Rules rules rules

[illinoisredsox]

Well, I have to admit that you and moonslav have made some persuasive arguments for robo-umps. So well done--and I do mean that.

 

But to me it goes back to the simple fact that the strike zone is the least real thing on the field of play. All other calls are based on did a player catch the ball or not, touch the bag or not, get tagged before he touched the bag or not, hit a fair ball or a foul ball, hit a double or a home run, balk or not balk, etc, etc. In other words, something you can see.

 

Balls and strikes, on the other hand are called based on the width of the plate, and an interpretation of the top of the strike zone and the bottom of it, based on the physique of the batter, which, I hasten to add, can vary during an at bat. To make it even more complicated, the pitch itself changes trajectories and must intersect the strike zone, I believe, at the front of the plate. In other words, it's entirely possible the camera/computer have the wrong strike zone for a given hitter, but we accept it because its based on technology which dominates our lives in 2022. I recently saw a large photo of at least 100 people walking up and down stairs some wide outdoor stairs (I think at least 30 stairs), and every single one of them was fixated on her/his cell phones.

 

So, pardon me for saying so, but, if the batter and the pitcher are humans doing their best to pitch or hit (or not swing at) those pitches which not even technology can be trusted to get right, I want a no-baloney fallible human umpire giving his best shot at whether the pitch was a ball or a strike. It's worked for 150 years. I have yet to read a quote from any retired player, HOF'er or not, blaming the umpires for preventing him from being all he could be.

 

And I look forward to continued griping by hitters, catchers, pitchers, managers, coaches, and bench jockeys because griping is good for the soul. Done by the best, griping can even be entertaining.

 

The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area.

 

So as long as part of the ball touches any part of that pentagonal prism above the plate between those two theoretical levels, it’s a strike. The front is the easiest point to do that, but not the only one.

[mvp 78]

So, pardon me for saying so, but, if the batter and the pitcher are humans doing their best to pitch or hit (or not swing at) those pitches which not even technology can be trusted to get right, I want a no-baloney fallible human umpire giving his best shot at whether the pitch was a ball or a strike. It's worked for 150 years.

 

As long as guys like Angel Hernandez have jobs, I will call for robo k zones. A fallible k zone is not entertainment to me.

[moonslav59]

As long as guys like Angel Hernandez have jobs, I will call for robo k zones. A fallible k zone is not entertainment to me.

 

Well said. Bad or questionable calls should not be part of the game, if they don't have to be.

[Hugh2]

It wasn't voted on.

 

I think that was what notin was driving at. It's not just the pitcher who controls the time of the games.

 

If the batter steps out with 8 seconds left on the pitch clock they will be charged a strike.

[mvp 78]

If the batter steps out with 8 seconds left on the pitch clock they will be charged a strike.

 

It's going to be glorious if a player strikes out at the end of a game due to stepping out and not calling time. That's real baseball. Just stand in the box and swing the bat.

[Hugh2]

It's going to be glorious if a player strikes out at the end of a game due to stepping out and not calling time. That's real baseball. Just stand in the box and swing the bat.

 

So these new rules probably only make games 15 minutes shorter or so.

 

I think they will have a much larger impact shortening those long rivalry games that take 4 hours ++.

 

You know, the Sox/Yanks relevant September games, with pitching changes, throws over to first endlessly, batters stepping out of the box on every pitch.

 

Nope, just a 2.5-3 hour game. When you think about it, the actual game will not be shortened at all. Just the time inbetween the game. I’m all for this

[mvp 78]

So these new rules probably only make games 15 minutes shorter or so.

 

I think they will have a much larger impact shortening those long rivalry games that take 4 hours ++.

 

You know, the Sox/Yanks relevant September games, with pitching changes, throws over to first endlessly, batters stepping out of the box on every pitch.

 

Nope, just a 2.5-3 hour game. When you think about it, the actual game will not be shortened at all. Just the time inbetween the game. I’m all for this

 

I'm all for any changes they want to try. The only thing they've done recently was "let's mess around with the ball and see what happens." I don't like that.

[moonslav59]

If the batter steps out with 8 seconds left on the pitch clock they will be charged a strike.

 

That sounds good.

 

If he steps out with 9 seconds, does the clock get paused?

 

Can he step out 2 or more times?

[moonslav59]

I'm all for any changes they want to try. The only thing they've done recently was "let's mess around with the ball and see what happens." I don't like that.

 

That was 10 times worse than any of these changes.

[Maxbialystock]

The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area.

 

So as long as part of the ball touches any part of that pentagonal prism above the plate between those two theoretical levels, it’s a strike. The front is the easiest point to do that, but not the only one.

 

Great description! Wild applause. I never fully understood it before now. Thank you very much.

 

It does, however, lead to some questions.

