Two outs, or runners on first and second?

[Rog]

Anybody here who thought the 3-2 pitch to Brian Hicks was called strike three and ultimately resulted in a strike-him-out, throw-him-out double play was a strike?  I'm guessing there were few of us who saw it much differently than Bruce Bochy did, and Bruce quickly got thrown out when he expressed his opinion.  (You're not allowed to argue balls and strikes, although the limit is usually stretched a bit.)

Here is the truth according to Giants beat writer Alex Pavlovic:

Hicks was also at the plate when Bruce Bochy got ejected for the first time this season. He was called out on a slider that actually wasn’t a bad pitch, but looked terrible because of the way Wilin Rosario caught it (and catches most everything):



Brandon Crawford was running, and instead of a walk that put two on for the pitcher (who had two hits Wednesday), the Giants were out of the inning.

“That’s frustrating,” said Bochy, ejected for the 61st time in his career. “That’s a big call. You get the pitcher up and get him out of the way. Obviously I didn’t think the pitch was close. It’s even more frustrating when you’re up here, I’ll leave it at that.”


Unfortunately the chart of the pitch didn't show up here, but there was no space visible between the bottom of the strike zone and location of the pitch.  In other words, the umpire appears to have gotten the call right.

And let me tell you, that's a tough call.  Think about yourself as the umpire.  The pitcher throws the pitch, it's getting fairly close to the plate.  Suddenly the catcher stands up to catch the ball and throw to second -- and you can't see the pitch any more.

Mike Krukow did mention on TV that Rockies catcher Wilin Rosario caught the ball very poorly, but I don't think many watching on TV thought the pitch was a strike. Anyone here who thought it was?

[rxmeister]

I think Rog has solved the problem of the Giants having too many guys named Brandon. Change their names!

[klaiggeb]

Rog---Anybody here who thought the 3-2 pitch to Brian Hicks was called strike three and ultimately resulted in a strike-him-out, throw-him-out double play was a strike? I'm guessing there were few of us who saw it much differently than Bruce Bochy did, and Bruce quickly got thrown out when he expressed his opinion. (You're not allowed to argue balls and strikes, although the limit is usually stretched a bit.)

---boly says---

Nope. No how, no way. I didn't even think it was that close.

boly

[Rog]

Rog---Anybody here who thought the 3-2 pitch to Brian Hicks was called strike three and ultimately resulted in a strike-him-out, throw-him-out double play was a strike? I'm guessing there were few of us who saw it much differently than Bruce Bochy did, and Bruce quickly got thrown out when he expressed his opinion. (You're not allowed to argue balls and strikes, although the limit is usually stretched a bit.)

---boly says---

Nope. No how, no way. I didn't even think it was that close.

Rog -- And that goes to show that we just can't always tell if a pitch is a ball or a strike. I pretty much thought it was a coin flip. And the pitch just DID graze the bottom of the zone.

I'll send you a copy of Pavlovic's article, complete with the graphic that shows just where the pitch was. The graphic shows the pitch ro be right at 21 inches. I'm roughly the same height as Hicks, and 21 inches is just above the bottom of my knee cap.

I realize you don't believe the lasers, but they are more accurate than the umpire, more accurate than you, more accurate than I. They're virtually spot on. They are what MLB uses to evaluate their umpires.

So why did the pitch look so low that you didn't even think it was close? Because our focus rose slightly when Rosario stood up to catch and throw the ball, and primarily because when he caught the ball, his glove was moving downward, making the pitch look lower than it truly was.

To his credit, Mike Krukow mentioned how poorly Rosario had caught the pitch. I don't think Mike called it a strike or a ball, and I believe he -- like virtually everyone else -- thought the pitch was low. But he at least suggested why the pitch might have looked low but not been.

And he was right. To be honest, the pitch was so close that the umpire couldn't have been faulted much for calling it a ball. That he got it right with Rosario stepping up to block his vision was probably more luck than skill. But the point is that he got it right, and I was probably the only one here who thought there was even a CHANCE that the pitch was a strike. I too would likely have called the pitch a ball -- but I thought it was very close.

It was even closer than I thought, and it was indeed a strike -- by a fraction of an inch.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2244/outs-runners-on-first-second#ixzz300l1mNQN

[islandboagie]

Is the low and high part of the zone applied to the plate or the place where the batter is standing? I doubt they adjust it with every at-bat, so I'm assuming the plate is the reference point. Which tells me the zone is wrong. If it's a pitch that breaks down and barely catches the base of the zone over the plate, then it is far too low when it gets to the batter if the batter is standing well behind the plate (which most batters do.)

[Rog]

Boagie -- Is the low and high part of the zone applied to the plate or the place where the batter is standing?

Rog -- The plate. Otherwise the batter could change the strike zone by where he stood.

Boagie -- I doubt they adjust it with every at-bat, so I'm assuming the plate is the reference point. Which tells me the zone is wrong.

Rog -- Huh?

Boagie -- If it's a pitch that breaks down and barely catches the base of the zone over the plate, then it is far too low when it gets to the batter if the batter is standing well behind the plate (which most batters do.)

Rog -- The batter has the option to stand anywhere in the box he wishes. If the pitcher is too fast for him, he can move to the back of the box. If the pitcher has a lot of downward movement, he can stand in the front of the box so the pitch is slightly higher when it crosses him. It is the pitcher's job to throw strikes when the ball crosses the plate. It is the batter's job to stand where he can best hit those pitches.

The pitch we have been discussing was at least a few inches higher than it appeared from the way Rosario caught it. I haven't yet convinced Boly of the accuracy of the lasers, but it is essentially GPS technology. If GPS can be as accurate as it is from thousands of miles away, it seems likely that it is highly accurate from a few hundred feet or less.

MLB uses PITCH/fx as it is called to judge its umpires. Professor James Adair, who in 1987 wrote The Physics of Baseball (an intriguing book if you haven't read it), helped with the system. MLB is telling its umpires that if their call doesn't agree with PITCH/fx, they missed the pitch. MLB has the most stake in the accuracy of its umpires.

That would seem to suggest the system is pretty darn accurate. I think most of us got fooled by the sloppy manner in which Rosario caught the ball -- and perhaps a little bit because we aren't entirely unbiased.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2244/outs-runners-on-first-second#ixzz302lR7Nms

[Rog]

Here is the salient part of what Wikipedia says about PITCHf/x.

"PITCHf/x is a system using two 60 Hz cameras mounted in the stadium to track the speed and location of a pitched baseball from the pitcher's mound to home plate with an accuracy of better than one mile per hour and one inch."

"According to University of Illinois professor Alan M. Nathan, the PITCHf/x system allows analysts to "record with unprecedented precision such quantities as the pitch speed and the location at home plate. But even more importantly, we have measures of quantities that we never had before. As a result, we now have new and novel ways to study the art of pitching."[5]"