Strike zone

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I'm as confused as buckwheat on this statement.


How many think the following statement could stand up under scrutiny?

A pitch that takes the knee at the front of the zone did not pass through the zone.

I think it depends on your definition of "pass through." That is, is the strike zone a two-dimensional plane and if the ball hits the plane at teh front of the plate (ignoring any comments about whether it's the plate or the front knee, or ... that sets the location), it's a strike? Or, is it a three-dimensional objenct and the ball must be in the zone both at the front and the back of the object?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NIump50

I'm as confused as buckwheat on this statement.

And, therein lies the problem.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

You two are confused because you're too busy arguing to spend any effort listening.

??????????

Although it may well be that we’re arguing, it does seem as though WhatWuzThatBlue, who so far is the only one I’ve seen who’s been to pro school, appears to be leaning toward the side of the argument that says, the call is supposed to be decided based on where it is during the time reaches the front edge of the plate until it passes the rear point.

That also seems to be what the people setting up and using QuesTec are saying, and that’s one of the primary training tools MLB uses to train umps.

Other than that, I don’t see any big difference of opinion. There’s a lot of folks who are bound and determined to let any number of other factors, including catchers, coaches, fans, traditions, what type of pitch was thrown, or whatever, influence the call, and that seems to be the only “bone of contention”.

I don’t think there’s any longer any doubt at all that the zone isn’t a pane of glass suspended over the front edge of the plate, but rather something in 3 dimensions, not two. I’m perfectly willing to leave how its shaped or where it is up to anyone who gets behind the plate. That’s their judgment and depends on their experience and ability to make that judgment.

But, whatever that size and shape is, and there’s no doubt it will be different for every umpire, a ball that touches it has to be called a strike or it will only add to inconsistency.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by buckweat

??????????

But, whatever that size and shape is, and there’s no doubt it will be different for every umpire, a ball that touches it has to be called a strike or it will only add to inconsistency.

Since you seem to be a "black and white" rulebook guy, why don't you read OBR 2.00 A strike is....(b) and let us know if the word "touches" appears anywhere.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it depends on your definition of "pass through." That is, is the strike zone a two-dimensional plane and if the ball hits the plane at teh front of the plate (ignoring any comments about whether it's the plate or the front knee, or ... that sets the location), it's a strike? Or, is it a three-dimensional objenct and the ball must be in the zone both at the front and the back of the object?

It can’t be 2 dimensional because its defined as 3. There’s a horizontal aspect that never changes, width. A vertical aspect, knee to above the belt that changes from batter to batter, and depth aspect that never changes, “that area over home plate.

If you interpret “passes through any part of the strike zone” as meaning only front to back, I think your interpretation is way wrong. Would a ball dropped from straight over the plate and allowed to hit the center of the plate, have passed “through the zone”?

Of course it would, but from the sounds of things, very few would call it a strike.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Since you seem to be a "black and white" rulebook guy, why don't you read OBR 2.00 A strike is....(b) and let us know if the word "touches" appears anywhere.

Of course it doesn’t, don’t be condescending. But tell me how you expect a ball to get into the zone without touching it? And how, if it entered the zone, would it be possible not to go through it? The ball doesn’t stop.

Since you want to play games with the rules, could you point out anyplace where it says, or even hints at anything after the plate being allowed to have an effect on the call?

Mebbe I missed the rule change to (b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; where they added, as long as the catcher catches the ball in flight, doesn’t turn his glove over, and doesn’t have to reach outside of his body frame to catch the pitch.

[Carbide Keyman]

Hasn't this thread outlived its usefulness ?


Doug

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman

Hasn't this thread outlived its usefulness ?

Doug

Perhaps, but go back to the thread on civilty last month. I replaced JRUT in the number 1 spot and I no longer have any trouble filling in the midlle of the lineup.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by buckweat

Since you want to play games with the rules, could you point out anyplace where it says, or even hints at anything after the plate being allowed to have an effect on the call?

I suppose someone said something about after the plate...not me, but someone, perhaps. I am talking about as the ball passes over the plate. It "touches" the bottom of the knee and drops so that it is below the knee as it "passes" over the plate.

RIF

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Guys, I just got in from a funeral of a family friend. (Why do they call it a celebration of life, when the kid was 14? Some things just aren't fair.)

