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).

mroyal,

I would not consider any of those actions "framing".

Framing is when the catcher "sticks it" without moving his glove afer the catch and holds it for a "scant second" to show the PU that's exactly where he wanted the pitch to be.

JM

I have to educate some of the younger catchers who will "frame" every pitch...especially the very obvious balls. As posted earlier, usually one friendly message in the ear hole does the job...typically catchers know to try and build a rapport w/ PU

according to fans, strike zones are like a$$holes, every umpire has one and they all stink.

Usually if it cuts my zone, it's a strike. However sometimes you have a catcher who turns his mitt down to catch one right at the knee. Then sometimes the catcher sets up right on one corner and the pitcher hits the other corner. The catcher has to reach way over and fall to his knees to catch the pitch. Hard to give him those.

There's as much art to calling balls and strikes as there is science. The best umpires have mastered the fine line between the art and the science.

The "old" strike zone question

The strike zone is defined as that which is accepted in the leagues we service meaning the strike zone at the modified HS level is NOT the same as the varsity level or Collegiate level.

The BOOK definition does NOT differentiate age groups it is a "blanket" statement. One cannot expect a 7th/8th grader to have the same control as an 18 year old varisy pitcher or a 20-21 yr. old college pitcher.

As far as F2 goes I agree with Bob. I am NOT going to call a pitch a ball (that is a strike) simply because F2 is not doing his job correctly. We need strikes and if F2 cannot play the position we do the best we can.

Yes if F2 is "swatting" at the borderline pitches on or "just off" the corner it is difficult to call them strikes but again it depends upon the age group you are umpiring.

Bottom line as they say in Brooklyn NY "FORGET ABOUT IT" when it comes to F2. if it's a strike call it.

Pete Booth

Last week during a mid-week DI plate job I had a curve ball that split the plate both ways, up-down and side-side. The catcher jumped, dropped, then raised slightly and got hit in the chest protector on the pitch. The 3rd base coach, yes an assistant who caught in college, said, "Come on Ken, you can't reward him on that." I responded, "Reward!!!! You tell me what part of the strike zone you think that missed? Because I have it splitting both ways. It's not a catching contest!"

Then this weekend, I had a really good kid catching for Dartmouth. He was real chatty, but a good kid. In the 2nd he pulled down a belt high fast ball and I called it a strike. I told him, "Just catch it! That is a good height and I can work there." He didn't pull another pitch all day in any direction.

As was stated in a previous post, they don't throw enough strikes for us to ball the ones that the catcher screws up. If the dugout wants to get on ya, ackownledge, warn, eject.

Have a great season and good luck heading into conference play in both HS and College.

A good catcher will frame a pitch by folding the glove and holding it for the umpire to get a good look. The only movement is the folding of the glove.

Any catch that is moved other than the above is framing the umpire.

thank you
 

Interesting thread, I appreciate very much the discussion.

As I take a lot of college games again after a long absence, I see that I have to make some adjustments to conform with modern practice. It has been a challenge, but one I enjoy. Even my summer college level ball did not prepare me for some changes I have needed to make. It is interesting, and help tp hear the discussion.

I don't think I've seen legit framing below the college level - be it movement of the arm or a hard flick of the wrist, whatever some dad is teaching at the time. College catchers have framing on the corners figured out, but low spots sometimes go unframed and caught downwards.

The frame job is done the instant the ball hits the glove. It's all in how the act of how the catch is made and is done after that (unless you are fooled by this type of thing). Holding it there for any length of time, to me, is a sign that the catcher himself doesn't think it's a strike.

I think whether you use the catcher or not to help call the game depends on the quality of the pitching. If a pitcher is throwing low 70's, you probably won't need to read the catcher's body language to determine if the pitch is a strike. But if it is mid 80's or higher, there is less time to watch the pitch as it crosses the plate. Also, movement comes into play- easier to call a straight fastball than one with a tail on it. I find it is especially important to use the catcher to help call pitches that are low or outside. If the catcher catches a low one with the palm up, it had better be obvious that the pitch was high enough. As for calling a pitch outside of the strikezone a strike because of how the catcher caught it, I'm not in the habit of doing this. Not the batter's job to know how the catcher is going to recieve the pitch.

That's not your decision.
 

A batter is crowding the plate. The ball is two widths outside. His "sweet spot" easily reaches 2 feet past that pitch. Everyone wants you to call it a strike, the OC the DC, and just about everyone on both teams and in the stands. They give you permission. The most famous coach in SEC history tells you before the season to call strikes. That or you can use that $3 strike zone cartoon and the black and white letter of the law. You pay $3000 to hear Mr. Evans' associates tell you it is your call to call that pitch the way you see it. "What ya gat?" Ball.

A strike is a strike. And if it's a strike, I call it a strike.

I find it hard to be entrusted with being an official and then go out and penalize one participant and reward his opponent, because I want to leave the contest sooner. I don't drink, I don't smoke and after 20 years of marriage, I'm in no great hurry to get home. So all I have going when I'm doing a game is the game. I guess the way I go about it requires me to stay a little longer sometimes, but I never have to wonder if I was being fair or not.

Nice!

Degree in Business Administration?
 

NBA referee, "And if it's a foul, I call it a foul."
"And if it's a traveling violation, I call that too."
Explain that position to them.

As others have said, it depends on the league. Coaches never ask about strikes. Try to explain two inches outside to them. Keeping a batter alive after strike two and extending early innings are not good game management skill sets. It is the only reason an extended strike three exists. Most times it is better to let the pitchers duel it out. The catcher knows fairness is never a part of the equation. But do whatever feels best, good luck and good eyesight.

