Or rather, those few who would argue are already arguing everything. Most of the fans who argue now will shut up and accept the impartial machines, and almost none will start arguing who weren’t already. The net amount of controversy will go down significantly.
In the small minority of cases where there’s an appeal, yes. Most swinging strikes are called by the home umpire, and as I understand it this system can’t detect a swing at all. Neither will it detect foul balls, foul tips or hit-by-pitch. There’s still a lot for the plate ump to do.
To be clear, I’m not criticizing the system – I’ve been advocating for it for years – just responding to a suggestion that there was no longer any reason to have the plate ump making calls.
Technology can and should do that as well. Swinging strikes and foul tips are not difficult to measure and even check swings should be straightforward.
You could tape/implant electrodes to various muscles/muscle groups and then use electrical pulses to cause specific movements. Might look a bit herky-jerky but that might be a plus. Kind of an umpire/marionette.
What if the pitched ball bounces on the way to the plate, but is in the strike zone?
That’s an obvious ball, though now that I think of it, it shouldn’t be. If someone can throw bouncing strikes consistently from the mound then that’s an awesome skill that should be encouraged. 
Will the computer adjust the strike zone based on the size of the player; e.g. Aaron Judge vs. Jose Altuve? How about for barring stances; e.g. Rickey Henderson vs. Don Baylor?
Sounds like we need a cricket bowler. They do that. In fact as I recall the pitch must bounce.
Sure, there are plenty of other things an umpire does that this particular technology doesn’t do, but none of them are any harder than defining the strike zone. Probably they’re just starting with the strike zone because that’s the cause of the most controversies, but it won’t be too long before they have a machine doing all of those routine tasks.
You’ll still need at least some human officials, for the odd cases like “Conduct Unbecoming of the Game” or whatever it is baseball calls it, but it won’t be a human making a discrete call for every single play of the entire game, like we have now.
Sure, there are plenty of other things an umpire does that this particular technology doesn’t do, but none of them are any harder than defining the strike zone. Probably they’re just starting with the strike zone because that’s the cause of the most controversies, but it won’t be too long before they have a machine doing all of those routine tasks.
You’ll still need at least some human officials, for the odd cases like “Conduct Unbecoming of the Game” or whatever it is baseball calls it, but it won’t be a human making a discrete call for every single play of the entire game, like we have now.
I was thinking about that, but I doubt a cricket bowler would be able to do it. He’d have to throw from a static position, is throwing a different kind of ball, has grass between him and the batter, and is tossing from a mound.
I’m not saying either pitching or bowling is easier but they are different enough that a cricket bowler isn’t going to be able to get into a MLB game and just bounce balls successfully into the strike zone the way they normally bowl in cricket.
As it happens, no, they don’t have to bounce the ball. Such a delivery would be called a “full toss” and is legal as long as it is below a certain height but seeing as a non-bouncing ball is much easier to hit they tend to be avoided as a tactic.
Regarding ball tracking technology, it has been in use in cricket for many year and is used primarily for LBW decisions. That is probably relevant for baseball as it does track the flight of the ball to see if it is within the relevant “area” and predicts the path in order to see if the ball would have hit the stumps had the batsman not had his legs in the way.
It has its detractors but generally it is able to give a quick answer and the reliability is high enough not to be a source of rancour. It isn’t used every ball of course, what happens is much like in tennis, both teams are given a number of “challenges” that mean they can refer a decision to the off-field technology but they have to be carefull as an unsuccessful challenge risks being lost. That tends to discourage speculative challenging.
Not a perfect system but does seem (Again, like tennis) to have settled into an accepted part of the game and doesn’t raise that many complaints.
I’ve always been fascinated by how there are almost never any complaints with the ball-tracking tech used in cricket. This is especially true when considering that the computer must sometimes predict the future path even before the first bounce. Thus, spin, speed, bounce and swing must all be predicted, which would seem to be the source of many disputes. But the screen shows the ball tracking’s predicted path, which seems to resonate as “fact” in most people’s brains.
This is why I think it would be great for baseball. That said, I’d still like to know how the strike zone will be adjusted for player size, body type, and stance. Unlike cricket stumps, the strike zone is not meant to be a fixed size.
Exactly the same way it is now.
Impossible. Right now, the home plate umpire makes a determination based on his subjective assumption of the height of the knee for the low pitch and an even less-defined point on the torso for the high pitch.
So not impossible. The robot should be able to find the knee and use an algorithm to find the torso point.
And the person setting the strike zone for the tracker does the same. What are you talking about?!
I mean, they’ve already been doing this for years, so clearly they’ve already accomplished the “impossible”. That’s ridiculous.
The system has been in use in the Atlantic League during 2019. According to this, the automated system adjusts the strike zone for each player, although they don’t give details on how it is done.
A person setting the strike zone, based on a computer algorithm on where to set the high and low boundaries, is not the same as a single human basing it on his subjective interpretation of the strike zone. Even the “easier” low boundary varies by umpire. So that’s what I’m talking about.
A Fox or ESPN box that we currently see is not scrutinized to the centimeter, but when used to determine game outcomes, it will be. There is no exact line on the torso or even at the knees. Will uniforms be altered by batters to trick the computer into a smaller zone? Will there be other tricks to game the computer by pitchers? Perhaps a low frisbee-like slider that nips a corner of the zone, but would be called a strike by the computer? These are my concerns.
That’s why they test it for a couple of years in spring training or the lower leagues before they bring it to the big leagues.
I expect the strike zone to be more accurate now.
Again, umpires suck at this (any human would) and I am confident this will be better, more consistent, and less subjective than before.