OnlyBucs

The main complaint cited in the article is that players don't like to have the real strike zone enforced. The rule book says a strike is any part of the ball hitting any part of the strike zone. With the automated zone, a strike can look high, low, inside or outside because only the extreme tip of the ball contacted the strike zone. Umpires don't usually call that since it's too difficult to ascertain with the human eye on a very fast moving pitch. But we see enough bad calls from umpires on balls and strikes that I don't see a problem with an automated zone getting it right even if it doesn't look that way to the batter.

Yeah, I get it. Did you watch the video of the pitch linked in the article though? I doubt that's what they had in mind when they wrote the strike zone.

042924353223347477460 wrote: The main complaint cited in the article is that players don't like to have the real strike zone enforced. The rule book says a strike is any part of the ball hitting any part of the strike zone. With the automated zone, a strike can look high, low, inside or outside because only the extreme tip of the ball contacted the strike zone. Umpires don't usually call that since it's too difficult to ascertain with the human eye on a very fast moving pitch. But we see enough bad calls from umpires on balls and strikes that I don't see a problem with an automated zone getting it right even if it doesn't look that way to the batter. 


You have a point Bobster but I am disappointed that an old-timer like you would go for this type of thing. As a fellow old-timer, I would rather MLB go back to the way things were in the old days of my youth. Today there is more importance given to replay than to the actual game. Give me those good old days anytime.

Still I'm more on the side than not.  If more pitches are strikes, players will have to swing: plays will happen more often: games will be shorter. 



The delay would have to go for me to be on board, as well as tweaking of the zone.



And arguing balls and strikes is part of the charm of the game for me, so idk . . .

6C4D456C474F280 wrote: The main complaint cited in the article is that players don't like to have the real strike zone enforced. The rule book says a strike is any part of the ball hitting any part of the strike zone. With the automated zone, a strike can look high, low, inside or outside because only the extreme tip of the ball contacted the strike zone. Umpires don't usually call that since it's too difficult to ascertain with the human eye on a very fast moving pitch. But we see enough bad calls from umpires on balls and strikes that I don't see a problem with an automated zone getting it right even if it doesn't look that way to the batter. 


You have a point Bobster but I am disappointed that an old-timer like you would go for this type of thing.  As a fellow old-timer, I would rather MLB go back to the way things were in the old days of my youth. Today there is more importance given to replay than to the actual game.  Give me those good old days anytime. 
I'm for the automated zone. I'm so tired of seeing umpires make bad calls that change an at-bat and possibly even a game. I think it's worse now than ever but that's understandable when pitches are now routinely in the mid to high 90s and the umps are getting just a glimpse of the pitch. I see batters at 0-2 instead of 2-0. I see batters making outs after they should have walked. I see batters walking on what should be strikes.



SammyKhalifa's point is well taken as the video with the article appears to show bad pitches being called strikes. But the article explains that strikes can look bad because only a piece of the ball needs to contact any piece of the zone. So in the AFL trial, players are left shaking their heads at some called strikes. But that's no different than when umpires make bad calls manually, which happens all too frequently IMO. So either way, we're going to have calls we don't think were correct. But I'd rather have that happen because it actually was just the narrowest of strikes even tho it may not have appeared as such rather than a blown call that was just plain wrong. And batters would learn to adjust to the actual strike zone including those marginal strikes they wouldn't expect an umpire to call manually. They wouldn't have to adjust to each umpire's individual arbitrary strike zone and they would learn what pitches are going to be called strikes if they don't offer at them.

I would bet that electronic strike zone would benefit hitters.  Each hitter is basically going to have one strike zone to get used to unless they are changing their batting stance often.



It should eliminate pitch framing too.

092F2E392F3F4C0 wrote: I would bet that electronic strike zone would benefit hitters.  Each hitter is basically going to have one strike zone to get used to unless they are changing their batting stance often.



It should eliminate pitch framing too.
Yes, one of the complaints noted in the article is that it takes away the catcher's ability to frame. But that just means it takes away the catcher's ability to get a bad call by making a ball look like a strike. I don't think that's a very convincing argument for not using a system that gets it right.

4A6C6D7A6C7C0F0 wrote: I would bet that electronic strike zone would benefit hitters.  Each hitter is basically going to have one strike zone to get used to unless they are changing their batting stance often.



It should eliminate pitch framing too.




Now I don't know, but the article seemed to think that it benefitted pitchers more.

33010D0D192B08010C090601600 wrote: I would bet that electronic strike zone would benefit hitters.  Each hitter is basically going to have one strike zone to get used to unless they are changing their batting stance often.



It should eliminate pitch framing too.




Now I don't know, but the article seemed to think that it benefitted pitchers more.
That's probably true. When I watch games that have the Pitchtrak in the corner it seems there are more strikes called balls than balls called strikes. And as the article noted, strikes under the true definition of the term can sometimes look like bad pitches. So batters currently get the benefit of having those called balls and a pitcher who is making great pitches is falling behind and toiling. Seems like there are so many walks and deep counts these days. A stricter enforcement of the strike zone could reduce walks and even reduce the number of pitches thrown per inning, as a batter who gets ahead in the count because of bad calls by the ump can make the pitcher throw more. The automated zone could lead to fewer walks, more contact, fewer pitches per inning, shorter games and more innings for starters with 100 pitch count limits.