Automate the Strike Zone

[spinowner]

 

You're arguing for a rule based on dimensions as well...

 

The point wasn't that there are no rules pertaining to height. It was that all players will hold advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others. You've chosen to focus on a single advantage a smaller player holds and called for it to be removed but you've completely ignored the other side of the coin; the disadvantages smaller players face, and the advantages larger players have. I'm not calling for a rule to govern Buxton's speed or Sano's power, I'm pointing out that those are advantages they hold over other players due to their physical makeup, yet nobody seems to have a problem with that.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your point.

Of course the rule that I'm proposing is based on dimensions. Baseball has dozens of rules based on dimensions. Distance between bases, size of the batter's box, size and weight of the ball, size of the bat, etc. I'm just saying that the rule defining the size of the strike zone should be consistent with every other rule in that it should be the same for every player rather than basing it on the height and stance of a player.

The reason I'm focusing on this advantage is that it's the only instance where a rule of the game is based on a specific physical attribute of a player. Of course some players have advantages due to certain physical attributes. I have no problem whatsoever that a player's running speed, bat speed, throwing strength, weight, or whatever may give him an advantage. But the rules of the game are the same for all players regardless of any of those physical attributes. So why should the rules not be the same for all players regardless of height?

[KirbyDome89]

 

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your point.

Of course the rule that I'm proposing is based on dimensions. Baseball has dozens of rules based on dimensions. Distance between bases, size of the batter's box, size and weight of the ball, size of the bat, etc. I'm just saying that the rule defining the size of the strike zone should be consistent with every other rule in that it should be the same for every player rather than basing it on the height and stance of a player.

The reason I'm focusing on this advantage is that it's the only instance where a rule of the game is based on a specific physical attribute of a player. Of course some players have advantages due to certain physical attributes. I have no problem whatsoever that a player's running speed, bat speed, throwing strength, weight, or whatever may give him an advantage. But the rules of the game are the same for all players regardless of any of those physical attributes. So why should the rules not be the same for all players regardless of height?

It is consistent though. Every player hits in the same width zone that stretches from point A to point B lengthwise on their body. Like I said, what isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform zone where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. As it stands right now every hitter covers the same zone proportionate to the size. 

 

It certainly isn't the only rule pertaining to height. I just gave the example in football where you aren't allowed to tackle an offensive player above a certain point, or quarterbacks in the pocket below the knees. You're right, the rules are the same for everybody, and one of the rules is the strike zone. Every batter hits in a zone proportional to their size. 

 

My point is that physical characteristics/abilities give players an edge in every sport. Some rules favor taller players, some favor stronger players, ect... No hitter is at a disadvantage as it stands now but setting a standard zone clearly favors one group and diminishes another. Like I said, it creates an imbalance, it doesn't solve an existing one. My 

[spinowner]

 

It is consistent though. Every player hits in the same width zone that stretches from point A to point B lengthwise on their body. Like I said, what isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform zone where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. As it stands right now every hitter covers the same zone proportionate to the size. 

 

It certainly isn't the only rule pertaining to height. I just gave the example in football where you aren't allowed to tackle an offensive player above a certain point, or quarterbacks in the pocket below the knees. You're right, the rules are the same for everybody, and one of the rules is the strike zone. Every batter hits in a zone proportional to their size. 

 

My point is that physical characteristics/abilities give players an edge in every sport. Some rules favor taller players, some favor stronger players, ect... No hitter is at a disadvantage as it stands now but setting a standard zone clearly favors one group and diminishes another. Like I said, it creates an imbalance, it doesn't solve an existing one. My 

Here's an example of how another rule in baseball could be changed so that it would be consistent with the way that the strike zone rule currently stands. In the same way that a short batter would have more difficulty reaching high pitches than a tall batter, a short first baseman would not be able to stretch as far for throws as a tall first baseman. What isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform first base size where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. To eliminate this disadvantage the size of the base could be made larger when a short first baseman is in the game. That way every first baseman covers the same zone proportionate to the size.

