Thank god he doesn't work were I am at
 

The only assumption I made was that you might be a umpire. After reading your post, I have come to the conclusion you may be a coach. You read part of something and turn it completely around to fit your needs, like a coach when he argues a rule.

We will call our strike zones, you call yours.

Wsttxump,

You’re the only one who’s credentials have been posted as far as the highest level of ball you call, but perhaps you have an insight to what no one else seems able to answer what I asked way back in post #68.

<i>…if anyone’s ever had the dubious pleasure of being “graded” by QuesTec”, I’d sure like to know exactly what the purpose of the thing is, and what exactly it is that you see when you throw the DVD in the player.

I’d also be curious to know how it would “score” one of those pitches that seems to be bringing out such angst. I.e., a pitch that crosses the zone at the bottom and front of the plate, but hits the dirt in front of the C.</I>

Its not that I don’t respect what anyone saying, because that just isn’t the case. Any opinion I have is pure conjecture, so I have no choice but to bow to those who actually are making the calls. But, I can’t help but wonder why MLB was thinking and what they’re looking for with this “training” program.

I’ve read and heard a lot of the rhetoric both pro and con about it, but press releases, sound bites, and video clips aren’t really telling anyone what’s going on. What are the main goal(s) for doing it?

I can certainly see why MLB would want to try to bring the highest consistency to calling pitches. But, with all the “hits” baseball has taken with its integrity lately, I can also see where that might be a very big motivator too, and I can also see that the way integrity is viewed by the owners might have several facets.

The bottom line is, since the “standards” for umps calling pro games under ML auspices are obviously are lot more stringent than for college, let alone any level below that, what does it say for those lower level umps if what the top ones are doing is in question?

I’m not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, but normally businesses don’t train people unless they feel they could somehow be doing a “better” job. I’m trying to find out what MLB thinks could be done “better”.

There has to be some reason MLB is spending untold millions of dollars on the specific task of calling pitches.

I agree, but you have to agree that some umpires have low strike zones with the fastball and if they're consistent very little is said.
Eric Gregg, GRHS, was not only respected but known for his wide strike zone.
So I reiterate my point that pitches consistently out of the strike zone can be called strikes with little repercussion, while another pitch admittedly in the strike zone can never even be considered a strike.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd?


Beauty (and ugliness) is in the eyes of the beholder.

And I'm not trying to convince anyone to call it a strike. I'm simply defending my opinion against those who continue to impune me personally because I hold a contrarian opinion.
If my opinion was contrary to the rule book I would totally understand the outrage.
I realize my stance on this flies in the face of common practice, but I am within the rules.

I choose not to penalize a pitcher for a great pitch because I want to appease the coach.

How often do you think this happens?
How many times do you see a curve hit the strike zone and break to or near the dirt?
This is close to being a theoritical question.
The question that may have more practical value is what to call on the catchers wave?
Or a missed curve ball glacing off the catchers glove at the knees.

At least I read part of it.
If you actually read the thread you'll find I merely offered my opinion on this pitch and then was told in no uncertain terms that a pitch in the strike zone that drops to the ground cannot be called a strike. Period. Then I was told that I could not be a quality umpire if I did.
I'd say that's your side telling me how to call balls and strikes, not vice versa.
The rest of the thread I've been defending my opinion.

So again I say to you. Get your facts right and Stop making assumptions.

After reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you're probably an assistant coach.
Just a clueless mouthpiece thrown out at the end of an argument as a sacrificial lamb to protect me the coach.

Have a nice walk to the parking lot!

Questec vs Ump?
 

It appears Questec has the same problem I do.:D

"A core weakness of the system is that it consistently misses certain types of pitches, mostly sweeping pitches (sliders and curves), as well as late, hard, 'boring' pitches such as the cut fastball. These pitches can land all the way into the opposite batter's box, but because they caught a tiny slice of the front corner of the plate, the computer calls them strikes. No umpire who values his safety is going to call a pitch that lands in the opposite batter's box a strike. "

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3326

Hope this helps
 

No. I have never worked with this system.

What is it?
Major League Baseball hired QuesTec, a digital media firm based in Deer Park, N.Y., to install and implement an Umpire Information System.

Where QuesTec resides
The 10 major-league ballparks in which QuesTec, the umpire evaluation system, has been installed:

Bank One Ballpark (Arizona)
Fenway Park (Boston)
Tropicana Field (Tampa Bay)
Jacobs Field (Cleveland)
Miller Park (Milwaukee)
Edison Field (Anaheim)
Network Associates Coliseum (Oakland)
Minute Maid Park (Houston)
Shea Stadium (Mets)
Yankee Stadium (Yankees)


Why?
MLB wants to support its strike zone initiative, to help its umpires improve and to grade their performance.

