Those little boxes are not accurate. So who cares what that shows? All I know is that pitch looked awful close and the catcher did not move his glove. Swing at the damn pitch and you will not have to worry about what the umpire calls. Just a thought.

Peace

From an article on Yahoo (emphasis mine):

I agree, swing the bat. Maybe its a little in, but catcher doesn't move his mitt at all, its a strike.

Sadly, the players can act like idiots and get nothing but a slap on the hand, its getting worse and worse in baseball.

Gonna take someone getting punched before they change it though.

Thanks
David

Catcher doesn't move his mitt so it's a strike? That's how you call it?:eek:

Kinda what I was thinking here.
I was taught that I call strikes, not catchers, batters, coaches, scorekeepers, grandmas, etc

If the catcher is set up behind the plate and he doesn't move his glove, YEP, it's a strike.

Molina was just looking for something else, he messed up, got busted inside. With the player's attitudes today, it couldn't have been his fault, nothing is ever the player's fault, someone must have screwed him. That's the attitude.

I hope he gets 10 games and a big fine.

Beisides you, who said that because the catcher didn't move his glove that it was a strike?

Do you umpire TBall only or do you do Rec games too?

Better yet with two strikes, generally the batter is taking anything close, correct?

I agree, catchers don't always set up a target in the strikezone but, unless you have some video to prove otherwise (and not some freaking media appeasing rectangle on your TV screen, with a manually inputed dot) then that pitch was close. Not only was the pitch right to the mit, it was dead center of the catchers body. So if the catcher was set up way inside then, we probably wouldn't have seen him because he would be hidden behind the batter from that camera angle. If he was set dead center on the inside edge then Molina either got fooled and decided to take out on Drake or he is just sucks.

Using your logic above, we can assume you may be a little bias here?

Molina is a catcher. He would have been upset if he did not get that pitch a strike. And as a Cardinal fan he should have acted better than he did. I have no idea if the pitch was right. Heck we all miss pitches, but when the target is hit so accurately and it is a fastball, usually that is going to get called a strike. The only way it should not have been called a strike is if the catcher clearly set up outside the zone or way off the plate. That was hard to tell, but if the pitch was thrown that accurately I am not sure why Molina would overreact to that pitch being called a strike. Again a catcher often wants that pitch called or will complain it is not called.

Peace

From the camera angle, I can't tell where F2 set up, so I can't tell whether not moving the mitt signals a strike or a ball.

From the camera angle, I can't tell where the pitch was relative to the plate.

The "white box" doesn't tell you much, since the strike zone exists in 3 dimensions, not 2.

IF the batter was looking away, that can make a pitch on the inside corner look way inside.

All that is moot, of course, since none of it excuses his behavior one bit.

How soon we forget......

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=2689415


Molina's a punk.

Regardless of whether Drake was right or wrong, Molina deserves a hefty suspension for that. How long does it take MLB to deal with stuff like this, anyway?

Now there is definite proof that that pitch was inside. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have land in Florida that I can give you a great deal on too.

asdf, did they pull the link on you. I get this: We are sorry, but you have reached this page in error.

Brooks has Drake calling that strike all night. Look at the normalized all-pitch tracker. (That is, if you want to keep using this as your evaluation tool.)