Strike zone

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

The strike zone is three dimensional. It has width, height, and depth. It is directly over the plate, not where the batter stands. A pitch can certainly look high on its way to the plate and fall into the strike zone.

Absolutely right. The strike zone is not a flat plane like a pane of glass. It is a five-sided, 3-D area determined not by where in the box the batter stands, but by the area over the five-sided slab of whitened rubber we refer to as "home plate."

Pitches often come in as inside, then break over what is known as the "back corner," which is located 8 and 1/2 inches to the rear of the front edge of the plate.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The strike zone is ... a five-sided, 3-D area

Story from my game today: Pitcher throws a boderline high curve ball right down the middle of the plate. Strike I call. Next pitch is another curve ball, at the same height of the previous pitch, except on the inside corner. Ball I call. Assistant coach from the dugout yells "Where the hell was that pitch at?!?!" I yelled back "Hey chief, that was up." Coach responds "That was the same height as the previous pitch." I screamed back "Yes you are correct, but the plate is longer right down the middle than on the inside corner. The pitch down the middle caught the top edge of the strike zone, but the pitch on the corner did not." Coach says back "Okay, sounds good to me."

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Story from my game today: Pitcher throws a boderline high curve ball right down the middle of the plate. Strike I call. Next pitch is another curve ball, at the same height of the previous pitch, except on the inside corner. Ball I call. Assistant coach from the dugout yells "Where the hell was that pitch at?!?!" I yelled back "Hey chief, that was up." Coach responds "That was the same height as the previous pitch." I screamed back "Yes you are correct, but the plate is longer right down the middle than on the inside corner. The pitch down the middle caught the top edge of the strike zone, but the pitch on the corner did not." Coach says back "Okay, sounds good to me."

As mentioned in a previous thread, I didn't know they existed! But it seems their natural habitats are parking lots.

[Forest Ump]

[QUOTE
Wouldn't this also mean that it is the batter, not the front of the plate, that determines the point at which a pitch is determined a strike and a ball, and nowhere else?
QUOTE]

There in lies the problem. I have always thought that most fans and coaches believe the strike zone follows the batters position in the box. Hence a batter way back in the box appears to be getting low strikes called on him when in fact the ball has crossed the plate at the right height. They yell "what was that blue" and they really don't have a clue. It's almost the same problem with catchers setting up to far back.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I guess if we called our strike zones in a vaccuum it might look like a cube. The better umpires I know use the concept of an oval strike zone.


Tim.

I don't disagree, Tim. I'm just disputing the statement that the zone is like a plane of glass. It does have depth to it. Like officiating any sport, once you know the rules you have to learn how to apply them.

[BigUmp56]

This is how I try to define my strike zone. Doing this helps me to avoid making a two plane gross miss.


I try to visualize the strike as an zone oval being expanded to about 22" at it's mid-point. The mid-point of the oval is stationed near the mid-thigh of the batter in his sweet spot. Then imagine the vertical limits of this oval starting at the knee extending up to a point near the bottom of the numbers. If a pitch catches the outer limits of the oval at it's mid-point it is a strike without question. As the oval extends downward toward the bottom limit of the zone, there is less and less latitude given to a pitch that is on the same horizontal plane as the pitch called a strike at the mid-thigh. This would include the inside or the outside pitch. The same thing can be said for the oval extending upwards in the zone. Up and in is a ball. Up and out is a ball. Up and on the plate at the bottom of the numbers is a strike.


Tim.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by buckweat

Please have patience. I don’t post here often and don’t wanna offend anyone.

What I understand you to be saying is, the plate has no relevance to anything other than to determine the width. I must admit, I’d never thought of it that way, so I’d like to ask a question to see if I’m really understanding what you’re saying.

Its not likely, but it is possible for a batter to put his back foot on the line, and never stand where he’s even with any part of the plate by staying within that 27.5” behind the plate. It sounds like what you’re saying is, that’s where the pitches should be called. Am I understanding what you’re saying correctly?

As for a ball “falling” into the zone, I can’t argue that one if you believe the “zone” only has 2 dimensions.

Also, I have to admit that I was thinking more along the lines of the way MLB sees the zone, not the way LL’rs(generic) see it.

If the plate was a pane of glass, the way the catcher caught the ball would have no bearing whatsoever in the calling of strikes and slow-breaking curveballs could hit the knees at the front of the plate and be caught ankle high for a strike.

Neither of these is reality in any real level of baseball.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

If the plate was a pane of glass, the way the catcher caught the ball would have no bearing whatsoever in the calling of strikes and slow-breaking curveballs could hit the knees at the front of the plate and be caught ankle high for a strike.

Neither of these is reality in any real level of baseball.

Is it NOT a reality because the rules say its not, because human beings aren’t capable of calling a pitch by the rules, or because there’s more pressure from what people would like the game to be than from what the game is?

