Skip to main content

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

WashBarn posted:

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

To be honest, I'm not sure I generally put much stock in an assessment such as this.

I know there are horrible umpires. I also know that very few people can see the zone inside and outside with any measure of accuracy. I know I've been accused of ringing batters up on pitches "a foot off the plate" when I can tell you with 100% confidence that they were on the black, at worst.

Keep in mind that on a properly-lined field, 9" is 3" into the other box. Most fields I see at the HS level put the lines too close to the plate, which means we're looking at maybe 6" into the box. Please forgive my incredulity.

If truly consistently that far off the plate, at some point, coach would have to express concern directly to ump but problem is the coach has the worst angle to see just how far off it is being called so not much credibility.  If it is somehow otherwise clear that the zone is stretched way too far, coach can submit a request for ump not to do his games with the reason why.  

But this needs to be kept in perspective.  JV baseball - zones are typically wide.  You don't want to be that coach unless there is a clear and blatant issue.  Spend a lot of time instructing on hitting oppo.  Teach them to get closer to the plate with two strikes so that they can cover pitches just off the plate.  Nothing at all wrong with the knees.  It is a strike.

Last edited by cabbagedad
Matt13 posted:
WashBarn posted:

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

To be honest, I'm not sure I generally put much stock in an assessment such as this.

I know there are horrible umpires. I also know that very few people can see the zone inside and outside with any measure of accuracy. I know I've been accused of ringing batters up on pitches "a foot off the plate" when I can tell you with 100% confidence that they were on the black, at worst.

Keep in mind that on a properly-lined field, 9" is 3" into the other box. Most fields I see at the HS level put the lines too close to the plate, which means we're looking at maybe 6" into the box. Please forgive my incredulity.

I have seen this too.  When they are too close anything between the lines is in fact a strike.   Actually makes it easier to see.  

If you watched the C.B. Buckner debacle the other night (Nats v. Braves), and then saw him botch another call in the field last night, then you understand that even the highly paid MLB umps are fallible.  In fact, some of them are just not that good at all.

Every level of baseball you step down from MLB, things get worse.  MiLB, college, high school varsity, then HS JV.

So think of your son's situation like this:  The guys making the calls are 4 levels down from guys who screw up with regularity and yet are the best that money can buy apparently.  Adding to that, in a typical HS game there are only 2 guys out there, so sometimes they just don't see things that well because you can't be at every angle at once.

What that means is, umpire screwups are a part of the game, and there's nothing you can do about that. 

Now, if I see an ump copping an attitude, indicating bias for/against a team or any particular player or coach, etc., I think someone should get that guy off the field for future games.  Beyond that, you just have to have faith that it all evens out in the end.

Admittedly, it never seems that way!

P.S.

My pet peeve is the HPU who announces at the pregame meeting at the plate what "my strike zone" looks like.  No one has a personal strike zone.  The powers that be met and developed this thing called a rule book, and it specifies what the strike zone is.  The HPU's job is to apply the rules as written, and he is not empowered to substitute his judgment for the rule book.

But I've learned to bite my tongue when someone says that crud.

Matt13 posted:
WashBarn posted:

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

To be honest, I'm not sure I generally put much stock in an assessment such as this.

I know there are horrible umpires. I also know that very few people can see the zone inside and outside with any measure of accuracy. I know I've been accused of ringing batters up on pitches "a foot off the plate" when I can tell you with 100% confidence that they were on the black, at worst.

Keep in mind that on a properly-lined field, 9" is 3" into the other box. Most fields I see at the HS level put the lines too close to the plate, which means we're looking at maybe 6" into the box. Please forgive my incredulity.

Matt13 - Can you give me a refresher on the "plate" dimensions anddescribe what the black portion is designed to do?  Also, when you talk about 6" off the plate, are we talking about the "white"?

Love nothing more than some kid toeing the line, leaning in and getting rung up on a low/inside strike.  Correction - do love it even more when they back out like they were about to get pegged while getting rung up.

This is not an excuse for poor umpiring..........but understand that in HS baseball, you often don't get the best umpire.........just the most available umpire.......

With 3-4:30 or so start times, the umpires who are available are often retirees......and often sub varsity gets lesser quality umpires........and the chronic shortage of umpires does nothing to lessen the problem.

I often have far better umpires working evening 13-14 yr old games because of the starting times....

Plus we all acknowledge that in all levels there are people who just aren't suited to be in Umpiring   

2017LHPscrewball posted:
Matt13 posted:
WashBarn posted:

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

To be honest, I'm not sure I generally put much stock in an assessment such as this.

I know there are horrible umpires. I also know that very few people can see the zone inside and outside with any measure of accuracy. I know I've been accused of ringing batters up on pitches "a foot off the plate" when I can tell you with 100% confidence that they were on the black, at worst.

Keep in mind that on a properly-lined field, 9" is 3" into the other box. Most fields I see at the HS level put the lines too close to the plate, which means we're looking at maybe 6" into the box. Please forgive my incredulity.

Matt13 - Can you give me a refresher on the "plate" dimensions anddescribe what the black portion is designed to do?  Also, when you talk about 6" off the plate, are we talking about the "white"?

Love nothing more than some kid toeing the line, leaning in and getting rung up on a low/inside strike.  Correction - do love it even more when they back out like they were about to get pegged while getting rung up.

The plate is 17" wide, not including the black (which is technically not considered part of the plate.) The outside of the batter's boxes should be 6" from the white.

For HS: Let's inject some reality here, though. If only called the white in HS, we would never get out of there. Thus, I'll give a tiny bit more inside, and a bit more outside--never more than a ball, though, at the absolute max (when I'm in a game where i have to buy strikes.) Thus, if the outside pitch touches the line on a proper field, it's never a strike to me. That's the expectation in my neck of the woods, and I rarely have any complaints and zero negative evaluations (which I would hope, given I'm in the state tournament every year except my mandatory off year and I evaluate.)

For college:  I would say that the liberal outside strike has been more of an issue in college than in HS. Pitchers are better, catchers are better, and batters are better at reaching that pitch. I don't give that pitch more than a ball off the plate, but there are plenty who do (and we have been told repeatedly to reign it in a bit.) This was one of the things I was thinking about when I started my thread on the college zone and people's perceptions of it.

Generally speaking, some umpires suck, but very few suck as bad as fans think they do (exceptions include the "my zone" guys Midlo mentioned).

It is hard to call strikes accurately and consistently. Good umpires approach the job with awareness of one's perceptual limits, concentration and humility.

The catcher and the plate umpire have the best view of the three dimensions of the zone abd the whole flight path of the pitch.

Other observers--coaches, fans, base umpires--sometimes have more accurate views of one dimension than the plate umpire (e.g., the base coach faced by the batter can know that a pitch is above or below the zone, a fan directly behind the outside corner can sometimes know a pitch stayed outside the whole length of its path. 

However, these observers can never know for sure that a pitch was a strike because the ones who can judge up-down can't judge in-out, and the ones who can judge in-out can't see when the up-down was right. 

Most observers show little awareness of the depth of the zone.

Umpires look to see any part of the ball in any part of the zone.

Fans simply cannot see the brilliant top-of-ball/bottom-of-zone/front-of-zone and cb-nicks-outside-corner/bottom-of-zone pitches that look horrible to them.

The cues most fans and coaches use provide irrelevant information about where the ball was after it passed the zone. 

Despite the perceptual limitations of the umpire's vantage point alluded to by Matt, there is no substitute for tracking the whole flight of the ball from release point to mitt with a stationary head. People who can't do that from where they stand should be circumspect about denouncing those who can. 

Sometimes you can know we're wrong, but most of the time you can't. 

And that would be true even if your perception weren't distorted by your desire to see the ball either in or out of the zone. 

Last edited by Swampboy

From what I've seen this year, high school umpiring is definitely better than travel ball umpiring...but there's good and bad in both.

Pre-game meeting a couple of years ago:

Ump - "Coaches, I'm giving two baseball off the plates?

Me - "Why?

Ump - "Because I want the kids to swing."

Me - "This is travel ball and I can promise you that they're swinging."

Ump - "I'm giving two baseballs off the plate, Coach!"

Me - "Why do we have a plate again?"

Needless to say two baseballs became four baseballs and both coaches essentially just set catchers up off the plate to see how much he'd give. It wasn't fair to either team because the pitches were unhittable.

My biggest peeve with high school umpiring is that some make the calls on the bases too fast and don't let their brain process what just happened. IMO, the best umps take a second or two to let their brains sort it out versus anticipating a call. 

hshuler posted:

From what I've seen this year, high school umpiring is definitely better than travel ball umpiring...but there's good and bad in both.

Pre-game meeting a couple of years ago:

Ump - "Coaches, I'm giving two baseball off the plates?

Me - "Why?

Ump - "Because I want the kids to swing."

Me - "This is travel ball and I can promise you that they're swinging."

