Jump to content

For crying out loud, can MLB please implement an electronic strike zone already?


weams

Recommended Posts

He equivocated. He said "If an ump thinks it touched the black, then he's going to call you out and I think this was the case." But he said it was a ball after the overhead view.

I see, then I stand corrected on what Palmer said. However, the photos you posted show clearly that it was on the black and so does the pitch FX. :) Anyway, I don't wanna argue with you again, bud. Especially not on

something like this, so we'll just agree to disagree. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems so. I'm not sure what you think that black line that goes along the outside edge of the plate is if it's not the black of the plate, though. The ball brushes that black line. I can't see how you say it's two inches

off the black.

Please don't insult me. I've seen more baseball than you've been alive.

Edit: I see you were nice in a message that crossed. Cheers.

Edited by NashLumber
Apology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't insult me. I've seen more baseball than you've been alive.

It's not an insult at all, but years of baseball knowledge aren't necessary for this. The black edge of the plate is clearly visible and the ball clearly touches it. There is no dirt between the ball and the black, therefore it

touched it. I don't know why you would take that as an insult? It's pretty clear in the photo. The same edge is on the other side only not as prominent (covered with a little dirt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an insult at all, but years of baseball knowledge aren't necessary for this. The black edge of the plate is clearly visible and the ball clearly touches it. There is no dirt between the ball and the black, therefore it

touched it. I don't know why you would take that as an insult? It's pretty clear in the photo. The same edge is on the other side only not as prominent (covered with a little dirt).

Posts crossed. Back up one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it now. The edit wasn't there when I replied. I didn't mean for that to come off as an insult as it most certainly wasn't.

We're fine. I think we both got a little hot. We were posting so fast, that I missed your reply and you missed mine and I went back to edit to show my apology.

You are contending though that the black is a part of home plate? It isn't. The term "touched the black" has been used forever in the game, but the plate itself is 17" across and what Palmer was referring to is that if the ump is feeling generous, he'll give the pitcher the black as a strike. The black is 3/4" of an inch around the plate but not included in the strike zone. I am guilty of exaggerating that it looked 2" outside, but if it edged the very back of the black of the plate on its path, to my eyes and probably Joe Angel's (alluded to earlier by another poster), it looked outside. I was off by 1.25 of an inch of my 2" outside proclamation before rewinding and taking the pics. By the book ,it was a ball and that's what Palmer was alluding to.

Edited by NashLumber
added link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're fine. I think we both got a little hot. We were posting so fast, that I missed your reply and you missed mine and I went back to edit to show my apology.

You are contending though that the black is a part of home plate? It isn't. The term "touched the black" has been used forever in the game, but the plate itself is 17" across and what Palmer was referring to is that if the ump is feeling generous, he'll give the pitcher the black as a strike. The black is 3/4" of an inch around the plate but not included in the strike zone. I am guilty of exaggerating that it looked 2" outside, but if it edged the very back of the black of the plate on its path, to my eyes and probably Joe Angel's (alluded to earlier by another poster), it looked outside. I was off by 1.25 of an inch of my 2" outside proclamation before rewinding and taking the pics. By the book, it was a ball and that's what Palmer was alluding to.

That's interesting. It's odd then that there's so much talk of "painting the black" as being a virtue for pitchers. "Painting the black" is described as throwing the ball over the edge of the plate on mlb's "basic baseball lingo"

page as well. Odd as well considering throwing the ball over the plate is a strike. I guess this is another one of those gray areas. I've always heard that "painting the black" of the plate was a good thing and I've never

once seen or heard that disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mainly used to describe a pitcher with good control and someone who can throw one at the edge of the plate or the illusion of the edge as opposed to grooving it down the middle where it's going to get clobbered. As mentioned in the article and using the Lou Brock example, the black is beveled and in more cases than not, under dirt.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's mainly used to describe a pitcher with good control and someone who can throw one at the edge of the plate or the illusion of the edge as opposed to grooving it down the middle where it's going to get clobbered. As mentioned in the article and using the Lou Brock example, the black is beveled and in more cases than not, under dirt.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The edge of the zone especially when a mid to upper 90's fastball is involved. In video games, it's always when the ball is right at the edge of the strike zone; "on the black". I remember one such comment I heard in a

baseball video game was something like "99 on the black; someone call the cops, you can't hit that!" Anyway, thanks for the clarification on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The edge of the zone especially when a mid to upper 90's fastball is involved. In video games, it's always when the ball is right at the edge of the strike zone; "on the black". I remember one such comment I heard in a

baseball video game was something like "99 on the black; someone call the cops, you can't hit that!" Anyway, thanks for the clarification on that.

