Master Index of Archived Threads


Strike Zone

TheOldMole Aug 09 2010 09:03 AM

“The one thing that would make the game faster would be to call a strike on a high fastball down the middle,” Hershiser said. “Calling that pitch would change every at-bat. Right now, that pitch has no chance of being called a strike.” The “high, hard one” that became an American idiom is ball one, despite the written rules. In 1969, the top of the strike zone was moved from the shoulders to the armpits; in 1988, the upper limit became the “horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants.” (It had moved downward informally when umpires switched to more compact chest protectors in the National League in the 1950s and in the American League in the 1970s because the umpires were able to crouch lower.) In the mid-1990s, umpires more frequently gave pitchers calls off the outside corner than up in the zone. The complaint about high strikes dates back decades. In 1987, Peter Gammons wrote in Sports Illustrated that calling those long-lost high strikes would speed up ballgames. He quoted Pete Rose saying, “The major reason that games are so long and boring today is the strike zones are so damned small.” The recent marathons between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox are a testament to the idea because both teams are devoted practitioners of working the strike zone. The games of their first series to open the season were so long that the teams were admonished by the umpire Joe West. Heading into Sunday’s game, the matchups between the Yankees and the Red Sox this season have lasted an average of three and a half hours. Over all, today’s games feature about 27 more pitches than in 1988 (the oldest official pitch counts), equal to nearly an extra full inning of play — although stronger players, smaller ball fields and tighter baseballs also give pitchers more incentive to work around the strike zone. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/sport ... ref=sports And why is it taken for granted that the strike zone is an expression of the umpire's personality?

MFS62 Aug 09 2010 09:37 AM Re: Strike Zone

I wouldn't say personality, but I can say physique. The inside chest protectors allowed them to bend their fat asses down to get their eyes in line with the "top of the zone". Even when that top was lowered, they couldn't get down far enough to do that with the outside protectors. So, a high strike was subject to their personal interpretation. But with some of them, its still a magical mystery tour. Later

Frayed Knot Aug 09 2010 10:01 AM Re: Strike Zone

And why is it taken for granted that the strike zone is an expression of the umpire's personality? Because a bunch of the umps admitted as much. They went way beyond saying that my zone may be a shade different than yours because we're different heights and therefore see things at a different angle, or that not everyone's eyesight is identical, or that one of us tends to give the benefit of doubt to the pitcher while they other favors the hitters. Essentially there was an 'I can't be fired' arrogance that became entrenched with a number of them - at least until that whole ill-fated 'mass resignation' which in turn led to the union split and some of the perceived worst offenders being let go - to the point where several umps had no reservation about publicly saying; 'well just because the rulebook says the zone is defined by X doesn't mean that's how I define MY strike-zone'. More than one expressed a degree of indignation at the idea that MLB even had the right or the power to hold them to the rules as written. Between the turnover following the mass-resignation strategy, the re-organization of the umps under MLB control rather than the separate leagues, and the electronic monitoring systems put in place, I think sort of freelancing has pretty much ended. The recent marathons between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox are a testament to the idea because both teams are devoted practitioners of working the strike zone. Well that plus Posada's 37 trips per game to the mound.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 09 2010 10:11 AM Re: Strike Zone

Between the turnover following the mass-resignation strategy, the re-organization of the umps under MLB control rather than the separate leagues, and the electronic monitoring systems put in place, I think sort of freelancing has pretty much ended. Between the monitoring systems and the greater access to superslomo/high-definition replays for telecasts/internet plays, the pathway to greater accountability has been identified, paved over, and lit with tasteful fixtures. I'm not so sure if said pathway is being taken as often as it needs to be, yet; I mean, if my eyes aren't lying, I still see a strike zone being called two or three different ways-- if the differences are only slight-- in the course of one series more often than not. (With camera placement/fidelity remaining constant.)

Frayed Knot Aug 09 2010 10:21 AM Re: Strike Zone

There are always going to be differences of opinion, especially with ball/strike calls which are difficult under any circumstances. What I think has ended by those various changes listed above is the attitude among umps that they were free to write their own interpretations of rules without fear of oversight. At this point, if baseball wants the high strike to be called again they're going to have to re-tweak (or is that re- re- re-tweak) the definition in the rule book. That one isn't on the umps.

TheOldMole Aug 09 2010 11:44 AM Re: Strike Zone

Richie Phillips was one of the worst things to ever happen to baseball, and I say that as a generally pro-union guy.