Calling the strike- philosophy

This is something I have thought about and wondered for a long time; I look forward to hearing the thoughts of some quality umpires here.  To me, a strike is a strike no matter if it was supposed to be inside or outside and happened to cross the plate on the other.  I "get" why MLB umpires may do it, but I suppose I don't agree with it.  The plate is there for a reason...if it crosses it and is in the batter's zone, call it. 

When the catcher has to move his glove from the inside corner completely across the plate, it is likely he will continue to move the glove beyond the outside corner.  Even if the pitch touches the corner, it does not look like a strike and I won't get a good look at it as the catcher catches it.  This may be a strike in Little League but definitely not in HS ball. The plate umpire must see the pitch all the way into the catcher's mitt and decide how close it is to the outside corner based on how the catcher "Frames" it. Calling this a strike will get you into a heap of trouble.

I'd like to add to this string because I'm afraid I'm way out of sync with most umpires.  I've just been working again after a long time off coaching and my zone seems to be very different then many of the experienced umpires I work with.  I'm working some diecent 14u, even 12u ball where the kids are around the zone most of the time and the catchers are doing a pretty good job.  Most of the issues I've had relate to Jr. HS baseball that, to be fair is pretty uneven.  I've got pitchers crossfiring or pushing the ball and catchers dropping strikes. 

the feedback I get from fans and players is that my zone is huge.  I'm see the ball well and can describe it's path all the way to the glove.  What you get is a ball thrown from the third base side of the rubber cutting across the outside of the plate and finally received by the catcher in the left hand batters' box.  I've got a 6' 1" pitcher throwing downhill to a 5' 2" hitter and catching the bottom of the zone with a pitch that the catcher slaps down into the dirt.  I've got inexperienced hitters diving out of the way of pitches moving arm side and passing over the inner third.  I'm sure you all can understand what I'm describing.  The point is these are all strikes in the rule book; any part of the ball passing through any part of the zone.  Unfortunatly, none of these look like strikes. 

At this year's NCAA clinic in Philly, they showed a slide of umpire ratings (1-5) and the comments accompanying the ratings.  "Huge strike zone, but consistent" generally earned a 4 rating (5 is best).  "Tiny zone" got a 1 or 2.  They were making a point - call strikes.  That's what the coaches want.  The only 17" strike zone is in the major leagues (and only at Questec parks).

As Jimmy says, "The kids these days don't swing the bat enough."

Thanks Dash, I guess most coaches would say I fall into the, "huge strike zone, but consistent" category.  I've heard a number of coaches' comments to hitters along the lines of; that's a strike, it's been a strike.  I know from years sitting on the bucket that as a coach you have to go by what your catcher tells you.  You might have a decent idea about height of pitches but no way you can see in and out.  One benefit is that my partners are happy. 

Nobody gets better watching hitters walk to first base.  Doesn't help the hitters, the pitchers, the fielders or the umps.  Call a big but realistic strike zone consistently. 

I like this.  Especially at the lower levels.  When they swing the bat, the ball gets put in play and everyone has places to go and things to do.  Makes for a much better game.

I don't know what level you coach, but coaches I am exposed to, HS and College, do not, at least to me, espouse that philosophy (with the exception of a couple of pitching coaches.)

03:

What I'm talking about is calling pitches that were strikes a strike no matter how bad it looks.  I've coached and umpired HS BB and the conversation I'd have with a coach if we ever did have one, would be that the ball passed throught the strike zone and that that same pitch would be a strike for his pitcher.   An issue is that a catcher can set up away and his pitcher throws a FB 6" off the plate that never enters the zone.  the catcher receives it in his frame but it never was a strike.  Next half inning a kid throws a slide piece that breaks down and away.  The catcher receives that pitch lower and further away then the first pitch but it passed through the zone so as the rules are written it is a strike.  it just looks bad and gets coaches upset. 

3g,

I get what you’re saying, and I applaud you. Too many umpires are influenced by where the catcher is set up or call the pitch at the glove rather than simply call the ball where their best judgment says it was when it was over the plate.

In fairness though, it ain’t an easy task. Most umpires I see, set up with their nose on the inside edge and their eyes at the level of the top of the zone. That’s why I think the most accurate call they can make is that upper inside corner of the zone. Unfortunately though, the further the pitch is from that spot, the less accurately it will be called, until it gets to be the opposite corner of the zone where its at the bottom and the outside of the zone. That’s at least 2’ or more from where the umpire’s set up, and I can understand why that pitch is missed more than any other.

I'm a high school coach and have been for 20 years until this current season.  Maybe this is a different part of the country thing but pretty much everyone I know likes this philosophy.  Not sure why anyone would have a problem with it.  I'm not saying calling things off the plate or really high / low - keep it realistic and get the game moving.  In my experience more chirping from dugouts occur when there are a lot of walks.

The coaches here howl if an umpire goes out, in or down two inches..  And they howl if the rule book upper zone is called.  "Leave that up!" is heard on anything more than a ball above the belt. I am known as the "high strike ump." I call that midway pitch all game, every game.