Ump - "I'm giving two baseballs off the plate, Coach!"

Me - "Why do we have a plate again?"

Needless to say two baseballs became four baseballs and both coaches essentially just set catchers up off the plate to see how much he'd give. It wasn't fair to either team because the pitches were unhittable.

My biggest peeve with high school umpiring is that some make the calls on the bases too fast and don't let their brain process what just happened. IMO, the best umps take a second or two to let their brains sort it out versus anticipating a call. 

2 baseballs is touching is touching the Edge of the batter's box. A true strike is one ball off the plate. Matt just stated above that his limit is touching the box i.e. two balls off the plate.

Last edited by real green
real green posted:
hshuler posted:

From what I've seen this year, high school umpiring is definitely better than travel ball umpiring...but there's good and bad in both.

Pre-game meeting a couple of years ago:

Ump - "Coaches, I'm giving two baseball off the plates?

Me - "Why?

Ump - "Because I want the kids to swing."

Me - "This is travel ball and I can promise you that they're swinging."

Ump - "I'm giving two baseballs off the plate, Coach!"

Me - "Why do we have a plate again?"

Needless to say two baseballs became four baseballs and both coaches essentially just set catchers up off the plate to see how much he'd give. It wasn't fair to either team because the pitches were unhittable.

My biggest peeve with high school umpiring is that some make the calls on the bases too fast and don't let their brain process what just happened. IMO, the best umps take a second or two to let their brains sort it out versus anticipating a call. 

2 baseballs is touching is touching the Edge of the batter's box. A true strike is one ball off the plate. Matt just stated above that his limit is touching the box i.e. two balls off the plate.

Of course, this all comes down to what we're defining. When I describe it, I'm talking about the distance between the ball and the plate--thus, one ball between the edge of the plate and the ball itself, which would put the outside of the ball at just under six inches, but the inside at just under three inches.

piaa_ump posted:

This is not an excuse for poor umpiring..........but understand that in HS baseball, you often don't get the best umpire.........just the most available umpire.......

With 3-4:30 or so start times, the umpires who are available are often retirees......and often sub varsity gets lesser quality umpires........and the chronic shortage of umpires does nothing to lessen the problem.

I often have far better umpires working evening 13-14 yr old games because of the starting times....

Plus we all acknowledge that in all levels there are people who just aren't suited to be in Umpiring   

All true.  Week day lower level games, you get what you get.  Sometimes they can even see. 

hsbaseball101 posted:

New pitch rules, new pitchers that can't find the strike zone.  Players need to act like they're Roberto Clemente.  Or 2016 Puig.  You can't hit those pitches in the pros but you should be able to in HS, especially if you step into the box with a 33 or 34" bat.  At least 2 baseballs on any count, 3 on two strikes, 4 baseballs on 3-2.  

I've had two varsity games this year on the dish...so this is really an ineffective sample size, but I did notice something in this first year of pitch counts (before, it was innings pitched in a week.)

Every pitcher I've seen has become more reliant on FBs and offspeed in the zone to get ahead early, rather than using breaking balls to get the batter to chase or to set up for later in the count. With that, there has been more contact and--surprisingly--better defense. My two games were 3-1 and 3-2, with a lot of defensive help from all four teams.

Matt13 posted:
real green posted:
hshuler posted:

From what I've seen this year, high school umpiring is definitely better than travel ball umpiring...but there's good and bad in both.

Pre-game meeting a couple of years ago:

Ump - "Coaches, I'm giving two baseball off the plates?

Me - "Why?

Ump - "Because I want the kids to swing."

Me - "This is travel ball and I can promise you that they're swinging."

Ump - "I'm giving two baseballs off the plate, Coach!"

Me - "Why do we have a plate again?"

Needless to say two baseballs became four baseballs and both coaches essentially just set catchers up off the plate to see how much he'd give. It wasn't fair to either team because the pitches were unhittable.

My biggest peeve with high school umpiring is that some make the calls on the bases too fast and don't let their brain process what just happened. IMO, the best umps take a second or two to let their brains sort it out versus anticipating a call. 

2 baseballs is touching is touching the Edge of the batter's box. A true strike is one ball off the plate. Matt just stated above that his limit is touching the box i.e. two balls off the plate.

Of course, this all comes down to what we're defining. When I describe it, I'm talking about the distance between the ball and the plate--thus, one ball between the edge of the plate and the ball itself, which would put the outside of the ball at just under six inches, but the inside at just under three inches.

I would hope "one ball out" is your max limit.  I suspect you are a good, if not great umpire (and I am one to give umpires some leeway except in t-ball), but a pitch - let's assume a pretty straight fastball for argument - that is three inches off the white does not come close to looking like a strike, even with my old eyes.  My 2017 pitches in that area a whole lot and when he is 3 inches out and doesn't get a strike call, I have zero problem.  If the teams cannot throw well, then I could see half that.  Sort of reminds me of the balk discussion where you have to call an illegal pitch early on to avoid calling it a balk when a runner happens to be on and confusing everyone.  If you call it one full ball off, what happens if the kid get hit by the pitch off the plate but just out of the box?

Once the pitcher puts a little movement on the pitch I tend to defer to the umpire as long as he is consistent.

real green posted:

The ball touching is a legal strike.  The second ball, as the dad of a pitcher, I hope is called a strike but legally out of the zone and what I would consider two balls off the plate.  If balls over the chalk (3 balls out) are getting called strikes it's going to be a tough day for the batters.  

And as matt indicated, many time the box is only "one ball" off the plate.  I have actually measured some artificial fields, with permanent boxes, where such is the case. 

If you think you can do better, you can always try - I betcha that's "a" reason some guys get started umpiring. If you don't want to take the punishment, then stop complaining. It's not an enjoyable experience getting hit with a FB that the catcher doesn't move to catch or a foul that either gets you on the arm or off the plate and up into your nether regions. Consistency is something you strive for as an umpire, but when the pitcher gets lucky to find the zone 1 out of 6 pitches thrown or the catcher is "all over the place" - it makes it much harder to be consistent. Late in the game the other day I heard a dad yell "c'mon blue you haven't called that one all day" - to which I thought - damn, that's the first pitcher all day to have thrown a beautiful 11-4 curveball!  My favorite though is when some leather-lung complains about the zone when their child has already swung at multiple pitches at "eye level". If your child has been "taught" to look for a ball in a specific zone (e.g. about where one would place a ball on "T"), then good luck finding that pitch. Pitchers are taught to not pitch there for obvious reasons...  A good hitter can hit the ball pitched at any speed anywhere in or near the strike zone to any field.  As they say - that's what separates the men from the boys.  Always remember to watch the zone for both teams you cannot be both happy and mad that the pitch that's the proverbial 9" off the plate is being called a strike.

WashBarn posted:

We're seeing so many low and/or outside pitches off the plate this season it's crazy.  How should players prepare to hit balls at their knees 9 inches off the plate?  Understanding that with 2 strikes you need to be in big time protect mode -but  being down 0-2 on 2 badly called strikes is a tough place to be.  

I will take your game over the one I saw this year. 

JV game, both sides had fairly good command of the strike zone.  There were a lot of painted corners and very VERY pretty pitches....all BALLS!  Up the middle, waist height, was the only strike being called. Both sides tried 3 different pitchers, from super fast to super slow, heck we threw in a submarine pitcher...nothing worked. Between both sides the ump rung up 25 walks that game....game was almost 3 hours long! 

Good umpiring in HS games is not hard to find. Good CONSISTENT umpiring is, alas, often hard to find. I tip my hat to those who work hard to make baseball games possible in the first place.

I will add that my son, a 2017 catcher who can get very frustrated when he gets a late-game called strike that he, having been catching all along and having both the best view of the pitches and "working knowledge" of the umpire's strike zone, was not a strike until then. So being a catcher can be a double-edged sword.

Some general observations about HS umpiring (1) the SZ for "pretty" curveballs often expands as the game goes on, (2) low and away strikes seem to be the most difficult to call consistently, and (3) "situational" SZ's can still appear for teams with clearly struggling pitchers and teams with many kids who are obviously looking for the walk.

Batty67 posted:

(2) low and away strikes seem to be the most difficult to call consistently.

Agree.

Parallax error works against the umpire on both the up-down and in-out planes for the low outside pitch.

An umpire who consciously decides to give a little extra on the outside edge can end up giving an embarrassing amount, even more so at the bottom of the outside edge. 

My approach is to call the defined zone as I see it without compensating for the known error. It seems to help me with consistency while keeping my zone within expected parameters. 

I halfway suspect that the common practice of giving a little on the outside is a natural result of trying to call it by the book.

Last edited by Swampboy
2017LHPscrewball posted:
Matt13 posted:
real green posted:
hshuler posted:

From what I've seen this year, high school umpiring is definitely better than travel ball umpiring...but there's good and bad in both.

