Tennis uses Hawk-Eye, which is what MLB now uses. They started off many years ago with a different system but changed to Hawk-eye. A quick search did not immediately turn up what they used initially.
I am on the far back end of this curve and will go with the ABS system kicking and screaming. I still dislike the pitch clock. Bad umpires should not be allowed to continue to be bad umpires. Lousy fielding .210 utility infielders don't last long in the majors. Poor umps should not either.
Basically, I am as close to a baseball originalist as they come, and am quite saddened by what has become of our national pastime.
What I have found anecdotally is that most umpires call about 95% percent of balls and strikes correctly. Growing up the strike zone was a ball over the plate and somewhere between the knees and letters. Not sure why anyone tolerates different strike zones from any umpire so I welcome the automated system if it comes with consistency. It is tough enough for a batter to lay off a 98 MPH fastball but if it does not catch the plate, it must be called a ball. Otherwise it is the same as saying that a runner is out at a base despite beating the throw or when the ump misses that a fielder's foot was off the base or they missed a tag.
Have always lobbied to measure players as Aaron Judge and Jose Altuve would certainly have vastly different strike zones. But a ball that is not over the plate simply cannot be called a strike.
Challenging balls and strikes is long overdue, but from a time perspective it would add to the length of the game, a cardinal sin these last number of years.
I am on Team Robot but I can imagine the type of person who considers kicking dirt on the umpire to be an intrinsic part of baseball's entertainment value in the same way that some hockey spectators value fist fights.
Brian, you have been at the top of the curve on this since day 1. I was skeptical until we can see how the tech has evolved to make this fair, fast, and accurate. The stupid ball/strike boxes are not what will be deployed for this if you that have fear. These are TV Broadcast generated, one size fits all, junk efforts. I was concerned that to do this fair every person needed to have their own strike zone - the biomech measurements solve this. most people think of the stike zone as a flat, 2-dimensional surface, but in fact the strike zone is a volume defined by the shape the the plate and the physical attributes of a players body. You can see that here:
I was concerned that there was not enough tech to get this right in the past, however all this is now solved. We know the answer for every pitch. And while slow to the team, Im 100% on board. It should be used for every pitch. And Id keep the umpire behind the plate for all the other business that has to be done.
The hawk-eye system for tennis, and for proper football (like soccer) has minimal challenge. Laser lines can be put on the court and when a ball interrupts the laser, boom, its a call. The floating 3D shape of the strike zone is much much different.
Ive been to AAA games with the challenge rule in place and its effecient and fast and no complaints.
Bring it on. Id truthfully like to see Hawk-eye used for the base lines and projected above foul poles for curving fly balls that may or may not be HR.
To get a sense on how preposterous the tv strike zones are see this short video of a Mets v Cards game on the exact same pitch but hove v away broadcast. For one its a strike for the other its a ball.
I really love the idea of the automated strike zone. I am looking forward to it. Remember Glavine pitching on the edge for years around the plate and getting called strikes. Or Beltran looking at strike three with the bases loaded. Was it really a strike? I think it will make the game better where hitters have a mich better chance of learning the real strike zone rather than saying umpire B calls high strikes.
Mike, your reference to Glavine was like taking the name out of my mouth. I know that I have referred to him often, but I hated the calls he got. Hall of Famer my ass!
I have to wonder how creating the “average” strike zone will effect the successes of say Jett Williams, who is shorter than most and thus will have a bigger strike zone to worry about, and guys like Judge that are huge and will have a smaller zone to worry about. I always felt that having a microchip at the letters and one at the knees for each player fixes this inequality.
It seems to me the only reason we aren't in a full robo ump mode is so we don't hurt the umps feelings and that I don't understand at all. We still want umps for making loads of other calls, why not just let them take a back seat to the balls and strike calls? Hopefully someday.
tennis has the best "ball/strike" replay system with how they review line calls. and it's super fast. hopefully the abs system can rise to that level.
Tennis uses Hawk-Eye, which is what MLB now uses. They started off many years ago with a different system but changed to Hawk-eye. A quick search did not immediately turn up what they used initially.
