Future Twins Weigh in on an Electronic Strike Zone

[DJL44]

50 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

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.

Humans are adaptable but professional hitters already are unable to control the entire strike zone. Making it bigger makes it more difficult, especially since you are adding places that are better for the pitcher (up and in, low and away) to get batters out. You'll also be adding strikes that barely cross the zone at the front of the plate and dive into the dirt before they get to the catcher.

Every adjustment the umpires make when they don't strictly call the rulebook strikezone is favoring the batter.

Imagine if they rounded off the corners of a hockey goal. Do you think that would help the shooters or the goalie? Now consider if they increased the size of the goal by two inches in each direction - would the goalie "adapt" to the larger goal?

[AlwaysinModeration]

My pure speculation is that it will result in increased walks.  I think there are a lot more balls that are called strikes than strikes that are called balls.  

[Platoon]

Getting more and more frustrated with replays in all sports. The college basketballs being the worst.

[dxpavelka]

On 4/2/2023 at 7:27 AM, Ted Schwerzler said:

easy to evaluate whether a pitch is a strike on TV

Actually it's NOT easy to evaluate whether a pitch is a strike on TV.  Mostly for one big reason.  Take a look at where the the strike zone is on TV and then go read the rule book as to where the strike zone actually is.  Not even close.  Most batters, the top of the TV strike zone is below the batter's belt.  This will do little to improve accuracy of strike calls.

 

[JFeist5]

I prefer the human element and each umpire having a bit of a different strike zone. The only issue is a couple umpires who are consistently bad, and we know who they are. I could get behind a challenge system as well. Definitely help keep those couple umps in check. Also would like to see the challenge available for check swings.

[wabene]

One benefit is without the need to frame pitches, large catchers can forget about getting low and just block the damn pitch. They will also be in a better position to throw. Both of these developments will help Jeffers. 

[Major League Ready]

I would assume that the technology is sophisticated enough to program any unwanted implications out.  The strike zone could be programed to interpret whatever ideal is wanted.  If they wanted to "round the corners" I am sure the strike zone could be programmed accordingly.  In other words, whatever we interpret to be the perfect strike zone for the good of the game could be called with near 100% accuracy.   

Bad calls can really change an AB and consequently the game.   Why would we want to retain these errors.  The automated strike zone can't get here quick enough for me.

[nicksaviking]

Surprised all the young hitters don't want it. They must not have grown up watching ball and knowing the vets tend to get an extra inch or two shaved off of the strike zone compared to the rookies.

[Nine of twelve]

17 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Actually it's NOT easy to evaluate whether a pitch is a strike on TV.  Mostly for one big reason.  Take a look at where the the strike zone is on TV and then go read the rule book as to where the strike zone actually is.  Not even close.  Most batters, the top of the TV strike zone is below the batter's belt.  This will do little to improve accuracy of strike calls.

 

It's easy to see if a pitch is in the box graphic on the TV. But that box is far less precise than electronic pitch calling systems, especially for the upper and lower boundaries.

[Joey Self]

On 4/2/2023 at 8:06 AM, Fatbat said:

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

One of the great things about instant replay is that it cut WAY down on grown men throwing an infantile fit.   It was not the least bit entertaining.  

Saying "I prefer the human element" is conceding that mistakes are preferable to correct calls.  I'm on the other side of that coin. 

JcS

 

[Joey Self]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I would assume that the technology is sophisticated enough to program any unwanted implications out.  The strike zone could be programed to interpret whatever ideal is wanted.  If they wanted to "round the corners" I am sure the strike zone could be programmed accordingly.  In other words, whatever we interpret to be the perfect strike zone for the good of the game could be called with near 100% accuracy.   

Bad calls can really change an AB and consequently the game.   Why would we want to retain these errors.  The automated strike zone can't get here quick enough for me.

I'm not asking if the technology is perfect--all I want to know is if it is better than what we now have.  

Since I'm convinced it is, I agree that it can't get here soon enough. 

JcS

[DJL44]

7 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I would assume that the technology is sophisticated enough to program any unwanted implications out.  The strike zone could be programed to interpret whatever ideal is wanted.  If they wanted to "round the corners" I am sure the strike zone could be programmed accordingly.  In other words, whatever we interpret to be the perfect strike zone for the good of the game could be called with near 100% accuracy.   

Bad calls can really change an AB and consequently the game.   Why would we want to retain these errors.  The automated strike zone can't get here quick enough for me.

