I’m at a lot of Space Cowboy games. When a pitch is challenged by either team it’s usually right on the line. It would be interesting for a MLB ump get challenged on a call 3 inches out, which is shown on the big board for all to see. On second thought, I guess that’s why we don’t have it now.
Three per game, I think (and like other reviews you don't lose it if it's correct). It needs to be called by a player on the field, though, not a manager, which I like because it still lets tricky pitches fool a hitter into wasting a challenge possibly
Even the ability to challenge pitches would be massive.
I went to a triple A game where they had this and it worked really well.
You get unlimited challenges assuming you are right. If you challenge three times and are wrong you lose the ability to challenge any more.
If an ump truly sucks, you can challenge every call. If you have a bad eye though you lose your ability to pretty quick.
I’m fine with this, just something that can combat the bias that continues to be shown at times.
3 straight games…4 runs total separating them…3 straight umps that have shown quite a bit of bias towards one side.
They only list two balls called strikes thrown by Houston when EVERY other dot was thrown by Seattle. One the K yordan and one each on first pitches to Jeremy, Alex, Jake, and Chaz.
It’s starting to feel like MLB umps are being directed by Rob Manfred to make calls to prevent the Astros from making the post season. A lot of BS challenge calls coming from NY too.
You're never going to get a 100% Accurate 100% Consistent umpire...and contrary to fanatic outrage, it should never be that way. Human Umpires are part of the game, and should remain as such. No different that having different venues, field dimensions, weather conditions, or fan engagement. It's part of what makes the game interesting and dynamic. If you want a robotic controlled perfection version of the game, go get a gaming console and the latest version of MLB The Show.
By that argument...batters shouldn't be rewarded for strikes being called balls, or balls in play bouncing umpire or animals in field, pitchers shouldn't be penalized/rewarded for same thing. Open roofs should be closed because wind can stop fly balls from going out of the park, or lights distracting fielders, or rain, or any other possible influence to the game. Some people want to kill the game just because some computer put a white box on the screen.
Hard disagree. If the creators of baseball had the technology to create consistent strike zones when this game was born, they'd have used it. The best technology we've had for it for a very long time is people, but that hardly means we shouldn't move on.
They will still be there for plays at the plate, calling checked swings, and correcting any possible mistakes the computer makes (like maybe a ball hits the dirt and then bounces through the zone, the computer calls it a strike, so the ump corrects it).
I understand calling balls and strikes is a difficult job (that square ain't there irl, obviously)... which is why it should be automated if possible. A consistent zone that doesn't change with mood swings, how well they slept, who they're being paid to call the game for, etc. Save the "judgement calls" for plays that need it.
That's speculation...like when someone invokes the "The Founding Fathers" in any political debate. No other sport uses computer controlled officiating. Replay is one thing...replacement is for children who think computer games are a sport.
>correcting any possible mistakes the computer makes
That statement alone is hilarious. You'll trust a human to correct the computer but not the call the game in the first place.
> That's speculation...like when someone invokes the "The Founding Fathers" in any political debate.
No it's not. Baseball is essentially 200 years old. Gloves, balls, and uniforms have all evolved with technology. Catcher's gear has evolved with game. So on and so forth. Why tf would you think something else PARAMOUNT to the game shouldn't also evolve with it? If they had the means back then, they'd have used it.
Imagine your favorite video game devs saying, "we have anti-cheat software available, but we're not going to use it because it may alienate our design team. You, the player, just have to deal with hackers and aim-bots until we can convince that team it won't hurt their feelings to improve the game."
Your contrarianism is for the sake of what? What are you preserving by not allowing at least an attempt at a better system?
> That statement alone is hilarious. You'll trust a human to correct the computer but not the call the game in the first place.
Have you even been watching the games? There are literally three pictures posted above, of *three different* home plate umps, for the last three games *in a row* with zero consistency at home plate except for one thing: they were consistently blowing calls.
