There’s No Good Reason to Squeeze the Strike Zone

[Ken Krause]

Before I start I want to say that this is not your typical rant about how umpires are terrible and shouldn’t be allowed to walk free with the rest of us. To the contrary, I have tremendous respect for umpires because I know it’s a tough and often thankless job, and that nearly all umpires […]

More...

 

[earlg3]

I wonder if you went to a random softball tournament venue and polled spectators, what percentage would be able to accurate say the strike zone is to the arm pits? How about coaches? Umpires? Players?

 

[The Man In Blue]

There is a thread on here where I went into a detailed description of "the strike zone." @earlg3 you would get a variety of answers because there actually are a variety of strike zones. While @Ken Krause states that USA Softball (then ASA) was "the basis of all rulebooks" that is not accurate. Sorry, I know USA Softball likes to preen around as if they are the softball god.

While one major code likes to just steal rules piecemeal (not saying who, but that picture of a red shirt sure is ugly), the deviate devil is in the deviant details. See that previous thread for those details on the numerous different strike zones (which most umpires do not bother to brush up on).

To the point of the article though, you missed a lot, Ken. (Maybe you should join us as an umpire? No, that was not the usual frustrated cry of exasperation at an ignorant fan, but a self-referential joke about missing calls.)

Why any umpire might call a "shoebox" strike zone can come back to many different reasons.

Let's start with the old adage "you are expected to be perfect on day one and to improve from there." Get into the psyche of a rookie umpire and you might discover this (right or wrong): strikes are more impactful than balls. Is that because you get four balls and only three strikes? Is it because of a perception of a strike being a "negative" and a ball feeling more "neutral?" Not sure, but the inclination (which we try to train out) is to "do less harm." Hey, we aren't doctors.
Another reason to call a "shoebox" zone is because an umpire regularly works a higher level and is doing you a favor by stepping down to call your game. When you spend significant time and mental energy training yourself to see a strike in a certain manner, it is not easy to change that training. I will admit I fall victim to this one. I tell myself "call a bigger zone" at lower levels, but it is hard to override the instinct you have trained. I have heard many umpires say, "I can't call that zone because it will mess me up for my [highest level they call] games."

I could also point out that coaches and fans are often just plain wrong on their perception of the strike zone. There is a reason we don't call it from the bleachers (much safer behind the chain link) or your dugout (that bucket looks more comfortable than 300+ squats).

And sometimes umpires are just plain wrong. We are not professionals. Umpiring is an avocation. The vast majority of umpires do not seek out opportunities to improve (because we have to do that on our own time and dime), are not required to do this, and in fact are incentivized NOT to because of the number of games that people insist need to be played. Hitting a fastball or a curveball is often described as one of the most difficult tasks in sports. I would say calling that pitch is even tougher. You are holding in your mind an imaginary dodecahedron that moves up and down on every pitch (not just every batter) and floats in the air a good six feet away from you, on the other side of the guy/gal in front of you. Now, you have fractions of a second to decide if a sphere that is less than 4 inches in diameter and is traveling straight at you at 60 - 90 mph touches that dodecahedron AS one person swings a bat and it and another person moves around trying to catch it. Don't blink. Don't flinch. Don't get distracted. Now do that 300+ times in a few hours. Don't get too hot. Don't listen to them. Get it perfect.

Get it perfect. Now do better.

 

[Towny9]

I umpires would do well to remember they are Human and 50/50 calls are going to be just that - 50/50. Just keep the close ones balanced between teams and everyone will be happy…or everyone will be upset! Either way balance is good.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Everyone focuses on the strike zone, but I don't even expect MLB umpires to get them all right (and they don't) and even those highly trained umps' strike zones are highly subjective to count, framing (incorporating 'receiving' into this yes), etc. I'm gonna get annoyed, mostly confined to maybe a comment to another coach if at strikes that hit the plate or my player can look up at, but really..

get the other calls right. The batter-pitchup matchup will be fine, even with a badly called strike zone, but do your best to get the foul/fair out/safe, etc calls right, and with authority and volume. Nothing worse than when only half the field knows if the ball is live or dead and then it all has to be sorted out.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I umpires would do well to remember they are Human and 50/50 calls are going to be just that - 50/50. Just keep the close ones balanced between teams and everyone will be happy…or everyone will be upset! Either way balance is good.

I appreciate what you are driving at, Towny, but that bolded part makes me cringe. That is not only a fabricated expectation, but one that leads to the problems.

There is no “balancing” calls. To think that they should be balanced is already showing a fan’s bias. “Balance” and “fairness” are not the same thing.

The call is what the call is. If an umpire is considering balance, then they are doing the job wrong.

If the game naturally occurred totally balanced, then there would be no cause to have umpires or to even play the game, really.

 

[Rolling Hard]

I believe most umpires are socialist trying to equal things out. The faster and better pitcher gets a smaller zone.

