It actually proves that a man who knows when and where to swing or not swing can thrive even in the face of umpire variability. He, Tony Gwynn, and Rod Carew would be laughing at this crap.
All AAA baseball parks to have electronic strike zone this year
- Thread starter ToddFlanders
- Start date
This is the same argument people made about tennis, but the Hawkeye and now automatic line calls has become widely popular. No one truly enjoys bad calls.
A mm or a foot, both are equally bad calls.
In
yes as a tennis fan I agree. Not a baseball purist , just in favor of improving following strike zone rules, or alternatively change definition of strike zone
Perhaps. I would be surprised if this resulted in more offense tho. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. We would now be calling more pitches balls given pitchers tend to miss off the plate rather than toward the red zone. So I'm not so sure the number of pitches across the red zone increases all that much. And we just increased the chance that anything close to the plate is now gonna be called a ball. So will they swing more, or less? Hard to say. One thing is for sure, an ump will no longer be able to do a thing about it if he feels a batter is stepping in looking for a BB.
ERROR CODE 503, BELT NOT VISIBLE.I wonder if the following would occur during a batters appearance at the plate.
Strike 1, Ball 1, ERROR CODE 504, ERROR CODE 504. Please exit and try again.
When the batter knows exactly where the strike zone is every time, advantage batter
True. Disadvantage pitcher, no choice in the matter. Advantage batter. I'm just not sure the advantage is taken.
If the batters can hone in that precisely, you’ll see batting averages go up around the league. Pitcher will have to come over the plate. Or there will be a lot more walks
Arbitrary enforcement of the strike zone, which can be described by a simple algorithm and thus has no reason to be arbitrary except through human error (or wilfull manipulation) is a glaring flaw in the game, IMHO.
So is crowd noise. Ready to eliminate that?
How about we just play the game on the computer with virtual players and all?
Then everything is controlled.
I'm old fashioned in that I think crowd noise in a theater always made opening day of a big movie a better experience --otherwise it's a fully controlled environment. 😁
I was thinking about it today, I’d estimate I’ve been to around 500 MLB games. In none of those games did I know the name of the umpire. And it should be that way - they shouldn’t be part of the game. They are support staff to help run the game - no more important than the grounds crew, but necessary to play a game. And the only time you do hear about these guys is when they make terrible calls. Robot calls are so easy, 100% accurate, and will take zero effort to implement. Or you can stick with this:
The balls and strikes calls are and have been a big part of the game since the sport was invented. More fun. More to back and forth about. Consistently bad umpires have a very short career. Machines are not going to build a better mousetrap. Will take away so much from the game
Exactly. In fact the leagues typically wont allow arguing balls and strikes with an ump but it happens. That's when you know things just got real. Why anyone would want to eliminate something that has been part of the game forever... I dont get. The result is gonna be less personality from the coaches, umpires and players. I certainly dont see how it will increase baseball's popularity. If anything, it will decrease it. And all for what? So someone's feelings arent hurt and everyone plays nice? Or to try and get guys to swing more? Smdh
But will it really take away from the game? And I’m thinking about the fan experience. I would imagine that in practice the fans wouldn’t even know anything had changed. A pitch is thrown, the ump makes the call based on the location of the pitch, and repeat. If anything I guess the only change would be the fans not questioning if the right call was made.
Even for the players - nothing would really change (except not questioning whether the call was right). There’s a strike zone - pitchers throw at it and around it to get guys out. Exact same game, played the exact same way. Both sides just have a better idea of where the strike zone is.
As I’ve said, an exact strike zone will benefit the hitters. They are successful enough with what we have now. And pitchers will not be able to “ expand “ the zone by pitching around it. They will have to come over the plate or give up a lot more walks. I like a low scoring game. Every at bat, hit, and run is magnified. Makes the game more intense
Is baseball really that boring that fans need to argue with the umpire to stay entertained?
As the other poster said, once they finally implement it, in ten years no one will think it was better the old way. Tennis has proven that.
This is a billion dollar business. Championships shouldn’t be decided on incorrect decisions when they don’t have to be decided that way.
Where will the robot ump / machine be located? Close enough for a player to bash it with a bat if he don’t like the call?
I have a hard time believing this was ever about the fans, much less fans arguing. Not sure where that's coming from. Nothing I posted suggests this has anything to do with the fans.
And I gotta wonder how baseball became a billion dollar business if they have been doing it all wrong all this time. Now I wonder if any of their champions are legit.
Last edited:
This is a silly argument, it existed the way it does because there wasn't a better way to do it at the time. The only way to keep players honest was to have umpires. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it a better way when the opportunity presents itself.
The rule change is certainly for the fans. No one wants to lose because of bad calls.
Fantasy fans. They don't care as much about the game as they do their individual players.
That's a good point. Hadn't thought of that. This may be more about betting than anything else.
This won't change anyone's mind, but it's still an interesting study on the inaccuracy of umpires. It's interesting in a number of ways, but that there is pitch-count bias (making worse calls when there are two strikes) kind of caught me. Also how MLB does not put the best umpires in the World Series.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/
Those are some pretty high numbers to claim. But I got to wonder how many of those "incorrect" calls were actually correct calls in relation to that particular ump's zone. Calling them all incorrect is a little deceiving imo. As a whole, i gotta think umpires are better than that bit of info. Lol
I've spent most of my adult life coaching. Myself and my peers have always known and expected umpires to have different zones. It's the absolute first thing we look for and it's all good. Being the first to figure that out has always been a game within the game that could pay big dividends. The one thing we always demanded was an umpire to be consistant with his calls.
