With the advances in technology and its applications in sports to review plays to get the calls right the conversation has slowly but surely set it's sight on the strike zone.
There are many who think in time it will become reality. There are those who are dead set against it. I can see both sides reasons for and against. Me personally I'm against it.
It's a topic that has picked up some steam over the past few weeks and I thought I'd throw it out there and see what you all think. Are you for or against an electronic strike zone and why?
The reason I'm against it is the human element. Just like every pitcher is different and the hitter has to take that into account every umpires strike zone is a bit different and the hitter as well as then pitcher has to take that into account. They have taken a lot of the romance out of the game already and by going to an electronic strike well, you might as well eventually get rid of the umpires completely and that would be a shame.
The low strike gets called much more frequently then the high strike. And getting on top of the high fastball is much more difficult then squaring up the low pitches on a consistent basis. Plus, those edge pitches that look like they barely clip the plate that are so often called balls where 90 % of the ball is off the plate but the laces may just graze the sensors or whatever means they use will now be a strike.
If they truly employ the strike they have written in the rule book and apply it electronically I think there are going to be even more unhappy hitters in the major leagues.
HP umpires are easily the worst official out of any sport. I wouldn't miss them one bit.
The question is, can a computer call consistent balls and strikes with a higher degree of accuracy than humans. If they can, then they should.
Computer vision is becoming so advanced, they may not need any sort of special sensors. Just a high speed camera or three and some software.
+1
In fact, get rid of them both.
Quote:
and that's making baseball a less interesting offensive game.
+1
In fact, get rid of them both.
I agree that batters should go the other way more often than they do. But when pitchers pitch you inside routinely, forcing you to pull the ball, it's hard to go the other way.
Regardless, I think the shift takes away from the esthetics of the game.
Quote:
In comment 12976123 yatqb said:
Quote:
and that's making baseball a less interesting offensive game.
+1
In fact, get rid of them both.
The shift isn't new, illegal, or a bad defense. If hitters that aren't capable would stop trying to bet it, there would be no problem.
You are right, the shifts isn't new, illegal or bad defense...it's just bad baseball.
And while the shift isn't new, it was rarely ever employed until the past decade and has exploded in use in the last two or three years. Personally, stacking all of your defenders on one side of the field is just as bad as the batter not hitting the other way. The shift is hurting the game and making it less watchable.
If pitchers weren't incapable of striking them out, there would be no problem.
I agree that batters should go the other way more often than they do. But when pitchers pitch you inside routinely, forcing you to pull the ball, it's hard to go the other way.
Regardless, I think the shift takes away from the esthetics of the game.
Bingo...teams line up in the shift, and then pitchers pound the batters inside forcing them to hit into the shift. "Going the other way" is way more difficult because of this. The Shift is an abomination of the game.
Sometimes the pitcher does miss the target. And you don't want the hitter to only have to worry about one part of the plate. You want to put some doubt in their minds. Even though they are shifted is he going to try and cross me up and go away. If all they have to do is sit middle in they will eventually hurt you.
Steve in South Jersey : 8:20 am : link : reply
it should be used as a grading tool as part of each umpire's performance review.
In combination with video it would also be a very good teaching tool for umpires. This is the strike zone we want...if you want to make it to and stay at the Major league level learn it and execute it.
If you go back in time and look at the strike zone of the sixties, seventies, and early to mid eighties you had a much bigger strike zone and you didn't have the offensive output overall the game has had since the beginning of the nineties. Smaller strike zones allow the hitter to look for pitches that are inside a postage stamp strike zone. That helps promote more offense.
Good idea. Then the league can bring each umpire's perceived strike zone into the rule book strike zone.
The question is, can a computer call consistent balls and strikes with a higher degree of accuracy than humans. If they can, then they should.
Computer vision is becoming so advanced, they may not need any sort of special sensors. Just a high speed camera or three and some software.
Agree and if necessary, it's easy to install underground sensors along the sides of home plate.
You run the system in parallel with the human umps for a year or so. Work out the bugs. Analyze the data. See how big the difference is between the computer's calls and the umps calls.
Then you see if switching makes sense.
Quote:
When in the course of the game the electronics shit the bed and it starts calling strikes that are balls. And or the system just totally craps out. Now the umpire has to get back on the bike and call it manually. That should make everyone happy.
You run the system in parallel with the human umps for a year or so. Work out the bugs. Analyze the data. See how big the difference is between the computer's calls and the umps calls.
Then you see if switching makes sense.
Just a thought. Not a very good one, apparently.
Just a thought. Not a very good one, apparently.
I think it's a great idea and was going to mention something similar. I was initially concerned about the use of Cyclops in tennis. But now I'm sold and I think it could work in baseball too. Your challenge recommendation is a good one.