| 0 |
Subject: Strike Zone Directive (long)
Posted by: Gangman
- Leader [10434285] Wed, Jul 18, 07:26
FWIW dept. - From this morning's NY Times:
July 18, 2001
A Bad Call
By JIM BOUTON
ORTH EGREMONT, Mass. -- Back in the 60's,
John Rice, an American League umpire, was
having a bad night behind the plate. He
missed a few calls on balls and strikes and
then, like many umpires, he tried to make up
for it by calling a few the other way. But the
more he tried to even things up, the worse it
got. After a few innings, Mickey Mantle
hollered, "Hey, John, what's this next one
going to be?"
This is the problem facing today's umpires,
who now must consider a new criterion,
beyond what they see with their eyes, for
calling pitches: they have to watch the pitch
count. Major League Baseball's directive to
hunt for strikes to shorten games will have
umpires calling questionable strikes and
then, in an effort to be fair, trying to figure out
whose turn it is for the next questionable
strike.
Get ready for some ragged games as the
umpires struggle to adjust. An umpire's strike
zone, like a pitcher's motion or a batter's
swing, is programmed in; this enables him to
be consistent. Every umpire develops his own
version of the strike zone based on a number
of specific factors like a player's height and
posture.
In pregame meetings, after discussing how to
pitch to hitters, managers announce the home
plate umpire, and certain players either groan
or smile. Low-ball hitters, like Paul O'Neill, are
not happy with high-strike umpires. Pitchers
who work the corners, like Atlanta's Greg
Maddux, like wide-strike-zone umpires. What
matters to the players — both pitchers and
batters — is consistency. If they know an
umpire's tendencies, they can adjust.
The umpires have it tough enough this year,
trying to call a uniform strike zone that is more
consistent with the rule book. Asking them to
call more strikes adds to their burden. It's like
telling a hitter to change his swing or a pitcher
to change his motion. Such an alteration is
made only under the supervision of a
knowledgeable coach, not a directive from
management.
Even if Major League Baseball retracts its
directive, the damage has been done. From
now on, umpires will always wonder if high
pitch counts will be held against them.
Pitchers will test the margins of the strike zone
to see what they can get away with. Batters will
swing at pitches they wouldn't otherwise
swing at. Worst of all, fans will have
something new to complain about. I can hear
them hollering now: Was that a real strike or
one of those pitch-count strikes?
Jim Bouton pitched for the New York Yankees
from 1962 to 1968 and is the author of "Ball
Four.''
|
| 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 51521713
Wed, Jul 18, 08:13
|
The worst part is that some umps already have a strike zone that includes a pitch off both sides of the plate. If they're to include "questionable strikes" when there is a high pitch-count, then the strike zone is going to end up being determined more by the batter's box than home plate. I understand baseball's desire to speed up games, but calling a pitch that would otherwise be a close "Ball" a "Strike" is just ludicrous. It would be the equivalent of telling basketball refs to call a basket made if the ball simply hits the rim when the play clock is under 5 seconds. Or a football ref calling a catch a touchdown if it's made within 3 yards, in any direction including out of bounds, with less than 5 seconds on the play clock. What about hockey? If a goalie's save count is getting high, why not call the next "pinger" a goal? IMO, this directive is doing 2 things. 1.) making the strike zone, an already questionable thing in many a baseball fan's mind, even more questionable, and 2.) encouraging "endurance pitchers", like Randy Johnson, to go deep in the count because they will get easier strikes. Why wouldn't RJ take a dangerous hitter to a 3-2 count for a more favorable strike zone under this directive?
|
| 2 | steve houpt
ID: 566481018
Wed, Jul 18, 08:52
|
I'll look later for info and links, but I understand that they compiled pitch counts of umpires and understanding the umpires may have no control of who is pitching (hey if you were behind the plate for all of Ankiel and K Wood games - you will have high counts), they studied film of ones with consistantly high counts. And if they were calling the games the way they were intended, fine. If they thought there was a problem with the way they were calling the balls and strikes, they were addressed.
They used average counts just as a tool to look for problems. I think news coverage and the umpires union may have blown this out of proportion to protect bad umpires. No proof yet.
