At the risk of being the old man yelling at clouds, I agree. I hate challenges and replays. I have never been real big on watching football, but the challenges, reviews, and wasted time have made it unwatchable for me. On the other hand, I love watching baseball and don't want to see it ruined by interminable delays while we figure out whether a pitch was an eighth of an inch inside or outside the strike zone. So I agree with Gray Eagle -- get the robot in place and signal the ump. If the ump sees something that is obviously off, let him or her call it. But PLEASE no replay on balls and strikes!So baseball's powers have looked at the landscape of sports today and decided that what baseball needs is more video reviews and challenges?
That is so stupid. Just give the umps a silent buzzer that buzzes their wrist every time a pitch hits the strike zone. That's it. That's the only change you need (along with the umps being reviewed and scored based on the calls that they make that don't align with the buzzer.)
Making it challenge-based is just stupid. The umps could miss calls all day but if you don't challenge, then nothing happens. If you run out of challenges, then the umps' missed calls could screw your team multiple times in huge at-bats. It's uneccessary and just wrong. Anyone who watches the Premier League and/or the NBA knows that video reviews and challenges are awful.
I don’t think you’re yelling at clouds. Having to challenge bad strike zone calls is so obviously idiotic. The umps miss dozens of calls a game. Let the robots call balls and strikes.At the risk of being the old man yelling at clouds, I agree. I hate challenges and replays. I have never been real big on watching football, but the challenges, reviews, and wasted time have made it unwatchable for me. On the other hand, I love watching baseball and don't want to see it ruined by interminable delays while we figure out whether a pitch was an eighth of an inch inside or outside the strike zone. So I agree with Gray Eagle -- get the robot in place and signal the ump. If the ump sees something that is obviously off, let him or her call it. But PLEASE no replay on balls and strikes!
I'll go away now and chase the kids off my lawn.
Right. I don't think many robo-strike zone proponents ever wanted a challenge system. I want the human element out of it entirely. The system should be calling the balls and strikes. Not the ump.No challenges, just tell the umps what the “right” call is via some progressive bio feedback mechanism (like a cuff that squeezes your pinkie harder the more certain the system thinks it was a strike). At some point when the tech is there add a heads up display with real time info. Let the umps become kind of cyborg-like - enhanced humans with decisive, final power. Judge Dredd in blue.
Yeah I'm with you here. If it's as fast as a tennis challenge, then I'm ok with it.On the one hand, yeah, letting the robot call balls and strikes is better.
On the other hand, these challenges are super-quick. Watch that clip: even with a challenge it's still faster between pitches than most pitches were last year. It's not like football where they spend 60 seconds looking at the video and interrupting the flow of play.
Minor leaguers were measured for their precise heights in spring training, with the top of the zone set at 51 percent of a batter’s height and the bottom of the zone at 27 percent of his height. By all accounts, that two-dimensional shape with those specifications has created a strike zone that is meaningfully smaller than the one used by umpires in Triple A last year and likewise smaller than the zone in the big leagues.
Does/did the challenge have to come from a player or can it/must it come from the dugout? (I'd prefer players only; but I could see where managers might disagree.)I think just in the all-prospect games, each team gets three challenges of balls/strikes and you don’t lose one if you’re correct. It was a nice teaser of the future, I can’t wait for a fully electronic zone.
It wasn’t well covered by the announcers in the game I watched, but it looked like the NBA in that it had to come from the dugout but was sometimes put into motion by the pitcher believing he had a strike that was called wrong.Does/did the challenge have to come from a player or can it/must it come from the dugout? (I'd prefer players only; but I could see where managers might disagree.)
How well can a pitcher judge the beginning and end of the strike zone?I think only batters and pitchers should be able to challenge balls and strikes - nobody else has a good direct view of it and if it's close enough to need calibrated systems to see an error, it's close enough to let slide if the players aren't upset about a call.
Probably about as well as an ump, if you discount their emotional reactions to wanting close calls to go their way. Why, do you think pitchers shouldn't be able to challenge calls?How well can a pitcher judge the beginning and end of the strike zone?
Mangers probably dont.Probably about as well as an ump, if you discount their emotional reactions to wanting close calls to go their way. Why, do you think pitchers shouldn't be able to challenge calls?
Do you honestly think that a pitcher some 50-odd feet away from the front edge of home plate can tell when the ball crosses that line? Or when the pitch goes beyond the strike zone? Frankly, I think umpires might have a problem...but maybe not to the same extent as a pitcher.Probably about as well as an ump, if you discount their emotional reactions to wanting close calls to go their way. Why, do you think pitchers shouldn't be able to challenge calls?
