Ever think that the strike zone should be exactly the same for every hitter. Why should it get bigger or smaller just to compensate for the size or stance of the hitter? Short hitters would have to hit the same pitches that bigger hitters get called strikes. A strike should be a strike, it shouldn't depend on the size and stance of a hitter. It really would change the strike zone by a lot anyway, maybe an inch or two. Might make it a bit easier for an umpire to be consistent. Shouldn't a strike be a strike, just like shooting the ball in the basket? Why should a strike to one hitter be a ball to the next hitter?
I understand this could be a slight disadvantage to extremely short players/hitters. However, the shorter player and smaller strike zone becomes a disadvantage to the pitcher.
Is there any other sport that adjusts important playing dimensions based on the size of participants? And seeing they adjust the strike zone, maybe they should adjust the bases so the shorter player with shorter strides doesn't have to run as far. The shorter pitcher has to throw from the same distance and mound as the extremely tall pitcher throws from.
Probably doesn't make sense, plus it just accounts for high and low. Out or in is the same for everyone. Wait, why isn't size or arm length considered for inside or outside? Most pitches seem to be missed inside or outside. Most often outside! Umpires are taught to set up inside, between the catcher and hitter. I'm not an umpire, but that has to make calling the outside edge the most difficult to get right. Especially when so many are on the edge or close to it.
At some point, maybe many years from now, I think technology will be used more and more to help officiate all sports and that might even involve calling balls and strikes. Good umpires or officials want to be right every time. Problem is, that is impossible even for the very best umpires because they are human. The way it is now, they are actually players in a way. If they have a bad day it can affect who wins or loses, almost like a player or pitcher having a bad day.
Many will fight the changes, but sooner or later I think it is going to happen. Umpires will still be needed to maintain control of things. There will still be many plays that need to be called on the field. But when they figure out a way to utilize technology to actually move the game along quicker, it might happen.
Then again, here's a question. Being that all the technical advances would probably only happen at the Major League level, do MLB organizations want shorter games? Wonder how much additional revenue is brought in during a 4 hour game vs. a 2 1/2 hour game? I've never seen numbers that show the difference in actual income or profit between a fast game and a slow game. Most seem in favor of faster games, MLB has done some things to move the games along faster, but wonder what the owners think?
I know all the above is a bunch of nothing, but we have 250 teams "safe and sound" playing ball with a ton of college coaches watching them in Florida right now, and so far, most of East Florida escaped the worst of the hurricane, that makes me feel extra good. Hoping that those farther north can also escape the worst.