Check Yo Self

[A Boy Named Seo]

Check swing review is apparently being tested in the minors this year (and has been used in the AFL for a couple years). I like this in theory, but the application feels a little strange to me, so I'm trying to warm up to it.

The threshold for a swing is 45 degrees, or parallel to the opposite base line, but the base line itself is not a determining factor. So, if the swing is greater than 45 degrees, the call should be a strike. If the swing is less than 45 degrees, the call should be a ball. The interesting part to me (if I've got a grasp on it) is that it doesn't seem to matter if the bat crosses the baseline at all, which is where I always thought we needed to be looking from, but that's not the case. 

Apparently our own former farmhand Drew Gilbert was the first to challenge a check swing call in 2024: 

Hyeseong Kim challenged one Sunday and where the plane is drawn is a bit perplexing to me. Is that based on where he's standing?

 

What do you make of all this shit? 

[Centerfield]

45 degrees past the plate is much farther than I thought was needed.  I thought it was break the plane of home plate. 

[A Boy Named Seo]

6 minutes ago, Centerfield said:

45 degrees past the plate is much farther than I thought was needed.  I thought it was break the plane of home plate. 

Yeah I always thought it was the barrel crossing the opposite base line, but I guess that's not right. Per the Athletic, there hasn't been a definition of a swing (and subsequently a check swing) on the rules until now. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/354170/2018/05/15/whats-the-rulebook-definition-of-a-swing-in-baseball-there-isnt-one-but-there-should-be/

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5873851/2024/10/26/check-swing-challenge-system-explained/

 

[Benjamin Grimm]

So for a right-handed batter, we'd be talking about the first base line? Isn't that just another way of saying 45 degrees?

[Edgy MD]

It seems every ump working the third- and first-base lines has a different definition of what constitutes a swing based on divergent understandings of the rule book (which, as noted above, has been almost deliberately ambiguous on the matter), although generally, these divergent definitions tend to favor the pitchers, who tend to get strikes on motions that don't resemble an offer.

It will be nice to see this standardized, but the system will clearly need some calibration and review of its own to work out.  Umps seemingly try to read a feel for the batter's intent as much as a judgment of the batter's actions — which is a losing game, as the batter's intent is, by definition, conflicted.

It will also create interruptions in game flow and cause more degeneration into the videogamification of baseball.

It will also create a challenge for the batter, as starting and then stopping a swing — at a ridiculously fast pitch thrown by a ridiculously close pitcher — is a physically and mentally challenging act that you have to take a few beats to recover from, and having to make a high-stakes decision to pat your helmet while you are in the midst of that recovery seems like it could be tricky.

I assume you get to challenge a swing ruling from the home plate umpire as well as the base umps, correct?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I've often thought that, if I was a base umpire who had to make a call on a checked swing, I would find that I'd have to pretend that I had been paying attention.

[MFS62]

The article was behind a paywall. I didn't read it.

Does the new rule allow for a manager to challenge a swinging strike call, or will he still get an automatic ejection from the game?

Later

[Edgy MD]

It strikes me that the way to get filthy rich as a gambling dude is to tamper with the data the detection technology spits out.

[seawolf17]

If we just replace the batters with robots, then we won't have to worry about any of this! The robot will be able to calculate exactly the angle at which the other robot stops their bat! Everybody wins. Except humanity. (And the Mets, whose robots would all still be shit.)

[MFS62]

9 minutes ago, seawolf17 said:

If we just replace the batters with robots, then we won't have to worry about any of this! The robot will be able to calculate exactly the angle at which the other robot stops their bat! Everybody wins. Except humanity. (And the Mets, whose robots would all still be shit.)

Nah. Just replace the commissioner and the rules committee, who are messing with the game.

 

[Frayed Knot]

It's not so much that this is a bridge too far as much as it is a bridge unnecessary. Trying to monitor subjective calls with objective methods is a fool's errand and likely not going to be an improvement on what we already have. Leave it alone, no one was asking for this.

[Edgy MD]

What we have stinks.