Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Balls and Strikes Were Called by a Computer, Not an Umpire, at a Professional Baseball Game

posted by takyon on Saturday August 01 2015, @09:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the strike-three-for-humanity dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

A small, but notable moment in baseball history occurred this week. In a US minor-league game between the San Rafael Pacifics and Vallejo Admirals, the home plate umpire did not call balls and strikes. Instead, a computerized video system was used to make the determinations, which were relayed by the game's announcer to the crowd cheering on the home team—and checking out the system's performance—at Albert Park in San Rafael, California.

The system, Pitchf/x from Chicago-based Sportvision, isn't new to baseball. It already provides data for evaluating players and umpires, and it helps TV viewers see where a pitch lands relative to the strike zone. But on July 28 it was used to make actual calls, marking the first time that's happened in professional baseball.

Maybe if Major League Baseball can save money on umpires they can lower ticket prices.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Balls and Strikes Were Called by a Computer, Not an Umpire, at a Professional Baseball Game | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 17 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday August 01 2015, @05:01PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday August 01 2015, @05:01PM (#216786) Journal

    That's not editor commentary, it's submitter commentary.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by khedoros on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:13PM

    by khedoros (2921) on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:13PM (#216866)
    Then the way that the summary was presented is misleading. There's a big section of quote attributed to Phoenix666, then the aforementioned "snark" at the end, apparently outside of the quoted text. It really makes it look some extra commentary provided by you as the editor, and that's actually how I took it upon first reading as well.

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by takyon on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:37PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday August 01 2015, @10:37PM (#216870) Journal

      We use blockquotes for the quoted copyrighted text from news articles and other sources. Pretty easy to figure out from looking at a handful of stories.

      Now you can learn and grow with this new knowledge - and flame at Phoenix666's commentary.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by khedoros on Sunday August 02 2015, @12:03AM

        by khedoros (2921) on Sunday August 02 2015, @12:03AM (#216893)

        Now you can learn and grow with this new knowledge

        You're making (or seem to be making) the unfounded assumptions that I didn't realize my error when reading it a second time, and that I actually have a wish to complain about what Phoenix wrote. I'm just saying that I understand where bziman is coming from; the notation is counter-intuitive to me.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bziman on Sunday August 02 2015, @05:29AM

        by bziman (3577) on Sunday August 02 2015, @05:29AM (#216941)

        Okay, so aside from my critique of the commentary, I really think that if you have "So and so writes:" followed by a blockquote, it is reasonable for me to assume that only the blockquote is attributable to so-and-so and that anything outside the blockquote is the editor. I think I've read that wrong since the very beginning. Is none of the non-blockquoted text the editor?? Oh crap. That is something I strongly urge you to change...