A pitch for modern technology

QuesTec can only be a good thing for baseball

The idea of using cameras and computers to call balls and strikes in baseball is intriguing, if only because of the possibilities it creates for variations on the standard issue umpire-heckling. "Kill the ump!" becomes "Disable his hard drive!" A blown call could prompt a fan to yell, "Hey, Blue, when's the last time you had your zoom lens checked?"

But when it comes to umpiring by machine, it seems most pitchers and umps aren't at all amused, particularly not Curt Schilling of the Arizona Diamondbacks. Schilling was so enraged about the effect of QuesTec, a high-tech umpiring system, on one of his recent games that he bashed in the gadgetry with a bat. Unfortunately for Schilling, his actions earned him a $15,000 fine, but, on the bright side, it was one of the offensively challenged Diamondbacks' better hitting performances of the season.

At the risk of having Schilling smash my laptop into little computer chips, it seems from this vantage point that using 21st century technology to determine balls and strikes is a perfectly logical idea. The QuesTec system itself may not be the ultimate answer -- even its manufacturers admit that it's not 100 percent accurate -- but setting up a clear, definable strike zone that doesn't depend on the judgment of the human being behind the plate is a goal worth aspiring to.

The QuesTec system, which is being used as an experiment in 13 of the 30 major league parks this year, tracks the flight of the ball from the instant it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the area of home plate. The human umps still call balls and strikes, but each of their calls is later compared to the QuesTec judgment to make sure the umpires are adhering to the machine's version of the strike zone. Umpires are graded every game on how closely their calls match those of QuesTec.

It's easy to see why umpires object to the system -- it's like having a constant second-guesser peering over their shoulder. Umps have reportedly told players that they hate QuesTec, and that they've even gone against their own judgment sometimes in order to make the call they think the machine would make. Why exactly is that a bad thing? The computerized zone is in all likelihood more accurate and certainly more consistent than any human's, so if the umpires' judgment doesn't agree with QuesTec's, chances are it's not the machine that needs to adjust, it's the man. If baseball trusts radar guns to gauge the velocity of pitches, why shouldn't similar instruments be trusted to gauge their accuracy?

Pitchers such as Schilling don't like QuesTec because they believe pitches that should be strikes are being called balls. But given the choice between a pitcher who's doing his best to win a game for his team and an unbiased machine that doesn't know a Diamondback from a Dodger, whose opinion would you trust? It's likely that the high-tech strike zone doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to those not-quite-on-the-corner pitches, a subtle change that can inflate a pitcher's earned run average like helium.

We're still far from the day when a computer flashes a green light for a strike and a red light for a ball. But it won't be a cause for mourning if and when that day arrives. The simple truth is that in calling pitches, a machine can come far closer to infallibility than a human can. There will still be plenty of need for umpires to work the bases and to control the game. Besides, any ump who loses his job to a computer has a ready-made gig waiting for him -- protecting the machine from guys like Schilling.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Phil Taylor writes about a Hot Button topic every Monday on SI.com.

 

Related information

Stories

Schilling fined $15,000 for destroying QuesTec camera Previous Phil Taylor Columns

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video