Gray Area Strikes

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

Ok here is a good view... you can see the older called strike zone, and what the zone should be called by definition in the blue shady part.

You see the batter looking at the pitcher, a plate, and a thin rectangular shape outline. That is ONE strike zone for ONE guy who stands like that. It is very basic and does not encompass more thought than a Ken doll in a uniform. That hitter may move in a variety of directions, and assume a variety of position and angles from head to toe. This guy has a large strike zone compared to hitters who crouch or try to crowd the plate.

I don't see a ball. If the ball were included; would it be inside, on or outside of the thin rectanglular outline? That would be more definitive. See a strike zone by definition would include a ball. Have any pictures of a baseball {circles} outlining a strike zone? A bigger 3 inch wide rectangle, drawn proportional to the 17 inch plate would be more appropriate for an actual strike zone area. It would provide more meaning for a baseball passing along the edges of a real strike zone. The umpire's strike zone would definitely include baseballs around the zone area.

I have a $3 strike zone to work with here. You would think, as hard as umpires work to improve the game, any graphical animation artist could provide a mediocre strike zone. This one SUXS! I have students that could do better than that with internet baseball player clip art and MSPaint. Some know how to work with actual Photoshop graphics and MSPaint over real MLB web photos. Powerful info.

Some folks don't want to grasp any ideas. Its easier to make snide remarks for the general public. Fundamentals of baseball include reading, and the ability to comprehend. My apologies for making unclear statements. I have been told this many times and I continue making apologies. Thats all I got.

[kylejt]

My point was that a pitch two balls in the inside part of the plate should not be called a strike, IMO.

[Kevin Finnerty]

What is this hitter-not-part-of-the-strike-zone b.s.?

[SethPDX]

And just think--it's only January.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Can someone please find a way to tell him that the picture was for TBall, who requested a picture of the whole zone to show others?

[tballump]

Thanks for the pictures for the young guys. Now, would most people on this forum believe it is OK to expand the the inside and outside pitch to include the black part of the plate? I believe that would expand the zone in the pictures 1 inch on both sides. In other words, if "any" part of the ball hits "any" part of the "black" on either side, it would be called a strike. Although, by definition this is incorrect, would this come under the category of having too wide (liberal) a strike zone, and would it be acceptable to call this pitch a strike at all levels of play, including MLB with or without questec?

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by tballump

Thanks for the pictures for the young guys. Now, would most people on this forum believe it is OK to expand the the inside and outside pitch to include the black part of the plate? I believe that would expand the zone in the pictures 1 inch on both sides. In other words, if "any" part of the ball hits "any" part of the "black" on either side, it would be called a strike. Although, by definition this is incorrect, would this come under the category of having too wide (liberal) a strike zone, and would it be acceptable to call this pitch a strike at all levels of play, including MLB with or without questec?

The black is part of the plate (as far as we are concerned) and if the ball appears to scrape it on the way by, it's a strike, with no qualms. It is not too wide a zone, in fact, it's expected to be called.

The black of the plate is the gray area.

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Sorry, I'm old school. I don't care about the hitters either. In fact, I don't like rats, period. Plus, as I said, you get your a$s handed to you here for calling them too high. "Get it down, Blue!" is a common phrase in the highly competitive atmosphere here. Nobody likes the high zone, nobody wants it called, from the commissioner's office on down. It's not how we roll. At least not through the 2005 season, which is the latest I can comment about. The old "belly button to the bottom of the knee with a wide corner" is still the preferred zone around these parts. Call high strikes and wind up scratched by the top schools.

As for Southern California so far at the non NCAA level, Steve is absolutely right. You call the letters, and you will be getting all your fun at some of the better Monday and Wednesday games.

[UmpTTS43]

I know that at the DI and DII levels, it was the coaches that wanted the high strike called. Works for me.

[Kevin Finnerty]

I can't wait until I open it up this year. ... "That guy doesn't need any help, Blue."

The best one I ever heard was a criticism of my wide-zone partner: "He's calling everything from the goatees to the knees today."

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by SAump

Will someone else respond to the hitter is part of the strike zone comment.

With the way some hitters crowd the plate, they do become part of the strike zone.

My favorite strike to call is the one on the inside corner they jump back from.

[Tim C]

"Seriously. But, most of your posts are not understandable most of the time."

And Bob, there in lies your basic problem.

Umpmazza, Finnerty and you have tried to do something that I gave up on long ago.

SAUmp simply does not make sense when he posts.

You can try to explain it by asking if he is trying to be funny I simply have come to the conclusion that his elevator stops somewhere short of the penthouse.

Regards,

[SAump]

Wow, I'm taking a lot a heat for preaching a liberal strike zone. My message has been consistent in this thread and if it is consistently wrong then so be it. I can accept it. I realized the thread turned into a discusion over the real strike zone and not the gray area nearby. I have no qualms about anyone else's strike zone. But I now know that any explanation or account I offer will never meet the raised expectations of half the viewing gallery, whether I call it a ball or strike.

I first stole pitches in post #3 of this thread. I said it is hard to steal a pitch from the top and bottom of the zone. I said it is much easier to take them inside and outside. I did not post again until page 4-5. I took exception to Kevin's assertion about an umpire being fair to both sides. I wrote several theme-related "episodes" about this undesirable position and posted the true strike zone, (3) + 3 + 17 + 3 + (3), seen here in black. I stated it is preferable to everyone involved to be fair to the pitchers because the batter's task at the plate is much easier to accomplish, whether one may consider this to be fair or foul {T/F?} assessment.

I began my reply w/ a MLB hitter's size and how much harder it is to pitch around him. Kevin stated a ball scraping the plate is a strike. I agreed those were textbook strikes and the goal of every good pitcher from LL to MLB. If touching the plate is fine, then scraping the plate is much better. I included 3 inches in red as "gray" area where I would judge the pitchers effectiveness at missing his true target which is a catcher's mitt located on the edge of the plate. I realize no pitch is perfect because the batter can still destroy it all with a good swing.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Wow, a lucid post! I'm duly impressed.