Without trying to sound like a smarta$$, whatever "your" strike zone, technically the coach is correct, the black is not a part of the plate.

1-2-10 specifies a whitened slab. If some day you are inclined to actually measure the plate, you'll find the black is actually outside the official measurements. I realize all of you seasoned vets know this - I'm just providing feedback for the newbie who for whatever reason has heard both sides, and is entitled to the rule book answer.

I hope that notional newbie does benefit from your explanation.

Very good points and I agree completely.

Good pitching makes the umpires job easy.

The hard games are the ones when the pitcher's can't find the zone and its every third pitch that you have to make a close decision on or ask how much am I going to have to expand the zone today etc.,

Its those games that mechanics are so important and I find myself going over them throughout the game to make sure that I'm doing my job.

Thanks
David

BigGuy
 

Very interesting point, I always thought that the black was part of the 17 inches that was homeplate. If I ever get to higher levels of baseball, I will better be able to live with myself after not calling a strike that is off the black by an inch or so.

And that is what we are saying, that calling pitches an inch or so off the black strikes is the accepted practice, as we want the batters up there to hit, not walk. If you call "ball" on pitches that are just off the black, you are going to be in for a long game, especially at lower levels. Even the MLB guys give better corners than that. Before QuesTec and PitchTrax, they would give the pitcher even bigger corners. Strikes. . .that's where it's at!

Do you now have to recalibrate your strike zone because you're calling 2 1/2 to 3 inches off the plate? :D

Waltip/Steve
 

I probably won't recalculate, I'll just keep giving the pitcher a ball off the plate on the outside corner.

Calling according to the catcher is the thing that gets to be tricky. I was listening to the Jays versus Yankees game today and the Blue Jays announcer mentioned how homeplate umpire Ed Montegue is balling pitches that are in the zone because the catcher sets up outside and then reaches to the inside corner to catch it. The announcer said how the umpire got fooled by the catcher and ended up missing a strike, and how that is not acceptable but that umpires do that kind of thing all the time. I think that umpires will ball this pitch on purpose, because it doesn't look like a strike, but the announcer recognized this practice as the umpire actually being fooled and not having his timing down right. I will only ball a pitch on the corner if the catcher makes a huge lunge for it.

If my timing is off, I have a crappy zone and I know it soon. I'll remind myself to reset my timing. When I do that, it usually fixes the bad.

I never assume I'm 100% out there: I always check myself [timing].

As much as it pains me :) I feel my Canadian Counterpart brings up a good point.

As like most have mentioned so far, I also feel good pitching is important to re-establishing the strike zone in the early season. However I also feel good catching is just as important. We've all had games where pitchers hit their spots and catchers stick them, and they're hour and ten minute gems. These games are simply joys to work.

However, we've all still had catchers that can't stick a pitch if it splits the plate in two. How much do we punish them for this? We've all heard "you catch it I call it"...is this still accepted practice? And we've definately had pitchers who can't hit their spots if their lives depend on it. How much do we let visual perception dictate our strike zones?

Or has the game progressed to the point where the QuesTec or the video game "box" zone is the determining factor in calling a solid plate game?

Personally, if the ball splits the plate in two and the catcher drops it, as much as it disgusts me, I'll give the pitcher the benefit of the doubt and still call it a strike.On the other hand, if the catcher is setting up inside and the pitcher misses his spot and the pitch is borderline on the outside, will I ball it? Probably. Or if a 'looping' curve crosses through the zone but the catcher pulls the ball into the dirt am I going to give it to him? No.

Thankfully, no parks I work at have QuesTec installed :rolleyes:

You listen to announcers? And you believe them?

Since Garth apparently chose to take this hanging curve for a ball, I will try to hammer it into the gap.

First off, announcers typically do not know jacksh*t about umpiring, the strike zone, why umpires call certain pitches balls or strikes, or pretty much anything remotely related to the job of umpire. That is why they are know-nothing announcers, and not umpires. Everybody thinks they're a friggin' umpire!

Secondly, when a catcher sets up way outside, and then the pitcher throws one on the inside corner, that pitcher has MISSED HIS TARGET, and does not deserve to be rewarded with a strike call. That would be like giving the pitcher a strike if the catcher called for a pitchout, and the pitcher hits the umpire in the chest protector. What your misguided announcer "recognized" as the umpire being fooled and not having his timing down right, is in fact the accepted way to call the pitch. Ed Montague doesn't get "fooled" by crap the catcher pulls. Does this announcer really think that he knows more about umpiring than Ed Montague?

Let's see here. . .Ed Montague has been a major league umpire since 1974. What's that, 33 years or so? He has been a crew chief since 1996, worked 5 World Series' (a crew chief in his last 3), 4 MLB All-Star games (plate umpire in his last 3), 7 League Championship Series', and Six Division Series'.

Do you really want to take the word of an announcer who thinks that an umpire with such credentials was "fooled" by a catcher?

If Ed Montague can take play after play at first base from about 5-feet away from the base...and consistently get them right play-after-play without being "fooled" (to the amazement of some of his MLB brothers...which I can state as a fact)...then I can assure you: he's not being "fooled" by a catcher.

SandiegoSteve, Canablue, GarthB, Lawump
 

I agree that he probably was not fooled, but rather saw that the catcher's glove move 17 inches to the other side of the plate, and that is why he decided to "ball" the pitch. My problem with such a practice is that it is hard enough to call a consistent strikezone regardless of how the catcher catches it. Now add in the variable of how the catcher catches the ball, along with where the ball was, and things could get pretty variable and subjective. What used to be a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not" now becomes a matter of "did it cross through the zone or not, how did the catcher catch it, now combine both those variables and come up with a decision as to whether it is a ball or strike". I can't imagine anyone being able to combine both those variables and still call a consistent game. That is why I don't pay too much attention to the catcher, unless of course he makes one really ugly looking lunge at a pitch that was a tad off the plate anyways.

OK, next time the catcher calls for a pitchout, and the pitcher thinks he called for a fastball on the inside corner, and you get drilled on the elbow with that fastball on the inside corner, I want you to make sure that you CALL IT A STRIKE!

Sandiego Steve
 

I haven't had that happen before, but I have called a hitter out on strike three when the catcher stood up and the pitcher missed his glove so that the pitch happened to nick the outside corner of the plate at thigh level. Looked like a good pitch to me, and not a single person complained.