Exactly
 

My philosophy is exactly that with Rich.

If the catcher sets up outside the zone he doesn't want a strike, the coach don't want a strike. That's why he called the pitch.

The F2 stabbing the ball across the plate give the impression to everyone that the pitch is a ball, and that's what I give them.

Of course this is HS level and college.

When I used to call 13-14's and under I'll take every strike that I can get.

Thanks
David

David, I ask you the same thing then. Is your zone less than 17" across if the catcher sets up away from the center of home plate?

My answer: I try not to let the catcher influence my calls, but it happens. So, theoretically, the answer to the question is, "No,", but practically, it's "Yes."

thank you Bob. You said it exactly like I was thinking.

Thanks
David

17" across? If the catcher sets up a bit outside (1-2 ball widths or so) and the pitcher can hit that spot, I'm going to have a nice day. Of course my zone is never less than 17" across.

So if your zone is still 17", but you're not calling pitches on the inside corner when F2 sets up outside, I assume this means your zone extends outside past the glove a bit.

Now, same catcher sets up inside, so you give him a couple of extra inches inside while taking away a bit outside.

How the heck are batters to know what you're going to call a strike? So, now, they need to get into the box and watch the catcher to figure out where the zone's going to be for that pitch? Do we not see the problem here - essentially the batter now has to protect 25-30 inches across. Don't you think that's a bit much?

Well,
 

In a clinic taught by Ted Barrett, Mike Winters, Dale Scott, Gary Darling and Larry Poncino we were taught that the plate is actually 22" wide when calling strikes.

Tee,

Were they really teaching that the <b>plate</b> was that wide, or that the <b>strike zone</b> was that wide?

JM

I try not to let the way the catcher catches the ball influence my call - especially in a high school game, where there are few true "catchers". Same thing with the catcher that cannot catch a cock shot - I won't ball a good pitch because he can't do HIS job. Strikes are too few and far between to let one go.

Hmmm,
 

OK, I'll try . . .

"The plate's width as it deals with the strike zone."

Sarge took two baseballs:

He set one on the ground so the inner edge of the ball touched the third base edge of the plate.

He set another ball on the ground so the inner edge of that ball touched the first base side edge of the plate.

He then took a marker and marked the outer edges of the same two balls.

He then took a tape and measured the distance from inside of line #1 to the inside of line #2.

That equals 22".

Define that however you want. It is a smaller measurement than Eric Gregg's strike zone.

I don't give the catchers much inside -- maybe a ball's width. I may give 2 ball widths outside. We're talking about the rare pitch where the catcher has to dive back to catch the ball, not every third pitch. It's an aberration, not the norm.

And in most HS games, I'm calling as many strikes as I can, so this doesn't really pertain there, either. I'm talking top level HS and college games for the most part.

Anyone who calls a 17" zone in HS games is missing a lot of strikes.

If he sets up outside and the comes down the tube, it's a strike. But if it is off the black inside and he has to reach for it, everybody in the park is expecting a ball call, so they get it. Now if he sets up on the black and the pitcher hammers the mitt with it, it looks so good that everybody in the park expects a strike, except the batter, who should have been swinging. If he sets up inside and the ball catches the black, same thing. Inside or outside, on the black, an inch below the knee, and the catcher did a good job, it's a strike. I am a little stingy on high srikes, but if the pitcher throws one two inches above the belt on the black (either side), oh my... I seldom get a comment when the catcher looks good catching one and I call it a strike. How a catcher catches is definitely a factor on the borderline pitches. If he drops one that comes down the pipe, no matter, it will be a strike. If he drops a borderline pitch, it's a ball.

Why would you be stingy on high strikes?

Well I meant stingy on high borderline pitches. If it's high but in the zone, I call it.

Re: 17" vs 22" - I did say 17 (plus the width of the ball) in the first post, but shortened that to just 17 for future posts (got tired of typing the extra).

I see your points, and I do understand that sometimes the PERCEIVED call is the one that is made. Where I was going with that is that I've seen umpires call a pitch 6-8 inches outside where the catcher set up just outside of the corner and only moved the glove 3-4 inches... and then justify it using the logic posted here. I feel that's patently unfair to the hitter, who (most times) has no clue where the catcher has set up. It sounds like you are not saying here that YOU call it that way.

I believe that I will continue to call the strike on the inside black, with catcher set up outside a strike. If I called it with the catcher in the middle, I'm calling it wherever he sits. I also do not see the justification for calling a borderline pitch a strike if the catcher catches it, and a ball if he drops it. Frankly, that seems exceedingly silly. A strike is a strike is a strike.