Pre-game meeting a couple of years ago:

Ump - "Coaches, I'm giving two baseball off the plates?

Me - "Why?

Ump - "Because I want the kids to swing."

Me - "This is travel ball and I can promise you that they're swinging."

Ump - "I'm giving two baseballs off the plate, Coach!"

Me - "Why do we have a plate again?"

Needless to say two baseballs became four baseballs and both coaches essentially just set catchers up off the plate to see how much he'd give. It wasn't fair to either team because the pitches were unhittable.

My biggest peeve with high school umpiring is that some make the calls on the bases too fast and don't let their brain process what just happened. IMO, the best umps take a second or two to let their brains sort it out versus anticipating a call. 

2 baseballs is touching is touching the Edge of the batter's box. A true strike is one ball off the plate. Matt just stated above that his limit is touching the box i.e. two balls off the plate.

Of course, this all comes down to what we're defining. When I describe it, I'm talking about the distance between the ball and the plate--thus, one ball between the edge of the plate and the ball itself, which would put the outside of the ball at just under six inches, but the inside at just under three inches.

I would hope "one ball out" is your max limit.  I suspect you are a good, if not great umpire (and I am one to give umpires some leeway except in t-ball), but a pitch - let's assume a pretty straight fastball for argument - that is three inches off the white does not come close to looking like a strike, even with my old eyes.  My 2017 pitches in that area a whole lot and when he is 3 inches out and doesn't get a strike call, I have zero problem.  If the teams cannot throw well, then I could see half that.  Sort of reminds me of the balk discussion where you have to call an illegal pitch early on to avoid calling it a balk when a runner happens to be on and confusing everyone.  If you call it one full ball off, what happens if the kid get hit by the pitch off the plate but just out of the box?

Once the pitcher puts a little movement on the pitch I tend to defer to the umpire as long as he is consistent.

Keep in mind that I'm referring to the outside limits. Inside is much tighter...If a batter gets hit by something off the plate, it's not a strike.

Batty67 posted:

Some general observations about HS umpiring (1) the SZ for "pretty" curveballs often expands as the game goes on, (2) low and away strikes seem to be the most difficult to call consistently, and (3) "situational" SZ's can still appear for teams with clearly struggling pitchers and teams with many kids who are obviously looking for the walk.

Good points here.  RE #3 - I think it's been posted here before that a while back some PHD statistician types published a paper making a good case that pro umps' zones change depending on the count.  IE, the zone widens at 3-0 and narrows at 0-2.  RE #2  - anyone who has gotten behind the dish to call even a Little League game knows that the low outside corner is really very difficult to call accurately. And knowing that, as a HS baseball hitter's parent, I can live with it.  But working in the slot, the inside part and top of the zone are much more easy to see, so when an ump is wide on the inside or sees strikes at the armpits he is going to hear chirping.  Sorry, Blue!  RE #1 - some umps are like some hitters, they'll give up on a curveball.  But after seeing a few they pick it up better.

real green posted:

The ball touching is a legal strike.  The second ball, as the dad of a pitcher, I hope is called a strike but legally out of the zone and what I would consider two balls off the plate.  If balls over the chalk (3 balls out) are getting called strikes it's going to be a tough day for the batters.  

This is amazing.  This just became part of my teaching repertoire when we discuss hitting plans.

I've never seen HS lines drawn like that.  The batters box usually starts one ball width away from the edge of the plate.  Just think if you're an umpire, you get paid per game, but you have the power to maximize your per hour wage.  You could typically either be making $37.50/hr or $25/hr.  If you were to call a  perfect game, you'd probably make $18.75/hr.  So the bottom line is how much money do you want to make, right?  Every ump has the ability to call a perfect game.  In every scrimmage we've played where coaches are the umps, we've called great games with absolutely zero complaints from either side.  If a coach can call a proper strike, obviously a "pro" umpire should be able to.  That said, don't ever leave it in the judges' hands.  Swing the damn bat

Last edited by hsbaseball101
hsbaseball101 posted
  That said, don't ever leave it in the judges' hands.  Swing the damn bat

I can't express enough how much I relate to the OP. If a pitch is so far outside that the batter can't hit it while staying in the batters box it should not be called a strike. Yet I see it all the time. What's worse is when you have college, and now pro scouts there to see your kid and the ump just screws him. 

Now as to what I quoted. My son is off to college next year. Only time will tell but he just might have a future in baseball. The last thing I need is for him to get into the habit of swinging at bad pitches just because some umpire might call it a strike. 

Edit to say, I love those ump's when the kid pitches. 

Last edited by SomeBaseballDad
Midlo Dad posted:

If you watched the C.B. Buckner debacle the other night (Nats v. Braves), and then saw him botch another call in the field last night, then you understand that even the highly paid MLB umps are fallible.  In fact, some of them are just not that good at all.

Every level of baseball you step down from MLB, things get worse.  MiLB, college, high school varsity, then HS JV.

So think of your son's situation like this:  The guys making the calls are 4 levels down from guys who screw up with regularity and yet are the best that money can buy apparently.  Adding to that, in a typical HS game there are only 2 guys out there, so sometimes they just don't see things that well because you can't be at every angle at once.

What that means is, umpire screwups are a part of the game, and there's nothing you can do about that. 

Now, if I see an ump copping an attitude, indicating bias for/against a team or any particular player or coach, etc., I think someone should get that guy off the field for future games.  Beyond that, you just have to have faith that it all evens out in the end.

Admittedly, it never seems that way!

P.S.

My pet peeve is the HPU who announces at the pregame meeting at the plate what "my strike zone" looks like.  No one has a personal strike zone.  The powers that be met and developed this thing called a rule book, and it specifies what the strike zone is.  The HPU's job is to apply the rules as written, and he is not empowered to substitute his judgment for the rule book.

But I've learned to bite my tongue when someone says that crud.

All mlb umpires are amazingly good. They have bad days too but mlb games happen at an incredible pace and those things are hard to see. The bucknor thing was bad but every call by mlb umpires is reviewed and if it happens too often they will lose their jobs. If bucknor had such nights regularly he would lose his job soon. 

Amateur umpires are worse but it is still not easy to see behind the plate. Any hs or younger parents or coaches that complains about bad hs umpires should ask themselves if their player makes less mistakes. An 80+ mph pitch is not easy to judge for both umps and hitters. Yes umps will miss some but kids will also chase pitches that are a foot outside so that shows how hard it is. You can't actually track the ball all the way to the glove but you lose it a few feet in front due to the way the eye works.

hsbaseball101 posted:

In every scrimmage we've played where coaches are the umps, we've called great games with absolutely zero complaints from either side.  If a coach can call a proper strike, obviously a "pro" umpire should be able to.  That said, don't ever leave it in the judges' hands.  Swing the damn bat

Let's see .... scrimmage... coach is umpire... player complains... player loses play time because coach doesn't like being shown up or doesn't want the player doing that in a game....  it's a scrimmage...  pitchers aren't trying to paint corners... generally it's throw a 4 seamer mostly - easiest pitch to call... pitchers aren't at pitch 100 in the 3rd inning...  catchers aren't flailing all over the place trying to pull a ball 9" off the plate back on... catchers aren't set up in the other batters box receiving a pitch and not moving their glove... Of course if a coach likes the umpire pay scale per hour more so than their own and feels they could do a better job, then maybe it's time for a job change! ;-)  I think it's absurd to "hint" that an umpire is only there for the money, but if that's your perception then that's your reality.

hsbaseball101 posted:

I've never seen HS lines drawn like that.  The batters box usually starts one ball width away from the edge of the plate.  …

 

I will say that not all teams draw the lines correctly, but in 20 years of watching HS baseball, I don’t remember ever seeing a batter’s box only 3” away from the plate, and I usually look.

SomeBaseballDad posted:
hsbaseball101 posted
  That said, don't ever leave it in the judges' hands.  Swing the damn bat

I can't express enough how much I relate to the OP. If a pitch is so far outside that the batter can't hit it while staying in the batters box it should not be called a strike. Yet I see it all the time. What's worse is when you have college, and now pro scouts there to see your kid and the ump just screws him. 

Now as to what I quoted. My son is off to college next year. Only time will tell but he just might have a future in baseball. The last thing I need is for him to get into the habit of swinging at bad pitches just because some umpire might call it a strike. 

Edit to say, I love those ump's when the kid pitches. 

UMMMMMM, I am pretty sure that if the guy is coaching at the college level or a professional scout he can tell a ball from a strike.  I am going to go on record and be willing to bet you any amount of money you wish that if an umpire "screws" a kid on a bad call that is not going to cost the kid a draft slot or scholarship money.  On top of that, in that moment what the most important this is to that scout or coach is how the hitter handles it mentally and emotionally.

Yes RC's/scouts can tell balls /strikes. The thing is interest in the kid is because of how far he hits the ball. Fact is there are many players with higher batting averages, but I would guess not to many able to send a ball 450'. Between pitchers pitching around him and some very generous strike zones it can be a challenge to put the ball in play. 

