Future Twins Weigh in on an Electronic Strike Zone

[Ted Schwerzler]

This season there has been plenty made about the changes to Major League Baseball. We now have pitch clocks and shift restrictions among other things. Robots have not yet been invited to the party, but they are coming.

 

Image courtesy of Nathan Ray Seebeck-USA TODAY Sports

St. Paul - If you hadn’t seen a game with the pitch clock until this spring, you missed out on some exciting action taking place over at CHS Field during the 2022 season. For years, Major League Baseball has used the minor leagues as its training ground for new game implementations, and that will again be the case this year.

Pitch framing and receiving have been a focus for Minnesota Twins catchers in recent seasons. The art, and their excellence at it, cost them catching coach Tanner Swanson a few seasons ago. Just how effective that remains will be rendered moot when baseball ultimately shifts to an electronic strike zone. In 2023, that will take place in all Triple-A ballparks.

During Tuesday through Thursday games the action will be governed by an electronic strike zone. The umpire will still remain behind the plate, but the call will be made as a result of the indication they are given electronically. On Friday through Sunday games, action will go back to the hands of umpires, but a challenge system will be implemented. Challenges can only come directly from the batter’s box, and may be initiated by the pitcher, catcher, or batter. Teams will receive three challenges per game.

Knowing that once again the players with the Saints will be directly impacted, it was worth talking to them about it and gathering their thoughts.

Manager Toby Gardenhire is no stranger to rule changes, and he thinks the system could be interesting to watch. “The challenge system is going to be fun to watch, I have been saying for years we need to go to that. You get three challenges and get that challenge back if you get it right. It has to be within seconds after a pitch. The hitter, catcher, and pitcher can do that from the box. From what I’ve heard the hitters get it right more than the pitchers do. The pitchers think everything is a strike.”

Gardenhire notes that players have dealt with technology changes for years, and the electronic strike zone is something they utilize during the spring and practices anyway. It could be fun to track which position (pitcher, catcher, or batter) correctly challenges the most calls.

Pitchers may be the players to like this change the least. There will no longer be an ability to stretch the zone, and the human element behind the plate is gone.

Randy Dobnak, who has pitched in the big leagues, had an interesting perspective. “I’m not really a fan of the electronic strike zone. Hitters might think they will be, but once guys start bouncing curveballs for strike three they won’t like that because it just clips the zone. Guys these days have stuff so nasty.”

It’s easy to evaluate whether a pitch is a strike on TV, but seeing a ball drop into the bucket or a catcher get cross up and still be hit with a strike isn’t going to make batters happy.

Teammate Austin Schulfer doesn’t seem bothered by any electronic rule changes, though his suggestion is something the Saints themselves would be proud of trying. “For me, I don’t really care if they put a robot behind the plate.”

On the hitting side of things, Andrew Bechtold brings an interesting perspective in that he doesn’t pitch, but he spends plenty of time as a catcher. “I have dealt with robo umps in Fall League 2021 out in Arizona.  As a hitter, I really liked it, but obviously with the catching position it takes away some of the art of pitch framing and pitch receiving. There is still plenty of ability in pitch calling and setting up hitters. Being that I don’t only catch, it doesn’t take as big of a hit to my potential.

Knowing the Twins have put time into the way catchers work on receiving the ball, Gardenhire also addressed this issue. “If they do take it away (manual strike zone), then it transitions into performance being focused on blocking and catching.”

This spring, Edouard Julien has played with every set of rules imaginable. Being in big league camp but also playing in the World Baseball Classic, he has seen it all. He wasn’t aware that an electronic strike zone was coming to Triple-A, but for a guy that hits as purely as he does, it isn’t really a concern. “Personally I like having a human call things behind home plate. That said, there is going to be a consistent zone. Either way I’ll just go out there, I won’t think about it.”

At the end of the day, Major League Baseball is going to gather plenty of data in 2023. Maybe we’ll see this rule change implemented in 2024, or maybe we won’t. The challenge system could be the highlight of the process though, and having umpires be held accountable is a step that has not yet been exhausted.

What do you think about the electronic strike zone? Are you surprised about any of the guys in favor of it?

View full article

[mikelink45]

Why not?  Basically, framing is cheating, so why wouldn't you want consistency?  It too will speed up games, no arguing with the ump,  just pitch, hit, or throw.  I like it.  I also like the shorter games so far, although out shorter games seem to be because we have forgotten how to hit.

[Linus]

I’m fine with the electronic strike zone but stay away from any challenge system. It’s just one more thing to slow the game down. 