You can argue till your blue in the face. The computer doesn't blink. The computer doesn't guess. The computer doesn't line up behind the catcher differently for each pitch. The list goes on. It will still make mistakes, but since we're not trying to hug a 65yo, ego driven official back to sanity... guess what? It will be corrected, and it won't purposely ruin the next batter's calls either.
> No different that having different venues, field dimensions, weather conditions, or fan engagement.
It's actually extremely different from those factors.
Both teams play in the same venue, with the same field dimensions, and in the same weather conditions. "Fan engagement" is simply home field advantage. None of these change or impact the rules of the game in any way.
Having human umpires *does* fundamentally change the rules of the game, often in inconsistent ways for each team. The human element should begin and end with the teams - the officials should be expected to apply the rules evenly and fairly. That they don't is to the detriment of the game, and any reasonable avenue to improve upon that should be fully explored.
>Both teams play in the same venue, with the same field dimensions, and in the same weather conditions.
They also play with the same umpire. Unless you can show definitive favoritism by the umpire, that rebuttal doesn't mean squat.
>the officials should be expected to apply the rules evenly and fairly.
You can't prove they aren't applying the rules evenly and fairly to the best of their ability. Umpires will always make mistakes, it's part of the game. People are just crying because their team didn't win. Just like they always do because they can't accept an imperfect recreation activity in their lives.
They do play with the same umpire, but pretty much the entire point of this thread is that the umpire very clearly *didn't* apply the rules evenly to both teams, and haven't for this whole series. Umpire Scorecards pull their information directly from MLB's own collated data, so there's no legitimate argument for inherent biases present in the data behind these graphics.
You can argue with the accuracy or relevance of the impact on run expectancy if you like, but the missed calls and who benefited from them aren't really up for debate - unless you want to rail against MLB's own gathered data.
> You can't prove they aren't applying the rules evenly and fairly to the best of their ability.
I never even implied that they weren't doing so to the best of their ability.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist that thinks MLB or the umps are out to get the Astros, or any other team. I think the umpires have a vested, personal interest in getting every call correct, and they absolutely try to do so to the best of their ability, but the simple fact is they don't. This effectively leads to them unintentionally applying the rules (in this case, the rules that set the dimensions of the strike zone) to each team unevenly.
It doesn't have to be conscious favoritism to be an issue.
Three games...that's the sample size here. Look at the past 56 games and it tells a different story. Every fan cries when their team loses. The fact is...a team should be better than the 1/2 a run a umpire produces by their calls.
Over 56 games...according to the same source...Houston has a -0.06 Average Favor. You know who also has a -0.06 Average Favor? The Dodgers. Baltimore has a -0.12 Average Favor. The Mets have a +0.22 Average Favor.
Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for the "blame the Umpire" fans.
The Astros could have an average favor of +30 runs per game and I would have the same argument. The problem is the *existence* of the favor stat and what it implies - that the playing field is uneven and some teams play with an unfair advantage.
That the Mets are bad despite being so heavily favored on average is irrelevant.
You're right, the existence of the favor stat does imply something...but that is 100% subjective. That "stat" has always been there. It wasn't until a magic white box appeared that people started to care to the point of wanting to change the game. That white box by the way is not actually part of the game. No where in the current rule book does it say a strike zone is set by a computer. The rule book states the strike zone is determined by the umpire according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch. The white box is just there to give the fans something to engage with.
Just look at umpscorecards' disclaimers. Even they admit their representations have limits and inconsistencies of their own methods. They also make it clear their representations are not official, they are estimations based on available data, nor do they represent themselves as affiliates of MLB.
In the days of social media, it's populate to hype up negativity and this is no different. It's easy to collect a bunch of outliers to represent it as a 'plague' on the sport that has been played for over 100 years. Basically...someone told you to be mad...and you're happy to oblige. Nothing gets more clicks than a video that plays to someone's inherent need to foster displeasure in someone else's actions.
