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

[Tx Oriole]

I think the problem is not evaluation by players and managers. That's like tabulating votes on a hotline to answer the question "Is life fair?"

This screams out for electronic evaluation, even if an electronic strike zone is not employed. That will give feedback to the pitches missed that, when paired with video, will help umpires reduce the number of calls they miss.

An electronic strike zone is inevitable in time, but I expect there will always be a home plate umpire as backup to make a call if the system fails. It's an attractive option to speed up play, because there will no longer be any target for argument. And I don't think any sport in which replay is now used is suffering any significant backlash from the process, so we have electronically assisted officiating in just about every sport.

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the

human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

[Redskins Rick]

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the

human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

Might as well as to move the entire game to electronics.

[OFFNY]

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

oooooo

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/izQB2-Kmiic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DrungoHazewood]

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the

human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

You'll lose a lot more fans by telling them that it's okay that the folks on the field are the only ones who can't know the right call. It's become untenable to have millions of fans see a clearly wrong call in real time and no one can do nothing about it.

Not using electronic aids would be like handing out speeding tickets based solely on the cops' judgment, when there's a radar gun sitting on the seat next to him.

Yes, there needs to be consideration about flow of the game, but this ain't soccer. Baseball naturally has a discrete, segmented rhythm with dozens of pauses and breaks.

[DrungoHazewood]

Might as well as to move the entire game to electronics.

Yea, the only two possible choices are a room of clones simulating all the games in a Google datacenter, or playing the game exactly like it was in 19-and-aught-five.

[Spy Fox]

I think the replay reviews have been good for the game, but they've implemented them in a way that is awkward, sometimes arbitrary, and more obtrusive than it needs to be. So I support an electronic strike zone in theory (and I think we will eventually get one) but I don't have a ton of faith just yet in the league implementing it in a smooth, logical way.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think the replay reviews have been good for the game, but they've implemented them in a way that is awkward, sometimes arbitrary, and more obtrusive than it needs to be. So I support an electronic strike zone in theory (and I think we will eventually get one) but I don't have a ton of faith just yet in the league implementing it in a smooth, logical way.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks some curmudgeons pushed to implement replay in an NFL-challenge way so that it would be clunky and they eventually do away with it. Another part of me says they just lacked imagination and took the What Would The NFL Do path of least resistance.

The obvious way to help with balls and strikes is a real-time indicator that only the home plate ump is privy to, indicating if it was a strike. We'll see if they do something more ill-conceived.

[Spirit Of Earl]

Q: Umpires are at an all-time worst this year because:

A.) They're biased against the Orioles.

B.) They're paid to fix the games so that predetermined teams go to the playoffs.

C.) They're bribed by the other team.

D.) They're threatened by the gangsters who run the gambling rackets.

E.) They play Fantasy Baseball and they fix the games so they can make more $$$ for themselves.

F.) They're pissed off about the institution of replay challenges, which call their judgement and integrity into question, so they take it out on the players.

G.) All of the above.

[CanadianOriole]

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the

human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

The players would still be human. The two teams of humans would just get to play with the right calls being made.

[DrungoHazewood]

The players would still be human. The two teams of humans would just get to play with the right calls being made.

I once read someone argue that the game needs injustice meted out from on high to really be poetic and tragic and meaningful. I think that's a load of crap.

[OFFNY]

That's when I stop watching the game. Electronic this electronic that. Taking the human out of the game. It would not be fun for me anymore. IMO

The players would still be human. The two teams of humans would just get to play with the right calls being made.

For the time being, yes ...... the players are still human.

Give it time, though.

By 2023, somebody will start a thread entitled, For Crying out Loud, Can the Orioles Please Implement Electronic Players Already?

[ChangeRoadUnis]

How practical/possible is an electric strike zone? Given the fact that every hitter has a different strike zone. I'm sure they could do it I just question how perfect it could be. You still have calls at the plate that need to be made as well.

Take an electronic picture of every player before the season standing straight up and your strike zone for the whole year is from the knees to letters (or whatever). It would all be digital anyway. Seems doable to me.

[Pheasants]

Take an electronic picture of every player before the season standing straight up and your strike zone for the whole year is from the knees to letters (or whatever). It would all be digital anyway. Seems doable to me.

Standing straight up? Not in his standard crouch? Zach Britton might as well retire along with 90% of the sinker-ball pitchers in the leagues.

[spiritof66]

My guess is that the quality of balls-and-strikes umpiring has been pretty consistent over my 50-plus years of watching baseball, with two qualifications.

First, I think batters are taking more pitches than they used to, leading to more ball/strike calls and making those calls a more prominent part of the game.

Second, the use, quality and importance of pitch framing by catchers seems to have increased dramatically, and IMO has gotten out of control. Pitch framing is designed to fool, and in many instances replays seem to show pretty clearly that it succeeds in fooling, the home plate umpire by inducing him to see as strikes pitches that have crossed the plate area as balls. Deceiving an opposing batter, fielder or pitcher (subject to certain limitations) is part of baseball. I think there is general agreement that deceiving an umpire shouldn't be part of the game, and baseball has made some costly changes, like increasing the number of base umpires to video replays, designed to reduce that possibility. Yet catchers' ability to deceive umpires not only survives, but has become more prevalent and a more widely valued skill. As part of their training and practice in calling pitches correctly, umpires should strive to and be given credit for ignoring the way a catcher receives a ball and basing their ball/strike judgments solely on the flight of the ball. I have seen nothing to indicate that's the case.

I am especially puzzled by umpires' tolerance for, and consistent rewarding of, catchers' pulling the ball toward or into the strike zone after it's caught, even where the motion is obvious and transparently a separate act from catching the ball that is designed to induce a strike call. That's a ploy that's been around a very long time, certainly longer than my half-century of watching baseball, but its use seems to have increased in recent years, to the point where any pitch that's anywhere near the strike zone is moved if the catcher can do so. (My perception of that increase may be, at least in part, an illusion from seeing each reception by the catcher more times on TV than used to be the case.) If I were an umpire, I would not want to be fooled by this tactic, and would try to minimize its use. To do that, I would tell catchers at the outset of each game, "It will be in your interest to try to keep your glove in the place where it is when you catch the ball. If you catch the ball and then move it toward the strike zone, and I think that motion is intentional, I'll think you believe the pitch was a ball and are trying to fool me into seeing it as a strike, and I'll be more apt to call it a ball." If MLB and the umpires' union supported that position, and if umpires acted accordingly, I believe there would be improvement in the accuracy of ball/strike calls.

As to electronic ball-and-strike calls, I don't know how it would work, and probably lack the technical knowledge to understand that even if I did know, but I have read assessments by people who claim that knowledge and aptitude that an electronic system would be feasible and instantaneous. Comments to that effect have appeared in the "Hey Bill" section of Bill James' website over the past few years.

[Redskins Rick]