"New" High Strike Zone

[Dave Davies]

Spent some time with Jim Evans this past week. Conversation eventually got around to the "book" (high)strike zone.

First of all, Alderson's guidelines are: Bring in the outside and inside pitch. Use the black as part of the plate. Raise the zone currently used by 3 1/2 balls.

I watched 3 Fall Ball games this past week in the Phoenix Area. One umpire decide to NOT use the high zone. Game time 1:42. Other two umps applied the high zone with the teams knowledge. Ist game took so long, we left and found a Hooters. Yesterdays Championship game ended up at something like 17 - 9 after 8 innings. Both teams gave up because of lack of pitchers.

A Major League Umpires basic opinion: Bring the zone up and in, force the batters to swing at the high pitch, tell them to lay off the outside pitch? Chaos!! Huge scoring, typical 4 hour ball games, boredom, the death of baseball.

The Major League pitcher doesn't WANT the batter to swing at that high pitch. The Batter will kill it!! The pitcher wants to keep the ideal pitch down and away. Well, the away pitch has just been taken away. It's now balled instead of striked. Yeah!! Lengthen that ball game!! Watch Clemens REALLY go apeshit!!

Dave Davies

[PeteBooth]

Dave IMO it's time to Re-Define the Zone and have it consistent. I agree with you - I do not like long games (marathons). Get the batters to swing and the game has a certain flow to it.

I agree with your observation about giving both the outside / inside corner but it can't be rediculous either as is the case sometimes when either Glaven or Maddux pitch when they will get a strike call with the ball some 3 - 4 feet off the outside edge.

It's been my obersvation that in most instances when you see a high scoring game - the Zone is more of a "postage" variety as opposed to a low scoring game in which the PU is giving both pitchers the corners.

Major League baseball isn't going to change it so perhaps amateur leagues should. In one mens league that I umpire in they have in fact Defined "their Zone". It is very liberal as these guys play 9 innings and if you called the book zone there would be no pitchers left.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Regardless of how the zone is defined, there are always going to be differences in interpreting and applying that zone in a game. That occurs because you have different people behind the dish. Always has been, always will be.
Even in the 22nd century when they go to Electronic Officiating there will be differences depending on who made the machine!

Consistency needs to be by the individual within the game and, most importantly, from game to game. Most officials, I suspect, give repeat performances to the coaches and/or teams in their area. They get to know what to expect from you because of the past. If you maintain individual consistency they know what to expect FROM YOU and can adapt accordingly. I've seen UIC's blow a couple high or a couple low early in the game and try to keep their zone there in order to be consistent for that game. I think that's a mistake. They end up trying to call a different zone than they did with the team(s)in earlier outings. Eat your immediate mistakes, but keep the consistency that goes with your reputation from game to game and you will have a much smoother game.

I agree, with Dave about the high zone. Hitters have more success hitting bad, high pitches versus bad, low pitches. Those high miscues have a greater chance of becoming hits---lengthening the game.

I don't try to emulate the pros, rather I adjust to the level of the contest trying to maintain consistency on the "hittability" of the pitch. If it's at the edge of the zone but very hittable, it's likely a strike if not swung at. In other words, hang a meatball in the middle of the dish close to my high limit (my tough decision area)and it will be a strike. Those are the pitches many put out of the park. Reach back and add 5 mph and put it in that same area of question, the pitcher likely won't get that pitch. It's usually far less hittable. IT WORKS FOR ME. I get little arguments on my zone. If the defense makes a comment that I'm not giving them the high pitch I just tell them we see it differently "I thought your pitcher threw a 'ball', you thought he threw a home run pitch"

[GarthB]

This is interesting stuff, Dave. Alderson was quoted as saying that one of the reasons to call a "book" zone was that it would shorten the game.

Was the high scoring from hits, or walks or a combination?

I always shared the common belief that it wasn't hits that lengthened the game, it was walks. Maybe that will be added to the myths list.

Three and a half balls above the belt would be approximately 10.33 inches. (Diameter being roughly 2.95")

On me (5'10"0) that is an inch below my nipple and almost exactly half the distance to the top of my shoulders.

GarthB

[Carl Childress]

I think there is a misconception here concerning what happens to the high pitch.

A high pitch that is a mistake may get hit out of the park more often than a low pitch.

The problem is that batters are taught to swing level. When they stride for a pitch and swing, they most often swing under "high heat."

