Mlb testing rule changes in independent Atlantic league

From what I read, nobody knows yet how umps will use the e-info on balls and strikes. I don’t understand how the data can be used during an AB without seriously disrupting the flow of the game.  Does anyone have details?

I wouldn’t ban shifts, but doing so doesn’t seem like that big a deal. 

The articles I read say all catcher mound visits will be banned (unless part of a pitching change).  I get the desire to speed up the game, but what if P and C need to change or clarify signs?

It’s moving the mound back that has me concerned. Lowering the mound seems like a relatively easy adjustment for Ps. But changing the distance to the plate?  Breaking balls could be radically affected.  Even fastballs would need to be thrown/located differently. Ps have thrown from 60 feet 6 inches since they were 13 or 14 years old—that is a lot of reps, a lot to re-work. Maybe it won’t be all that difficult...  Maybe. But at a minimum, why not allow Ps an offseason to adjust, rather than changing mid-summer?  That gives players less than a week to adjust. (Batters will have  adjustments to make, too, but those seem relatively minor.  And ultimately more time to see a pitch ought to help, though maybe not enough to matter in the case of an extra 24” of travel time.)

I've seen a lot of furor over this.  It's a test in an independent league.  Let's wait and see.  

Just a robot umpire calling the rule book strike zone may be a really big change.  I assume each hitter will have a strike zone based on his (height, knee, etc)

Did you ever see Hakeem Olajuwon standing next to Pat Ewing or Kareem Abdul Jabbar?  Hakeem had really short legs compared to many of the bigs.  Conversely a longer torso. Although not an exact height match (Hakeem was 6'10 3/4"), Hakeem would have a larger strike zone than Pat/Kareem.

Can't think of any big men from Boston to compare him to....

Moving the mound back is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard of, but I like the idea of airing this kind of stuff out in an independent league like that. 

Go44dad posted:

I've seen a lot of furor over this.  It's a test in an independent league.  Let's wait and see.  

Just a robot umpire calling the rule book strike zone may be a really big change.  I assume each hitter will have a strike zone based on his (height, knee, etc)

Did you ever see Hakeem Olajuwon standing next to Pat Ewing or Kareem Abdul Jabbar?  Hakeem had really short legs compared to many of the bigs.  Conversely a longer torso. Although not an exact height match (Hakeem was 6'10 3/4"), Hakeem would have a larger strike zone than Pat/Kareem.

Can't think of any big men from Boston to compare him to....

From what I have read (which isn’t at all clear or comprehensive), there will still be umps behind the plate calling balls and strikes, but they will be able to use (how? beats me) the robot strike zone info. I have no idea how that works in the flow of the game though. Maybe there is an option to review close ball/strike calls?

Chico Escuela posted:

Go44dad posted:

I've seen a lot of furor over this.  It's a test in an independent league.  Let's wait and see.  

Just a robot umpire calling the rule book strike zone may be a really big change.  I assume each hitter will have a strike zone based on his (height, knee, etc)

Did you ever see Hakeem Olajuwon standing next to Pat Ewing or Kareem Abdul Jabbar?  Hakeem had really short legs compared to many of the bigs.  Conversely a longer torso. Although not an exact height match (Hakeem was 6'10 3/4"), Hakeem would have a larger strike zone than Pat/Kareem.

Can't think of any big men from Boston to compare him to....

From what I have read (which isn’t at all clear or comprehensive), there will still be umps behind the plate calling balls and strikes, but they will be able to use (how? beats me) the robot strike zone info. I have no idea how that works in the flow of the game though. Maybe there is an option to review close ball/strike calls?

Wouldn't it be super simple to have an ear piece for the human ump notifying him or her of the ball/strike call, and then he or she can signal the ball/strike call? Clearly there's a need for a human ump anyway -- check swings, foul tips, plays at the plate, catcher's interference, etc.