You can't just reprogram the strike zone. You have to change the rule book. Umpires are calling the rule book strike zone the best they can.

Instant replay was brought in to eliminate errors but it sucks aesthetically.

If they bring in the automated strike zone no umpire thereafter should ever make the Hall of Fame. There won't be any notable difference between a good umpire and a bad one. Doug Harvey can be the last one.

[Heiny]

Those of you citing the rule book,  please stop.  It seems the rule book is written in chalk.

[Major League Ready]

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

You can't just reprogram the strike zone. You have to change the rule book. Umpires are calling the rule book strike zone the best they can.

Instant replay was brought in to eliminate errors but it sucks aesthetically.

If they bring in the automated strike zone no umpire thereafter should ever make the Hall of Fame. There won't be any notable difference between a good umpire and a bad one. Doug Harvey can be the last one.

It makes more sense to me to change the rules than to have umpires ignore them.  The point was an electronic zone is not an impediment to the imperfections you described.  It's just a tool/technology that can be programed to provide the ideal outcome 100% of the time.  You are entitled to your opinion.  If these to be really poor reasons to accept error in officiating that inevitably leads to an unfair advantage. 

BTW .... Those replays are going to run regardless of a challenge system.  I think it would be fantastic if you could not tell the difference between a good umpire and a bad one.  Also, I find the aesthetics of bad calls far more objectionable than taking a minute to get the call right.  Plus, there really wouldn't be any aesthetics associated with an automated zone.  It would just be correct. call 100% of the time.  How is that bad aesthetics?

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

accept error in officiating that inevitably leads to an unfair advantage. 

Which team has the advantage when officials are only 98% accurate rather than 100% accurate?

I am okay with automating calls but I want people to realize there are unintended consequences and it isn't as simple as flipping a switch.

Quote

I find the aesthetics of bad calls far more objectionable than taking a minute to get the call right.

And I find wasting 15 minutes to debate whether a tag happened 1/16th of a second earlier than it was perceived in realtime excruciating.

[dxpavelka]

5 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

It's easy to see if a pitch is in the box graphic on the TV. But that box is far less precise than electronic pitch calling systems, especially for the upper and lower boundaries.

Those thinking an electronic pitch calling system will lead to considerably less controversy will be sadly mistaken.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

And I find wasting 15 minutes to debate whether a tag happened 1/16th of a second earlier than it was perceived in realtime excruciating.

15 minutes really?  The average is under 2 minutes.  You are welcome to your preference.  I would much MUCH rather take two minutes and get it right.  The players should decide the game not umpires.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

15 minutes really?  The average is under 2 minutes.  You are welcome to your preference.  I would much MUCH rather take two minutes and get it right.  The players should decide the game not umpires.

I didn't say every challenge took 15 minutes but when they do it is awful.

The play that really irritates me is when the player leaves the bag on a slide by a fraction of a millimeter (which is only apparent because we can slow the frames down and analyze them for minutes) and they call the runner out. That runner has been safe since baseball began on that slide but now thanks to replay players have to change the way the game is played. They take two minutes to look frame by frame and actually get it wrong. Wrong, because a baserunner HAS to break contact with the bag in order to slide on top of it. Unintended consequences.

I think it would improve replay if they could only review the play at the speed it happened - no slow motion allowed. If it isn't obviously wrong at game speed, c'est la vie.

[Joey Self]

9 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I didn't say every challenge took 15 minutes but when they do it is awful.

The play that really irritates me is when the player leaves the bag on a slide by a fraction of a millimeter (which is only apparent because we can slow the frames down and analyze them for minutes) and they call the runner out. That runner has been safe since baseball began on that slide but now thanks to replay players have to change the way the game is played. They take two minutes to look frame by frame and actually get it wrong. Wrong, because a baserunner HAS to break contact with the bag in order to slide on top of it. Unintended consequences.

I think it would improve replay if they could only review the play at the speed it happened - no slow motion allowed. If it isn't obviously wrong at game speed, c'est la vie.

Although we have opposite views of replay, I agree with much of what you're saying here.  When a runner touches first base after leaving the batter's box, he can run through it--he doesn't have to hold it.  2nd is different, because running through it puts the runner in the field of play (3rd base would put him in foul territory like 1st base).  I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change that allowed a runner to be safe if he makes contact with 2nd safely and makes no move toward 3rd or otherwise impeded play.  Beating the throw (or the tag) at 2nd (and 3rd, for that matter) could be treated the same as 1st and home. 