Boys and girls, there's not a pitcher alive who wouldn't lobby for a strike zone that included "nipple-high" (based on the batter's ORIGINAL crouch) as the top of the zone. Pitches at that point, not in the heart of the plate, and thrown as a fast ball and not a hanging curve, results in: "Swing and a miss." If the pitcher's now will have that pitch as a called strike, they will be in high cotton.

I imagine that the high scores results from: (1) pitchers not getting their customary "outside" corner; and (2) batters getting to swing at pitches closer to the plate. It's not a function of the HIGH zone.

I'll bet it's a quid pro quo attempt by baseball to strike a balance between offense and defense. Offense: Yes, we're gonna make 'em bring in on the edges. Defense: Yes, we're gonna you that high strike.

They're going to discover, I predict, that the offense has gained BIG TIME.

[Rog]

Since you started umpiring before me (notice I'm not dating either of us), perhaps others as well as myself would be interested in what you've experienced in changes in the "zone" since you started in the game........ thanks!

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I think there is a misconception here concerning what happens to the high pitch.

A high pitch that is a mistake may get hit out of the park more often than a low pitch.

The problem is that batters are taught to swing level. When they stride for a pitch and swing, they most often swing under "high heat."

Boys and girls, there's not a pitcher alive who wouldn't lobby for a strike zone that included "nipple-high" (based on the batter's ORIGINAL crouch) as the top of the zone. Pitches at that point, not in the heart of the plate, and thrown as a fast ball and not a hanging curve, results in: "Swing and a miss." If the pitcher's now will have that pitch as a called strike, they will be in high cotton.

I imagine that the high scores results from: (1) pitchers not getting their customary "outside" corner; and (2) batters getting to swing at pitches closer to the plate. It's not a function of the HIGH zone.

I'll bet it's a quid pro quo attempt by baseball to strike a balance between offense and defense. Offense: Yes, we're gonna make 'em bring in on the edges. Defense: Yes, we're gonna you that high strike.

They're going to discover, I predict, that the offense has gained BIG TIME.

[senior]

I don't know about all you young-uns who have learned to Umpire with the "postage stamp" strike zone, but I'm actually impressed that pitches above the belt may once again be called strikes. Most of the time Umpires call the safes and outs according to the rulebook, but look the other way on the strike zone. I have contended for a long time that if we weren't to call high strikes, the rule should have been changed. Barring that, we may hopefully call all parts of the game according to the book.
My experience has also been that walks, not hits, make the game lengthy.
Please don't feel sorry for Roger Clemens on the high strike, he'll last five years longer if the zone gets higher. Do you young-uns think Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, et.al, would have put up with the recent T-ball zone? It's time to quit making the pitcher lay it in the hitter's zone, and give him some room to work with.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by senior
I have contended for a long time that if we weren't to call high strikes, the rule should have been changed. Barring that, we may hopefully call all parts of the game according to the book.

Please say it isn't so, senior? You want "all parts of the game" called "according to the book"? Now let's see:

For one thing, that means that F3, F4, F5 and F6 will generally not be counted as "infielders" for any potential Infield Fly! Lots more simple popups will be turned into easy doubles by fielders refusing to catch the ball. That's certainly not in the spirit of the game we all know and love, is it?

For another thing, that means that the umpire will need to decide whether the runner beat the ball or the ball beat the runner before deciding which of those is required for an out or safe call on tag ups versus advances and returns, etc. Whew! Maybe we're all gonna need TV replays to do our jobs!

It would also mean that a force isn't ended when the runner slides past a base without touching it and attempts to scramble back, etc. How long have we been requiring tags for such plays?

No, senior. Calling strictly by the book might open up a much bigger can of worms than even someone of your maturity can imagine. (grin) There are lots of things about the rules that need changing. No matter what the book says about the strike zone, it will still be defining a PROFESSIONAL ZONE, and those amateur leagues that use the pro book will still need to adjust for the level being called. SO WILL THE PRO'S!

I don't believe the Major League pitcher should have the same zone as the Rookie or A league pitcher. The "Show" is a special circumstance that will always require adjustment from what's in the current edition of the book in order to give their customer base (the fans) what they want; a show.

You didn't really mean what you said, did you senior?

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Edited by Warren Willson on Nov 20th, 2000 at 07:19 PM]

[cmcallm]

I agree that the best umpires are the ones who call the same pitches in the same places throughout the game - it's what we all strive to do. The umpire who is all over the place with his balls and strikes will get static from both sides the first inning. Then they realize it's the hand they've been dealt and will pretty much leave him alone - as opposed to the good ball/strike guy who doesn't miss a pitch until the 8th inning and catches static for missing one out of the first 300 he's looked at. Moving or "redefining" the zone will cause problems of adjustment - not just for the pichers, hitters, and umpires, but for the coaches. Now we hear, "That was a ball last inning!"; next season we'll hear, "That was a ball last year!"