The zone you describe is tolerated at the frosh level...not above, and certainly not in college games.

Being an umpire is parts art and science....the science part is learning the rules........the art part is calling balls and strikes,...calling balls and strikes in the real game world is a skill..... and being judged by a black and white definition in the rule book can be a challenge.....what is written, isnt often what is seen out there behind the dish......

the only person I try and make happy with my zone is me....I've put a lot of time and effort (games.clinics, evals) working on calling the best zone that my circumstances and ability can deliver. To be honest, its probably not "rule book" perfect.....but its good..and its fair.....

Im not saying I never get a beef about a pitch now and then, but the coaches at the levels I call, would not expect to get strike calls on pitches as described above......

Interesting that you mention the art and science.  I guess that's what I was trying to express.  I'm working very hard on my mechnics for everything including calling balls and strikes.  I'm reading my red book, case book or rule book every day.  However calling balls and strikes seems mechanical right now.  There is no "art" or flow to it.  One pitch that appears to everyone else as a ball, I'm calling a strike.  The next pitch looks closer but I'm calling it a ball. 

I've got good partners and assigners who are helping and I've got lots of games scheduled so I'm sure I'll get better and things will feel more natural. 

Proper ball/strike calling comes from the proper use of the eyes and use of a proper stance  and positioning.  Get the mechanics down and the zone will follow.

Have someone video you. You can't trust what you think you are doing or where you think you are positioned until you see it as others see it.

A strike is a strike imo. So what if the catcher targets knee high and the ball sails letter high? If that's the umpire's strike zone, he needs to call it. Inside, outside, up, down, as long as it's in the zone, I don't care where the catcher sets up.

As a coach, I will take a walk all day, every day. The old saying "A walk is as good as a hit." Holds extra water when your team needs base runners.

The only thing I've ever cared about is the consistency part, I don't care how big or small your zone is, keep it consistent and it's my kids' responsibility to adjust.

I only chirp when you're giving 1 ball out the 1st inning and 3 balls out in the 4th. That just ain't right.

Really?  So six inches outside consistently called strikes would be okay?  It would get me fired.

There are MANY umpires in our area who call the white line of the opposite batters box as if it was the plate. If the ball gets any part of it, you have a strike, unless it's 0-2 or 1-2 when the zone tightens down. If it's 3-0, the zone is huge. I'm talking highest division of varsity baseball in a major metropolitan area.

I'm enjoying the PAC-12 zone a lot more.

I amazed that varsity umpires do that.  They are either poorly trained or lazy and practicing accepted behavior.  

I'm glad you appreciate what you see in the PAC. I'll spread your compliment around.But those of us who work D-1 and high school don't go brain dead and call 29 inch zones when  we are on a school field. Anyone can be trained to call a good strike zone, but someone has to care.  

When the zone is that large it ruins the game. Players have to crowd the plate and flail at balls way off the plate to attempt to foul them off.

There are several of these guys that we saw often. Towards the end my son's senior year, I saw one of them in the parking lot before the game and seriously considered just going back to work.

The college guys are way more consistent and tighter. Pitchers throw strikes, batters swing at them. Much more enjoyable to watch.

If we weren't already calling the zone properly, it was certainly drummed into us at the NCAA clinics this past winter.  McArtor and Hiler drove the point home with use of video and then in the PAC clinic Dan Pedersen made the point again.  No on wants to be in next year's video.

Could you (or other umpires) please share a bit more feedback on this statement?  

I guess my pet peeve has always been with the argument that as long as the strike zone is being called consistent then you just learn to deal with it (implying pitches are being called incorrectly).  I look at the definition of the strike zone and say why not call it as written? We've all heard umpires saying that they will give or won't give a strike in a particular area...why do some feel it is open for interpretation? 

I'm not trying to be an a*@ here, I've just never heard someone describe their craft like piaa_ump did and I'm thinking his outlook may help me better understand..."what is written, isn't often what is seen behind the dish..."

Thanks

From a parents prospective(not that most umpires care LOL) We would just like a strike zone. From the rules. Perhaps from the batters cup to his knees and across the plate. Do HS umps really have to call strikes that are 8 inches off the plate? It seems really silly to give such a wide strike zone off the plate but we see it consistently. Should you reward the pitcher for hitting a mitt that is off the plate or should you call it correctly and reward the batter for knowing balls and strikes? It is very frustrating to see a batter start swing at everything because they had a bad call and now they do not know what a strike is..

Doughnutman, you must be the parent of a hitter  

I agree with you on not calling 8 inches off the plate however according to the definition of the strike zone you're suggesting we get rid of about a 1/3 of what should be called a strike.

I suggested the cup because I know there is no way I could get the belt to the knees. The strike zone is really just getting silly. The rules have absolutely nothing to do if it is a strike or a ball.

What level are the games you are speaking about?

