Let's have a thread about strike zones!

[cc6]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.)

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by cc6

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.

.

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

Hey try to use the search feature.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

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

Hey try to use the search feature.

feel free to not participate then

[jkumpire]

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.

[ozzy6900]

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.

[mroyal]

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.

[GerryB]

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.

[GerryB]

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!

[Tim C]

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,

[PeteBooth]

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

[Durham]

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Durham

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!"

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.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by DG

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 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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Durham

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!"

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.