Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    After that the Ross AB to end the game it is clear the Ump was not following the letter of the law regarding balls and strikes.  It was clear to the naked eye the pitches were off the plate and the Pitch zone only showed that they were well off the plate.  It seemed as though the Ump was intent on proving a point with the final strike call.  Kind of a power trip "I'll show you" attitude.

    Now all sports have some calls that are open to interpretation.  Pass interference in the NFL, charging vs. blocking in basketball, and most calls in hockey but is Home Plate open to interpretation? 

    We always here that consistency is the most important aspect in calling balls and strikes but in this age of technology that can clearly show when pitches are not strikes, is is acceptable for an umpire to consistently call balls strikes? 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Would you like some cheese with that whine?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]After that the Ross AB to end the game it is clear the Ump was not following the letter of the law regarding balls and strikes.  It was clear to the naked eye the pitches were off the plate and the Pitch zone only showed that they were well off the plate.  It seemed as though the Ump was intent on proving a point with the final strike call.  Kind of a power trip "I'll show you" attitude. Now all sports have some calls that are open to interpretation.  Pass interference in the NFL, charging vs. blocking in basketball, and most calls in hockey but is Home Plate open to interpretation?  We always here that consistency is the most important aspect in calling balls and strikes but in this age of technology that can clearly show when pitches are not strikes, is is acceptable for an umpire to consistently call balls strikes? 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
    Certainly not when the calls are as bad as the ones on Ross. Rodney has yet to throw a strike. That ump should be taken to the woodshed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Call balls/strikes with the Camera and the strike zone will be uniform THOUGH OUT the League!!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]Call balls/strikes with the Camera and the strike zone will be uniform THOUGH OUT the League!!!
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    I think calling every pitch with a camera is excessive and potentially problematic but I think MLB reviewing Ump performance using technology is a must. 

    There is no way that MLB should watch that last AB and not be concerned
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    On what data are you basing your interpretation of the final at-bat?

    Is the strike zone electronically monitored? Or are the pitch locations reported by observers with the naked eye?

    I honestly don't know the answers.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]On what data are you basing your interpretation of the final at-bat? Is the strike zone electronically monitored? Or are the pitch locations reported by observers with the naked eye? I honestly don't know the answers.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]

    They looked outside in real time and the Pitch Zone showed them all to be well outside. 

    Truly, I am more interested in whether or not MLB endorses an "open to interpretation" definition of the width of the plate than I am to just the Ross AB.  The Ross AB just opens the door to the question. 

    Ross got called out on pitches that were clearly, by the MLB definition of what is a strike, not strikes.  Does this concern MLB?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBINFL. Show TBINFL's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective? : The Amica computer system shown on NESN had all five pitches to Ross as being far outside the strikezone.
    Posted by Firefligh2008[/QUOTE]

    Hey pike, looks like you were wrong and schilling was right about bubby v.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    The only way you can truly tell is with an overhead camera. That is the only technology that will give you a true side to side view. CF cameras cannot aide with this as they are not dead center to home plate.

    As for the computers, I don't know enough about them to comment. I would imagine you would need some kind of sensor on all sides of home plate for this to be 100% effective. Not sure how you would set up a computer sensor zone to cover high and low pitches.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Yes.  However the real issue in this case is consistency.  All umpires don't have to have the exact same strike zone (although ideally you don't want huge variation), but I think it is important for them to try and call things consistently.  I think most of the arguments that players get into with umpires over balls and strikes have to do with consistency rather than an absolute understanding of the strike zone.  What was frustrating about the game today is that Rodney definitely got some strike calls that Bard did not get.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE] What was frustrating about the game today is that Rodney definitely got some strike calls that Bard did not get.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    Without question. It also was frustrating that on the last couple pithces to Ross it seemed like he was bent on ringing him up.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective? : Without question. It also was frustrating that on the last couple pithces to Ross it seemed like he was bent on ringing him up.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Not making excuses for the guy, but Rodney was throwing all fastballs whereas a lot of the calls that I think Bard should have gotten were sliders.  Breaking pitches are more difficult to evaluate, particularly when your slider was as filthy as Bard's was today at times.  So who really knows...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Also Ross has to recognize that Rodney is getting those calls.  He had no business watching strike 3 go by.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]On what data are you basing your interpretation of the final at-bat? Is the strike zone electronically monitored? Or are the pitch locations reported by observers with the naked eye? I honestly don't know the answers.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]

    If you are going to play the contrarian, bring a bit more to the table than this.