The kid has his ticket punched college wise. I'm assuming the MLB will still exist in 3-4 years. The pitchers throwing around him,  and the umpires with very liberal zones enabling them, becomes very frustrating none the less. 

Last edited by SomeBaseballDad
SomeBaseballDad posted:

Yes RC's/scouts can tell balls /strikes. The thing is interest in the kid is because of how far he hits the ball. Fact is there are many players with higher batting averages, but I would guess not to many able to send a ball 450'. Between pitchers pitching around him and some very generous strike zones it can be a challenge to put the ball in play. 

The kid has his ticket punched college wise. I'm assuming the MLB will still exist in 3-4 years. The pitchers throwing around him,  and the umpires with very liberal zones enabling them, becomes very frustrating. 

Can you clarify the "pitchers throwing around him" comment? What do you mean?

CaCO3Girl posted:

Can you clarify the "pitchers throwing around him" comment? What do you mean?

All he gets is offspeed and FB's out of the zone. Or at least the zone as defined by the rule book. They don't care if they walk him, which is fine except for the umps and their "strike zones".

It's not unusual for him to get 3 - 4 AB's in a game and see 2 or 3 fastballs.

Last edited by SomeBaseballDad
IEBSBL posted:
SomeBaseballDad posted:
hsbaseball101 posted
  That said, don't ever leave it in the judges' hands.  Swing the damn bat

I can't express enough how much I relate to the OP. If a pitch is so far outside that the batter can't hit it while staying in the batters box it should not be called a strike. Yet I see it all the time. What's worse is when you have college, and now pro scouts there to see your kid and the ump just screws him. 

Now as to what I quoted. My son is off to college next year. Only time will tell but he just might have a future in baseball. The last thing I need is for him to get into the habit of swinging at bad pitches just because some umpire might call it a strike. 

Edit to say, I love those ump's when the kid pitches. 

UMMMMMM, I am pretty sure that if the guy is coaching at the college level or a professional scout he can tell a ball from a strike.  I am going to go on record and be willing to bet you any amount of money you wish that if an umpire "screws" a kid on a bad call that is not going to cost the kid a draft slot or scholarship money.  On top of that, in that moment what the most important this is to that scout or coach is how the hitter handles it mentally and emotionally.

I can tell you this is the case. Scouts watch for this, and even talk to umpires before or after games.

I know of one 1st-round pick from the HS I attended that dropped a couple of slots because he had a tendency to visibly demonstrate his displeasure with umpires. I worked two of his games and in one of them, he got fooled on a beautiful slider that broke in on the inside corner. He started to argue--nothing ejectable, just him being foolish--and his coach pulled him right then and there, in the first inning.

The next game I had him, a scout came up to me and asked me if I knew anything about his demeanor. I chose to answer non-committally...to which the scout replied that they already were probably passing on him because of it, but they were just looking for something to change their minds. This guy still got his payday, it was just a little bit smaller because I know he dropped at least two picks further.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

Call? 

Can't tell 100% from here.

In-out: Catcher's crotch looks to be on the outside corner and he doesn't reach across his body to receive the pitch. It's either ok or close on the in-out. 

Up-down:  It's dropping a lot, could have been high enough at the front of the zone. Nothing conclusive either way on the up-down from this angle.

Not a safe pitch to take with two strikes.

Why do you ask?

Last edited by Swampboy
jacjacatk posted:
SomeBaseballDad posted:

Call? 

Meh, 80/20 it's a strike, given the relatively poor angle we have to work with? Not that it matters because that's nowhere near a controversial call or the worst call you'll see in a HS season (or even in just one game).

BTW, I was hoping to see your son throw yesterday...but he didn't.

3-2 and RISP, that's a hittable pitch that he got fooled on.  The ball's coming out slowly so if the catcher caught it where his glove was set up that would've been belt high.  It was probably knee high crossing the plate. He didn't extend his hand, just dropped down a bit.  Even if it's a tad low, that's going to be called a strike at any level.  

Last edited by hsbaseball101

There is no black part of home plate.  Home plate is white, and no other color.

Some home plates that you buy come with a built-in border that is commonly black.  The black border has two purposes.  First, it protects the edges of the white home plate so that they remain straight and don't get eroded/jagged.  Second, it provides a sharp visual contrast to aid the umpire.

If someone says they are "giving the black," the translation is, "I am substituting my opinion on what the width of home plate should be for what is specified in the rule book." 

No umpire has been granted such authority, but many claim it.

Midlo Dad posted:

There is no black part of home plate.  Home plate is white, and no other color.

Some home plates that you buy come with a built-in border that is commonly black.  The black border has two purposes.  First, it protects the edges of the white home plate so that they remain straight and don't get eroded/jagged.  Second, it provides a sharp visual contrast to aid the umpire.

If someone says they are "giving the black," the translation is, "I am substituting my opinion on what the width of home plate should be for what is specified in the rule book." 

No umpire has been granted such authority, but many claim it.

It's not our opinion. It's what's expected.

An umpire that calls only the width of the plate at the levels we are discussing will not be umpiring long.

Midlo Dad posted:

There is no black part of home plate.  Home plate is white, and no other color.

Some home plates that you buy come with a built-in border that is commonly black.  The black border has two purposes.  First, it protects the edges of the white home plate so that they remain straight and don't get eroded/jagged.  Second, it provides a sharp visual contrast to aid the umpire.

If someone says they are "giving the black," the translation is, "I am substituting my opinion on what the width of home plate should be for what is specified in the rule book." 

No umpire has been granted such authority, but many claim it.

It usually takes a while, but strike zone threads eventually get around to someone saying why you don’t just call the zone as defined in the rule book or why is it that umpires have "their" zone and not the rule book zone.....

My zone is just what happens when I am behind the plate attempting to judge a 3 dimensional strike zone that changes based on the batters height. If you can imagine an invisible floating column, 17 and a half inches wide that extends from a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and at the lower level is the hollow beneath the knee cap. The zone is determined by from each batters stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball....the strike zone changes for a 5'6" batter to a 6' batter......

All of this adds to each umpire having their own zone....even as he may be trying to adhere to the rule book definition. It is just the reality of doing the job. I am known as an inside and low ball umpire. I know this from video tape of my cage work at umpire clinics. I am more apt to call a ball a strike inside and low than I am at the outside and high side of the zone. It’s just my reality...maybe it’s because I am shorter that I see that lower ball as a strike. I don’t know, and I’m not sure what I can do as a human to improve on that. I try and keep as consistent a zone as possible to avoid problems, but it is what it is. This is how I come to say what is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....

Despite all our efforts, I feel there will always be some variance.......but I will try to get better......if at any time I feel I am doing "good enough" and fail to work on refining my game.....it’s probably my time to quit.

I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the child’s way out, but I will offer that it isn’t as easy as it seems.....If it was then anyone could do it, and over the years, I can confirm that many cant. Some develop an eye for it, the temperament for it, the patience for it and some never do.

Since I’ve admitted to having “my zone” I guess I am substituting my opinion on what is a strike for what is the “rule book zone. But I will take exception to one thing Midlo states and that is that NO umpire has been granted such authority.

The rule book absolutely gives us the authority. NFHS Rule 10 Art 4. Any umpires decision which involves judgment such as whether a hit is fair or foul, or a pitch is a ball or strike or a runner is out or safe is FINAL.

You may question the judgment of the umpire, but not his rule book given authority.

Last edited by piaa_ump
Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted:

Yes. 

 

That seems like a shame to me. Why bother with rules then, and what’s gonna happen when MLB finally goes to calling pitches not swung at using technology?

People stop watching?  People stop coming the ballpark?  Games are longer?  Pitchers learn how to throw the eephus pitch and baseball turns into slow pitch softball.  Part of the joy of this game is discussing and/or complaining about "stuff" that you cannot control.  Not every stat ever recorded is done in a consistent manner (error or hit - I don't know depends on the fielder sometimes) - there is always judgement a/k/a "scorer's decision" involved. Guess we can have a computer tell us that too ;-). I personally know a few college pitchers ERA's that will be much lower if the decision for an error or not was left to a computer program!!!

I can't wait for the technology that "thinks it knows" the difference between a trapped ball and a caught ball... Or something that can tell if it's a foul tip or a foul ball.  Will the ball know if it's touched the ground and light up or something?  Green is good catch, red is not a catch.  (similar for out/safe, fair/foul, ball/strike).  Will a ball know if it's "touched" any part of the plate? Even by a nanometer... The 88th lace of the ball on it's journey was slightly frayed and it passed through the zone causing the computer program to decide the pitch was a strike. Who does the player or manager yell at then? What about a fair/foul line?  Damn, I have chalk on myself - I must be fair.  Smart balls, the new technology - own a pair.