As I have already said, the only reason for the current definition of the strike zone is because an umpire needs to have reference points to determine whether a pitch is between the low and high boundaries of the strike zone. There isn't any way to have a yardstick stuck in the ground at home plate and the only feasible physical reference is to use the batter's body as a surrogate yardstick. Now, with the advancement of technology we are at the point where other methods of calling strikes can be used without having to rely on a batter's body. If automated systems are put in use it would probably still be best to use the batter's knees as the low boundary to give the batter and the pitcher a reference point, but the top of the zone can be set at a uniform distance above the bottom of the zone to make it fairer for everyone including the pitcher.

I think we're at a point where neither of us will change the other's mind, but I have to say I still don't understand your reasoning. I guess it's one of those agree-to-disagree moments.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Here's an example of how another rule in baseball could be changed so that it would be consistent with the way that the strike zone rule currently stands. In the same way that a short batter would have more difficulty reaching high pitches than a tall batter, a short first baseman would not be able to stretch as far for throws as a tall first baseman. What isn't "fair," would be setting a uniform first base size where smaller players are forced to cover an area disproportionate to their size. That disadvantages players at certain heights and gives an advantage to those who are larger. To eliminate this disadvantage the size of the base could be made larger when a short first baseman is in the game. That way every first baseman covers the same zone proportionate to the size.

As I have already said, the only reason for the current definition of the strike zone is because an umpire needs to have reference points to determine whether a pitch is between the low and high boundaries of the strike zone. There isn't any way to have a yardstick stuck in the ground at home plate and the only feasible physical reference is to use the batter's body as a surrogate yardstick. Now, with the advancement of technology we are at the point where other methods of calling strikes can be used without having to rely on a batter's body. If automated systems are put in use it would probably still be best to use the batter's knees as the low boundary to give the batter and the pitcher a reference point, but the top of the zone can be set at a uniform distance above the bottom of the zone to make it fairer for everyone including the pitcher.

I think we're at a point where neither of us will change the other's mind, but I have to say I still don't understand your reasoning. I guess it's one of those agree-to-disagree moments.

I'm not the one arguing for "fairness." No sport is "fair." IMO you've chosen an arbitrary rule and decided it needs to be changed because the measured size of every strike zone isn't the same and therefore its "unfair," but like I said you're completely ignoring other rules and aspects of the game that can also be considered "unfair," to certain players. A pitcher's delivery or height, as well as a batter's stance and height all have advantages and disadvantages but for some reason you're only concerned with one aspect and it's apparently "unfair," while all other factors aren't.

 

Argue it to absurdity if you like, but using your own "fair," logic we should really make sure all hitters swing at the same speed lest guys like Sano generate more power, and outfielders should all start from the same position in the field so Buxton types can't use their speed to play in and cover excess ground behind them, and we better draw a line in front of the mound which pitchers aren't allowed to cross before releasing the ball that way the distance from release to the plate is uniform.

 

The reasoning is so that Aaron Judge doesn't get to have belt high fastballs as the top of his zone while guys like Altuve are swinging at pitches at their shoulders. Eliminating the upper part of the zone for larger hitters isn't making it more "fair," for pitchers or anybody else. 

[spinowner]

 

I'm not the one arguing for "fairness." No sport is "fair." IMO you've chosen an arbitrary rule and decided it needs to be changed because the measured size of every strike zone isn't the same and therefore its "unfair," but like I said you're completely ignoring other rules and aspects of the game that can also be considered "unfair," to certain players. A pitcher's delivery or height, as well as a batter's stance and height all have advantages and disadvantages but for some reason you're only concerned with one aspect and it's apparently "unfair," while all other factors aren't.

 

Argue it to absurdity if you like, but using your own "fair," logic we should really make sure all hitters swing at the same speed lest guys like Sano generate more power, and outfielders should all start from the same position in the field so Buxton types can't use their speed to play in and cover excess ground behind them, and we better draw a line in front of the mound which pitchers aren't allowed to cross before releasing the ball that way the distance from release to the plate is uniform.

 

The reasoning is so that Aaron Judge doesn't get to have belt high fastballs as the top of his zone while guys like Altuve are swinging at pitches at their shoulders. Eliminating the upper part of the zone for larger hitters isn't making it more "fair," for pitchers or anybody else. 

