I think we're saying the same thing, but with different words, HaverDad.
What irks me is taking a strike in a 9-10 year old game. That has nothing to do with pitch recognition. Often (maybe usually), it means not swinging at one right down Broadway. To me, that takes part of the fun out of the game. At that age, the game should be nothing but fun.
quote:Originally posted by HaverDad:quote:Taking a strike (or two) at that age is a crime.
I try to limit my posts to distilled first-person observations or scientific citations. The following are distilled from 50+ years of playing and coaching experience:
No player enjoys 6-inning games with 8, 9, 10 walks per team. Nor should any coach teach "waiting for walks" disguised as "plate patience".
That said, age 9/10 IS THE RIGHT TIME to begin learning and applying pitch recognition fundamentals... which rely on a long, complex learning curve, and are naturally limited (at that age) to simple ball/strike identification.
Only a small fraction of players are ever really trained to trained in this regard, while pitch recognition and patience become more difficult and often impossible to teach and learn... once bad habits are established.
Pretty much my feelings as well.Trying to get kids to swing instead of "looking" for walks is a chore,at best for those of us that are trying to help the kids learn.
On the otherhand,you can't expect kids to swing at pitches over their heads and at their ankles,which I have seen both called strikes on my own son this year.He has had to adjust to horrible umpiring to fit what he THINKS their strike zone will be and that is wrong.At that age it should be what they can hit,I agree with that but it has moved beyond what they can hit to what can "I" call a strike and that is wrong.imo
Umpires who have "bad strike zones" get kids into bad hitting habits
Dash--what you speak of is just a coverup for lazy and bad umpiring---a good coach does not teach akid to swing at pitches out of what is the "real" strike zone--as they get older they can learn to adjust but at 9/10 you want them to swing at true strikes not what a "bad" umpire thinks is a strike in his mind
Dash--what you speak of is just a coverup for lazy and bad umpiring---a good coach does not teach akid to swing at pitches out of what is the "real" strike zone--as they get older they can learn to adjust but at 9/10 you want them to swing at true strikes not what a "bad" umpire thinks is a strike in his mind
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
Umpires who have "bad strike zones" get kids into bad hitting habits
Dash--what you speak of is just a coverup for lazy and bad umpiring---a good coach does not teach akid to swing at pitches out of what is the "real" strike zone--as they get older they can learn to adjust but at 9/10 you want them to swing at true strikes not what a "bad" umpire thinks is a strike in his mind
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that coaches teach 9-10 year olds to only swing at pitches in the "rulebook" strike zone?
I am not being facetious. Just curious. I don't work amall boy ball.
1. My rant was against taking strikes. That means the kid stands there with the bat on his shoulder and does nothing until the umpire calls at least one strike (sometimes 2). Makes no difference where the pitch is or what the zone is that day. You learn nothing doing that. For 9-10 year olds, that is total BS and cheats them out of having fun through putting the ball in play. The purpose of taking a strike is to draw a walk and/or wear out another 9-year old by having him throw a million pitches (perhaps discouraging him from ever taking the hill again). Good job coach (to no one in particular here).
2. I never said anything about swinging at pitches over the head or at the ankles. I said kids should learn which pitches they can hit (those are usually strikes) and which pitches they can't hit (those are usually balls). The strike zone varies. The pitches they can hit don't.
3. To all of you speaking of the "selfish", "egocentric," "terrible," "dishonest," "lazy," "consistantly [sic] bad," "horrible," umipres with the "wrong attitude" who are "short-changing the game" and "stealing the game from the players" with their "obscene strike zones" (I got all of those quotes from this single thread, so you know what we're up against, hahaha):
Sometimes you get stuck with ****** umpires. That is unfortunate and I wish it weren't the case. BUT - deal with it with class. Don't bring it on the field. It's ugly, sets the wrong example and does no good. You don't get any calls by acting like an a$$hole. Take it up with the assigner. We want the bad ones weeded out too.
2. I never said anything about swinging at pitches over the head or at the ankles. I said kids should learn which pitches they can hit (those are usually strikes) and which pitches they can't hit (those are usually balls). The strike zone varies. The pitches they can hit don't.
3. To all of you speaking of the "selfish", "egocentric," "terrible," "dishonest," "lazy," "consistantly [sic] bad," "horrible," umipres with the "wrong attitude" who are "short-changing the game" and "stealing the game from the players" with their "obscene strike zones" (I got all of those quotes from this single thread, so you know what we're up against, hahaha):
Sometimes you get stuck with ****** umpires. That is unfortunate and I wish it weren't the case. BUT - deal with it with class. Don't bring it on the field. It's ugly, sets the wrong example and does no good. You don't get any calls by acting like an a$$hole. Take it up with the assigner. We want the bad ones weeded out too.