[Fatbat]

I prefer the human element. Mistakes and the bitching and getting tossed out. 

[danielp19653]

I'd prefer fully automated or fully human, the challenge system just seems incredibly pointless. We're going to make the umpire guess all while having a system show when he's wrong and the team gets to try and guess when he's wrong and call him out. If you're going to have the automated system running for every pitch anyways just use it to make the call and be done with. I don't enjoy watching players walk on obvious strikes or strike out on obvious balls, so I'd prefer the fully automated but not if it comes with the challenges.

[Whitey333]

One thing I never understood about pitch framing is why the umpires fall for it.  I thought they were better than that.  Wouldn't it be more understandable if an umpire called those pitches where the catcher .oves glove into the strike zone while receiving it or shortly thereafter, the ump calling it a ball instead.  Human nature would say that the pitch was a ball and the catcher is stealing a strike from a ball.  Doesn't it tell a reasonable person that the catcher also must know it's a ball and pulls it in the zone?  Why do t the umps see that?   Are they that bad?  That is something little leaguers do.  I think it's sophomoric but it works I guess but I don't understand why it should.  MLB umps are paid a lot of money to be professional.  By letting cat hers continually get away with framing balls into strikes is no great look for the umpires.  Btw please no more challenges on plays with robo umps etc.  The speed up rules are fine and appear to be working but adopting any new rules to challenge balls and strikes just makes for a disjointed game.  I like the human element of umpiring.  

[KScott]

I am curious how this will change the value of the catchers in our system. Jeffers is currently highly valued because of his pitch framing ability. But if this goes into effect next season, how does that effect his value? Does he or Vazquez get leapfrogged by one of the other catchers in our system? Are there any catchers in our system whose value increases as a result? 

[tony&rodney]

54 minutes ago, Whitey333 said:

One thing I never understood about pitch framing is why the umpires fall for it.  I thought they were better than that.

LaTroy Hawkins, among many others, has talked about this a fair amount on past Twins broadcasts. Essentially, Hawkins calls bs on pitch framing, suggesting that umpires see the ball and not the glove. An entire industry has grown up to argue that catchers do steal strikes here and there. Subsequently, armed with charts, graphs, videos, and data a large number of people totally accept the concept of "framing" as factual when it remains a concept, albeit an alluring one. That umpires may be influenced in a split second is not chronicled very completely due to a lack of published comments from the umpires themselves. 

What is not in dispute is that umpires are human. Human beings make mistakes. Who hasn't vociferously argued for a point where it was proven beyond any doubt that they were 100% wrong? The question then becomes how far to slide the bar of technology into baseball. It is interesting that the vast majority of players prefer the human element. Fans will have their opinions and goals for the game of baseball now and going forward. The decisions by MLB are made when there is the thinking that changes will appeal to a wider audience because MLB is a business. Change happens and some we eagerly and enthusiastically endorse while some we disagree with.  We may like or dislike the rule changes but the games will go on.

[Doctor Gast]

I'm all for Robo Ump. There's too much inequality in umpiring. Big names & teams seems to get the breaks, Robo Umps you don't get that. For example NYY, Umps are really razed, this can't help but influence the game. Robo Umps also takes this grief off the umps backs. Definitely not another challenge out let, it disrupts the game too much.

[USNMCPO]

One thing to really be excited for is to see C.B. Buckner behind the plate with robe ump. Could be hilarious. I can see him giving the robot ump the toss.

[Eris]

I like the idea of robo umps as missed balls or strikes affect the outcome of the game. Perhaps an intermediate solution would be to get rid of or prevent umpires behind home plate who can not correctly call balls and strikes above a certain grade level. The later will never happen so it’s robo umpires. 
 

With regards to the future value of catchers, the ability to call a good game is still critical.  This is harder to determine statistically, but pitchers know. More emphasis will also be placed on caught or preventing stealing. Maybe a pitcher catcher combo that allows 80 % or higher stolen base percentage should not be used. 

[Bodie]

Next up - pitching machines in lieu of humans.  But teams will get 3 "challenges" allowing them to use humans against a specific batter...

It's bad enough having  HAL as a manager, I have no interest in having it call balls and strikes.  Baseball is a game played by humans, officiated by humans, for the enjoyment of humans (and the occasional super-intelligent dog).

We'll never see a 27 pitch perfect game.  We'll never see someone hit 1.000 for the season (even Kirby could only do that for a couple of consecutive games).  No team will ever go 162-0.