I'm saying that conditions should be the same for all players. I don't see how you can get more fair than that.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm not the one arguing for "fairness." No sport is "fair." IMO you've chosen an arbitrary rule and decided it needs to be changed because the measured size of every strike zone isn't the same and therefore its "unfair," but like I said you're completely ignoring other rules and aspects of the game that can also be considered "unfair," to certain players. A pitcher's delivery or height, as well as a batter's stance and height all have advantages and disadvantages but for some reason you're only concerned with one aspect and it's apparently "unfair," while all other factors aren't.

 

Argue it to absurdity if you like, but using your own "fair," logic we should really make sure all hitters swing at the same speed lest guys like Sano generate more power, and outfielders should all start from the same position in the field so Buxton types can't use their speed to play in and cover excess ground behind them, and we better draw a line in front of the mound which pitchers aren't allowed to cross before releasing the ball that way the distance from release to the plate is uniform.

 

The reasoning is so that Aaron Judge doesn't get to have belt high fastballs as the top of his zone while guys like Altuve are swinging at pitches at their shoulders. Eliminating the upper part of the zone for larger hitters isn't making it more "fair," for pitchers or anybody else.

 

You are making good points, but the ultimate "fairness" we are looking for is the ball/strike calls.

[h2oface]

 

There are many, many fine baseball simulation games available.  I still favor the human elements.  

 

I contend that the umpires are the inhuman element of the game. The players are the human element. The umpires are, and always have been, guessing. Some guess better than others, but it is not humanly possible to call balls and strikes correctly, consistently, and accurately. The great eye of a batter being cheated, or the great perfect pitch being missed...... that is not what the game was designed to do. It was assumed that the zone would be consistent, not peripatetic. Now we have the true inhuman element technology to make it right, instantaneously. Plus..... everyone can see that they are wrong in that same instant. Before the tech, the arguing could be all opinion. Now it is fact that they missed it, and it is affecting every game that is played, and has affected every game that has ever been played. The human element is what the players do, the glory and mistakes. Give the game to the players, as it was always intended. Let there be a true consistent strike zone. The umpire can still stand there and make the correct call for show. They still get to call the plays at the plate, etc. They can just stop being wrong, and then pompously defending the wrongness.

[h2oface]

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking about so I'll expand on this thought.

The reason that the batter's knees and upper body are used to define the bottom and top of the strike zone is because there are no other physical reference points near home plate that an umpire can use to determine the distance above home plate of a pitch as it passes over home plate. It would be simple to define the bottom of the strike zone as being, say, 16 inches above the plate and the top of the strike zone as being, say, 42 inches above the plate but there's no ruler there for the umpire to use. This means that a short batter has a smaller strike zone than a tall batter, with additional variability introduced based on a batter's stance.

The systems for calling strikes rely on cameras at multiple angles and can be programmed with any upper and lower limits for strikes. Having those limits based on the individual batter means that each batter would have to have his strike zone programmed into the computer and the system would have to be reset each time a new batter bats. While I assume this would not be difficult it introduces a risk of error. Having a uniformly-defined strike zone for all players eliminates this risk and, in my opinion, is much more fair than the current definition.

 

Think of facial recognition. The software can establish the varying parameters based on height as the batter stands in instantly. I think the idea interesting of a strike zone that is the same exact dimensions, regardless of body type, just like the hockey and soccer net is the same for all, but this is different, and more nuanced. I think that is a later change to be discussed. It changes the rules. First.......... just let there be correct calls, and then, perhaps, the other can be discussed. I would keep the strike zone based on body size, myself.

[HitInAPinch]

 

I contend that the umpires are the inhuman element of the game. The players are the human element. The umpires are, and always have been, guessing. Some guess better than others, but it is not humanly possible to call balls and strikes correctly, consistently, and accurately. The great eye of a batter being cheated, or the great perfect pitch being missed...... that is not what the game was designed to do. It was assumed that the zone would be consistent, not peripatetic. Now we have the true inhuman element technology to make it right, instantaneously. Plus..... everyone can see that they are wrong in that same instant. Before the tech, the arguing could be all opinion. Now it is fact that they missed it, and it is affecting every game that is played, and has affected every game that has ever been played. The human element is what the players do, the glory and mistakes. Give the game to the players, as it was always intended. Let there be a true consistent strike zone. The umpire can still stand there and make the correct call for show. They still get to call the plays at the plate, etc. They can just stop being wrong, and then pompously defending the wrongness.

