New, higher strike zone for 2016? It's being studied by MLB

[dagger]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--m ... 40947.html

Of particular concern, sources said, is the low strike, a scourge not only because it has stretched beyond the zone’s boundaries but is considered a significantly more difficult pitch to hit.
Runs per game fell to 4.07 in 2014, the lowest mark since 1981 and the 13th fewest since World War II, and studies from The Harball Times’ Jon Roegele and Florida professor Brian Mills pegged the low strike as a significant culprit.

Since 2009, the average size of the called strike zone has jumped from 435 square inches to 475 square inches, according to Roegele’s research. The results: Pitchers are throwing more in the lower part of the zone, and hitters are swinging at an increased rate, knowing the tough-to-drive pitches will be called strikes.

[satyr9]

While I don't usually feel that rules changes should be done simply to jump start scoring—at least I think you need to give lots of time to see if the league just adjusts on its own first—I would love to see the high strike become a more important part of the game. Is there anything more exciting than those instants where a flamethrower throws high heat to a legit power bat? That flash where you know it's all happening and whether he makes contact or not is **** awesome and anything that makes more of those and less standing there staring at their knees is fine with me.

[dagger]

While I don't usually feel that rules changes should be done simply to jump start scoring—at least I think you need to give lots of time to see if the league just adjusts on its own first—I would love to see the high strike become a more important part of the game. Is there anything more exciting than those instants where a flamethrower throws high heat to a legit power bat? That flash where you know it's all happening and whether he makes contact or not is **** awesome and anything that makes more of those and less standing there staring at their knees is fine with me.

I think part of the motivation seems to be not so much changing the rules as moving things back to where they were, or should be, since umpires seem to be calling very low strikes, i.e. reinterpreting where the bottom of the zone really is.

[vaff87]

While I don't usually feel that rules changes should be done simply to jump start scoring—at least I think you need to give lots of time to see if the league just adjusts on its own first—I would love to see the high strike become a more important part of the game. Is there anything more exciting than those instants where a flamethrower throws high heat to a legit power bat? That flash where you know it's all happening and whether he makes contact or not is **** awesome and anything that makes more of those and less standing there staring at their knees is fine with me.

I think part of the motivation seems to be not so much changing the rules as moving things back to where they were, or should be, since umpires seem to be calling very low strikes, i.e. reinterpreting where the bottom of the zone really is.

Some umpires seem to think they make the rules, not simply enforce them.

[Skin Blues]

The rule change is only attempting to go back to the way it used to be. The TL;DR of the changes goes something like this:

Mid-90's: Umpires not able to see low strikes, so anything close to knees was a ball. Pitchers get slaughtered. Change rules so that strike zone definition is extremely low, hoping that the umps will then call the proper zone. Umpires slowly adopt, and this generally works.

Mid-2000's: Questec/PitchFX show up, and everybody realizes umps aren't calling zone low enough. With feedback after games, they slowly adjust to the rulebook and pitchers learn to pound the low part of the zone. This culminates in 2014 to a huge increase in the strike zone. Scoring plummets from it's already-low level.

2016 (hopefully): New strike zone that doesn't include a "safety zone" for pitchers to pound without fear of giving up a line drive/fly ball.

This isn't something hitters can adjust to. A change needs to be made to get the game to where it used to be. Not many people want to see games that are increasingly dominated by strikeouts and ground balls. This might mitigate some of the value of a guy like Russell Martin, but at least for 2015 he'll be able to exploit the lower part of the zone. In addition to the extra strikes, this may also allow the Jays pitchers to live lower in the zone and prevent homeruns. And that means when they do pitch up in the zone it will be less expected. This is something the Rays have been doing over the past few years.

[Skin Blues]

While I don't usually feel that rules changes should be done simply to jump start scoring—at least I think you need to give lots of time to see if the league just adjusts on its own first—I would love to see the high strike become a more important part of the game. Is there anything more exciting than those instants where a flamethrower throws high heat to a legit power bat? That flash where you know it's all happening and whether he makes contact or not is **** awesome and anything that makes more of those and less standing there staring at their knees is fine with me.

