Strike zone

[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.