I am the father of a hitter. He is a classic righty that can hit anything up a country mile. Shoulders to the knees. Sometime neck high is OK.  It is gone. But nobody can hit the ball that is 8 inches off the plate and 8 inches off the ground and that pitch is called a strike 70% of the time if the catcher is set up out there. Some umps call it every time. I have seen so many times where there is a bad call off the plate and the batter gets in swing mode because he has no idea what a strike is and he feels like he has to swing at everything. Consistency means nothing. Call it clean and nobody will ever have an issue.

High school highest level in AZ is the level my son plays .I have been watching varsity ball for 4 years and it has been very consistent.  Son is a 4 year varsity kid. Too brag a little, he is on a 4 game HR streak right now.

If your comments are 100% accurate and not affected in any way by your parent/fan bias, or subject to exaggeration,  I   genuinely feel sorry for you.  I have called ball in nine states have never seen a high level high school umpire consistently call a pitch 8 inches off the plate a strike.  That pitch would be, on the outside edge of the ball, 5" into the opposite batter's box.  A high school catcher would have to move so obviously to catch that pitch.  Wow.

Congratulations to your son for being able to hit those pitches without stepping on the plate.

It is pretty consistent. I think it has to do with the new position that umpires take. In the last 10 years or so they stand in a position that is safer but gives them a horrible view of the outside corner. It is a safer position for them and I do not have a problem with that. But you still see bad stike in HS and College. Call the pitch on the plate. Not well off. Even an inch off is still a ball.

What new position?  I have worked in AZ and umpires there, as nearly everywhere work "the slot" ,,the area between the catcher and the batter.  Studies have shown this position to provide the greatest protection and the best and most consistent view of the outside corner.

This is merely an opinion, of course, but I do not remember such a wide strike zone when umpires were over the top of the catcher instead of the slot. Just an observation. I agree that they should be in the safest position possible and that overrides anything in my book. It is a DANGEROUS job!!

Doughnutman and I are from the same "district", which means highest level of baseball at varsity level in AZ. I'm complaining in this thread as a parent of a former pitcher (he is at a D-1 for pitching), who also batted clean up for his team (he is not at a D-1 for hitting). I think I can say I saw this cr*p both ways in HS.

I heard opposing coaches complaining when son was consistently running up his strike out totals by lobbing the ball a foot off the plate. In one exchange I distinctling heard the umpire say, "If I didn't call that, nobody would ever throw a strike". The manager replied, "If you stopped calling it, they'd start throwing real strikes".

Bingo...

Fortunately (that day), his complex logic was completely lost on the umpire.

I'm going to get myself in trouble with this post, but here I go... The problem in AZ  is that the system is based on tenure \ seniority. All umpires doing varsity baseball are very senior or know somebody. To my experience (and I could be wrong), the only evaluations are done during the one scrimmage each team plays before the season. In that game, you can expect two full crews and some 80 year old guy sitting 150' away down a line doing the evaluations. The crews will swap in and out every inning rotating through each position. At the end of the night, every umpire will have had three full innings at HP & BU. Usually around the sixth inning the evaluator gets tired and somebody takes him home.  

After this evaluation, the only other "feedback" I'm aware of is from coaches, who complain to the AIA. Our experience has been if we complain, the better guys will "decline" assingments for us (again based on seniority) and we'll get the guy who doesn't have the internet connection required to decline the invites, but answers his land line when called. He also tends to be the guy who is dugout to dugout and shoe tops to hat brim.

I knew this post would get me in trouble, but here I go deeper.

The guys who fail the evaluation end up doing HS softball, where we don't have such stringent requirements. 

Calling balls and strikes consistently is MY goal. I hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the Childs way out, but I will offer that it isn’t as easy as it seems.....But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better.......

All of my experience leads me to believe that each umpire has their “own” zone....even as we all try to adhere to the rule book definition. I believe that serious umpires all try to call the strike zone as described in the rule book.

Going back on my training, I can tell you based on video proof, that I call the borderline pitch inside and low a strike, but the outside and up pitch a ball.....now that is defining "my zone" over the strict rule book zone....that isn’t an arrogant notion on my part. It 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. Don’t know, 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. Its a condition of my height, my stance, my experience and probably a hundred other factors.......I keep working to refine my zone to fit into the rule book, but truth be told, I probably wont ever get it book rule perfect.....

I hope this helps you see my view....Calling a good strike zone is where an umpire makes his reputation and it is something I work hard on.........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......I will call it a career.......

+1

When umpires were over the catcher, they missed the low pitch quite often  Wide zones go back at least to the 40's, according to films of games.

The slot, with proper head height, distance to catcher and proper use of eyes (following the ball to the mitt) provides the best view and best protection.

Bad strike zones can be, 90% of the time, connected to bad plate stance or mechanics.

As the trainer for an association, my best memories of eye-openers was when we video'd former coaches who decided to become umpires calling pitches in the dirt, strikes.  They didn't believe it when we told them, and were speechless when they saw the videos.  We corrected their mechanics, and, over time, they stopped calling low pitches strikes.

I don't believe anyone purposely has a bad strike zone.  They simply haven't been trained in proper plate work, or have gotten lazy and just assume they are still doing it right.