Strike Pitch - Do you still call it?

[sm_bbcoach]

HAd a game last night (JV level). Had a good & big strike zone all night. Home team pitcher stays mainly mid and up all night. Visitors came in with a guy who threw low balls and breaking junk. That being said here goes:

His pitches were strikes when they crossed the plate, then dumped off the table and headed to the ground. Catcher did a good job of catching them - well most of them. Had 3 in a row,
#1 right at knees, over the plate catcher drops to block ball STRIKE 1
#2 same exact pitch. STRIKE 2
coach: " come on. ball is 3inches off the ground. LEt me know next time and we will bring shovels."
#3 Ball mid thigh level over inside corner (I see it since I am set there). Ball breaks and drops down, again catcher blocks ball. STRIKE 3.

Coach has a few more words; quietly. Their fans not liking the calls - obviously.

My question: If it is a strike when it crosses the plate, should it matter how the C stops it? If we worry about that part then what about the C who sets up way outside (off the plate) and then P rips one on the inside corner or down the pipe. C has to quickly dive at ball to stop it. Are these BALLS?

I am a first year ump looking for solid advise- not looking to begina pissing match.

Thanks

[orioles35]

If it's a strike, call it. You're going to hear things because it LOOKS like a ball because of the way the catcher is receiving it. A strike is a strike, regardless. Besides, if you don't call it you're going to have a walkfest.

[3appleshigh]

You're asking two different questions. Should it matter if it crosses right but catcher muffs it up - NO. It SHOULDN'T. Does it matter, yes it does.

In my opinion it is a which end of the stick do you want to hold question. To expand on your example, let's say he is doing that all game. All strikes, but appear to everyone else in attendance as balls. You will inevitably have to chuck someone in this game. A feed up batter, a feed up coach who knows but someone, plus you will have the fans all over you all game long. Yes it is a strike, but no one else thinks so. So for game management call what the entire pitching tandem gives you. As you get up in level you will often hear a catcher say to his pitcher sorry man that one was my fault. He is refering to the ugly way he caught the pitch. The pitch has to throws strikes and the catcher has to catch strikes. But if the pitcher throws a strike, but the catcher "catches a ball" what do you think the fans, players,coaches and often even evaluators can see? This is mostly to do with marginal pitches, a cockshoot that the catcher muffs is still a strike.

Grab the stick, choose your end wisely.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by sm_bbcoach

HAd a game last night (JV level). Had a good & big strike zone all night. Home team pitcher stays mainly mid and up all night. Visitors came in with a guy who threw low balls and breaking junk. That being said here goes:

His pitches were strikes when they crossed the plate, then dumped off the table and headed to the ground. Catcher did a good job of catching them - well most of them. Had 3 in a row,
#1 right at knees, over the plate catcher drops to block ball STRIKE 1
#2 same exact pitch. STRIKE 2
coach: " come on. ball is 3inches off the ground. LEt me know next time and we will bring shovels."
#3 Ball mid thigh level over inside corner (I see it since I am set there). Ball breaks and drops down, again catcher blocks ball. STRIKE 3.

Coach has a few more words; quietly. Their fans not liking the calls - obviously.

My question: If it is a strike when it crosses the plate, should it matter how the C stops it? If we worry about that part then what about the C who sets up way outside (off the plate) and then P rips one on the inside corner or down the pipe. C has to quickly dive at ball to stop it. Are these BALLS?

I am a first year ump looking for solid advise- not looking to begina pissing match.

Thanks

Ball 1, Ball 2, Ball 3.

The catcher is, no matter what the rulebook says, a part of what makes the pitch a strike.

Sets up outside and dives back across the inside corner? Probably a ball, too, unless I need a strike in that situation.

[mcrowder]

Rich, that's awful. A strike is a strike is a strike. The last part you typed is the worst part.

