Automate the Strike Zone

[spinowner]

 

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

And I prefer not to be referred to as insane, thank you.

[big dog]

What about a case where you have a buffoon like Cuzzi, where he just appears to be letting his emotions take control of what little judgement he has?  That's not the human element, where mistakes are made.  That's a bad umpire trying to show up players with bad calls.  If we can't get rid of umpires who suck, I'm ready to automate (even though that's not my first choice).

[AZTwin]

And I prefer not to be referred to as insane, thank you.

I never called you insane. I called the idea insane. It's equivalent to flat earth theory in my opinion

[AZTwin]

What about a case where you have a buffoon like Cuzzi, where he just appears to be letting his emotions take control of what little judgement he has? That's not the human element, where mistakes are made. That's a bad umpire trying to show up players with bad calls. If we can't get rid of umpires who suck, I'm ready to automate (even though that's not my first choice).

Yeah first thought came to my mind was the ump who was challenging the pitcher to challenge his call on a ball 4

[ashbury]

I never called you insane. I called the idea insane. It's equivalent to flat earth theory in my opinion

It happens that the TD Comment Policy covers this almost exactly:

 

"Sometimes it is difficult to separate the person from the subject being discussed. Maybe someone's opinion is truly stupid or laughable; it's still better to say "I disagree because..." rather than "that's stupid/laughable because...". Trying to maintain that "I said the idea was idiotic, not that you are idiotic" is too fine a distinction to maintain in a thread with multiple posters and hundreds of readers. Words like "silly" and "ridiculous" are going to catch a moderator's eye, likewise a response consisting only of "lol". Explain why an idea is mistaken, don't just lazily attach an adjective, epithet or emoticon to the idea."

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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. 

 

=

 

Glad to see you've joined us.

[ahart10]

I can't plainly see any negatives to an automated strike zone. Give the home plate ump an ear piece and let he/she make the calls.

[spinowner]

 

I never called you insane. I called the idea insane. It's equivalent to flat earth theory in my opinion

OK, pal, thanks for the eloquent analysis.

[AZTwin]

OK, pal, thanks for the eloquent analysis.

Just curious. Is the strike zone going to be in the same spot for every batter too? So for Jose it would be belt to his eyes? Or would it be judge having to adjust to a strike zone from his shins to his thighs?

[Dantes929]

 

Just curious. Is the strike zone going to be in the same spot for every batter too? So for Jose it would be belt to his eyes? Or would it be judge having to adjust to a strike zone from his shins to his thighs?

And what about the Rod Carew type that would crouch.   Much as I liked him I never thought it quite fair that someone in a crouch got a smaller strike zone than a guy the same height that stood upright.      

 

Most exciting about the automated zone is that it puts an umpiring career back into play for me and my 20/50 vision.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

It happens that the TD Comment Policy covers this almost exactly:

 

"Sometimes it is difficult to separate the person from the subject being discussed. Maybe someone's opinion is truly stupid or laughable; it's still better to say "I disagree because..." rather than "that's stupid/laughable because...". Trying to maintain that "I said the idea was idiotic, not that you are idiotic" is too fine a distinction to maintain in a thread with multiple posters and hundreds of readers. Words like "silly" and "ridiculous" are going to catch a moderator's eye, likewise a response consisting only of "lol". Explain why an idea is mistaken, don't just lazily attach an adjective, epithet or emoticon to the idea."

I appreciate TD largely because usually both banter and debate are civil.

But what about Riverbrian? He's a moderator and he is both silly and ridiculous.

[ashbury]

I appreciate TD largely because usually both banter and debate are civil.

But what about Riverbrian? He's a moderator and he is both silly and ridiculous.

lol

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

lol

OK, that literally DID make me laugh out loud.

[spinowner]

 

Just curious. Is the strike zone going to be in the same spot for every batter too? So for Jose it would be belt to his eyes? Or would it be judge having to adjust to a strike zone from his shins to his thighs?

It could be the same for everyone or it could be different. As you could tell from reading my previous posts I floated both ideas. And BTW neither description you offer here is anatomically accurate.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=altuve+judge&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU9veV5bPVAhVG2oMKHUt2DjAQ_AUIDCgD&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Ozt-_qDr2XI9XM:

[Mike Sixel]

I am all for our robot umpires. The rules should be the same for everyone, and the human element should be about the players. We don't randomly apply different rules in chess or other games, just to have a human element....

