Edinson Volquez Threw a Perfect Pitch
The consolation you hope for is that these uncertainties don’t end up making a difference. That way, you can talk about them, and you can investigate them, but you don’t have to worry about the results hinging on a decision one way or the other. It worked a little like that with the Rangers’ weird go-ahead run in Game 5 of the ALDS — as strange as that was, the Blue Jays still won, so it didn’t really matter in the end. Of course, that wasn’t true uncertainty, because the rules weren’t ambiguous. It was an unfamiliar play, but a legitimate run. With Edinson Volquez’s last full-count pitch to Jose Bautista in Wednesday’s sixth inning, there’s no getting to that point. You can see in the pitch whatever you want.
And you can say, all right, but the Blue Jays won by six. You can say, even as the pitch was being delivered, the Jays were heavy in-game favorites. You can try to claim the call didn’t end up too significant. But the call, in the moment, was huge. It was the difference between bases loaded and nobody out, and two on with one out. The score, you’ll recall, was 1-0. If the Royals get the call their way, maybe the inning is completely different. Maybe the Jays score, but not too much, and they have to turn to David Price out of the bullpen. The game and series didn’t turn because of one pitch, but that one pitch did some of the pushing. That one pitch was also the very definition of borderline. The only thing we know is Volquez’s breaking ball was perfect. What happened? Unfortunately, it’s a mess, in a very baseball way.
To quickly set the scene — there’s an argument Volquez shouldn’t have even still been pitching. It was 1-0 Jays in the bottom of the sixth, and Volquez was going through the order for a third time. His stuff was playing up, but at the end of the day, he’s still Edinson Volquez, and to start off he walked Ben Revere. He then immediately hit Josh Donaldson. Sabermetrics tells you Ned Yost should’ve gone to his deep bullpen, especially with an off-day coming. The probability of survival would’ve been better. But on the other hand, remember that it was Kelvin Herrera who coughed up the big double later on to Troy Tulowitzki. The game is played by the players. And I’m not even here to talk about that. I’m supposed to talk about Bautista, who was up next. He went up against Volquez, with nobody out, and men on first and second.
Volquez fell behind 3-and-1 before battling back. He wasn’t wild — his pitches were just missing. But they were missing. After Bautista fouled off the fifth pitch, inside, Volquez came with four straight elevated heaters over the plate. Bautista fouled all of them off to force pitch No. 10. Said Bautista later, interestingly:
“His fastball wasn’t running that much,” Bautista said. “I think he was trying to throw a little harder and it was straighter. I kept hitting the bottom of the ball. I was expecting to see more sink.”
Bautista had the fastball timing down. It might’ve been just a matter of time before he figured out the movement, too. Volquez called Salvador Perez out to the mound, and they decided to go with a breaking ball. Volquez’s tenth pitch — a curve — couldn’t have reasonably been much better. I can’t stop watching this, for the glory, and for the heartache.
There are actually two points of argument. The Royals wanted an appeal they never got, but it didn’t look like Bautista committed to a swing. And then there’s just the way the pitch was called. Bautista took his walk. The Royals wanted a strikeout. With the walk, the Jays’ odds of winning the game jumped to 88%. Had that been a strikeout, the odds would’ve dropped to 78%. A 10-point swing isn’t everything, but it makes a difference when the losing team has the bullpen getting hot and a lineup known for its unkillability.
What this is, obviously, is a matter of the strike zone. Generally, when you get a questionable call in a baseball game, you’re able to research deep enough to find out what would’ve been correct. You can’t do that here. Not conclusively. Not with the systems we have set up.
You’re inclined first to turn to PITCHf/x. PITCHf/x is better than our own naked eyes. According to the cameras, Volquez’s breaking ball crossed the front of home plate 1.52 feet off the ground. And according to the system operator, the lower boundary of Bautista’s strike zone was 1.62 feet off the ground. The former is lower than the latter, but then you should also fold in the radius of a baseball, which is a little under an inch and a half. Do that and you get a hair of overlap. Do that and you get the argument for a strike. A sliver of the baseball allegedly came into non-literal contact with a sliver of the zone. That’s all that’s required.
