I dont think I've ever seen that many O's strike out looking

[El Gordo]

And the real point/difference here is "can't hit" and "would prefer not to hit by expanding your zone," based on what the strike zone is. In practical terms that encompasses hitting the ball to the opposite field.

I agree with Frobby and Ted Williams, this point is silly. Unless your hitting zone is a postage stamp, if it's a ball you can take to RF, its a ball you can hit. But as I have said, whatever.:rolleyestf:

[CA-ORIOLE]

But in last night's game, I observed plenty of first-pitch strikes that were right down the middle, so the issue of the borderline pitch doesn't even come up in that situation.

If you go back, you will see that I mentioned that fact and the need to perhaps change approach. Still even if they were near the middle doesn't necessarily mean they were all good pitches to hit. The Yankees took pitches off the outside corner that were balls and drilled them to the opposite field. They didn't sit there and take called strikes like we did.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Not many hitters can do much with a pitch 2-3 inches off the plate and at the knees. If you figure you are a .150 hitter on those pitches, I see no reason to swing at them until you have two strikes.

All the pitches, or even most weren't in that category. They were hittable pitches off the corner and/or on the black that were being called strikes. The Yankees took many of those same pitches to the opposite field and we didn't/and or couldn't.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think if the batter is looking for something 2-3 inches outside his rate of succes will be much better than you say, especially if he's good at going the other way. The batter can make adjustments. Move a couple inches closer to the plate. Whatever. I mean if you don't accept the umps strike zone you are defeated. It is what it is. Deal with it. You can take a strike and have no chance or you can do your best with the pitch. Seems like an easy choice to me.

This is spot on. I'm not sure why it's so difficult. The Yankee's hitters certainly could do it. I personally don't think most of our hitters can. Hey we got more walks last night though.

[ledzepp8]

It may have been more apparent the past couple days (and a few of those calls were ridiculous), but offense has been down two years in a row because they don't want three to three and half hour games anymore.

Do we really think they're calling strikes 4 inches off the plate because they want to speed up the games? Certainly didn't help last night since they played til like

midnight...

[CA-ORIOLE]

Do we really think they're calling strikes 4 inches off the plate because they want to speed up the games? Certainly didn't help last night since they played til like

midnight...

Again, not that many pitches were that far out of the zone. Last night was an extra inning game and Garcia had huge issues with command. Yes, I believe they have expanded the strike zone to speed up the game. Perhaps not as pronounced as last night's strike zone, but in general.... yes.

[ledzepp8]

Yeah, misrepresent my my position and throw out your strawman. Always nice when you're losing and par for the course. Like RZNJ said, you can stick your head in the sand and avoid reality. The fact is the Yankees are a much more patient team than we are and they went down swinging at many of the same pitches that we went down looking at last night.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I don't get what you're saying here. Are you praising the Yankees for swinging and missing on strike three 3 inches off the plate rather than looking like the Orioles? Honestly what is the difference? The Yankees didn't win because they adjusted and hit a poor pitch off the plate because they knew it would be called a strike. They won because Strop blew 2 fast balls by Ibanez and then decided to throw a breaking ball, which he hung.

[ledzepp8]

Again, not that many pitches were that far out of the zone. Last night was an extra inning game and Garcia had huge issues with command. Yes, I believe they have expanded the strike zone to speed up the game. Perhaps not as pronounced as last night's strike zone, but in general.... yes.

Not that many is pretty relative. What do you consider "not that many"? I don't think anyone is trying to act like every strike called was a ball. But teams aren't usually going to combine for 30 Ks, if there isn't some bad umping going on.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I don't get what you're saying here. Are you praising the Yankees for swinging and missing on strike three 3 inches off the plate rather than looking like the Orioles? Honestly what is the difference? The Yankees didn't win because they adjusted and hit a poor pitch off the plate because they knew it would be called a strike. They won because Strop blew 2 fast balls by Ibanez and then decided to throw a breaking ball, which he hung.

There are a lot of reasons and instances where teams could have won or lost a one run game. The Yankees are typically more patient than we we are at taking pitches and working walks. Last night they had a better offensive output than we did by swinging at those pitchces rather than taking them for strikes.....and we were helped out by 4 or 5 wild pitches.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Not that many is pretty relative. What do you consider "not that many"? I don't think anyone is trying to act like every strike called was a ball. But teams aren't usually going to combine for 30 Ks, if there isn't some bad umping going on.

4 inches out of the zone, maybe one, if that.... last night. The two to Nick the previous night may have been that far. I remember one real bad one to Chavez. I'd guess 95% of them were between on the black and 3 inches. Yeah, the strike zone was wide. I think the Yankees went down looking twice, we went down looking 9 times. They figured it out.

[Stotle]

4 inches out of the zone, maybe one, if that.... last night. The two to Nick the previous night may have been that far. I remember one real bad one to Chavez. I'd guess 95% of them were between on the black and 3 inches. Yeah, the strike zone was wide. I think the Yankees went down looking twice, we went down looking 9 times. They figured it out.

Widest strike was about 6 inches off the plate. Most were approx. 3 or 4 inches. It was definitely a decent amount wide of the black, but it was consistent.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Widest strike was about 6 inches off the plate. Most were approx. 3 or 4 inches. It was definitely a decent amount wide of the black, but it was consistent.

Ok, thanks. I stand correctd. I'm guessing the 6 incher was Chavez. Approx what percent were between on the black and three? I'd assume most everything on the black was called a strike. Did the Yankess fare better on the calls?

[Stotle]

Ok, thanks. I stand correctd. I'm guessing the 6 incher was Chavez. Approx what percent were between on the black and three? I'd assume most everything on the black was called a strike. Did the Yankess fare better on the calls?

Sorry, didn't look up all of that. Estimating from memory, about 65% were within three inches or so.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Sorry, didn't look up all of that. Estimating from memory, about 65% were within three inches or so.

Ok thanks.