How does it work?
QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology uses cameras mounted in the stands off the first and third base lines. The cameras follow the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the plate. Multiple track points precisely locate the ball in space and time. This information measures the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path.

According to the New York Times, a computer technician sets the strike zone from a snapshot taken as the first pitch to a batter was on the way to the plate. That is used to measure whether the pitch was a strike or not.

After each game, the complete set of data is put on a CD-ROM to be given to the umpire at the end of the game to view. The umpire can view his calls next to QuesTec's and contrast where they differed.

What is the umpires' biggest complaint?
The strike zone is established by a computer operator, so they say it varies from park to park, from at-bat to at-bat with the same batter and sometimes even from pitch to pitch.

Are the umpires fighting the system?
Yes. The umpire's union has filed a grievance against major league teams contending the system is inaccurate and varies greatly depending on the person operating it. An arbitrator is to hear the grievance in early July.

How accurate is it?
The UIS is accurate to within 0.5 inch (one half inch), according to QuesTec.

How accurate does MLB want its umpires to be?
Umpires have been told that if at least 90 percent of their calls do not conform with QuesTec calls, they are guilty of below-standard umpiring.


Seperate Info.

Major League Baseball has contracted QuesTec to install, operate, and maintain the UIS (Umpire Information System) in support of MLB's previously announced strike zone initiatives. The UIS uses QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology that analyzes video from cameras mounted in the rafters of each ballpark to precisely locate the ball throughout the pitch corridor. This information is then used to measure the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path. The UIS tracking system is a fully automated process that does not require changes to the ball, the field of play, or any other aspect of the game. Additional cameras are mounted at the field level to measure the strike zone for each individual batter, for each individual pitch, for each at bat. This information is compiled on a CD ROM disk and given to the home plate umpire immediately following each game.












FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How does it work?

The UIS uses QuesTec's proprietary measurement technology. Quite different than "video insertion" technology that simply adds graphics to the broadcast video, QuesTec technology actually measures information about interesting events during the game that would not be available any other way. This technology is so innovative it appeared in a Scientific American article in September of 2000. The ball tracking component uses cameras mounted in the stands off the first and third base lines to follow the ball as it leaves the pitcher's hand until it crosses the plate. Along the way, multiple track points are measured to precisely locate the ball in space and time. This information is then used to measure the speed, placement, and curvature of the pitch along its entire path. The entire process is fully automatic including detection of the start of the pitch, tracking of the ball, location computations, and identification of non-baseball objects such as birds or wind swept debris moving through the field of view. No changes are made to the ball, the field of play, or any other aspect of the game, to work with QuesTec technology. The tracking technology was originally developed for the US military and the company has adapted it to sports applications.


How accurate is it?

The UIS is accurate to within 0.5 inch (one half inch).


How does the UIS system differ from the broadcast system PitchTrax?

The UIS uses different cameras, modified software, and a different calibration process to increase accuracy.


Why are they different?

The requirements for umpires and broadcast graphics are different. The extra cost and effort for the increased accuracy would be wasted when turned into the graphics we provide on air or over the internet.


What have you done over the internet?

Variations to this system have been used to produce pitch data for the online game "HIT THE PROS" located at www.FOXSports.com/games. "HIT THE PROS" allows you to swing at all the same pitches that the big leaguers did! In the past, we provided simultaneous webcast of pitch data for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 All Star Games and the 1999 World Series, all on the MLB official website.


How long has PitchTrax been available?

The PitchTrax product was first seen Nationally on air during the 1997 World Series. It has been used in various markets since then and appeared in hundreds of broadcasts on FOX SportsNet last season. We are in the process of installing it in all 30 MLB parks and hope to have that completed sometime this season.


Where and when will the UIS be in operation?

MLB will tell us where they would like the system installed. Four Major League parks were installed in 2001 and ten are scheduled for 2002.



Who owns the technology?

We have retained full ownership of the technology with certain practical limitations on any uses related to umpiring in baseball.


So, you can sell this technology to others?

Yes, as long as we don't interfere with the use of it for the legitimate purpose of providing information to the umpires.


How do the umpires feel about it?

In general, they support it! They had the opportunity to really watch the technology in action and to talk to us about how it works and how we thought it might be used. MLB has also worked very hard to clearly lay out why they wanted this technology and how they would use it. We wouldn't dare say everyone loves it at this point but, from what we have seen, the umpiring community as a whole agrees this information has a lot of potential value and they want to work with it to see what can be learned.