I get enough complaints from batters and base coaches for calling pitches that are over the black. There is no way I'm going to call 2 balls off the plate a strike.

If that is the case, either your perception of what is over the black is off, or their's is. There is no way a batter, or a base coach, for that matter, from their angle can tell the difference of cutting the black or cutting the white that touches the black.

If these complaints are constant, you missing by a lot more than just the black.

I used to purposely call 2 balls off the plate, and sometimes even more. A couple years ago I cut down to where if it looked over the black to me, or just an inch off, I'd call it a strike. I guess that when working the slot, if the pitch appears to be an inch off it probably means the pitch is at least half a foot off the plate. I set up in the slot one time on an empty field, and a colleague zipped his fist across the outside area of the plate, then asked me where I thought it was. I said "ball. Just a little bit off the plate". Then I stood directly over the plate, not in my stance, and he zipped his fist over nearly the same location, and it turned out the pitch was actually 8 or 9 inches off the black.

From there I adjusted by making sure that if the pitch is even remotely off the black, call it a ball. Had one adult league batter who struck out on three pitches, all of them called, all of them over the outside corner and well framed by the catcher. He went back to the bench swearing and saying how far outside it was. Yes I should have tossed him. I assumed my perception of the outside corner might have been a little bit off, and after the game I said to my partner (who had been in the hole as there was a runner on base at the time) "those pitches must have been about 5 inches off the plate". He said back to me "no I think those pitches were perfect, right on the outside corner". So what am I to think? Partner clearly sees the calls as good, but the batter is whining and because of my past struggles with calling pitches too far outside, I believe I must have screwed up, when in fact I didn't.

The point is, it is important to get feedback from a reliable source on where that outside pitch is. I also pay close attention to whether the catcher moves towards the outside of the plate, or whether he has to reach for the pitch. If he does, it was probably outside.

A strike is like pornography, everyone knows it when they see it……but individual tastes may vary.


Greetings to all.

That's gotta be one of the more unique first posts I've ever seen.:p

My personal opinion (with only varsity level experience) is the top of the zone has shrunk so much at the MLB level and it has trickled down. Granted, when you are the PU, you interpret, enforce, expand, etc. I hear more complaints regarding "perceived" high strikes than anything else. The belt cannot be the top of the zone at the high school level.

I don't have conversations with assistants, unless it is between innings about how this is a beautiful day to play baseball, and that will be brief.

I realize I've only called NCAA ball for 25 years and may not have your experience, but that conversation is about four times longer than any I've had from the plate with an assistant.

Tell Bob that Carl says "Hey" if you see Dartmouth again.

I don't have aruguments with assistant coaches, but the occasional conversation is no problem for me. Don't get me wrong, assistants try and argue at times, but they get warned and then ejected if the continue. In fact I had one this weekend that wanted to argue and then continue arguing after causing his team to get a team warning for arguing balls and strikes.

I just did a PDF search of the NCAA rules and I don't remember it mentioning anything in OBR about umpires not being able to answer a question or converse with an assistant coach. I know it says that they can't leave their position to argue, and I know that I am not going to allow one to yell at me, but ask a question, if asked correctly I will more than likely answer beacuse I fell confident enough about what I am doing and my understanding of the playing rules to answer his question. Just my two cents and I know that to many of you they don't exisist, but my father always taught me to give respect if I expected to get it.

Ok, now let me get my mask and chest protector on before you guys reply.

I don't see Bob or his boys on the schedule any more this year, I think they are done with their west coast swing and conference play has begun, but if I do see him I will say hi for ya. And if you see him say hi for me, I am the guy that ejected his first baseman for trying to fight the entire dugout of the opposing team, but I got the kid that he was primarily fighting, verbally, with as well. Oh, and I got my warnings in first. :)

Oh, and KF dump some old PM's so I can send ya one.

That is not a question.

Nailing the outside strike
 

The feedback your getting is not very reliable.

Bowling analogy: Its in or out of the lane, period. Your "zone" may vary. When you visualize the outside zone as "keeping the ball" out of the gutter, you will begin to nail the outside pitch.

Rule of thumb: Try to set up in the same position from game to game. Extend your left arm across your body. Your left hand serves as an outside mechanism which will become more natural over time. Another piece of information to consider before rendering a call.

I've never heard the left arm analogy before. With a left handed batter at the plate, would it be the right arm across the body?

I do set up in the same place each pitch, except for if the catcher covers up the entire plate or the batter puts his hands in my line of vision. Then I am forced to improvise, and I find back and up doesn't work well unless I stand straight up.

I agree with Bob's statement that it is important to call the strikezone that gets the fewest complaints.

A swinger looks to pull everything he sees. A hitter goes with the pitch, including taking the outside pitch to the opposite field. If I'm doing a league full of swingers, meaning guys who are not willing to adjust to anything remotely outside, then I am going to call nothing off the black so that I avoid complaints and ejections.

Info Overload
 

The batter and his coach are not trying to help you. You cannot improve when you rely so much on what other people say they saw. Develop a reference zone for the outside pitch.

The left hand analogy applies to people who place their glove on their left hand and catch a baseball thrown on their right side backhanded {thumb down}. With an outside pitch thrown at a right handed batter, a lefthanded person would turn the glove over and reach out to the left to catch it forehanded {thumb up}.

You want to feel comfortable calling that outside pitch. It is all about a sense of location in or out of the zone. That is something the mind can handle much more quickly, and with a lot of confidence. IOW, as Evans says, proper use of the eyes provides the visual cues to the brain that result in the right call. Trying to measure the distance {brainwork} just makes the call that much harder.