Zen and the Art of Strike Zone Maintenance (part 1)

[EdLovrich]

My goal is to miss less than 1 clear strike per 20+ games. The way to do that is to give a good solid zone. The zone is really not that small.

Marriard has a solid goal, near perfection. I would hope that EVERY umpire goes into EVERY game with the goal of not missing a pitch at all. And yes, every pitch leaves the pitcher's hand as a strike and remains a strike until it forces me to call it a ball.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves and peeking at future installments. RADCatcher, don't get ahead of the game

 

[Greatdaytobeawildcat]

call it 240...If I feel I MIGHT have missed 4 of them (and that doesn't mean I DID miss them, just that I would like to see it again), then that means I am confident I got 98.3% of the pitches correct, and that is just to feel I did a solid job.

That's generous math, considering a swing percentage of somewhere between 30% and 50% (meaning there's nothing to miss or get correct really on pitches swung at, except the batter swinging).

As an aside, like players, umps can have particularly amazing days of focus ("in the zone" no pun intended) - where we see everything with enhanced clarity, like it's slowed down. The goal (like a player) is to experience that every game, but that ain't gonna happen. I have had games where I knew from the first pitch that I could not miss. Those days are more rare than I wish.

For me, an average game would be some uncertainty on 2-4 pitches. Usually it's timing too quick, but can be forced into awkward angle by catcher/batter set up. And it's almost never missing a clear strike (though it happens), it's calling a strike on a borderline.

Another thought - with older age groups, if a catcher holds a pitch, and I am uncertain if I got it right, I may ask her "do you think that caught the corner?", and if yes, "I'll take a closer look at those", but I would never say "I got that wrong".

 

[Westwind]

Also you think of every pitch as a strike until it isn't - that mentality really helps on the close calls. The pitch has to convince me it isn't a strike - not that it isn't a ball.

I’m going to paraphrase something Rad said awhile ago that changed how I think of balls and strikes:

In baseball, the ball is pitched outside of the strike zone and moves toward the zone.

In fastpitch, the ball is pitched from within the zone and moves outward from the zone.

This is such a basic observation and difference that I had never noticed or thought about. It is incredibly important for hitters to understand- the idea that you are swinging at every pitch “until you are not”. The idea that the best hitters are often “big zone hitters”. And what Marriard wrote absolutely dovetails with this idea.

 

[radness]

some good tips in here for hitters also

 

[mikfish711]

With DD being a pitcher, it does carry some bias. But as an earlier post stated, consistency is the key. Is it fun to have it consistently bad (which admittedly is quite rare)? No, but at least its a consistent level playing field. I may be jumping ahead of the lesson, but for me, its not the missing pitches in a single game, its the inconsistency in the zones from game to game.

 

[marriard]

Marriard has a solid goal, near perfection. I would hope that EVERY umpire goes into EVERY game with the goal of not missing a pitch at all. And yes, every pitch leaves the pitcher's hand as a strike and remains a strike until it forces me to call it a ball.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves and peeking at future installments. RADCatcher, don't get ahead of the game

I wouldn't call it near perfection.... Just 100% making sure I get the obvious calls right.

I know there are close pitches every game that could have gone either way (and mostly I call those strikes because the pitch hasn't convinced me it is a ball). I also agree with @EdLovrich - it is limiting how many calls per game of any kind - pitches and other plays - I wasn't as certain as I would have liked to have been. Though you would never have known I was uncertain by how I called it

 

[marriard]

As an aside, like players, umps can have particularly amazing days of focus ("in the zone" no pun intended) - where we see everything with enhanced clarity, like it's slowed down. The goal (like a player) is to experience that every game, but that ain't gonna happen. I have had games where I knew from the first pitch that I could not miss. Those days are more rare than I wish.

Those days are great - where everything is aligning perfectly...

There are also days where you just don't have it no matter what you try and you have to fight through it.

Just like players, playing the game...

 

[radness]

I wouldn't call it near perfection.... Just 100% making sure I get the obvious calls right.

I know there are close pitches every game that could have gone either way (and mostly I call those strikes because the pitch hasn't convinced me it is a ball). I also agree with @EdLovrich - it is limiting how many calls per game of any kind - pitches and other plays - I wasn't as certain as I would have liked to have been. Though you would never have known I was uncertain by how I called it

Bold stand up honesty!!!
Kudos

 

[EdLovrich]

Just like players, playing the game...

Except, if a player goes 0'fer it isn't the end of the world.....(yes that is sarcasm)

 

[EdLovrich]

That's generous math, considering a swing percentage of somewhere between 30% and 50% (meaning there's nothing to miss or get correct really on pitches swung at, except the batter swinging).

You might think it is generous, but when you take an exam do the easy questions count the same amount as the hard ones? When a batter takes a CU right over the heart of the plate that she was sitting on, does it count as much for the BA as every other hit?