Theoretical question about balls and strikes...

[Soup]

I would think that some of you would have come across this before, If this gets asked to umpires all the time and your tired of it I apologize before hand.

I came across this question and I figured, why not go directly to the source...

Three umpires are discussing "The Art of Umpiring".
The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."
The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."
The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

Who among the three umpires is the most intelligent? A definition of intelligence would be a useful addition to any replies.

This question applies only to pitches where the batter does not swing. Tipped balls, 2nd strike foul balls, etc.. do not apply to this question.

[JJ]

Originally posted by Soup


Who among the three umpires is the most intelligent?

They're all umpires. They're all intelligent. Larry, Moe and Curly all contributed to the show, even though they all offered differing perspectives.

[Soup]

... hoping for a little bit more, but ok. thanks for the reply.

[David B]

Originally posted by Soup
I would think that some of you would have come across this before, If this gets asked to umpires all the time and your tired of it I apologize before hand.

I came across this question and I figured, why not go directly to the source...

Three umpires are discussing "The Art of Umpiring".
The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."
The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."
The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

Who among the three umpires is the most intelligent? A definition of intelligence would be a useful addition to any replies.

This question applies only to pitches where the batter does not swing. Tipped balls, 2nd strike foul balls, etc.. do not apply to this question.

JJ has a point. What does intelligence have to do with this equation?

The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."

Not proper grammer, but a good statement. Its not if the umpire does not call it.

The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."

A true statement. However, the umpire might have a little problem with this statment if he didn't "see them"

The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

Kind of old school, but again very true.

So I agree with all of them -

Thanks
David

[Soup]

The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."

Not proper grammer, but a good statement. Its not if the umpire does not call it.

The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."

A true statement. However, the umpire might have a little problem with this statment if he didn't "see them"

The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

Kind of old school, but again very true.

So I agree with all of them -

Thanks

Originally posted by David B
JJ has a point. What does intelligence have to do with this equation?
David [/B]

Yes, I agree with you. Intelligence doesn't really have anything to do with this. I was posing the question as it was posed to me. I would rather here from y'all Which one is the better umpire, according to what you personally think makes a good umpire.

Can they really all be correct?

For instance, isn't umpire #1 implying that he has the ability to determine with 100% accuracy the ballness or strikeness (I know, that sounds retarded, but you know what i mean) of every single pitch according to some agreed upon standard strike zone? This is not possible, humans aren't perfect - I'm sure even the best umpires are unsure of a call every once in a while. Isn't he really calling them as he sees them??

Now Umpire #2 - he at least concedes that the most he can do is make a judgment, according to what he See's, to the best of his ability.

I don't know?? comments??

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Soup
The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."
The second umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them."
The third says that "they aren't anything until I call them."

I've seen this before but I can't remember where. I recall that it was a psychological test. The third type of umpire was supposed to be a dictatorial or leadership personality. I think that the second type was a realist and type one was an optimist.

If I recall correctly from psychology classes, realists are the most intelligent. Type threes make the best umpires.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

#3 best recognizes the order of precedence. #1 and #2 kind of have a "cart before the horse" mentality.

Yes, of couse seeing (#2) the ball and judging it's location (#1) are important aspects of properly making ball and strike calls... but it is the call (#3) that determines whether a pitch is a strike or a ball.

If an umpire does not incorporate the perspective of #1 and #2 into the final action of #3, he will make bad calls and eventually get run out of town. But it is #3's perspective that is most mature and that is a step beyond the perhaps 'unrecognized' fallible positions of #1 and #2 ==> intelligent?

We all occasionally miss pitches... but every pitch must be called (even if it is by remaining quiet - ball). I guess I'm working my way into saying that #3 best recognizes the situation of the plate umpire and therefore espouses the most intelligent outlook.

I guess I could have wound some more philosophical mumbo jumbo into my answer but it looks sufficiently muddled.

[Atl Blue]

I guess I could have wound some more philosophical mumbo jumbo into my answer but it looks sufficiently muddled.

"It ain't nothin' til I call it" works for me.

[kylejt]

I'll take the fourth guy on this crew.

The fellow that just listened to these rookies, and smiled.

[greymule]

The first umpire says that "there are balls and there are strikes and I call them as they are."

Not proper grammer, but a good statement.

Just curious—what's wrong with the grammar?

[brost]

I think there is more to #3 than it seems like on the first glance. So let's check with the exact words in the rules:

A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which [...] (b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone

So if we follow this strictly, nothing is a strike until so called by the umpire. That way, #3 is the only correct answer since there can be no strike before it is called.

So maybe it should be:
Some pitches pass through the strike zone and some don't. Those that pass through, I call strikes.

Or: those that I see passing the Strike Zone, I call strikes.

These are questions to keep you thinking during the off-season.

[JJ]

Originally posted by brost


These are questions to keep you thinking during the off-season.

Oh, man - it's hard enough thinking during the season, and now you want me to think in the off season? I thought the off season was for football and basketball, which require no thinking...