2019Dad posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

Go44dad posted:

 

 

Wouldn't it be super simple to have an ear piece for the human ump notifying him or her of the ball/strike call, and then he or she can signal the ball/strike call? Clearly there's a need for a human ump anyway -- check swings, foul tips, plays at the plate, catcher's interference, etc.

Simple to set that up, for sure. And I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. But if I were the ump, it could be tough to stay focused for the times I needed to overrule the robot. That voice in your ear might make you really hesitant to make a different call. Or maybe umps would get used to it, maybe they could give feedback between innings if calls were consistently off...  I’m not against the experiment. But if the goal is to speed games up, this may be counterproductive. 

Go44dad posted:

I've seen a lot of furor over this.  It's a test in an independent league.  Let's wait and see.  

Just a robot umpire calling the rule book strike zone may be a really big change.  I assume each hitter will have a strike zone based on his (height, knee, etc)

Did you ever see Hakeem Olajuwon standing next to Pat Ewing or Kareem Abdul Jabbar?  Hakeem had really short legs compared to many of the bigs.  Conversely a longer torso. Although not an exact height match (Hakeem was 6'10 3/4"), Hakeem would have a larger strike zone than Pat/Kareem.

Can't think of any big men from Boston to compare him to....

The mind boggles at having the same strike zone for both Judge, and Altuve. Having said that, if they can figure out a way to adjust for height, I'm all for robo umps. I get really tired of some of the calls and attitudes I see. You can't offend, influence, or go chin to chin with a robot.

   Lowering the mound sounds like a better idea than moving the rubber away. Pitchers have been using 60'6" all their lives. I can see a lot of them not being able to make the adjustment.

   Limiting shifts strikes me as silly, and an indictment on the lack of imagination, training, and coaching in MLB. Not a hill I'm going to choose to die on, though.

Chico Escuela posted:

2019Dad posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

Go44dad posted:

 

 

Wouldn't it be super simple to have an ear piece for the human ump notifying him or her of the ball/strike call, and then he or she can signal the ball/strike call? Clearly there's a need for a human ump anyway -- check swings, foul tips, plays at the plate, catcher's interference, etc.

Simple to set that up, for sure. And I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. But if I were the ump, it could be tough to stay focused for the times I needed to overrule the robot. That voice in your ear might make you really hesitant to make a different call. Or maybe umps would get used to it, maybe they could give feedback between innings if calls were consistently off...  I’m not against the experiment. But if the goal is to speed games up, this may be counterproductive. 

Hmm . . . it would be a weird approach to me to say to the ump: "make a different call if you feel like it." We may be talking about two different things. What I'm saying is: the voice in his or her ear would tell the umpire whether it was a ball or a strike. Not suggest. Or give some kind of indication. Tell. The only time it would be overruled would be for things like checked swings, catcher's interference, etc. If implemented like that, it wouldn't slow down the game at all.

The idea about moving the mound is obviously in response to increased velocity and the effect its having on hitting.  I really can't believe that they are going to make some guys try to do it.  

One reason that pitchers are able to throw harder is that they pitch to fewer batters than they used to, and make fewer pitches when they are tired and wearing down.  So why not make pitchers pitch to more hitters by limiting pitching substitutions.  If starters actually had to go through the order more than twice offense would almost certainly improve.  Likewise, the longer a reliever has to stay in a game the more he'll get hit.

2019Dad posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

2019Dad posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

Go44dad posted:

 

 

Wouldn't it be super simple to have an ear piece for the human ump notifying him or her of the ball/strike call, and then he or she can signal the ball/strike call? Clearly there's a need for a human ump anyway -- check swings, foul tips, plays at the plate, catcher's interference, etc.

Simple to set that up, for sure. And I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. But if I were the ump, it could be tough to stay focused for the times I needed to overrule the robot. That voice in your ear might make you really hesitant to make a different call. Or maybe umps would get used to it, maybe they could give feedback between innings if calls were consistently off...  I’m not against the experiment. But if the goal is to speed games up, this may be counterproductive. 