And I'd not squawk too much if the replay had to be shown in real time, but there is still the advantage of different angles unavailable to the ump on the field.  Ultimately, I want the calls to be right, and the networks would slow down the play to show how the ump and replay review official didn't get it right if slow-mo showed the correct call wasn't made. 

JcS

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, Joey Self said:

Although we have opposite views of replay, I agree with much of what you're saying here.  When a runner touches first base after leaving the batter's box, he can run through it--he doesn't have to hold it.  2nd is different, because running through it puts the runner in the field of play (3rd base would put him in foul territory like 1st base).  I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change that allowed a runner to be safe if he makes contact with 2nd safely and makes no move toward 3rd or otherwise impeded play.  Beating the throw (or the tag) at 2nd (and 3rd, for that matter) could be treated the same as 1st and home. 

Interesting thought. Hadn't considered that before. I guess I'd stay with the rules as they are now. (I know we are veering off-topic a bit here but sometimes a discussion just flows like that.)

[Craig Arko]

Per electronic strike zones; I don't like the idea but acknowledge that it's coming, so I'll live with them.

Per the runner at 2nd base; I like the idea of giving a bit more leeway to the runner coming into second. Probably means it will never happen. ;)

[Cave Bear]

On 4/2/2023 at 10:50 AM, Steven Buhr said:

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.

So a pitcher bounces a ball into the strike zone and the robot calls it a strike. You can't challenge that call?

[saviking]

My biggest disappointment is they don't use it to call every pitch. Why just put your toe in the water when you can dive in .. It's either good for the came or bad. What they are doing is kind of half pregnant ..

[Nine of twelve]

4 minutes ago, Cave Bear said:

So a pitcher bounces a ball into the strike zone and the robot calls it a strike. You can't challenge that call?

The home plate umpire is empowered to overrule the electronic call in such cases. No challenge needed. And by the way, I'm not sure I've ever seen this happen in a major league game. I'd bet it doesn't happen more than about once a year.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

The home plate umpire is empowered to overrule the electronic call in such cases. No challenge needed. And by the way, I'm not sure I've ever seen this happen in a major league game. I'd bet it doesn't happen more than about once a year.

Aw, what's the point of a nice straw man argument if you go and knock it down right away?

[Woof Bronzer]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:56 PM, Joey Self said:

One of the great things about instant replay is that it cut WAY down on grown men throwing an infantile fit.   It was not the least bit entertaining.  
 

Hard disagree.  Watching an adult man rip out a base and chuck it into the outfield is one of life's great pleasures.  A baseball game is the only place on earth where two men argue by kicking dust at each other.  Baldelli flipping the bird to the replay booth was probably the highlight of the 2022 season.  Give me all of it :)

[Woof Bronzer]

On 4/4/2023 at 8:27 PM, Major League Ready said:

  I would much MUCH rather take two minutes and get it right.  

This sounds good in theory.  The problem is that there no guarantee that they will get it right.  Watch a football game - do they get every replay right?  Absolutely not.  So the question is, would you rather take two minutes and MAYBE get it right?  

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

The home plate umpire is empowered to overrule the electronic call in such cases. No challenge needed. And by the way, I'm not sure I've ever seen this happen in a major league game. I'd bet it doesn't happen more than about once a year.

If the electronic strike zone allowed it you would see it 150 pitches a game

[Major League Ready]

51 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

This sounds good in theory.  The problem is that there no guarantee that they will get it right.  Watch a football game - do they get every replay right?  Absolutely not.  So the question is, would you rather take two minutes and MAYBE get it right?  

What percentage of reply calls do you think are correct?  I bet if you assembled an independent panel the outcome is around 99%.  We should scrap it because it might not be 100% accurate.  

Why do we care about football replays in the context of this discussion.  It's is 100% irrelevant.

[Woof Bronzer]

Just now, Major League Ready said:

What percentage of reply calls do you think are correct?  I bet if you assembled an independent panel the outcome is around 99%.  We should scrap it because it might not be 100% accurate.  

Why do we care about football replays in the context of this discussion.  It's is 100% irrelevant.

If you think replay is correct 99% of the time you don't watch sports, sorry.  My opinion is that the replay takes fans out of the moment (celebrations are now more muted because people are conditioned to wait for replay confirmation), adds dead time to the game, kills rallies and momentum, and removes a human element from games played by humans.  That's just my opinion, of course, many others feel differently.