Your Zone

[canadaump6]

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.

[canablue05]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

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.

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

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.

You listen to announcers? And you believe them?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

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.

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?

[lawump]

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.

[canadaump6]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

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!

[canadaump6]

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.

[Al]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

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.

How about this one canadaump...Shortest kid on the team stands as far up in the batters box as possible. By the time two pitched balls passed over the plate they were only a few inches above it and were called strikes. I asked the umpire after the game (softball tournament F/P 11/U) why he called those pitches strikes. He said because they were at her knees when they passed her from where she was standing in the box. He said it didn't matter where the ball was when it actually passed over the plate! Lot's of people complained that those pitches were low. I suppose if the ball was at her eyes and settled in the strike zone when going over the plate he would have called it a ball because of where it passed her. Oh well!