Question for the baseball experts regarding strike zone

[OLJWales]

If a righty is throwing to a righty with at least a 3 quarter delivery, shouldn't the outside corner be wider based on the angle of delivery? And vice versa? It seems the ball catches the corner despite the catchers mitt position.

[Rex54]

If the ball passes through the volume of space above the plate in the zone it should be called a strike. So a slider that clips that area but is caught to the left or right side of the plate still would be a strike because it passes through that zone.

[RiverCityDawg]

If a righty is throwing to a righty with at least a 3 quarter delivery, shouldn't the outside corner be wider based on the angle of delivery? And vice versa? It seems the ball catches the corner despite the catchers mitt position.

Good question. Furthermore, graphics such as "k zone" often portray the strike zone as essentially being flat. But it seems to me as though the strike zone is 3 demential and the ball just has to pass through that 3D "zone" at some point to be a strike. If that's indeed the case, then what you say would have to be true. This idea should also apply for a 12-6 breaking ball that appears low by the time it hits the mitt but was within the zone when it first reached the plate.

Umpire or expert opinions and thoughts are welcome...

[Rex54]

Good question. Furthermore, graphics such as "k zone" often portray the strike zone as essentially being flat. But it seems to me as though the strike zone is 3 demential and the ball just has to pass through that 3D "zone" at some point to be a strike. If that's indeed the case, then what you say would have to be true. This idea should also apply for a 12-6 breaking ball that appears low by the time it hits the mitt but was within the zone when it first reached the plate.

Umpire or expert opinions and thoughts are welcome...

You are correct it is 3D. A 12-6 ball can cross the front of the plate high as long as it drops into the zone by the time it gets to the back of the plate. It has longer to to that down the middle than the corners since the plate comes to a point.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2015/09/3d-strike-zone.jpg

[RiverCityDawg]

You are correct it is 3D. A 12-6 ball can cross the front of the plate high as long as it drops into the zone by the time it gets to the back of the plate. It has longer to to that down the middle than the corners since the plate comes to a point.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2015/09/3d-strike-zone.jpg

Do you think umpires generally do a good job of judging the 3D zone?

I've got this theory that one reason the MLB hasn't more aggressively advanced the automated/AI technology for balls and strikes is because they know it would be friendly to pitchers which would decrease scoring and lead to a less entertaining product for the casual fan.

I could be way off and that's fine, but I have to think there are a lot of pitches that just barely nip the zone at some point that don't get called because they don't travel all the way through the zone to the eye of the umpire. A computer would obviously do a much better job of judging that accurately.

(Not that AI should or shouldn't be used, just speaking as to how it would work.)

[Jack Lambert]

You are correct it is 3D. A 12-6 ball can cross the front of the plate high as long as it drops into the zone by the time it gets to the back of the plate. It has longer to to that down the middle than the corners since the plate comes to a point.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2015/09/3d-strike-zone.jpg

So if the batter is 6'5" weighs 250 pounds do they use 4D rather than 3D?******

[OLJWales]

Do you think umpires generally do a good job of judging the 3D zone?

I've got this theory that one reason the MLB hasn't more aggressively advanced the automated/AI technology for balls and strikes is because they know it would be friendly to pitchers which would decrease scoring and lead to a less entertaining product for the casual fan.

I could be way off and that's fine, but I have to think there are a lot of pitches that just barely nip the zone at some point that don't get called because they don't travel all the way through the zone to the eye of the umpire. A computer would obviously do a much better job of judging that accurately.

(Not that AI should or shouldn't be used, just speaking as to how it would work.)

I agree with this. Even though I retired my freshman year in high school cuz I wasn't good enough but I know enough to know hitting a 95mph pitch at the shoulders is damned near impossible which is why it isn't called. Im sure the power brokers discuss this shit for fan benefit and enjoyment. On a side note, ID like to see more detailed studies like Sims getting squeezed in the 9th

[Johnson85]

Do you think umpires generally do a good job of judging the 3D zone?

I've got this theory that one reason the MLB hasn't more aggressively advanced the automated/AI technology for balls and strikes is because they know it would be friendly to pitchers which would decrease scoring and lead to a less entertaining product for the casual fan.

I could be way off and that's fine, but I have to think there are a lot of pitches that just barely nip the zone at some point that don't get called because they don't travel all the way through the zone to the eye of the umpire. A computer would obviously do a much better job of judging that accurately.

(Not that AI should or shouldn't be used, just speaking as to how it would work.)

I don't think umpires even try to judge a 3D zone. I think they view the strike zone as a 2D square, and even then sort of reverse extrapolate from where the ball was caught and what kind of pitch it was to determine if it was a strike or not.

Just doing some googling in response to the OP, while every description pretty much calls a strike the area over the plate, a lot of the diagrams/illustrations show a square, not the three dimensional "house" shape that it supposedly is. I even found one site that seemed knowledgeable that said the back edge of the plate didn't count (which I'm not sure if the site meant the "black" edge around the plate or the "triangle" at the back of the plate.

[OLJWales]

And by the same token, a 3 quarter righty would get squeezed on the inside to a righty batter.

[fieldcorporal]

The black part of the plate is (usually) a beveled area that is part of the frame upon which the white part of the plate rests. It's not part of the plate, though it is usually called as part, though I doubt any ump is precise enough to say "it caught the black and not the white". Though that may be just me, topped out calling JC.

The black is actually supposed to be covered with dirt, only leaving the white exposed, but again, precision.

I once asked a senior MILB ump "what his strike zone was" over beers. He hemmed and hawed around, but finally said he guessed it was kinda egg-shaped. That is he'd give the pitcher a little bit in the middle but take a little high and maybe take a little less low. But mostly it was like porn, he knew a strike when he saw it.

[shoeless joe]

The zone should be the area above the plate. One issue is how far back players stand in the box. When I ball crosses the plate it could be knee high or slightly above but when it actually gets to the batters back knee it’s slightly below. Same could be said in the opposite for someone that stands way up in the box. Also you rarely see a tall guy get a strike called above the belt while shorter guys get it all the time. MLB umps are the best and have become exponentially better since they began giving the umps a copy of every call they made in comparison to a K Zone after each game they called behind the plate. This system has a name but I can’t recall it at the moment. Just another example of some of the types of things ncaa could do if they wanted to improve the product.