The question: Is QuesTec a good system for evaluating umpires or should baseball scrap it?

Joe Morgan

QuesTec should be used as a training tool, not as a grading or evaluating tool. Currently, QuesTec is used to determine which umpires get postseason assignments and the like. I don't agree with that. But if an umpire consistently calls a strike on pitches three inches off the plate or consistently misses a pitch inside, then use QuesTec to point that out to him. Just don't scrutinize every call he makes in every game. Such scrutiny puts undue pressure on an umpire to be perfect, and a human being can't be perfect. It's impossible for the human eye to be perfect on every pitch. Hitters use video to correct swing flaws, and pitchers use video to correct mechanical flaws in their motion. So it makes sense for umpires to use video to correct flaws in their officiating -- for training, not for evaluating.

Tom Candiotti

If QuesTec means the strike zone is being called as it should be called, then I'm all for it. I don't like the fact that sometimes, depending on who the batter or pitcher is, strikes and balls are called differently. This happened to me in my career as a big-league pitcher. I'll never forget one of the first games I started as a rookie for the Brewers vs. the Angels. I took a shutout into the ninth inning, and with two outs Rod Carew came to bat as a pinch-hitter. I threw a fastball right down the middle of the plate. Ball one. Next pitch, same thing. Ball two. Paul Molitor, who was playing third base, started yelling at the home-plate umpire, "I don't care who's up there, those pitches are right over the plate!" My catcher, Ned Yost, was barking at the ump too. Fortunately, on the next pitch Carew grounded out and the shutout was preserved. If I had faced just about any hitter other than Carew, a Hall of Famer, without question those first two pitches would have been called strikes. Too many batters and pitchers get the benefit of the doubt on calls, and some will argue that certain guys deserve extra strike-zone respect. But I disagree. A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike, no matter who throws it and no matter who's hitting. So if QuesTec is accurately showing the zone, I'm for it. If not, it needs to be tweaked. I like the idea that MLB is ensuring that the strike zone be called as it's defined in the rule book.

Rob Dibble

Should there be a video system that evaluates umpires? Absolutely not. When I was a pitcher in the major leagues, I highly respected the job umpires did behind home plate -- not only when I was pitching but also when my teammates and opponents were pitching. I felt there were only a handful of umpires who didn't have a very consistent strike zone. And I made adjustments according to the umpire. The umpire sets the tone and strike zone for a ballgame, not some video camera. I would scrap QuesTec right now. There is no room in baseball for computers and video run by people who never played or umpired themselves. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.