MLB wants to alter strike zone

[reillymcshane]

The Competition Committee has agreed on a motion to raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees. The current rule says the bottom part of the zone goes to the hollow beneath the kneecap.

 

They also agreed to a new intentional walk rule, which basically says a team just verbally issues the intentional walk and the batter takes first base without the four 'balls' being thrown.

 

The two changes have to be approved by baseball's playing rules committee to go into effect - so this is not a done deal.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15633876/mlb-competition-committee-agrees-changes-strike-zone-intentional-walks

 

The big thing is the raising of the strike zone. Studies have shown that the strike zone has lowered over the past few years - specifically with the introduction of the automated ball/strike tracking system.

 

ESPN's Jayson Stark notes:

 

"The adjustment in the strike zone is designed to produce more balls in play, more baserunners and more action at a time when nearly 30 percent of hitters in the average game either walk or strike out, the highest rate of "non-action" in history."

[FVBrewerFan]

So, making the strike zone smaller will result in fewer walks? Got it.

[sveumrules]

I'm fine with intentional walk change. As exciting as it is when a pitcher airmails a pitch it rarely happens.

 

For the strike zone I just wish they'd go with the robots already.

[BarneyStinston]

I prefer having the possibility of being able to swing at an intentional ball

[trwi7]

It's great that they want to raise the strike zone but if umpire's keep calling a low strike, it's not going to matter at all.

[brewcrewdue80]

That's talking 2inches. So instead of ground ball weak contact outs. Pitchers get to lob Batting Practice HR balls over the plate?

 

Maybe the crappy swings he's watching. Balls practically in the dirt being swung at? To him it must be embarrassing and with a ball having to travel 2 inches higher these poor swinging hitters start laying off those pitches? Remember, there's Expansion talk which will mean diluting the bats that are already disappearing.

 

If they move the strike zone higher I hope the umps give the corner strikes an extra inch each side. I feel like the Pitchers will be hurt by this change.

[reillymcshane]

So, making the strike zone smaller will result in fewer walks? Got it.

I think the idea is that hitters are going to see more pitches that they like - and thus will swing at them more often. Right now, pitchers pound that bottom of the zone, and guys try and lay off because hitting that pitch is difficult (producing lots of swings and misses as well as weak grounders).

 

That's the general idea - doesn't mean it will work that way, but that's how (I think) it will make for more balls in play.

[reillymcshane]

 

If they move the strike zone higher I hope the umps give the corner strikes an extra inch each side. I feel like the Pitchers will be hurt by this change.

 

The new strike zone at the bottom of the plate would actually be more in line with how pitches were called a decade ago. However, the strike zone today has squeezed a little compared to a decade ago. Perhaps not as dramatically as how much lower the strike zone is today - but it is narrower.

 

I'm sure if people did a search they could find some studies showing these things.

[AKCheesehead]

I prefer having the possibility of being able to swing at an intentional ball

 

I got to wondering how how many times this has actually occurred. http://sabr.org/research/surprise-swings-intentional-balls

 

I'd be ok with the ibb process change. It'll speed things up, and save the pitcher having to chuck 4 pointless tosses.

 

It sort of reminds me of the rule change in wrestling, where the wrestler on top used to have to do an international start to cut their opponent loose, granting them the uncontested escape for 1 point. Now they can skip that step, signal both up to the ref, give the opponent 1 point and start on their feet off the whistle if that's what they want to do.

[Thurston Fluff]

It sort of reminds me of the rule change in wrestling, where the wrestler on top used to have to do an international start to cut their opponent loose, granting them the uncontested escape for 1 point. Now they can skip that step, signal both up to the ref, give the opponent 1 point and start on their feet off the whistle if that's what they want to do.

 

Since each wrestler gets a choice, in either the second or third period, you still have to give up the point if you want to take it to the feet if the other guy chooses down. Which most wrestlers do because of that. All the neutral choice does is allow a guy to avoid going on the bottom if he is facing a tough rider, is worried about riding time or is looking to get a five point TD/NF combo or a pin. That usually happens when someone is far behind and needs a big score or trying to pin someone for the team points.

[AKCheesehead]

It sort of reminds me of the rule change in wrestling, where the wrestler on top used to have to do an international start to cut their opponent loose, granting them the uncontested escape for 1 point. Now they can skip that step, signal both up to the ref, give the opponent 1 point and start on their feet off the whistle if that's what they want to do.

 

Since each wrestler gets a choice, in either the second or third period, you still have to give up the point if you want to take it to the feet if the other guy chooses down. Which most wrestlers do because of that. All the neutral choice does is allow a guy to avoid going on the bottom if he is facing a tough rider, is worried about riding time or is looking to get a five point TD/NF combo or a pin. That usually happens when someone is far behind and needs a big score or trying to pin someone for the team points.

 

I did mention that they get their 1 escape point. Strategically there is a lot more to it than that. Usually used if top can't turn the opponent and needs points, or else doesn't want to risk a reversal. Neutral choice is top's option to forfeit the escape. As a coach I saw several matches won where the top guy was down 1 point, cut the opponent loose to go down 2 points and tie it up on a takedown to force OT.

[Ennder]

Some of baseball rules are just awful at this point and the IBB is one of them. It is right up there with pitchers hitting as must get rid of. These are throwbacks to a completely different game that just isn't relevant at this point.

[Invader3K]

I have mixed feelings about the IBB thing. On one hand, it is exciting when a pitcher misses. I'm not sure how often that is, though. I have a feeling it's probably about the same rate that an extra point kick is missed in the NFL...exciting when it happens, but so statistically rare that it's otherwise meaningless.