Why is this deal important to QuesTec?

Gaining acceptance from both MLB and the umpires for the accuracy, reliability and value of our technology is like getting a Seal of Approval. We are not aware of any other measurement technology that has been accepted in this way by the governing body of a major US sport, or, in fact, any sport worldwide. This is the first real advance since the stop watch and the tape measure. We are a measurement company and now an independent organization has agreed that our technology works and is willing to use it in a very important capacity. We think that is pretty important.

I was answering your question as to why this is not considered a strike. Whatever opinion you have is fine. Just like the rest of the coaches, its not worth much.

Call the pitch whatever you want, it makes no difference to me. If you were like most coaches..........dang I mean umpires, we share with one another what it takes and what we have expierenced in order to move to the next level.

Also, I can verify my statements as to what I work. Go ahead and post your coaching certificate.

Resemblence of a Strike
 

One of them Questec articles that state, "Garbage in, garbage out."

http://www.athomeplate.com/questec2.shtml

"There are many reasons that data like this could be manipulated. It could be that baseball simply wants to keep the umpires and their union on a short leash - and thus under MLB’s thumb. It could be that MLB simply wanted the QuesTec experiment not to look like a badly run debacle - unreliable and troublesome therefore manipulating numbers could make it look better."

Something in the wind about polictics again. I think I said this already.

"It's ridiculous to expect the umpires to be perfect when the machine that's deciding if they're worthy of future job assignments isn't even perfect. "

http://espn.go.com/talent/danpatrick...8/1560141.html

Saump,

You certainly hit it on the nose by smiling at the failings of both umpires and technology. ;-)

I’ve read that article before, and at 1st reading thought, “WOW, What a piece of crap!”

But on close observation, it turns out that it is exactly the kind of rhetorical thing I was referring to.

Look at when it was written. That’s nearly 2 years ago! Do you or anyone else believe that none of the problems he described have been corrected and no improvements made since he was a QuesTec operator? If you do, just look at your new cell phone, automobile, TV, or anything else based on technology, and see how much they’ve changed in 2 years.

Did you notice that even though he points out many of the strange things goin’ on, he noted one of the “critical” things. <I>The calibration involves setting the dots on certain parts of the field, with the back point of the plate being the most critical. This calibration gives the cameras a center point from which to track each pitch.</I> Why not the front end of the plate or someplace else? It would appear that the “point” of the plate means something. ;-)

Another thing I noticed when I read it was that the “strike zone” he says he set, certainly isn’t the strike zone in the book.

Setting the lines at the top of the belt and at the hollow of the back knee only takes about 10 pitches for a beginner to master; as opposed to

horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap.

The book says nothing about the “back” knee being the only one to be used, but on reflection, it’s the only one that makes sense. Also, since he says he set the top of the zone at the top of the pants, either he used a little poetic license and exaggerated a tad, was just flat out wrong, or was told to set it there by the people wanting the results of the system, MLB.

But if you read the article by Ivan Santucci you can read through the link, you can see that once the line is set at the top of the pants, the computer automatically moves it up 2.5 ball widths, or about 7-8”, or to whatever precision the computer figures the diameter to be.

If one reads the whole article by Santucci, one can also see that the zone doesn’t depend one whit where the batter stands, and he pretty well defines not only what it looks like, but answers a great many other questions about it.

Also, if you look at what he says eventually gets put on the CD, using phrases such as “travel through the strike zone”, “throughout the strike zone”, sure indicates to me there is more than just one point where the pitch is supposed to be measured.

I thought his pointing out the major strength of the UIS as being its “ensured objectivity” was pretty telling. The only argument anyone could possibly have is if the system calibration is correct, and that would be obvious in viewing the CD because the lines defining the zone would be seen.

What he points out as a “core weakness” is also interesting, and seems to be pretty much in line with most of what are the “traditional” responses we’ve seen here. However, he makes no mention of whether what he’s saying is his opinion, or that of MLB.

His pointing out that even an exceptional ump with a very high accuracy rate still misses around 15 pitches a game should say something. And, no, not that umps suck! But rather that there is lots of room for improvement, and that using the system will help umps to make that improvement if the want to.

I disagree, you said your self you don't call a curve ball that goes thru the strike zone then hits dirt a strike because of the coaches.

Your quote:
"This is why the pitch is a ball in a college level game.

1) NEITHER team or coach will expect that pitch called a strike. In fact anything caught more than a ball below the knee you will hear sh** about."

