For crying out loud, can MLB please implement an electronic strike zone already?

[joelala]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I suppose.  Baseball rarely goes and tackles a problem head-on.  The issue is pace of play and lack of action.  So they focus on time of game instead.  7 inning doubleheaders, the runner on second in extras, possibly expanding the strike zone. 

I guess they can't get consensus on how to cure the actual problems, so they try to make the patient comfortable by treating some symptoms.

It does appear they've deadened the ball a bit, HRs are off.  But they need to deaden it more, make bats bigger and heavier, and parks bigger.  And continue to pare down the number of pitchers you can have on the roster. And move the mound back to 63' or 64'.

Start with making the parks bigger and the ball less juiced. All else might fall into place if its not so (relatively) easy to hit a home run. 

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They could go back to making them pitch underhanded.

I would assume submariners and low sidearmers allow fewer homers than the general population of MLB pitchers, as well as more balls in play, but I don't know for sure.

[Tony-OH]

31 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I wouldn't be surprised if MLB told the umps that this is the year where nothing really matters, let's see what happens when we expand the zone.

K rate is almost identical to last year at about 8.8.  But the batting average so far is the lowest (.230) in 149 years of organized pro baseball history.  Seven points behind 1968, when Yaz won the batting title at .301.

Interesting. I haven't looked it up, but I wonder what's the HR rate compare to last year? I also would like to know the average game time (minus the 7-inning games) vs last year. BTW, I'm not asking you look it up, just wondering aloud.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, joelala said:

Start with making the parks bigger and the ball less juiced. All else might fall into place if its not so (relatively) easy to hit a home run. 

Making the bats bigger is pretty key.  If only the largest, strongest players can play the max bat speed all the time game then contact will almost have to become a bigger part of the game.  75 or 100 years ago there was a class of player who was typically 5' 10", 175 pounds, swung a 40 ounce bat, and mostly just worked the count for walks and flaring singles, trying to put the ball in play. Bat speed was more of a concept than a reality for them.  Imagine a bunch of Tony Gwynns, just not necessarily hitting .350.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Interesting. I haven't looked it up, but I wonder what's the HR rate compare to last year? I also would like to know the average game time (minus the 7-inning games) vs last year. BTW, I'm not asking you look it up, just wondering aloud.

 

Homers are down from 1.39 to 1.19 per game (still super high, third highest ever).  It would be a bit of work to separate out the short games on game time, but the overall average is only three minutes off last year.

[joelala]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Making the bats bigger is pretty key.  If only the largest, strongest players can play the max bat speed all the time game then contact will almost have to become a bigger part of the game.  75 or 100 years ago there was a class of player who was typically 5' 10", 175 pounds, swung a 40 ounce bat, and mostly just worked the count for walks and flaring singles, trying to put the ball in play. Bat speed was more of a concept than a reality for them.  Imagine a bunch of Tony Gwynns, just not necessarily hitting .350.

Interesting. I like it. 

[DrungoHazewood]

Another idea that I don't know that I've heard brought up would be shrinking gloves.  The whole "striking out is horrible, putting the ball in play at all costs" theme was grounded in the era when players wore stubby little gloves.  You got a huge advantage putting the ball in play because fielding percentages were .930 and 8" or 10" gloves effectively reduced fielding range.  I would be open to reducing the max size of fielder's gloves by half an inch a year for a while and studying the effects.

Part of the ball in play thing in 1910 was the crappy state of groundskeeping.  But I doubt anyone would buy into making the playing surface at OPACY look more like your local Little League field.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another idea that I don't know that I've heard brought up would be shrinking gloves.  The whole "striking out is horrible, putting the ball in play at all costs" theme was grounded in the era when players wore stubby little gloves.  You got a huge advantage putting the ball in play because fielding percentages were .930 and 8" or 10" gloves effectively reduced fielding range.  I would be open to reducing the max size of fielder's gloves by half an inch a year for a while and studying the effects.

Part of the ball in play thing in 1910 was the crappy state of groundskeeping.  But I doubt anyone would buy into making the playing surface at OPACY look more like your local Little League field.

Yes, if there is one thing I enjoy about baseball it is watching fielders screw up plays on defense.  More of that please.

[now]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I haven't watch a lot of the games, but the ones I've seen it was so obvious I thought maybe they'd stopped using the tracking systems.  Many pitches 6" out of the zone being called strikes.

Oh well, just add yet another to the long list of asterisks to this barely even virtual season.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes, if there is one thing I enjoy about baseball it is watching fielders screw up plays on defense.  More of that please.

It's hard to screw up on defense when you stand in right field daydreaming while balls fly over the fence, or are never made contact with at all.

Strikeout rate has almost doubled since '81.  If the rate of increase stays constant then by 2060 there will be only about 10 outs in play per team per game.  At that point does fielding even matter?  Just put nine Giambis in the field and you're good to go.

[Can_of_corn]

 

https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2020/2020-08/07/247ad883-7d8dfeae-8b76eda6-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

[Can_of_corn]

https://streamable.com/qsn1oz

Kepler did not swing at any pitches.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

https://streamable.com/qsn1oz

Kepler did not swing at any pitches.

Hey, if they meant for the strike zone to be a literal thing they would have written down its dimensions and definitions somewhere.

[Tony-OH]

On 8/8/2020 at 1:10 PM, Can_of_corn said:

 

https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2020/2020-08/07/247ad883-7d8dfeae-8b76eda6-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

Embarrasingly bad and then the quick toss after that major screw up? They need a system that allows a manager to challenge a terrible call through the electronic strikezone. These umpires just can't keep up anymore.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Embarrasingly bad and then the quick toss after that major screw up? They need a system that allows a manager to challenge a terrible call through the electronic strikezone. These umpires just can't keep up anymore.

That call was all about the catcher's reaction instead of where the ball actually was.