Jul 10

Jul 10 Electronic Strike Zones: a Strike or a Wild Pitch?

The Electronic Strike Zone: Is technology inevitable in every sport? And to what degree?

We’ve seen really positive instances of technology enhancing sports such as Hawkeye in cricket and tennis, and goal-line technology has largely been successful in football/soccer.

The less said about VAR in football the better for me, although I’ll concede that the Euro 2020 was a positive step forward with VAR. As technology advances, as the margins between win or lose are so fine and as money talks very loudly in sport, it feels like robots are going to start infiltrating more and more in sports.

Baseball has seen good use of technology already, and I like the reply-review. I think it works and it can be used well. My only criticism is that some decisions take too long.

My personal view is that if a definite decision isn’t reached within 60 seconds (or possibly 30 in some cases), then the on-field decision stands.

Take a look at Joe Panik’s double-play for the Giants in Game 7 of the 2014 World Series, an astonishing play whereby the on-field decision of one out was overturned.

This was the first such instance in World Series play. I urge you to take a look at this play (below), which is athleticism at its finest at the elite level, during one of the most high-pressure games.

Technology has contributed hugely to player scouting and development, with Statcast and TrackMan technology used to analyse every movement of the players, including bat speed, spin-rates, and absolutely everything else under the sun.

I like seeing data and technology being used to find players' true worth and helping to develop players, which can only be a good thing in my mind. This is very much the extension of the Moneyball thinking.

Trials are taking place to take this one step further, using technology to call balls and strikes, to give us an electronic strike zone, taking that task away from the umpires.

Here, I explore the arguments for and against this, and sharing my own thoughts on this proposal on more help for the umpires in the Major Leagues.

The Case FOR the Electronic Strike Zone

The clearest argument for electronic strike zones is that they bring consistency.

There is no umpire variation, and there is no in-game variation.

The strike zone is the strike zone and it is the rule book strike zone. I’m seeing a lot of excellent pitches not getting the call they deserve because of the deception that takes place on the pitch.

I get that pitches with a lot of movement make it harder to call, but skill of that calibre should not be punished.

You also see lots of knee-high strikes not get called and some pitches that are way outside the backdoor often getting called a strike- and then followed up by stuff inside getting called a strike.

This is unfair on the hitters as they can’t cover that whole range. With every missed call brings inconsistency and frustration. I guess we notice it more with every broadcaster placing their own zone over the top of the shot (but don’t be fooled, this isn’t always perfect), and now that we are at the crunch time of the season, every single pitch matters.

A wrong call changes the count, which changes the approach of either side. This is big.

When you are dealing with elite sports, unfortunately, you are not just dealing with elite athletes, coaches, managers and medics, you are also dealing with business people who see an opportunity to make money.

When you are talking about one of the finest lines in sport, and in baseball we could be talking millimetres between a strike and a ball, every decision is pivotal.

The crucial strikeout or walk that ends up being the difference between winning and losing and, ultimately, the difference between a few million dollars and many more millions of dollars would not be blamed on incorrect calls of balls and strikes if you have a robot ump.

A consistent strike zone brings fairness.

The zone is the same for everyone and we know what that zone is. In terms of what this brings to the sport, gameplay, and the sporting element, this is a very important point. In terms of the strike zone, it becomes a fair and equal game.

There is currently the potential of unfairness- and this would be eradicated with electronic zones.

However, the most important point is the social role of electronic zones. It eliminates any unconscious bias that may exist- or even conscious bias, but I hope this is not the case.

I’ve not noticed any biases or tested the theory, but we all have unconscious biases and when you are dealing with split-second, very difficult decisions, such as whether a 100mph ball was on the corner or not, it is the perfect storm for unconscious bias to appear.

This could lead to someone favouring the pitcher or batter.

In a world where we are seeing social injustices, the electronic strike zone eliminates this possibility. This is arguably the most important point, but you will never see MLB use this as a justification.

The final argument in favour of the robot umpire is that there would be far fewer ejections, and probably fewer suspensions, meaning we lose the best players for fewer games.

We’ve seen the scene hundreds of times before: a borderline pitch gets called a strike, and the hitter is out.

The person at-bat starts jawing at the home plate umpire and his manager (whether he agrees with his player or not) charges out to join the argument, more often than not to come out and say something worse than the hitter in order to protect the hitter, so that the manager is ejected rather than the player.

When that argument escalates or something foul-mouthed is said, the inevitable spin and point from the umpire is seen, ejecting one or both from the game. A suspension may well follow. Fights, ejections, and suspensions will still happen for throwing at hitters, dangerous slides, etc. but this would reduce the number of ejections.

