Strike Pitch - Do you still call it?

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Tim C

The name of my column on this website is:

Strikes & Outs

I guess that defines my feelings on this thead.

Regards,

"Strikes mean outs, outs mean games, games mean money."

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by LMan

"Strikes mean outs, outs mean games, games mean money."

No doubt I'm going to regret getting back into this thread. It began as an effort to show that the catcher can affect how pitches are called.

It's degenerated into chit-chat about umpires who want to call what "they" want rather than what is.

Dishonest: I go out looking for strikes.
Honest: I go out looking at pitches.

Dishonest: When in doubt, it's a strike.
Honest: If you don't see the pitch as a strike, it isn't.

The message quoted above, while cute and perhaps intended as nothing more than humor, represents a dishonest approach to umpiring.

Old Smitty: "Carl, I go out and in the first inning I call five or six borderline pitches strikes. Boy, they start swinging. My games are the shortest because I make them swing. Nobody walks but the mailman."

The batter has as much right to make a living as the pitcher. If you call questionable pitches strikes, you will force batters to swing at bad pitches. Of course, that leads to outs!

Why is it we can't simply umpire?

Tee: Strikes & Outs: That represents my philosophy.
Carl: I've told Tee before that is a bad philosophy.

For those of you still learning, or willing to learn, listen, oh, my brothers: Don't report to the game with any agenda, with any expectations. Don't say: When it leaves the pitcher's hand it's a strike until proved otherwise.

When it leaves the pitcher's hand, it's nothing more than a pitch.

See the pitch, call the pitch.

Be as willing to walk three batters in a row as you are to strike out three in a row.

What the umpire thinks, how he views baseball, what he wants: None of that has any place in a game.

[sm_bbcoach]

Since I began this, let me jump back in.....

It appears to me that many call the pitch as it comes through the strike zone. Many call it with the afore mentioned + how the catcher catches it. I am thinking that is as subjective as holding is to football officials. Their own interpretation. I also have read where calling with the catcher in mind makes for better games - less chirping from coaches and fans- , anbd some have advance to higher level games because of these calls.

In reading this thread, I did change my approach last night at the dish. I allowed the catcher to influence balls & strikes calls. It did prove some correct- less chirping from the coaches and fans as I allowed a for sure strike (above the knees at the plate) to be a ball since it did scrape the ground as the C caught it. No one said a word other than, you can miss there and catch the ball Tim (catcher's name).

In all and all, I figure that I am adopting this style of calling balls and strikes. BTW, the game was a good pace with a few more walks that I have had in the past games.

I would like to thank everyone for the opinions!

[Justme]

Originally Posted by sm_bbcoach

Since I began this, let me jump back in.....

It appears to me that many call the pitch as it comes through the strike zone. Many call it with the afore mentioned + how the catcher catches it. I am thinking that is as subjective as holding is to football officials. Their own interpretation. I also have read where calling with the catcher in mind makes for better games - less chirping from coaches and fans- , anbd some have advance to higher level games because of these calls.

In reading this thread, I did change my approach last night at the dish. I allowed the catcher to influence balls & strikes calls. It did prove some correct- less chirping from the coaches and fans as I allowed a for sure strike (above the knees at the plate) to be a ball since it did scrape the ground as the C caught it. No one said a word other than, you can miss there and catch the ball Tim (catcher's name).

In all and all, I figure that I am adopting this style of calling balls and strikes. BTW, the game was a good pace with a few more walks that I have had in the past games.

I would like to thank everyone for the opinions!

Last night in an adult league baseball game I tried the opposite approach. If the ball was in the strike zone when it crossed the plate I called it a 'strike' regardless of where F2 caught the ball.

Pitching was very good on both sides. Only a couple of complaints early on but by the time the 8th inning came along the losing team F1 was crying like a baby. My zone hadn't changed but as desperation set in (they were down 11-3) so did his dislike of my strike zone. The other F2 seemed to be enjoying my zone.

Earlier in the day I worked bases at a HS varsity game where the PU called the pitch not where F2 caught the ball, much less resistance at that level.

[JRutledge]

I think we still need to be clear that this has to be done based on the level you work. You cannot expect a JV catcher to be this precise and catch everything that well. I have seen college a catcher struggle trying to do this. I had a catcher in a college game this Monday that could not get catch the ball properly on many borderline pitches. I agree with the practice of making the catcher catch the ball properly, I just use it more on borderline pitches. A pitch down the middle there is not much a catcher can do to screw that up. Well, they could dive at the pitch if they are set up too far inside or outside.

Peace

[BretMan]

Five pages of responses and this article hasn't yet been mentioned?

http://www.amateurumpire.com/others/misc/porter02.htm

I thought for sure that someone would have linked it already. It's been around for years and is a good example of how using the catcher's mitt can aid an umpire in calling balls and strikes.

Anyhow...check it out.

From a personal perspective, one pitch location that seems to be a thorn in my side is the down-the-middle, yet high, pitch that sticks the mitt. It might be right on the center of the plate, yet crosses the plate and batter at the armpits, obviously high and out of the zone. It doesn't "skim" the top of the zone and is, in fact, at least 6" out of the "midway from shoulders to waist" upper limit.

I call this a ball and inevitably recieve grief from the pitcher or catcher. But, I stick to my guns and call it a ball all game.

Anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this "down the middle, but obviously high" pitch location?

[RPatrino]

Brett, that is the one pitch that can set off a crap storm. You get in more trouble calling that one a strike then not. I just leave it alone and concentrate on nailing the low strike, which to me is the place where you're reputation as a good "ball and strike" umpire is made or broken.

Just my 2 cents.

Bob P.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LMan

"Strikes mean outs, outs mean games, games mean money."

... money buys beer, beer makes you sleep, sleep is good.