I will be sold on it when the technology is there to cover the entire plate. I am not ok with changing one of the oldest rules in baseball just to try to get a few bad calls overturned.

One thing I've noticed watching the games to start this season is that it seems like every day there have been more challenges that have ended up confirming the calls by the umpire. This potentially has led to players hesitating more to challenge calls so they don't waste them on the closer calls. I get the sense that maybe the umpires are actually making an effort to adapt, and the players are adapting back by not challenging as much. Im not sure if this is actually true, or just a random observation based on what i WANT to happen, but the end result could actually be that most umpires do a better job now that suddenly there is accountability for the first time in their careers. The good ones with more calls that are confirmed should get bonuses, and the embarrassments like Buckner should be fired, or at least embarrassed. Which is exactly what's happening. Embarrass them until they quit, since apparently you can't fire these bums.

Agreed. Outside of a few umpires they are really good.

Not sure yet whether or not a shrunk strike zone is good for the game. We will see.

I was at the Corpus AA game last night and the pitching looked all the same. I'm not sure why any manager even made a change over than their inability to throw a lot of pitches.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Now that we've had a couple of weeks with this ABS thing, one thing I think it has shown is just how good some of these umpires are (not CB Buckner). The overturn rate is 54% right now. It's true some of the calls it has overturned have been insanely bad, but at the same time some are getting overturned that are just .1 inches of the plate. That's insanely close. Trying to judge a pitch coming in at 95+ mph that is also breaking would be damn near impossible for the average fan. Only having 54% of calls overturned is actually really good in my opinion. Some umps are getting less than 25% overturned. Very impressive.

---

The primary reason for this system isn't really about regular season baseball, the law of averages renders any one call pretty meaningless in a 162 game season. It's going to be a total game changer though in the playoffs because the system has the opportunity to flip the winner of a series. Imagine that Eugenio Suarez at bat, but in the bottom of the ninth instead, saved from a K twice, and then imagine he gets the game winning hit there.

That's why ABS is here, so that the highest leverage moments in the most meaningful games aren't tainted by a bad call that ends the season for one team. In the regular season it's just kind of a novelty since any old game doesn't really mean that much.

agsalaska said:

---

I will be sold on it when the technology is there to cover the entire plate. I am not ok with changing one of the oldest rules in baseball just to try to get a few bad calls overturned.

---

If a ball is going to touch any part of the 3D strike zone, it will hit some part of the 2D one.

What Mathguy64 said.

And it happens WAY more often than people realize.

I suppose you guys are saying it's because of where the 2D plane is located. From mlb.com



I guess your suggestion is that the strike that is lost is the one that knicks the front of the bottom of the 3D zone and is too low by the time it gets to the 2D zone? Or perhaps one breaking in or out that nicks the front? Or nicks the corner as you say?

My understanding was the bottom of the 2D zone was set by the players height to account for that. And that seems like a pretty minor sliver of pitches to be of significance. And I think any ball that nicks the front corner is almost always going to hit the plane too.

Jomboy did a video on this the first week or so of the season. Yankees/Seattle game, Gilbert throws a nasty splitter for a called strike and Yankees challenged the call. According to ABS, was a ball by like 0.4", but Jomboy's point and the concern with 2D ABS is that pitch more than likely with the downward movement was a strike at the front of the plate but too low by the time it reached the 2D zone. With the amount of lateral movement on sweepers and such, there will be pitches that catch the front corner of the plate but be out of the zone by the 2D zone

No way. It happens fairly often.

Think about how many breaking balls are just barely off the corners tailing away from the batters or just barely under the zone. Most of those were strikes a year ago.

If you watch a slow motion video from the side of a good curve ball you will see just how steep a pitch can break. It happened quite famously in the WBC.

Jack Leiter is through 2 2/3 innings and has thrown two now that were strikes last year. At least two.