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

[Sessh]

Even if we put sensors in player's jerseys, we would just start seeing players tampering with the jerseys or lowering their stances intentionally to get a strike at the top of the zone called a ball. Not even the Pitch F/X

boxes are always accurate are not even always the same on TV as they are in reality. Besides, umpires have been getting better overall, not worse.

[El Gordo]

Even if we put sensors in player's jerseys, we would just start seeing players tampering with the jerseys or lowering their stances intentionally to get a strike at the top of the zone called a ball. Not even the Pitch F/X

boxes are always accurate are not even always the same on TV as they are in reality. Besides, umpires have been getting better overall, not worse.

Pitch fx would be the same strike zone for all, and wouldn't change from inning to inning. And the strike zone is dependent on the stance currently.

[DrungoHazewood]

Pitch fx would be the same strike zone for all, and wouldn't change from inning to inning. And the strike zone is dependent on the stance currently.

Yea, don't overthink this. You don't need sensors. Pitch f/x type data is fine.

[Morgan423]

Yea, don't overthink this. You don't need sensors. Pitch f/x type data is fine.

Exactly. Pitch FX, or maybe that plate that sends beams up to detect when a baseball has broken the zone. The jersey sensors would be the last thing you'd try.

[El Gordo]

Exactly. Pitch FX, or maybe that plate that sends beams up to detect when a baseball has broken the zone. The jersey sensors would be the last thing you'd try.

If there was a set strike zone then batters could adjust their stance accordingly. Davis is pitched low and away according to pitch fx, but he stands straight up anyway.

[DrungoHazewood]

If there was a set strike zone then batters could adjust their stance accordingly. Davis is pitched low and away according to pitch fx, but he stands straight up anyway.

A set strike zone would favor certain types of players. I don't think that's a good thing. Diversity of player types is a good thing.

[Sessh]

Yea, don't overthink this. You don't need sensors. Pitch f/x type data is fine.

It's not. Pitch F/X data does not change when a taller batter comes up. It is static. The zone changes based on who is at the plate, their height and their batting stance. The zone is not exactly the same the whole game.

[Aristotelian]

It's not. Pitch F/X data does not change when a taller batter comes up. It is static. The zone changes based on who is at the plate, their height and their batting stance. The zone is not exactly the same the whole game.

I don't think it would be hard to have Pitch F/X adjust its strike zone. Pitch F/X does not really call balls and strikes, it just tracks location and velocity. As long as that piece is done accurately, you could have a computer program or a human being determine whether it is in the zone from batter to batter.

[Sessh]

I don't think it would be hard to have Pitch F/X adjust its strike zone. Pitch F/X does not really call balls and strikes, it just tracks location and velocity. As long as that piece is done accurately, you could have a computer program or a human being determine whether it is in the zone from batter to batter.

It would have to be adjusted by a human being and then we're right back where we started with the human element being a factor, though. I do like the pitch f/x however.

[El Gordo]

A set strike zone would favor certain types of players. I don't think that's a good thing. Diversity of player types is a good thing.

Well if you don't use sensers in the unis how do you gauge the verticle borders of the zone?

[DrungoHazewood]

It would have to be adjusted by a human being and then we're right back where we started with the human element being a factor, though. I do like the pitch f/x however.

So? Why is that a problem? I'd much rather have someone click a pointer on the guy's letters to define the top of a strike zone than have the ump calling 10% of balls strikes. Defining a batter's zone is far less subjective than guessing balls and strikes. There are different levels of human subjectivity and automation in processes, and with free will we can decide what makes sense.

[DrungoHazewood]

You mean the tops and bottoms? With image recognition software that figures out where knees and letters are, probably QA'd by humans as the game progresses.

[24fps]

Well if you don't use sensers in the unis how do you gauge the verticle borders of the zone?

Image recognition software.

[Sessh]

So? Why is that a problem? I'd much rather have someone click a pointer on the guy's letters to define the top of a strike zone than have the ump calling 10% of balls strikes. Defining a batter's zone is far less subjective than guessing balls and strikes. There are different levels of human subjectivity and automation in processes, and with free will we can decide what makes sense.

And there's no chance the person doing the clicking has bias for or against one of the teams playing just like umpires can be prone to? The human element remains with the same risks just manifested a different way.

Computers are only as accurate as the people telling them what to do. We will still have "umpires" deciding what the strike zone is only it will be done with a mouse pointer and a computer will be the middle man.

The page I posted shows definitively that the accuracy of umpires calling balls and strikes is increasing. The problem is no one is rewarded for good performances. The worst home plate umpires are still calling balls and

strikes even in high profile games. There's the problem. The best umpires at calling balls and strikes should always get the job over someone who is not as accurate. Umpires are rotated without any attempt to position

them based on their strengths or weaknesses.

[DrungoHazewood]

And there's no chance the person doing the clicking has bias for or against one of the teams playing just like umpires can be prone to? The human element remains with the same risks just manifested a different way.

Computers are only as accurate as the people telling them what to do. We will still have "umpires" deciding what the strike zone is only it will be done with a mouse pointer and a computer will be the middle man.

The page I posted shows definitively that the accuracy of umpires calling balls and strikes is increasing. The problem is no one is rewarded for good performances. The worst home plate umpires are still calling balls and

strikes even in high profile games. There's the problem. The best umpires at calling balls and strikes should always get the job over someone who is not as accurate. Umpires are rotated without any attempt to position

them based on their strengths or weaknesses.

Don't paint with such broad strokes. There's some automation in car manufacturing. Ford might use a line that's 90% automated and 10% manual intervention. Morgan probably is 90% manual and 10% automated.

We currently have a process with balls and strikes that's 100% manual. A person QA'ing the strike zone boundaries defined by image recognition software in real time is more like the 90% solution. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. A solution doesn't have to be some kind of philosophical ideal to have value.