It is not every day we live to see prophecy fulfilled. But it is not an uncommon experience for readers of The American Spectator. This magazine has always featured the far-sighted. If you read today the article by Jeffrey Lord in 2015 predicting Donald Trump’s candidacy and victory in the Presidential sweepstakes of 2016, it is an astounding glimpse into the rearview mirror. Because the magazine’s bias has always favored clear-eyed forward looking material, readers have often been spectators … into the future. READ MORE: Yes, Trump Can Win)
That Spectator article of two decades ago argued that this determination should be made by machines, not humans.
That happened this week again when a prescriptive and predictive article penned here came true on one of the biggest screens, with eight million viewers nationally. The article in question was named Zoning Variance, published here almost exactly two decades ago, on August 24, 2005. It was written by that fella … whatshisname … well, what does it matter?
The article argued that the idea of umpires calling pitches balls (outside the zone) or strikes (inside the zone) undermined the integrity of the game. The determination of each pitch, particularly each early pitch, frames the entire plate appearance by that batter. The pitcher throws something borderline; the batter lays off. If the umpire calls “ball”, the batter has profited by his vision.
After all, the pitcher was given an advantage. He was “spotted” an extra ball. If he gets three strikes the batter is out. Three balls, and the batter must still wait, hoping to get a fourth and be awarded first base. So when “ball one” is called first, the hitter has earned parity. Henceforth three balls is a walk, three strikes is an out.
The counterargument is that the batter has a built-in advantage as well. He does not need to hit the third strike; he can “foul it off.” If he makes contact but hits it foul, that pitch is neutralized and the pitcher must throw again in search of that third strike. If you “strike” it foul, it does not count as a “strike,” if that makes sense.
What happens all too often is that the umpire, trying with human eyes to identify whether the ball passed the plate while in the zone (17 inches across, with height varying from batter to batter, from the bottom of the armpits to the tops of the knees), gets it wrong.
A wrong “strike” angers the batter; a wrong “ball” frustrates the pitcher. Instead of concentrating on their very subtle crafts, they are mumbling, grumbling, and often jumbling their own perceptions. Instead of an exact science, their craft becomes wavering aim in pursuit of quavering target.
That Spectator article of two decades ago argued that this determination should be made by machines, not humans using imperfect tools in emotionally charged environments.
Over the intervening years, these machines have become a reality in the minor leagues. Additionally, it has long been rumored that the major leagues have used them privately, to check out complaints against umpires. Still, the transition to official status, to regular use in the major leagues, has never been undertaken. This could be, of course, due to simple prejudice against The American Spectator. But it is more likely a consequence of the profound human resistance to change.
Well, this week’s All-Star Game marked a first bending of the knee, if ever so slightly. A new rule was used experimentally in the Game, allowing for a limited number of video replay demands by a pitcher, catcher, or batter who disagreed with the call. It was so exciting to see something we envisioned and espoused 20 years ago becoming a reality, if only on a test run.
The results were exhilarating, at least from the fan perspective. One or two calls were overturned, but several were confirmed as being precisely correct. As a result, the machine was featured in its exactitude, without the human umpires being humiliated.
It turns out they do surprisingly well, but who needs it?
This idea, whose time had come 20 years ago, has finally met an intellectual climate more suited to acceptance. Once Artificial Intelligence became the new big thing, the human strike call has donned its green dinosaur skin for all to see. Natural Intelligence, so old-fashioned.
The lesson of the strike zone in general is that the taller you are the more space your bat is responsible to cover. Growing in knowledge and adding new resources bring great responsibilities. Whether we will all take this lesson seriously … now that is hard to predict.
READ MORE from Jay D. Homnick: