If a catcher can get away with it, he's going to do it. Is raising umpire's awareness to pitch framing an option? I am not a proponent of implementing robots into the game.
There are only two seasons - Winter and Baseball.
Put my vote in for robo-ump. Do away with the "framing" and the "context" strike zones (veterans vs. rookies, home vs. away, score-related, standings-related, "lesson teaching",etc. ).
The NFL has become far more enjoyable in my opinion now that there is a clear mandate to try to "get it right".
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
As most of you know, I'm as traditional as they come, but I'm with Doug on this one and I thought the same thing while watching these post season games with the graphics showing the strike zone on every pitch. I've been fed up with ump's strike zones for awhile now but I think as this technology gets better and if it's feasible to set up a system that can work at the major league level, I'd be all for it
"Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons
Baseball is a game that is as human as we are and that's why I enjoy it. We all make mistakes and that's a part of who we are. The mistakes are a part of the entertainment in an odd way.
We have a way to get those calls right 100% of the time...
Totally disagree. Let me know when you get 100% agreement on anything. You would still contest what is "right."
The inanity of NFL instant reply is overwhelming. I just don't want any part of it in the batter's box.
It would be interesting for MLB to try this out in spring training, even at just a couple ball parks.
Of course, you can expect the umps would go out on strike.
What about giving each manager three ball/strike challenges per game? If the challenge wins, they don't have to use it up. There would need to be rules for borderline calls.
The problem I see with Gameday strike zones is that they are two diminsional. The plate is three diminsional, and a curve can theoretically cross the zone behind the front plane of the plate. How do we measure for that?
I like the idea, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet.
ďA healthy Reds team is a strong Reds team"
Can't win with 'em
Can't win without 'em
I'd be in favor of using the computers to evaluate and discipline the umpires. If an umpire is shown to miss balls/strikes at an inordinate rate, I'd be fully in favor of demoting that umpire to the minors. But I do NOT want a computer calling the balls/strikes in a game.
And by the way, that video Doug posted in that initial post, 6 inches outside...sure, it's a ball...but lets not act like it's such a blatant error that we get bent out of shape over it. That's just slightly more than one baseball's length outside. Sure it's a mistake, but I've seen worse mistakes on plays with balls that are trapped, or close plays at a base, etc. Are we going to have computers call those to? Implement replay to make an already long game even longer? I vote no.
Why not give the umpire behind the plate an ear piece and give him a tennis-like beep when the ball is a strike? You still have a human in charge who can deal with the unforeseen. The umpire isn't shown up, but he will be trained to call the objective strike.
High and low might be a challenge, but inside and outside seem doable.
Clearly, the task given to the umpire is to assess whether or not the ball crossed through the zone. That's what the rulebook says his job his. We have evidence that certain players can and do systemically abuse the umpires' physical limitations in doing their job.
The question becomes, which is the bigger affront? Changing our rule enforcement mechanism, to which some people seem to have great affinity, or allowing players to gain an advantage through their skill in abusing the limitations of our current mechanism?
The umps are there to enforce the rules. MLB should be doing what it can to allow them to do their jobs as well as possible. Choosing not to so when they clearly have a solution available is an insult to anybody who thinks that the game should be decided by the players' ability to score and prevent runs within the rules rather than their ability to abuse the limitations of our ability to enforce them.
I've yet to see anybody make a compelling argument against a solution such as the one BCubb described. I'm sure the umps would resist, but that's the only reason, that's sad.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.