As with all proposed rule changes, my first instinct is to ask: what problem is this meant to solve? Why is the current flexible strike zone problematic? As far as I can tell, it’s not. Having the strike zone keyed to the physical dimensions (and, to some extent, to the chosen stance) of each player works fine, and results in a game that’s fun to watch. I vote no change.
Many (though not all) of us agree that computers should take over the calling of the balls and strikes. There seems to be some question about how well the computer would be able to tell where the appropriate points on the body were located. The thought seems to be that a fixed strike zone would reduce or eliminate that problem.
The problem is that individual umpires have “their strike zone”, and that is ridiculous. Does any other sport have such an absurd situation?
We have the technology to call a consistent, fixed strike zone on every pitch, and it’s so fast that it is almost instantaneous. So, what is the holdup other than a sentimental adherence to an old, outdated, and faulty system? NONE.
Oh, yeah; PUH-LEEEEEEZE, I don’t want to hear about how it will be a traumatic change for players to adjust to, because that’s utter nonsense. They adjust to a different strike zone every time there’s a different umpire behind the plate, do you really think, it would be a problem for them to adjust to a new, fixed strike zone that would be consistent every game?
Firstly, as penultima thule has noted, there does seem to be some sort of historical advantage to being a short batter in cricket.
Just as importantly, though, the nature of batting in cricket is so much different, in a variety of respects, from the nature of batting in baseball that directly comparing the two is often rather pointless. Sure, the sports are superficially very similar: one person delivers the ball, and the other person tries to hit it. But the tactics and strategy and technique required for these things are very different.
Take one crucial difference: the way the bat is held and swung.
Batting in baseball involves what would be called in cricket a horizontal or cross-bat stroke. That is, the stroke occurs with the bat roughly parallel to the ground. The ball is also nearly always away from the head and body of the batter, and this is reinforced by the nature of the rules, with the pitcher encouraged to pitch over or near the plate, and the batter required to keep his feet within the batter’s box. Hitters in baseball are basically, for the most part, swinging horizontally at a ball that is a few feet away from them.
In cricket, one of the first things that players are taught when learning the game is to keep a straight bat, and to get in line with the ball. This essentially means trying to keep your bat vertical, or perpendicular to the ground, and making sure that you move your feet and body so that you are almost directly in the ball’s path, and can thus more readily judge and play your stroke. All of this is particularly true when playing defensive strokes, where you are protecting your stumps.
There are horizontal or cross-bat strokes in cricket, and they can be incredibly productive, but they are also considered somewhat risky because of the tendency of the ball to go in the air if not played properly. Shots like cuts and pulls generally need to be reserved for occasions where the ball pitches short of a length and arrives at the batter relatively high up, which is somewhat unusual in cricket. A good-length ball generally encourages straight-bat strokeplay, and this is helped by the bat itself, which has a flat blade allowing defensive shots to be played.
All of this means that questions of height, such as the height of the strike zone, are far more crucial to the nature of play in baseball than in cricket.
My thoughts exactly.
If there’s a problem with the strike zone, it resides in issues of accuracy and consistency in the enforcement, not in the definition.
Professional football. Part of game preparation is knowing who the officiating crew for a game is and knowing how they react to certain plays and adjusting your game plan. One ref might let you get away with using your hands a lot while another might throw a flag at anything more than brief incidental contact. Even announcers might point out during a game that a particular ref is officiating and is known for calling penalties a certain way.
Also basketball (professional and otherwise), where the definition of nearly every infraction, from traveling to shooting fouls to flagrant fouls, depends on the interpretation of the referee.
So I guess there are two issues here: whether or not ball-strike calls should be automated; and whether the strike zone should be defined without regard to the physical characteristics and stance of the player.
Regarding the first, I am opposed to automating ball-strike calls. As a fan, I don’t much care about 100% accuracy, and I actively enjoy seeing the strike zone change from game to game. I realize that my opinion on this drives some people crazy, so I’m always hesitant to say it, but it is what it is. If they took away human calls, the game for me would be more accurate but also less fun. However, I fully understand the counter-argument and if you view inaccurate ball-strike calls as a problem, automating them is a solid solution to the problem.
However, I can’t say I see any rationale behind standardizing the strike zone. It wouldn’t make calls more accurate - just different for the sake of being different. Sure, the players could adjust, but why should they? What problem does this solve?
Now if it’s impossible to automate without standardizing the strike zone, fair enough, but I absolutely don’t believe that to be the case, since I literally watch a computer show me the location of every pitch every single time I watch a baseball game (and it’s not hard to map the strike zone based on the size and stance of the batter).
In conclusion, I cast my meaningless vote against automating the ball-strike call and against standardizing the strike zone, but I understand and sympathize with the arguments for the former and not for the latter.
But that is not the same issue as changing the rules that define the strike zone. Umpire-variant strike zones have nothing to do with the definition of the height of the strike zone; they’re purely a result of humans being fallible. That problem can be fixed without changing the definition of the strike zone.
As much as I differ with storyteller on whether or not strikes and balls should be automated, he’s one hundred percent right on the issue of the definition of the strike
zone. The current rules are fine, even if the manner of enforcement is not. There is no problem the current definition of the strike zone creates, and no problem to fix by changing the definition.
Basketball is different. Baseball and football have certain umpires/refs that have certain ideas about how rules should be interpreted and enforce them that way. With basketball, it’s so fast-paced and every foul is blown on a spur-of-the-moment, no ability to review or appeal, what they say in that moment is what goes and that’s it. It’s a different animal. The refs can pretty much do what they want all the time and will, more so than other sports.