Text from a local article
 

The following article was published recently on an online site for local HS sports. I'd like your comments and reactions.

I have additional information that I will share after some replies.
RKB - don't spoil it......

Oh man, you take all the fun out of things.

Idiotic. Coaches and fans alike crow that the pitchers are too dominant, so they move the plate back... now they want to widen the strike zone too?

A pitcher that consistently misses by 2 inches, with an umpire who is not calling it, is good enough to move it in 2 inches.

Likely from a baseball writer who thinks softball is the same sport with a bigger ball.

Should we then tighten the zone for really good pitchers and open it for not so good? How about batters? Should we give big zones to good hitters and small zones to poor?

As with all other team sports, the rules in baseball and softball are written to provide balance between offense and defense. If the author of this article feels that the balance has been tipped in favor of the offense with the change in pitching distance, then he/she should have entitled his/her article, "Pitchers in need of help from men and women in suits", and then argue that rules makers should widened home plate to 21 inches.

And, frankly, I'm not out there to appease "approval polls, pitchers, coaches, and the sane fan."

Right ... like there is such a thing.

Pretty much agree with everything posted. I can promise that most umpires are giving at least 1/2 inch on each side at this age.....and as noted....if a pitcher is consistently missing by more than 1/2 inch....they can bring it in by that much.

Joel

OK, I can't wait to hear more... Like where was this posted, what connection the writer has to softball, etc.

So, the umpires need to make up the shortcomings of the coaches and players. Yeah, that sounds about right.

It was written by a staff sports writer at aia365.com

Hmmm
 

Les Willsey is a "staff writer"...what does he know about umpiring? Is he an umpire? Has he ever umpired? I tried to find his bio but couldn't. Anyone know?

I cant find a bio on him either, but I did find his facebook page. Says he was a sports writer at the East Valley Tribune from 1985 to 2010. When he left the Tribune he went to the AIA/AIA365.

The author needs to make up his mind. Either the rule change was good because pitchers were too dominant OR the rule change was bad because hitters have worked their way back and pitchers are becomming frustrated.

I think his point is that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In his mind, pitchers were too dominant, and the change from 40' to 43' that was supposed to even things out a little bit has actually (again, in his mind) given batters a significant advantage. So, widening the zone is his suggested solution to bring more balance to the game.

Frankly, I don't see what he's whining about. While it's true that those 1-0 or 2-1 pitching duels are less prevalent in HS ball than in the past (at least around here), I haven't really seen games where two decent teams are playing to scores of 9-7 or 15-10. Strikeouts are being replaced by batted balls going to fielders who are expected to make plays. What is wrong with that?

To me, the change has put more emphasis on teams mastering defensive fundamentals. Gone are the days where a mediocre high school team can do okay when it has a dominant pitcher. Now, more balls are being put into play, so more players have to learn what to do and how to do it. They need to understand where they should go with the ball under certain situations. They need to learn how to hit the cutoff player on throws from the outfield. And they need to practice on putting to good use that $250 piece of leather they were previously using to just warm up their hands while spectating.

I had a blowout game a couple of weeks ago, where the winning team should have scored less than half the runs they ended up scoring. The losing team just couldn't play defense. They had a shortstop that, bless her heart, had no idea what she was doing out there. She couldn't make throws to first base without bouncing the ball at least twice. And yet, there were more than a handful of times where she had force plays at third and at second, including a couple of runners who stopped to let her field the ball, where she would just throw to first. Their first baseman, meanwhile, fielded a bases-loaded ground ball with two outs, and rather than just trot over to step on the bag for the out, she threw it home, and sailed it over the catcher.

That's what I'm seeing more of in games with high run totals. And we're supposed to widen the strike zone to prevent that? Sorry, but that's not my job. I'm not picking up the coaches' slack.