I have a number of theories about balls and strikes and how they are called by home plate umpires.
First of all, it truly amazes me that the dead center field camera angle, which is used in Boston, St. Louis, and Minnesota, and on a number of ball/strike instant replays, isn't used all of the time. At a later date, I will devote an entire post to the travesty that is the network's decision to keep force feeding us the standard center field camera angle. You know the one I mean. The one where both pitcher and batter's box are large in the frame, and a left handed batter trying to hit a left handed pitcher's breaking ball looks about as easy as trying to drink coffee with a fork (That's Willie Stargell's line about trying to hit Sandy Koufax. Where have all the lyrical ball players gone?) Because the standard camera angle isn't straight on, we have no way of knowing which pitches are truly over the plate. With all of the technology at our fingertips, with all of the advanced scouting (I selected high school sophomore Bryce Harper in my fantasy baseball draft), and the sabermetrics, and the blogs, and the comments on blogs, with all of the demand for more sophisticated ways of understanding the sport, isn't it a little bit crazy that the action is shot from an angle where you can't trust what you're looking at?
If you're like me and follow games on Gamecast or Gameday, you might be shocked and frustrated by how bad umpiring has gotten. The outline of the ball is clearly in the rectangular box, how could you have missed that, blue! Whenever I see blown calls on Gamecast I attribute it to the pitcher missing his spot. During the Mets/Phillies game on Saturday, the home plate umpire would not call a strike if the pitcher missed his spot. I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with a catcher setting up on the black when Oliver Perez has no idea where it's going, but that's for another post. It's as if the umpire isn't just deciding whether the pitch crossed over the plate or not, but also judging intent. The catcher was set up inside, you through a somewhat fat strike, thigh high, on the outer third of the plate, therefore I will call a ball because that's not where you meant to throw it. This may sound loony, but remember umpires referred to intent in explaining the absence of the high strike, "We're not going to give that to pitchers because they're trying to keep the ball down. We're not going to reward them for missing their spot." Well, now pitchers don't get the high strike, or the low strike (where they are trying to throw it). Every time they show a borderline low pitch from that dugout camera angle, it's always high enough.
My theory is that umpires are far too wrapped up in the catcher's body. Yeah, you heard me. Remember the Eric Gregg/Livan Hernandez playoff game? I can still see The Crime Dog's look of disbelief as he was wrung up on a pitch a foot and a half off the plate. Last time I looked at the rule book, there was a designated area where the catcher had to position himself. That area is called the catcher's box. There's also supposed to be a batter's box, delineated by white chalk. The only time I've ever seen that rule enforced, Carl Everett looked like he was going to jump through my television set and beat me.
Saturday's Mets/Phillies strike zone was such a clear example of bad umpiring. The pitcher would get the call on a borderline pitch if he hit the target. An inch off the plate, two inches off, why not, the guy threw it right where he wanted. But if that catcher had to reach a few inches towards the middle of the zone, no sir! It may be an issue of where the umpires are positioned. Supposedly, because an umpire always sets up over the inside part of the catcher's body they don't give inside strikes. The rationale being that they can really see that side of the plate, whereas they give more on the outer half because seeing 17" over is inexact. One might ask, why doesn't the guy set up in the middle of the zone no matter where the catcher is?
And another thing. The strike zone is supposed to resemble a rectangle - horizontally from one side of the plate to the other, and vertically from the knees to the letters. Umpires don't really recognize the top of the strike zone, but it is theoretically there. When I watch a game on television it's clear to me that an umpire's actual zone doesn't look so much like a rectangle. It looks more like an oval. An umpire will give a pitcher the very bottom or very top of the strike zone if the pitcher centers the pitch. The same goes for the inverse. The umpire will give a pitcher that strike on the black, but you better split the catcher's body perfectly and hit the glove. An umpire can only give so much. The result is that the height depends on the width and vice verse. The umpire makes it clear that you can throw to one edge of the strike zone, but not to two. The result is, that most dreaded word to associate with umpiring, inconsistency.
