Knuckleball

[blue23ll]

Scott is analytical. I suspect that the simplicity of this eludes analytical types, because some like to make it more complicated than it really is. 

[mstaylor]

Even an analytical brain should be able to see that starting from a point and anything that is outside a scope is a ball. <br />The pitcher is trying to hit an area over home plate. Assume he will until he doesn't. In other words, know the zone and strike anything that is in it or is a tangent to it. Anything else is a ball.<br />Then fix any tunneling problems and you have a great zone.<br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[PonyUmpire]

My philosophy is that every pitch is nothing until I call it. I am still able to call a big zone, however, by consciously extending the bounds of my zone by 1 - 1 1/2 balls. I see each pitch in, decide where it was relative to my zone, and call it. Treating each pitch like a strike until it proves otherwise seems a lot like anticipating the call.

[Dragon29]

. . ., so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

 

You'd be a coach!

[flastyle727]

Scott isn't analytical; he's a pest. A pest with two much time on his hands.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[ump570]

 

 

 

It just seems if you are "thinking strike until it proves otherwise" then you are setting yourself up to judge it prematurely.  I guess I just don't like to think of any pitch begin judged as anything until it hits the mitt.

People bring a variety of cognitive biases to every situation. Framing effects are well known examples. So your choice is seldom "Should I have a bias or not?" but rather "which bias should I have?"

 

In that context, it is better to put the burden of proof on the side of calling a ball. Doing so will enable you to call more pitches strikes, which yields better baseball at every level.

 

 

I get what you are saying to a point.  I understand that within reason a bigger zone is better than a smaller zone.  

 

But speaking of our cognitive bias what would happen if I didn't leave the "burden of proof" with either side?  You are saying that it's better for me to think of a pitch as a "strike until it proves otherwise" because then I'll call more strikes.  So it stands to reason that if I think the opposite, that it's a ball until proven otherwise, then I would call more balls, so what would the result be if I thought neither?

 

 

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that when your are calling balls and strikes you should not be thinking as much as you should be reacting to the various stimuli.

 

Leave the thinking out of the mix. Read, track, react. Most pitches require no thinking. Perform the same action over and over, the correct way, until it becomes second nature and there will be no need for any cognitive bias, philosophy, or any other higher order thinking skills.

 

Stay a cavmen!

 

I agree with this philosophy. To put it more simply; eventually, after seeing thousands of pitches, you know what a strike looks like and what a ball looks like. If you have proper positioning and mechanics then you can be sure that what you saw was right. Then, just call it! I sometimes tend to overthink what should be a fairly simple task. I mean, we're not performing brain surgery out there. It's just baseball man! Have fun out there and let the chips fall where they may.