Let's have a thread about strike zones!
 

With all the equipment, hats and uniforms threads, I think it's time to change things up a bit (pardon the pun). So let's talk about strike zones, specifically working with the catcher.

A lot of umpires say that if the catcher makes a pitch that is in the strike zone look bad (by lunging, pulling the glove, dropping the ball, etc.), they will call that pitch a ball. This begs the question- if during a game you call a strike on 4 pitches that cross the outside corner, but later in the game you call ball on a pitch that crosses that same outside corner because the catcher butchered it, you now have an inconsistent strike zone. How can anybody claim to call a consistent strike zone if they are always changing what a "ball" and a "strike" are according to how the catcher recieves the pitch? I think there is a tradeoff. You either have a consistent zone by calling it where it crosses the plate, or you call the game according to how the catcher presents the pitch, thus costing you consistency.

I think you need to use "all available information" to help you determine whether the pitch was a ball or a strike.

So, if the pitch is right down the middle, or in the opposite batter's box, it doesn't matter what the catcher does -- his actions don't "outweigh" what you saw.

But, if the pitch is just on / just off the plate then the catcher's actions might help you decide what you saw.

(Let me add that some of this is level-dependent.)

Yea cause we have never talked about the strike zone here before...

Hey try to use the search feature.

It's taken me a while to arrive at this idea, but I don't think this a black and white issue. I've done it both ways. We don't get enough good pitching to let many strikes go, so I want to call as many as possible. Complicating the issue is that coaches vary on their views of this issue too.
As Jon Bible repeated often when he was National Coordinator "perception is reality". If the kid throws one down the pipe and catcher snags it, then it drops from his glove, I'm calling this a strike. Borderline outside pitch that the catcher, lazily, carries out of the zone dropping to one knee? I think I'm going to ball that. To the two guys that matter that looks like a ball.
To me it is an extra decision we need to make about the pitch. Just yesterday my partner called a strike on a pitch that was initially caught at the knees and carried down low. I think he was right. The catcher did enough to let him, and everyone, see that it was at the knees. Some barking? A little, but that's part of the game. Seems subjective? It is, but that's what we're paid for, our judgment. With experience and timing you find the right mix.
Consistency? That can be judged may ways. I'm consistent. What I call a strike for one team I will call a strike for the other.
Just my thoughts.

Being long winded and a slow typist, let me say Bob said it much better, and shorter!

feel free to not participate then

Gerry I used to think that way, but I am starting to change my mind
 

Hi folks,

Yesterday I was working a college game, turned into a blowout. F2 for the team up 10 runs got lazy, and there were at least two hooks that were right across the plate thigh high that he made look terrible. They were flat out strikes, and got ripped by the other team because the F2 made the pitches look so bad. He grabbed and pulled on one, then caught another and dropped his glove and moved it all around. He made himself look like a HS JV guy.

Then of course, the team down 10 rallies. Now the F2 has to work again, and I don't hear boo from the dugout. It was frustrating to say the least.

Many years ago, I arrived at the conclusion that I will call the pitches and not the catcher. I don't care what F2 does with the pitch, if it cuts my zone, it is a strike. Now remember, I am not calling Small Ball, most of the catchers that I deal with are competent.

When I get a complaint (rare, but they do come) I just inform the coach that I am calling the same strike for his pitcher.

You could even get into a discussion of catchers "framing" pitches to get the call. I think it's a slippery slop to allow a catcher to influence an umpire to get a strike. Call it like you see it. Even if you allow a catcher to help you make a call/no-call, why would you admit it in public? It should never be about persuasion, but about the rule. That keeps the playing field level.

Properly framing pitches is something a good catcher should be doing. Now pulling pitches...that's a different story.

Ozz, absolutely, what works for you.
Just this weekend I had the opportunity (?!) in a college game to work behind a catcher sunday and then see the very same team/catcher tuesday with me on the bases and one of the best umps in our area on the dish. This particular catcher did get lazy as both games went on so I had the chance to reflect on how these get called/accepted.

And your conclusions?

Agreed. A "framed" pitch is a pitch that's caught well. A "pulled" pitch just looks terrible. Good coaches, catchers, and umpires can tell the difference. These two terms are definitely not interchangable.

Pulling Pitches
 

When doing the plate, if a catcher starts pulling pitches, I will tell him quietly: "Stick 'em, but don't pull 'em". Normally no problems after that. YMMV

Canadaump
 

I think discussions concerning the strike zone are difficult at best.

I look at how an umpire calls strikes and balls as the most "personal" decision process in all of sport officiating.

While it is true that all sports have calls that are made over-and-over (i.e. is football holding calls could be made on every play and in basketball there is the true use of the Tower Principle) strikes and balls spread out over a long period of time with sometimes a number of different people throwing (and catching) balls to hitters of all sizes.

Calling strikes and balls is part art and part science.

I think any good umpire uses everything around him to decide on the final result of a pitch. (I no longer refuse to call strikes on cock-shots just because F2 mishandles the pitch.)

There is fine line between "framing" and "pulling". Most young catchers can tell the difference. Average umpires cannot tell the difference either.

The shape of a strike zone (for me) is like an egg. The plate is 22" wide (for me).

A pitch is a strike unless proven otherwise and I no longer have an over dramtic called third strike mechanic.

Strikes are my friend.

Regards,

Maybe that's playing the word game. To me, framing is an attempt by a catcher to make a pitch look like or bring it to a location giving it the appearance of being a strike. Framing is a negative for me (whether you pull, push, pluck or yank).