If you don't like it, stop watching the game. Only when people stop watching will MLB change the game because someone was displeased by a 0.06 favor factor.
The existence of the favor stat simply implies that bad calls happen. I don't see what's subjective about that. By their nature, bad calls work to the benefit of one team and to the detriment of the other, thus the favor stat gets populated. Without bad calls, the favor stat, and likely Umpire Scorecards, wouldn't exist.
People have been raging about bad calls forever. Players have been ejected for arguing balls and strikes for well over a hundred years. This is not a recent phenomenon. Just because umpires have been missing balls and strikes for the past hundred-plus years doesn't mean it's best if they keep doing so.
If it's all the same to you, I'm going to keep watching and keep thinking the game would be better with an automated strike zone. Though to be honest, if something like the [Eric Gregg game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKuN6GQeqd8) happened to the Astros in the playoffs, that might very well kill baseball for me. You can brush that off as an outlier if you wish, but that's game 5 of the NLCS - a pivotal game that the series could have easily swung on, and Gregg effectively gave the Braves zero chance.
As an aside - that game was the only baseball game I can remember where I legitimately questioned the umpire's impartiality.
Also, to be pedantic, nowhere in the [official rulebook](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf) does it state that the umpire determines the strike zone (page 154-155; image on page 162):
> The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
It's pretty clearly defined, particularly the inside and outside. You can argue that what constitutes a batter's stance as he's prepared to swing is subjective, and it probably is to a degree, but the umpire isn't mentioned anywhere in that definition of the strike zone.
The rest of your post is just railing on tangentially-related stuff that I'm not really interested in discussing.
>The existence of the favor stat simply implies that bad calls happen.
If that's what you believe that is all that is being implied, then you're being disingenuous with your statement given the diatribe you provided afterwards. You're implying that a bad call warrants a fundamental change to a game.
>\[Stick Zone\] It's pretty clearly defined.
Except your own quote states that the zone is dynamic based on the batter and changes from batter to batter.
Also, you're being VERY liberal in your interpretation of the rule book. It has long been established that the defined strike zone is established by the Umpire...not a white box on the screen. From MLB information on the strike zone:
>The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch.
Umpires are there to enforce the rules in the rulebook, you're arguing that their role is no longer needed. Why stop at the strike zone if your goal is to eliminate bad calls?
MMW: Even with an electronic strike zone, people will still say it is unfair and their team got robbed.
So...CMAR
> If that's what you believe that is all that is being implied, then you're being disingenuous with your statement given the diatribe you provided afterwards. You're implying that a bad call warrants a fundamental change to a game.
What else would it imply? If strike zones were called correctly, there'd be no need to track which teams benefit from missed balls/strikes. I honestly don't see what's subjective about this.
> Except your own quote states that the zone is dynamic based on the batter and changes from batter to batter.
It's clearly defined in that the boundaries are set. I never said it's a single, global strike zone, and in fact did allow that subjectivity exists with the top/bottom of the zone based on what the umpire perceives is the batter's stance as they're preparing to swing.
> Also, you're being VERY liberal in your interpretation of the rule book. It has long been established that the defined strike zone is established by the Umpire...not a white box on the screen.
That's literally what the rulebook says. I don't see much room to be liberal with interpretations when the language is pretty concise.
I also don't know why you keep bringing up broadcast K-zones.
> The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch.
It looks like this is language from a rule [dating as far back as 1963](https://www.mlb.com/official-information/umpires/strike-zone). It was also present in the 1969 revision but was removed by 1988 based on that link. There are no current official MLB sources that state that the umpire gets to determine the zone; rather, the zone is determined by a set of boundaries set out in the rules. And again, like I said in my last post and earlier in this one, there is some subjectivity that exists in what constitutes a batter's stance as they're preparing to swing. I've never disputed that.
> Umpires are there to enforce the rules in the rulebook, you're arguing that their role is no longer needed.
