QuesTec - Are you for it or not?

[The Brain]

Let's look at this another way as well. Some argue it takes away from the tradition by altering the game. I'm sorry, but just about every other sport besides baseball has altered the game. It's time for baseball to get out of the 19th century and evolve.

I hope you're not implying that major league baseball has <b>never</b> been altered since its creation circa 1880. are you?

The mounds have been lowered, seasons lengthened, baseballs wound tighter, designated hitters instituted. Technology has crafted bats to exact specifications; hitters like Barry Bonds and Mo Vaughn wear protective plastic armor over their front arms so that they can lean over the plate with impunity.

From the <a href=http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseball_basics/mlb_basics_define_terms.jsp target=_blank>MLB webpage on the terms of the game</a>

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

And the strike zone-- the <b>legal</b> version as defined in the rulebook-- has been shrunk: where it used to be from a point at the uniform letters to the bottom of the kneecaps, now the "high strike" is called just above the belt.

Notice anything? Most of those changes were done specifically in the name of instituting more offense, the pitcher be damned.

About the only motion made in baseball to actual benefit the <i>pitcher</i> was when managers went to five-man rotations, to give their starters more rest (but that change isn't in the rulebooks).

If they want QuestTec to be a good thing, at least give the pitchers back some advantages:

1) raise the mound back to at least 15 inches (it's currently 10).

2) enforce the letter-high strike zone.

3) force the catcher to <b>stay directly behind the plate</b>, and enforce the Catcher's Balk rule when they do not. A lot of pitchers lose called strikes when their catcher sets up outside, and the pitch is placed outside-- it influences the umpire to think that the pitch is meant to be off the plate.

4) Eliminate the batter's body armor. A hitter should not be so fearless when he goes up to the plate that he can dive out across home plate to swing at pitches that can end up in the opposite batter's box. A pitcher has no intimidation factor at all if the batter won't regret invading what is essentially the pitcher's territory (Pedro Martinez notwithstanding).

5) Since #4 will never occur, at least enforce the defined batter's box-- and <b>place down a thin plastic or rubber area where the batter's box should be rather than a chalk outline</b>. You know what happens to that batter's box when the first batter steps in? He smudges it with his foot, and from that point on, a batter can encroach further on home plate. If a batter's box (made out of the same material used for home plate) is placed in the ground (again, at the same level as home plate so no runner will trip on it), an umpire can call an automatic strike on any hitter leaning unfairly over the plate.

But none of these will happen. The sport would rather squeeze pitchers into 10-7 ballgames, instead of 3-2 pitching gems.

All my main argument is if all these sports have changed in one form or another, <b>why can't baseball especially if it could be for the better</b>.

That depends on your definion of <i>better</i>: more offense, or better pitching, because the two will not always co-exist.