 

to put it another way....no one would invent the game to have a human element of rules application, if both robots and humans were the first choice. Maybe for a different game, that had a different purpose for how it provided entertainment, but not serious sports as we understand them now.

[Craig Arko]

 

...not serious sports as we understand them now.

Review your signature.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Review your signature.

 

heh, they are billion dollar businesses, and the sig is about this site....

[Dantes929]

 

I appreciate TD largely because usually both banter and debate are civil.

But what about Riverbrian? He's a moderator and he is both silly and ridiculous.

Wait.  Is he silly and ridiculous or are his ideas/comments/posts silly and ridiculous?   Either way you forgot to include awesome. 

[Dantes929]

 

I am all for our robot umpires. The rules should be the same for everyone, and the human element should be about the players. We don't randomly apply different rules in chess or other games, just to have a human element....

 

to put it another way....no one would invent the game to have a human element of rules application, if both robots and humans were the first choice. Maybe for a different game, that had a different purpose for how it provided entertainment, but not serious sports as we understand them now.

 
According to rule 2.00 of the Major League Baseball rule book, a strike zone is defined as "that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap"

 I guess we could just keep the definition of strike zone and so yes, the strike zone would definitely be a different size for each batter just like it has been for years, though you would probably have to clarify if that is measured from their stance or from their standing height.   I like the idea of still having an umpire behind home plate giving the traditional ball and strike signs but I guess that could be a robot also.  Maybe program it to call plays like this.

 

[FunnyPenguin]

I am all for the automation.  Right now a bad called strike or vice versa a ball that should have been a strike, can actually change the outcome of the game or simply an important at bat when the batter/pitcher at fault did perform well and should have been rewarded not put at fault.

[Craig Arko]

Would you want a robot friend?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/21/robots-could-become-electronic-persons-with-rights-obligations-under-draft-eu-plan.html

[spinowner]

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?

[Mike Sixel]

 

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?

 

you know, I never thought of it this way before, I'll have to open my mind up to this thought some.

[SwainZag]

 

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?

 

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.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

you know, I never thought of it this way before, I'll have to open my mind up to this thought some.

ditto

[bizaff]

If you say it's a constant place, people too tall or too short are at a disadvantage.  If you have it the same vertical distance but it shifts to be around the center of knees and armpits, taller guys have an advantage because their sweet spot comprises more of the zone. 

 

If you adjust the vertical size of the zone with the knees and armpits, taller guys have a slight disadvantage because the bat path will cover less of the strike zone.  I'm guessing this is a very tiny disadvantage.

 

I don't think it's a reasonable argument to have a single strike zone for all players.  The whole game is built around the pitcher throwing the ball to the zone where a player can hit it.  I'd argue AGAINST the idea that the only reason it was chosen is because of the umpire visual aides.  That part of the rules has been around for a while and I see no solid reason to change the size of the zone because we're introducing technology.

 

It would also shift a pretty significant advantage to the pitcher, where pitching already enjoys a pretty significant advantage.

 

If someone out there would please lay out detailed reasons why they prefer human umpiring, please post them - I'd love to hear them.  All I've gotten to this point are vague arguments about the human element.

[KirbyDome89]

That comparison feels very much like apples to oranges. Rules pertaining to body size can be found in any sport. The NFL has a designated area where you can can hit an opposing player when making a tackle, a player can't land a helmet to helmet hit. Same with the NBA, if you foul a 5'8" player across the head when he drives to the basket it's a flagrant foul; you can't use the argument that if he was 6'6" it would've been the shoulders. I have 0 pity for players like judge, they have natural advantages as well. Should Miguel Sano not be allowed to swing so fast because he hits the ball too hard? Does Buxton need to have a delay before being allowed to run because he's too fast? These are both physical characteristics that give them an advantage yet I don't hear anybody call it unfair. 

[spinowner]

 

Should Miguel Sano not be allowed to swing so fast because he hits the ball too hard? Does Buxton need to have a delay before being allowed to run because he's too fast? These are both physical characteristics that give them an advantage yet I don't hear anybody call it unfair. 

Exactly. There are no explicit baseball rules based on running speed or bat speed. Why should there be a rule based on height?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Why should there be a rule based on height?

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.

 

 

[Craig Arko]

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.