<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Baseball on Bit Stories</title>
    <link>https://bitstories.net/tags/baseball/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Baseball on Bit Stories</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.148.1</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Karan Juneja 2005-2026</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +1100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://bitstories.net/tags/baseball/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Internal Realism</title>
      <link>https://bitstories.net/2011/10/internal-realism/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +1100</pubDate>
      <guid>https://bitstories.net/2011/10/internal-realism/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Alva Noe on &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/26/141681382/-nobody-s-perfect?ft=1&amp;amp;f=114424647&#34;&gt;the tricky issue of umpiring&lt;/a&gt; (in this case, for baseball):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;External Realism does a good job accounting for the fact that we all recognize that there are &amp;ldquo;bad calls&amp;rdquo; and the fact that dispute and controversy seem to be an ever-present part of the game. Because there are &lt;em&gt;real facts of the matter&lt;/em&gt; about what happened, it makes good sense that we reckon umpires can be wrong. In comparison, Internal Anti-Realism seems helpless to make sense of this. If what an umpire says goes, then how can we even take seriously the idea that an umpire might be wrong?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alva Noe on <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/26/141681382/-nobody-s-perfect?ft=1&amp;f=114424647">the tricky issue of umpiring</a> (in this case, for baseball):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>External Realism does a good job accounting for the fact that we all recognize that there are &ldquo;bad calls&rdquo; and the fact that dispute and controversy seem to be an ever-present part of the game. Because there are <em>real facts of the matter</em> about what happened, it makes good sense that we reckon umpires can be wrong. In comparison, Internal Anti-Realism seems helpless to make sense of this. If what an umpire says goes, then how can we even take seriously the idea that an umpire might be wrong?</p>
<p>But Internal Anti-Realism gets something right, too. Baseball facts are not physics.</p>
<p>What interests us is whether players succeed or fail, whether they achieve or get lucky. The judgment that a ball is a strike is, really, the judgment that a pitcher delivered a a pitch that the batter <em>ought</em> to have hit. This is not so much a judgment about where the pitch was located, as it is a judgment about whether the pitcher or the batter deserves credit.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&rsquo;s a short enough argument that I could almost post the whole thing here, but the point rings true for the controversy over the Umpire Decision Review System (and Hawkeye and Hotspot and so on) in cricket: namely, that these are all &ldquo;External Realist&rdquo; approaches, taking us away from the game and interpreting its rules in an overly legalistic point of view. LBW decisions should be about when the batter isn&rsquo;t offering a shot at a ball that could in other circumstances hit the wicket - not whether the ball, continuing in projected virtual space, would have brushed the leg stump by a millimetre and possibly disturbed a bail sufficient to be counted as a wicket.</p>
<p>These things are taken entirely too seriously, and the pressure on the umpires is getting to the point where they&rsquo;re going to give up and ask for robotic replacements. The article continues:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Last season Armando Galarraga was an out away from pitching a rare perfect game, a game in which he allowed no opposing runner to reach base. A &ldquo;bad call&rdquo; at first base by umpire James Joyce robbed him of his deserved glory. Joyce admitted this after the game and, in a wildly unprecedented move, he apologized to Galarraga. The latter accepted the apology with grace and humility and is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/sports/baseball/03detroit.html">reported to have said</a>: &ldquo;Nobody&rsquo;s perfect.&rdquo;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