Have to make trades. Will look later.
|
| 3 | mannytrillo
ID: 43311267
Wed, Jul 18, 08:59
|
hmmmm....very interesting reading...whatever is happening, it's definitely causing some serious tension between managers and umpires (is it just me or is there an above avg. number of managers and players being tossed for arguing?).
my feeling is that if it's just about the length of a game, they should try some other adjustments as well....like limiting these 2 minute breaks between pitches for the batter who has to step out of the box and adjust everything he's wearing.
|
| 4 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Wed, Jul 18, 09:01
|
Steve...that is what I understood. They were not looking at one or two games where there is a high pitch count...they were looking at umpires who had consistently high pitch counts. Then they reviewed the games the umpire had worked behind the plate to study the umpires strike zone. Basically they reviewed the umpires strike zone in attempt to get a more uniform strike zone that is more consistent with the rule book.
As long as they are consistent with this approach I see no problem evaluating umpires like this. In the end you would think the strike zone will be more uniformly called throughout the league by all umpires. My opinion is umpires should be evaluated and the worst should be sent down or replaced at seasons end.
|
| 5 | F Gump
ID: 11625176
Wed, Jul 18, 09:06
|
I saw this item first mentioned (MLB looking at pitch counts) maybe 3 days ago, and steve's explanation is the first that makes sense. MLB has made a concerted effort this year to get the real strike zone enforced, and maybe they are using PC's as an indicator of places to LOOK for problems.
It makes no sense for MLB to theoretically have umps calling bad pitches "strikes" just to speed up the game, and I generally think there must be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more to the story. It also does not fit what MLB has seemed to be trying to do with the umps lately. A "misunderstanding of intent" followed by "overreaction" (from the umps) makes logical sense. I would certainly HOPE that something of that ilk is the real story here.
|
| 6 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 4841319
Wed, Jul 18, 10:59
|
MHO is that the "high strike" has been great
for baseball. I'm not a stat guy, but it sure
seems like there are more traditional low
scoring games this year (am I right?)
But adding the "questionable" strike in the
same year (in midseason even!) is too much.
It's a fraud to even ask the umps to be
"subjective" solely to speed up the game.
Typical of MLB trying to shoot itself in the foot
yet again.
Speaking of that, I hope everyone realizes that
that there may be no baseball at all next
year....
|
| 7 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Jul 18, 11:05
|
True, you have wonder how many of these directives coming from MLB front office are somehow related to the upcoming labor/union talks.
That can go both ways though. How many of these directives have nothing to do with the talks when issued by MLB, but then get blown out of proportion by over zealous pr guys in the players and umpires union? It can go both ways, but I think we are already seeing the consequences of the upcoming meetings.
|
| 8 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Wed, Jul 18, 11:11
|
There is no "subjective strike" the only thing major league baseball is doing is reviewing the work of the umpires and picking out the umpires who have not been calling strikes. They are providing feedback to the umpires who have consistently had games with higher pitch counts telling them things like..."you are still not calling the high strike" "your strikezone is too narrow" "you are not calling low strikes" They are actually reviewing game film to see what pitches each umpire is missing. They are trying to get all of the umpires to call the same zone.
|
| 9 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 18, 11:18
|
From what I heard on the radio yesterday, we may be fortunate to have post season. Yes, thats right. Tony Kornheiser (Yeah, I know, but hear me out) quoted a very reliable source (whose name I conveniently forget), that said the owners are obviously strongly talking lockout following hte season. The kicker is this, that past history demonstrates that when the owners talk this way, the players union takes pre-emptive action (read "strike"). The only way to pre-emp a lockout that would take place following the season would be to strike during the post season.
Did anyone else hear that segment, or can anyone at least quote the exact source?
I am not saying I believe it, but as someone who finally came back to baseball in '98, I would be very bitter if I got burned again. I'll be up front, I'm from Indiana. Baseball simply passes time between hoops seasons (case and point, I actually watched some of the Wizards vs Celtics summer league game on ESPN last night). If it's not there, I will simply keep playing softball once a week, and shoot a lot more hoops with my free time away from the PC and Boob tube. I'll be better off in the long run.
|
| 10 | Ref
ID: 235252912
Wed, Jul 18, 11:23
|
In an interview yesterday, James Mouton said that when they put in the directive, it was very obvious that the high strike was being called. He will not swing at anything he is not accostomed to until that pitch is called or he has 2 strikes and it might be called. He said that the umps started reverting back to the "old" strike zone until there was another directive and the high strike started being called more often again.