You're disregarding a pitch in the strike zone for no other reason than the coach won't like it.

Seems to me the coaches opinion carries a lot of weight with you. Enough that you are willing to change the strike zone for him.

Tough talk on the board.
But when you get onthe field, what other calls do you make to please the coach?

Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is now bordering on the ridiculous? We have a noob telling other officials working levels from HS varsity through Div 1 NCAA basball, up to the minors, that they're cowards because they don't call this crap a strike.



Tim.

Don't feed the idiots, and they will shuffle off to another village.



NIump is the new-but-all-knowing, all-seeing expert that McGriffs has been searching years for....he is..... [Morpheus] "The One..." [/Morpheus] :D

I am tired of explaining this to you. Go do whatever it is you do and call what you want to call.

Bigump
I agree, this is amazing.

One call that I make is when the ball beats the runner and the fielder puts down a quick tag and pulls it up to avoid getting spiked, even though he didn't make a tag I still call him out. Oh wait, you make that same call. I guess the coaches opinion carries so much weight that you are willing to change the rule about a fielder having to actually tag a runner for an out instead of just looking like he did.

I mean, why else would you make that call?

Your attempt at humor escapes me, I say right in the post you're quoting "to avoid getting spiked"
I make the call for the protection of the fielder.
besides
I never said the coaches opinions are worthless. Someone else did. I was only pointing out the hypocrisy in that statement
Nor did I ever claim that I didn't make calls for the benefit of the coaches.

If you could comprehend what's going on in this thread you'd see that I've given my opinion on the pitch and explained my reasoning for why I call it this way.
The rest of the time I've retorted in kind to those who feel compelled to personally impune me because I don't follow the crowd on this call.

Admittedly, when you respond in kind, you're no better than the one that started it. But then I've never claimed to be a saint either

If the participants don't want threads that degenerate like this then I suggest they don't start with the personal attacks.
And if you just can't help yourself then don't be surprised when someone steps up and defends themself from your arrogance.

To quote LMan, "YAWN."

I don't know which is more boring, reading your posts or FAQ's about Questec. Jeez, somebody throw water on my face, quick!:rolleyes:

He just got the Spring 2006 memo
 

"We just got a memo the other day saying umpires are going to call that pitch right there. I felt like that was a strike and I'm asking where it is," King said.

King produced a memo in the clubhouse that he said all teams got in spring training informing pitchers that while the strike zone wouldn't be called wide this season, the pitch at the bottom of the letters would be called a strike.

"Don't get mad at me when I ask you about it," King said. "If they say they're going to call that pitch, call it."

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5...0813162&ATT=49
-----------------

Yup, you found us out. When we get to the field, we go to both coaches and get down on our knees in front of them.

If MLB wants the upper zone at the letters I'd give it to them..... I'm waiting for them to want the ones in the dirt called strikes.

Let's make the strike zone "Nose-to-Toes" and "Box-to-Box". Wait, NIump50's zone would have to be Nose-to-Dirt :D

Evidently, the way the operator describes setting up QuesTec, which MLB directs usage to train umpires, MLB may not want that pitch called a strike, but its gonna darn sure show up as a missed call if it hits the zone.

I hoped there would be at least a few officials on this BB who were subject to its use or under the direction of MLB through the various channels, but evidently there aren’t or they ain’t talkin’. Until someone like that comments, what anyone says here can only be applied to whatever level they call games at, not at the way ML wants their umps to call it.

You kiddin', right? You think a MLB ump would spend this kind of time trying to find a grain of sense in NIump?

They are far too busy cowardly kneeling in front of MLB managers, no doubt :rolleyes:

I didn’t say a MLB ump. I said an ump who came under MLB direction. That could be any ump from Rookie ball up. I imagine there are at least a few minor league umpires with a little time on their hands.

But, someone who’s attended one of the 2 MLB approved umpire’s schools would very likely have a good answer too, if they cared to share it. Not all of them are umping in the pros.

Call me crazy, but I just sent an e-mail to Harry Wendelstedt to see if he might shed some light on the question. I don’t seriously expect an answer, but if I do I’ll be glad to share it, no matter what it says.

Just out of curiosity, IF a miracle did happen, and IF he did answer, and IF he did agree with Niump50, would those of you who find him so offensively wrong be swayed at all? ;-)

I would be so shocked:eek: that I would be forced to quit umpiring forever!:rolleyes: No, really!!:rolleyes:

I'm confident that Mr Wendelstedt will not sanction the 'practice' of calling breaking balls in the dirt strikes, and that refusal to do so is clear evidence of cowardice :)

Frankly, I’ll be shocked if I even get a reply to such a silly argument, but if all of those things did come true, why would you even consider giving up such a noble endeavor? All it would mean is that you were mistaken about one small facet of umpiring, not that you were a dangerous idiot who was endangering anyone’s life. Its only a freakin’ game!