    How come you have not put up the Bourne / Ellsbury lifetime WAR #s lately?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]Also Ross has to recognize that Rodney is getting those calls.  He had no business watching strike 3 go by.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    Right but he didn't watch strike 3 go by, according to the letter of the law, which was the question I asked in the beginning of this thread.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fizsh. Show fizsh's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    From what I understand, umpires are reviewed.  As far as consistency from umpire to umpire goes, you will never get that.  It is not necessarily because of interpretation of the strike zone either.  Every umpire is different; different height, different girth, they set up behind the catcher differently, different eyesight, not to mention a different backdrop as they move from ballpark to ballpark.  As far as being consistent within the game, that is probably the only complaint a player can have.  But even then it may be different for each team because of the way the catchers set up behind the plate.  For one team the ump may be 4 inches to the left or right or even further back than the other team because of how the catcher sets up.  This gives him a different angle at looking at the ball.  A pitch that is in exactly the same location can appear different.  Also, shadows may change (especially during a day game) which can affect how he sees the ball or the ump may just miss a call.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Why do we want umpires who get noticed.  This guy should not umpire anymore in the league.  Bring up a AAA guy who will do a better job.  There are certainly some down there that are ready.  Simple put if you are bad at your job you get fired.  You can't just show up for work and do a bad job.  Why should it be any different for umpires.  
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NHBALLFAN. Show NHBALLFAN's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]Why do we want umpires who get noticed.  This guy should not umpire anymore in the league.  Bring up a AAA guy who will do a better job.  There are certainly some down there that are ready.  Simple put if you are bad at your job you get fired.  You can't just show up for work and do a bad job.  Why should it be any different for umpires.  
    Posted by Mchampion[/QUOTE]
      Who's gonna pick that AAA ump that would do a better job? For that one batter.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective? : If you are going to play the contrarian, bring a bit more to the table than this.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]
    When I don't know the answer, I ask the question.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    Image Detail
    this always worked for me
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mchampion. Show Mchampion's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective? :   Who's gonna pick that AAA ump that would do a better job? For that one batter.
    Posted by NHBALLFAN[/QUOTE]

    Obviously if he is that bad for one batter, you could assume he hasn't been very good all day.  Its not just about one batter its about doing your job subjectively and not letting emotion into your calls.   I have played for many years and have seen some umpires let their egos make the calls.  There is never a need for that ever.  The Sox didn't lose the game on this one batter that for sure.  They had plenty of opportunities to win this game and didn't get it done.  But lets be real with this guy umpiring for that last batter.  It was just pathetic for everyone to see.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective? : Obviously if he is that bad for one batter, you could assume he hasn't been very good all day.  Its not just about one batter its about doing your job subjectively and not letting emotion into your calls.   I have played for many years and have seen some umpires let their egos make the calls.  There is never a need for that ever.  The Sox didn't lose the game on this one batter that for sure.  They had plenty of opportunities to win this game and didn't get it done.  But lets be real with this guy umpiring for that last batter.  It was just pathetic for everyone to see.
    Posted by Mchampion[/QUOTE]

    Today, the strike zone seemed to get larger as the game went on.  That's very difficult on a hitter - when a ball one at bat is a strike the next.  Particularly in a game when a walk brought in the only run, this was a tough ending to an otherwise terrific series if you're a Sox fan.


     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NHBALLFAN. Show NHBALLFAN's posts

    Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?

    In Response to Re: Are Balls and Strikes Subjective?:
    [QUOTE]The only ones commenting on this should be those who watched NESN, the camera / software analysis of the pitches, and the ten replays on the broadcast and on the postgame show. What exactly qualifies anyone else on offering their opinion?
    Posted by Calzone65[/QUOTE]
     I did see it. I think Bard expanded the strike zone so much in his last inning that the ump lost track of the black.

     

Share