 

For example, the rectangle we see on our boob tubes is two dimensional, but you have made it clear that the ball can pass through the strike zone through any part of that five sided home plate. So I would submit that the 2-dimensional rectangle is in fact wrong. Like you, I agree that very few pitches are likely to pass through just the pointed bottom of the pentagon, but it certainly could pass through the squarish rest of the plate.

 

And then of course there's the upper and lower limits of the strike zone: "midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants and just below the kneecap--when the hitter is in his batting stance." Lots of luck with that, especially when the rectangle we see on the screen is, as I keep saying, defined to microscopic accuracy.

 

When I use mlb.com's graphics--in lieu of getting the video which is denied me when the game is played against a blackout restricted team--that strike zone has a buffer zone, a rectangle within a rectangle. I believe the intent is to suggest that only a pitch that stays outside the buffer zone must be called a ball and one that stays inside the buffer zone must be called a strike. Any pitch that touches the buffer zone could be called either way.

 

I like that buffer zone if only because of the idiosyncratic nature of the strike zone as you have described it. Moreover, I think that buffer zone also defines the limits of what the players can reasonably be expected to see. Indeed, I seriously doubt that even Ted Williams could see his own strike zone as you have described it.

 

Of course, where I'm headed with this is to say that the buffer zone should allow umpires to continue to call balls and strikes. I do not at all object and in fact applaud the use of cameras and computers to provide feedback to umpires and to evaluate their performance.

[moonslav59]

 

Of course, where I'm headed with this is to say that the buffer zone should allow umpires to continue to call balls and strikes. I do not at all object and in fact applaud the use of cameras and computers to provide feedback to umpires and to evaluate their performance.

 

What good does that do? An ump can get half the calls wrong, and they can't fire him.

[Maxbialystock]

As long as guys like Angel Hernandez have jobs, I will call for robo k zones. A fallible k zone is not entertainment to me.

 

Hey, don't blame Angel Hernandez on me. I'm all for using the camera and computers for evaluating umpire performance. The problem is that umpires are unionized, which I think means that any evaluations are treated as "nice to know." I'm pretty sure the union also insists that seriously overweight umpires should not be penalized.

[Maxbialystock]

What good does that do? An ump can get half the calls wrong, and they can't fire him.

 

You could be right. I'm in favor of unions, but . . .

[Bobe2]

If the batter steps out with 8 seconds left on the pitch clock they will be charged a strike.

 

I think you a interpreting this rule slightly wrong, the batter has to be in the box and ready for the pitch with 8 seconds remaining for the pitcher or be penalized

[mvp 78]

Hey, don't blame Angel Hernandez on me. I'm all for using the camera and computers for evaluating umpire performance. The problem is that umpires are unionized, which I think means that any evaluations are treated as "nice to know." I'm pretty sure the union also insists that seriously overweight umpires should not be penalized.

 

If they switched to AAA umps, nobody would notice a thing. Also, with most unions, you can fire union employees that are underperforming as Angel Hernandez is. While I've read the MLBPA union contract, I really have no interest in reading the MLBUA contract. If I was still at my previous miserable job... maybe.

[mvp 78]

What good does that do? An ump can get half the calls wrong, and they can't fire him.

 

Per Jayson Stark, umps can be fired after receiving tenure after 3 years, it's just difficult and is very long process.

[Maxbialystock]

If they switched to AAA umps, nobody would notice a thing. Also, with most unions, you can fire union employees that are underperforming as Angel Hernandez is. While I've read the MLBPA union contract, I really have no interest in reading the MLBUA contract. If I was still at my previous miserable job... maybe.

 

Great comment. Seriously.

[moonslav59]

Per Jayson Stark, umps can be fired after receiving tenure after 3 years, it's just difficult and is very long process.

 

If Angel Hernandez could not get fired, I rest my case...

[jad]

The problem, as everyone who has worked in or for a corporation knows, is that if you make it easy to fire workers, workers will be fired arbitrarily for reasons having nothing to do with job performance. Trying to root out 'deadwood' is pointless: you will ALWAYS have a percentage of "the worst" workers; and you will never actually root out the ones you should.

[moonslav59]

The problem, as everyone who has worked in or for a corporation knows, is that if you make it easy to fire workers, workers will be fired arbitrarily for reasons having nothing to do with job performance. Trying to root out 'deadwood' is pointless: you will ALWAYS have a percentage of "the worst" workers; and you will never actually root out the ones you should.

 

But you can replace them with machines.

[notin]

If they switched to AAA umps, nobody would notice a thing. Also, with most unions, you can fire union employees that are underperforming as Angel Hernandez is. While I've read the MLBPA union contract, I really have no interest in reading the MLBUA contract. If I was still at my previous miserable job... maybe.

 

Angel Hernandez has dropped so many racist allegations against MLB that they probably think firing him would result in a horribly public discrimination lawsuit…

[moonslav59]

Angel Hernandez has dropped so many racist allegations against MLB that they probably think firing him would result in a horribly public discrimination lawsuit…

 

There will be no racially centered law suits against a robo ump.