And then there's the catcher's body. Presently, I'm very excited about Yankees prospect Jesus Montero, an offensive-minded catcher who is tearing up the pitcher-friendly Florida State League (and who I drafted in my fantasy baseball draft). Montero stands (or squats) at, less than ideal for a catcher, 6' 4," making it difficult for him to get low, and theoretically making the umpire's job even harder. Most scouts don't believe Montero will stick as a catcher, but the Yankees see Montero as a Mike Piazza type (so says Baseball America, anyway). A catcher in the Mike Piazza mold? Maybe I should be the one to tell the Yankees that that's not good.
This got me thinking a little about our old friend Mike, an all-time great offensive player, but a remarkably bad defensive player. I used to try to calculate how many strikes Mike Piazza would cost his pitchers per game. Was it one a game? One an inning? I've never seen a catcher frame pitches so badly. Mike used to move his glove with the impact of the pitch instead of "keeping it there," and then if the pitch was just off the plate, he would jerk his glove back into the strike zone instead of turning his glove. So he had a double move. Catchers are taught, or should be, to move their glove, when catching the baseball, as little as possible. Umpires know that if a catcher brings his glove back towards the strike zone, he didn't think it would be called a strike where it was. The best framers use a bit of psychology. It's better to leave your glove where it is, and turn or shape the pitch, even if it's off the plate, than move the whole glove back towards the zone. The first move in Piazza's style was just an inability to be quiet with his hands as he received the ball. He would stab at the ball, catch it, and let the momentum of the pitch take his glove away from where he caught it. That was followed by the conspicuous full move with the glove back. The Flying Molina Brothers make everything look like a strike, and the Mets had The Pizza Man making strikes look like balls.
Why is it that if a catcher drops a close pitch it never gets called a strike? Why is it that if a catcher gets crossed up, rises up for a fastball, then has to react to a breaking ball, no matter where the pitch is, it never gets called a strike? Why is it that 12 to 6 hooks get judged based on where the catcher catches the ball, and not where the pitch crosses the plate? And why is it that when Randy Johnson is batting the top of his strike zone is below his belt buckle?
Umpires need to keep their eyes on the baseball, call a strike a strike, and stop judging everything based on the positioning and presentation of the catcher.
First of all, it truly amazes me that the dead center field camera angle, which is used in Boston, St. Louis, and Minnesota, and on a number of ball/strike instant replays, isn't used all of the time. At a later date, I will devote an entire post to the travesty that is the network's decision to keep force feeding us the standard center field camera angle. You know the one I mean. The one where both pitcher and batter's box are large in the frame, and a left handed batter trying to hit a left handed pitcher's breaking ball looks about as easy as trying to drink coffee with a fork (That's Willie Stargell's line about trying to hit Sandy Koufax. Where have all the lyrical ball players gone?) Because the standard camera angle isn't straight on, we have no way of knowing which pitches are truly over the plate. With all of the technology at our fingertips, with all of the advanced scouting (I selected high school sophomore Bryce Harper in my fantasy baseball draft), and the sabermetrics, and the blogs, and the comments on blogs, with all of the demand for more sophisticated ways of understanding the sport, isn't it a little bit crazy that the action is shot from an angle where you can't trust what you're looking at?
If you're like me and follow games on Gamecast or Gameday, you might be shocked and frustrated by how bad umpiring has gotten. The outline of the ball is clearly in the rectangular box, how could you have missed that, blue! Whenever I see blown calls on Gamecast I attribute it to the pitcher missing his spot. During the Mets/Phillies game on Saturday, the home plate umpire would not call a strike if the pitcher missed his spot. I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with a catcher setting up on the black when Oliver Perez has no idea where it's going, but that's for another post. It's as if the umpire isn't just deciding whether the pitch crossed over the plate or not, but also judging intent. The catcher was set up inside, you through a somewhat fat strike, thigh high, on the outer third of the plate, therefore I will call a ball because that's not where you meant to throw it. This may sound loony, but remember umpires referred to intent in explaining the absence of the high strike, "We're not going to give that to pitchers because they're trying to keep the ball down. We're not going to reward them for missing their spot." Well, now pitchers don't get the high strike, or the low strike (where they are trying to throw it). Every time they show a borderline low pitch from that dugout camera angle, it's always high enough.
