JohnF posted:First off, I get why it's desired. Still it's a be careful for what you wish type situation IMO. To me it seems it's OK in your opinion to replace "a" human error factor just for balls and strikes just because there's a few borderline pitches every game, but not OK for other areas of the game? We already see technology creep for "reviewable plays" on some of those and it doesn't always work nor is it "time effective"... Out of every pitch thrown in a game - how many are not swung at, that are borderline either called or not called a strike? Does calling a strike (or a ball) extend game time or reduce it? Everyone's focusing on the not a strike situation. What about those called a ball that do nip the zone? Out of all those "missed" calls let's say 20 a game - how many are called balls and how many are called strikes? It goes both ways, so again be careful for which you wish. Maybe coaches shouldn't tell their batters to "see" a strike or two before "allowing" them to swing. Maybe batters shouldn't swing at pitches that are clearly out of the zone and then complain about the one that grabs the corner or is thrown on the inside corner under their arms which extend over the plate hoping to be hit. Everyone seems to forget the other human elements involved here and places blame squarely on the umpire. If a batter shows he doesn't know the zone, then is technology the answer to help the batter?
Is what is proposed cost effective? It's probably only "affordable" at the MLB level. Doubtful Minors could afford it, but maybe they could. Certainly some D1 colleges could, but not all. Forget about it at the HS level or Travel level. Luckily it's not needed at T-Ball - those 4-6 year olds won't have to worry about being whacked out on strikes or receiving that free pass to 1B.
If I'm "taking all the bad things that have happened with using technology in sports and using them as an excuse for not using them in baseball to call pitches not swung at." and "consistency" is provided as a reason for using technology, then how is it that something that has been shown to not work consistently in the past be considered as the panacea to solve *this* (perceived) problem? IOW, if it hasn't really made some other part of the game better, then why is it that it's believed it can solve a problem that affects perhaps 1% of the game? Oh and once a "true strikezone" is called those pitches above the belt to the midpoint of the chest become strikes - you want to see a batters, coaches, and especially parents go crazy, call the "high strike" all game long, your ears will be bleeding from all the noise...
I agree with this entire post.