[C'monBlue]

At the varsity level and with higher-quality JV, I agree with Rich. The catcher has to do his part and everybody knows it. Anything below that, I'm looking for strikes and outs. The batters haven't yet earned the right to be connoisseurs. Swing or sit.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by C'monBlue

At the varsity level and with higher-quality JV, I agree with Rich. The catcher has to do his part and everybody knows it. Anything below that, I'm looking for strikes and outs. The batters haven't yet earned the right to be connoisseurs. Swing or sit.

+1


(+ ten characters)

[sm_bbcoach]

So, what I am reading in reguards with this: even if it is a strike that the bottom drops out of and when C catches it, it is very low or blocked, call it a BALL?

I work mostly fr/jv games. It would make this seem as if the game will go on forever - walks.

If I undersdtand these post correctly, we are letting what the spectators and coaches influnence what we call because of what they THINK happened, not really happened.

Let me apply this to FB (for those who do that sport): do we allow the RB who did not "pop the bubble of the goal line" get the TD, because it looked like he got in???

[JRutledge]

It depends on the level I am working.

At the HS level I know the catchers are not going to catch the ball perfectly all the time. I have seen freshman players that knew how to catch the ball properly and have worked with senior catchers that did not know how to stick a pitch right down the middle. So if the pitch is right down the middle I likely going to call the pitch a strike. If the pitch is on the corners or right at the edge of the zone, then that is where they need to catch it. Part of calling pitch is how the ball is caught so you can clearly know where the pitch was and how it got there.

I can tell you the more you move up, more is expected of catchers to catch the ball properly. If they do not catch the ball properly at the college level and above, the coaches are not going to blame you, they will blame the catchers for not doing their job. I had a college game last week where a coach told me to "hit my catcher in the back of the head the next time he pops up." I talk about college because you will get some HS coaches that have college experiences as players and coaches that might make an issue out of a HS catcher not catching the ball perfectly. I just worked a game today with an assistant I knew from working as a coach at a local college and he is very knowledgeable. He says things that the average HS coach never says.

Peace

[insatty]

I fall into Rich's line of thinking on this issue. A curve ball that is caught below mid-calf is not a strike, especially if the ball or glove touches the ground. The catcher that sets up inside or outside who must reach is glove across the plate to catch the pitch is more of a nuance. If the catcher is able to reach but still catch it within his frame and freeze his glove so the coaches can see it, it's a strike.

I call alot of strikes in my games and I work up to Division Two. I find that calling strikes tends to make the game go smoother with a minimum of griping. But the umpire's credibility is an important element in the making of a gripe-free environment. We're REQUIRED to call the high strike, so our credibility exists in the coaches' confidence that we'll call it both ways and consistently. But if either catcher makes the pitch look ugly, like letting that outside strike deflect off his mitt and travel behind him, it's a ball every time for both sides.

[nickrego]

Probably the single most important change in my game that got me bumped up from Frosh / JV level to Varsity was learning to take how a pitch is caught into consideration.

Years ago, I called pitches strictly on the flight / path of the pitch. If it touched the zone, no matter how or where it was caught by the catcher, I called it a strike. I used to take a lot of heat from everyone, and was considered to have a poor strike zone.

Then, one of our senior members pulled me aside, and explained to me that even though a pitch might have touched the zone, if the catcher catches it in a way that makes it look like a ball to the rest of the world, I needed to call it a ball. Once I started doing that (took quite a bit of practice), my games went much smoother, my zone felt better, and I started getting compliments from all sides on my pitch calling. And the next year, my entire HS schedule consisted of Varsity games.

That said, let me add; If a strike is what I call a FAT strike, meaning it basically went through the middle of the zone, but say pops out of the catchers glove...Go ahead and call those strikes. What we are talking about are the FRINGE strikes, strikes the catcher has to make extra effort to catch, or a pitch that could go either way. That's when you use how the pitch was caught to make your determination.