Would baseball be better if Earl Weaver never completely lost his mind arguing balls and strikes?  I think not!

Accept that perfection is unattainable and enjoy the best in the business striving for perfection, and failing every time.

[Steven Buhr]

The challenge system makes no sense at all. When the tech reaches the point where it is accurate and consistent, use it for every pitch. To KNOW whether a pitch is a strike or not and ONLY correct mistakes if it's challenged is dumb.

Which means that's what baseball will opt to implement. MLBPA has a segment of their membership (catchers who make a good living framing pitches) who will not want to see their value diminished. Umpires' union will balk because it takes some authority out of umpires' hands. At the very least, both unions will want concessions in return for accepting the change... and MLB won't be so enthused about it that they're willing to give in on anything important in those negotiations.

[Platoon]

2 hours ago, Whitey333 said:

One thing I never understood about pitch framing is why the umpires fall for it.  I thought they were better than that.  Wouldn't it be more understandable if an umpire called those pitches where the catcher .oves glove into the strike zone while receiving it or shortly thereafter, the ump calling it a ball instead.  Human nature would say that the pitch was a ball and the catcher is stealing a strike from a ball.  Doesn't it tell a reasonable person that the catcher also must know it's a ball and pulls it in the zone?  Why do t the umps see that?   Are they that bad?  That is something little leaguers do.  I think it's sophomoric but it works I guess but I don't understand why it should.  MLB umps are paid a lot of money to be professional.  By letting cat hers continually get away with framing balls into strikes is no great look for the umpires.  Btw please no more challenges on plays with robo umps etc.  The speed up rules are fine and appear to be working but adopting any new rules to challenge balls and strikes just makes for a disjointed game.  I like the human element of umpiring.  

This!  Never understood pulling the ball either. If it’s a strike, you don’t have to pull it. If you do, it’s a ball. Now framing is a little different. Framing is catching the ball, with quiet hands, while exposing as much as the ball in your glove as possible. It also requires the pitcher to hit the side of the plate you sat up on. You can’t "frame" a pitch off the other side of the plate. It takes great hands, see Joe Mauer type hands, to successfully frame pitches. Soft quiet hands. 

[Heiny]

I am really starting to hate technology.  Yes, I am a traditionalist.  I love baseball.  I hate all the changes.  Umpires are part of the game.  They make mistakes just like all living human beings.  But that is part of the game.  If umpires don't have the integrity to call the same game for rookies as they do for superstars, then they need to go.  If they can't call a good game consistantly then they need to go.  But the game is played and umpired by human beings, or at least it always has been.  That's the game I fell in love with.  Please get rid of the ghost runner. It's not baseball.  Please get rid of the pitch/batter clock.  Real baseball does not have a clock.  Electronic strike zone?  Please no thank you.  Batters/managers vehimently arguing with umpires and getting thrown out, maybe just to inspire his team. That's part of the game of baseball.  If things keep changing the way they are, we all might as well just get them little handheld boxes to play the game on.  That's technology.  But as much as I hate the changes, I will always love the game.  So, see you at the ballpark.

[Nine of twelve]

The objective of officiating any sport is to correctly determine what has happened in the game and to correctly enforce the rules of the game. Many other sports have had systems to supplant or supplement human officiating for many years. In some cases this has even become part of the English vocabulary. (Photo finish is one example.) Electronic pitch calling is more accurate than human pitch calling and has been for several years. Moreover, electronic pitch calling will improve over the course of time. Human pitch calling will not. MLB should have implemented electronic pitch calling years ago.

[Daniel Anderson]

Does anyone know exactly how the automatic strike zone sets the top of the zone? The glossary on MLB.com says this about the top of the zone: 'The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants.' So does it spot those two points and divide it in half? Just curious and I would appreciate any insight. 

[Nine of twelve]

1 minute ago, Daniel Anderson said:

Does anyone know exactly how the automatic strike zone sets the top of the zone? The glossary on MLB.com says this about the top of the zone: 'The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants.' So does it spot those two points and divide it in half? Just curious and I would appreciate any insight. 

My understanding is that each player has the top and bottom of his strike zone programmed into the system.

[MGX]

I'm all for an electronic strike zone. Certain teams get an unfair advantage due to human umpires.

There are 30 teams in MLB & "miraculously" the Yankees have finished in the top 5 for drawing walks in 18 of the last 25 seasons. They led MLB in 6 of those seasons, including the last three in a row.. There is no way this should happen with the amount of turnover of players & coaches over a 25 year period.