 

In the spirit of speeding up the game, I'm probably OK with MLB doing away with it.

[dacbrewers]

Theoretically a game could never end if the Manager wanted to continually walk guys since there is no opportunity to swing at pitches.

[jerichoholicninja]

Giving more off the corners would be a much better solution. How often do we see guys hammer a pitch that's an inch or two off the plate? Not too often anymore because guys hardly swing at anything but most hitters can still make solid contact on those pitches. You can't say that about the bottom of the zone. Give more strikes in an area where the batters can actually hit it and we'll see the ball in play more and you're helping the batter and the pitcher. Raising the zone does nothing but help the batter.

[Thurston Fluff]

I did mention that they get their 1 escape point. Strategically there is a lot more to it than that. Usually used if top can't turn the opponent and needs points, or else doesn't want to risk a reversal. Neutral choice is top's option to forfeit the escape. As a coach I saw several matches won where the top guy was down 1 point, cut the opponent loose to go down 2 points and tie it up on a takedown to force OT.

 

That happens all the time but I never see it done for that reason to start a period. If you are down by one and have the choice take down and go for an escape. The bottom is generally speaking the easiest place to score a point from. I know it's a baseball site but love to talk wrestling. Was a former wrestler and coach myself. Coached everything from pee wee to college at one point or another. If you want to PM me I would love to talk strategy, or anything wrestling related for that matter, but I'm guessing the mods would like to keep it on subject.

[Patrick425]

It's great that they want to raise the strike zone but if umpire's keep calling a low strike, it's not going to matter at all.

 

This^^

 

When I coached my son in youth baseball we were told to never argue with the umps about balls/strikes and really, in youth baseball, you should not "argue" about any questionable calls..it's youth baseball. However, it was frustrating when they would say different umpires have different strike zones and umpires would actually admit that they have "a lower strike zone" or "wider strike zone". How can you have a zone that differs from the rule book. It's like saying, sometimes I give a batter 4 strikes instead of only 3. Rules are rules. (btw..I realize that at different levels and skill levels in youth baseball there are times when an expanded strike zone is needed for the sanity of all players, coaches, and parents involved)

[reillymcshane]

It's great that they want to raise the strike zone but if umpire's keep calling a low strike, it's not going to matter at all.

The main hope that I have that they will stop calling the low strike is that the umpires adjusted to the automated ball/strike system that we have today (I think it's called Pitchf/x).

 

Umpires are graded against the Pitchf/x system. When this began, they started to see where their mistakes were (according to the computer). And thus they gradually began adjusting to what the computer said was the correct way to call the balls/strikes. This will likely happen again - I think. No ump wants to have their job threatened by poor scores.

[1992casey]

Are they actually graded? I thought the computer was meant to be a teaching tool with no actual job evaluation involved.

 

Still, if the computer has caused the zone to become lower, I suppose it can put it back to where it was.

[1992casey]

After poking around, it looks like umps are actually evaluated, but their scores are so high that I'd be surprised if anyone's getting into much "trouble" over his calls.

 

The current tool is called the Zone Evaluation system. It's been installed in all ballparks since 2009. It allows umps to review their calls immediately after a game. Previously, QuesTec was installed in 11 parks, and several days elapsed before feedback was available.

 

PITCHf/x has been around since 2006. It's maintained by Sportvision and is supported by MLB.

 

It doesn't seem like that long since these tools have been in place. I never paid attention to the existence of that big honkin' thing hanging from the Loge railing until recently.

 

Here's a 2015 article summing up what's happened over the years:

 

Baseball’s strike zone has expanded, and hitters aren’t happy

 

I've attached a photo of the gadget behind home plate at Miller Park that's used for ball/strike evaluation. There are other components under the scoreboard out in center field.

[jerichoholicninja]

I've always been curious how the computer determines the top and bottom of the strike zone. The corners are fixed points and never change. The top and bottom however changes with the batter. There's a big difference in the zone between Chris Carter and Jose Altuve, how does the computer factor in the difference?

[1992casey]

From the article linked to in post 20:

 

"Technicians set the ZE system manually to define the bottom of the strike zone at the hollow of the knee at the stride point for every pitch."

[Fear The Chorizo]

it's not the strike zone that's led to longer games, and I'd argue making the strike zone smaller will simply make hitters take even more pitches. The general approach of organizations to work the count, get into bullpens, and minimize how many outs you give an opponent via sac bunt are why games are longer.

 

25 years ago, if a guy led an inning off with a single or walk, unless the #3 or 4 hitter was up there was a good chance the next batter would lay down a bunt to move the runner over to scoring position. teams commonly go through 3-4 pitching changes per game that's extra dead time for a pitcher to come out of the bullpen and make warmup tosses (extra commercial break for the $pon$or$, too.)

 

simply put the game has changed from previous generations, and the increase in specialization and premium put on both striking guys out or drawing walks/working counts makes games take longer. these minor strike zone and pace of play rule changes aren't going to make a difference.

[Thurston Fluff]

Considering how many shifts teams play now is it any wonder the game has devolved into a strikeout or walk dominated game? Hitters have the choice to succeed by either trying to hit the ball in a way they seem incapable of or working the count to get a walk or mistake pitch. I am not si sure htters are taking pitches and working counts to get into bullpens anymore. Relievers throw harder and have nastier stuff than many starters these days.

[tmwiese55]

I really don't know what to think of this. My gut is to think they should slightly expand strikezone to force hitters to swing, which will speed up the game and create more action overall. But on the otherhand, pitchers are already "winning" right now so it's tough to give them even more help just in the name of putting more balls in play. Very tough problem to solve. What about lowering the mound instead of anything like this?