SeeingEyeDog

BlueMan, I had not thought of this angle...this is next level, John Cena "You can't see me..." thinking. Sometimes, the obvious answers are obvious... ~Dawg

Ranger, the entire conversation that MLB is having with itself regarding the strike zone and the implementation of ABS and related automated strike zone adjudication simply does not add up factually and logically. Everyone around this game at any level knows that the whole reason that ABS and technology are being explored is because of the strong and accurate belief that technology MIGHT EVENTUALLY be 100% accurate...or at least MORE accurate than human umpires. Leadership does not want MLB games decided by umpire misses. And yet, here we are in 2025 and MLB is implementing an INCOMPLETE technology. Please explain to me how that while it makes sense that all of us, including leadership, to know that the state of the art again, can NOT consistently plot the vertical axis of pitches which we are then FURTHER compounding with this "compromise" of the strike zone relative to player...that all of this makes for more accurate adjudication of the strike zone and better MLB baseball in 2026? I get it. I do. The technology has been coming for a long time. Nobody including myself should be surprised by this coming into the game. I simply do not believe as currently constructed that ABS (full-time, challenge, etc.) is ready for prime time. And if MLB wants to "compromise" on the vertical limits of the zone, then we need for them to codify that in the rule book. They're MLB. They can do or do not as they please. Like all pro sports, MLB is not a competitive athletic contest. It's an entertainment enterprise masquerading as a competitive athletic contest. If the fans accept this and come to the ballpark, that's all MLB cares about. Romantic notion's of "America's pastime" do not help you cover expenses and pocket the rest. ~Dawg

Thanks, @Velho...as I suspected, it seems they are changing the definition of the strike zone to accommodate the limits of the ABS tech (which fundamentally changes the game and it's not being applied equally to all players...) instead of looking at other procedures and policies that ALLOW for the limitations of the ABS technology while ALSO maintaining the existing codified, rulebook definition of the strike zone. Whether you agree or disagree with how MLB is proceeding, this is the beginning of a landmark moment and possibly a new era of The Game at its highest level... ~Dawg

I just really don't like where they are with the technology currently. The technology is not able to consistently plot the vertical axis. According to that article, the "compromise" mentioned was "...based on the batter's height." Respectfully, that's garbage. The implication there is that EVERY human being of the same height has the same vertical limits to their strike zone. There are guys who are 6'2" who have short torsos and long legs and there are guys who are 6'2" who have long torsos and short legs. The hollow of the knees on both of those guys is NOT going to be in the same place. I don't know if this is a practical solution but, at the start of every season and every post-season all players should have their strike zones mapped. Take some BP and have cameras documenting each players pre-swing positioning. And average out the vertical limits through the session. Send a team of people from the league's office around to each club. Callups should have there's done, too...not sure mechanically what that looks like. Maybe once all players are drafted, they should be mapped. We know eventually the technology will catch up and they will be able to accurately and consistently plot the vertical. Until then, we have to do other things to achieve the objective. ~Dawg

The graphic of the Dunning-Kruger effect is applicable here, no question... ~Dawg

Remember when the Internet on the whole was a fun and exciting place to go and learn about things we didn't know about, emerging technologies, etc? Whatever you were into, there was an informative website with a vibrant community supporting it... That article might be one of the worst "articles" of any kind I have ever read. Tell me you have developed a new technology to help umpires and The Game of Baseball...WITHOUT telling me you have developed a new technology to help umpires and The Game of Baseball. Our new AI overseers need to get better. They need to figure it out. ~Dawg

Welcome Llama, I enjoyed your work in "The Emperor's New Groove"... See what you call and call what you see, ~Dawg

Yes...again, to fully re-confirm this...I mis-spoke. AmLegion 100% has the rule on the books and 100% enforces this. As they should! ~Dawg

You are correct and thank you for the clarification... ~Dawg

3.08e Base coaches are required to wear helmets I have yet to see an amateur baseball league (youth or adult) playing under OBR who enforces this rule. And since I don't believe in umpires taking on more liability than they should, I ALWAYS discuss this rule at the plate meeting. If they don't want it enforced fine, but, I want them verbalizing that and I want my partners attentive to it so they can bear witness later, if necessary. If someone gets injured as a base coach without a helmet, I don't want anyone leaving the ballpark after that thinking they can hang that on the umpires for not enforcing the rule. ~Dawg

I own two Douglas chest protectors. They are not the cheapest chest protectors ever sold...they are simply the best. I recommend upgrading it with gap protection between the shoulder caps and chest plate and while most will say they prefer the T-hooks, I personally prefer the side buckles. What sold it for me is that they offer me the MOST torso protection fully down to my beltline AND...their customer service is the best in the business. ~Dawg

Oh good...well...I guess you cleared that one up... ~Dawg

Brothers, As always, I am not looking to criticize or show anyone up. I am trying to learn... I would first like to confirm that the following occurred as I was not watching the game when these things happened: 1) Did Ohtani violate the between innings timer on all 3 occasions he was due on the mound? If yes, why did the umpires permit this and not hang a ball on the count after the timer expired? 2) Did Blake Snell upon entering the game as a reliever, ask for and receive mound maintenance from the TOR groundskeepers? I have never seen this before at the MLB level unless there is rain or muddy conditions. Once again, if yes, why did the umpires permit this and is there an OBR rules citation related to this circumstance? Do MLB groundskeepers have an obligation to honor "field repairs" during a game? EDITORIAL: If I am Mark Shapiro, I am firing my entire groundskeeping staff. You repaired the field for the OPPOSITION in OUR park during Game 7 of the World Series? I understand this is the Canadian way...there are limits. They violated them. What do you have, brothers? ~Dawg

Did anyone see the play (I think it was the third inning)...there was a ball down the LF line, I do not know 6-man but, I presume U5's coverage area is anything beyond U3, yes? Tumpane (U5) came into the frame looking like he was going to point it fair and then stopped and had an awkward look on his face. The frame of the shot was too tight to see what U3 was doing but, my speculation is that U3 forgot they were in 6-man, the ball goes by U3 down the line and he turns with it to take it as he would in 4-man forgetting Tumpane was out there. Finally something clicked...and Tumpane took the call, called it correctly and there was nothing further. Despite being down the line, it was not that close and they absolutely got the call correct. Was there anything else that happened on this that would have caused Tumpane to dry fire and then grab it as he should have anyway? Just curious what you guys might have seen...not looking to fry anyone over this... ~Dawg

We have four guys at the MLB level from my association. There is by no means a mandate on "working low" but, the guys who are doing it, are doing it because the data indicates it gives them the best accuracy. ~Dawg