My theory is that umpires are far too wrapped up in the catcher's body. Yeah, you heard me. Remember the Eric Gregg/Livan Hernandez playoff game? I can still see The Crime Dog's look of disbelief as he was wrung up on a pitch a foot and a half off the plate. Last time I looked at the rule book, there was a designated area where the catcher had to position himself. That area is called the catcher's box. There's also supposed to be a batter's box, delineated by white chalk. The only time I've ever seen that rule enforced, Carl Everett looked like he was going to jump through my television set and beat me.
Saturday's Mets/Phillies strike zone was such a clear example of bad umpiring. The pitcher would get the call on a borderline pitch if he hit the target. An inch off the plate, two inches off, why not, the guy threw it right where he wanted. But if that catcher had to reach a few inches towards the middle of the zone, no sir! It may be an issue of where the umpires are positioned. Supposedly, because an umpire always sets up over the inside part of the catcher's body they don't give inside strikes. The rationale being that they can really see that side of the plate, whereas they give more on the outer half because seeing 17" over is inexact. One might ask, why doesn't the guy set up in the middle of the zone no matter where the catcher is?
And another thing. The strike zone is supposed to resemble a rectangle - horizontally from one side of the plate to the other, and vertically from the knees to the letters. Umpires don't really recognize the top of the strike zone, but it is theoretically there. When I watch a game on television it's clear to me that an umpire's actual zone doesn't look so much like a rectangle. It looks more like an oval. An umpire will give a pitcher the very bottom or very top of the strike zone if the pitcher centers the pitch. The same goes for the inverse. The umpire will give a pitcher that strike on the black, but you better split the catcher's body perfectly and hit the glove. An umpire can only give so much. The result is that the height depends on the width and vice verse. The umpire makes it clear that you can throw to one edge of the strike zone, but not to two. The result is, that most dreaded word to associate with umpiring, inconsistency.
And then there's the catcher's body. Presently, I'm very excited about Yankees prospect Jesus Montero, an offensive-minded catcher who is tearing up the pitcher-friendly Florida State League (and who I drafted in my fantasy baseball draft). Montero stands (or squats) at, less than ideal for a catcher, 6' 4," making it difficult for him to get low, and theoretically making the umpire's job even harder. Most scouts don't believe Montero will stick as a catcher, but the Yankees see Montero as a Mike Piazza type (so says Baseball America, anyway). A catcher in the Mike Piazza mold? Maybe I should be the one to tell the Yankees that that's not good.
This got me thinking a little about our old friend Mike, an all-time great offensive player, but a remarkably bad defensive player. I used to try to calculate how many strikes Mike Piazza would cost his pitchers per game. Was it one a game? One an inning? I've never seen a catcher frame pitches so badly. Mike used to move his glove with the impact of the pitch instead of "keeping it there," and then if the pitch was just off the plate, he would jerk his glove back into the strike zone instead of turning his glove. So he had a double move. Catchers are taught, or should be, to move their glove, when catching the baseball, as little as possible. Umpires know that if a catcher brings his glove back towards the strike zone, he didn't think it would be called a strike where it was. The best framers use a bit of psychology. It's better to leave your glove where it is, and turn or shape the pitch, even if it's off the plate, than move the whole glove back towards the zone. The first move in Piazza's style was just an inability to be quiet with his hands as he received the ball. He would stab at the ball, catch it, and let the momentum of the pitch take his glove away from where he caught it. That was followed by the conspicuous full move with the glove back. The Flying Molina Brothers make everything look like a strike, and the Mets had The Pizza Man making strikes look like balls.
Why is it that if a catcher drops a close pitch it never gets called a strike? Why is it that if a catcher gets crossed up, rises up for a fastball, then has to react to a breaking ball, no matter where the pitch is, it never gets called a strike? Why is it that 12 to 6 hooks get judged based on where the catcher catches the ball, and not where the pitch crosses the plate? And why is it that when Randy Johnson is batting the top of his strike zone is below his belt buckle?
Umpires need to keep their eyes on the baseball, call a strike a strike, and stop judging everything based on the positioning and presentation of the catcher.
No comments:
Post a Comment