Check Swing

[R1Letterman]

No way an umpire can make a call at first base on a left handed hitter. Absolutely terrible

did they call swing or no swing?

[R1Letterman]

it is important to remember on a check swing appeal, the home plate ump has already thought it was no swing.

[raginbeef]

it is important to remember on a check swing appeal, the home plate ump has already thought it was no swing.

Yes. And so a field umpire, especially one with a horrific angle, should only call a swing if it was totally obvious. Anything remotely close, you say no swing

[R1Letterman]

Yes. And so a field umpire, especially one with a horrific angle, should only call a swing if it was totally obvious. Anything remotely close, you say no swing

agree! 90% of the time i wager they say no swing anyhow. if you think asking someone in poor position is “bad” imagine the argument if they refuse to ask. umps can't win, ha

[Turbine]

Technology could fix everything in this area real easy.

It could even make the call.

[R1Letterman]

Technology could fix everything in this area real easy.

It could even make the call.

for a check swing? doubt that.

[Turbine]

for a check swing? doubt that.

I just feel that an intuitive lazer could be designed and placed at a 90 degree angle to the pitcher/catcher that would make the correct check-swing call 100% of the time.

Right now a first base ump calling check swing on a left-handed batter is going to be overly strick.

Just like a third base umpire calling a right-handed batter check-swing, it's going to be interpreted overly strict.

Conversely a first-base umpire calling a right-handed batter check-swing is going to be lenient, as is a third-base umpire calling a left-handed batter check-swing. It's going to be lenient.

A 90 degree lazer (designed properly) could nail it every time.

[R1Letterman]

interesting i must say, but a check swing is not tied to a distance or an amount of movement, it is if the batter “offered” at the pitch.

[R1Letterman]

how would your lazer adjust for batters being far back in the box or far up in the box, what about slappers for whom the bat might not even be in the box at all.

when you say lenient to you mean no swing? if so i think you have that part backwards

[R1Letterman]

bill james studied this in 2013, note the # is ALL checked swings, not just appealed check swings, so happens even less.

Front-office types are under no obligation to tell me the truth, but it makes sense that checked swings wouldn’t be anywhere close to a team’s top priority. Last season, 1.6 percent of pitches led to checked swings. Teams saw, on average, 145 pitches per game (290 for both clubs combined). That means there were an average of 2.3 checked swings per team, per game (4.6 for both clubs combined). A team could steal an extra strike from time to time if it knew the probabilities of checked-swing strikes by base umpire, but since the third parties that teams typically get data from aren’t providing that data, they’d have to collect it themselves or get Inside Edge’s info and then watch every checked swing to see whether there was an appeal.

[Turbine]

A well written lazer program could could be designed to tell where a batter starts from, whether a slapper is swinging or positioning the bat, and easily factor in whether the bat passes the front of the plate but also if the battery's swing was more than 90 degrees before checking.

[BeauCajun]

A well written lazer program could could be designed to tell where a batter starts from, whether a slapper is swinging or positioning the bat, and easily factor in whether the bat passes the front of the plate but also if the battery's swing was more than 90 degrees before checking.

And maybe the laser could etch the pitch count onto the bat at the same time so blue and the batter would know the count. Would this create “hot bats”? Just playing along.