Can't wait for some consistency on balls & strikes.

[terrydactyls]

I don't understand the challenge.  What will they use for verification?  The same data that the automated system used?  Something that is more accurate than what the automated system uses?  (In that case, why not use that data initially?)  Or will the use some sort of visual that is interpreted by humans?   And in the latter case, why have an automated system if a human opinion is better?

[DJL44]

4 hours ago, Whitey333 said:

One thing I never understood about pitch framing is why the umpires fall for it.  I thought they were better than that.  Wouldn't it be more understandable if an umpire called those pitches where the catcher .oves glove into the strike zone while receiving it or shortly thereafter, the ump calling it a ball instead. 

Umpires generally do call the pitch a ball if the catcher is moving their glove a lot. It's about receiving a pitch to make it look like the pitcher hit their spot, not about moving the back into the strike zone.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

During Tuesday through Thursday games the action will be governed by an electronic strike zone. The umpire will still remain behind the plate, but the call will be made as a result of the indication they are given electronically. On Friday through Sunday games, action will go back to the hands of umpires, but a challenge system will be implemented. Challenges can only come directly from the batter’s box, and may be initiated by the pitcher, catcher, or batter. Teams will receive three challenges per game.

Why are they handling games differently Tue-Thu vs Fri-Sun Ted?

I vote for the electronic strike zone as it frustrates me to no end when it clearly is out of the box on TV but the catcher pulls it back in for a strike.  This technology works great in tennis for calling balls in or out.  No questions, no complaining by players (think McEnroe), just plain and simple its a strike or a ball.

I vote NO for the challenge system regarding balls and strikes.  I am OK challenges for fair/foul or safe/out calls as they exist today.

[DJL44]

Quote

"once guys start bouncing curveballs for strike three they won’t like that because it just clips the zone"

Dobnak is correct here. The rule book strike zone allows for unhittable pitches that are currently not called strikes. I'm not sure we actually want something calling the rule book strike zone with 100% accuracy. Do we really want more strikeouts and fewer balls in play?

[MGX]

19 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Dobnak is correct here. The rule book strike zone allows for unhittable pitches that are currently not called strikes. I'm not sure we actually want something calling the rule book strike zone with 100% accuracy. Do we really want more strikeouts and fewer balls in play?

Any pitch that travels through the strike zone is hittable as are many pitches that are out of the strike zone. Players like Clemente, Puckett, Vlad Guerrero Sr. rarely saw pitches they couldn't hit. The bottom line is consistency which isn't something human umpires provide.

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, Bodie said:

Next up - pitching machines in lieu of humans.

Came here for an obligatory straw-man argument. Leaving satisfied.

[DJL44]

6 hours ago, MGX said:

Any pitch that travels through the strike zone is hittable as are many pitches that are out of the strike zone. Players like Clemente, Puckett, Vlad Guerrero Sr. rarely saw pitches they couldn't hit. The bottom line is consistency which isn't something human umpires provide.

Strikeouts are already at all-time highs, which means many of the pitches batters see are already unhittable. I guess if you want someone to win the batting title with a .150 average that's your prerogative.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Automated strike zones will be more consistent than human strike zones, so I am in favor of them.

[MGX]

22 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Strikeouts are already at all-time highs, which means many of the pitches batters see are already unhittable. I guess if you want someone to win the batting title with a .150 average that's your prerogative.

Why do you assume strikeouts would go up? Why do you assume it would be an advantage for pitchers? The message you have always heard from both hitters & pitchers is they want a consistent strike zone.

Assuming it would benefit pitchers is speculative at best. The important thing is consistency & calling balls & strikes accurately. 

 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, MGX said:

Why do you assume strikeouts would go up? Why do you assume it would be an advantage for pitchers? The message from you have always heard from both hitters & pitchers is they want a consistent strike zone.

Assuming it would benefit pitchers is speculative at best. The important thing is consistency & calling balls & strikes accurately. 

Quote

The rule book strike zone allows for unhittable pitches that are currently not called strikes.

The corners are rounded off by umpires. The robots would call the corners. This increases the effective size of the strike zone which is never going to help batters.

[Nine of twelve]

28 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The corners are rounded off by umpires. The robots would call the corners. This increases the effective size of the strike zone which is never going to help batters.

That may be true for the first few months or so, maybe even less time than that. But human beings are adaptable. Ultimately, a control pitcher and a batter with a good eye will benefit. Just the way it should be.