I didn’t ask anything about it being an act of cowardice because I think that’s just flat silly. There’s a difference between cowardice and just going along with what you’ve been conditioned to do. The only cowardice would be to not change one’s way of doing something once they’ve been presented with overwhelming evidence that the way they were doing it was incorrect.

Buckwheat, get Alfalfa, Spanky and Darla to explain the use of "smilies," which indicate that we are either kidding, being sarcastic, or both.

Sorry, had you not added that last “smile”, I wouldn’t have mistaken what you were saying. No offense intended.

BTW, my use of “Buckwheat” doesn’t come from the Little Rascals. It comes from my love of those wonderful things you cook on a griddle in the morning, then cover with butter and hot maple syrup, with a few sausage links or slab of ham on the side, with a monster glass of ice cold milk to wash it down. :rolleyes:

Why does everybody always want to make my fat a$$ hungry? Now I want breakfast!
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_8_1.gif

Last year, our assignor sent out a memo to all officials. Do not call the curve ball that hits the dirt a strike. I had previously tried to call the ball that passed through the zone and hit the dirt a strike. I was hearing a lot of crap about it, but just thought I was right and they were wrong. After the memo, I call them a ball and never hear a word. It works for me. I work strictly high school varsity games.

I waited a long time to enter this fray and I'm fairly sure that the hornet's nest I'm about to stir up is unappreciated.

Call what you see and get the damn call right!

Most of you know my experience and while pro school was very long ago, we were taught that the catcher matters little in the outcome of the call. If the ball passed through the zone and is uncaught, do you call it a strike? Do you allow a catcher to grab it in such a way that a ball outside the zone looks close enough to call it a strike?

Depending on the level of ball you work, you may be able to get away with 'finding' a strike. Watch enough Minor and Major League games and you'll see pitches that miss by a whisker and the umpire never blinks - Ball!

The definition of a strike is what? We are supposed to call the play per the rules and using our judgement. Nowehere in any respected umpire manual or rule book does it state that this is supposed to be easy. If you make the expected call because you don't want grief, shame on you. I've witnessed some incredible curve balls in my day. I don't tell the coach, "Get a better catcher and I can call some of those." We are supposed to reward good pitching, not penalize bad catching!

In that case, its pretty cut and dried. If you want to work, you work the way the guy that gives you the work wants the work done. I have absolutely no problem with that! But that’s different than the ump just deciding he’s gonna do it on his own.

When that happens, everything’s on the “boss”. If someone doesn’t like it, they can certainly take it up with his boss.

I’m not familiar with your experience, but I’m assuming that since you went to pro school “very long ago”, your experience and training far exceeds most of the posters on BB’s like this.

What you’re saying is exactly the way as a "layman" who understands how hard it is to call pitches, common sense tells me it should be.

<I>Call what you see and get the damn call right</I>, and <I> We are supposed to reward good pitching, not penalize bad catching</I>, just about say it all as far as I’m concerned.

Windy, Windy, Windy..............


It's been a while since the two of us have had a dispute over a touchy subject such as this. However, I have to tell you how dissapointed I am that you posted what you did. Are you actually saying that you'll call a pitch that's been gloved in the dirt a strike even if you felt it "passed" through the zone?

This idealogy flies in the face of every professional clinician's take that I've ever met. I usually see at least 20 games at the single A level each season alone, and I've never, not once seen this pitch called a strike. This doesn't count the 150 or more games below that level I either call or watch each season.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the message you're trying to impart. Please elaborate.



Tim.

Nicely Put.

Very Clear Understanding.


But that is only my opinion :)

Tim, not only can I, but I have and continue to call pitches that pass through the zone as strikes. I am not casting aspersions, some people feel it is okay to ignore a missed base or plate, others think that a 'technical' balk at the end of a tight game is not conscionable. I was taught to call what I see and ignore the consequences - umpirs are always right. Over the years I learned that I may not always be right, but I'm the final word. About eight years ago, I met a few guys who were positing a theory that we should do all we can to ensure that the correct call is made. When I proposed this online, I was ridculed. I didn't fall out of the idiot's tree and strike every branch on the way down. The Pros, NCAA and Fed have all adopted some form of doing what we can to correct bad calls or conference to make the right one in the first place.