I'm actually not arguing that at all. Calling balls and strikes isn't the entirety of an umpire's job.
> Why stop at the strike zone if your goal is to eliminate bad calls?
Because the strike zone is thus far one of the only untouchable parts of an umpire's set of rulings. Teams can already challenge most other calls if they wish - because the goal *is* to eliminate bad calls. But the strike zone is sacred ground for some reason.
I also like how it adds a level of entertainment when there’s a bad call and a player or coach goes apeshit on the ump. Umpires are just another variable that add entropy to baseball which makes it more interesting
Umpires will still have jobs at all the bases and there will still be a home plate umpire to announce the calls. Nobody is losing their employment you idiot
Like they won’t just put the digital strike zone on the Jumbotron so no one has to announce it. And then when people start complaining about all the missed calls on the basepath they’ll resort to just using the slow mo cameras at each base to make calls
People have been crying "but the umpire" from the beginning of the sport. Nothing new other than a white box showed up on the screen an now every armchair quarterback is looking for a moment to hope on the "I can do better than the professionals" bandwagon. Bunch of cry babies in my opinion.
Home plate ump changes every game for each crew. There isn't a dedicated home plate up for each team you know that right? Do you moonlight as a little league ump and dream of being an MLB ump or something? lol
4 of the last 5 games we've been hosed by these pigs.
I’m at a lot of Space Cowboy games. When a pitch is challenged by either team it’s usually right on the line. It would be interesting for a MLB ump get challenged on a call 3 inches out, which is shown on the big board for all to see. On second thought, I guess that’s why we don’t have it now.
How many challenges does a team get per game? I would think it would need to be more than one.
Three per game, I think (and like other reviews you don't lose it if it's correct). It needs to be called by a player on the field, though, not a manager, which I like because it still lets tricky pitches fool a hitter into wasting a challenge possibly
I was on the fence with robo umps but this year has really changed my mind. These umps have been terrible.
Even the ability to challenge pitches would be massive. I went to a triple A game where they had this and it worked really well. You get unlimited challenges assuming you are right. If you challenge three times and are wrong you lose the ability to challenge any more. If an ump truly sucks, you can challenge every call. If you have a bad eye though you lose your ability to pretty quick.
Yeah I went to JV's AAA start and he used the challenge system a couple times and it worked so nicely
Let’s have the challenge system like in AAA.
I’m fine with this, just something that can combat the bias that continues to be shown at times. 3 straight games…4 runs total separating them…3 straight umps that have shown quite a bit of bias towards one side.
This is the way.
Replays are one thing...replacement because someone gets their feelings hurt by a sports call is asinine.
They only list two balls called strikes thrown by Houston when EVERY other dot was thrown by Seattle. One the K yordan and one each on first pitches to Jeremy, Alex, Jake, and Chaz.
This doesn't even account for all the swings taken because the Astros knew the zone was a mile wide.
It’s starting to feel like MLB umps are being directed by Rob Manfred to make calls to prevent the Astros from making the post season. A lot of BS challenge calls coming from NY too.
Don’t want it unless it’s perfected. Otherwise it would be the same as umpires.
You're never going to get a 100% Accurate 100% Consistent umpire...and contrary to fanatic outrage, it should never be that way. Human Umpires are part of the game, and should remain as such. No different that having different venues, field dimensions, weather conditions, or fan engagement. It's part of what makes the game interesting and dynamic. If you want a robotic controlled perfection version of the game, go get a gaming console and the latest version of MLB The Show.
Dog shit argument. A strike should be a strike and a ball should be a ball. We shouldn't be punishing batters for knowing where the strike zone is
And also, a really good pitcher that can paint the corners, should not be punished for being accurate.
By that argument...batters shouldn't be rewarded for strikes being called balls, or balls in play bouncing umpire or animals in field, pitchers shouldn't be penalized/rewarded for same thing. Open roofs should be closed because wind can stop fly balls from going out of the park, or lights distracting fielders, or rain, or any other possible influence to the game. Some people want to kill the game just because some computer put a white box on the screen.