And Eddie Rosario or Byron Buxton swinging wildly at a ball in the dirt:  Is that an example of "The great eye of a batter"?

 

I find your argument to be a complete fallacy.  On any given pitch, both batter and umpire are making assumptions on that pitches trajectory:  will it or will it not be in the strike-zone, at some point in time. The batter, in split second that a pitched ball passes into the "zone" above the plate.  The umpire sees the whole thing.  

 

Baseball from it's very inception, was created for humans.  In the field, behind the plate and in the stands.

 

See you at the next version of Twins Daily "Monday Morning Quarterback Club".  

[mikecgrimes]

 

 I propose a uniform strike zone for all players regardless of height or stance. The only reason those parameters were used for the top and bottom of the strike zone was to provide umpires with a frame of reference. I don't think it's fair that Aaron Judge should have a larger strike zone than Jose Altuve.

 

Should the strikezone start at Judges Ankles or should it end at Altuve's neck?  No need for technology just throw a net behind the plate.  They could have gone with the uniform strike zone in 1895 if it was a concept that made any sense at all.

 

By the way think of why it's called the "strike" zone in it's purest form every pitch should be a strike, but some pitches just aren't.  A uniform zone is fine if we change the game from baseball to pitcher darts, but I like baseball.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

What's the strategy to get a proposal past this august body?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Umpires_Association

Note the directors involved.

What would the strategy be, start a discussion?

 

I'm not sure I understand your angle. Could you explain? I will throw in that there are some pretty big egos on that board, and that MLB broke the previous umpire union like a twig. 

 

If a digital strike zone was implemented correctly, no umpire jobs would be lost, umpires would in fact do their jobs better, and nothing would look different on the field to the fan. I'm not sure what the downside is to calling balls and strikes better.

 

 

edit p.s. I also like the idea of a uniform fixed strike zone proposed by the other poster, though clearly it has some issues to work out, if it can be worked out at all

[MileHighTwinsFan]

Doesn't a standard strike zone create an advantage to the hitter? Knowing game in and game out what the strike zone is allows hitters to avoid the game by game adjustments based on umpires.  Over time all hitters will become acutely aware of what the zone is and will be more likely to only swing at strikes.  

 

The only way to adjust for this advantage would be to make the zone larger and possibly make the plate wider- which means that pitchers who can hit the extremes of the strike zone will force hitters to adjust and swing at pitches that are less than ideal.  

 

How have the automated zones that have been tested been implemented.  Have the zones gotten larger?

 

Just catching up to this thread - so apologize if my skimming of the comments to date already made this point. 

[Craig Arko]

What would the strategy be, start a discussion?

 

I'm not sure I understand your angle. Could you explain? I will throw in that there are some pretty big egos on that board, and that MLB broke the previous umpire union like a twig. 

 

If a digital strike zone was implemented correctly, no umpire jobs would be lost, umpires would in fact do their jobs better, and nothing would look different on the field to the fan. I'm not sure what the downside is to calling balls and strikes better.

 

 

edit p.s. I also like the idea of a uniform fixed strike zone proposed by the other poster, though clearly it has some issues to work out, if it can be worked out at all

I don't know. I expect those people will be sensitive to changes in their job description. But I have no skin in this game, so I happily bow out.

[h2oface]

 

And Eddie Rosario or Byron Buxton swinging wildly at a ball in the dirt:  Is that an example of "The great eye of a batter"?

 

I find your argument to be a complete fallacy.  On any given pitch, both batter and umpire are making assumptions on that pitches trajectory:  will it or will it not be in the strike-zone, at some point in time. The batter, in split second that a pitched ball passes into the "zone" above the plate.  The umpire sees the whole thing.  

 

Baseball from it's very inception, was created for humans.  In the field, behind the plate and in the stands.

 

See you at the next version of Twins Daily "Monday Morning Quarterback Club".  

 

 

                                      

I am sorry. I don't know what to respond. We are discussing pitches not swung at. A  swing and a miss is a swing and a miss, no matter who or what is calling balls and strikes on pitches that aren't swung at. I have no response. I don't even know where to begin. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

And Eddie Rosario or Byron Buxton swinging wildly at a ball in the dirt:  Is that an example of "The great eye of a batter"?