Would love to see technology call balls and strikes.  My son is way too old for any cheap technology to get to the lower levels.  He will never see it.  For lower level ball you could set the zone at 20" or more.  I understand a 9 year old baseball game will never get over if you call a strict strike zone.  But we are talking high school here.  You should be able to throw strikes.  But umpires have their own little kingdom and usually have the personality where that control and authority is very important to them.  There is a shortage at least in our area of umps.  They are like weathermen they can keep getting it wrong and keep getting paid.  Sad.

2020dad posted:

Would love to see technology call balls and strikes.  My son is way too old for any cheap technology to get to the lower levels.  He will never see it.  For lower level ball you could set the zone at 20" or more.  I understand a 9 year old baseball game will never get over if you call a strict strike zone.  But we are talking high school here.  You should be able to throw strikes.  But umpires have their own little kingdom and usually have the personality where that control and authority is very important to them.  There is a shortage at least in our area of umps.  They are like weathermen they can keep getting it wrong and keep getting paid.  Sad.

Wrong, yet again...

Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted:

Yes. 

 

That seems like a shame to me. Why bother with rules then, and what’s gonna happen when MLB finally goes to calling pitches not swung at using technology?

We aren't talking MLB, though...

Funny you mention it, though--the reason that the strike zone changed this year is because umpires were calling it very consistently and MLB did not intend for that to happen when they set the last one in 1996.

JohnF posted:

People stop watching?  People stop coming the ballpark?  Games are longer?  Pitchers learn how to throw the eephus pitch and baseball turns into slow pitch softball.  Part of the joy of this game is discussing and/or complaining about "stuff" that you cannot control.  Not every stat ever recorded is done in a consistent manner (error or hit - I don't know depends on the fielder sometimes) - there is always judgement a/k/a "scorer's decision" involved. Guess we can have a computer tell us that too ;-). I personally know a few college pitchers ERA's that will be much lower if the decision for an error or not was left to a computer program!!!

 

I can't wait for the technology that "thinks it knows" the difference between a trapped ball and a caught ball... Or something that can tell if it's a foul tip or a foul ball.  Will the ball know if it's touched the ground and light up or something?  Green is good catch, red is not a catch.  (similar for out/safe, fair/foul, ball/strike).  Will a ball know if it's "touched" any part of the plate? Even by a nanometer... The 88th lace of the ball on it's journey was slightly frayed and it passed through the zone causing the computer program to decide the pitch was a strike. Who does the player or manager yell at then? What about a fair/foul line?  Damn, I have chalk on myself - I must be fair.  Smart balls, the new technology - own a pair.

 

I’m not at all sure how you took what I said about technology calling pitches not swung at, which they’ve already done at a professional game and do every day to grade and help umpires, and taken that to mean I said technology should call hits and errors, caught balls, and foul tips.

 

So are you saying that if pitches not swung at are called by technology you’ll quit watching baseball and that will be the complete demise of the game?

I had one rule for my players. "It is not his job to adjust to your interpretation of the strike zone. It is your job to adjust to his interpretation of the strike zone. So watch and learn, quickly."

I had one request of the crew - "Please be consistent for the entire game regardless of the situation."

My idea of a bad call is anything that falls outside of the "consistent" area. Once the zone has been established lets keep it right there. I understand you are going to make some calls during the game that might be inconsistent. As long as you are not consistently inconsistent I will stay quiet and leave you alone. You have a tough job. A very tough job. I appreciate you and respect you, and my players will appreciate you and respect you as well.

 

 

 

2020dad posted:

Would love to see technology call balls and strikes.  My son is way too old for any cheap technology to get to the lower levels.  He will never see it.  For lower level ball you could set the zone at 20" or more.  I understand a 9 year old baseball game will never get over if you call a strict strike zone.  But we are talking high school here.  You should be able to throw strikes.  But umpires have their own little kingdom and usually have the personality where that control and authority is very important to them.  There is a shortage at least in our area of umps.  They are like weathermen they can keep getting it wrong and keep getting paid.  Sad.

 

Actually, I think if that technology were to get to 9YO ball games it would cause something to happen that should have happened many years ago. They’d make different length and width plates for different levels, and the upper and lower limits would be defined differently as well. Since that’s evidently what happens anyway, and in fact will get an umpire fired if he doesn’t do that, the next logical step would be to admit it has to happen, make the changes, and go on with life.

 

Here’s a bit of personal trivia. So far this season we’ve played 19 games. There have been a total of 3,853 pitches. I also keep track of “bad pitches” defined this way. A bad pitch is one either in the dirt or so high or wide the catcher exhibited more than ordinary effort to keep from getting past him. There have been 365 bad pitches. That means 9.47% of the total pitches have not only been balls, but have been pretty bad as well.

 

I’m sure the percentage of bad pitches at the 9YO level would be worse, but I don’t want anyone to get the idea that HSV pitchers can hit a gnat in the gnuts from 60’.

hsbaseball101 posted:

Anyone who's been a pitcher knows how hard it is to hit the strike zone.  The plate looks like 2 inches wide from 60ft.  Pitchers in our division are averaging 200 pitches per 9ip, so it's an arm health concern as well.  

WHAT?  Was that a mistype?  200 pitches per 9 innings?  So 100 pitches per 4.5 innings?

Um, are these numbers typical because I have to say that is NOT what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Batty67 posted:

Thanks for responding PIAA: question for you and HS umpires in general. Do you ever just have an off-game in terms of calling balls and strikes and you KNOW it? And if so, is that awareness linked to extra chirping from the peanut gallery?  

Yes, we all have had that inning or even a whole game......

I have known it and:

  • struggled to correct it and no one even noticed...no chirping... no complaints.
  • struggled and took heat for it.
  • Called a great game...

 

At a certain point in your umpire career "chirping from the peanut gallery" just fades into the background. At a HS game I assume I'm going to see 200+ pitches....there are going to be called pitches that both teams fans aren't going to like.

The trained umpire has methods to get back on track if they feel they are loose in the zone. I think the one thing we don't give a lot of focus on is "real life". There are going to be times when the stress and demands of real life can interfere with the focus that is needed on the ball field.

I don't believe we teach new umpires when to book off a game. Or when to ask their partner to take the dish on days when they feel they may not have the required focus to do the plate.       

 

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Quick follow-up question - how do you manage the various stances, especially some taller players scrunching down trying to minimize the zone?  Is the some rule or guidance that addresses the "normal" stance?

There are a number of mechanical guides taught to  assist the umpire in establishing the normal batting stance of a player. Watch an umpire when a batter enters the box and takes a few warm up swings.  His eyes will be checking heights and distances....then he will sink into a stance that allows him to gauge the natural stance.    

CaCO3Girl posted:
hsbaseball101 posted:

Anyone who's been a pitcher knows how hard it is to hit the strike zone.  The plate looks like 2 inches wide from 60ft.  Pitchers in our division are averaging 200 pitches per 9ip, so it's an arm health concern as well.  

WHAT?  Was that a mistype?  200 pitches per 9 innings?  So 100 pitches per 4.5 innings?

Um, are these numbers typical because I have to say that is NOT what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

 

I recalculated taking a random sample of 6 teams, and it's actually 150 pitches per 9 innings on average.  This is the lowest division in CA.  

Stats4Gnats posted:

JohnF posted:

People stop watching?  People stop coming the ballpark?  Games are longer?  Pitchers learn how to throw the eephus pitch and baseball turns into slow pitch softball.  Part of the joy of this game is discussing and/or complaining about "stuff" that you cannot control.  Not every stat ever recorded is done in a consistent manner (error or hit - I don't know depends on the fielder sometimes) - there is always judgement a/k/a "scorer's decision" involved. Guess we can have a computer tell us that too ;-). I personally know a few college pitchers ERA's that will be much lower if the decision for an error or not was left to a computer program!!!

 

I can't wait for the technology that "thinks it knows" the difference between a trapped ball and a caught ball... Or something that can tell if it's a foul tip or a foul ball.  Will the ball know if it's touched the ground and light up or something?  Green is good catch, red is not a catch.  (similar for out/safe, fair/foul, ball/strike).  Will a ball know if it's "touched" any part of the plate? Even by a nanometer... The 88th lace of the ball on it's journey was slightly frayed and it passed through the zone causing the computer program to decide the pitch was a strike. Who does the player or manager yell at then? What about a fair/foul line?  Damn, I have chalk on myself - I must be fair.  Smart balls, the new technology - own a pair.

 

I’m not at all sure how you took what I said about technology calling pitches not swung at, which they’ve already done at a professional game and do every day to grade and help umpires, and taken that to mean I said technology should call hits and errors, caught balls, and foul tips.

 

So are you saying that if pitches not swung at are called by technology you’ll quit watching baseball and that will be the complete demise of the game?

