Automation is coming, in fits and starts, but MLB can’t seem to decide on a zone
A lot of these daily questions have been about vibes. This is more of a real one, because MLB has a minor pickle on its hands.
If you haven’t been following the story, it basically breaks down like this. The rulebook strike zone is essentially home plate, projected over a three-dimensional space with a defined top and bottom height, based on the physical characteristics of the batter. So long as umpires are subjectively calling balls and strikes, it is what it is.
But, MLB has, in fits and starts, moved towards some version of an automated system, given the pitch-tracking technology that exists today. The “problem” is that when they implemented electronic ball-and-strike tracking with in-game implications, it became possible to throw a pitch that clipped some part of this 3D projection, potentially darting into and then out of the zone before crossing the plate, that didn’t “feel” like a strike.
So, unbeknownst to most, but apparently divulged to a wider audience as part of a Jayson Stark Athletic column, MLB surreptitiously changed the way the automated zone/challenge system is working this Spring Training to not a 3D projection of the plate, but basically just a plane situated in the middle of the distance “across” the plate (i.e., from forward to back, from pitcher to catcher). This makes it hard, if not impossible, to throw a “cheap” strike… but it has the potentially-unintended effect of changing the definition of the zone, such that what’s being used isn’t actually what’s in the rulebook.
Of course, the rulebook can be changed. But I guess, that’s my question: what should be the definition of the zone going forward, provided that we’re going to get more and more automation of ball-and-strike calls?