 

I find your argument to be a complete fallacy.  On any given pitch, both batter and umpire are making assumptions on that pitches trajectory:  will it or will it not be in the strike-zone, at some point in time. The batter, in split second that a pitched ball passes into the "zone" above the plate.  The umpire sees the whole thing.  

 

Baseball from it's very inception, was created for humans.  In the field, behind the plate and in the stands.

 

See you at the next version of Twins Daily "Monday Morning Quarterback Club".  

 

I gotta admit... I'm not following you here either. 

 

Batters will still swing at crap even if the strike zone is automated or called by Tom Hanks with a mask and clicker. 

 

The only thing that matters is that if a batter guesses right on a pitch that is indeed a ball... it isn't called a strike after he did what he is supposed to do. There is no need for a  random missed call by a human being trying to execute a job that is impossible to execute consistently perfect. 

 

If a pitcher back doors a two seamer that catches the corner perfectly. If he executes like every pitcher tries to do... I hope that he gets full credit for that with the correct call. 

 

Fair is fair and there is simply no reason to not call balls and strikes correctly with today's technology. 

[spinowner]

 

Doesn't a standard strike zone create an advantage to the hitter? Knowing game in and game out what the strike zone is allows hitters to avoid the game by game adjustments based on umpires.  Over time all hitters will become acutely aware of what the zone is and will be more likely to only swing at strikes.  

You can make the same argument for the pitcher. The pitcher no longer has to make game by game adjustments based on the umpires either. Knowing that a pitch on the edge of the zone will be called a strike makes it easier to fool the batter on a pitch that breaks over the corner at the last minute.

[KirbyDome89]

 

You are making good points, but the ultimate "fairness" we are looking for is the ball/strike calls.

 

I'm saying that conditions should be the same for all players. I don't see how you can get more fair than that.

 It isn't "fair," that a 6'4" linebacker has to tackle a 5'7" running back below the pad level. It isn't fair that a 6'10" pitcher like Randy Johnson can release the ball significantly closer to the plate than a pitcher who is 5'10". Do these need to be addressed to create uniformity as well? As is stands right now EVERY hitter covers the same % of their body. I fail to see how giving a guy like Aaron Judge a zone from mid thigh to his belt is somehow fair to hitters and pitchers alike! 

[Platoon]

NO! There has to be a point where the game remains a true game. And umpires are part of the game. They already have went too far with the instant replay. It's always been accepted that each umpire has his own zone. Some are low ball umpires some have a large outside corner, few have a large inside corner. If someone is calling the ball on the black consistently, being surprised by that third strike means you expected him to change it just for you. Players aren't perfect, managers aren't perfect, and umpires are not perfect. Years ago my son took a called third strike on a pitch that was on the low end of the strike zone. Or lower, to end the game. On the way home he was furious. I asked him if he was aware "Cookie" was a low ball ump? He said he certainly was aware, and that "Cookie" had always been not only a low ball ump, but a big call ump. So I said why are you mad? You knew that when you went up there. It's an adjustment to the game, same as playing two steps in when Buxton is up.

[bizaff]

 

NO! There has to be a point where the game remains a true game. And umpires are part of the game. They already have went too far with the instant replay. It's always been accepted that each umpire has his own zone. Some are low ball umpires some have a large outside corner, few have a large inside corner. If someone is calling the ball on the black consistently, being surprised by that third strike means you expected him to change it just for you. Players aren't perfect, managers aren't perfect, and umpires are not perfect. Years ago my son took a called third strike on a pitch that was on the low end of the strike zone. Or lower, to end the game. On the way home he was furious. I asked him if he was aware "Cookie" was a low ball ump? He said he certainly was aware, and that "Cookie" had always been not only a low ball ump, but a big call ump. So I said why are you mad? You knew that when you went up there. It's an adjustment to the game, same as playing two steps in when Buxton is up.

Thanks for this post.. this helps illustrate to me why some people prefer human calls over automated calls.

 

So the part you enjoy is the fact that umpires are a little different and you have to adjust to which umpire you have and what he's calling that day?

 

I guess can see how there's some strategic interest in that.  It's another level of adjustment one has to make.