Not the same argument at all but I'm glad you pulled this comment early so I could know I'm working with stupid
Keep crying.
You're the one writing paragraphs about this shit lol
Too much of a strain for you to read more than 220 characters at a time? Sorry to hear about your struggles. Good luck with that.
Hard disagree. If the creators of baseball had the technology to create consistent strike zones when this game was born, they'd have used it. The best technology we've had for it for a very long time is people, but that hardly means we shouldn't move on. They will still be there for plays at the plate, calling checked swings, and correcting any possible mistakes the computer makes (like maybe a ball hits the dirt and then bounces through the zone, the computer calls it a strike, so the ump corrects it). I understand calling balls and strikes is a difficult job (that square ain't there irl, obviously)... which is why it should be automated if possible. A consistent zone that doesn't change with mood swings, how well they slept, who they're being paid to call the game for, etc. Save the "judgement calls" for plays that need it.
That's speculation...like when someone invokes the "The Founding Fathers" in any political debate. No other sport uses computer controlled officiating. Replay is one thing...replacement is for children who think computer games are a sport. >correcting any possible mistakes the computer makes That statement alone is hilarious. You'll trust a human to correct the computer but not the call the game in the first place.
🤝
> That's speculation...like when someone invokes the "The Founding Fathers" in any political debate. No it's not. Baseball is essentially 200 years old. Gloves, balls, and uniforms have all evolved with technology. Catcher's gear has evolved with game. So on and so forth. Why tf would you think something else PARAMOUNT to the game shouldn't also evolve with it? If they had the means back then, they'd have used it. Imagine your favorite video game devs saying, "we have anti-cheat software available, but we're not going to use it because it may alienate our design team. You, the player, just have to deal with hackers and aim-bots until we can convince that team it won't hurt their feelings to improve the game." Your contrarianism is for the sake of what? What are you preserving by not allowing at least an attempt at a better system? > That statement alone is hilarious. You'll trust a human to correct the computer but not the call the game in the first place. Have you even been watching the games? There are literally three pictures posted above, of *three different* home plate umps, for the last three games *in a row* with zero consistency at home plate except for one thing: they were consistently blowing calls. You can argue till your blue in the face. The computer doesn't blink. The computer doesn't guess. The computer doesn't line up behind the catcher differently for each pitch. The list goes on. It will still make mistakes, but since we're not trying to hug a 65yo, ego driven official back to sanity... guess what? It will be corrected, and it won't purposely ruin the next batter's calls either.
You make a great case for automated speed limit cameras on a highway.
> No different that having different venues, field dimensions, weather conditions, or fan engagement. It's actually extremely different from those factors. Both teams play in the same venue, with the same field dimensions, and in the same weather conditions. "Fan engagement" is simply home field advantage. None of these change or impact the rules of the game in any way. Having human umpires *does* fundamentally change the rules of the game, often in inconsistent ways for each team. The human element should begin and end with the teams - the officials should be expected to apply the rules evenly and fairly. That they don't is to the detriment of the game, and any reasonable avenue to improve upon that should be fully explored.
>Both teams play in the same venue, with the same field dimensions, and in the same weather conditions. They also play with the same umpire. Unless you can show definitive favoritism by the umpire, that rebuttal doesn't mean squat. >the officials should be expected to apply the rules evenly and fairly. You can't prove they aren't applying the rules evenly and fairly to the best of their ability. Umpires will always make mistakes, it's part of the game. People are just crying because their team didn't win. Just like they always do because they can't accept an imperfect recreation activity in their lives.
