Ervin Santana on the mound facing Didi Gregorius in the bottom of the 1st inning of the AL Wild Card Game. 

 

The Twins are leading 3-0... There is one out with runners on 1st and 3rd. 

 

1st Pitch: Fastball Fouled off 0-1

2nd Pitch: Fastball up out of the zone for a ball 1-1

3rd Pitch: Fastball up out of the zone for a ball 2-1

4th Pitch: Change Fouled off 2-2

5th Pitch: Fastball in the zone. RULED A BALL. Would have been a strikeout for the 2nd out. Who knows what happens after that. The Twins are still not guaranteed victory.

 

However... 

 

6th Pitch: Home Run to RF... Game Tied. 

 

**** happens... it is what it is... nothing we can do about it... Wait... there is something we can do about it. 

 

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=371003110

In much the same way as Shaquille O’Neal and Peter Dinklage should wear the same shoes.

That's funny, even though it's an inaccurate analogy.

That's funny, even though it's an inaccurate analogy.

No, the analogy works just fine. If it is ‘unfair to the pitcher’ to deal with a variable height strike zone, it is even more unfair to the cobbler to have to make variable size shoes. Were there only one shoe size, manufacturing could be even more efficiently automated; leading to both higher profits for the cobbler, and possibly lower shoe prices for everyone. Unfortunately, in most cases one size doesn’t actually fit all.

 

Having spent as much thought on that as I care to, I have a different question for all:

 

Has anyone asked the pitchers and catchers their preference? If a statistically significant majority of those folks wanted an automated zone, I would reconsider my objections. Is there anything published on this?

I would ask all players, not just pitchers and catchers. And umpires too.

No, the analogy works just fine. If it is ‘unfair to the pitcher’ to deal with a variable height strike zone, it is even more unfair to the cobbler to have to make variable size shoes. Were there only one shoe size, manufacturing could be even more efficiently automated; leading to both higher profits for the cobbler, and possibly lower shoe prices for everyone. Unfortunately, in most cases one size doesn’t actually fit all.

OK, so then let's expand this and try to mitigate any other aspects of the game that are unfair. Why should the strike zone be the only part of the game that varies from one player to another? I've already mentioned base size and mound height. There are other things as well. Outfield fences could have adjustable heights based on the height of the outfielder or moved in or out based on the speed of the outfielder. The distance between bases could be altered based on the speed of the base runner. The distance from the pitcher's mound to home plate could be adjusted based on the speed of a pitcher's pitches. Ridiculous? Of course. So explain to me now why the strike zone must be required to be based on a player's height and stance?

If someone is interested in this issue, I highly recommend an old Ben Lindbergh story from Grantland (he might have said or written something in the meantime, don't know). Not likely to persuade anyone whose mind is set. However I think it has aged well.

 

http://grantland.com/features/ben-lindbergh-possibility-machines-replacing-umpires/

 

Shorter Lindbergh: We need home plate umpires to call the balls and strikes, but home plate umpires need the technology to do a better job. (or vice versa?)

 

 

Also, I think we need fewer Jerry Crawfords in MLB (or anywhere else):

 

Twenty minutes after each game, Crawford said, somebody would knock on the umpires room door and hand him a CD with the pitch video on it.

 

"I threw it in the trash," Crawford said.

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/gil-lebreton/article105378146.html