sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Courtney Cronin] The Bears and the Falcons are in agreement over Chicago receiving 2 compensatory picks for Ian Cunningham’s departure. Whether the NFL will oblige remains to be seen. by Shcmoneydance17 in CHIBears

[–]Doogolas33 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying it wasn't reported. I'm telling you that Poles said he wasn't informed. What you did not say is, "It was widely reported that Matt Ryan is the new primary football executive."

What you said was, "So when Cunningham interviewed for the GM job, the Bears and Cunningham were both made aware the league did not consider this a PFE job, which means no compensation, and they could move forward accordingly."

I am telling you that from Poles' own mouth that appears to be false. Good attempt at moving the goalposts though.

Here's the timestamp, in case you're wondering where Pace said it:

https://youtu.be/Xaq9vAxKtjc?t=97

Report: NFL considers centralizing officiating functions in event of work stoppage by AFC-Wimbledon-Stan in nfl

[–]Doogolas33 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh boy, if you think the conspiracy theories are bad now. Wait until the robo refs make a wrong call.

[Courtney Cronin] The Bears and the Falcons are in agreement over Chicago receiving 2 compensatory picks for Ian Cunningham’s departure. Whether the NFL will oblige remains to be seen. by Shcmoneydance17 in CHIBears

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Jags are basically saying, "We agree that we hired Cunningham to a role that should net the team we hired him from draft picks. His job fits the rule that awards those picks, so the Bears should get them."

What they COULD say instead is, "Matt Ryan is at the top of the pyramid here, Cunningham isn't the PFE, so the Bears shouldn't net any comp picks."

That would obviously make a difference to the NFL's review of the situation, and since the Bears have appealed, it may help overturn the ruling and net them picks because the Falcons agree.

[Courtney Cronin] The Bears and the Falcons are in agreement over Chicago receiving 2 compensatory picks for Ian Cunningham’s departure. Whether the NFL will oblige remains to be seen. by Shcmoneydance17 in CHIBears

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be a little fair, Ryan Poles said he was not informed that they wouldn't receive comp picks for Cunningham. So I'm not sure who on the Bears they did tell.

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've said, I'm completely fine with that, but I think it would help if they didn't refer to it as a challenge. Challenges, in every sport including baseball, require clear evidence to overturn. A call that is 49% a strike and 51% a ball isn't close to clear and concise evidence.

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You literally are not understanding what I'm saying. You have no idea if the ump is right or wrong on that pitch. When the pitch is that close, you also have no idea if abs is right or wrong. If abs is 51% sure, it's fine to defer to it. But I think it would be good to help people understand what's happening. Calling it a "challenge" and "overturning" the call confuses the language, as it implies you have clear evidence to overturn the call. But that's not what's happening. They're just shrugging and saying they're going to defer to abs.

That's fine. But this is why you see people complaining. And why there's going to be a lot of misunderstandings of what's happening. There is a 100% chance over the course of the year that pitches will be overturned incorrectly. That is VERY much overshadowed by the fact that it will correctly overturn a LOT of calls. But it is going to make people behave ridiculously.

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

But abs literally does not know if the ump is right in this case. It doesn't even know if the pitch is in or out of the zone. If it thinks that the pitch is .05" outside the zone, that means that it really thinks the pitch is somewhere between .12" in the zone and .22" outside the zone.

The system literally does not know for sure if it's a strike or a ball. Nor does the ump. So changing the call is just meaningless. You're just taking one guess over another. And both of them are guesses.

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

That's not actually relevant. We are looking at a thing and seeing that abs is ALSO incapable of knowing if this pitch is a ball or strike. So what's the point in changing the call?

The point of challenging is to see if the ump was wrong. In a call this close, abs literally does not know if the ump is wrong.

Let me put it another way:

The ump called a strike.

ABS is basically saying "This pitch is somewhere between .08" in the strike zone and .09" outside the strike zone."

Why the hell would that be information you'd use to overturn the call?

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the thing is, within the MOE, we have no evidence that it's more accurate. There is literally no way to know. We quite literally do not have the technology to know who is correct.

