I paid attention to the Padres at the Phillies over the last two days, watching parts of both the home and away broadcasts on Friday, and then listening to parts of both ends of the doubleheader as I drove around New England on Saturday. The theme that ran through all of these broadcasts was the poorly called strike zone. This wasn’t the usual, “I don’t agree with the umpire’s zone, but at least he’s consistent,” gripe. This was, “That ball was three inches off the plate and called a strike,” combined with, “that pitch was over the heart of the plate and called a ball.” I know that can happen with one game, an umpire having a bad night. This came from three different home plate umpires over two days, and three broadcasts all picking up on the same thing.
Toward the end of the day on Saturday, one of the radio announcers suggested we get rid of the box (on the screen) and just let umpires call their own zones again. I am not opposed to that, as the feed back from batters and pitchers can lead to umpires calling the organically negotiated zone both sides want, as happened in the 1990s. While I did not like it at the time, it may be that the rule book changing to the reality of the called zone might be a better outcome than the rule book strike zone being imposed on the game.
The problem with that is that it leads to what we used to have, each umpire having his own strike zone. I understand the game survived with that before, but it never made sense to me. “Each umpire has his own strike zone” is no more logical than “each umpire has his own foul line.” The only way we can have a fair game is if we agree on what the rules are.
It also leads to another thing we used to have, which is different strike zones for different players, based on reputation. If Greg Maddux throws a pitch three inches off the plate it’s a strike, but if Scott Diamond throws one there, it’s a ball. If Joe Mauer takes a pitch on the corner, it’s a ball, but if Drew Butera takes that pitch, it’s a strike. I want the same rules for everybody.
I think we can differentiate between different edge calls and bad umpiring. The point of the strike zone is to get the pitcher to throw the ball where the batter can hit it. If the game evolves so that part of the rules strike zone becomes unhittable, then the zone needs to be changed. I suspect you could use AI to evaluate this, but players and umpires use a similar feedback mechanism to come to the same conclusion.
I’m not sure I understand you. What is the distinction between “different edge calls” and “bad umpiring”?
Umpires should not call pitches inches off the plate strikes. Some umps may want most of the ball over the plate, some may require just a seam. I can live with that variation in umpiring.
I could live with that, too, although I’d still rather have one uniform strike zone for everybody. When you said “just let umpires call their own zones again”, I read that as going back to some umps calling pitches well off the plate strikes, the way they used to. If that’s not what you meant, we have less of a disagreement.
However, I still do disagree with the idea that the strike zone should be an “organically negotiated” thing. It’s a rule, defined in the rule book. We would never say, “The point of the foul line is to give fielders a fair chance to catch the ball, so let’s let it be organically negotiated between the players and the umps.” To me, the strike zone is no different. If it needs to be changed, as it has been in the past, then change it. But let’s have the change be defined in the rules, so everyone knows what it is.
Anyway, it’s just my two cents. I have no ability to affect what MLB does, and I’m sure I’ll remain a baseball fan, and a fan of baseball musings, regardless.