Future Twins Weigh in on an Electronic Strike Zone

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. 

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

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.

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.  

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? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

I love the idea of taking away CB Buckner and Angel Hernandez's ability to screw with the game.....seen too many times when umps like them stick it to another team that may be chirping or they don't like.  I also love the idea of an actual strike zone being called whether it's Aaron Judge playing for the Yankees vs. Joe Schmo for the Pirates.  

As far as pitch framing, It isn't always "pulling in a strike".....some catchers are so good it's just the way they catch the ball.  The ball hits the glove, the glove doesn't move and it looks like a strike when in reality it's 2-3 inches off the plate.  Simply turning the wrist can steal strikes too.  If you've ever pitched to really good catchers vs. really poor ones, you know what I'm saying.  In defense of humans, calling balls and strikes ain't easy....actually amazed how they get it right most of the time. 

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?