A question that needs to be debated and AT LEAST considered. This is for all you catching gurus, MLB Network guys, podcasters, coaches, and wouldn’t mind hearing from you pitchers on this subject. Best part of automated strike zone I see is a pitcher might regain a target!

To clarify… I want you to think of this from the pitchers perspective. They are trying to make a pitch to a very honed in location where their target is moving all over the place. How can this be the best way?

I interviewed JD Martinez, one of the best hitters in baseball. He went from being cut by the worst team in baseball to becoming an All-Star – in an unconventional way (that everyone can learn from). Check out the interview here:

@MLBNetwork I see you excluded sideline reporters. Very hurtful sir.

@MLBNetwork I think it makes the umpires better. Especially on strike 3 or ball 4

@MLBNetwork Yes please !!!!

@MLBNetwork I think anything that takes away the calls “as the umpire sees it” is a good thing. I agree it should help the pitchers who, I imagine, have to mentally adjust their target based on who is behind the plate.

@MLBNetwork Not sure I would want to give up that potential low strike zone even if it only a few games. Might be more beneficial than a few missed calls throughout the year.

@MLBNetwork Well said. I thought pitch framing was about the catcher stealing a strike with subtle movements of the glove. Any ump who gives a strike when the catcher moves the glove a whole foot doesn't appear to know the strike zone

@MLBNetwork I’ve talked about it several times. A catcher should set up in the middle of the strike zone and let the spin on the pitch dictate where the ball ends up in the zone.

@MLBNetwork Preach!!!!!!!!

@MLBNetwork Waaaay to slow