The easiest thing to do is not have some guy who is trying to look at the knees and armpits of each batter as they come up, but have ever MLB player measured ahead of time in some objective fashion. So it’s just recorded in a database somewhere that for player 1 the strike zone is from 22 inches to 61 inches, for player 2 it is from 20 inches to 55 inches, etc. Those values then get automatically set (and double checked) in the computer as each new batter comes to the plate. (Ideally there’s some nice clear way that information is conveyed to the pitcher, but as long as it comes from “if this guy were standing up, it would be his knees to his armpits”, it should be easy enough for pitchers to get the hang of it.)
I’m actually okay with that, though I don’t think the setting of the strike zone thing is a big deal. But hey whatver makes it easier.
Remember; the technology exists now and it’s being used now. It’s not just used for funsies on the broadcast; that stuff is studied by the various teams. If there has been a problem with calibrating pitchf/x or Statcast to the height of the batter, the teams have yelled about it behind closed doors. The technology is proven and it’s orders of magnitude more accurate than human umps - and more importantlly, it’s more FAIR. All they have to do it set it up so it’s actually used to call balls and strikes.
Have the uniform include little motion capture icons on the knees and shoulders?
“Analytics” have already superseded human judgment and intuition in baseball to a very large extent.
I’m all for computerized assists if they can markedly reduce error where it counts (i.e. in medicine).
Take umps out of the equation and you get a potentially more accurate but roboticized, mechanical sport which I’d be a lot less interested in watching and following.
Somehow I just can’t picture Earl Weaver getting into an entertaining rhubarb with a software program.
If I’m watching a sporting event, I want to see who’s best at that sport. I don’t want to see who’s best at getting some random old guy in a good mood.
I love baseball of yesterday and today. With all its imperfections.
If something happens and it is no longer the same, I will move on.
And maybe that is what MLB wants. To appeal to a younger fan base. Us older fans are dying.
Just off the top of my head, perhaps they could measure the players at the beginning of the year and store it in the computer.
So people have been saying since 1876, though a thousand changes, and still they keep buying tickets.
Um, no, you don’t.
Umpires aren’t the sport. PLAYERS are the sport, and no one is suggesting replacing the players with robots.
You can play baseball with no umpires at all; I’ve done it, or with players substituting as umpires. The umpires aren’t what anyone is paying to see.
So, after we implement robot umps at home plate, we can just put an asterisk by Nolan Ryan’s career strikeout record. Because, you know, only 90% of his strikes were actually strikes. Same with Reggie Jackson, he didn’t really strike out all those times. Etc. etc. …
There aren’t asterisks next to records.
Do we put an asterisk next to the records for career triples, doubles, and any number of other ones because those were set when black players could not play? No, because they’re records. Changing that part of baseball does not change the fact that Tris Speaker hit more doubles than anyone else. That is simply a fact, just as Nolan Ryan’'s 5714 strikeouts are a fact.
We didn’t put asterisks after players stopped leaving their gloves in the outfield, or after the spitball was outlawed, or after the mound was lowered.
This is the issue - and baseball - in a nutshell. It’s a very old game, watched by older people, who have a “you kids get off my lawn!” mentality.
Cy Young didn’t have a phone, a car, indoor plumbing or electricity when he first started playing either, and that seemed to work for Cy too. But baseball is entertainment for people living in 2018. And it can stay in the dark ages if it wants to, but it will continue to lose support and viewership and money. Baseball was once bigger than football and basketball, certainly not a significant as football any longer. If the industry if fine with that than so be it. But if it wants to stay vibrant and remain in the public eye and grow it will have to change.
If you don’t think that’s the case, bear in mind that one of the biggest sports 100 years ago was boxing. How’s that working out?
What sport doesn’t have its fans that long for the days of old? How many NFL fans think “it’s not football anymore” because of all the new rules in the name of safety? How many NBA fans are sick that “all they do is shoot 3’s and nobody plays defense?” I mean, yeah, there are baseball fans who don’t want to change a thing. But usually it’s the silliness that results from a desire to speed up the game. Most fans aren’t against getting calls right.
I like my baseball fairly old school. I don’t want a pitch clock, I don’t like limiting the number of mound visits, I sure as hell don’t want to start the 10th inning with a runner on 2nd base, but I don’t have a problem with getting balls and strikes right by means of a computer.
Electronic strikes/balls would also lead to much better hitting catchers. Right now a good catcher can make a ball look like a strike. But you frequently have to give up hitting for that.
This doesn’t make much sense.
Don’t get me wrong, I think pitch framing is important. But I’m not sure how many teams are putting their better hitting catcher on the bench in favor of the guy who can drag a pitch back over the plate more artfully. Usually, the better pitch framer is a better defensive catcher in general - better at blocking and perhaps at keeping runners in check.
I think we could and should automate the strike zone. I get sick of hearing umpires who talk about “their” strike zone. There are inside strike callers and those who won’t give the inside pitch to the pitcher. Same with outside calls. High and low are nowhere near what the rulebook says. Let the cameras and computers handle balls and strikes.
The effect of pitch framing has always been kind of a nebulous thing people usually only brought up when trying to defend that their guy was better than his numbers.
It’'s only since they came up with pitchf/x and Statcast that the skill of pitch framing has been measurable - and, as it turns out, it’s actually quite important. Estimates are as high as 30-40 runs a year more than average saved by the best pitch framers, which is astounding. That’s like hitting at least twenty extra home runs. Estimates have gone even higher than that, but I’m being conservative. It requires us to really re-examine player value. Brian McCann, who had led the league in runs saved through framing five times, might have been an even better player than we thought… like, not Brian McCann good, but more like Buster Posey, Joe Mauer good.
And yeah, taking away human umps from the ball strike thing takes that away. It sucks for catchers like Jose Molina, but I’m not sure an abiliity tied to deceiving the officials is one I’d be in a rush to keep.
Why not? We tolerate abominable hitting from our pitchers. If a catcher can turn one walk into a strikeout each game, that might make the difference between a win and a loss in 5 to 10 games. That could be the difference between a winning season and a post season.
There’s a reason why we tolerate weak hitting from our catchers. If you got rid of pitch framing then all you have is the stuff you are talking about, blocking and keeping runners in check. And that widens the pool of “good” catchers to include some that might be much better hitters. Catchers would probably start hitting more like middle infielders.
It won’t be long before you will have an iphone app with an electronic strike zone for little league and when that happens, we will not be able to stop the electronic strike zone from being used in the minors and then majors.