[notin]

Great description! Wild applause. I never fully understood it before now. Thank you very much.

 

It does, however, lead to some questions.

 

For example, the rectangle we see on our boob tubes is two dimensional, but you have made it clear that the ball can pass through the strike zone through any part of that five sided home plate. So I would submit that the 2-dimensional rectangle is in fact wrong. Like you, I agree that very few pitches are likely to pass through just the pointed bottom of the pentagon, but it certainly could pass through the squarish rest of the plate.

 

And then of course there's the upper and lower limits of the strike zone: "midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants and just below the kneecap--when the hitter is in his batting stance." Lots of luck with that, especially when the rectangle we see on the screen is, as I keep saying, defined to microscopic accuracy.

 

When I use mlb.com's graphics--in lieu of getting the video which is denied me when the game is played against a blackout restricted team--that strike zone has a buffer zone, a rectangle within a rectangle. I believe the intent is to suggest that only a pitch that stays outside the buffer zone must be called a ball and one that stays inside the buffer zone must be called a strike. Any pitch that touches the buffer zone could be called either way.

 

I like that buffer zone if only because of the idiosyncratic nature of the strike zone as you have described it. Moreover, I think that buffer zone also defines the limits of what the players can reasonably be expected to see. Indeed, I seriously doubt that even Ted Williams could see his own strike zone as you have described it.

 

Of course, where I'm headed with this is to say that the buffer zone should allow umpires to continue to call balls and strikes. I do not at all object and in fact applaud the use of cameras and computers to provide feedback to umpires and to evaluate their performance.

 

 

That little rectangle on the screen during games has nothing to do with automated balls and strikes. That’s just a reference…

[notin]

There will be no racially centered law suits against a robo ump.

 

I heard the Android roboumps are suing over preferential treatment given to the iOS 16 umps…

[moonslav59]

That little rectangle on the screen during games has nothing to do with automated balls and strikes. That’s just a reference…

 

Yes, a flawed 2 dimensional one, at that.

 

The robo ump would be able to detect any ball going through the 3 dimensional prism.

 

Consistent.

 

Fair.

 

Instant.

 

Unnoticeable, if they choose it to be.

[cp176]

I am very much in favor of a pitch clock as for ruling against defenses being able to shift , not so much. It is part of the game. Hit the ball the other way boys. As for any other technological changes to "get things right", I'm in the opposition I guess. I think that athletic contests are far more entertaining the more the human element enters into things. Part of baseball's allure for me has always been that it is not sterile. It is kind of what life is like. We don't always get it right.

[jad]

Then why not eliminate the chalk lines on a football field? There would be much more 'human element' involved if you just let a line judge call in-bounds or out-of-bounds based on where he believed that line should be. Same thing with the goal line. Get rid of it. When you're within ten yards of an imaginary line 10 yards from an imaginary line centered on the goal-posts, TOUCHDOWN!

[Old Red]

Then why not eliminate the chalk lines on a football field? There would be much more 'human element' involved if you just let a line judge call in-bounds or out-of-bounds based on where he believed that line should be. Same thing with the goal line. Get rid of it. When you're within ten yards of an imaginary line 10 yards from an imaginary line centered on the goal-posts, TOUCHDOWN!

 

Why stop there, and just eliminate the goalposts. Wow! Maybe the yard lines, and hash marks. Once again wow!

Edited September 13, 2022 by Old Red

[moonslav59]

I am very much in favor of a pitch clock as for ruling against defenses being able to shift , not so much. It is part of the game. Hit the ball the other way boys. As for any other technological changes to "get things right", I'm in the opposition I guess. I think that athletic contests are far more entertaining the more the human element enters into things. Part of baseball's allure for me has always been that it is not sterile. It is kind of what life is like. We don't always get it right.

 

Most of human history has been towards correcting mistakes and trying to find way to make thing right and better. That's also what life is like.

 

Wht accept mistakes, when you don't have to do so?

[Maxbialystock]

Then why not eliminate the chalk lines on a football field? There would be much more 'human element' involved if you just let a line judge call in-bounds or out-of-bounds based on where he believed that line should be. Same thing with the goal line. Get rid of it. When you're within ten yards of an imaginary line 10 yards from an imaginary line centered on the goal-posts, TOUCHDOWN!

 

Nice try, but I've already said I'm completely in favor of stuff you can see: foul lines, bases, batters box, pitching rubber, lines defining what's in the park and what's out of the park, bats, balls, gloves, etc.

 

Indeed, since you mentioned football, please name or describe something central the game of football that is analogous to that strike zone which no one can actually see. We can see the plate with its odd shape and we can see the varying sizes of the batters, but then we have to interpolate where the strike zone is.