That said, I asked two questions that brought it to light for me. Go back and read them. In every disagreement I have ever had regarding the big bender that nips the dirt, no one has ever been able to get around those questions. The onus is on the pitcher, not the catcher. I don't know how many partners I've talked to that say, "I finally got the catcher to glove it up in the zone - he was costing his pitcher five strikes an inning." I usually shake my head and ask what his criteria for calling a strike is. Does it have to pass through the zone? "Yes, of course". Well then, does the catcher have to cleanly catch it? "No.", is the usual reply. So why do you allow an uncaught third strike but not allow the ones you were letting go today? "Uhhhhhhh." It's okay, the fact is that we all have to call our game. I don't require a catcher to save a pitch that qualified as a strike.

By the way, a great 12-6 bender is hard to find. More likely you will see a lefty that tosses a great 2-8 deuce to a right handed catcher. The ball never seems to track into the webbing though. I've got plenty of dings on my shoes from these pitches that were strikes.

Again, if you don't feel the need to call what you see and not what is expected, then that is your judgement. I've been around long enough that the coach doesn't bark that my eyesight must be going. They usually yell at the catcher or batter. For what it's worth, I used to ask for every ball that hit the dirt - just like in the pros. I would exchange baseballs and give the old one a quick rub and use it later. It slowed the game down and made me look like I was being too authoritative. The reason I bring that up, is the other night I worked a rec game with a bunch of guys I used to see in High School and College ball. After the first one nicked the ground, the catcher instinctively reached back with the ball and I chuckled. I told him that his arm was stronger than mine. He turned his head and asked if I wanted to give him a new ball. I smiled and said that if his thirty six year old battery mate can make that little scratch do something, I'd buy them drinks afterwards. He laughed and tossed it back to the guy - the hurler lasted two innings before his elbow started throbbing!

Call what you see and don't worry about what the coaches think should be called. We've had enough threads about coaches and umpires. I've gotten to the point in my life where I don't care if they don't like that ninth inning balk or missed tag when the ball was there five steps ahead of the steal. Call what you see and let the game decide itself.

Hmmm,
 

I want to make one thing clear. . .

I respect WWTB and his stance on "get the call right."

WWTB has never waivered from his committment to this 21st Century edict from the "powers that be."

That being said, I stand firmly behind his committment that he calls ALL PITCHES STRIKES that are strikes.

I will continue to disagree with him on calling a strike that passes through the strike zone and bounces to the catcher's mitt -- but that is all I do. . . I disagree but respect his right to call games as he sees necessary.

BTW, I also call strikes that may be eventually uncaught by F2.

Regards,

My demands are about as high as yours, Tee. I got hit cleanly with a pitch I called a strike this season. Right down the middle, catcher crossed up, hit me in the chest protector. Strike. Defensive coach yelled at his catcher, offensive coach said nothing, life went on. Later that game I rang someone up on a fastball clearly at the knee the catcher caught palm-side-up. I can't help it D3 catchers aren't as skilled as I'd like.

I work to not leave any real strikes on the table. The top part of my zone (the so-called "high strike") has been sliding down this summer, for some reason, but I'm working hard to get it back.

Tee/Rich:

I'll join your chorus with one caveat: A deuce that takes the knee at the front of the zone and takes dirt before the catcher did not, to my view, pass through the zone. I have never been given grief at any level I've worked for correctly recognizing that as a "ball".

I think Tee and I agree with you completely on that one.

I think the whole world minus NIUMP50 [edited later] and buckwheat agrees on that one.

Then you’d be wrong. What you said defines a strike by the book.

Now if you’d said that you don’t possess good enough judgment to make that call precisely enough to warrant calling it a strike, that’s ok. Those close calls are difficult at best.

But to say that in your judgment it touches your definition of the zone and you don’t call it, in my eyes, you’re simply not doing your job.

I'm surprised at the lack of real controversy on this thread
 

Most of us are in agreement, although anybody who says any two umpires have the same zone hasn't seen them work. Hell, I sometimes don't have the same zone night to night- even at the same level.

I have been working hard to get my zone consistent from game to game- with the caveat that it should be appropriate to the level of ball I'm working. It's complicated by the fact that I might work 13 yo BR- (they go from 60 to 90 foot bases here- way too big a jump in my opinion) and then go work AAA Legion the next night with 4 or 5 JUCO kids on the field.

The only way to train your eye to the strike zone, IMHO, is to strap it on and get behind the plate for live pitching. The limitation of camps that use pitching machines for cage work is that every pitch is virtually the same, and always a strike. Don't get me wrong- the cage work is valuable for mechanics, timing, stance, etc., but not for finding the pitch at the hollow of the knee of a 5'5" kid for a strike.