That is a part of the game I will miss if technology takes over.
Last edited:
So you demand it, but are opposed to something that would actually give you a consistent zone every game?
I dont demand it be the same as everyone else. I demand it end the same as it started. That's been the standard expectation since the game was invented
Last edited:
If you look at one umpire at a time, often might be a stretch but no one is perfect... just like the players.
Obviously you have one opinion and I have another. I could point to coach after coach, player after player that would be opposed to umpires losing their call capability. Why? Because it's good when it's to your advantage and bad when its not. They have been on both sides of it so it's not a problem. It's part of the game. It makes the game more interesting.
I'm sure you could point to some fans or stat pushers or maybe even some players that dont have to manage a game that would welcome it. We both will have supporters of our opinions.
That said, you are gonna get what you want to see. I may be a dinosaur but I know what I like. This is not it. That's not gonna change. The end. But I hope you enjoy it. Seriously.
The "game within the game" is much better than the game itself. Unfortunately today's "fans" are either not interested in that aspect or too ignorant to appreciate it.
This pretty much sums up the problem. You just want to pretend you’re a better fan than others because you’re more “old school” even though the “old school” way leads to a worse viewing experience.
I understand the "game within the game" aspect of baseball. And there are lots of these instances throughout as it relates to strategy. And you can see many of those strategies at play as a fan (pinch hitting or running, switching out pitching based on the side of the plate the hitter stands, etc.). However, the umpire's ever changing strike zone isn't something that any fan really follows, or could follow. 99.9% fans do not know the tendencies of all the umpires and can watch the game knowing that Umpire X calls it this way and Umpire Y calls it this way.
In fact, I don't think these umpires actually "change" the strike zone, they call the strikes based on where they can see them (and none can possibly see the whole strike zone with any accuracy - because they're humans). It's why catchers can get away with pitch framing - the umpires can't see all the pitches accurately. They are also clearly guessing many times. But that's part of the "fun" I guess - unless you're a player or most fans or a manager apparently (given the way they argue calls with the umps).
Baseball is my favorite sport. Nothing else comes close. I can be considered a purist and old school. Doesnt mean I'm anti- cutting edge. That said I know a bad move when I see one.
I post a good bit during baseball season. Some of yall might know I dont talk pitching much at all. Probably 99% of my posts are about offense. My feeling is your pitchers are what they are so what is there to talk about? They are either on their game that day or they arent. You either have good ones or you dont
That said, I'm gonna get in to pitching for a minute. Ok maybe more than a minute. lol. In fact I'm gonna have to do it in another post when I get more time.
What I see in this electronic zone is it attempts to address what some think is a problem while creating more problems. It's a half measure.
I've read a lot on why this may be a good thing. What I see in their research is nearly all the umpires studied have a larger zone than what some say it should be. Nearly all umpires. And the claims are the zones are getting larger. So let's call it what it is. This is about reducing the size of the zone. But nowhere have I seen anyone ask why? Why are umpires increasing the size of the zone? What do they know that others dont? I cant help but feel we are only getting half the story here. Imo, there is a reason why they've done this.
As old school as I am, I'd be far more willing to see a change like this if it didnt create more problems. There is a way imo. I dont like it, but it would be better than just reducing the size of the zone. It would still take elements out of they game I'd rather it didn't, but whatever.
For what it's worth, I'll post why I think the zones are the way they are now, what else could be done that wouldnt add to the problem and what those added problems are. I cant post one without the other for context.
This post is long enough. Thanks for indulging me. My theory would be too long to put in one post.
I post a good bit during baseball season. Some of yall might know I dont talk pitching much at all. Probably 99% of my posts are about offense. My feeling is your pitchers are what they are so what is there to talk about? They are either on their game that day or they arent. You either have good ones or you dont
That said, I'm gonna get in to pitching for a minute. Ok maybe more than a minute. lol. In fact I'm gonna have to do it in another post when I get more time.
What I see in this electronic zone is it attempts to address what some think is a problem while creating more problems. It's a half measure.
I've read a lot on why this may be a good thing. What I see in their research is nearly all the umpires studied have a larger zone than what some say it should be. Nearly all umpires. And the claims are the zones are getting larger. So let's call it what it is. This is about reducing the size of the zone. But nowhere have I seen anyone ask why? Why are umpires increasing the size of the zone? What do they know that others dont? I cant help but feel we are only getting half the story here. Imo, there is a reason why they've done this.
As old school as I am, I'd be far more willing to see a change like this if it didnt create more problems. There is a way imo. I dont like it, but it would be better than just reducing the size of the zone. It would still take elements out of they game I'd rather it didn't, but whatever.
For what it's worth, I'll post why I think the zones are the way they are now, what else could be done that wouldnt add to the problem and what those added problems are. I cant post one without the other for context.
This post is long enough. Thanks for indulging me. My theory would be too long to put in one post.
What would they do about the strike zone? Officially, it’s from the knees to the lettering. We know every ump calls it from the knees to the belt, or thereabouts
I guess the next thing will be get rid of the players and put a bunch of robots out there. Take the human element out altogether.
Similar threads