If only it were really that simple. PITCHf/x’s measurements aren’t perfect. PITCHf/x’s operator-set strike zones aren’t perfect. There are error bars around everything.
So it’s worthwhile to examine the precedent. I looked for similar pitches thrown to righties over the last three years. I looked for pitches within a horizontal and vertical half-inch of Volquez’s pitch to Bautista, to see how those went down. Of the pitches that were taken, 39% were called strikes. Just this year, that rate was 47%. There’s only a very small sample of such pitches in full counts. About half of them were strikes.
But we can try to be more precise. Volquez threw a curveball, right? So now let’s look at non-fastballs. Of the pitches taken, 29% were called strikes. Non-fastballs sink more, and they can be harder to receive, so it’s not a shock the called-strike rate is lower. But still, it’s not anywhere close to 0%. And there’s this nugget — of the non-fastballs thrown around that location in full counts, hitters swung at 89% of them. They almost demand protection swings. Bautista stopped his just in time. It was, in so many ways, a perfect pitch, in a perfect spot to that hitter. And then for Bautista, it was also a perfect take. Almost nobody has the stones to lay off that pitch. Almost nobody has the eye to lay off that pitch. Volquez couldn’t have executed better, and Bautista couldn’t have executed better. Somebody had to lose.
All that PITCHf/x stuff — that’s run through computers. You could say those are indirect measurements. If you want eyes on the pitch itself, it doesn’t make the situation much clearer. Here’s a shot, head-on:
That’s good, but there are better angles. First, we can confirm the pitch crossed over the plate, looking from above:
But that’s not really the question. The height is the question. So, there’s this, to stare at for hours on end:
The ball is a barely-there white blur, seen in front of Bautista’s left knee. The definition of the strike zone:
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
As you probably know, the rule-book strike zone isn’t the strike zone that we see actually get called, but it gets to be all about the rules when you look at something this closely. It’s like those tag plays at bases where the runner comes off for a fraction of a second. Imagine, for the sake of this exercise, that you’ve been asked to review the pitch. You have the video, and you have the rule book. What do you say? The ball is on a downward trajectory, but you see it blurry here around the front plane. Is that at the hollow? Where do you assign the hollow? Keep in mind this angle, too, is off-center. Just to make it as complicated as possible. If the pitch caught the zone, it ever so barely nicked it. But then, if it ever so barely nicked it, that’s a rule-book strike.
It honestly doesn’t get closer than this. Not by any meaningful extent. And because of the way the zone is handled, there have to be gray areas. You can’t have exact strike-zone boundaries, because humans can’t call that, and not even the machines are that accurate. There will be areas where a pitch is a strike roughly half the time, and a ball roughly half the time. I don’t know the solution. There isn’t an easy solution. Thankfully, there aren’t that many of these pitches. But that doesn’t help when they actually take place.
The home-plate umpire called a ball. According to Volquez, the ump later told Perez he should’ve called a strike. That’s another way of knowing this was a perfect borderline pitch. The ump couldn’t make his call with conviction. No one could’ve. No one, at least, in their right mind.
Volquez couldn’t have thrown a better curveball. Bautista couldn’t have pulled off a better take. And that’s as far as we can go. Bautista’s excellent discipline put us in this place. If he were an ordinary hitter, he would’ve swung at the curve, and something else would’ve happened. But, no. That would’ve been too clean. Baseball has to make it complicated.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Bautista’s eye is just amazing. I think that’s why he complains about calls – his eye is better than the Umps calling the game, even from the batters box
He’s said that he checks for himself after games sometimes and he’s right 70-80% of the time. I forget where I heard that though.
I am sure if Bautista says that he is right 70 to 80 percent of the time then the actual number he is right is much less. Also, did he consider the ball 4 call last night a strike or a ball? And how does he check the calls? The FS1 pitch tracker? The fangraphs pitch chart? Brooksbaseball chart? Or does he check the PITCHf/x coords?
Bautista said after the game it was a borderline pitch that went his way….so he was pretty spot on.
Dear MLB,
Make a TV show about Joey Votto and Jose Bautista becoming umpires. That is all.
Haha. That would be as much fun as John McEnroe as a line judge.