Hmm . . . it would be a weird approach to me to say to the ump: "make a different call if you feel like it." We may be talking about two different things. What I'm saying is: the voice in his or her ear would tell the umpire whether it was a ball or a strike. Not suggest. Or give some kind of indication. Tell. The only time it would be overruled would be for things like checked swings, catcher's interference, etc. If implemented like that, it wouldn't slow down the game at all.

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that for now the robot calls are just a source the ump can use, not mandatory. That is in part because the tech just isn’t that good yet—because of varying heights, crouching batters, etc. Right now the system would in fact use the same strike zone for Judge and Altuve, so it’s not ready to be the definitive call on balls and strikes. 

Moving the mound back is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....especially mid-season.  You can't expect guys who have been throwing from 60' for 10+ years to change in the course of a few days.  I seriously doubt that there will be a lot of pitchings jumping up and down to play in this sideshow

So let's say that right now a pitcher wanting to throw a breaking ball middle in starts the pitch off aiming at the batter's shoulder. Move the mound back to feet and where do they aim? Behind the batter's head?

Gravity will impact the ball a bit more so the pitch will have to start off higher. Using the same rotation on the ball he has now the pitcher will have to start the ball even further off of the plate. No doubt accuracy will also decrease having 2 feet further to travel.

That sure sounds like a recipe for more walks and longer games at the upper levels and disaster for young teens trying to find the strike zone.

I think the idea doing the mound thing in season is having a direct comparison of the stats. Not great for the pitchers of course.

Pitchers will have to throw everything a bit higher, especially breaking balls need to start in a higher "tunnel".

They're addressing problems and coming up with bad solutions. 

Strikeouts are up. Especially in the past 10 years when there has been a big surge in launch angle, attack angle, exit velocity. Instead of coming out and saying that this approach isn't for everybody, they want to move the mound back 2 ft. 

Hitting the ball up is a problem. I know the goal is to hit homers and line drives in the gaps, but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't happen enough. Too many weak popouts and strikeouts. Homers are up, but it doesn't matter if MLB has broken the K record 10 years in a row. And I'm not anti launch angle/lift the ball mentality. But at a certain point when it doesn't work, you have to try something else and that doesn't happen. It gets defended religiously by those it works for and with graphs and percentages by people creating the data. It is not for every one, it is not even for most people. But the approach should be - hey I'm hitting .246 with a ton of strikeouts, we need to fix this - and not pitchers are too good, move the mounds back. Could you imagine what an advantage the pitchers would have moving the mounds forward 2 feet. 

Maybe it's like this .......

"Hello Dave. Didn't that last pitch seem just off the plate. Dave? I know you called it a strike, but my sensors showed it just off of the plate, Dave.  What do you mean by the pitcher earned it, Dave? What are "rabbit ears", Dave? Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

If a robo ump proves to be much more accurate at calling strikes then baseball should seriously consider adopting it at all levels. Ump would still call foul or fair balls, hit by pitch, out at home, check swing etc.

In my opinion, far too many umpires call strikes based on where the catcher catches the ball rather than where it crosses the plate (which is far more difficult to do)

I remember when the pitching distance went from 54 feet to 60 feet and suddenly many guys  who were effective at 54 feet could no longer pitch anymore at 60. The additional two feet might have the same effect at the high school level.  Just a few years ago when my son was a freshman, I remember seeing all the 6a varsity pitchers throwing at least 84 mph FBs and many upper 80s touching 90 and higher. Now I see many varsity pitchers throwing mid to high 70s and they are pretty effective - not sure all of them will be at a distance of 62 feet though. Hard to say.

From reading the linked article, I think the "increase the size of its bases from 15 to 18 square inches" could be quite interesting.  A field is 90' square with the distance measured from the apex of the plate (e.g. point at catcher) to the back edge of 1st and 3rd base.  So a different set of bangers at 1st, but potentially more hits.  Same for steals - it's that much closer for the steal which many times is out/safe by fingertips.  Add 2 feet for the pitch to reach the plate and that's a game changer.