the "ZONE" & calling it by the book.....

[Rog]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/501426.asp

Well, this should stir the juices of all the administrators
of the various leagues.

Now, will it be applied across the board in all the lower
leagues and levels of the game as well????????




jmo - but, even as a manager I was always a pitcher's ally.

To my batter's it was: "if you go up there looking for YOUR pitch, I'll see ya back here real soon!"

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rog

Now, will it be applied across the board in all the lower
leagues and levels of the game as well????????
...[snip]...
To my batter's it was: "if you go up there looking for YOUR pitch, I'll see ya back here real soon!"

Rog,

I think it depends on the level of the game.

1. Certain levels of LL have always called the high strike. It gives the inexperienced pitchers a bit more latitude without hurting the batters. That high pitch is very hittable.

2. OTOH, I will be surprised if MLB pitchers use it too much. That pitch above the belt is in home run territory, if the batter is good enough. Most pitchers won't use it, except perhaps as a surprise strike on an inside fastball.

There are two schools of thought on the high strike. One says that it's a hitter's pitch and pitchers won't use it. The other says it's a good percentage pitch because the hitters will usually be under it for a pop fly or a foul. I subscribe to the former school of thought, but only because we aren't talking about a pitch at the armpits here, despite what the managers believe.

Sure the umpires are gonna call a "book zone", but that still leaves the upper limit at most two balls above the belt. That's a hitter's bread and butter area, IMHO. If we were talking up to the armpits for pitchers with serious gas, that would be different. The umpires are talking one or two balls above the belt, not the 12 inches or more extra that the managers are talking about (unless you measure that from the box which was the upper limit for some MLB umps).

The part of this story that is of more interest to me is that they've also agreed to bring the outside pitch back to the plate. I can see it now. Endless replays trying to pick if there is any black between the plate and the ball on that 0-2 outside corner fastball. The pitchers are gonna be hurt by this one, big time, which is the exact opposite of the expressed intention as I understand it.

I think you can expect to see this zone called at Varsity and College, eventually, but it might take at least one season before that happens. Sort of "Let's make sure it stays there before we do anything drastic". Most upper levels work on the principle of calling what the people expect, all the while knowing that the people "expect" the MLB zone because that's the one they know about.

Just my $AUD0.05c worth. (grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[cmcallm]

As the article says, "Accuracy and consistency". Isn't that we all shoot for anyway? Coaches that know and understand a rule don't have much to stand on when it's being enforced properly and they want to argue about things. So, they bark a bit to stick up for a player who thinks he's been wronged, but never get in your face because they know YOU know. You know?

[PeteBooth]

Rog all of this still has to get past the Players Union. With players earning "Oogles" of Money" and also having a strong union - you can bet that before anything gets passed - The players union will have something to say about it.

Also, I really do not think that this will effect most of us unless there are individuals who are PRO Umpires or Umpire at the NCAA Division 1 Level.

Call Strikes and Move the Game Along.

I think the more interesting aspect of the article was the mention of how long the games are. The regular season averaged 3 hr. and 5 minutes and if you take out the games that Maddux / Brown / Martinez pitched it would probably be higher. Also, the playoffs took on average 4 hours.

Maybe they will adopt some of the FED Speed-up rules.

Pete Booth

[senior]

I've been looking for the higher zone to come back for quite some time. Although never "officially" sanctioned, the low strike zone was eased into our national pastime by several natural forces. The first and longer running scenario is the constant griping by the millionaires who feel the Umpire should be blamed for their being called out on strikes, because if they didn't swing, it couldn't be a strike. The second cause was the so-called improvement in Umpire chest protection which is now worn inside the shirt. As this feature gained acceptance, the Umpires naturally hunkered down to help protect themselves. This was very evident in the years that the American League kept the "balloon" in use, but the National League used the inside protection. The two leagues had two different zones being called, although using the same rules.
I have often wondered how the Major League pitchers have kept from breaking away into their own branch of the Union, and getting some breaks of their own. Lowering the Mound, the shrinking of the strike zone, and letting the hitters look like Armadillos when they come to bat have changed the game into an "Advantage-Batter" situation. I welcome the new emphasis and think it will make the game more exciting. Hopefully it will eliminate the "looking for a walk" aspect we have allowed to slip into our great game.

[GarthB]

Pete:

You said:

"Rog all of this still has to get past the Players Union. With players earning "Oogles" of Money" and also having a strong union - you can bet that before anything gets passed - The players union will have something to say about it."

I heard an interview with Alderson in which he denied that was the case. His reasoning? This is not a rule change, not even an interpretation change, this was a directive to follow a rule already approved by everybody. Hence, no need to get approval from the owners or the players. He also stated that the meeting with the owners over this issue was just "advisory". Their approval was not requested. He said the players would also have an advisory meeting.

Now, I'm not here to start an argument. Heck, I'm not close to anybody at the ML level, so I'm just guessing. But I'm guessing that Alderson rams it down the players throats.

Garth



[Edited by GarthB on Dec 12th, 2000 at 01:19 AM]

[BJ Moose]

One of the early lessons that amateur umpires should learn is that MLB umpiring is not necessarily "that" related to what we do.

We enjoy watching, we admire them, we want to wear their black shirts, but their strike zone doesn't have a whole lot to do with our level of ball. And this is a good thing.

As others have commented..."I've always called the high strike." which translates to.. "I adhere closer to the rule book zone than my Professional bretheran".

I always apply the Universal Test of Strikezones.. is it fair? Does the batter have a chance to HIT that ball (ex: a ball width outside thigh high).

In doing adult leagues... I may be settling in on the high end of the zone, say 6" above the belt. I call that strike early.. the batter squacks (skwack?)... and I just tell the catcher.. "This guy is watching too much TV" meaning he sees the pros calling AT and above the belt a BALL.. and thinks that;s a ball in the beer league... uh....

[Drifter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BJ Moose

I always apply the Universal Test of Strikezones.. is it fair? Does the batter have a chance to HIT that ball (ex: a ball width outside thigh high).

I have a handicap here...I've tried to do the younger kids games...like 13 and under. I've found that I have a really hard time calling a strike zone where these kids are used to seeing it, at the letters. For that reason, I'm pretty much stranded at the high school level, because I can't raise my strike zone without becoming inconsistent.

Is this a mental block...?

Vern

[senior]

Drifter:
It's not really mental - I believe it is mostly physical! I experienced the same feelings until I realized it had more to do with how I was setting up than any mental condition. I strive to have an adequately large zone, and found on some of my "higher" level games pitchers felt I was squeezing them. Upon further review, I discovered that I was setting up in the same location for all my games.
I try to concentrate on setting my "eye-level" at the top of my zone, and have basically eliminated my concerns about the top of my zone. If you're too low, you find it difficult to pull the trigger on a pitch you're looking up at.

[Patrick Szalapski]

The MSNBC page originally cited no longer exists. Does anyone know where it can be found?

P-Sz