The strike zone is over the plate. Often a pitch does not look like a strike by the time it gets to the catcher. Batters stand in the back of the batter’s box to: 1) get a longer look at the pitch and, 2) because that is where the umpire is going to make the call most of the time, not over the plate.

 

I think it would, in some ways, expand what a pitcher could throw and get called a strike. It would also make a strike be over the plate. I had a LH pitcher I used to catch. I had him throw outside curves that looked like strikes when I caught him hundreds of times. His arm fell off, but he led the league in SO.

 

Technology that immediately told the umpire that the pitch was over the plate at some point in the flight path would be a good thing. Batters would start standing in the middle of the batter’s box to best be able to cover the plate. This could be automated and would not require a group of people ‘upstairs’.

The part that will be tougher is high/low. The strike zone is not set until the batter assumes his stance. That is the challenge.

Edited April 28, 20179 yr by Oldgoat_MN

 

There is only one reason the strike zone is different for each player: it's so the umpire has easily visible reference points to determine whether a pitch is a strike or not. Home plate defines inside and outside and the player defines high and low. Is it fair that Jose Altuve has a smaller zone than Kennys Vargas? There are good arguments to be made both ways, but IMHO it is unfair, both to the taller player and to the pitcher. I think the zone should be the same for all players.

The most important thing is to maximize the integrity of the game. We found out earlier in this thread that the best umpire in the world calls pitches correctly only 90% of the time. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that electronic strike calling systems are at least that accurate and there's every reason to think that this will improve. And having a uniform zone would improve accuracy even further. If electronic is better then that's what should be done.

 

Hmm, not sure I agree with this.  If the strike zone is a fixed distance high, the taller batter has to adjust less relative to his height, putting more strikes in the "sweet spot".  Where do you center the zone, on the batter's belt?

 

I get the argument that for a taller batter there's more distance to cover with the current strike zone which means he needs to be more accurate with his swing.  I'd be curious if anyone's ever studied the trade-off. (I'm guessing no)

 

I prefer the zone height adjusting with the batter - that's one issue I'm willing to stick with history on.

 

Very much with you on maximizing the integrity of the game.  I don't see how it could possibly be less accurate.  It's certainly more objective.  Look at how much detail is shown on tennis replays.  It's not the same game, but the technology wouldn't be all that different.

I'm fairly certain that I have Twins terrettes. I swear at the screen every time a ball is called a strike against us. Why even make this an issue people? Come on.

I pray this doesn't happen before I'm dead and buried. I am 100 percent opposed to this idea.

 

Nobody will ever convince me a computerized strike zone will improve the game, even if a slightly more accurate strike zone exists. And I'm not convinced you'll even get that.

 

I pray this doesn't happen before I'm dead and buried. I am 100 percent opposed to this idea.

Nobody will ever convince me a computerized strike zone will improve the game, even if a slightly more accurate strike zone exists. And I'm not convinced you'll even get that.

Many people said the same thing about the DH. And it turned out fine, maybe better. Now, if the NL would just conform to the rest of the baseball world...

Many people said the same thing about the DH. And it turned out fine, maybe better. Now, if the NL would just conform to the rest of the baseball world...

http://tiltteens.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/4/4/29448475/414594_orig.gif

 

I pray this doesn't happen before I'm dead and buried. I am 100 percent opposed to this idea.

Nobody will ever convince me a computerized strike zone will improve the game, even if a slightly more accurate strike zone exists. And I'm not convinced you'll even get that.

 

Would you please explain to me why you're so against it?  I really don't understand why one prefers the human called version.  Is it the strategy introduced by needing to figure out what the ump gives you? Is it adjusting to some game conditions that the computerized version couldn't do?

Matt
1:21 "and all players should perform worse on the road given the strike zone works against them there compared to home" I understand analysis has been done, but considering that umpire crews do not call a stadium home and they travel just as teams do, how can this be explained in context outside of the data?

 

Travis Sawchik
1:22 Umpires have a bias for the home team/crowd
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/is-home-field-advantage-becoming-endang...