I saw this thread had taken a life of its own and I apologize for stirring it up. Many umpires view the plate as a three dimensional object an the ball has to pass through the front and back adges for it to qualify as a strike. Others choose to follow the thought that the ball simply has to pass over the plate - IOW, nip a corner. Randy Johnson gets more of these pitches than anyone I've ever seen. Thsoe are MLB umpires calling his pitches, so I tend to agree with their interpretation of a strike. Wakefield gets more uncaught or 'dirty' strikes then any current MLB pitcher. Saying that MLB umpires don't call strikes that require a catcher to get his mitt dirty is erroneous. Watch Johnson and Wakefield in action - anyone recall an A's HOF closer that siedearmed balls that would barely touch the corner. I can't recall his name, but a few years ago the Phillies had a lefty that would do something similar.

Now, before this gets ugly, let's agree that we all get away with things we shouldn't. If one of these involves letting a strike go uncalled because the catcher didn't do his job, then so be it. I don't like penalizing pitchers or catchers, those guys keep the game moving and protect me. I don't have any problem telling an offensive coach that his batters are missing great deuces. Tell them to move up in the box for godsakes! Do some scouting...know that if I call it in the first inning, I'll call it in the fourteenth. A strike is a strike...we need three to move everything along. But...do what you gotta do to maintain your sanity and keep your job.

Life is too short. Good night.

[SanDiegoSteve]

W,

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Much too young. It makes us realize just how trivial our arguments on these forums are in the grand scheme of things. My condolences to you and to his family.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Others choose to follow the thought that the ball simply has to pass over the plate - IOW, nip a corner.

That's a different issue, and one with which I would not take issue. When that happens, the ball is in the strike zone during it's time over the plate. The pitch I referred to take the bottom of the knee at the front and is down and out of the zone from that point. Touching, versus passing.

Saying that MLB umpires don't call strikes that require a catcher to get his mitt dirty is erroneous.

Again, this can be different than what I was addressing, a ball taking dirt before it got to the catcher.

The only time I've seen a MLB umpire call a pitch in the dirt a strike is when the catcher was crossed up and had to reach for it to one side or another, not between him and the plate. This year, I have not even seen that called a strike so far, but I only watch about six games a week and I know there is a lot of game I don't see.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's a different issue, and one with which I would not take issue. When that happens, the ball is in the strike zone during it's time over the plate. The pitch I referred to take the bottom of the knee at the front and is down and out of the zone from that point. Touching, versus passing.

So what I understand from this post is that for you to call a strike, the pitch must be in the strike zone the entire time it is over the plate.
Is this correct?

So if a pitch hits the front of the plate an inch or two above your upper zone and then breaks big to below the belt when the catcher receives it, that pitch is a ball?

So can our disagreement on this issue comes down to this?

I call a strike if at any point the pitch enters the zone. You call a strike only if while the ball is over the plate it is in the zone.

Seems to me both strike zones are reasonable, and it seems to me reasonable people should be able to have such differences without as much emotion as this thread has generated.

Just for clarification.

If a tailing fastball catches the corner in the front part of zone and then tails off(as WWTBs post indicated and you had no issue with) it can be strike because while it was over the plate it was in the zone.
But if the same pitch hits the corner and then goes down out of the zone instead of to the side it cannot be a strike.

You differentiate between a pitch leaving the zone to the side vs the bottom.
Is that difference because of some advantage/disadvantage to the batter or some other reason?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NIump50

You differentiate between a pitch leaving the zone to the side vs the bottom.

No I don't. Why would you say that? I differentiated between a pitch immediatley leaving the zone after toucing the bottom of the knee at the front of the plate and a pitch ENTERING the zone from the side. Two distinctly different animals.

[ctblu40]

The key to calling ball and strikes is consistancy.
I have developed what I call "the strike zone of least resistance". The pitch must be at or below about 2" above the belt. Nothing below the hollow beneath the knee. A little bit in is OK, I'll grab it for a strike. 2-3" out and I can get it.

Now it's story time- I was working a summer adult wood bat league game last week. In the 3rd or 4th, a pitch comes in for a high strike, and I call it a strike (I should've balled it). The batter looks at me and says, "That was a ball my last at bat." I said "It was a strike that time." He shakes his head digs in and we go. Next pitch was in the same spot... "Ball" He (the batter) looked at me and I said "See, it's a ball again."
In the parking lot after the game the batter approached me and said, "I guess everyone misses them once in a while?" I said, "I didn't miss it, I'm schitzophrenic." We had a good laugh