from Amazon
Friday, December 02, 2011
Is selling part of the game of baseball that you love?
That’s the argument that Cook is making (and I’m not buying it):
Being able to expand the zone therefore isn’t random but part of a reward that comes with extra command (for pitchers) and a better fielding tool (for catchers) rather than sheer entropy and chance. An automated strike zone would largely nullify catcher defense, making only a strong arm and good blocking skills necessary and thus modifying the characteristics of the position. We’d see more Posadas and fewer Lucroys. And to channel my inner Helen Lovejoy, won’t anyone think of the Molinas? But is this what we want? Do we want to radically change the meaning of a position?
I would add that “selling the call” is part of all sports, but baseball and a few others also require the umpire to be not only an enforcer of the rules but a judge of intentions.
...
Likewise, in baseball some of the advantages that a battery gains are the deserved byproducts of skill, and an automated strike zone would eliminate this fascinating aspect of the duel at the plate. Also: part of the greatness of Mariano Rivera, Greg Maddux, and Roy Halladay comes from their ability to expand the zone, which isn’t just an umpire gift coming from nowhere but a component of their mitt-hitting talent. While it is certainly infuriating to see at times, the way such pitchers carve hitters and umpires alike by painting the strike zone has to be appreciated. For a long time, the duel between the batter and the battery has had certain dynamics and certain characteristics, and an automated strike zone would radically change that relationship. Personally, I have grown to appreciate pitchers and catchers who can control the strike zone. Baseball is a game of deception, and controlling the strike zone is a fine nuance that I’d hate to lose.
I’d be happy to lose all that. Put another way: if we always had the automated strike zone, would we then be happy to have human umpires that Livan Hernandez can sell?
Do we want John McEnroe to berate the chair ump and linesmen so that they get a bit more scared next time there’s a close call, or do we just LOVE the Hawk Eye that simply says yes or no?
Anyway, Cook does a good and balanced job to lay out the choices. And, if he gives the argument to keep the human ump as well as can be written. And if that’s the best, then I’m not convinced in the least.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date