MLB Strike Zone Box Graphic

[Double Mocha Man]

52 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

What else besides k-zone do you believe is ruining the game?

My Dad was a purist... but not very sports savvy.  I grew up in St. Louis and when he learned the players on the Cardinals weren't from St. Louis that was it for him.  So for my Dad, the game was ruined years ago.

[krupa]

I'm not voting because the choices don't reflect my actual opinion. I'm just seeing it for the first time on the MLB.TV free game and I don't really like it. It's distracting having the box drawn over the catcher and (to a lesser extent) the umpire. It's not terrible, though; there are a lot of other things MLB is doing to "improve" the game that I feel more strongly about. 

[KMP]

Beer prices at the stadium are ruining the game....I mean the "pastime"  I felt the need to add the definition of pastime...an activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby.

[Shorty]

Is the strike zone box graphic generally thought of as being super accurate? Can it be deceptive and make a ball outside the actual zone look like it's a strike?

As a spectator on TV, I don't like it. I find it distracting. But without it sometimes it's hard to see where the ball is. But I was always happy relying on the umpires' decisions.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Shorty

[Double Mocha Man]

4 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Can it be deceptive and make a ball outside the actual zone look like it's a strike?

Usually, only the half-blind umpires can do that.

[boogielicious]

10 hours ago, Shorty said:

Is the strike zone box graphic generally thought of as being super accurate? Can it be deceptive and make a ball outside the actual zone look like it's a strike?

As a spectator on TV, I don't like it. I find it distracting. But without it sometimes it's hard to see where the ball is. But I was always happy relying on the umpires' decisions.

I’m not sure the umpire can even see the entire strike zone. Catchers move around a lot. They must be guessing at times.

 

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I’m not sure the umpire can even see the entire strike zone. Catchers move around a lot. They must be guessing at times.

its probably visualizing the path of the ball.

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

its probably visualizing the path of the ball.

Agree, but do they ever really see a low fastball? I’ve upped Little League and those kids weren’t as big, but I was still making assumptions.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Agree, but do they ever really see a low fastball? I’ve upped Little League and those kids weren’t as big, but I was still making assumptions.

I think that is why umpires line up on the inside pitch. They are getting that more often, and trying their best for outside pitches. I wonder if the data shows that they are less accurate on outside pitches. 

[Billy Z]

49 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Agree, but do they ever really see a low fastball? I’ve upped Little League and those kids weren’t as big, but I was still making assumptions.

That is part of the enjoyment of watching baseball, one of the "human element". I don't think we would want to go with electronic strike zones for baseball making the calls for the umpires, or would we?

[billchao]

15 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

That is part of the enjoyment of watching baseball, one of the "human element". I don't think we would want to go with electronic strike zones for baseball making the calls for the umpires, or would we?

I sure would. I hate the human element argument. Everybody benefits from having a consistent strike zone.

Get the calls right. A strike is a strike; it shouldn’t be a missed call because the pitcher missed his location and the catcher had to move 10” to catch it.

[KMP]

Agree....keep human umps. I don't even like replay to be honest.

[boogielicious]

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

That is part of the enjoyment of watching baseball, one of the "human element". I don't think we would want to go with electronic strike zones for baseball making the calls for the umpires, or would we?

I would. Umpires are prone to having attitudes for/against batters and pitchers behind the plate. They can be biased and significantly affect the outcome of the games and even series. They are not playing the game. If they cannot be accurate and objective, they should be replaced. Line judges have been replaced in tennis. We have end zone and side line cameras in football. Basketball and hockey can use replay to see if time expired on the shot clock or if offsides occurs.

Players and managers would no longer be thrown out of games by umps for arguing balls and strikes. It’s silly and the ugliest part of baseball. I would replace them as soon as the technology is validated.

[Golfingdad]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Agree, but do they ever really see a low fastball? I’ve upped Little League and those kids weren’t as big, but I was still making assumptions.

I ump little league now and it's not hard to see the ball throughout the whole strike zone - I mean the catcher is at least 3, probably more like 5 feet behind the plate.  If you cuddle up to the catcher like in your photo and he moves at all, then yeah I agree, but I also think Matt is correct.  You can see the path of the ball for it's entire route, even if you miss the last couple of feet, you can extrapolate from the previous several.

Back on topic; an extra thing about the graphic that ESPN was doing occasionally Sunday night was reminding us that the strike zone is 3 dimensional.  They would take the snapshot of the ball near the edge of the plate and then do an animation that shows it was a half inch above the strike zone at the front of the plate but it nipped the back of the zone, or the opposite.  I though that was kinda cool.

And one specific thing that is related to the strike zone graphic that does really bug me is when the announcers sometimes refuse to say what is being shown, especially on replays.  When the graphic shows it was a ball by 3" you want to hear "boy, that was definitely not a strike, the umpire missed that one!" and instead its something like "looks like that just caught the bottom of the zone."

4 hours ago, billchao said:

I sure would. I hate the human element argument. Everybody benefits from having a consistent strike zone.

Get the calls right. A strike is a strike; it shouldn’t be a missed call because the pitcher missed his location and the catcher had to move 10” to catch it.

Agree 100%.  There is one tiny part of the "human element" that is a little bit, I don't know, romantic I guess as far as baseball is concerned?  The Tom Glavine or Greg Maddux style of being so precise with your pitch placement that you can actually get them to expand their strike zone for you as a game progresses is an art form and there is something cool about that.

I would definitely not want to keep that aspect when robo umps are viable and 100% ball-strike calls are possible, but it was/is a pretty cool thing (if its your teams pitcher doing it haha).

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Billy Z said:

That is part of the enjoyment of watching baseball, one of the "human element". I don't think we would want to go with electronic strike zones for baseball making the calls for the umpires, or would we?

I would. Truth is truth. If the electronic strike zone can improve the accuracy noticeably, go for it. Still plenty of "human elements" to the game.

We use cameras and stuff for in/out calls in tennis now.

[Billy Z]

7 hours ago, billchao said:

I sure would. I hate the human element argument. Everybody benefits from having a consistent strike zone.

Get the calls right. A strike is a strike; it shouldn’t be a missed call because the pitcher missed his location and the catcher had to move 10” to catch it.

I have mixed feelings whether I would or not. I guess I am a bit traditional since that's the way I've known the game to be all my life, but I think I could go for electronic strikes and balls being called easier then the strike box being shown. When you think about it, look how much human element is in basketball refereeing, same with football, and even hockey. In baseball, calling balls and strikes is really the only human element left, sort of, because just about all other calls by the umps can be contested by replay.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I have mixed feelings whether I would or not. I guess I am a bit traditional since that's the way I've known the game to be all my life, but I think I could go for electronic strikes and balls being called easier then the strike box being shown. When you think about it, look how much human element is in basketball refereeing, same with football, and even hockey. In baseball, calling balls and strikes is really the only human element left, sort of, because just about all other calls by the umps can be contested by replay.

The human element is really the players. We all recall our favorite baseball memories and for me, none of them involve umpires either when I played or for games I’ve watched.

[saevel25]

I think they were testing out the automated balls and strikes calls in the minor leagues. One of the managers came out and was going to go at it with the umpire about the call. The umpire told him there is nothing he can do since it was the machine that made the call, lol. 

Its not like an umpire ever turned over a call anyways. This could save the umpires some headaches 🙂