Strikes and outs!

You calling Garth "wrong" is rich. Why don't you take a moment and find yourself a clue?

Rich,

Read what I said closely. I said he was wrong because he said he wouldn’t call what he identifies as a strike, one that touches his zone, a strike. That defies logic. He didn’t say his strike zone didn’t include that particular location, just that he wouldn’t call a hook there a strike. That makes me believe he’d call a FB, slider or some other pitch in the same exact place a strike, and is a heck of a big reason why people go nuts about consistency.

I don’t care if a blue calls corner shots at all! As long as a ball hasn’t touched HIS zone, it shouldn’t be a strike, no matter what the pitch. But, if its in his zone, it should be a strike no matter what it is. What you seem to be advocating is a zone that’s different shapes and sizes for every different type of pitch, and I can’t buy that one.

This is off subject, but I’m curious about something.

Being an SK, I have the same problem all the time when flipping from one level to the next, or from flipping from games governed by one rule set to another. There are just enough subtle little differences to make my life miserable if I try to do the best job possible.

What I almost always end up doing is scoring the game as though it was under OBR, but adjusting it for what “ordinary play” was. But before I turn in any numbers, I almost always have to go look in a rule book to make sure that those rules coincide with what I turn in.

Goofy things like there being “team errors”, or OBP using all sacs to compute OBP under NFHS, while not under other rule sets. There’s other things out there that are definitely different, just as with differences for the ump in going from venue to venue.

I “try” to always have the “books” for what games I’m scoring in the brief case, but that doesn’t happen all the time. From the umps I’ve been around, most are pretty candid in that they don’t usually have a “library” they carry around with them, but generally try to do much the same thing I do.

They go by OBR, or whatever they call the most, then don’t worry about it all that much. If there’s something that gets protested, it will be ironed out by whoever adjudicates the protests. For other things that happen during the game, like “pop up” slides for NCAA, they count on their partners to help them out, or will even actually hear out a coach, unless he gets to be an a******.

Do you find jumping around bites you on the backside very often? I know the umpire’s assn we used this year for JUCO would send us guys who were calling JUCO, D1, local semi-pro, HS, softball, slo-pitch, Mickey Mantle, Legion, BR, LL’s Big League, and tournament ball of all levels. Plus, we even got a few early games called by guys who did games for the local A and AA teams.

I imagine it gets pretty overwhelming at times, and wondered how much you concerned yourself with it. The thing I got a kick out of was that most of the umps said most of the lower level coaches didn’t know enough about he rules to be a big problem, but those old farts who’ve been coaching teams at the same level for 20-30 years could drive ya nuts sometimes.

I never said I would call a pitch that I idenitfy as a strike, a ball. Nope, just re-read my post. Never said that. Pleae refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I said I identify that pitch as a ball.

RIF

I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but <b>… A deuce that takes the knee at the front of the zone…</b> sure sounds like it had to at least touch some part of “your zone”.

Semantics and picking nits aside, and “assuming” you’re not so silly as to believe you can call the zone to such an infinitely close degree that we’d have to get into calculating infinitesimally small numbers, I’ll accept that you don’t identify any pitch you think just touches the zone as a strike. Heck, even QuesTec claims only to be able to be accurate to within ½ inch, so expecting anything more from a human being would be absurd.

All I can say in my defense is, I took “catching the knee to mean the ball was at least an inch or so into the zone. That would mean it had to go through some part of the zone, and then it would follow that you’d be calling the pitch based on something other than what happened “over the plate”.

That does bring up another question though, based on what that QuesTec operator said.

<B>Setting the lines at the top of the belt and at the hollow of the back knee…</b>

The top of the belt was perfectly understandable since the computer automatically raises the line about 2.5 balls. But that bottom line is different.

I always assumed the “bottom” of the zone was determined by an imaginary line parallel to the plate and drawn touching the “hollow between BOTH knee caps. But after I read what he’d written, it struck me that trying to do that would be almost impossible with many batters, since their knees are seldom the same height off the ground.

It would even make it more impossible with guys who take their stance with one of those ridiculously “open” stances, where an ump wouldn’t even see that front knee until the pitch was already on the way, and that would be a very bad time to start trying to figure out a strike zone.

Then, when I looked closer at the rule, <B> the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap</b>, it became apparent that it wasn’t saying “KNEES”, it was saying “KNEE”, so what the operator was doing, really made a lot of sense.