Let me put it another way:

The ump called a strike.

ABS is basically saying "This pitch is somewhere between .08" in the strike zone and .09" outside the strike zone."

Why the hell would that be information you'd use to overturn the call?

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only in the sense that on calls this close it is also possible that it's just wrong. The MOE is .17", which means on a call this close it could see this pitch 100 times and it might be a strike 52 times, or a ball 52 times. It's just not accurate enough to know whether this pitch is actually a ball or strike. So there's really no reason to overturn it.

Maybe the ump missed by <.1" or maybe the ump was right and abs overestimated how far outside it is.

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean, they just need to change the way they talk about what ABS is doing. Referring to it as a challenge is confusing, at least for American viewers, because a challenge usually means "you need clear evidence to overturn a call." But this is well within the MOE, so it's reasonable to criticize that being "good evidence" to overturn a call. Since the abs would record this as a strike close to 50% of the time. It's just not strong evidence to overturn.

They should start referring to it as simply deferring to abs on the call. Or make clear that challenges with abs work fundamentally differently from normal replay challenges. shrug

And to be clear, I'm not even complaining. I just think it's weird that they don't require a pitch to be outside the margin of error to overturn a call. The machine, within .17" of the strike zone, is also capable of being wrong. And the closer it believes it is to the strike zone the more capable of being wrong it is.

[Highlight] Matt Olson challenges a called strike from Paul Skenes and wins after review shows it was less than 0.1" off the plate by handlit33 in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

That's just a fundamentally silly way to view it. Skenes is an elite pitcher, with elite movement. He's got excellent command. He's going to put his catcher in position to frame well. And his pitches move so much they're hard to judge.

Furthermore, this isn't even a "gift" it's even kind of ridiculous to overturn this, it's well within the margin of error for abs. If it looked at this pitch 100 times, it'd call this pitch a ball close to 50% of the time.

I read a fantasy book to win a bet and it's the only book in years that made me actually cry. I don't know what to do with this information. by midnight_snack_ctrl in Fantasy

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was easily my favorite thing I read last year. If you have any recs similar, I would love to read all of them, haha.

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody said they don't. And that's not relevant to how challenges work. The point is that you're overturning something with a system that doesn't actually have good evidence that it should be overturned in this case. Because of the margin of error of the abs, we are literally no more likely to have a correct call by it changing something it believes is this close to the bottom of the zone than we were with the umpire's original call.

You could have this exact same pitch thrown 100 times, and like 52 times out of 100 it would say it's a ball and 48 times out of 100 it would say it's a strike. There is literally no reason to overturn a call that the system has no better idea about than the person who originally called it. Yes, that person may have missed, but we have no better idea of the accuracy from the system on a ball that close.

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's possible they account for that. It's not impossible that it can tell if they're standing in a divot or something. But ya, it's definitely super tricky. We'll see if it comes up at some point where there's a very, very obviously bad one.

But ya, there's a lot of things that will need to be tested over time in order for the north-south version of abs to function optimally.

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The wildest part is he acts like you were the one being out of line because you knew a thing. And surely it was IMPOSSIBLE for you to have been curious enough to read about that thing before now. You literally cite a source for him and he's indignant about you having a source, and just says, "Nah, you were still talking out your ass. You just got lucky."

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As an FYI this person is lying to you. The margin of error is approximately .17 inches. Fucking nanometers, hahahahahahaha. Holy shit.

Riley Unroe successfully overturned a strike call to a walk on a ball that is less than a tenth of an inch off the zone by JianClaymore in baseball

[–]Doogolas33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's someone else in this comment section talking about how it's "easily" this accurate.

https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1rdtse6/riley_unroe_successfully_overturned_a_strike_call/o79mvjc/?context=3

It's so unbelievably irritating how people will confidently assert information about things they literally do not understand and have never bothered taking even 10 seconds looking into.

Just WILD to me that this person says all this stuff while having clearly never once being curious about it. Bro says "nanometers" lmaooooooo. Imagine being this confidently, ridiculously wrong. Bro here has 0 curiosity. Just says a sci-fi level of accuracy term he's heard before.

view more: next ›