Interesting which part of my response you chose to focus on and which you chose to ignore.  There was certainly a lot of tongue in cheek though - an absurd response for the premise that using technology to call the game for pitches not swung at ostensibly "just" to make the strike zone better.  

Once you start down the path of technology people strive to keep improving it and to keep using for more things (which is what I was trying to illustrate)... Although I do recall one technological change that fell flat on its face - a chip inside a hockey puck so that TV viewers could "see" the puck. Luckily 60" HD televisions came along and fixed that ;-).

 

In any case, my point part of the joy of baseball is having the human element involved where mistakes are made and decisions are left open for interpretation.

JohnF posted:

 

In any case, my point part of the joy of baseball is having the human element involved where mistakes are made and decisions are left open for interpretation.

Says the guy who's not out there actually playing the game.

Let's see, wasn't there a game a few years ago where the ump made a bad call at first and cost a kid a perfect game? Yeah the pitcher was very magnanimous about the whole thing and cars where rewarded and everyone had a group hug, but I bet all involved just wish the right call had been made.

JohnF posted:
Stats4Gnats posted:

Matt13 posted:

Yes. 

 

That seems like a shame to me. Why bother with rules then, and what’s gonna happen when MLB finally goes to calling pitches not swung at using technology?

People stop watching?  People stop coming the ballpark?  Games are longer?

IDK, I guess you would have to look in depth and see where umps make the most mistakes, ball instead of strike or strike instead of ball.

Lets face it, people want to see action. They want to see the ball put in play. Sure pitching duels are fine, but not game after game. When I was a kid they were waiting for the player who was going to break the .400 batting avg mark. You never hear about that anymore. Now we live in the day of the .200 average and 3-1 games.

So if a computer generated strike zone were to turn the game more in the offences favor it would have a positive effect, IMO.

Last edited by SomeBaseballDad
SomeBaseballDad posted:

So if a computer generated strike zone were to turn the game more in the offences favor it would have a positive effect, IMO.

It won't, though. Hitters have figured out that selling out for more power is more valuable than putting the ball in play at the cost of that power, and that's the primary driving force for three true outcomes hitting approaches. Changing the strikezone is just going to alter the ratio of those outcomes more than anything else.

I don't know that there's a fundamentally easy way to fix that (assuming it's something that needs to be fixed). Larger outfields would probably go a ways, but that's not especially feasible.

SomeBaseballDad posted:
JohnF posted:

 

In any case, my point part of the joy of baseball is having the human element involved where mistakes are made and decisions are left open for interpretation.

Says the guy who's not out there actually playing the game.

Let's see, wasn't there a game a few years ago where the ump made a bad call at first and cost a kid a perfect game? Yeah the pitcher was very magnanimous about the whole thing and cars where rewarded and everyone had a group hug, but I bet all involved just wish the right call had been made.

Yep it's a game or are you missing that point? It's amazing how a bad umpire call gets magnified 1000%. You think Jim Joyce wanted to make that mistake? He did apologize... To err is human, to forgive is divine, right?... A little reality check just in case you've forgotten - for a pitcher to have a perfect it game it takes a lot of things going right, when one doesn't does that get remembered for years on end?  Has any pitcher "lost" his perfect game w/ 2 outs in the 9th as a result of a hit, walk, error, hit-by-pitch, etc.? Has any pitcher given up 1 hit early then had a "perfect game" beyond that? Or any other such combination where just 1 mistake caused him to not have a perfect game? IDK - couldn't remember, but I (and others) do remember the umpire mistake. Curious, isn't it?  Are the only individuals on the field that are expected to have a perfect game every night out umpires? No one expects a pitcher to throw a perfect game every 5 days or end a season with a 0.00 ERA. No one expects a batter to bat 1.000 for a season or have a 1.000 OBP.  No one expects a fielder to not bobble/drop a ball ever.  No one expects that a coach will make decisions throughout the season that everyone that roots for the team will agree upon. That peanut vendor in the stands isn't going to hit his target every time either. So reality check - sit back enjoy the *game* that's being played. Those who are fortunate enough to keep playing or those that are fortunate enough to continue to watch their children keep playing should be proud of themselves/their children. Some day it does end - enjoy it while it's happening though because you never know when it ends.

All this discussion about bad high school umpires seems to assume the coaches and players are performing at higher levels than the umpires are.

That's seldom the case.

In fact, one of the lines I use in post-game critiques with my partners--after we review any plays on which our movement or communication could have been improved--is, "OK, we've identified some things we need to work on, but all in all, I'd say the quality of the officiating tonight was at least as good as the quality of play and the quality of coaching."

It always gets a chuckle because it's nearly always true. (It's not true because umpires are special: it's true because it's easier to become a good umpire than to become a good player or a good coach.)

High school teams--even at large high schools--create opportunities for their opponents by not fielding ground balls, not covering bases on bunt plays, not hitting cut off men, putting in relievers who have no idea how to hold runners, and by not doing other basic things that well-coached teams routinely do. And their opponents routinely squander those opportunities by not taking proper leads, not knowing the situation, not reading pitches in the dirt, not exploiting poor throws, and by running into outs. These player and coach issues are far more likely to determine the outcome of games than even the most obvious umpire deficiencies.

Most high school hitters have terrible batting eyes. It is common for a player or parent or coach to act surprised or resentful over a called third strike that might have been a smidgeon off the plate after the first strike was a swing at a ball a foot out of the zone and the batter took the second strike right down the middle. When players vividly demonstrate lack of eye, discipline, and approach early in the count, they might want to consider a little humility when they get rung up.

Nah, just scream that the umpire sucks. That'll fix it.

Coaches are often no better than the players. In a recent game, a team surrendered a three-run home run after its coach chose to pitch to one of the top rated players in the state with first base open and then chose to keep pitching to him when the pitcher fell behind 3-1. Naturally, the coach was sure the reason his team lost was my partner's strike zone and my not awarding a strike on a checked swing appeal three innings later.

Creating a fuss about balls and strikes will always distract the rubes in the stands from noticing the coaching blunders.

Yes, there are bad high school umpires. There are games when blown calls or inconsistent strike zones affect the outcome. But if you look at the overall state of high school baseball, the quality of umpiring is not holding back the progress of the game.

 

Even so, there is room for improving high school umpiring, and it can be achieved much more simply and inexpensively than by installing advanced sensor systems. Schools can pony up the money to pay for a third umpire. Nearly every game, umpires make important calls from a sub-optimal vantage point (e.g., pick off plays at first) or don't make calls (e.g., checked swing appeals when the base umpire is in the middle of the diamond) because of the limitations of the two-man system. 

But as long as schools won't pay for three-man coverage, any talk of automating umpiring at the high school level is unrealistic.

Last edited by Swampboy

Most high school hitters have terrible batting eyes. It is common for a player or parent or coach to act surprised or resentful over a called third strike that might have been a smidgeon off the plate after the first strike was a swing at a ball a foot out of the zone and the batter took the second strike right down the middle. When players vividly demonstrate lack of eye, discipline, and approach early in the count, they might want to consider a little humility when they get rung up.

I believe one of my major areas of growth over the past couple of years is cheering for individual pitches.  I used to cheer for every strike, including those that were right down the pipe and the batter took an awful swing.  I now probably cheer more for well positioned balls than I do for strikes.  I will cheer loudly for that valuable first pitch strike and hope the pitcher uses it to his advantage.  I've even gotten to were I cheer on successful balls in the dirt.  I am of the opinion that it is sometimes easier to strike out a good batter than a very poor batter - have seen many times where you just cannot get the poor batter to take the bait.

I have yelled at umpires my fair share, but these days I really try to provide encouragement for them to get it correct next time around.  The last thing I need when 2017 is on the mound is some loud mouthed parent from our team harassing the umpire - I love it when the other team brings theirs.

I think if you call the strike zone per the rule book, pitchers will throw to the zone.  If you give more in any direction, pitchers will take advantage and batters will have to adjust.  If you think expanding the zone reduces walks, I believe you are underestimating the savvy and capabilities of high school competition.

I do not disagree with the notion that one umpire doing his very best to follow the rule book will call some pitches differently from another umpire doing the same.  There are of course going to be differences in judgment from one human being to another.  What I object to is when the guy sets out NOT to follow the rule book.  If that's your goal, you'll be sure to meet it.

The umpire is empowered to use his judgment in determining whether a pitch is in the zone or not.  He is not empowered to change the zone and thereby intentionally calls balls strikes or vice versa.

I don't really see any difference between strike zone and the foul lines.  I find it interesting that so many umps think the one area needs expanding but would never consider expanding the other.

The deal is, if you think the strike zone needs expanding, make your pitch to the rules committee.  They decide these things, not the HPU.

Midlo Dad posted:

I think if you call the strike zone per the rule book, pitchers will throw to the zone.  If you give more in any direction, pitchers will take advantage and batters will have to adjust.  If you think expanding the zone reduces walks, I believe you are underestimating the savvy and capabilities of high school competition.

