Should balls and strikes be called electronically?

[James282]

the fact that every call isn't perfecet in a deliberate game like baseball is a disgrace. of course they should automate everything and everything should be available for review

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, of all the major game-changing controversies, how many involve balls and strikes? It's usually a safe/out mistake or a HR that isn't a HR, or fan interference, or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad way to look at things. Those things happen extremely rarely, well, everything except the safe/out mistake, and you usually only see these once or twice a game at best. When they do happen, they make a huge impact on the game, but it's rare. Now, questionable strike calls happen every single inning, usually multiple times, and the difference in expectation between something like a 2-1 count or a 1-2 count is significant. A lot of little mistakes made often can have a larger effect than a huge mistake done rarely, even if it isn't as obvious.

[Karak567]

This would completely ruin the game. The human element is a huge part of baseball. Different umps with different strike zones keeps the game interesting. Adjusting to an ump's strike zone is an ability good hitters and pitchers must have.

If you take the human element out of baseball, you take so much out of the game. Think about how less interesting it would be to watch a little screen light up strikes or balls behind the batter. That would be so dumb.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
No it isn't. It's where the ball crosses the front edge of the plate. 2D.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? The official rule just says "area over the plate". I can't find anything that suggests it's just the front plane.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
This would completely ruin the game. The human element is a huge part of baseball. Different umps with different strike zones keeps the game interesting. Adjusting to an ump's strike zone is an ability good hitters and pitchers must have.

If you take the human element out of baseball, you take so much out of the game. Think about how less interesting it would be to watch a little screen light up strikes or balls behind the batter. That would be so dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

it wouldn't be dumb, it would be fair. if you want some vanna white back there just announcing the computer's decision, that is fine by me. No umpire can be entirely consistent. If you want part of the game to be adjusting to random strike zones each game, then you can have several slightly different strike zones in the computer that it will randomly choose from at the beginning of each game, and then hold consistently throughout the game. That way we won't have to worry about wildly inconsistent strike zones, and the consumers(fans) feeling like they are being ripped off.

[ArcticKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the strike zone is a 3d box.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. It's where the ball crosses the front edge of the plate. 2D.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, of all the major game-changing controversies, how many involve balls and strikes? It's usually a safe/out mistake or a HR that isn't a HR, or fan interference, or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, which is why MLB needs instant replay for these things way more than for balls/strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Following is the official definition of the strike zone. I assumed that "over" home plate meant "over," and that would give the strike zone depth as well as width and height.

Do you have a source that indicates that the strike zone has no depth? Thx

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

[NT!]

i think what they are doing now is a good compromise. have a video review, and when umps are just awful like they are tonight, kick em in the nuts and tell em to shape up or ship out. it's not about being perfect, but with video review they can at least pull in some of the outliers.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a source that indicates that the strike zone has no depth?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's just the way I've always known the rule to be. I've never heard anything about a "3d" strike zone until now. I guess I could be wrong.

Kyleb?

[PokerFink]

Karak,

The problem isn't that strike zones vary from umpire to umpire (not a problem), or even that strike zones can vary from inning to inning in the same game (only a small problem). The problem is that, sometimes, umpires make calls that are just grossly, inexcusably wrong (a big problem).

[iggymcfly]

I think it's fine if they get the proper technology. The computerized strike zones that we see now on television are BS though. The ones on TBS and FOX are usually offset a little bit so they're looking at the plate from an angle which leads to bad calls in its own right.

The ESPN cameras seemed to be better, but they still suffer from making the strike zone 2-dimensional. It looks at where the ball is when the catcher catches it, period. This works fine on fastballs, but when you have a pitch with a lot of movement, it will often pass through the strike zone, but be back out by the time it reaches the catcher. On the 2D grid this will look like a ball when it's clearly a strike.

I don't mind computerized technology being adopted for balls and strikes eventually, but I'm sick to death of the announcers acting like "K-Zone" or whatever other crappy technology they use for TV is any more accurate than simply watching a replay.