Do You Support A Technology-Assisted Strike Zone?

[DrungoHazewood]

Like I said no one in the game has a problem with a consistent strike zone. Just kibbitzers. Do you really believe the interpretation of the law is the same with every judge?

Do you really believe that a ball 12" off the plate is a strike if Hunter Wendelstadt is really tired and just wants to go home? Consistency is of no value if its objectively wrong. We have very accurate, near real time data that umpires are often objectively wrong, and you're suggesting we ignore that data and allow the umps to redefine the strike zone as they see fit.

That's not just a judge allowing leeway in sentencing, that's the judge coming in each day and deciding if shoplifting is a crime or not.

[osfan83]

I don't understand peoples aversion to getting the call correct. Why do we have 4 umps? Why not two with the ball and strike ump stationed behind the pitcher? At some point it was decided that balls and strikes could more accuratly be called from behind the plate. The game being played today is very different from the one played in the mid 19th century. It has evolved, and it will and should continue to evolve.

Give me two teams on the field with the calls being fair for both sides. Not Jeter getting additional walks because, well, he's Derrick Jeter so he gets the benifit of a close call.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't understand peoples aversion to getting the call correct. Why do we have 4 umps? Why not two with the ball and strike ump stationed behind the pitcher? At some point it was decided that balls and strikes could more accuratly be called from behind the plate. The game being played today is very different from the one played in the mid 19th century. It has evolved, and it will and should continue to evolve.

Give me two teams on the field with the calls being fair for both sides. Not Jeter getting additional walks because, well, he's Derrick Jeter so he gets the benifit of a close call.

I'm a real traditionalist. I favor going back to one ump, dumping the foul strike rule, going back to a pitcher's box 45' from the plate, and growing the grass tall enough for balls to get lost. That's how the game was meant to be played. Not this new fangled crap we have today, that perverted our national pastime.

[O's are Legends]

Goodness, Kerwin Danley's strike three on Davis would have been on the outside corner, if you put 2 plates next to each other. It's time to hold these umps accountable; Danley has been awful for years.

[Greg]

stop blaming the ump's for the O's awful play.

[Lucky Jim]

stop blaming the ump's for the O's awful play.

I imagine that will happen around the time you figure out how to punctuate.

[O's are Legends]

stop blaming the ump's for the O's awful play.

Where am I blaming the umpires for the O’s awful play?

The O’s are playing awful baseball; I can see that, 2 for 40 something with RISP, bad defense. Matusz, Hunter etc. I know that. The awful strike zone is not going to help the hitters in terms of trying to put a productive AB together.

[The B&G]

Goodness' date=' Kerwin Danley's strike three on Davis would have been on the outside corner, if you put 2 plates next to each other. It's time to hold these umps accountable; Danley has been awful for years.[/quote']

Yes, someone please post a video of this please. One of the worst calls I've ever seen.

[OrioleParkatWrigley]

I voted yes, but here's an alternative to appease the "traditionalists" (Luddites, really):

There was an interesting story in the book Scorecasting about the introduction of the first pitch monitoring system (before F/X). This system was installed only in a handful of ballparks, and the umpires knew which ones, which made it a great natural experiment in the affect of oversight. Data was logged, and ultimately the system was abandoned and not used to judge umpires, but the interesting part was that the umps showed almost NO bias in ONLY the stadiums where the system was installed. In these stadiums umps were able to stop themselves from offering smaller zones when a star hitter was at-bat for the home team, offering wider zones to certain pitchers, etc. All of which they continued to do at the rest of the stadiums.

Long story short: tell all the umps that pitch f/x will be used to monitor their performance. If history is any indication, then this alone will lead to more accurate zones. And the unions can't complain because no real demotion process would be in place based on the data. Maybe MLB officially publishing the data would make it more effective too, as even if the umps realize they won't actually lose their jobs based on the numbers, no one wants to be officially known as a terrible ump. I hope.

[zero1]

It's not the reason the O's look horrible but it sure doesn't help. That strike 3 on Chris Davis was just pathetic. Jim Palmer made a great point that there is simply no way that the umpire can tell what a ball or a strike is on the outside when he sets up inside.

Baseball umpires really need help. The NFL is better for having replay, the NBA is better for at least having replay in the final minutes of a half and a game, why is the MLB being so stubborn? When there is technology that can improve the game you need to take advantage of it.

[ShoelesJoe]

I voted yes because in my experience any change that the umps oppose is by definition a good idea.

[paulcoates]

I support full blown replay. Each coach gets 2 challenges per game and if he wins, he gets another.

The umps union absolutely doesnt want it because it wilhow how iconsistent they are from each other.

I do not like the fact that the rule book clearly states what a strike is and each up still has their own strike zone.

Call it according to the book. I wonder how many World Series the Yankees would have if it were for instant replay. I'd be willing to guess a few less.

[Palmoripken]

I voted yes, but here's an alternative to appease the "traditionalists" (Luddites, really):

There was an interesting story in the book Scorecasting about the introduction of the first pitch monitoring system (before F/X). This system was installed only in a handful of ballparks, and the umpires knew which ones, which made it a great natural experiment in the affect of oversight. Data was logged, and ultimately the system was abandoned and not used to judge umpires, but the interesting part was that the umps showed almost NO bias in ONLY the stadiums where the system was installed. In these stadiums umps were able to stop themselves from offering smaller zones when a star hitter was at-bat for the home team, offering wider zones to certain pitchers, etc. All of which they continued to do at the rest of the stadiums.

Long story short: tell all the umps that pitch f/x will be used to monitor their performance. If history is any indication, then this alone will lead to more accurate zones. And the unions can't complain because no real demotion process would be in place based on the data. Maybe MLB officially publishing the data would make it more effective too, as even if the umps realize they won't actually lose their jobs based on the numbers, no one wants to be officially known as a terrible ump. I hope.

I like that idea. I don't like the idea of switching to technology full time because I in a way like the idea of umps having their own unique strike zones to a degree.

[Spy Fox]

I support full blown replay. Each coach gets 2 challenges per game and if he wins, he gets another.

Although I support replay in general, this is something I don't think I'll ever get behind.

I like that the NFL has replay but I've always hated the challenge system. If the goal is to get it right, it should be gotten right. Deciding whether to challenge a call shouldn't be a part of strategy in my view. A 5th video-accessing umpire seems like a quicker, simpler, and more accurate solution.

[O's are Legends]

According to Pitch fx

Small box: an actual strike zone

Middle box: 2010-2012 MLB strike zone

Big box: Kerwin Danley's strike zone