Strike Zone Question

[Comp]

Based on that photo, I believe the bottom of her sternum would be about where the elbow is in the picture. So yes, the top of the ball would need to be below the elboy for a strike.

When dropping into position I do try to get my eyes at the top of the zone.

 

[Ken Krause]

Based on what I've seen in HS ball the last couple of weeks, in order for a pitch to be called a strike all or part of it must be over the plate when it is in the catcher's glove. So you're better off pitching fastballs to the corners than throwing curves or screws if you want to get any called strikes.

 

[JAD]

Vertically the zone is from the top of the knees to the armpits. Does that mean any part of the ball that crosses the zone or does the entire ball have to be in the zone?

In other words is it like the horizontal zone or not. Where the width is 17" plus 2 times the ball diameter.

Thanks,
Tim

Only a portion of the ball needs to cross home plate (horizontal reference) for the pitch to be considered a strike, so I would assume that the same would hold true for the verticle reference (batters knees to armpit). In reality most umpires strike zones are @ 6" below the knee to the belly button. Very rarely will they call strikes 'at the letters'......

 

[T Red]

I would assume that the same would hold true for the verticle reference

Note the entire ball is in the upper zone.

 

[BretMan]

In reality most umpires strike zones are @ 6" below the knee to the belly button. Very rarely will they call strikes 'at the letters'......

In reality, I'm amazed that you've had the opportunity to observe and evaluate MOST of the umpires working games. Really?

Last count I heard there were about 40,000 softball umpires in the United States alone. I guess at least 20,001 of them call the strike zone you described.

 

[BretMan]

Based on the photo...ball or strike?

From what I see in most college games, and going by their definition which is a little different than lower levels, and taking into account any possible distortion from the long-distance telephoto angle, and considering that it doesn't look like the ball has fully reached the catcher so it might still be dropping a little bit...

Probably a little bit high for a strike in a college game. Certainly close enough to be described as a "borderline" pitch and the variable there is going to be the umpire and how he viewed it. If it was called a strike, you wouldn't be able to call it a "gross miss".

Your grandmother in the bleachers could spot a "gross miss" a mile away. Those are easy. The pitches that skirt the borders of the zone are the ones where the umpire earns his bread and butter. Pitchers can thrive there and hitters can die there. As an umpire, you really have to get locked in and be consistent with those borderline calls.

For an ASA or high school game, where the top of the zone is defined as the armpits, I'm calling this a strike all day.

For a low-level rec league game, this is a strike because it is in the same zip code as home plate.

 

[FPump]

According to the letter of the rules, only part of the ball has to be in the "strikezone". Like Druer says though, the strikezone varries.

Coincidentally, in 2008, the NCAA changed the strikezone to be from the bottom of the sternum to the bottom of the knees. This was in response to the rise-ball and effectively killed the rise as anything but a setup pitch. In response to this, MANY ASA umpires treat the strikezone the same in ASA as it is in NCAA, even though the ASA zone never officially changed. The reality is that very few pitches above the belly button will be called strikes, but each strike zone will vary.

Learning each umpires strikezone is a skill that pitchers, hitters, and coaches need to learn. Teaching catchers and pitchers to "expand" the strike zone is also a good skill to know.

-W

top of the knees

 

[Goobie]

In reality, I'm amazed that you've had the opportunity to observe and evaluate MOST of the umpires working games. Really?

Last count I heard there were about 40,000 softball umpires in the United States alone. I guess at least 20,001 of them call the strike zone you described.

Hey BretMan... thanks for all your useful posts. However, posts like this one just really get to me. It is common in the English language to shorten thoughts and sentences when writing. JAD's use of the term "Most" probably does NOT mean "Most of the umpires in the known universe" but rather means "Most of the umpires I have seen." I personally think "MOST" people understood what he was saying.

However just wanted to point out the fact that you use the same type of language trick in your subsequent post

Your grandmother in the bleachers could spot a "gross miss" a mile away.

Playing by your rules, are we all to assume that you have met each and every one of our grandmothers and performed a suitable vision test to ensure they our individual grandmothers can actually perform the feat you describe? Judging by your rules it seem you must have met and evaluated all the millions of grandmothers out there individually. Either that or you are being hypocritical and forcing others to live up to standards that you yourself don't choose to follow when you choose to make a post. Which is it?

As my grandmother would say, "put your big boy britches on and don't be so darn sensitive" when it comes to people talking about your profession.

Again... I do greatly appreciate all of the useful posts you have made over the years. Thanks for that.

 

[MTR]

Hey BretMan... thanks for all your useful posts. However, posts like this one just really get to me. It is common in the English language to shorten thoughts and sentences when writing. JAD's use of the term "Most" probably does NOT mean "Most of the umpires in the known universe" but rather means "Most of the umpires I have seen." I personally think "MOST" people understood what he was saying.

However just wanted to point out the fact that you use the same type of language trick in your subsequent post

Then maybe he should have typed what he meant. Not only is it not common, it is outright lazy to "shorten thoughts" by using unsubstantiated superlatives. Another level of dummying down of the human population out of pure laziness to avoid learning and doing things right.

Playing by your rules, are we all to assume that you have met each and every one of our grandmothers and performed a suitable vision test to ensure they our individual grandmothers can actually perform the feat you describe? Judging by your rules it seem you must have met and evaluated all the millions of grandmothers out there individually. Either that or you are being hypocritical and forcing others to live up to standards that you yourself don't choose to follow when you choose to make a post. Which is it?

As my grandmother would say, "put your big boy britches on and don't be so darn sensitive" when it comes to people talking about your profession.

Or you can just communicate in a common and intelligent manner.

 

[BretMan]

I just had a feeling that post would rub somebody the wrong way...

Maybe it's just me. It seems that using a phrase like, "Your grandmother in the bleachers a mile away", makes it obvious that you're using literary license to illustrate that something is "obvious to even the casual observer". The absurdity of the statement should let anyone reading know that it wasn't intended to be taken literally.

On the other hand, "most" literally means "more than half". To say that "most" members of any group exhibit some behavior you attribute to them, based on observing a tiny sample of the group, is painting that group with a pretty broad brush. And those kind of broad generalizations just happen to get to me.

But the last thing I want to do is make a big deal out of it. It's not like I brutally flamed the guy, called him any names or insulted his grandmother. All I was trying to do was point out that presenting broad generalizations as being "reality" might not really be reality at all.