re: World Baseball Classic 2026

quote:

---

This ball crossed at the strike zone but it looks like ABS measures where it is past the plate

---

ABS measures where it crosses the middle of the plate. In the rule book, the strike zone is 3 dimensional, but ABS is a two dimensional reading. That's one of the biggest issues with it IMO. From the MLB website

quote:

---

How is the ABS strike zone measured?

Like the plate, it is 17 inches wide. The top end of the zone is at 53.5% of the player’s height, while the bottom is at 27% of the player’s height. The depth of the zone is 8.5 inches from both the front and back of the plate to its center.



How does this compare to the human umpire zone?

The umpire-called zone has generally been more rounded and more lenient to pitchers, with a 55.6% max up top and 24.2% minimum at the bottom.

As an example of the impact this can have on a key call, MLB research found that, in 2-2 counts, the umpire-called zone was 449 square inches, while the ABS zone was 443 square inches.

Is the ABS strike zone three-dimensional?

No. Though the rulebook defines the strike zone as a three-dimensional box, the ABS strike zone is two-dimensional. A three-dimensional version was initially tested, but it allowed breaking balls to nick the edges of the zone, leading to inconsistency in strike calls.

Why is the ABS strike zone over the middle of the plate instead of the front?

In the past, TV broadcasts featured a zone set at the front of the plate. But similar to the 3D testing, having the zone over the front of the plate in initial testing produced odd outcomes, such as slow curveballs that clip the very front edge of the zone and land in the dirt being ruled a strike, even though no one who watches baseball would agree.

When the zone was moved to the middle of the plate, the results were much more in line with where the hitter stands and how the strike zone is traditionally called.

---

It wasn't a strike.

Had the shoe been on the other foot and we got eliminated on that call, the same people in this thread vehemently defending the call would be the loudest in saying the game was rigged.

Umpire calls have only gotten more erratic as average pitch speeds and vertical/horizontal movement have continued to increase. It's why ABS is a much needed thing. It won't be perfect, but it will be better than what we've had in the past.

ABS needs to be in the WBC going forward. With that said. it's not in this one.

Suck it, DR.

There's really no metric in which it's not close. Ball, yes. Close, also yes.

quote:

---

Not really

---

The bottom of the strike zone is a players knees “for the three dimensional space above home plate”

The batters front foot is actually towards the middle of the plate here and the ball is crossing at his knee…..

Not only is it close, I’m struggling to see why it’s a ball at all






MLB OFFICIAL RULE

Bottom of kneecap is a strike. That pitch was a strike 100%



For those saying it’s a ball, explain the above picture to me and use the MLB.com rule

Strike Zone

quote:

---

Definition

The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area.

---

quote:

---

Now that it’s known ABS doesn’t actually take into account where the ball actually crosses the plate it’s should be viewed as useless for breaking balls

---

You're oversimplifying it.

In the minors last year, ABS called more pitches with movement correctly than umpires did.

The strike 3 would've been correctly called a ball by ABS if it was in place last night.

quote:

---

The strike 3 would've been correctly called a ball by ABS if it was in place last night.

---

but it was actually a strike

The ball is at his knee and this isn’t even the very front of the plate



I’m happy for you to point out something different but that picture says everything

I’m all for ABS, but it’s paramount for breaking balls it picks up the front of the plate. If it doesn’t it should not be used for them

As of now we have something telling us where the ball was over the middle of the plate (not very useful), and a picture showing us where the ball was as it crossed his front knee

The middle of the plate says ball, it crosses his front knee as a strike. If you can show me his front knee was in front of the plate I’ll say it was a ball. But from his stance his knee looks even with the plate

quote:

---

it does call breaking balls correctly at a better rate than umpires do.

---

What is judging this? What electronic is reading the front of the plate to judge? If that existed wouldn’t they just use that?

quote:

---

What is judging this? What electronic is reading the front of the plate to judge? If that existed wouldn’t they just use that?

---

Trackman does a great job of this.

Regardless, are you under the impression an umpire from his vantage point is correctly judging the height of a 90mph slider is when it reaches the front of the plate?

Of the two options, which one do you think has a better chance at making the correct call?

The automated system that utilizes multiple camera angles or the middle-age human relying on his eyes, behind a mask, crouching behind a catcher without a side view of the plate?

quote:

---

slow curveballs that clip the very front edge of the zone and land in the dirt being ruled a strike, even though no one who watches baseball would agree.

---

that'a great pitch, strike