I was previously against it

 

Followed by Apathetic toward it

 

I'm now officially in the Automate it camp. 

 

The technology is there... Let it happen. 

 

There is no reason to miss balls and strikes in 2018. 

 

=

 

 

Was there a particular pitch that was your tipping point?

 

Was there a particular pitch that was your tipping point?

 

Yeah... About a month ago. The ump missed it by at least a foot and I changed stance on the spot. 

 

And then again tonight... On a 3rd strike call to Vargas. 

 

If they are going to miss by that much. 

 

Automate it. 

I am in favor of automation if the systems test out to be better at it than human beings standing behind the plate. And, assuming they are sufficiently accurate, as a corollary 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.

Seems like this road trip has seen some terrible ball/strike calls.

 

If done properly, an automated strike zone wouldn't even be noticed by the fan. It would merely look like a really good home plate umpire making the right calls. 

 

 

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.

Huh?

It should have happened years ago.  If it ever happens, it will shorten games by 20%.  And people will wonder why it took so long.

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

 

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

 

IMO... Being against an Automated Strike Zone because you like the human element... also means that you like the random missed calls.

 

And that is similar to telling the ground crew to leave the big rocks in the infield for the crazy bounces.   

 

 

 

 

IMO... Being against an Automated Strike Zone because you like the human element... also means that you like the random missed calls.

 

And that is similar to telling the ground crew to leave the big rocks in the infield for the crazy bounces.   

 

"Resistance if futile.  You must comply" .   Sincerely, Borg.

 

IMO... Being against an Automated Strike Zone because you like the human element... also means that you like the random missed calls.

 

And that is similar to telling the ground crew to leave the big rocks in the infield for the crazy bounces.   

Or to have a ladder on the left field wall that is not used for anything.

 

Or to have a ladder on the left field wall that is not used for anything.

 

I like the ladder 

Count me as against. And I automate stuff for a living.

 

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.

 

 

Huh?

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.

 

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.

But it's not though. If you set a single strike zone and apply it to every player you're actually giving an advantage to guys like Aaron Judge. As it stands right now every player has the "same," strike zone proportionate to their body size. Judge may have a larger zone than Altuve, but in terms of the % of the body each much cover they're zones are equivalent. If you eliminate that you'll have players like Judge getting to hit in essentially a shoe box while the shortest players at swinging in a zone the size of a fridge. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that setting a standardized zone doesn't solve an existing imbalance, it creates one. 

 

But it's not though. If you set a single strike zone and apply it to every player you're actually giving an advantage to guys like Aaron Judge. As it stands right now every player has the "same," strike zone proportionate to their body size. Judge may have a larger zone than Altuve, but in terms of the % of the body each much cover they're zones are equivalent. If you eliminate that you'll have players like Judge getting to hit in essentially a shoe box while the shortest players at swinging in a zone the size of a fridge. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that setting a standardized zone doesn't solve an existing imbalance, it creates one. 

Your point is well taken, but I think that's a much smaller factor than the actual size of the zone. Both players are using the same diameter bat to hit the same diameter ball but Judge has to cover a larger zone. And probably an even bigger factor has to do with the pitcher. Altuve has a higher likelihood of drawing a walk because a smaller zone makes it more difficult for the pitcher to throw strikes. Look at the one at-bat taken by Eddie Gaedel. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that it seems unfair to the pitcher that a player's height should be a determining factor in the size of the strike zone.

 

I was previously against it

 

Followed by Apathetic toward it

 

I'm now officially in the Automate it camp. 

 

The technology is there... Let it happen. 

 

There is no reason to miss balls and strikes in 2018. 

 

=

A-Bert had a strikeout in Saturday's game, a beautiful slider that hooked from well outside the zone to right over the middle. Batter was completely frozen, ump completely blew it. Two pitches later, the guy laced a single to score a run. 

 

Bring on the robots.

If they were to automate the strike zone, would Castro have any remaining value?

 

If they were to automate the strike zone, would Castro have any remaining value?

 

Sure... For the next two years at least.

 

His contract says so. 

There is some merit to the argument that tall batters should have higher strike zones and short batters lower ones. So here's a compromise proposal (which I'm not necessarily advocating for or against): The strike zone could be the same size for all batters but the top and the bottom of the zone would be defined based on the batter's height at the shoulders, since that's the primary hinge point for a swung bat. Of course there would be a learning curve for pitchers but I think this would probably be the most fair way to do it from the standpoint of the batter.

 

Edited July 30, 20179 yr by spinowner

Should probably eliminate the other mistake-prone human elements as well. Start here.

 

http://www.masterpitch.com/commercial-pitching-machines/

Should probably eliminate the other mistake-prone human elements as well. Start here.

 

http://www.masterpitch.com/commercial-pitching-machines/

Mistakes by officials is an artificial human element in the first place though.

The game is played by the players. There SHOULD be mistakes from them, that is the whole point.

The officials are only there to make sure the players follow the rules. Mistakes by them should NOT be a natural part of the game.

Its something you live with, if you have to, unless technology allows you to not have to.

Perhaps even more democratic, we could crowdsource the calling of balls and strikes, so fans can determine the outcomes directly from the comfort of their own homes.

 

The technology exists, so it must be progress to use it.

Edited July 30, 20179 yr by Craig Arko

Perhaps even more democratic, we could crowdsource the calling of balls and strikes, so fans can determine the outcomes directly from the comfort of their own homes.

The technology exists, so it must be progress to use it.

Do you think that would help?

Do you think that would help?

I don't think help is necessary in the first place.

I don't think help is necessary in the first place.

That's your opinion which is your right.

Doesn't excuse mocking those who do believe that getting the calls right when reasonably possible is necessary.

 

Your point is well taken, but I think that's a much smaller factor than the actual size of the zone. Both players are using the same diameter bat to hit the same diameter ball but Judge has to cover a larger zone. And probably an even bigger factor has to do with the pitcher. Altuve has a higher likelihood of drawing a walk because a smaller zone makes it more difficult for the pitcher to throw strikes. Look at the one at-bat taken by Eddie Gaedel. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that it seems unfair to the pitcher that a player's height should be a determining factor in the size of the strike zone.

Again though, Judge is covering an area that is proportionally equivalent to the strike zone of every other hitter in baseball. IMO it cannot be any more uniform than that. If it's more difficult for pitchers to throw to Altuve because his zone is smaller, that's a natural advantage. It's no different than Judge's strength giving him and edge, or a taller pitcher's release point that is closer to the plate being an asset. 

 

Again though, Judge is covering an area that is proportionally equivalent to the strike zone of every other hitter in baseball. IMO it cannot be any more uniform than that. If it's more difficult for pitchers to throw to Altuve because his zone is smaller, that's a natural advantage. It's no different than Judge's strength giving him and edge, or a taller pitcher's release point that is closer to the plate being an asset. 

This has progressed to an agree-to-disagree point. I enjoy the discussion.

High fastballs are impossible to hit. If you increase the strike zone to judge proportions for shorter players than they are never going to hit over .200 again. Balls are more difficult to hit because of where they lie in comparison to the batters body. I'm not sure how 1 strike zone makes it more fair. Quite honestly it's the most insane things I've ever heard

 

High fastballs are impossible to hit. If you increase the strike zone to judge proportions for shorter players than they are never going to hit over .200 again. Balls are more difficult to hit because of where they lie in comparison to the batters body. I'm not sure how 1 strike zone makes it more fair. Quite honestly it's the most insane things I've ever heard

Having a uniform zone doesn't necessarily mean that it would be larger for small players. It could mean that it would be smaller for large players.