I do not disagree with the notion that one umpire doing his very best to follow the rule book will call some pitches differently from another umpire doing the same.  There are of course going to be differences in judgment from one human being to another.  What I object to is when the guy sets out NOT to follow the rule book.  If that's your goal, you'll be sure to meet it.

The umpire is empowered to use his judgment in determining whether a pitch is in the zone or not.  He is not empowered to change the zone and thereby intentionally calls balls strikes or vice versa.

I don't really see any difference between strike zone and the foul lines.  I find it interesting that so many umps think the one area needs expanding but would never consider expanding the other.

The deal is, if you think the strike zone needs expanding, make your pitch to the rules committee.  They decide these things, not the HPU.

No disagreement here. 

As I said earlier, I call the book zone as I perceive it, knowing that perceptual limits may expand it slightly on the outside. It's the only way I know to approach consistency. 

Midlo Dad posted:

I think if you call the strike zone per the rule book, pitchers will throw to the zone.  If you give more in any direction, pitchers will take advantage and batters will have to adjust.  If you think expanding the zone reduces walks, I believe you are underestimating the savvy and capabilities of high school competition.

I do not disagree with the notion that one umpire doing his very best to follow the rule book will call some pitches differently from another umpire doing the same.  There are of course going to be differences in judgment from one human being to another.  What I object to is when the guy sets out NOT to follow the rule book.  If that's your goal, you'll be sure to meet it.

The umpire is empowered to use his judgment in determining whether a pitch is in the zone or not.  He is not empowered to change the zone and thereby intentionally calls balls strikes or vice versa.

I don't really see any difference between strike zone and the foul lines.  I find it interesting that so many umps think the one area needs expanding but would never consider expanding the other.

The deal is, if you think the strike zone needs expanding, make your pitch to the rules committee.  They decide these things, not the HPU.

I will disagree. It's not the umpires making these decisions. It's the people in the game.

hsbaseball101 posted:
CaCO3Girl posted:
hsbaseball101 posted:

Anyone who's been a pitcher knows how hard it is to hit the strike zone.  The plate looks like 2 inches wide from 60ft.  Pitchers in our division are averaging 200 pitches per 9ip, so it's an arm health concern as well.  

WHAT?  Was that a mistype?  200 pitches per 9 innings?  So 100 pitches per 4.5 innings?

Um, are these numbers typical because I have to say that is NOT what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

 

I recalculated taking a random sample of 6 teams, and it's actually 150 pitches per 9 innings on average.  This is the lowest division in CA.  

With 200 per 9 it was 22.2 pitches per inning.  At 150 per 9 it is down to 16.6, that is not great but it's more reasonable than 22.2 per inning. Thanks for checking.

Midlo Dad posted:

 

I don't really see any difference between strike zone and the foul lines.  I find it interesting that so many umps think the one area needs expanding but would never consider expanding the other.

The deal is, if you think the strike zone needs expanding, make your pitch to the rules committee.  They decide these things, not the HPU.

Is your field lined with chalk or paint or do you play with an unlined field?  When the ball is on either side of the 1 dimensional line is it obvious?  If it touches the line is it obvious. 

JohnF posted:

Interesting which part of my response you chose to focus on and which you chose to ignore.  There was certainly a lot of tongue in cheek though - an absurd response for the premise that using technology to call the game for pitches not swung at ostensibly "just" to make the strike zone better.  

 

Once you start down the path of technology people strive to keep improving it and to keep using for more things (which is what I was trying to illustrate)... Although I do recall one technological change that fell flat on its face - a chip inside a hockey puck so that TV viewers could "see" the puck. Luckily 60" HD televisions came along and fixed that ;-).

 

In any case, my point part of the joy of baseball is having the human element involved where mistakes are made and decisions are left open for interpretation.

 

I didn’t ignore any of what you said.

 

How did you get that my premise for technology calling pitches not swung at was anything more than trying to make the game more consistent for every player everywhere. You’re taking all the bad things that have happened with using technology in sports and using them as an excuse for not using them in baseball to call pitches not swung at. I’m sure you noticed that I was being very specific and not including all kinds of other uses.

First off, I get why it's desired. Still it's a be careful for what you wish type situation IMO. To me it seems it's OK in your opinion to replace "a" human error factor just for balls and strikes just because there's a few borderline pitches every game, but not OK for other areas of the game? We already see technology creep for "reviewable plays" on some of those and it doesn't always work nor is it "time effective"...  Out of every pitch thrown in a game - how many are not swung at, that are borderline either called or not called a strike? Does calling a strike (or a ball) extend game time or reduce it? Everyone's focusing on the not a strike situation. What about those called a ball that do nip the zone? Out of all those "missed" calls let's say 20 a game - how many are called balls and how many are called strikes?  It goes both ways, so again be careful for which you wish. Maybe coaches shouldn't tell their batters to "see" a strike or two before "allowing" them to swing. Maybe batters shouldn't swing at pitches that are clearly out of the zone and then complain about the one that grabs the corner or is thrown on the inside corner under their arms which extend over the plate hoping to be hit. Everyone seems to forget the other human elements involved here and places blame squarely on the umpire. If a batter shows he doesn't know the zone, then is technology the answer to help the batter? 

Is what is proposed cost effective? It's probably only "affordable" at the MLB level. Doubtful Minors could afford it, but maybe they could. Certainly some D1 colleges could, but not all. Forget about it at the HS level or Travel level. Luckily it's not needed at T-Ball - those 4-6 year olds won't have to worry about being whacked out on strikes or receiving that free pass to 1B. 

If I'm "taking all the bad things that have happened with using technology in sports and using them as an excuse for not using them in baseball to call pitches not swung at." and "consistency" is provided as a reason for using technology, then how is it that something that has been shown to not work consistently in the past be considered as the panacea to solve *this* (perceived) problem? IOW, if it hasn't really made some other part of the game better, then why is it that it's believed it can solve a problem that affects perhaps 1% of the game? Oh and once a "true strikezone" is called those pitches above the belt to the midpoint of the chest become strikes - you want to see a batters, coaches, and especially parents go crazy, call the "high strike" all game long, your ears will be bleeding from all the noise...

JohnF,

 It may seem to you that I don’t want to see it in other areas, but you’d be mighty wrong. The reason I’m interested only in calling pitches not swung at right now for MLB, is that the technology is already in place and proven to have no effect on the flow of the game other than to help it.

 I know it “goes both ways” but I don’t care! What I want is for the calls to be consistent from game to game and from start to finish.

 I’m sure that right now it’s affordable only to professional baseball, but if and when MLB starts using it, the floodgates will open for technology to exploit other venues and it won’t take long for the price to come down to where it’s affordable to other levels as well.

 What hasn’t worked consistently? The system in place now has made the game better because it’s made umpires better. But the upper limit of a human being’s ability to call pitches not swung at correctly is a lot lower than a machine’s. Do you realize 1% of the pitches in a ML game is about 25. You talk as though its only one or two pitches. I keep in mind that every pitch changes what takes place after it.

 I don’t worry one whit about people going crazy if a “true strike zone” is called! If it changes the game in what’s perceived to be a bad way, the same thing that’s been done for over 100 years will take place. They’ll change the strike zone definition.

JohnF posted:

First off, I get why it's desired. Still it's a be careful for what you wish type situation IMO. To me it seems it's OK in your opinion to replace "a" human error factor just for balls and strikes just because there's a few borderline pitches every game, but not OK for other areas of the game? We already see technology creep for "reviewable plays" on some of those and it doesn't always work nor is it "time effective"...  Out of every pitch thrown in a game - how many are not swung at, that are borderline either called or not called a strike? Does calling a strike (or a ball) extend game time or reduce it? Everyone's focusing on the not a strike situation. What about those called a ball that do nip the zone? Out of all those "missed" calls let's say 20 a game - how many are called balls and how many are called strikes?  It goes both ways, so again be careful for which you wish. Maybe coaches shouldn't tell their batters to "see" a strike or two before "allowing" them to swing. Maybe batters shouldn't swing at pitches that are clearly out of the zone and then complain about the one that grabs the corner or is thrown on the inside corner under their arms which extend over the plate hoping to be hit. Everyone seems to forget the other human elements involved here and places blame squarely on the umpire. If a batter shows he doesn't know the zone, then is technology the answer to help the batter? 

Is what is proposed cost effective? It's probably only "affordable" at the MLB level. Doubtful Minors could afford it, but maybe they could. Certainly some D1 colleges could, but not all. Forget about it at the HS level or Travel level. Luckily it's not needed at T-Ball - those 4-6 year olds won't have to worry about being whacked out on strikes or receiving that free pass to 1B. 

