The Strike Zone

Interesting question. Post this in the "Ask the Umpire" forum - I'll look forward to getting their responses. They are all great guys and really good thinkers.

I agree, this is a very interesting question. I created a shortcut from this thread to the Umpire forum, so you won't need to double-post. (This way it appears in both forums, but keeps all the replies in one thread.)

Julie

You lost me at esoteric....????? I teach history and not a big words class.

Actually a good question though...

This a good question and a much asked one. The short answer is no they aren't cheating and here's why.
First of all all umpires have their own perspective of where the zone is. This doesn't mean interpretation but simply everyone has their own degree of depth perception which will change the zone do a degree. Second the catchers themselves will cause some flucuation by where they set and how high.
Example: The catcher wants a ball inside and sets way inside, he takes the slot away from the PU. This makes the PU move up to see the zone. Many times this looses the down inside for the pitcher.
Example Two: Same catcher sets high because he has a runner on base and he wants to be in a better position to throw him out. This takes the outside and down away because again the ump has to move up to see it.
This is the mechanical side of different strike zones.

Now really the question you are asking is why some call barely anything above the belt and calls too far the outside corner.
The answer is a byproduct of a concept called "Make the expected call." What this means is when a MLB ump calls a strike that is really on the top of the zone then everybody is unhappy. The defense likes it because they get more strikes until they are the offense. Then they complain because they don't think it should be called a strike. What has happened is over the years the umpires have adopted what the players and coaches want called at their level.
Unfortunately some such as the late Eric Gregg took it too far and they had to bring it back to a more reasonable zone. With training and the advent of Quistec it has come back to closer to the real zone.
I know from working semi-pro and college ball that if you get too high you won't be around long. NCAA wants the higher zone called and in the past 5 yrs it has come up. But you still have to call according the level you work. The lower the level the higher and narrower the zone. The higher the lower and wider the zone. Still no matter where you work strikes still have to be hittable pitches.
This is a long answer but there are guys that call zones that are unhittable. Sometimes it is because they aren't very good, sometimes it's because they working for a check instead of trying to give you a good game. The former can be trained, the latter can't.

In a similar vein, I once posted as to why certain umps call a ball an inch off of the black a strike. The black itself is not a part of the strike zone. Then give that inch and theoretically, you've created a zone that is 21 inches (both sides). I've never understood that.

Per the "high strike," we've had 2 umps this year call it. As long as it is a strike both ways, it is fine. We did K 12 times since our hitters have been disciplined to not swing at those pitches up. We didn't adjust very well. That was our fault!

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:

Now really the question you are asking is why some call barely anything above the belt and calls too far the outside corner.
The answer is a byproduct of a concept called "Make the expected call."

Which is a terrible, albeit common, concept. Thank goodness all blues don't subscribe to it.

Nice answer, but it doesn't address some things I have been told by blues. I have had some tell me that if the catcher sets up outside & the pitch goes inside, they won't call it a strike even if they can see it and it is in the zone. Perhaps that falls under the "expected call" philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
The black itself is not a part of the strike zone.

where in writing does it say that?

quote:

Originally posted by wildthingking:
This will sound like a rather esoteric question but is not the strike defined in the rules as follows: Any part of the ball passing over any part of the plate, from the bottom of the knee caps to a mid point between the top of the shoulders to the top of the uniform pants. So then by definition of the rules for a strike are written down and specific. Is not an umpire then breaking the written rules of the game by creating their own strike zone? Do you ever see an umpire purposely call a ball fair that lands two inches foul down a foul line? Why is it then ok for umpires to change the written rules of the game for the strike? Are they not cheating? I am not talking about missed calls but the so called interpreting of the strike zone.

Just a pet peeve of mine.

*chuckle* Posts like this are great.

M. Taylor gave an excellent explanation.

Still no excuse for the "nothing above the belt is a strike", LB.

LonBlue,

"The black" is not part of home plate. In fact, many plates that you buy have no black border at all. The purpose of the black border is simply to provide stark contrast at the edge of the white plate, as an aid to the umpire.

The size of the plate is specified in the rules. The white area is the area specified, the black area is beyond the specified area. So I guess you could say, the rule book indirectly says the black isn't part of the plate when it specifies the plate's dimensions. The rule book doesn't address the black specifically, because the black isn't even a part of the official field.