There is never a problem if the umpire calls the correct strike zone and keeps it that way during the game
As for teaching 9/10 years to swing at only pitches in the strike zone the answer is yes---why would you not teach them to do this?
As for teaching 9/10 years to swing at only pitches in the strike zone the answer is yes---why would you not teach them to do this?
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
There is never a problem if the umpire calls the correct strike zone and keeps it that way during the game
As for teaching 9/10 years to swing at only pitches in the strike zone the answer is yes---why would you not teach them to do this?
As I said, I don't work small boy ball, I have no horse in this race. I just wasn't sure if by "correct strike zone" for 9-10 year olds, you meant the OBR rulebook strike zone. Now I know.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
There is never a problem if the umpire calls the correct strike zone and keeps it that way during the game
And if this doesn't happen to your standards, just what kind of "problems" come up?
dash
It is not about my standards--it is about what the rule book calls for
Fact is many umps use their own "zone" not the real one
It is not about my standards--it is about what the rule book calls for
Fact is many umps use their own "zone" not the real one
What problems are you talking about?
In general, I expect most of those who have expressed their concerns would agree that the big problem is when any umpire's variable "signature" strike zone tips competitive balance.
Perhaps it "works" for me, if I've got my best control guy on the mound today and the umpire calls strikes 4+ inches off the plate.
But if it turns your #4 pitcher into Greg Maddox, and takes the bats out of my teams hands, thats a problem and clearly unfair.
Simply put, signature strike zone places too much importance on umpires who should simply be invisible/low impact functionaries.
Perhaps it "works" for me, if I've got my best control guy on the mound today and the umpire calls strikes 4+ inches off the plate.
But if it turns your #4 pitcher into Greg Maddox, and takes the bats out of my teams hands, thats a problem and clearly unfair.
Simply put, signature strike zone places too much importance on umpires who should simply be invisible/low impact functionaries.
FYI:
Over the weekend, there were 15 NCAA D-1 Super Regional games.
The obscene strike zone called by all those egocentric umpires taking the bats out of the hands of the hitters, and turning mediocre pitchers into Greg Maddoxes resulted in an average of 7.9 runs and 4.7 walks per team.
Umpires who call a "by the book" zone don't work those games because they get hammered on their evals.
Over the weekend, there were 15 NCAA D-1 Super Regional games.
The obscene strike zone called by all those egocentric umpires taking the bats out of the hands of the hitters, and turning mediocre pitchers into Greg Maddoxes resulted in an average of 7.9 runs and 4.7 walks per team.
Umpires who call a "by the book" zone don't work those games because they get hammered on their evals.
QUOTE]Originally posted by TRhit:
dash
It is not about my standards--it is about what the rule book calls for
Fact is many umps use their own "zone" not the real one[/QUOTE]
Watch out, because according to some in here, the only strike zone is the one the umpire decides to call. If an ump decides pitches 4 inches off the plate are strikes, it's the hitters job to adust, not the umpires job to adust his strike zone.
dash
It is not about my standards--it is about what the rule book calls for
Fact is many umps use their own "zone" not the real one[/QUOTE]
Watch out, because according to some in here, the only strike zone is the one the umpire decides to call. If an ump decides pitches 4 inches off the plate are strikes, it's the hitters job to adust, not the umpires job to adust his strike zone.
quote:Originally posted by dash_riprock:
FYI:
Over the weekend, there were 15 NCAA D-1 Super Regional games.
The obscene strike zone called by all those egocentric umpires taking the bats out of the hands of the hitters, and turning mediocre pitchers into Greg Maddoxes resulted in an average of 7.9 runs and 4.7 walks per team.
Umpires who call a "by the book" zone don't work those games because they get hammered on their evals.
Nothing like generalizing. Maybe the pitchers were throwing the ball over the plate and the hitters were actually hitting the ball, and when they werent swinging, they were striking out. I don't think you can credit the umpires for good pitching and hitting.
I'm pretty sure if the umpires WEREN'T calling "by the book" strikes, there would have been a lot fewer runs, and a lot more K's.
Sorry but your logic actually supports the other side of the argument.
If an umpire sticks as close as possible to the text book strike, it benefits everyone.
The hitters know they don't have to worry about chasing pitches out of the zone, hence 7.9 runs per game and the pitchers know if the hit a corner or get darn close to it, they'll get the call, hence the low number of walks per game.
cccs
You do not adjust to pitches 4 inches off the plate---that is not what they are taught
You have a coach who backs his players and perhaps gets ejected--all well and good---then you write up the umpire
You do not adjust to pitches 4 inches off the plate---that is not what they are taught
You have a coach who backs his players and perhaps gets ejected--all well and good---then you write up the umpire
cccs
Another thought---are you teaching your 9/10/11 year olds to swing at pitches 4 inches outside the strike zone?
Another thought---are you teaching your 9/10/11 year olds to swing at pitches 4 inches outside the strike zone?
Funny, NEVER once in my life have I ever been asked by a coach to "tighten up" the zone........quite the contrary..............all of them complain when I dont call that ball off the plate a strike........"come on blue I got to have that pitch"..........
quote:Originally posted by piaa_ump:
Funny, NEVER once in my life have I ever been asked by a coach to "tighten up" the zone........quite the contrary..............all of them complain when I dont call that ball off the plate a strike........"come on blue I got to have that pitch"..........
Funny, NEVER once in my life have I ever been asked by a coach when his team was at bat, to "open up" the zone........quite the contrary..............all of them complain when I DO call that ball off the plate a strike........"come on blue that pitch was outside/inside"........
quote:........"come on blue that pitch was outside/inside
Then eject that coach for arguing balls and strikes....up and down can be seen from the dugout........in and out is only best adjudged by the Home plate umpire.....
I have to agree with PIAA, complaints come when the zone is too tight, right to left. They will also complain if it is too big north and south. I watched some of the NCAA superregionals and they were definitely wide outside. I wouldn't go that wide but they certainly were. Of course, part of that is camera angle.
Three umpires talking over beers.
Umpire 1: "Some are strikes, some are balls; I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
Umpire 2: "Some are strikes, some are balls; I call them as they ARE!"
Umpire 3: "Some are strikes, some are balls; but they ain't nuthin til I call 'em!"
Umpire 1: "Some are strikes, some are balls; I calls 'em as I sees 'em."
Umpire 2: "Some are strikes, some are balls; I call them as they ARE!"
Umpire 3: "Some are strikes, some are balls; but they ain't nuthin til I call 'em!"
quote:Originally posted by piaa_ump:quote:........"come on blue that pitch was outside/inside
Then eject that coach for arguing balls and strikes....up and down can be seen from the dugout........in and out is only best adjudged by the Home plate umpire.....
PIAA with all due respect, YOU are the one that gave the example of "come on blue I've got to have that pitch", I'm assuming that was a fictious quote, from a fictious coach, you made in order to help make your point. I was simply providing an example that would support the other side of the argument, an argument I thought had to do with calling pitches outside of the plate strikes. When did this turn into a "should I or shouldn't I toss a coach for arguing balls and strikes?" thread?
Let's stay on point.
I don't know if the coach in PIAA's case ficticious or not, I doubt it, but I know I have certainly heard the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I don't know if the coach in PIAA's case ficticious or not, I doubt it, but I know I have certainly heard the same thing.
Again, my point just did a fly by. All I'm saying is if PIAA wants to throw an example out showing how silly it would be for a coach to ask for the umpire to "tighten up" the zone, I can show how equally silly it would be to have a DC ask the umpire to "open up" the zone.
His point (I'm assuming) had nothing to do with the protocol for handling a coach who's arguing balls and strikes.
Also, since he brought it up, how many times have any of you had a coach get in your ear for calling a text book strike? I'd bet very few of us.
Now how many umpires have had coach argue for or against calling a borderline pitch a strike? I'd bet everyone of us.
The point is this, when umps start caling balls and strikes based on their opinion of what a strike should be, you have problems.
If you think it caught the plate, even though it may not have, you made the call in good faith because you thought from your point of view it caught plate.
I will never fault a blue for missing a close one, however any ump that thinks it's okay to call a pitch a stirke that's 2-4 inches off the plate, deserves any grief he gets when he does so. And to hide behind, "don't argue balls and strikes" when you (generally speaking) know darn good and well the pitch you just called a strike was 4 inches off the plate, is IMHO chicken ****.
I defy anyone to tell my why a pitch, (that the umpire knows at the time he calls it a strike) that's 4 inches off the plate is a strike. What criteria has it met to be a stirke other than, "because I called it one".
I assume some of you still think there has to be some criteria for a pitch to be called a strike?
cccsdad,
I must say, I have agreed with you right down the line here. When I umpired H.S. ball I used home plate as my guide for determining balls and strikes(inside or outside). If I felt the ball was wide of the plate I called it a ball. Seemed simple enough to me at the time.
If the catcher set his mitt up off the plate and the pitcher put it right in his mitt I called it a ball. When the catcher would give me a look I would tell the catcher that if he wants to help his pitcher, he will set up behind the plate, not to the side of it.
I have found that being as fair as possible to all sides concerned makes any task easier. People may not agree with you, but your character will never be questioned. If the pitcher wants me to call a strike, throw the ball in the strike zone and i'll be happy to call a strike. What do I care? Ball? Strike? Who cares!
Because I have been on all sides, I know how each side thinks. I have been the batter, pitcher, catcher, coach and umpire. As a batter, I hated when I had a 3-0 count and the pitcher threw ball four but the umpire called it a strike anyway. So, as an umpire, the pitcher isn't going to get any help from me on a 3-0 count.
One last point, I don't believe that those pitchers in the CWS who were the benefactors of so many calls had any more respect for the home plate ump than other umps who didn't give them a huge strike zone. In fact, they probably had less respect because even though they were getting breaks, they knew in their heart that the umpire wasn't very good.
I must say, I have agreed with you right down the line here. When I umpired H.S. ball I used home plate as my guide for determining balls and strikes(inside or outside). If I felt the ball was wide of the plate I called it a ball. Seemed simple enough to me at the time.
If the catcher set his mitt up off the plate and the pitcher put it right in his mitt I called it a ball. When the catcher would give me a look I would tell the catcher that if he wants to help his pitcher, he will set up behind the plate, not to the side of it.
I have found that being as fair as possible to all sides concerned makes any task easier. People may not agree with you, but your character will never be questioned. If the pitcher wants me to call a strike, throw the ball in the strike zone and i'll be happy to call a strike. What do I care? Ball? Strike? Who cares!
Because I have been on all sides, I know how each side thinks. I have been the batter, pitcher, catcher, coach and umpire. As a batter, I hated when I had a 3-0 count and the pitcher threw ball four but the umpire called it a strike anyway. So, as an umpire, the pitcher isn't going to get any help from me on a 3-0 count.
One last point, I don't believe that those pitchers in the CWS who were the benefactors of so many calls had any more respect for the home plate ump than other umps who didn't give them a huge strike zone. In fact, they probably had less respect because even though they were getting breaks, they knew in their heart that the umpire wasn't very good.
quote:One last point, I don't believe that those pitchers in the CWS who were the benefactors of so many calls had any more respect for the home plate ump than other umps who didn't give them a huge strike zone. In fact, they probably had less respect because even though they were getting breaks, they knew in their heart that the umpire wasn't very good.
I don't think we are all that different in the real world. The ball can off the plate a couple of inches and still touch the plate. That is a fact pure and simple.
The quote above has to be the most idealistic claptrap I have read or heard recently. I try not to be personal on any boards but that was over the top. I am pretty much done with this topic. There is no way we are going to agree on this subject so I am going to just read if I can.
quote:I'm assuming that was a fictious quote, from a fictious coach, you made in order to help make your point.
no, thats a common quote from coaches at my level and experience....not fictious......but you are right, I should stay on point.......but the point is beaten to death....
quote:Originally posted by cccsdad:quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:quote:One last point, I don't believe that those pitchers in the CWS who were the benefactors of so many calls had any more respect for the home plate ump than other umps who didn't give them a huge strike zone. In fact, they probably had less respect because even though they were getting breaks, they knew in their heart that the umpire wasn't very good.
I don't think we are all that different in the real world. The ball can off the plate a couple of inches and still touch the plate. That is a fact pure and simple.
The quote above has to be the most idealistic claptrap I have read or heard recently. I try not to be personal on any boards but that was over the top. I am pretty much done with this topic. There is no way we are going to agree on this subject so I am going to just read if I can.
Taylor, the man said if it caught the plate, "strike" we all understand a pitch can catch part of the plate then tail in or out and may not be caught over the plate, and still be a strike. Again, you tell me why you would ever call a pitch a strike that didn't at some point catch some part of the plate, if you know it didn't?
dash
I truly believe that you have a lot to learn regarding your profession--just from your remarks here you seem to be one of those umpires with an "attiude" such as "I am the game".
I truly believe that you have a lot to learn regarding your profession--just from your remarks here you seem to be one of those umpires with an "attiude" such as "I am the game".
What does this have to do with an umpire calling a pitch 4 inches off the plate a strike?
Pal your credibiltiy is now questioned
Pal your credibiltiy is now questioned