Based on that, it reminds me of the NBA refs and the tightened calls a couple years back. Same thing happened. It is jsut very hard to adjust quickly when you've been doing something for so many years.
If baseball is using pitch count as a tool, then I have no problem with that, but I also agree with the umps that those stats could be used against them. Point is, that with enough data over a long enough time, I could see where that could be an effective tool. But at the same time, that would also encourage umps to call more strikes. Did you see all the ejections last night? Look at Karros' pitch that should have walked home a run. That was outside and almost in the dirt. The next pitch he hits into an inning-ending DP and Jack Clark gets tossed.
Personally, I like the high strike, but it is VERY difficult for hitters to catch up with a ball in the 90's up there. Mouton said from what he sees, most umps call the top of the strike zone at the belly button--not the letters. The high strike is really a blessing for those big breaking balls and the RJs of the world who can bring it high. I also HATE when pitchers are given strikes that are clearly outside. I wasn't a good enough hitter myself to be able to have an ump give that pitch to the pitcher and I can empathize with the hitters on that one.
Maybe we can go a couple inches above the belly button and raise the mound to help the pitchers. Couple that with drug testing and not allowing steroids and I think you have a mix that will really help the game. Oh yeah, no outside strikes!!!
|
| 11 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Wed, Jul 18, 11:23
|
Ender...that would figure...the Cubs will probably win the division and be in place to get through the post season and then they will strike. I would be very surprised if that did happen. (surprised if they strike, not surprised if the Cubs make the postseason ;-))
|
| 12 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Jul 18, 11:23
|
Well Ender, that confirms it. If there is going to be a strike to avoid the post season, the world series will have been Boston vs Cubs. This is the year for both those teams and of course, it will never happen.
|
| 13 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 18, 11:40
|
I hadn't thought of it that way, guys, but I think you may be on to something.
|
| 14 | steve houpt
ID: 566481018
Wed, Jul 18, 12:12
|
This data is for starting pitchers only.
BB/9 IP
1998 - 3.20
1999 - 3.49
2000 - 3.57
2001 - 3.16
A further breakdown of 2001.
After:
728 GS - 3.31
1296 GS - 3.22
1692 GS - 3.18
2786 GS - 3.16
What does that mean? Not sure, other than less walks per 9 innings by starters. Would seem to counter James Mouton that they called it early and slacked off, or hitters are just swinging even more because they are not sure.
Looking at strike outs (just starters).
K/9 IP
1998 - 6.36
1999 - 6.13
2000 - 6.22
2001 - 6.36
A further breakdown of 2001.
After:
728 GS - 6.55
1296 GS - 6.47
1692 GS - 6.47
2786 GS - 6.36
Strike outs back up to 1998 level, but have been dropping for year. Warming up, or getting called out less as they 'learn' strike zone being called.
Definitely has reversed 1998-2000 pattern. Not sure if you can put much meaning into 2001 'in season' numbers.
Gangman - ERA for starters.
1998 - 4.55
1999 - 4.82
2000 - 4.87
2001 - 4.68 (that has stayed steady - since May has fluctuated between 4.65 and 4.73 - probably as Colorado travels)
Slight drop. Should mean slight increase of traditional low scoring games.
|
| 15 | F Gump
ID: 11625176
Wed, Jul 18, 12:19
|
Ender The WS will be played. One of the planks of the present CBA is an agreement that precludes any strike/lockout that cancels the playoffs.
There may be a lockout or strike AFTER the season, but not til the WS is done.
|
| 16 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 18, 13:29
|
That's good news, but was not even hinted at on the radio show. Thanks, F Gump.
|
| 18 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Jul 18, 13:37
|
Like I said initially, it was the Tony Kornheiser show :)
|
| 19 | Ref
ID: 1442849
Wed, Jul 18, 15:38
|
They don't call you "The Source" for nothing! I can't imagine how much time you spend researching for all the info you come up with but it is almost 100% of the time very good stuff. Thanks!
|
| 20 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 4841319
Wed, Jul 18, 18:29
|
You know you're a hall of fame Gurupie when
you get a nickname on top of your
nickname...."The Source!"
Thanks for the work, although it certainly
doesn't seem to bolster my perception that
this has been a "particularly" good year for
pitching.
Maybe there has just been more games when
both pitchers are "on". Or that perhaps certain
plate umpires are more pitcher friendly.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|