Anytime.

Yeah, it's just a informal term that has been used forever for someone with good control. Has nothing to do with the rule book. Good pitchers don't groove one down the middle unless they think they can overpower someone who can't handle their fastball. It's why you don't hang curves, sliders or cutters right down the middle. The edge of the black itself per the rule book is outside 3/4 an inch beyond the 17" specified for the plate's top border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely terrible strike three call leads to Ortiz ejection. Shades of the phone incident at Camden Yards. Ortiz is a jerk but that was an obvious retaliation call.

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/david-ortiz-held-back-from-ump-after-striking-out-with-1775261192

I can't stand Ortiz, but that ump has to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Why does everybody want to jump and label a kid so fast? What is this, his 2nd major-league season? Yes, certainly they shouldn't go into next year thinking he's a lock for 30+ starts and 180-200 innings but we can't say he's already reached his peak either. 
    • And their defense is very good. To put things in perspective, the Tigers collective dWAR is +0.5. The Orioles is -2.8. Minnesota -4.1, Yankees -0.3, Houston -0.1, Seattle +2.0, Royals at +2.5. The Royals really standout as most of that value is driven by Fermin (catcher) and Witt.  But I think my point is that the Tigers have excellent pitching (starting pitching and bullpen) as well as excellent defense. And they're not putrid with the bats.  I would say the one saving grace about the Tigers is they don't run much. 
    • We could have easily swept Detroit in Baltimore, the lineup we have now is not the lineup they faced. It doesn't matter who the opponent is, just win.
    • Both of them are important to consider here. They could have a mediocre offense every single game of the season, but if the pitching is elite (and it is!), it'll carry them.  We have 6 games against the Tigers this year. And yes, most of them were without the cadre of regulars. But here are the offensive numbers against them: .211/.282/.392 - .674 OPS They scored 20 runs in 6 games against them. Barely scraping 3 R/G. And a good portion of them coming in *1* game.  Out of the WC potentials the O's could face, here are their R/G: Royals: 29 in 6 games = 4.8 R/G Twins: 22 in 3 = 7.3 R/G Mariners: 27 in 6 = 4.5 R/G Tigers: 20 in 6 = 3.3 R/G Out of all the playoff teams, the best RA/G are the Mariners (3.75), Guardians (3.85), and Tigers (4.96). For the playoffs, you want to look at who you're facing on the bump. Which team scares you the most? Because if you can't hit against the team, it doesn't matter what the opposing offense is.  Also you'll want to consider the best fielding teams, too.   Seems to me you'd want to face the team you matchup best against *and* who has the worst defense and worst pitching, because presumably your 3 starters (Burnes, Eflin, Kremer) should be able to hold teams in check. 
    • I'd prefer Detroit - they've been so hot for so long they should be due to cool off. KC has been just the opposite. 
    • I'd say the Royals...pitch around Witt and Salvy Perez who seems to have had our number in recent years.  The rest of their lineup isn't too imposing. Wacha  -a guy I wanted this offseason and was laughed at for wanting him- has a 2.64 ERA over his last 15 starts.  He's the soft-tossing type that gives our lineup fits and, IIRC, he was great against us earlier this year.  Lugo has had a great year, so has Ragans.  Their starters are good. But they're 3-7 over their last 10 while the Tigers are 8-2.  A lot of the postseason, IMO, is catching teams at the right/wrong time.  This could all change by next week but the Tigers are hot, the Royals are not... Then again, I said I wanted to face Texas in the first round last year and look what happened.  So who knows.  
    • Would much rather face KC and to me it’s not close.    game 1 agains Skubal is an L. They’ve proven they can beat us with a bullpen game, a bullpen only behind CLE as best in the AL.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...