In amateur baseball, you get guys who ump for second incomes or as a hobby. They are not the very best and you have to expect some shortcomings, just as you expect high school players to boot more ground balls than MLB players.

What I don't understand is the MLB approach. An umpire who refuses to call the strike zone per the rule book should simply be told, "Either you follow the rules as written or you find another career." And then you need to fire a few until the rest get the message. Umps are to enforce the rules, not to make them up as they please. And consistency is not good enough, if you are consistently bad.

Eric Gregg was a well publicized example, but he wasn't exactly fired. He was part of the walkout/lockout and he miscalculated, because when many other umps were taken back, he was not. That's close to a firing but not quite. A better approach would have been to fire him immediately after the 1997 LCS where he was so very awful and became the issue in a game that ultimately determined a World Series champion. Sure, there would've been a union grievance proceeding, and maybe he would've won reinstatement in the end with some sort of probationary status, but with the video evidence they had, MLB should've tried to put its foot down right then and there.

They really still haven't put their foot down.

quote:

Originally posted by LonBlue67:

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
The black itself is not a part of the strike zone.

where in writing does it say that?

The Rule Book doesn't say that. It says that the plate is 17" wide. Therefore, the white portion of a home plate is 17".

"So then by definition of the rules for a strike are written down and specific. Is not an umpire then breaking the written rules of the game by creating their own strike zone? Do you ever see an umpire purposely call a ball fair that lands two inches foul down a foul line? Why is it then ok for umpires to change the written rules of the game for the strike? Are they not cheating? I am not talking about missed calls but the so called interpreting of the strike zone."


To answer your question, the strike zone is a 17 inch wide column above homeplate that extends from just under the batters letters to the hollow of the knee while in a normal stance.....

Now to the reality of it all....I am restating much of this response from a number of former threads here at HSBBW and I encourage you to search for them as they address much about the zone and how it is called.

But to my answer....we 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....

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 hesitate to offer this statement since usually this is the childs way out, but I will offer that it isnt as easy as it seems.....But I will guarantee you that I will keep trying to get better.......

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.......

hope this helps understanding of my point of view....

piaa_ump, nice response.

Regarding the 17 inches, I really don't have a problem in a hs game with the black consistently being called. My problem is when the zone has then been expanded to move outside of that black. It doesn't do justice to the player that has worked very hard on knowing the strike zone to then be asked to expand that far. Naturally, I'm agreeing that the black isn't that much of an adjustment. Again, JMHO! My opinion and roughly $6.00 will get you an extra value meal at Mickey D's!

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
Still no excuse for the "nothing above the belt is a strike", LB.

I excuse nothing, for I am not in authority over this - I work as best I can within the environment I am in. In this environment, there are the rules, conventions/accepted practices based upon authoritative opinions built up over years (sometimes decades), and the 'customer.' Every umpire must apply all of these in varying measure to ensure a correct game, often simultaneously. Most know that there are ~200 errors/contradictions in the 'official rules' , which have to be dealt with in some manner.

It is for this reason that an umpire who attempts to call STRICTLY by the rulebook and no other guide will fail, at levels above middle school (and MS will be a trial). There isnt a varsity league in the country, for example, that would tolerate a pitch more than 1-2 ballwidths above the belt being called a strike. The "rulebook" says 1/2 between the belt and shoulders, which in reality is probably 3-6 ballwidths high. That umpire can refer to the 'book strike' all he wants, but come playoff time, he will be home watching SportCenter. The bottom of the zone is more fungible, but NO ONE wants a truly high strike called. Anywhere but LL, that's fact. This doesnt even start to address things like 'can a curve ball caught in the dirt be a strike?' and all that hoohah. The key is consistency, and the teams' ability to adjust to what zone they are getting that day. This has been the essence of baseball as long as it was decided that some unlucky joker would have to stand back there and actually try to determine where those pitches ended up.

I can understand you guys that try to call it 17" or even add the black and all of the factors mentioned that will skew that slightly. I have a problem with umpires that during the pre-game meeting start off with, 'My strike zone is.....'.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
LonBlue,

"The black" is not part of home plate. In fact, many plates that you buy have no black border at all. The purpose of the black border is simply to provide stark contrast at the edge of the white plate, as an aid to the umpire.

