Strike zone

[buckweat]

On another baseball BB, I'm involved in a thread discussing the strike zone.

On individual made the following post.

The model I try to use for calling balls and strikes differs quite a bit from what your suggesting. Imagine a plate of glass suspended in the air. The front of the glass is directly above the front lip of the plate. The glass is 18" wide, and starts at a point halfway between the hitter's belt and the top of his shoulders when he is standing in his normal batting stance. The bottom of the glass ends at the hollow just below the hitter's kneecaps. There is no debth to the glass plate.

As I observe the pitch I register what I see and try and answer; did the ball break the plate of glass? Did any part of the ball touch any part of that glass plate? The secondary clues that make up much of this list just confirm or conflict with my assesment of the condition that glass plate is in.

I understand that the zone is pretty much up to the umpire’s judgment, but I’m of the belief that the zone is in fact 3 dimensional, not 2, and that what happens after the ball passes the plate shouldn’t have any bearing at all on the call.

As I said, I understand that in practice, many factors are involved, but I also believe the rules defining what the strike zone is, shouldn’t really be affected.

In practice, do most experienced umps try to take into account a pitch such as a slow curve “falling” into the zone, or something like a “flat” slider from a side armed guy missing the front edge but touching the zone someplace past the front of the plate?

[TussAgee11]

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.

There's no such thing as falling into the strikezone. If there was, all those 45 mph Little Leaguers would be throwing strikes everytime the ball came across the batter's eyes.

[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.

[buckweat]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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.

There's no such thing as falling into the strikezone. If there was, all those 45 mph Little Leaguers would be throwing strikes everytime the ball came across the batter's eyes.

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.

[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.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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.

There's no such thing as falling into the strikezone. If there was, all those 45 mph Little Leaguers would be throwing strikes everytime the ball came across the batter's eyes.

Ummmm, no.

[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!

[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. The midpoint between the waist and shoulder is not as easy to determine as the elbows, which are generally about halfway or a little lower. If a pitch comes in below the elbows it could very likely be called a strike, especially if directly over the plate. Tee has said his zone is like an egg, oblong in shape. Mine is more like a bullit, flat across the bottom. Below the elbows and dead center will be a strike. Below the elbows and in or out might not be, depending on how well it was caught.

[NIump50]

Originally Posted by SAump

The perfect strike crosses into the zone at or near the "waste" line.

.

The perfect strike for whom?
Certainly not for the pitcher
LOL

[TussAgee11]

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. The midpoint between the waist and shoulder is not as easy to determine as the elbows, which are generally about halfway or a little lower. If a pitch comes in below the elbows it could very likely be called a strike, especially if directly over the plate. Tee has said his zone is like an egg, oblong in shape. Mine is more like a bullit, flat across the bottom. Below the elbows and dead center will be a strike. Below the elbows and in or out might not be, depending on how well it was caught.

I will admit, the top of my strike zone does tend to "bubble". What I mean is that pitch that comes across down the middle and is borderline on height gets the benefit, while the ones on the outside and inside seem not to.

Is this OK?

[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.