MLB wants to alter strike zone

[1992casey]

All this proposal really does is revert to what was the de facto strike zone before 2009 and the de jure strike zone before 1996.

 

Going back once again to the article linked to in post 20…

 

No one thought the strike below the knees would start getting called. We just wanted to try to capture the strike at the knees.

In other words, the 1996 rule didn't change much; the change occurred with the implementation of the Zone Evaluation system in 2009.

 

I'm not too concerned about the effect on the pace of the game or even the offense. But I think the fact hitters are pointing out that unhittable pitches are being called as strikes is pretty compelling.

 

Here's a graphic showing the history of the strike zone since 1950. Click on it to see a larger version.

 

[tmwiese55]

And with the shift it makes sense because it's so much hard to get a ball through the infield now and obviously low pitches are going to be ground balls. I get it, it's just every adjustment one can think of creates a side effect that could also be a problem. In this case, potentially drawing even more walks which is boring.

[Polish Falcons]

Nice graphic link, 1992 casey. This graphic made me less opposed than I initially was reading the article and comments. We'd just be going back to the same strike zone of the 80's and early 90's.

 

I still would like it to stay the same, but would be satisfied to compromise with the knees being the lower zone (opposed to the top of the knee).

[brewcrewdue80]

Maybe SPs and Bullpen guys are causing too much delay.

2015: Nelson 177IP KRod/Blazek-57/55.2 #3/4RP

2005: Davis-222.2IP+Capuano-219IP DeLaRosa 42/Santana 41.1 #3/4RP

1995: Sparks-202IP Bones-200.1IP Rightnowar 36/Fetters 34.1 #3/4RP

1985: Darwin-217.2+Hiquera-212 Fingers 55.1/Waits 47 #3/4RP

1975:Broberg-220.1+Slaton-217+Colbern-206.1 Austin 40/Anderson 30.1 #3/4RP

 

You're looking at 70IP total to 112IP from a team's #3&4 RP totals.

 

I'm sure there's a better stat or something that would come away more difinitive like Games Played to avg IP. In '85 Brewers top 2 RPs Bob Gibson+Rob Mclure Pitched a total of 178innings in 79 games combined. Over 2IP an appearance.

 

But certainly, the lack of SPs pitching 200+IP and the use of that 7th inning RP now adds to the game length. Actually, start of the inning wouldn't add too much time but pitching changes during the inning. Where can someone find that info? I've certainly not enjoyed my share of 5.2IP starts at 3ER or less in fantasy losing that last out for a quality start.

 

Maybe a rule changing to 3batters minimum faced when bringing in a RP within the same inning should be put in effect. Between innings wouldn't matter.

[Invader3K]

Looking at that graphic that Casey posted, it's clear the current strike zone has come down to low. It's extremely tough to effectively hit a pitch that comes in that low. It's no wonder offense is down across the league.

[reillymcshane]

I don't think the strike zone change will lead to quicker games, but I think it will lead to more offense. That's because it will force pitchers to throw pitches into a batter's wheelhouse. If batters don't have to worry about swinging at that low ball, they can get more pitches drive.

 

Those bottom two inches are a crappy spot to hit a ball. Swings aren't level, guys flail at pitches down that low. It's swing and miss or weak grounders. If a batter has two less inches of territory to cover, that should make them a better hitter.

 

Of course (I said this before), pitchers will have to adjust. If they don't throw strikes, batters will just take more walks. But I don't think that will happen. Batters want to swing. They just don't want to swing at crappy pitches. By bumping up the zone a couple of inches, I'm betting we see more offense as hitters have less plate to cover.

 

Just my opinion.

[1992casey]

Just to add some background, before 1950, the strike zone was the same as the one used from 1963–68 (tops of shoulders to knees).

 

The interesting caveat is that before 1887, batters could call for a high or low pitch, effectively cutting the zone in half. That same year, the number of "called balls" required for a walk was reduced from six to five. The four-ball walk took effect in 1889.

[jerichoholicninja]

Remember about 10 years ago when there was an emphasis on the high strike? What ever happened to that?

[1992casey]

Back in 1996, the emphasis was the low strike, and to get those pitches to be called as strikes, it seems that MLB over-compensated by making the bottom of the zone lower than it needed to be. I don't recall an emphasis on the high strike, but before computers, "emphasizing" one thing or another was probably the way MLB felt it had to go.

 

I think that any "emphases" have been superseded by the Zone Evaluation system. In terms of getting umps to follow the letter of the law, the system has been successful. We're simply had to wait until 2009 and later to see some of the negatives of the 1996 adjustments.

[jerichoholicninja]

Back in 1996, the emphasis was the low strike, and to get those pitches to be called as strikes, it seems that MLB over-compensated by making the bottom of the zone lower than it needed to be. I don't recall an emphasis on the high strike, but before computers, "emphasizing" one thing or another was probably the way MLB felt it had to go.

 

I think that any "emphases" have been superseded by the Zone Evaluation system. In terms of getting umps to follow the letter of the law, the system has been successful. We're simply had to wait until 2009 and later to see some of the negatives of the 1996 adjustments.

 

I wish I could remember when it was but I remember watching lots of baseball games the first couple weeks of the year and batters were striking out on the "high strike" pretty frequently.

[hurricanecrush]

The top of the strike zone is midway between the top of the shoulders and the top of the pants? Really? Seems like anything above the belt is called a ball.