I think part of the motivation seems to be not so much changing the rules as moving things back to where they were, or should be, since umpires seem to be calling very low strikes, i.e. reinterpreting where the bottom of the zone really is.

Some umpires seem to think they make the rules, not simply enforce them.

That's not the issue at all. They were told to call lower strikes, and that's what they're doing. I hate when umpires try to make themselves part of the game, but this is not an example of that.

[Santoki]

Seems silly to keep adjusting rules for human error when you have the technology to get it right. An umpire would still be useful for things like a foul tip, HBP etc. Instead of calling balls and strikes they would operate more like a head umpire in tennis where they oversee the game. There would be less pressure on them and the unions wouldn't lose any jobs. It won't happen in the foreseeable future but the game would be better off for it and still be "pure" enough.

[Skin Blues]

Seems silly to keep adjusting rules for human error when you have the technology to get it right. An umpire would still be useful for things like a foul tip, HBP etc. Instead of calling balls and strikes they would operate more like a head umpire in tennis where they oversee the game. There would be less pressure on them and the unions wouldn't lose any jobs. It won't happen in the foreseeable future but the game would be better off for it and still be "pure" enough.

They were adjusted for human error in 1996. Now they're adjusting it because they have removed the vast majority of human error.

[vaff87]

I think part of the motivation seems to be not so much changing the rules as moving things back to where they were, or should be, since umpires seem to be calling very low strikes, i.e. reinterpreting where the bottom of the zone really is.

Some umpires seem to think they make the rules, not simply enforce them.

That's not the issue at all. They were told to call lower strikes, and that's what they're doing. I hate when umpires try to make themselves part of the game, but this is not an example of that.

Fair enough. Umpires are all about creating their own strike zone, though.

[Nights King]

i'm not convinced that the lower strike zone has lead to the offensive downturn we've seen in baseball in the few years just like i don't believe the end of the "steroid era" contributed to that.

[Skin Blues]

i'm not convinced that the lower strike zone has lead to the offensive downturn we've seen in baseball in the few years just like i don't believe the end of the "steroid era" contributed to that.

It's not the only factor. Like those studies suggested, about 1/3 of the offensive decline can be attributed to it. I don't know any other single change that could have that big an impact without drastically changing the game. I'm sure that the reduction of steroid use had some effect too, as well as "sabermetric" advances like pitch framing, defensive shifts, etc. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find another small part of the game that could be changed and have such a huge effect on run scoring.

[Nights King]

i'm not convinced that the lower strike zone has lead to the offensive downturn we've seen in baseball in the few years just like i don't believe the end of the "steroid era" contributed to that.

It's not the only factor. Like those studies suggested, about 1/3 of the offensive decline can be attributed to it. I don't know any other single change that could have that big an impact without drastically changing the game. I'm sure that the reduction of steroid use had some effect too, as well as "sabermetric" advances like pitch framing, defensive shifts, etc. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find another small part of the game that could be changed and have such a huge effect on run scoring.

I think most of it has to do with advances in mechanics, training regiments and medical procedures that have disproportional helped pitchers, they've lead to dramatic increases in average fastball velocity across the league, ofcourse that's gonna suppress home run rate which will lead to fewer runs scored .

Take a guy like Kelvin Herrera who's listed at 5' 10" and a generous 200 hundred pounds, he averages 97mph on his fastball and there are probably a dozen guys like him around the league, its hard to find guys with that frame throwing that hard even 15 years ago.

As an aside, i don't really care about the offensive decline, Baseball is like a living organism that has always evolved. Pitching is doing really well now but hitters could make advances that reverses the trend, i'm not a fan of artificially tilting the balance just for the sake of it.

[Skin Blues]

Thinking that it's because of pitch velocity is one thing, but unless there's evidence, it's just a thought. There's a ton of evidence for how the new low strike has affected strikeouts and run scoring. We have 8 years of very precise pitching data that can tell us clearly what is happening.

As far as caring about offensive decline, of course, that's up to each person. I really don't care either. But I think it's pretty clear that as a whole, the average fan likes more scoring. And if most of the games I watch didn't involve the AL East, I might care more about the lack of scoring.