Strike zone

[waltjp]

The strike zone is a cube. It's dimensions are 17in wide x 8.5in deep x height (distance between the batter's knees and the midpoint between his shoulders and the waistline). Add a couple of inches for the black if you're so inclined.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The strike zone is a cube. It's dimensions are 17in wide x 8.5in deep x height (distance between the batter's knees and the midpoint between his shoulders and the waistline). Add a couple of inches for the black if you're so inclined.

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.

[Rich Ives]

The strike zone IS two dimensional.

The only problem with that poster's strike zone is that he is putting the strike zone at the front of the plate, instead of where the batter is standing.



Methinks you need to re-read the definition.

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The strike zone is a cube. It's dimensions are 17in wide x 8.5in deep x height (distance between the batter's knees and the midpoint between his shoulders and the waistline). Add a couple of inches for the black if you're so inclined.

Very few umpires ever call the high strike zone, or even acknowledge it's existence.
The perfect strike crosses into the zone at or near the "waste" line.

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/of...trike_zone.jsp

Subtract a half foot or more from the top of the batter in the picture for a more realistic MLB scale drawing.
Nine out of ten ballplayers prefer the lower zone. No one ever gives the ump much grief about it either.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by SAump

Subtract a half foot or more from the top of the batter in the picture for a more realistic MLB scale drawing.
Nine out of ten ballplayers prefer the lower zone. No one ever gives the ump much grief about it either.

I admit I don’t know much more about the zone than any other average fan, but I do know that what I hear and read is, MLB is trying to get the umps to call the zone displayed in the picture you refer to rather than the one you say they do.

My understanding is that’s the main reason systems like “QuesTec” and the “K-zone” are being used to actually grade pro umps. QuesTec is now in 23 of the ML parks, and I don’t know how many Minor league parks use it, but its more than just 1 or 2.

From what I’ve come across on the subject, the umps aren’t real happy about being graded, and the P’s are enjoying the heck out of getting more of a zone.

[SAump]

I read the politicos were upset with the strike zone being called more than 6 inches off the plate {ala Greg Maddux or Eric Greg et al}. Baseball leadership said it would be corrected. The electronic systems were not truly perfect from one batter to the next, either. The umps were not very happy to be told that their borderline calls were questionable. Those evaluations were strictly used for training purpose only, and not actually rating performance quality. Umpires are human and mistakes are part of the game.

Whether the high strike is called as often as the inside, outside and bottom of the zone is a mystery. I feel the height of the strike zone really isn't much different now, than before (pure opinion). But then again, I also believe in the posiibility (as small as it may be) of a rising fastball. I doubt the pitchers are really happy with a "higher" strike zone. Slow motion video instant replay may provide a better picture of events.

Disclaimer: All statements are simply one opinion subject to change over time.

[TussAgee11]

"The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a 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 top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

My interpretation (as taught to me by a clinician {and we know they can be wrong}, is that this means that the vertical aspect is to be determined by the batter's normal batting stance.

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?

Again, this was my clinician's viewpoint that has been put on me. Don't bash me too bad. Just show me the light. Seems as though this viewpoint is wrong.

Its really nitpicking, but I want to be the best!

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

"The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a 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 top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

My interpretation (as taught to me by a clinician {and we know they can be wrong}, is that this means that the vertical aspect is to be determined by the batter's normal batting stance.

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?

Again, this was my clinician's viewpoint that has been put on me. Don't bash me too bad. Just show me the light. Seems as though this viewpoint is wrong.

Its really nitpicking, but I want to be the best!

This may be way too simplistic, but here’s how I interpret it as a layman.

Let’s build a strike zone out of a block of wood.

We’ll start by digging up the plate and replacing it with a hydraulic hoist shaped to the exact dimensions of a plate, making sure its perfectly level. Now we can raise and lower the “zone” however much we choose.

Now lets get a block of wood 6’X6’X6’. The 1st thing we have to do is get it milled to exactly the same shape as the plate, and mill the bottom so its perfectly flat. The reason for that is, the rule says “that area over home plate”. Since we don’t yet have a height, it will be just a 6’ tall home plate.

Now we need a batter because we need to know the upper and lower limits of the zone. We’ll put him in a uniform, and have him take his “stance” as if he were “preparing to hit a pitched ball”, then measure from the ground to the “hollow beneath the knee cap”. (We’re using OBR. ;-)

Now we know the lower limit of the strike zone, so we raise the jack until the milled bottom of the block of wood is exactly that height.

Next we measure from the ground to “midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants” to get the upper limit of the zone, then cut the top of the block of wood and mill it like we did with the bottom.

Notice, we didn’t move the block of wood because we didn’t have to. The rules don’t relate where the batter’s standing in relation to the plate. All they say is how to define the upper and lower limits of the zone. Those limits could just as easily be measured in Timbuktu or that place with the nasty name in Egypt. All that matters is that the measurements are taken with the batter “preparing to hit a pitched ball”.

Step back and you see the strike zone for that batter.

Is your clinician wrong? Heck NO! We determined the vertical aspect exactly as described in the rules(OBR, not what the clinician told you.;-)

Of course, if you’re using a different rule book that describes the vertical aspect differently than OBR, that’s what you’d use. Unless LL Inc. has changed their rule since 1996, it goes from the batter’s arm pits to the top of the knees. I don’t have access to all of the different rule books so I can’t say what any specific one uses. That’s why in discussions like this, I stick with OBR.

As to whether or not your view point is “wrong”, IMHO it is, but only partially, and that’s only in that you seem to be using the position of the batter in relation to the plate to determine when to call the pitch.

To me, that hasn’t got a thing to do with it. Up in the box, even with the plate, or standing with both feet on the back line will not change the vertical aspect of the strike zone. The pitch has to be called “over home plate”.

It might help to think about what happens if a batter thinks he has been granted time, but hasn’t, then steps out of the box while the P is delivering the ball. OBR 6.08 says If the pitcher pitches, the umpire shall call "Ball" or "Strike," as the case may be.

How can that happen if the batter isn’t there? It can happen because the ump has already determined the vertical aspect. Those umps have computer-like minds ya know. ;-)

I’d like to reiterate that everything I’m saying is only my opinion.

[wmandino]

Nicely Put.

Very Clear Understanding.


But that is only my opinion

[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.

[bsaucer]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

"The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a 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 top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

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.

[waltjp]

Four years later?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bsaucer

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?

Yes. Same thing.