 

If what I've said is correct, I understand it.. but I hate it   Umpires generally pick a side of the plate to watch closely, and they're more accurate calling on that side vs the side they're not lined up with.  Height on breaking balls is even trickier because they can't line up with the bottom of the zone.  On top of that, when a pitcher is "on" they tend to get more calls.. and 0-2 pitches are much more likely to be balls, and 3-0 pitches are much more likely to be strikes.

 

I don't agree that umpires are part of the game.  The only time they're truly part of the game is by accident, like when a passed ball bounces off the ump or sticks in his gear, or a hot liner hits an umpire in the field.  They are there to referee and enforce the rules of the game, not be a part of it.  Are they involved?  Yes.  Are they part of the game?  No.  I suppose "part of the game" is a squishy term that's not very well defined.

 

The strike zone is called out in the rules.  Let's use the best tools we have, be them umpires or automated technology, to call that zone out correctly.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The NFL doesn't have lower goalposts for smaller men. The NBA doesn't have lower baskets for smaller men. The NHL doesn't have smaller nets for smaller men. The PGA doesn't allow smaller men to play a shorter course. Professional tennis doesn't have lower nets or smaller courts for smaller men. Soccer, lacrosse, track and field, etc. etc. etc. Only baseball allows the conditions to be different for different people playing in the same game. Does that seem fair?

 

Truthfully, this looks a lot like a red herring. Baseball is fundamentally different than all of these sports, making it much more complex. The strike zone is derived by the batters height, and that is in the rule book. As such, this means nothing as to whether or not the zone is automated or not. The only issue at hand is whether or not it is possible for automation methods to properly capture the difference between a short batter and a tall one. As far as I understand it, that technology is already included.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

NO! There has to be a point where the game remains a true game. And umpires are part of the game. They already have went too far with the instant replay. It's always been accepted that each umpire has his own zone. Some are low ball umpires some have a large outside corner, few have a large inside corner. If someone is calling the ball on the black consistently, being surprised by that third strike means you expected him to change it just for you. Players aren't perfect, managers aren't perfect, and umpires are not perfect. Years ago my son took a called third strike on a pitch that was on the low end of the strike zone. Or lower, to end the game. On the way home he was furious. I asked him if he was aware "Cookie" was a low ball ump? He said he certainly was aware, and that "Cookie" had always been not only a low ball ump, but a big call ump. So I said why are you mad? You knew that when you went up there. It's an adjustment to the game, same as playing two steps in when Buxton is up.

 

After all, we all want a Yankees fan named Phil Cuzzi calling a nice XBH foul in a playoff game. That is what we want?

 

The sole purpose of umpiring is to get the call correct. That is true in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Anything we can do to improve the odds of this is important.

[bizaff]

 

After all, we all want a Yankees fan named Phil Cuzzi calling a nice XBH foul in a playoff game. That is what we want?

 

The sole purpose of umpiring is to get the call correct. That is true in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Anything we can do to improve the odds of this is important.

To me, this is the quintessential example of why we must do better in all aspects.  The official call did not reflect the reality of what happened.  This is an umpire manipulating the outcome of the game - be it intentionally or unintentionally - which they have no business doing.

 

Blown ball/strike calls make pitchers pitch more than they should need to, or batters see fewer balls than they have a right to.  This has a real effect on the outcome of games.

 

"It all evens out in the end."  Of course it does - by definition one team benefited and the other is hurt by it.  It does NOT necessarily average out for a team in a game.. or a series.. or a week.. or a month.. or a season.  A standard distribution shows every individual event is not average.

 

Take umpiring to the extreme - get rid of them completely.  Go back to the origins of the game, and how kids often play growing up.  Let the teams on the field figure it out.  Why don't we do this?  Because you want an impartial and fair third party with no investment in the outcome of the game to settle disputes.  What's more impartial and fair than automated systems?

[h2oface]

 

I'm saying that conditions should be the same for all players. I don't see how you can get more fair than that.

 

The zone should be the same zone for all players. When you base it on the body parts of each player - the same body parts, to establish an equal zone - percentage wise based on each particular body height - you have created conditions that should be the same for all players. I don't see how you can get more fair than that.

 

I think it is an interesting idea, for sure. I just don't think it creates a fair zone for all players. It seems to me that the advantage is to the pitchers, anyway, the bigger the zone gets, as per height. It has to be harder to pitch to Altuve and a squeezed zone, than Judge, and the massive zone. It really is a different discussion.... the zone change. Whatever the zone, all instantaneous tools should be used to get it correct.