What I’m wondering is, how do guys like yourself define it? I can see a computer using only one point maybe 20-25” behind the back part of the plate to draw the line, but that’s one brutal task for a human being!

I know good umps are pretty darn good at that stuff, but thinking about it, an ump’s head is 4-5’ from the front of the plate, and at least a foot or two above it, assuming he’s “locking in” at the top of the inside of the plate. Heck, I have trouble guessing how far from the urinal I am, let alone trying to do the mental match to compute the strike zone.

How do you determine that bottom line, and when do you do it?

I'll apologize and back off the statement of cowardice and leave it at this:
Most everyone on this thread has said they would not call a strike on a pitch that clearly hit the strike zone if it hits the dirt, one person even said any curve ball caught even a couple inches below the zone should not be a strike.
The reason given when I first posted my opinion, and reiterated many times was that the coaches will give you too much crap, and when I stopped calling that pitch it made life easier and so on and so on.
When I hear those reasons for not calling a strike i come to one conclusion.
Perhaps coward is to strong a term.
In any case I think on this issue the coaches opinion is carrying too much weight.

1. You forgot the part about the pitch hitting the strike zone.

2. I doubt he'll even respond

3. If he does respond, do you really expect him to say a pitch in the strike zone should be called a ball?

I'll guarantee you that if anyone gets a written response from anyone in MLB it will say something to the effect, 'if a pitch is judged to have entered the strike zone it should be called a strike.'

If you think otherwise, you're quite (naieve). sorry for the spelling

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.

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

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?

And, therein lies the problem.

??????????

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.

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.

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.

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 <I>(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone; </I> where they added, <I>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. </I>

Hmmmmmmmmmm ........................
 

Hasn't this thread outlived its usefulness ?


Doug

I filled out my line up.
 

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.:rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Consistancy is the key
 

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:D

Hardly anyone complains on the high strike anymore. We've been calling it for a few years and just about anything below the letters is an easy one to grab. This started in the NCAA and MLB and has trickled down.

Why restrict yourself to 2" above the belt?

Because if I called the high strike all the time, I'd be the only umpire in my association and probably the state calling it.

I don't really have anything to add. I'd just like to see this thread get to 20 pages. Thanks for reading!

Rich:

Let me ask you a question. I know you work juniors and seniors in the Summer and college and HS in the Spring. How age dependant is the height of your strike zone, if it is at all? I find myself holding the older players to a higher standard to keep the ball down then I do the younger players.


Tim.

My upper zone was about 1 fist above the belt (about 3"-4") for many years. The move to the higher strike zone has enabled me to about double that (just below the letters)...... I like it!

"Strike" is my second favorite word in baseball.

Hmmmm,
 

I am rather surprised that the "high Strike" is even mentioned.

I work a pretty high quality of baseball and we are expected to call anything below the letters a strike (see 'justme' above) and there is never a peep about it.

Since I do not work "non-shaving aged players" I would guess that that strike zone could even be bigger.

The days (even in the hotbed of baseball, Connecticut) of ending the high strike at 2" above the belt is a thing of the past. Every upper level evaluator looks for the "high strike" as a given in this modern age.

Regards,

Generally speaking anything at or above the letters is out of the textbook strikezone, not only that but it is also generally above the elbows and close to the hands. If you call the proper zone the advantage is already with the pitcher, calling a strike at or above the letters puts the batter at a severe disadvantage. Non shaving kids have less strength and quickness than shaving kids so it would put them at an even larger disadvantage.
I would not advocate raising the strike zone for the kids.

So is the top of the strike zone determined by the batter's stance that he takes waiting for the pitch, or when he begins his motion to swing? I think his height drops down a little as he goes into motion. What about when he squares to bunt?

I think the strike zone is a five-sided prism suspended above the white part of the plate (not the black edges). The top and bottom planes determined by the batter's stance. If the top of the ball is between the upper and lower plane, and any part of the ball is within ths sides of the prism, then it's a strike.

It doesn't matter if the batter stands forward or backwards in his box, the zone is over the plate.

Four years later?

I was trying to figure out who this Rich Fronheiser person was? :p

Peace

bsaucer,

First, I would like to commend your archeological expertise.

Second, I believe you have given a reasonably accurate description of three dimensions of the strike zone. I could quibble on a couple of points, but I don't really see that well, so it probably doesn't matter.

Third, The strike zone is actually four dimensional. The fourth dimension is time. That's why "timing" is so important.

In regard to your question, I honestly don't know the correct answer. Curious.

JM

Some jerk, no doubt.

Maybe we should have a poll.

Yes. Same thing.