFan]

There is no reason to add challenges to balls and strikes when we can just automate the calls.

[Jeff Fletcher]

One thing you have to remember is the electronic strike zone you see on TV and on web sites is also not 100 percent accurate. Look at two different versions of the same pitch and they look slightly different. 

Also, I think there would be a lot of pitches called strikes that you wouldn’t want to be called strikes if you used an electronic zone, like balls in the dirt that nipped the front of the zone on their way down. 

The strike zone is 3 dimensional but all the representations on TV are 2 dimensional. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[floplag]

23 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

One thing you have to remember is the electronic strike zone you see on TV and on web sites is also not 100 percent accurate. Look at two different versions of the same pitch and they look slightly different. 

Also, I think there would be a lot of pitches called strikes that you wouldn’t want to be called strikes if you used an electronic zone, like balls in the dirt that nipped the front of the zone on their way down. 

The strike zone is 3 dimensional but all the representations on TV are 2 dimensional. 

Agreed, people thinks its an absolute, its not.  
The idea that you cant actually challenge these though is just silly, it isnt like they cant get that as wrong as anything else. 

[Angel Oracle]

2 hours ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Still don't see Baked Potato Joe changing his own call.

This is a good one, although my favorite one is Country Bumpkin Joe West.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Agreed, people thinks its an absolute, its not.  
The idea that you cant actually challenge these though is just silly, it isnt like they cant get that as wrong as anything else. 

What do you base the challenge on? 

And this one was egregious and probably would be called a ball by any standard, but what if it’s not? 

[Jeff Fletcher]

These are the same pitch, from the Bour-Treinen at-bat the first weekend. 

One looks like a strike. One looks like a ball. And these are both from MLB, but just different formats. 

[Slegnaac]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Or, it isnt always based on the rule book.
We all know the strike zone varies ump to ump day to day, how often do you even see the pitch at the letters called anymore?  
One of the first things i learned to hard way in this game as a youth was exactly this, that the player has to adjust to this and its never going to be based on the rule book definition.
I personally dont have a problem with that, every single pitch is never going to be right and to start suddenly calling everything that has been a ball a strike is another game changed the game doesnt need.
All it needs is the ability to review them when its outcome affecting.  The rest, the players need to just play the game and make adjustments.   

 

2 hours ago, floplag said:

How could he not?  We see on video everynight missed calls on balls  and strikes, if he see it on film like we do and refuses to change the call, he has no business umpiring at this level as his ego is overriding his mind.
I personally think review for this should have a little fluff zone and not be strictly by the rules.... but that pitch wasnt close enough under any definition. 
It happens all the time in other sports, although soccer still leaves the final decision to the referee as it should be... but when the evidence is obvious thats just ego. 

Soccer has a fixed goal post.  This would be like having No goal posts and letting the ref decide if the kick was a goal.

What other sport has an official deciding if a ball passes through a specific space with out any physical or technical assistance?  Even tennis has technical assistance.

[GrittyVeterans]

40 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

These are the same pitch, from the Bour-Treinen at-bat the first weekend. 

One looks like a strike. One looks like a ball. And these are both from MLB, but just different formats. 

Whatever system they choose to go with will be more objective and just flat out more accurate than the human error system they currently have.