Personally, I don’t really care a whole lot how pitches are called, as long as its by the rules. I believe that sooner or later pitches will be called electronically, and one of two things will happen. The game will be better for it, or the game will be worse.

If the game is better for it, YOAHOO! If the game is worse, change the rules! No rule in baseball is sacrosanct. What a strike is and what the strike zone is have both changed many times over the years, and there’s no reason to expect it will never change again.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

If the plate was a pane of glass, the way the catcher caught the ball would have no bearing whatsoever in the calling of strikes and slow-breaking curveballs could hit the knees at the front of the plate and be caught ankle high for a strike.

Neither of these is reality in any real level of baseball.

In my world, if a pitch is knee high at the front of the plate it's a strike.
Under normal circumstances I have a real hard time seeing a strike and calling a ball. I prefer the other way around.
But then my wife has accused me more than once of not living in reality.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by buckweat

Is it NOT a reality because the rules say its not, because human beings aren’t capable of calling a pitch by the rules, or because there’s more pressure from what people would like the game to be than from what the game is?

Let it go, Rich. Its tiring to explain this over and over, aint it?


buck, when you can appreciate what Rich is saying, you will be able to progress from where you are now to the level you want to be.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by LMan

Let it go, Rich. Its tiring to explain this over and over, aint it?


buck, when you can appreciate what Rich is saying, you will be able to progress from where you are now to the level you want to be.

LMan,

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Rich was saying something about a pane of glass which is not something I ever said other than in quoting someone else.

In fact, I don’t know what he said that I’d disagree with, so I haven’t got a clue as to why you’d think I don’t appreciate what he’s saying.

I don’t need to progress from any level to the next in my thinking because I understand the difference in what the rules say, what is in fact going to be called, and why the two will never completely agree.

I have no problem at all with how balls and strikes are called, but I do think it would help a lot more people understand the game if they really did understand the difference between theory and reality.

There are a lot of folks who think they understand the rules, the game, and why things happen as they do, but its very seldom they really do. I don’t see a problem with trying to get people to understand that.

I haven’t knocked anyone for the way they think about this subject and don’t see any reason to start now.

[DG]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Story from my game today: Pitcher throws a boderline high curve ball right down the middle of the plate. Strike I call. Next pitch is another curve ball, at the same height of the previous pitch, except on the inside corner. Ball I call. Assistant coach from the dugout yells "Where the hell was that pitch at?!?!" I yelled back "Hey chief, that was up." Coach responds "That was the same height as the previous pitch." I screamed back "Yes you are correct, but the plate is longer right down the middle than on the inside corner. The pitch down the middle caught the top edge of the strike zone, but the pitch on the corner did not." Coach says back "Okay, sounds good to me."

If it's that close I call it a strike.

[Always Wright]

Instead of an oval, I think the strike zone is shaped like home plate with the point of home plate at the top of the strike zone. I agree with those who say that a pitch just below the numbers right down the middle gets called a strike while a pitch of the same height on either corner gets balled. However, I try to be consistent at the bottom of the zone as far as height goes. I work hard at keeping the height of the zone the same whether the pitch is down the middle or on the corner.

Chris

[briancurtin]

apparently today i had the worst strike zone one coach has ever seen in his life. i should have read this thread before my game today, because apparently i needed a whole lot of help...

[begin rant]when you teach a catcher to put nearly their entire body outside the strike zone, you would think the coach would realize that basically every ball the kid catches is obviously outside of the zone...but hey, its a coach. the kid would catch a ball and not move his glove, but i ball it because its 10 inches outside. the coach would be absolutely disgusted...and the catcher was somehow shocked as well.[end rant]

[DG]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

apparently today i had the worst strike zone one coach has ever seen in his life. i should have read this thread before my game today, because apparently i needed a whole lot of help...

[begin rant]when you teach a catcher to put nearly their entire body outside the strike zone, you would think the coach would realize that basically every ball the kid catches is obviously outside of the zone...but hey, its a coach. the kid would catch a ball and not move his glove, but i ball it because its 10 inches outside. the coach would be absolutely disgusted...and the catcher was somehow shocked as well.[end rant]

I must have had a good game today. Not one comment, from bench or fans, about any pitches.

And while we are on the subject of strike zone, how a catcher catches it is definitely a factor, as well as the age of the catcher, and the level of the game. I had one pitch about 2 inches above the knee, and right in the middle of the plate. It hit the catcher's mitt and went sideways about 15 feet. I did not say anything, I just turned and looked at the ball rolling away. The catcher tells his pitcher "that's me, that's me" and no one says a word. This was college players playing with wood bats in the summer, and at that level a catcher should be able to catch a strike.

I also called several pitches strikes that were over the middle that were at the top of the "bullit".