If I'm "taking all the bad things that have happened with using technology in sports and using them as an excuse for not using them in baseball to call pitches not swung at." and "consistency" is provided as a reason for using technology, then how is it that something that has been shown to not work consistently in the past be considered as the panacea to solve *this* (perceived) problem? IOW, if it hasn't really made some other part of the game better, then why is it that it's believed it can solve a problem that affects perhaps 1% of the game? Oh and once a "true strikezone" is called those pitches above the belt to the midpoint of the chest become strikes - you want to see a batters, coaches, and especially parents go crazy, call the "high strike" all game long, your ears will be bleeding from all the noise...

I agree with this entire post.

Stats4Gnats posted:

But the upper limit of a human being’s ability to call pitches not swung at correctly is a lot lower than a machine’s.

The upper limit of a human's ability to throw strikes is a lot lower than a machines, too, which is not a good reason to get rid of human's pitching (although, at really young ages...).

It's OK for games to be played imperfectly.  In fact, it's almost certainly desirable to have them played imperfectly.  It's similarly OK for them to be officiated imperfectly.  While I understand the desire of some people to get every single call right, I disagree that it makes the game better, and I think the experience of replay, both in baseball and in other sports, and the way it disrupts the games is evidence in favor of my position (though I'm sure you, and others, will disagree).

Last edited by jacjacatk
Stats4Gnats posted:

JohnF,

 It may seem to you that I don’t want to see it in other areas, but you’d be mighty wrong. The reason I’m interested only in calling pitches not swung at right now for MLB, is that the technology is already in place and proven to have no effect on the flow of the game other than to help it.

 I know it “goes both ways” but I don’t care! What I want is for the calls to be consistent from game to game and from start to finish.

 I’m sure that right now it’s affordable only to professional baseball, but if and when MLB starts using it, the floodgates will open for technology to exploit other venues and it won’t take long for the price to come down to where it’s affordable to other levels as well.

 What hasn’t worked consistently? The system in place now has made the game better because it’s made umpires better. But the upper limit of a human being’s ability to call pitches not swung at correctly is a lot lower than a machine’s. Do you realize 1% of the pitches in a ML game is about 25. You talk as though its only one or two pitches. I keep in mind that every pitch changes what takes place after it.

 I don’t worry one whit about people going crazy if a “true strike zone” is called! If it changes the game in what’s perceived to be a bad way, the same thing that’s been done for over 100 years will take place. They’ll change the strike zone definition.

I think your math is off a little.  Average number of pitches in a MLB game is 392.  1% of that is not 25!  It is about 4!!!!  That is pretty close to one or two!

Since you didn't address my other point which was perhaps more up your alley, I'll turn the tables a bit. Technology today knows a lot of things and can factor in an incredible amount of data in a blazingly short time period. Factors such as size of the stadium, height of the grass, quality of the field crew, infield "soft" or "hard" ness, location of players, speed of pitch, speed of bat, speed of batted ball, topspin, backspin, rain/snow, heat, humidity, wind, elevation, propensity for certain fielders to make certain plays, location of the sun or lights, flight of the ball, whether a gnat affects a play, etc., etc.  It's all data analytics, they make movies about it ;-).

So why does this matter? Well, today when scoring a game it's up to a human to ultimately decide whether a batted ball should be scored an error or a hit. Yes, there are guidelines, history, yadda, yadda.  But a computer can decide a lot of things based on algorithms to determine how any one play in time should be scored. It can record that *and* use it for the future.  It can provide gobs of details afterwards as well for anyone with the time or desire to consume.  So does or should that obsolete the "official scorer"?  Personally, I think not.  You know why?  Because algorithms break down, there are bugs in the code, injuries that happen during a game or even a play, and some factor not considered can affect the result.  Besides similar to balls/strikes - the "questions" about judgement on scoring a single play over the course of a game results in less than 1% of the total plays that were either judged correctly or weren't controversial. 

cabbagedad posted:
Stats4Gnats posted:

... Do you realize 1% of the pitches in a ML game is about 25. You talk as though its only one or two pitches. I keep in mind that every pitch changes what takes place after it.

 ....

Huh?

I get that.  Hitter has an 0-1 count, watches a pitch well out of the zone get called a strike.   His chance of reaching base with an 0-2 count are much less than with 1-1 count.

Anyway, drifting along on the topic of  HS umpiring, here's a situation I'd be interested in comments on, though to be honest I don't know all of the circumstances to it's somewhat rhetorical.

A player in our league was disqualified for play during the final 3 weeks of his senior season because he was ejected from a game for a second time this season, which is apparently a league rule.  So question #1 is -- is that a good rule?  #2  has to due with causes for ejections. I witnessed the player's first ejection and it was well-deserved.  Catcher tagged him hard on a possible dropped 3rd strike. He did not like it, and then he called the catcher an effing f****t after he struck out.  I did not witness his second  ejection, but I heard that it was done by an ump who is known to tell both coaches in the plate meeting that any time he hears a player utter the F word that is cause for ejection.  Apparently he did with this kid, but I don't know the specifics.   If he cursed an opponent again, fine. But if he said the magic word to himself after missing a play or something like that, it seems like a bit much.  This kid is clearly no choirboy but it's a shame to lose his last few weeks of his final season of baseball due a word.

umpin757 posted:

I think your math is off a little.  Average number of pitches in a MLB game is 392.  1% of that is not 25!  It is about 4!!!!  That is pretty close to one or two!

 

Actually, I didn’t look the number up. I just used 250 per game because I thought it was on the low end and didn’t want to get into the upper limits. I appreciate you looking it up and don’t mind being corrected at all. Thanx.

JohnF posted:

Since you didn't address my other point which was perhaps more up your alley, I'll turn the tables a bit. Technology today knows a lot of things and can factor in an incredible amount of data in a blazingly short time period. Factors such as size of the stadium, height of the grass, quality of the field crew, infield "soft" or "hard" ness, location of players, speed of pitch, speed of bat, speed of batted ball, topspin, backspin, rain/snow, heat, humidity, wind, elevation, propensity for certain fielders to make certain plays, location of the sun or lights, flight of the ball, whether a gnat affects a play, etc., etc.  It's all data analytics, they make movies about it ;-).

 

So why does this matter? Well, today when scoring a game it's up to a human to ultimately decide whether a batted ball should be scored an error or a hit. Yes, there are guidelines, history, yadda, yadda.  But a computer can decide a lot of things based on algorithms to determine how any one play in time should be scored. It can record that *and* use it for the future.  It can provide gobs of details afterwards as well for anyone with the time or desire to consume.  So does or should that obsolete the "official scorer"?  Personally, I think not.  You know why?  Because algorithms break down, there are bugs in the code, injuries that happen during a game or even a play, and some factor not considered can affect the result.  Besides similar to balls/strikes - the "questions" about judgement on scoring a single play over the course of a game results in less than 1% of the total plays that were either judged correctly or weren't controversial. 

 

Maybe I’m just missing what your other point is.

 

You seemed to have gone way off track with the scorer, but that’s OK too. I just don’t see what the scorer has to do with it. There’s no scorer’s judgement on a pitch not swung at. It is what the umpire says it is, no matter where the pitch was. As for data analytics, there are “gobs of details” available and the vast majority aren’t things the scorer marks. There’s a report for batters and runners, fielders, and pitchers, along with 13 additional items. There are also 6 percentages calculated from the scorer’s information.

 

The rest of the data, and there’s a boatload of it, come from technology, not the official scorer, so his/her job isn’t in any jeopardy. But, even at that, everything a scorer marks is subject to scrutiny and can and may be overturned. Why not the calling of a pitch not swung at?

JCG posted:

A player in our league was disqualified for play during the final 3 weeks of his senior season because he was ejected from a game for a second time this season, which is apparently a league rule.  So question #1 is -- is that a good rule?  #2  has to due with causes for ejections. I witnessed the player's first ejection and it was well-deserved.  Catcher tagged him hard on a possible dropped 3rd strike. He did not like it, and then he called the catcher an effing f****t after he struck out.  I did not witness his second  ejection, but I heard that it was done by an ump who is known to tell both coaches in the plate meeting that any time he hears a player utter the F word that is cause for ejection.  Apparently he did with this kid, but I don't know the specifics.   If he cursed an opponent again, fine. But if he said the magic word to himself after missing a play or something like that, it seems like a bit much.  This kid is clearly no choirboy but it's a shame to lose his last few weeks of his final season of baseball due a word.

He absolutely deserves to get ejected and and miss the rest of the season.  It is literally in the rules that cuss words are not to be said under NFHS rules (I don't remember the exact wording).  People know (or at least should) these rules and he chose to break it.  He had a choice to control himself or to continue behaving the same way he's always behaved.  

I didn't know that about NFHS rules, so fair enough.  Funny thing is tho that this can be another area in which blue can prove himself human at times.  A few years ago a player I know was tossed from a game for cursing. I've known this kid for years and he was, and still is, the most honest and upright kid you can imagine. A  model citizen. He said he didn't say the word but a nearby kid did.  I'd literally bet the house on it.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×