 

[Ken Krause]

There is a thread on here where I went into a detailed description of "the strike zone." @earlg3 you would get a variety of answers because there actually are a variety of strike zones. While @Ken Krause states that USA Softball (then ASA) was "the basis of all rulebooks" that is not accurate. Sorry, I know USA Softball likes to preen around as if they are the softball god.

While one major code likes to just steal rules piecemeal (not saying who, but that picture of a red shirt sure is ugly), the deviate devil is in the deviant details. See that previous thread for those details on the numerous different strike zones (which most umpires do not bother to brush up on).

To the point of the article though, you missed a lot, Ken. (Maybe you should join us as an umpire? No, that was not the usual frustrated cry of exasperation at an ignorant fan, but a self-referential joke about missing calls.)

Why any umpire might call a "shoebox" strike zone can come back to many different reasons.

Let's start with the old adage "you are expected to be perfect on day one and to improve from there." Get into the psyche of a rookie umpire and you might discover this (right or wrong): strikes are more impactful than balls. Is that because you get four balls and only three strikes? Is it because of a perception of a strike being a "negative" and a ball feeling more "neutral?" Not sure, but the inclination (which we try to train out) is to "do less harm." Hey, we aren't doctors.
Another reason to call a "shoebox" zone is because an umpire regularly works a higher level and is doing you a favor by stepping down to call your game. When you spend significant time and mental energy training yourself to see a strike in a certain manner, it is not easy to change that training. I will admit I fall victim to this one. I tell myself "call a bigger zone" at lower levels, but it is hard to override the instinct you have trained. I have heard many umpires say, "I can't call that zone because it will mess me up for my [highest level they call] games."

I could also point out that coaches and fans are often just plain wrong on their perception of the strike zone. There is a reason we don't call it from the bleachers (much safer behind the chain link) or your dugout (that bucket looks more comfortable than 300+ squats).

And sometimes umpires are just plain wrong. We are not professionals. Umpiring is an avocation. The vast majority of umpires do not seek out opportunities to improve (because we have to do that on our own time and dime), are not required to do this, and in fact are incentivized NOT to because of the number of games that people insist need to be played. Hitting a fastball or a curveball is often described as one of the most difficult tasks in sports. I would say calling that pitch is even tougher. You are holding in your mind an imaginary dodecahedron that moves up and down on every pitch (not just every batter) and floats in the air a good six feet away from you, on the other side of the guy/gal in front of you. Now, you have fractions of a second to decide if a sphere that is less than 4 inches in diameter and is traveling straight at you at 60 - 90 mph touches that dodecahedron AS one person swings a bat and it and another person moves around trying to catch it. Don't blink. Don't flinch. Don't get distracted. Now do that 300+ times in a few hours. Don't get too hot. Don't listen to them. Get it perfect.

Get it perfect. Now do better.

That was an interesting thread. I liked your intermixing of humor with legit information.

There are subtle differences between various sanctioning bodies but to the average person they're all pretty similar. They all call for the armpits somewhere (except I think it was the NCAA with the sternum), but all were definitely visibly above the beltline. So there should be some credit for stomach-high.

I am not a patched umpire, and I haven't done it in years, but when needed I have put my time in behind the plate. Basically in situations where the supplied umpire couldn't make it and if I didn't do it there wouldn't be a game. Never for my own team, but within the organization I used to coach for. So I Have some idea of what you can and can't see from behind the catcher. I wasn't perfect either but I took pride in making sure I went as close to the book as I could.

Regardless of everyone's exact interpretation of the rules I think if you call a reasonable strike zone, and the same strike zone for both sides, most people will be satisfied. You'll get a groan here and there on wishful thinking, especially on a critical pitch, but nothing major.

If you refuse to call anything but a pitch belt-high down the middle a strike, however, you will have problems and deservedly so in my opinion. My guess is you would probably agree, at least to yourself. I would expect that nothing irks a good umpire more than seeing one do the job poorly.

By the way, I actually had a free day so I got to watch one of my students pitch a game. I thought the umpire, who was working the game by himself, was outstanding. Did I agree with every call? No. But I only questioned a couple (to myself), and even then I would defer to him because he had the better view. It was a pleasure to watch him work.

 

[Towny9]

I appreciate what you are driving at, Towny, but that bolded part makes me cringe. That is not only a fabricated expectation, but one that leads to the problems.

There is no “balancing” calls. To think that they should be balanced is already showing a fan’s bias. “Balance” and “fairness” are not the same thing.

The call is what the call is. If an umpire is considering balance, then they are doing the job wrong.

If the game naturally occurred totally balanced, then there would be no cause to have umpires or to even play the game, really.

My balance comment was really on just the 50/50 calls. Umpires are going to be about 50/50 on the bang bang plays. I just want my 50% and the other team can have theirs. I don’t want to be on the wrong end of all the close ones - that’s all.

 

[angispeds]

Small strike zones favor hitting and defense which is my favorite part of the game at all levels. 2ks per inning is boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk