The top of the strike zone

[Specks]

I'm sure I'll take some heat for this, but here goes..........

 

I'm an umpire and have been for over 20 years. But long before I was an umpire I played the game any chance I got, from LL to my college days. Consistency is only an umpire's friend when it's good consistency. Being a consistently bad balls and strikes umpire doesn't accomplish anything.

 

This isn't to rip anyone, so please don't take it that way. But when I hear fellow umpires talk about batter's needing to adjust to their zone as long as it's consistent, I wonder if that isn't an excuse sometimes for them to not have to hear criticism about their abilities behind the plate.

 

I understand the LL has the strike zone at the armpits on the top end, and as someone who played the game I've always felt that was ridiculous. High heat is a batter's worst nightmare, and when young players are forced to go up the ladder they're destined to fail. Maybe in LL minors where pitchers can hardly find the plate it's okay to call that high of a zone, but in majors and above the zone needs to be lowered.

 

I'll get off of my soap box, and you guys and gals can sock it to me now.....

 

 

Tim.

When I speak of consistant strike zones I of course mean when it's good. I can't recall seeing a game where the umpire was "bad" and consistant, usually the "bad" part comes from inconsistancy. I call a big zone, I'll go 2 balls in and out at least 1 down and the top is usually below the elbows. Some coaches (HS) don't want anything above the navel called, that's too low, he won't like the higher called strike but I will be consistant  and his team will either adjust or they won't. Not my problem.  I agree with you that sometimes the "you have to adjust to my zone" mantra is a way justify having a poor zone but from a playing standpoint it's true. The batter can either watch the pitch that's 3" inside that I strike and go sit down or he can swing at it. My job is to make sure I'm consistant  so he can make the decision of what to do.

[blue23ll]

I agree that calling a high pitch a strike that isn't one will cause a game to deteriorate quite rapidly, I would also like to suggest that calling a very low pitch a strike will also cause the wheels to fall off your game very quickly. Most coaches would be pleased if we didn't call anything above the waist a strike, and MLB did that for a good number of years. My thinking is that a good zone is built from the low pitch up. Get very consistent at calling the low strike, which to me is a great deal more a challenge to call consistently than the high strike.

 

For the record, the area midway between the armpits and belt line is my upper limit strike, which is generally where the batters hands are.

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

 

Please, please, please don't tell me you're arguing the value of that axiom. Every pitch is a strike until proven otherwise.

 

One of the 'proofs' is when the umpire calls the pitch. (because, if the umpire said it, it's true!)

 

It is that simple.

 

If you are not thinknig 'Strike' every time a pitch is thrown, then I submit your games are too long.  JMHO.

 

No I'm not disputing the axiom.  I'm disputing that no pitch ever exists that is questionable as to whether an umpire wants to call it a strike or not.

[blue23ll]

 

Scott,

 

Please, please, please don't tell me you're arguing the value of that axiom. Every pitch is a strike until proven otherwise.

 

One of the 'proofs' is when the umpire calls the pitch. (because, if the umpire said it, it's true!)

 

It is that simple.

 

If you are not thinknig 'Strike' every time a pitch is thrown, then I submit your games are too long.  JMHO.

 

No I'm not disputing the axiom.  I'm disputing that no pitch ever exists that is questionable as to whether an umpire wants to call it a strike or not.

 

There are lots of pitches that are questionable when in the catchers glove, but none should be when its still in the pitcher's hand.

[umpire_scott]

If it "just misses" my zone, it's not a borderline pitch.

 

www.fscl.org/Umpire/STRIKEZONE.pdf

 

 

Read the above. There are numerous other articles that have been written by outstanding and respected officials that discuss what I'm talking about.

 

Tim.

 

So Sparks said he gives two balls off the plate, which is pretty standard.  My point is that he is going to have pitches that come in that are around 2 balls outside, but might be 2 balls plus 1 centimeter.  He may have indecision on those.

[blue23ll]

 

If it "just misses" my zone, it's not a borderline pitch.

 

www.fscl.org/Umpire/STRIKEZONE.pdf

 

 

Read the above. There are numerous other articles that have been written by outstanding and respected officials that discuss what I'm talking about.

 

Tim.

 

So Sparks said he gives two balls off the plate, which is pretty standard.  My point is that he is going to have pitches that come in that are around 2 balls outside, but might be 2 balls plus 1 centimeter.  He may have indecision on those.

 

Okay, there is indecision...now what?

[umpire_scott]

 

 

If it "just misses" my zone, it's not a borderline pitch.

 

www.fscl.org/Umpire/STRIKEZONE.pdf

 

 

Read the above. There are numerous other articles that have been written by outstanding and respected officials that discuss what I'm talking about.

 

Tim.

 

So Sparks said he gives two balls off the plate, which is pretty standard.  My point is that he is going to have pitches that come in that are around 2 balls outside, but might be 2 balls plus 1 centimeter.  He may have indecision on those.

 

Okay, there is indecision...now what?

 

 

Then I would go back to my "rule of thumb".  Indecision inside or high, ball it.  Indecision outside or low, strike it.

[blue23ll]

For the sake of argument, why not decide inside or high a strike as well? Why predispose those particular pitches to be balls?

[SoCal Lurker]

 

I've decided you're a malcontent and a full time contrarian, my young friend. You write too well to read a simple post and misunderstand what was written. Therefore, you misrepresent it only to create an argument. The initial OP didn't even suggest any indecision on his part about seeing his zone. He questioned what others were saying about his zone and whether or not he should listen to it and adjust. I'll say it one more time in the false hope that it might sink in. BORDERLINE pitches are strikes. There's no indecision about it.

 

Tim.

 

I responded directly to him, never speaking to you.  You then take my quote and state you don't understand it.  And I'm the contrarian?  Wow, just wow.

 

I understand your point about borderline pitches, but let's get real.  We are talking about a matter of inches or smaller.  It's not like a borderline pitch versus a pitch an inch outside of that "border" look all that different.  You are trying to simplify the definition of "borderline".  It's not that simple.  Every pitch that comes in you have to look at it hand to mitt and make a decision.  Some are going to be obvious others not so much.  We call "borderline" pitches balls ALL THE TIME.  By your definition nothing "just misses" your zone.

 

 

 

If it "just misses" my zone, it's not a borderline pitch.

 

www.fscl.org/Umpire/STRIKEZONE.pdf

 

 

Read the above. There are numerous other articles that have been written by outstanding and respected officials that discuss what I'm talking about.

 

Tim.

 

 

You guys aren't even disagreeing, you're just speaking different languages.  This is all symantecs:  It can be a zone of size X and anything borderline is a strike.  Or you can say the zone is really x+y and you're not adding in borderline ones.  It's really the same thing.  (Frankly, I like the borderline concept better, but which way you describe it really doesn't matter except to those looking for something to argue about.

[Specks]

Very little indecision (don't know if that a good thing or not). If I'm thinking it could be a strike, it's a strike. When I'm self evaluating during a game and I'm talking to myself about pitches it's rare I say "Greg you shouldn't have called that a strike". It's usually "you could have gotten that one also".

[Mike Prince]

Well another good thread gone to hell...

[noumpere]

Scott,

 

Please, please, please don't tell me you're arguing the value of that axiom. Every pitch is a strike until proven otherwise.

 

That works for some people but it doesnt work for others including me.  I personally prefer "its nothing until I call it."  THat gets me to be more consistent and appropriate.  As we've seen ymmv.

[BigUmpire]

 

 

If it "just misses" my zone, it's not a borderline pitch.

 

www.fscl.org/Umpire/STRIKEZONE.pdf

 

 

Read the above. There are numerous other articles that have been written by outstanding and respected officials that discuss what I'm talking about.

 

Tim.

 

So Sparks said he gives two balls off the plate, which is pretty standard.  My point is that he is going to have pitches that come in that are around 2 balls outside, but might be 2 balls plus 1 centimeter.  He may have indecision on those.

 

Okay, there is indecision...now what?

 

“Often wrong.  Never indecisiveâ€. Noumpere

[BigUmp56]

I'll leave you with this for the evening, Scott. If you're having indecision on pitches now, I think that there will come a time in your umpiring career when you no longer will. Eventually you'll have seen enough pitches that you'll know with complete certainty whether each pitch is a ball or a strike. You'll come to understand that the timing we always talk about on the dish has nothing to do with time. If you're indecisive on close pitches, my guess is that you've never been taught that timing is about the proper use if the eyes and has nothing to do with having to make a last split second decision. If you're tracking the ball properly out of the pitchers hand, you'll know as the ball reaches the plate exactly where F2 will handle it.

To clarify my comments about borderline pitches I first need to apologize to you. I've been involved with umpiring web sites and forums since early '96. From that time until now the entire concept of "borderline" pitches being strikes has been written about in quite a few articles and publications. That along with dozens and dozens of message board discussions. It can get easy to forget that not everyone has read them.

Tim

[umpire_scott]

For the sake of argument, why not decide inside or high a strike as well? Why predispose those particular pitches to be balls?

 

I would say because those are the pitches that get the most arguments form coaches like the OP stated.

[Mike Prince]

Who cares about arguments from coaches - since when do we pander to that?

[RichMSN]

I don't get this indecision thing.  We make decisions on every pitch -- some are easier than others.

 

Do I make mistakes?  Sure, I do.  Usually 1 or 2 pitches in a 7- or 9-inning game I would like back.  There's no indecision about them, though -- I was decisive at the time, I was just wrong (and knew it soon after).

[umpire_scott]

I don't get this indecision thing.  We make decisions on every pitch -- some are easier than others.

 

Do I make mistakes?  Sure, I do.  Usually 1 or 2 pitches in a 7- or 9-inning game I would like back.  There's no indecision about them, though -- I was decisive at the time, I was just wrong (and knew it soon after).

 

That's interesting.  How do you know you were wrong soon after?  I don't recall every knowing I was wrong.  If I knew I wouldn't have gotten it wrong.  But there are more than 1-2 that I wonder or question whether I got them right or not.  And when I say right I mean should have called a strike.  I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.  I'm talking about those pitches that are technically balls (not in the book zone) but most umps call them strikes.

[RichMSN]

 

I don't get this indecision thing.  We make decisions on every pitch -- some are easier than others.

 

Do I make mistakes?  Sure, I do.  Usually 1 or 2 pitches in a 7- or 9-inning game I would like back.  There's no indecision about them, though -- I was decisive at the time, I was just wrong (and knew it soon after).

 

That's interesting.  How do you know you were wrong soon after?  I don't recall every knowing I was wrong.  If I knew I wouldn't have gotten it wrong.  But there are more than 1-2 that I wonder or question whether I got them right or not.  And when I say right I mean should have called a strike.  I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.  I'm talking about those pitches that are technically balls (not in the book zone) but most umps call them strikes.

 

 

I think this illustrates that you simply need more experience.  Good, experienced umpires know when they miss pitches.  We all miss them and usually we know why we miss them.

 

I had one on Sunday.  Catcher moved late, blocked me.  Called it a strike.  Knew right away.  Didn't see it to the glove.  Should've called it a ball.

 

Told the catcher when he came out to tell Kyle (I know the players from years of working their games) I *@#$ed the second strike on him.  Catcher laughed, said he knew I did.  

 

If you don't know if you're missing pitches, you've got a different problem, I think.

[umpire_scott]

Who cares about arguments from coaches - since when do we pander to that?

 

It's not that I pander to them.  Plenty of coaches have argued calls and I was 100% certain of my call and it didn't make me doubt the call at all.  But when I make a call on a close play or close pitch, and I'm not 100% certain, the coach complaining can make me doubt even more.

[Mike Prince]

Who cares about arguments from coaches - since when do we pander to that?

It's not that I pander to them. Plenty of coaches have argued calls and I was 100% certain of my call and it didn't make me doubt the call at all. But when I make a call on a close play or close pitch, and I'm not 100% certain, the coach complaining can make me doubt even more.

With experience comes confidence. As RichMSN said, you'll know when you miss one - you won't need the coach to create doubt.

[BigUmpire]

 

 

 

 

Who cares about arguments from coaches - since when do we pander to that?

It's not that I pander to them. Plenty of coaches have argued calls and I was 100% certain of my call and it didn't make me doubt the call at all. But when I make a call on a close play or close pitch, and I'm not 100% certain, the coach complaining can make me doubt even more.

With experience comes confidence. As RichMSN said, you'll know when you miss one - you won't need the coach to create doubt.

 

• “Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.†noumpere

[Dragon29]

I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.

 

Yes - you probably do. 

 

I'm out.

[noumpere]

This reminds me of Evanses (I think) states of the umpire.  Does anyone else remember this?  You go from:

 

1. Concious Incompetence -- you know that your bad

2. Unconcious Incompetence -- your still bad but think your good

3. Unconcious Competence - your good but don't know it

4. Concious Competence -- your good and you know it

 

(And I might have those slightly wrong).

 

Scott -- your a 2.

 

(Note that I didn't say you were #2, or full of #2. lol. )

[umpire_scott]

 

I think if I were evaluated by K-Zone I'd be fine.

 

Yes - you probably do. 

 

I'm out.

 

 

Is this really necessary?  My point was that I don't call actual strikes balls.  Why is it necessary to be such a pr__k?