English
Español
Well, the results from yesterday, such as they were, were interesting. I’m not going to pretend they were anything other than reflective of people who pressed the rec button on one of the options, but here we go:
- 76 percent “voted for” an always-on ABS
- Nine percent “voted for” the challenge system to be used in MLB in 2026, with two challenges
- The remaining 15 percent “voted for” a challenge system with more than two challenges
The sum above means that, well, no one voted for the pre-2026 status quo with no ABS at all, though there was at least one spirited defense in the comments. While neither the cross-section of visitors to this site, nor the specific subset that is the commentariat, is representative of baseball fans or potential baseball fans, and there were far fewer than 50 votes, it was still very skewed.
Anyway, let’s move on to a different issue.
The rulebook defines the strike zone in a convoluted way, but hey, it’s the rulebook. That is the strike zone; if MLB wanted a different zone, they could change the rulebook (but haven’t). MLB’s earlier experiments with ABS tried to “do the rulebook.” In other words, the modeled zone was a three-dimensional projection of the plate, with the vertical dimensions established by the batter’s height in their batting stance. However, over the span of MLB’s testing, this led to a bunch of stuff that I guess no one (per MLB, anyway) liked. Basically, it was possible to barely clip a sliver of the “box” (3-D shape) part of the way through the trajectory of the pitch, getting a strike on a pitch that “had the plate” for only part of its duration “across the plate.” Apparently, everyone hated this, except the pitchers that spent development time trying to nail how to throw pitches that got cheapo strikes but otherwise would never be thrown.
So, MLB scrapped that system, and for 2026 implementation, ABS uses a much simpler rectangle set halfway (I think?) “through” the depth of the plate. Basically, it’s a flat box. Clip the edge or more and it’s a strike, miss the edge and it’s a ball. The vertical bounds are also set based on batter height, not each batter’s stance, which probably lowers the calibration overheard for the stringers at every ballpark. Every player’s vertical bounds are now basically set-and-forget and don’t have to be calibrated in game situations. So, simpler, easier, and to hear MLB talk about it, working much more as “intended” (i.e., as people are familiar with).
There are, of course, other options. Some systems use two boxes, basically more stringent than a single box. Even the current single-box system allows a strike that only happens to “clip” the zone at a specific depth of the plate; multiple boxes reduce this possibility, especially if set at the “front” and “back” of the plate. I’ve also seen the idea of a single slanted (not perpendicular to the ground) box bandied around, basically to account for gravity as the pitch travels. That last one might be a bit of a bridge too far, but the point is: there are options.
Which option would you prefer? Rec comments to vote, or whatever.