One last piece of advice; I would only apply this to 13 YRO and up, on a 90' diamond. Start out conservatively (calling lots of strikes), reducing the number of bad catches you call strikes over time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Rich, that's awful. A strike is a strike is a strike. The last part you typed is the worst part.

At the college or even varsity level, you call a pitch a strike in that situation, and you'll get crucified.

What I meant in the last part is this -- if the game is 24-1 and the losing pitcher throws this pitch, I may call it a strike regardless.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Ball 1, Ball 2, Ball 3.

The catcher is, no matter what the rulebook says, a part of what makes the pitch a strike.

I don't agree with Rich very often; he's management, I was always labor. But....

Rich Garcia's comment describing the strike zone is one of umpiring's classic statements: "A strike is where I call it and they don't b!tch!" Paste that on the back of your catcher's helmet, follow it religiously, and watch your evaluations climb.

There is this romantic, some might say sophomoric, view that umpiring is an exact science, that a "strike is a strike is a strike," as if there is some magical box that determines the outcome of the pitch.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's hogwash!

I am amazed when I hear a so-called "umpire" say something like: "Hey, if it's a strike, I don't care whether the catcher sticks it or where he catches it."

Fellows, it ain't a strike until the catcher sticks it.

In south Texas, we play pretty good baseball. Hey, we ain't bad in soccer either: Brownsville Porter just won the state championship, 2-1, in double overtime. Down here, if I called a strike a strike just because the pitch hit the published strike zone, at any level above 10u, I would work games only when no one else was available. From Bronco through MSBL, including Division 1, the pitch must look as if it was a strike.

My candidate umpires always come back and rave about a principle I teach: "If the catcher's mitt touches the ground, the pitch ain't a strike."

Earlier this year, I called a 5A game between a sometime powerhouse and a periennial power. The coach of the once-in-a-while winner stopped by in the third inning to complain: "Hey, how come we're not getting that pitch at the knees?"

Said I: "Because Tony's catcher is a lot better than yours."

Said he: "Ain't that the truth." He gave me a pat on the butt and went on his way. Oh, he was the coach at Brownsville Porter. He won't win the state championship this year.

Most of us are working amateur ball. We know the limits of our pitchers and catchers. If we have had any meaningful experience at all, we know what we can call without being killed by both sides. I can tell you this: The coach whose pitcher is getting strikes in the dirt simply because they were strikes at some point during the pitch is nervous as hell and praying that you won't be consistent with that "zone" when his team comes to bat. In other words, he hopes you're an all-around bad ump.

I was pleased with this thread: Most of the posters recognized that there is no magical zone, that it takes two (a pitcher and a catcher) to create a strike. Ten years ago, Rich and I might have been alone.

We've come a long way, Baby.

[LakeErieUmp]

I'd like to be a fly on the screen when the coach comes out to politely ask where that pitch was and you tell him "your batter hasn't earned the right to be a connoisseur"

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

I'd like to be a fly on the screen when the coach comes out to politely ask where that pitch was and you tell him "your batter hasn't earned the right to be a connoisseur"

I don't understand. If a coach wants to know where a pitch was - in relation to his batter - I would simply say: "Where was the pitch? In the strike zone."

No need to get clever, right?

In over 50 years, I don't recollect a coach ever asking me why a pitch was a strike. He might say: "Those low pitches aren't strikes!" Or: "C'mon, Carl: My batter couldn't hit those pitches with a 50-inch bat."

Offensive coaches ask only about a pitch they thought was a strike but I called a ball. "Where was that pitch [at]?" A well-trained catcher (training courtesy of me) motions "outside," even if he thought it was a stike and I missed it. There's always another pitch right around the corner.

On the other hand, a professional coach who questions the calls his pitcher is [not] getting understands at once when I tell him his catcher is costing the pitcher strikes.

That's a given, anywhere real baseball is played.

I guess it's a matter of style. I prefer telling the truth to coaches who are courteous enough to ask.

What's your position on that?