[bizaff]

For the sake of example, more on the set height/size strike zone:

The strike zone of Jose Altuve (5ft 5 in) is smaller than that of Jon Rauch (6ft 11 in) - that's an 18 inch spread.  If you center the zone between those two (which isn't average, but it's the probably the best case for batters), a player is up to 9 inches away from the average zone.  They don't need to adjust that whole height, since you're only taking the area between the knees and armpits.. let's say that's half (in reality it's worse as it's not at the waist, it's at the armpits and knees).  A tall/short player needs to adjust their swing vertically up to 4 inches to deal with a batter-independent strike zone.  That seems pretty significant.  That moves the strike zone from the knees down to the shins, or the armpits up to the shoulders.

Now the pitchers - assume the strike zone is as it is today.  If a pitcher releases around 55 feet from home plate and has to adjust 4 inches for different players, they need to adjust the angle of the delivered pitch by about half a degree.  That's a pretty tiny adjustment.  They need to deal with wind which already affects it in that neighborhood (best source I could find - https://jmcdonaldmedia.com/2011/03/18/how-does-weather-affect-baseball/), and they "calibrate" that out with warmup pitches every inning.

A batter-independent strike zone would least affect an average sized batter, but would hamper anyone not of average size, far worse the less "average" the batter is.  The adjustment a pitcher has to make today in a batter-dependent strike zone is half a degree, which they already do.

 

I can't see a world I'd ever support a batter-independent strike zone.

[nicksaviking]

Baseball from it's very inception, was created for humans.  In the field, behind the plate and in the stands.

 

Yeah, and humans like new technology, even back then. If the steam engine could have called balls and strikes they would have had one plopped behind home plate in every ballpark in America. People went nuts for the steam engine. But even more than technology, people like things being fair, equal and accurate.

 

At the game's inception, umpires called balls and strikes out of neccessity, obviously if they had the technology they would have used it; baseball wouldn't be the sole institution that would eschew it.

 

No one laments the loss of blacksmiths any longer.

[h2oface]

 

But even more than technology, people like things being fair, equal and accurate.

At the game's inception, umpires called balls and strikes out of neccessity, obviously if they had the technology they would have used it; baseball wouldn't be the sole institution that would eschew it.

 

 

The playoffs sure do expose the umpiring inadequacies! This whole trained acceptance of the close call bothers me the most. The perfect pitch that is called a ball. The perfect take that is called a strike. Those are the ones that bother me the most. Those are the ones that cheat the players so unfairly. The ones that are so obviously called wrong, they just show how ridiculous it is to let humans take their best guess on each pitch. But the close ones....... the trained eye of a batter or the exquisite command of the pitcher... what makes the player standout...... is robbed by letting the umpire take his best guess. The umpires work hard to be accurate to the best of their ability..... they have a pure intention (right? never pompous and tainted by personalities), but they are still taking a guess. A trained, educated guess, but still a guess. We all see it (if the networks and MLB have the guts to show us) in real time as it happens. Touch pads are here to stay in swimming. Line review is here to stay in tennis. MLB needs to quit dragging its feet.

 

And, if I may tangent a bit.... just a little bit...... How about that dead ball call missed in Game 5 of Cubs/Nationals in last night's game 5 of the NLDS. And the umpires just missed it. Didn't know the rule to enforce? Didin't see the bat hit Wieters? 2 runs for the Cubs. I don't have a horse in this race, but I so hate to see the game cheated. If Karma is watching.... the Cubs will be taken out by the Dodgers, as the Cubs were gifted wrongly this tainted victory. When will MLB get rid of "not reviewable" designations. If it needs reviewed, and we have the way to do it, DO IT. Get it right. And the balls and strikes? YES! Use the tech to stop the humans from guessing, and to often, guessing wrongly.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/possible-blown-call-highlights-fifth-inning-meltdown-by-nationals-in-game-5-vs-cubs/

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

So what do you do in lower levels of baseball like say little league?  Does the strike zone get higher and higher for each level you go?  I highly doubt kids age 9 would have the same strike zone as Major League players.  

tee ball?