[Drifter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Davies
The Major League pitcher doesn't WANT the batter to swing at that high pitch. The Batter will kill it!! The pitcher wants to keep the ideal pitch down and away. Well, the away pitch has just been taken away. It's now balled instead of striked. Yeah!! Lengthen that ball game!! Watch Clemens REALLY go apeshit!!

Gotta disagree on the high heat, Dude. There are pitchers who can throw that letter high pitch so hard that no one can hit it. That's the reason that the strike zone was lowered in the '60's. The pitching was getting so dominant that the balance of power was upset.

On the other hand, the recent interest in bringing in the outside strike back in, is coming from the use of those overhead cameras for TV baseball. WE all knew where those pitches were before seeing it from overhead...most of the TV watching public did not. Eric Greg showed the whole world how far outside a strike could be during the playoffs a few years back. I don't think many people were amused.

Vern

[senior]

Warren:
I don't have a problem calling most parts of the game by the book. Except for the ignoring of the Strike Zone rule, I believe most Umpires follow the book pretty
well. I'm not a rules nut, but my games tend to be played "according to the rules".
I'm intrigued by your examples, and wonder if we also have Australian Rules Baseball, as well as Football. (grin)
1) In my games, F3,F4,F5, and F6 better line up in infield positions, or there would be so many bunts there never would be an infield fly.
2) In my games, whether the ball beat the runner or vice-versa, has a definite effect on safe or out calls.
3) In my games, a force-out is achieved by the fielder touching the base with the ball in his possession, before the runner touches it. If the runner slides by, shame on him.
My original aim was to generate interest in giving the Pitcher back his top half of the Strike Zone. I'd settle for the rest of the game staying the same. (grin)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by senior
Warren:
I don't have a problem calling most parts of the game by the book. Except for the ignoring of the Strike Zone rule, I believe most Umpires follow the book pretty well. I'm not a rules nut, but my games tend to be played "according to the rules".
I'm intrigued by your examples, and wonder if we also have Australian Rules Baseball, as well as Football. (grin)
1) In my games, F3,F4,F5, and F6 better line up in infield positions, or there would be so many bunts there never would be an infield fly.
2) In my games, whether the ball beat the runner or vice-versa, has a definite effect on safe or out calls.
3) In my games, a force-out is achieved by the fielder touching the base with the ball in his possession, before the runner touches it. If the runner slides by, shame on him.
My original aim was to generate interest in giving the Pitcher back his top half of the Strike Zone. I'd settle for the rest of the game staying the same. (grin)

Oh, no senior. This isn't "Australian rules baseball" I'm talking about. My examples were deliberately chosen to show the folly of believing the "book" is what even you are calling. For example:

1. According to OBR 1.04, the "infield" is a 90 foot square! Now both you and I know that we don't insist on F3, F4, F5 and F6 being INSIDE that square when the ball is pitched in order to consider them "infielders" for purpose of the Infield Fly rule. The point is THAT is what the "book" actually says is required. [see OBR 2.00 Infielder, Infield Fly]

2. There are at least 4 circumstances in the rule book where the umpire must decide SAFE/OUT on action at a base. The way the rules are actually written, 2 of those require any perceived "tie" to go to the fielder and 2 require any perceived "tie" to go to the runner. For the sake of our sanity, and under the current professional interpretation, we usually give the tie to the fielder but I assure you that is NOT what the "book" actually says.

3. Unless you've been living like an umpiring hermit for the last several years, you should also have come across the concept of Relaxed vs Unrelaxed action. This requires that once a runner "reaches" a force base without touching it, if he is in the act of scrambling back to the base from the immediate vicinity, he must be TAGGED for the out. The force is effectively removed by the runner reaching the base so simply tagging the base is NOT enough for an out!

The problem we have here, senior, is that what you THINK is the game that you say you are happy to have "stay the same" may NOT actually be the game the rest of us are calling! These are basic tenets at all levels of baseball as it is called today, in the USA and even in Australia. Whether or not you are a "rules nut", don't you think you should at least think about calling the game the way tradition, history and most contemporary authoritative opinion and interpretation say it should be called?

I'm not trying to be hard on you, senior, believe me. I only want you to see that calling the game "by the book" is a pipe dream, given the current state of that book. Giving back the high strike is one thing. Failing to recognise that the strike zone is NOT the only place we ignore or modify the book requirement is another.

Cheers,

Warren Willson