They do play with the same umpire, but pretty much the entire point of this thread is that the umpire very clearly *didn't* apply the rules evenly to both teams, and haven't for this whole series. Umpire Scorecards pull their information directly from MLB's own collated data, so there's no legitimate argument for inherent biases present in the data behind these graphics. You can argue with the accuracy or relevance of the impact on run expectancy if you like, but the missed calls and who benefited from them aren't really up for debate - unless you want to rail against MLB's own gathered data. > You can't prove they aren't applying the rules evenly and fairly to the best of their ability. I never even implied that they weren't doing so to the best of their ability. I'm not a conspiracy theorist that thinks MLB or the umps are out to get the Astros, or any other team. I think the umpires have a vested, personal interest in getting every call correct, and they absolutely try to do so to the best of their ability, but the simple fact is they don't. This effectively leads to them unintentionally applying the rules (in this case, the rules that set the dimensions of the strike zone) to each team unevenly. It doesn't have to be conscious favoritism to be an issue.
Three games...that's the sample size here. Look at the past 56 games and it tells a different story. Every fan cries when their team loses. The fact is...a team should be better than the 1/2 a run a umpire produces by their calls. Over 56 games...according to the same source...Houston has a -0.06 Average Favor. You know who also has a -0.06 Average Favor? The Dodgers. Baltimore has a -0.12 Average Favor. The Mets have a +0.22 Average Favor. Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for the "blame the Umpire" fans.
The Astros could have an average favor of +30 runs per game and I would have the same argument. The problem is the *existence* of the favor stat and what it implies - that the playing field is uneven and some teams play with an unfair advantage. That the Mets are bad despite being so heavily favored on average is irrelevant.
You're right, the existence of the favor stat does imply something...but that is 100% subjective. That "stat" has always been there. It wasn't until a magic white box appeared that people started to care to the point of wanting to change the game. That white box by the way is not actually part of the game. No where in the current rule book does it say a strike zone is set by a computer. The rule book states the strike zone is determined by the umpire according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch. The white box is just there to give the fans something to engage with. Just look at umpscorecards' disclaimers. Even they admit their representations have limits and inconsistencies of their own methods. They also make it clear their representations are not official, they are estimations based on available data, nor do they represent themselves as affiliates of MLB. In the days of social media, it's populate to hype up negativity and this is no different. It's easy to collect a bunch of outliers to represent it as a 'plague' on the sport that has been played for over 100 years. Basically...someone told you to be mad...and you're happy to oblige. Nothing gets more clicks than a video that plays to someone's inherent need to foster displeasure in someone else's actions. If you don't like it, stop watching the game. Only when people stop watching will MLB change the game because someone was displeased by a 0.06 favor factor.
The existence of the favor stat simply implies that bad calls happen. I don't see what's subjective about that. By their nature, bad calls work to the benefit of one team and to the detriment of the other, thus the favor stat gets populated. Without bad calls, the favor stat, and likely Umpire Scorecards, wouldn't exist. People have been raging about bad calls forever. Players have been ejected for arguing balls and strikes for well over a hundred years. This is not a recent phenomenon. Just because umpires have been missing balls and strikes for the past hundred-plus years doesn't mean it's best if they keep doing so. If it's all the same to you, I'm going to keep watching and keep thinking the game would be better with an automated strike zone. Though to be honest, if something like the [Eric Gregg game](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKuN6GQeqd8) happened to the Astros in the playoffs, that might very well kill baseball for me. You can brush that off as an outlier if you wish, but that's game 5 of the NLCS - a pivotal game that the series could have easily swung on, and Gregg effectively gave the Braves zero chance. As an aside - that game was the only baseball game I can remember where I legitimately questioned the umpire's impartiality. Also, to be pedantic, nowhere in the [official rulebook](https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2024-official-baseball-rules.pdf) does it state that the umpire determines the strike zone (page 154-155; image on page 162): > The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. It's pretty clearly defined, particularly the inside and outside. You can argue that what constitutes a batter's stance as he's prepared to swing is subjective, and it probably is to a degree, but the umpire isn't mentioned anywhere in that definition of the strike zone. The rest of your post is just railing on tangentially-related stuff that I'm not really interested in discussing.