I am on the far back end of this curve and will go with the ABS system kicking and screaming. I still dislike the pitch clock. Bad umpires should not be allowed to continue to be bad umpires. Lousy fielding .210 utility infielders don't last long in the majors. Poor umps should not either.
Basically, I am as close to a baseball originalist as they come, and am quite saddened by what has become of our national pastime.
What I have found anecdotally is that most umpires call about 95% percent of balls and strikes correctly. Growing up the strike zone was a ball over the plate and somewhere between the knees and letters. Not sure why anyone tolerates different strike zones from any umpire so I welcome the automated system if it comes with consistency. It is tough enough for a batter to lay off a 98 MPH fastball but if it does not catch the plate, it must be called a ball. Otherwise it is the same as saying that a runner is out at a base despite beating the throw or when the ump misses that a fielder's foot was off the base or they missed a tag.
Have always lobbied to measure players as Aaron Judge and Jose Altuve would certainly have vastly different strike zones. But a ball that is not over the plate simply cannot be called a strike.
Challenging balls and strikes is long overdue, but from a time perspective it would add to the length of the game, a cardinal sin these last number of years.
I am on Team Robot but I can imagine the type of person who considers kicking dirt on the umpire to be an intrinsic part of baseball's entertainment value in the same way that some hockey spectators value fist fights.
Brian, you have been at the top of the curve on this since day 1. I was skeptical until we can see how the tech has evolved to make this fair, fast, and accurate. The stupid ball/strike boxes are not what will be deployed for this if you that have fear. These are TV Broadcast generated, one size fits all, junk efforts. I was concerned that to do this fair every person needed to have their own strike zone - the biomech measurements solve this. most people think of the stike zone as a flat, 2-dimensional surface, but in fact the strike zone is a volume defined by the shape the the plate and the physical attributes of a players body. You can see that here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Strike_zone_en.JPG
I was concerned that there was not enough tech to get this right in the past, however all this is now solved. We know the answer for every pitch. And while slow to the team, Im 100% on board. It should be used for every pitch. And Id keep the umpire behind the plate for all the other business that has to be done.
The hawk-eye system for tennis, and for proper football (like soccer) has minimal challenge. Laser lines can be put on the court and when a ball interrupts the laser, boom, its a call. The floating 3D shape of the strike zone is much much different.
Ive been to AAA games with the challenge rule in place and its effecient and fast and no complaints.
Bring it on. Id truthfully like to see Hawk-eye used for the base lines and projected above foul poles for curving fly balls that may or may not be HR.
I really dig projecting above the foul poles.
To get a sense on how preposterous the tv strike zones are see this short video of a Mets v Cards game on the exact same pitch but hove v away broadcast. For one its a strike for the other its a ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfc2miYm2hU
This has been the reason to be worried, but the actual robots will be perfect.
I really love the idea of the automated strike zone. I am looking forward to it. Remember Glavine pitching on the edge for years around the plate and getting called strikes. Or Beltran looking at strike three with the bases loaded. Was it really a strike? I think it will make the game better where hitters have a mich better chance of learning the real strike zone rather than saying umpire B calls high strikes.
Mike, your reference to Glavine was like taking the name out of my mouth. I know that I have referred to him often, but I hated the calls he got. Hall of Famer my ass!
I have to wonder how creating the “average” strike zone will effect the successes of say Jett Williams, who is shorter than most and thus will have a bigger strike zone to worry about, and guys like Judge that are huge and will have a smaller zone to worry about. I always felt that having a microchip at the letters and one at the knees for each player fixes this inequality.
Thats a good point Gus about the size of the zone. Would it be fair to have a smaller zone for Jett Williams or Altuve?
From TFA
"ABS calls the upper end of the strike zone at 53.5 percent of a player’s height, and the bottom at 27 percent."
It seems to me the only reason we aren't in a full robo ump mode is so we don't hurt the umps feelings and that I don't understand at all. We still want umps for making loads of other calls, why not just let them take a back seat to the balls and strike calls? Hopefully someday.