Yeah, a catcher makes more sense. I’ve umpired lots of games where a pitcher incredulously asks me where a pitch missed, and many times the catcher will tell him before I have a chance to answer. They have the best view.Do you honestly think that a pitcher some 50-odd feet away from the front edge of home plate can tell when the ball crosses that line? Or when the pitch goes beyond the strike zone? Frankly, I think umpires might have a problem...but maybe not to the same extent as a pitcher.
Managers can't see any of the other things they challenge either so why shouldn't they be able to challenge balls and strikes? They aren't going to have unlimited challenges, and there will be a downside to being wrong, so if the manager makes a bad decision to challenge that's on them.I think only batters and pitchers should be able to challenge balls and strikes - nobody else has a good direct view of it and if it's close enough to need calibrated systems to see an error, it's close enough to let slide if the players aren't upset about a call. But managers can definitely keep challenging field plays - trap/catch, fair/foul, all that good stuff.
Also I haven't seen anything about the margin of error on the measurement system, and what they do about that for challenges. Anyone know?
Oh please just make it all automated already. Cannot wait.Two (successful) ABS challenges (so far) by the Woo Sox in their home opener View: https://twitter.com/peskyreport/status/1776336876145701352?s=46
View: https://twitter.com/peskyreport/status/1776341397966147693?s=46
No I want Casas to have a chance to make umps look foolish first.Oh please just make it all automated already. Cannot wait.
This is what has happened in tennis, there are no longer any player tantrums largely designed to impact the other player's momentum, it's a beautiful thing.It also seems to cut down on all the heated arguments and, presumably, ump show ejections. Don’t like the call? Tap your helmet, the call gets made precisely, everyone moves right along.
That pitch sucked, though. I hope any automatic system is calibrated to the more natural rounded corners that the umps call and the players agree are hittable pitches.View: https://twitter.com/jomboymedia/status/1776635578466927039?s=46
game winning strike zone review
Why did it suck? If it hit the mitt did it suck?That pitch sucked, though. I hope any automatic system is calibrated to the more natural rounded corners that the umps call and the players agree are hittable pitches.
The beauty of a uniform strike zone and automated pitch calling is that while it may change how games are called, teams and players will adapt. We see this across baseball as well as other sports.That pitch sucked, though. I hope any automatic system is calibrated to the more natural rounded corners that the umps call and the players agree are hittable pitches.
The reason for a strike zone is so batters don't let hittable pitches go by. If a pitch is not in a hittable location, then it shouldn't be a strike, regardless of what the rule book defines it as. Umpires, pitchers, and hitters have all come to an agreement one which should count and which shouldn't. Umps don't have personal zones nearly as much as they used to. It's all pretty uniform now, just with rounded corners.The beauty of a uniform strike zone and automated pitch calling is that while it may change how games are called, teams and players will adapt. We see this across baseball as well as other sports.
Frankly, random and arbitrary strike zones - as well as umpiring with a personal overlay - detract from the game. People who romanticize human umpires are either deriving their income from the job or don't coach the sport at any level.
ABS now and robots ASAP.
I am open to the idea that the strike zone can be tweaked but I'd like to see data from a few seasons from a ABS or even roboump system before doing so.The reason for a strike zone is so batters don't let hittable pitches go by. If a pitch is not in a hittable location, then it shouldn't be a strike, regardless of what the rule book defines it as. Umpires, pitchers, and hitters have all come to an agreement one which should count and which shouldn't. Umps don't have personal zones nearly as much as they used to. It's all pretty uniform now, just with rounded corners.
We keep saying "they're professionals, they'll adjust." But sometimes they can't. Strikeouts are higher than ever and nobody was able to routinely beat the shift when it was allowed. Putting balls in play is really hard. We shouldn't be doing anything that makes it harder.
I challenge you to spend 10 minutes browsing umpscorecards.Umps don't have personal zones nearly as much as they used to. It's all pretty uniform now, just with rounded corners.
Umpires are human beings and have flaws as well as biases - of course they have personal zones or else they would all be graded uniformly (per your note about the umpire scorecard). While the "strike zone" has been a nebulous concept in the past, it doesn't add anything to the game imo.I challenge you to spend 10 minutes browsing umpscorecards.
And Tom Glavine wouldn't be in the HOF because he wouldn't have gotten that pitch 6" off the plate every time.I am open to the idea that the strike zone can be tweaked but I'd like to see data from a few seasons from a ABS or even roboump system before doing so.
The edges of any zone are tricky but we don't teach players to give up on borderline pitches - they are taught to spoil them. And we teach pitchers to put the ball in those exact spots. I'd like to see how those concepts work when both sides are pretty confident about a zone not just across a game but over careers.
I mean imagine some of the great disciplined hitters or control pitchers in the history of the game but with a more consistent strike zone. I could see a Maddux being even more dominant but also Barry Bonds too.