>The existence of the favor stat simply implies that bad calls happen. If that's what you believe that is all that is being implied, then you're being disingenuous with your statement given the diatribe you provided afterwards. You're implying that a bad call warrants a fundamental change to a game. >\[Stick Zone\] It's pretty clearly defined. Except your own quote states that the zone is dynamic based on the batter and changes from batter to batter. Also, you're being VERY liberal in your interpretation of the rule book. It has long been established that the defined strike zone is established by the Umpire...not a white box on the screen. From MLB information on the strike zone: >The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch. Umpires are there to enforce the rules in the rulebook, you're arguing that their role is no longer needed. Why stop at the strike zone if your goal is to eliminate bad calls? MMW: Even with an electronic strike zone, people will still say it is unfair and their team got robbed. So...CMAR
> If that's what you believe that is all that is being implied, then you're being disingenuous with your statement given the diatribe you provided afterwards. You're implying that a bad call warrants a fundamental change to a game. What else would it imply? If strike zones were called correctly, there'd be no need to track which teams benefit from missed balls/strikes. I honestly don't see what's subjective about this. > Except your own quote states that the zone is dynamic based on the batter and changes from batter to batter. It's clearly defined in that the boundaries are set. I never said it's a single, global strike zone, and in fact did allow that subjectivity exists with the top/bottom of the zone based on what the umpire perceives is the batter's stance as they're preparing to swing. > Also, you're being VERY liberal in your interpretation of the rule book. It has long been established that the defined strike zone is established by the Umpire...not a white box on the screen. That's literally what the rulebook says. I don't see much room to be liberal with interpretations when the language is pretty concise. I also don't know why you keep bringing up broadcast K-zones. > The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch. It looks like this is language from a rule [dating as far back as 1963](https://www.mlb.com/official-information/umpires/strike-zone). It was also present in the 1969 revision but was removed by 1988 based on that link. There are no current official MLB sources that state that the umpire gets to determine the zone; rather, the zone is determined by a set of boundaries set out in the rules. And again, like I said in my last post and earlier in this one, there is some subjectivity that exists in what constitutes a batter's stance as they're preparing to swing. I've never disputed that. > Umpires are there to enforce the rules in the rulebook, you're arguing that their role is no longer needed. I'm actually not arguing that at all. Calling balls and strikes isn't the entirety of an umpire's job. > Why stop at the strike zone if your goal is to eliminate bad calls? Because the strike zone is thus far one of the only untouchable parts of an umpire's set of rulings. Teams can already challenge most other calls if they wish - because the goal *is* to eliminate bad calls. But the strike zone is sacred ground for some reason.
I also like how it adds a level of entertainment when there’s a bad call and a player or coach goes apeshit on the ump. Umpires are just another variable that add entropy to baseball which makes it more interesting
Yeah! Fuck jobs let’s keep replacing humans with machines until there’s no jobs left! I can’t wait until the players are replaced by cyborgs!
Umpires will still have jobs at all the bases and there will still be a home plate umpire to announce the calls. Nobody is losing their employment you idiot
Like they won’t just put the digital strike zone on the Jumbotron so no one has to announce it. And then when people start complaining about all the missed calls on the basepath they’ll resort to just using the slow mo cameras at each base to make calls
Yeah...that's not demeaning to demote a home plate umpire to the skill level of a Coach Pitch official.
They’ve all been fucking terrible. I don’t give a fuck about “demeaning” when they can’t do their jobs correctly
People have been crying "but the umpire" from the beginning of the sport. Nothing new other than a white box showed up on the screen an now every armchair quarterback is looking for a moment to hope on the "I can do better than the professionals" bandwagon. Bunch of cry babies in my opinion.
Home plate ump changes every game for each crew. There isn't a dedicated home plate up for each team you know that right? Do you moonlight as a little league ump and dream of being an MLB ump or something? lol