The size of the plate is specified in the rules. The white area is the area specified, the black area is beyond the specified area. So I guess you could say, the rule book indirectly says the black isn't part of the plate when it specifies the plate's dimensions. The rule book doesn't address the black specifically, because the black isn't even a part of the official field.

The black (if there is one) is ~ 1/2" - 1" wide, Id guess. So that fastball that touches that 1/2" border but doesnt touch the white next to it (at 90 mph) is a ball, huh. Nice theoretical position to stake out.

Im certain that if your pitcher walked in the winning run and I answered your query with, "but coach, your pitcher hit the black, but it never got to the white part", you'd completely understand, and thank me for following the rules so carefully.

quote:

In amateur baseball, you get guys who ump for second incomes or as a hobby. They are not the very best and you have to expect some shortcomings, just as you expect high school players to boot more ground balls than MLB players.

What I don't understand is the MLB approach. An umpire who refuses to call the strike zone per the rule book should simply be told, "Either you follow the rules as written or you find another career." And then you need to fire a few until the rest get the message. Umps are to enforce the rules, not to make them up as they please. And consistency is not good enough, if you are consistently bad.

Eric Gregg was a well publicized example, but he wasn't exactly fired. He was part of the walkout/lockout and he miscalculated, because when many other umps were taken back, he was not. That's close to a firing but not quite. A better approach would have been to fire him immediately after the 1997 LCS where he was so very awful and became the issue in a game that ultimately determined a World Series champion. Sure, there would've been a union grievance proceeding, and maybe he would've won reinstatement in the end with some sort of probationary status, but with the video evidence they had, MLB should've tried to put its foot down right then and there.

They really still haven't put their foot down.

Well, just as Supreme Court Justices are not indicative of every lawyer in the country, MLB umpires are not indicative of the vast hordes of amateur umpires. A beginning ump who relies on observation of MLB umpire practices for training is going to be in trouble in short order.

quote:

Originally posted by LonBlue67:

quote:

Originally posted by Texan:
Still no excuse for the "nothing above the belt is a strike", LB.

Every umpire must apply all of these in varying measure to ensure a correct game, often simultaneously. Most know that there are ~200 errors/contradictions in the 'official rules' , which have to be dealt with in some manner.

It is for this reason that an umpire who attempts to call STRICTLY by the rulebook and no other guide will fail, at levels above middle school (and MS will be a trial). There isnt a varsity league in the country, for example, that would tolerate a pitch more than 1-2 ballwidths above the belt being called a strike. The "rulebook" says 1/2 between the belt and shoulders, which in reality is probably 3-6 ballwidths high. That umpire can refer to the 'book strike' all he wants, but come playoff time, he will be home watching SportCenter.

I'm aware of the interps. However, the strike zone is not an area where conflicts exist. Nor is it a topic in the interps.

The only people I hear advocating the "belt is the top of the zone" are some blues and the batter. I've yet to see a coach complain about a pitch 6" above the belt (e.g., bottom of the letters) being called a strike. At least not at HS & college level.

And one to two ball widths above the belt is not the same as "no strikes above the belt".

This comment is for youth games only, I'd rather see the umpire expand his zone a bit up and down, but not off the outside corner. I see so many pitches 5-6 inches off the outside corner called strikes, and the same ump calls a ball for a pitch right down the middle at the belly button.

It seems to me the pitch just below the letters and just below the knees are at least hittable, while the pitch off the outside corner is not. So for me at least, I'd like to see the zone called a little more liberally up and down, but tighten up the outside corner a bit.

Jon

quote:

I can understand you guys that try to call it 17" or even add the black and all of the factors mentioned that will skew that slightly. I have a problem with umpires that during the pre-game meeting start off with, 'My strike zone is.....'.

I believe the umpire who says this truely believes he is doing both teams a favor by letting them know how he interprets the zone.

Most all well-trained umpires will tell you that this is never a good idea and discourage saying anything remotely like that sentence. It would be far better to call the game based on your umpiring ability and experience and allow the Players to adjust...

I will give some direction during the course of a game to the catchers (one on one) on certain marginal calls....

In HS baseball, a majority of pitches can call themselves....you have strikes, balls and fouls.....the art and where you earn your money and reputation are in the marginal calls and I will tell the catcher:

You want that strike, then you:
"Got to Bring him in"
"Got to bring him down"
"Got to bring him Up"

Your catcher should be communicating this to the coach and the pitcher......