Look who decided to grace us with his presence

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

That's how my implementation works.

Find the heptahedron in space and watch for any part of the ball to touch it. The only wildcard is the elevation of the horizontal planes defining top and bottom.

trouble said:

---

Look who decided to grace us with his presence

---

In addition to being busy at work and dealing with floods, about 80% of the time I open TexAgs these days it opens massive virus pages that require me to shut down my computer so that steals a lot of joy from my TA.com experience.

I'm against the slow-mo replays to determine out/safe calls. Play them at full speed and if it's not obvious keep the call.

Fair/foul shouldn't be reviewable... play it like the umpire calls it. It's already so rare that the ball is that close to the line. Even rarer that the call is screwed up.

HBP is an easy one as there is only two ways to screw it up by killing a live ball (dropped strike 3 called a HBP or runner going on any non-HBP ball). Those are rare enough to let go, and would be very obvious if an umpire was using that call to influence the game.

I could even go so far as allowing the umpire to signal "unknown" in which case you play the live-ball call and then review.

Balls & strikes are black & white and a HUGE part of the game. The other calls can influence a game, but only if the opportunity allows them to happen at all. I can guarantee there will be pitched on the edges of the heptahedronal strike zone before the game even starts.

I just miss you.

Very much needed. Really tired of seeing catchers being able to pull a ball a foot or more off the plate to get called a strike

Need to use a different zone in college, unless you want to see about 5 more runs per game.

Catchers won't have to frame pitches.

Will need an algorithm like I suggested in another thread for the height of the zone. Would no longer be based on stance, but on the height of the player, pre-loaded for each player before the season.

94chem said:

---

Will need an algorithm like I suggested in another thread for the height of the zone. Would no longer be based on stance, but on the height of the player, pre-loaded for each player before the season.

---

Looks like the system already does this:

Quote:

---

Strike zones are determined according to the average for players of that height unless there's already information on a player's particular strike zone if they've played in the majors at some point.

---

I read that the unveiling in the Atlantic League they didn't have full player roster info so it's a standardized strike zone based off 6'2"

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I read that the unveiling in the Atlantic League they didn't have full player roster info so it's a standardized strike zone based off 6'2"

---

This is what needs to happen IMO. I've never understood why it can't be the same for everyone.

What about this guy!!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel

TexasRebel said:

---

I'm against the slow-mo replays to determine out/safe calls. Play them at full speed and if it's not obvious keep the call.

---

This and they should only have 45-60 seconds to review. If you can't tell quickly what the call should be, the call on the field stands and the game moves on. Helps pace of play and them over thinking it.

The Lost said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

I'm against the slow-mo replays to determine out/safe calls. Play them at full speed and if it's not obvious keep the call.

---

This and they should only have 45-60 seconds to review. If you can't tell quickly what the call should be, the call on the field stands and the game moves on. Helps pace of play and them over thinking it.

---

I think the issue with either of these complaints is that the goal is to get the call correct. There are ways to speed up the game without replay decision time being impacted. Replays don't come in to play in 80% of baseball calls.

If you want to speed up pace of play, enforce the one foot in the box rule, in all at-bats, for starters. Also, use the catcher earpieces like the SEC has to get the pitch signal in. That seems to help too.

Yeah. I don't see why not.

Aggieangler93 said:

---

I noticed the comment from the pitcher at the debut game that he was getting the high strikes in the zone that most umps won't call. This has been my major issue with umpires at collegiate and lower levels in recent years. For some reason, they think the strike zone ends at the belt. That's only about 2/3rds of the strike zone, but rarely do they call that top portion above the belt, a strike. I'm hopeful to see that change, and I guess if it takes robots to make the umpires read the rule book, so be it. I guess they can still overrule it, but seems like they would be instructed to not overrule it, as long as the pitch doesn't bounce, etc.

---

I've had this same gripe. Nothing above the belt has been called in college ball in years. IMO it makes the game boring and drives up pitch counts. Pitchers live in the bottom of the zone instead of using the whole thing.

I also think the zone in college is pretty circular. Thigh high you get three inches off the plate but knee high you don't even get the black.

sellthefarm said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

I read that the unveiling in the Atlantic League they didn't have full player roster info so it's a standardized strike zone based off 6'2"

---

This is what needs to happen IMO. I've never understood why it can't be the same for everyone.

---

Because the strike zone is supposed to be defined as from the middle of the chest/nipples to the knees.

A guy that is 6'-7" like Aaron Judge has a significantly larger area between his chest and knees than a guy that is 5'-6" tall like Jose Altuve. That is over a foot of height difference - how is it fair to have the same sized zone for guys with such a discrepancy in height? Either Altuve gets an unecessarily large zone or Judge gets the advantage of an unecessarily small zone - neither of which are beneficial to the game.

The only thing that should be consistent with strike zones is the width - which is 17 inches.

that wasn't a strike even if the guy is 6'5" standing straight up.

schmellba99 said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

that wasn't a strike even if the guy is 6'5" standing straight up.

---

Looked like it was right at the top of the true zone. Hold your mouse on the guys chest at the armpits when he is standing up, then see where the ball crosses the plate. Right on the border IMO, but if it's even partially in the zone - it's a strike by rule.

---

The strike zone isn't defined when he is standing up though either. Because it is a straight bunt the entire time, he never gets in his normal batting stance so I'm not sure how you determine the top of his zone from that video. I have no idea what his normal batting stance is. We would need to super impose an image of him when he is about to swing normally and mark that up. I would guess his normal stance is probably closer to his crouch than it is to where he is standing up before but I don't really know.

I dont think there's any question that:

a) pitchers and hitters will have to adjust to both a "taller" zone and a "narrower" zone.

b) it's a process that will not be at 100% from the first month of implementation.

I dont have a problem with either of those things.

Heh:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/atlantic-league-coach-ejected-for-arguing-over-automated-strike-zone-just-one-inning-into-robot-umpire-era/