[BoomerSooner]

Actually being a philosophy major, which is where this question was first posed to me, I'll take a shot at breaking this down.

The idea behind the question is to get at the bigger question of: Is the world what it is regardless of our pressence or does it require our interpretation? And secondly should that interpretation differ from individual to individual based on vantage point? It is similar to the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" question.

In the end it is purely a philosophical question with no "right" or "wrong" answer. The challenge is only to believe one way or the other and support your position. That said here goes:

The first umpire states that he calls them as they are. This as was stated above suggests that he has the ability to decide without doubt what a pitch was. Just as important as this though is the idea that all pitches are balls or strikes and it should be the same no matter who stands behind the plate. This is the generally accepted idea of how it should be done (in a perfect world). I think though that we should all realize that we don't have that "perfect" ability to judge all pitches exactly "as they are".

The second umpire states that he calls them as he sees them. This allows one to assume that he is suggesting that his vantage point and vision have some bearing on the call. He is somewhat in agreement with the first umpire that pitches are what they are (based on the rules of course), but realizes that he is limited in his ability to make the "right" call 100% of the time.

Finally, the third umpire states that they are nothing until he calls them. This last view suggests that he feels his opinion and only his opinion decides what a pitch is. As was stated before from a pyschological standpoint, this is the belief of most dictatorial personalities. However from a philosophical standpoint, we must ask, isn't there some truth to this idea. For example, what was a turkey before we named it a turkey? Obviously, most are quick to say its a turkey regardless of what it is actually called (these would be proponents of the previous umpires: ump 1 saying its a turkey and that is what I will call it; ump 2 saying its a bird that might be a turkey and might be something else, I'll have to get a good look.) In baseball terms, a pitch (regardless of its status) is just that, a pitch until some declaration is made to status: ball or strike. This umpire believes most strongly that the world around us depends on us to interpret it and make it what it is.

Now it appears that I support the third umpire, but that is only because the case is easier to make for ump 3. Does that make him right? No, because as I said above there is no right or wrong concerning this question. From a position of wanting to make everybody happy though I think we should all support the first ump's position, but do it from the mindset of the third ump, with the realism of the second umpire. Spelled out more clearly, we must all strive to call pitches as the rule book states, but at the same time we must call something and thereby give definition to the pitch. All of this said, we must do it with the humility to realize we aren't perfect.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by BoomerSooner
Actually being a philosophy major, which is where this question was first posed to me, I'll take a shot at breaking this down.

The idea behind the question is to get at the bigger question of: Is the world what it is regardless of our pressence or does it require our interpretation? And secondly should that interpretation differ from individual to individual based on vantage point? It is similar to the "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" question.

In the end it is purely a philosophical question with no "right" or "wrong" answer. The challenge is only to believe one way or the other and support your position. That said here goes:

The first umpire states that he calls them as they are. This as was stated above suggests that he has the ability to decide without doubt what a pitch was. Just as important as this though is the idea that all pitches are balls or strikes and it should be the same no matter who stands behind the plate. This is the generally accepted idea of how it should be done (in a perfect world). I think though that we should all realize that we don't have that "perfect" ability to judge all pitches exactly "as they are".

The second umpire states that he calls them as he sees them. This allows one to assume that he is suggesting that his vantage point and vision have some bearing on the call. He is somewhat in agreement with the first umpire that pitches are what they are (based on the rules of course), but realizes that he is limited in his ability to make the "right" call 100% of the time.

Finally, the third umpire states that they are nothing until he calls them. This last view suggests that he feels his opinion and only his opinion decides what a pitch is. As was stated before from a pyschological standpoint, this is the belief of most dictatorial personalities. However from a philosophical standpoint, we must ask, isn't there some truth to this idea. For example, what was a turkey before we named it a turkey? Obviously, most are quick to say its a turkey regardless of what it is actually called (these would be proponents of the previous umpires: ump 1 saying its a turkey and that is what I will call it; ump 2 saying its a bird that might be a turkey and might be something else, I'll have to get a good look.) In baseball terms, a pitch (regardless of its status) is just that, a pitch until some declaration is made to status: ball or strike. This umpire believes most strongly that the world around us depends on us to interpret it and make it what it is.

Now it appears that I support the third umpire, but that is only because the case is easier to make for ump 3. Does that make him right? No, because as I said above there is no right or wrong concerning this question. From a position of wanting to make everybody happy though I think we should all support the first ump's position, but do it from the mindset of the third ump, with the realism of the second umpire. Spelled out more clearly, we must all strive to call pitches as the rule book states, but at the same time we must call something and thereby give definition to the pitch. All of this said, we must do it with the humility to realize we aren't perfect.

And that's all I have to say about that.

This why I never hung around with Philosophy majors

[greymule]

"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Hmmm. Interesting variation on the original question: "If a man says something in the forest and his wife's not there to hear it, is he still wrong?"