He’s still a dick and crappy RF…
Trololololo, lololo, lololo
Low effort, 0/10
When I watched this live, my first thought was that if Volquez throws five straight pitches at the top of the zone like that, then one at the bottom corner, it’s going to be more difficult for the umpire to properly determine if it’s a super close strike or not. I feel like the effect of changing a hitters eye levels can also apply to umpires.
“As you probably know, the rule-book strike zone isn’t the strike zone that we see actually get called”
***
I honestly will never understand how the rule regarding the strike zone is just dismissed by every umpire and it’s “OK”.
Major League Baseball quietly puts pressure on them to call strikes in particular ways that they want. They’ve been creating a larger-(mainly at the bottom)-than-in-the-rules strike zone over the past few years, largely, in the opinion of many, to decrease offence to make it seem like steroids have been rooted out of the game. Not saying that’s necessarily right, but that’s why the umpires do what they do.
im needed!
Except in the playoffs – when they seem to be scared to call 3rd strikes on borderline pitches. Throw in the Jay’s incredible plate discipline, hostile crowd and a little whining for good measure – and you wind up with a tiny strike zone with 2 strikes.
Umpires have had no trouble ringing up the Jays on close pitches, including numerous that PitchF/X says were out of the strike zone.
Perez also said after the game that the ump didn’t say that though.
Yeah, found that comment from Volquez a bit hard to believe. When does an ump ever say that on a borderline judgment call that impacted the game?
The thing is, catchers and umpires have a special relationship. You often see an umpire unnecessarily clean the plate after a catcher takes a foul tip of head, or a catcher stroll out to the mound to give an umpire a chance to recover after the same. I find it highly plausible that the umpire told Perez that he might have missed the call, Perez told Eddie. But when Eddie made it public, Perez back tracks in order to maintain his relationship with the umpire.
All the time! It’s a game management thing; you want the catcher to know that you’re not trying to screw him, and that your zone will be consistent. The quicker the catcher learns your zone, the better he’ll adjust to it with less complaining. Also check swing calls often get the ump to tighten up.
So if Volquez says that he heard that the ump told Perez he made the wrong call…should we really believe him? Just the slightest?
The same E. Volquez who recently told reporters that Johnny Cueto complained to him about the Jays potentially stealing his signs?
I think Volquez just has some kind of issue where he constantly tries to start something and throw his teammates under the bus by making stuff up…
BTT: Awesome pitch, my immediate reaction was that Bautista might’ve gotten away with one there. Perfect take on a more perfect pitch.
But watching the screengrabs…yeah, probably still the right call. Couldn’t have hit the corner any more perfectly. Incredibly difficult call to make
That’s baseball for you. A borderline pitch that gets called less than half the time not going the pitchers way shouldn’t be a surprise. I also wouldn’t have been surprised had it been called a strike but, again, that’s baseball. Sometimes a player scores from 3rd when the umpire calls a dead ball and sometimes a player gets a borderline call. Quite honestly it seems the Blue Jays were overdue for getting a meaningful call to go their way in the postseason.
The play in the ALDS was ruled correctly. The Rangers didn’t get a “meaningful call to go their way”. They got the correct call as defined by the rule book. Also I take issue with the idea of “make-up” calls. How about the umpires shoot for getting all the calls right. The Blue Jays are not owed anything. That is ridiculous.
Consistency is all I’m looking for. In games 1 & 2 those pitches were called strikes. In Toronto the umps were giving nothing on the borders.
Either way, I blame Yost for letting this one get out of hand. This start by Volquez was almost identical to game 1. He cruised the first two times through the lineup before getting in a jam the third time through. Only somehow he got out of it in game 1. Not the same here. Yost sees that as having faith in your players. The reality is, Herrera or some other reliever should have started the sixth in a one run game with a fully rested bullpen. YOSTED!
In the ALDS call the umpire called it a dead ball. Thats it, play should stop, no advancement. Period. It was a mistake by the umpire, he shouldn’t have stopped play but he did.
In no sport can play ever continue after an umpire or referee calls it dead, and its disingenuous to just rely on the rule book in this case.
So what you’re saying is, instead of the correct call, the umpires should have given the call to the Jays, because that would have been more fair.
