Which Strike Zone?

[klaiggeb]

On the post game show, Flan called it a "tight strike zone, early."

I call it 'two different strike zones;' one for them, one for us.

I don't pretend to be perfect, but after the 10th or 11th time of seeing the SAME PITCH LOCATION called one way for LA, and the other way for us, I got the message.

And it went on the entire game.

We're only 2 games into the season, and I'm already unhappy with prejudiced home plate umpiring.

And don't even get me started on that guy calling Pence "out" at 1B.

This is, and always has been my bitch against officials. Top teams get the calls one way, the others..."well, oh, golly gee. I just didn't see it that way."

boly

[sfgdood]

it's inconceivable to me that balls and strikes are not called by computer sensors when the technology exists to get it right EVERY TIME. I look forward to the day when horrible terms like 'low ball or high ball" umpiring and "pitch framing" are things of the archaic past

[rog]

This is, and always has been my bitch against officials. Top teams get the calls one way, the others..."well, oh, golly gee. I just didn't see it that way."


Rog --I was shocked to find that with two different strike zones the one that went against the offense was against the Giants. Just shocked.

Let's think about this logically. When the Giants come to the plate, the following happen:

The ball comes the plate. The umpire follows it into the catcher's glove. The umpire judges where the pitch is. The umpire determines that the pitch is out of the strike zone, but since he's favoring the Dodgers, he determines that he will call it a strike. He double checks to be sure it is the Giants at the plate. Then he thinks about whether the pitch was close enough for him to call it a strike without being obvious. Then he thinks about whether the call will affect his evaluation too much or not. Then he thinks about whether he's already called to many balls strikes with the Giants at the plate.

Then he calls the pitch a strike, even though it was a ball.


When the Dodgers come to the plate:

The ball crosses the plate. The umpire follows it into the catcher's mitt. The umpire judges where the pitch is. The umpire that the pitch was in the strike zone, but since he's favoring the Dodgers, he determines he will call it a ball. He double checks to be sure it is the Dodgers at the plate. Then he thinks about whether the pitch was close enough for him to call it a ball without being too obvious. Then he thinks about whether the call will affect his evaluation too much. Then he thinks about how may strikes he has called a ball with the Dodgers at the plate.

My question is, how does the umpire make all these determinations without taking so long on the call that it is obvious?

Or is it more likely that a fan, who is biased far more than the umpire, sees what he believes is favoritism when in truth it really isn't?

Now that isn't to say umpires never miss pitches. They do. That's not to say that an umpire isn't affected subconsciously and favors one team or the other, one player or the other, once in a while.

What it is to say though is that a fan who has admitted he is biased against umpires, and who naturally is biased in favor of the team he roots for, is likely incorrect when he says that 10 or 11 pitches went in favor of the Dodgers, apparently with none or just a few that went in favor of the Giants.

How does the umpire make all those considerations so quickly? Try it yourself and see how quickly you can go through all the steps.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4376/which-strike-zone#ixzz5BNr3IgK6

[rog]

it's inconceivable to me that balls and strikes are not called by computer sensors when the technology exists to get it right EVERY TIME. I look forward to the day when horrible terms like 'low ball or high ball" umpiring and "pitch framing" are things of the archaic past


Rog -- Have you written the commissioner to tell him of your feelings? I agree with you. I think the technology exists -- or could be brought into existence -- for virtually ALL calls -- strikes, safe/out, catch/no catch to be made electronically. I don't feel strongly enough about it to write to the commissioner, especially with instant replay in existence, but I do agree with you.

I hope you have written the commissioner or will do so if you fell that strongly about the situation.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4376/which-strike-zone?page=1#ixzz5BNzC5Opq

[Islandboagie]

I've never been a fan of computers taking over people's jobs. But I realize it makes sense for production and cost. In baseball's case, I am even less a fan of removing the human element of umpiring. It's a part of the game and lore. The people who want to remove umpires are people who want to make it more of a betting-friendly sport. I still can't understand how people that are true fans of baseball would want that change.

[sfgdood]

I only want computers calling balls and strikes because, as in tennis, the calls are instant and would not interfere with the rhythm of the game while at the same time it WOULD take away piss poor umpiring that nobody likes. It would take away pitches in the strike zone called a ball because it was away from the target. It would take away catchers stealing strikes that aren't deserved. It would take away pitches being judged on reputation. It would also completely eliminate arguing over balls and strike calls.

[Islandboagie]

It would also make it a more offensive game. Every stadium would generate coors field type scores. It would make perfect games a thing of the past. Plus I don't believe the accurate technology exists.

[rog]

I think the technology exists in the broad sense and could be adapted to fit baseball's needs. I'm not certain of this, but I believe it to be true. The only downside I see is that it would almost certainly be expensive. One thing that would get in the way is that players would cheat the technology if they could get away with it.

I hadn't thought of it, but I agree with you that more accurate ball and strike calls would benefit the hitter. He would have more certainty about the strike zone, and that should make it easier for him to hit. For pitchers, it would increase the importance of control.