Oh, and am I the only one who looks at this graph and wonders how anyone can link more called strikes to PitchFX?
Seems fairly linear all the way back to 1988.
I'm sorry, but the only thing I get from that article is strikeouts were up dramatically about the same time pitchfx was introduced. I don't really see the correlation.
Let's take a look at the K rate over the history of baseball...
Strikeouts have had many increases very similar to the years shown in the article, but I don't think there were too many pitchfx machines back then.
Like I stated earlier, a huge hole in all of this is the accuracy of umpires since the time pitchFX as introduced. I am not sure why that is missing. He has the number of pitches in the strike zone, and I would think there is data if the umpire called a strike or not. You can then find out if PitchFX is indeed having an effect on umpires, and then you can do some sort of correlation. It still wouldn't be rock solid, but it would at least prove the effectiveness of PitchFX in improving umpire accuracy. Just stating umpires are calling more strikes does not mean they are more accurate, and it also does not mean PitchFX is the reason (as stated earlier, baseball has continually pushed the umpires to call higher stikes ever since the 80's). That is another piece missing, where are the increase in called strikes coming from? If it's all over the place, then maybe PitchFX could be the reason as umpires are forced to focus more on their accuracy. If it's one particular zone, it could simply be an emphasis to call more strikes in a certain area.
I am not saying it's not possible or wrong. I am just stating the correlation based on the data presented is pretty weak.