They changed the play to the correct call. You are suggesting that umpires dig in on their and not correct the call? Again that was not a borderline call that went against the Blue Jays. It was unique situation, that was reviewed and called correctly.
This – the umpire made a mistake and called a dead ball. You just can’t call a dead ball, which obviously affects the subsequent behavior of players (look at the body language of the pitcher and catcher), and then say ‘oops…errr…live ball!’ after the fact. Huge mistake by the umpire, he simply passed the cost of the mistake from himself to the Jays.
There was no set of circumstances where the runner wouldn’t have made it home. The ball deflected into foul ground in front of the dugout. No one could have thrown home in time to peg Odor. Play was called correctly.
If I was Martin on that play, as soon as the umpire calls the play dead, I’m physically stopping the player from touching the home plate. Do not let him through, the play is dead, I’m not doing anything illegal by blocking the plate on a dead ball. Then have the ball thrown in and administer the tag in case the effen play gets overthrown like it did.
@Steve
This isn’t hockey. Whistles are sacrosanct and you cannot score after the whistle. Time calls are not whistles. If time is erroneously called mid-play, the umpires have the power to move runners to make things right.
The Blue Jays were the better team today, don’t blame it on Yost, he couldn’t have made a 7 run difference in the game.
Its the playoffs so both teams are good. I’m not taking anything away from the Jays. They maximized on their chances to win this game and the Royals didn’t. No the blame isn’t all on Yost. However, I think that managerial decision was an unnecessary risk and lowered our chances at the game. The bigger problem is letting Estrada go as deep as they did.
Sure the strike zone got tight in that inning but it wasn’t the strike zone that walked the lead off man and hit Donaldson.
So going into the 6th he was throwing a 3 hitter and Yost should have pulled him before the inning started? Or had a reliever ready? Neither of these options are very appealing if you want to remain an MLB manager, players need to know that there manager has faith in them. The reality is that this was one of those situations in which Yost was between a rock and a hard place, his starter was rocking right up until he wasn’t and then he got him out of the game as fast as possible, things got out of control faster then Herrera could warm up. Yost has done an incredible job with that team.
Yes, this is the playoffs, there is an off-day the next day, a three-hitter is of no historical significance, and you have a good bullpen. If anything, 5 innings of three hit ball is more than you could have expected from Volquez.
L. Ron is exactly right. Especially because of the scenario in game 1. Why take any chances when your claim to fame is a deep bullpen with an off day and in a potential series clincher. Let Herrera or whoever start with a clean inning
Jordan is correct. After the game, Gibby was talking to the press, and said “the real problem would have been what to do if Estrada was pitching a shutout in the 9th”. Managers do care about their pitchers (RA Dickey might have a different thought about that) and they don’t want to pull them when they’re pitching well, unless it’s an elimination game (wasn’t for KC) and they feel they don’t have a better option. Don’t blame Yost one second for letting Volquez go.
The three hitter bit is beside the point – there are dominant three hitters and fortunate three hitters and everything in between. If he’s blowing guys away, racking up strikeouts, and making hitters look silly, sure, leave him in, but he wasn’t and Yost needed to be aware of that.
A three-hitter through five? Not even a rare occurrence. In the regular season Yost’s decisions would have been fine, but you manage playoff games differently. Should have had someone up in the pen before the beginning of the inning, and pull Volquez as soon as he walked Revere.
Chris, you’re just sour because finally one of your pitchers didn’t get rewarded for constantly nibbling. KC’s starters have been getting all the borderline calls all series (which by definition should be 50/50). They should stop complaining and start attacking like their bullpen does, instead of constantly relying on the ump to give them borderline calls. Pitching is really easy when you don’t have to throw the ball in the strike zone.
Wow fellas, way to jump on one little meaningless point of what I said while ignoring the rest. The point I was making was that he was dominating up till the 6th, even getting a guy up and throwing before the 6th started would have been an insult to Volquez. As far as Yost is concerned Volquez needed to get into trouble before he could do much, unfortunately that trouble unraveled fast. If Volquez would have got into trouble in the 5th and put a couple guys on it would have been easier to Yost to justify the quick trigger.
I don’t agree with the fact that these players need to be pacified like this but the fact is that managers need the players to trust them, they need the players to want to preform for them and quick yanks aren’t going to do that anymore then leaving someone out there too long and they get embarrassed.