Technology is here anyway in other facets of the game and entrenched in so many sports, so why not take it to the fullest extent? If we have the technology that makes it work, why wouldn’t you use it to improve or enhance the game?

Having heard the arguments in support, robots dictating the outcome of each pitch sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it? Your mind may well be made up. But every argument has two sides to consider, so we must consider to the counter.

The Case AGAINST the Electronic Strike Zone

The biggest thing traditionalists will struggle with is the fact that the human element will be lost from that aspect of the game.

Many will point to that as a good thing, but others will say that it is an exciting element of the game, not knowing if that pitch is a correct call or not. The human element brings debate, it brings a spark, and it allows us to shout at the TV with good reason.

For me, the skill in calling balls and strikes is an amazing one, and therefore one we should embrace. We don’t want that to become a lost art. We should appreciate umps for their skill too. Some question the standard of umpiring but I think it is pretty high.

Lose the inconsistency, you lose the arguments that you have with your friends or with the TV (when you’re alone). There is something perverse and satisfying about arguing with the TV knowing that you are right and the professionals are wrong.

We all do it (some more vociferously than others) with sports, referee/umpire decisions, team selections, and tactics. Knowing you are right and everyone else is wrong (tongue firmly in cheek) is a satisfying outlet we all use sport for.

There is a skill in finding the umpire's zone and adjusting to it.

Zones can vary from umpire to umpire, and zones can vary with the same umpire within a game.

Hitters and teams have to work in-game to understand the imperfections of the umpires strike zone and adjusting the fine margins between balls and strikes, adjusting the millisecond decision making between swing and leave. Baseball is hard.

One consideration that I haven’t heard discussed by commentators is that we would lose pitch-framing as a skill.

This is a recent metric that has been measured and a skill that has been developed by catchers, to try to ‘buy’ strikes by pulling a close ball inside the strike zone when caught, to make the umpire think that it was a strike that was pitched.

Whilst this could be seen as a deception, it is a skill that has developed and one that has saved many runs and created more strikeouts. Like it or not, this is a valuable defensive skill. An electronic zone eradicates that need, and waters down the influence of a catcher.

How far down the levels do we go with this? AAA? Low-A? Independent ball? College ball? Weekend leagues (obviously not)? There has to be a cut off at some point and this fundamentally changes the game from one level to the next.

This is big, it gives independent, consistent decision-making at one level, and back to human judgement at another. It changes how pitchers pitch and how hitters approach the plate, and as discussed above, it changes how catchers operate. It means a step change from one level to the next.

Initial trials have had some varying results and I have seen some very questionable footage. From what I have seen and heard, the technology is struggling to achieve accurate results with the curveball dropping in at the top of the zone.

This is a very skilful pitch, so that would harm an off-speed pitch in terms of consistency so there might be a reluctance to use that pitch.

This changes the game as that may alter a pitchers arsenal, and that’s not right. I may be catastrophising a little there but these issues need ironing out.

I’m sure the technology is improving and these are outliers, but it means that there are inconsistencies. If this is going to work, it has to be 100% accurate, and 100% accurate for every pitch type in every part of the zone.

“It has to ensure that balls are balls and strikes are strikes, otherwise, what’s the point? We are back to being inconsistent.” Dave White

To counter the exact same point I’ve made previously, there would be far less ejections! I know I have already made that point in the ‘for’ section, but, let's face it, ejections are fun- and it’s a bit of entertainment.

The back and forth between umpire and player or manager, wondering what they are saying to each other, and the kind of language being used, finished off by the umpire's spin and throw of the arms… You’re outta here!

So, Electronic Strike Zones; Yes or No?

There are strong arguments for and against the introduction of an electronic strike zone. It would certainly change the game if it was introduced.

I’m really torn on the subject! I love the traditional values of the game and I think you lose some personality from the game from the umpire’s own zones, how pitchers and hitters have to adjust and the skills catchers have had to learn, as well as the fantastic skill the umpires portray in calling balls and strikes.

However, I’ve seen too many games recently with some unforgivable decisions. One sticks in my mind, Alec Mills (pitching for the Cubs) threw a lovely 12-6 curveball that completely fooled the hitter and landed plum in the middle of the zone.

It was called a ball, it should have been strike three. This decision punished great skill, excellent execution, and brilliant game-calling by the pitcher and management. A pitch like this should be rewarded to the fullest.

It could be that pitchers have too much speed, too much movement, and too much deception for umpires to keep up, and catchers are too good at pitch framing. An effective electronic zone eradicates these mistakes.

Begrudgingly, as soon as we have faultless technology, I think it is time to introduce it. But it has to work beyond doubt, and at the moment.... I have doubts.