Should balls and strikes be called electronically?

[legend42]

Adjacent issue: If we're going to get electronic and rigid with the strike zone (and with Questec, we already have) I think the plate should be officially widened by a couple inches. It's the only measurement on a baseball field that I don't think is ideal. Umps (and players) seemed to inherently recognize this years ago, as pitches just off the corner were usually called strikes (before K-Zone, they used to have the overhead shot that would confirm this time and again).

I'm ambivalent about the way the zone was lowered over the decades, but I do think the just off the the corner strikes (which has nothing to do with that Manny 3-0 atrocity) were good for the game. Make the plate 19.5 inches wide, and then you can enforce it to the letter.

[tdarko]

Why is everyone so heated in this thread?

[Jameso]

[ QUOTE ]
Adjacent issue: If we're going to get electronic and rigid with the strike zone (and with Questec, we already have) I think the plate should be officially widened by a couple inches. It's the only measurement on a baseball field that I don't think is ideal. Umps (and players) seemed to inherently recognize this years ago, as pitches just off the corner were usually called strikes (before K-Zone, they used to have the overhead shot that would confirm this time and again).

I'm ambivalent about the way the zone was lowered over the decades, but I do think the just off the the corner strikes (which has nothing to do with that Manny 3-0 atrocity) were good for the game. Make the plate 19.5 inches wide, and then you can enforce it to the letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. It seems to me that the strike zone gets wider and wider as the game progresses. It should be relatively easy to set up a program that measures each player at the plate. Take a season or two to figure it out. The stike zone will be a 3-d box, chest to knees, nipples to knees, waist to knees...whatever. At least it'll be defined. I was really stunned when I saw the LLWS. If any league needs a widened strike zone and automated calls, it's the LLWS. Umps TOTALLY sucked there. MLB umps look (almost) perfect compared to those chumps.

[gusmahler]

How about a hybrid approach? Use a camera above the plate to judge the "ball over the plate" component, but use the umps to call the height? This would be technologically much simpler to implement because the plate is fixed and all you would need is a camera over the home plate.

[Jack of Arcades]

If you do that, just have 3 cameras: one above home plate, and two at ground level from either side. Clearly define the strike zone, and have one person watch each camera. One guy records inside/outside, the other high/low. They hit "ball" or "strike." If both hit strike it's a strike.

[Benholio]

Agreed, except why not replace 'guy' with some software.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do that, just have 3 cameras: one above home plate, and two at ground level from either side. Clearly define the strike zone, and have one person watch each camera. One guy records inside/outside, the other high/low. They hit "ball" or "strike." If both hit strike it's a strike.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the strike zone height varies for each batter. It's harder to have a consistent height component for each batter because a camera height ideal for Rickey Henderson's shoulders is not ideal for Randy Johnson's shoulders.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is everyone so heated in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because it's news to some people that balls/strikes calls can be really wacky sometimes?
Baseball has been like this forever.

[ClarkNasty]

The question isn't really "*how* should we do it".

It's "assuming an accurate and fast method can be developed, should we implement it." I think the obvious answer is why on earth wouldn't we.

[jessica1994]

because apparently some people find the players adjusting to strike zones an integral part of the game.

they also find this somehow exciting i have no idea how.