One thing I noticed when I used to ump high school baseball is that it was more difficult to gauge whether a pitch was a strike when the batter checked his swing. There’s a lot of moving parts going on, and you kind of get caught off guard when you are trying to determine whether the batter swung, then your default for the pitch call is a ‘ball.’ Obviously MLB umpires are more experienced and can handles this situation better, but I wonder if that had something to do with that pitch not being called a strike.
That has to play a part – it’s one of the reasons catchers are taught to be as “quiet” as possible in their movements when receiving a pitch.
Yeah, that’s probably part of why home plate thought he missed it. Still can’t believe they told the media about that though, that’s in-game management stuff that stays on the field…
Same with throws down to second. Umps seem like they’d rather just watch the play happen in those scenarios.
I think the solution should be that like a called strikeout “punch-out”, a walk should involve the umpire actually having to mime a walk, or doing a little walking motion with his fingers or something else demonstrative.
Or perhaps it was the fact, as Jeff states in the article, that this pitch is usually called a ball. You don’t need to make an excuse for the fact that the call sided with the majority.
brooks baseball says it wasn’t a strike – fan graphs does. I think that kind of pitch that is at the lower limit of the strike zone and breaking down is called far more frequently a ball. As this article suggests.
I would love a computerized strike zone to get away from all this randomness of calls. It makes for great reasons to argue and write 1000 word articles about a pitch, but it’s silly to have randomness tossed into a game when you don’t need it.
agreed his glove was only 6″ off the ground when he caught it. It’s tough to call that a strike.
Brooks baseball does call it a strike on their overall chart, not on the AB chart. Dan Brooks says always use the overall maps when talking about strike zones as those were adjusted to match actual called strikes this past off-season. Dan Brooks claims they will re-do all of the zone analysis in the off-season and update a lot of the individual ones for next season. Most of the individual ones will have lower bounds for next season based on last year’s analysis.
I guess it was the perfect take, too!
The game was 78% at the time the pitch was thrown, but had that been called a strike Bautista would have been out. Thus, the percentage would have been less than 78%, so the game changing moment was greater than 10%. Had Bautista struck out, a good DP candidate in Encarnacion is now up with 1 out. Pitch selection probably different without bases loaded. If Volquez gets out of the inning the Jays chances would have been under 70% as the 2 on and 0 outs contributed significantly to the 78% chance given the likelihood of Jays adding on runs. There is also the belief among some that relief pitchers are better in high leverage situations – adrenaline going, greater focus, better pitch selection, etc. So, Herrera may not have given up a double to Tulowitzki later on, or Cain may have been a bit more focused and jumped on the ball quicker making the catch (Cain actually came in on Tulo’s ball at first, only 2nd time this season he came in on a ball over his head). If the pitch to Bautista was called a strike like it is half the time the ball is thrown in that location the game would have most likely played out much differently. Not saying Jays wouldn’t have won, just saying everything that happened after that call was made does not necessarily happen (and most likely does not) if the call was made on what umps think the correct call is on that location 47% of the time.
But playing the “if” game is useless. Hell we could go back to other games in the series and have a long useless back and forth that will never result in an answer. Game is over. Move on to game 6.
All that talk about what COULD have happened after the pitch. How about what DID happen before that pitch. A walk to Revere and Donaldson gets hit. Then Volquez is high in the zone multiple times to Batista. Pitchers never get that call in that instance
If if if if. Lol. That pitch was called a strike only 29% of the time this year. The better team won tonight.
That pitch was called a strike 47% of the time. A non-fastball in that location was called a strike 29%. So fastballs in that location was called more than 50% of the time to get to the mean of 47%. Obviously, borderline non-fastball pitches are harder to determine strike location. But if the location is a strike on most fastballs, it really shouldn’t matter what type of pitch gets the ball in that location. The pitch should be called the same by the ump based on location, not pitch type.
The pitch was a curve ball, not a fastball. A FB has a flatter plane than a curveball so it is easier to call low strikes. Perez’s glove dropped a lot to catch the pitch, ending up about 6″ above the ground. It makes sense umpires are less likely to call low off-speed pitches strikes.
Oh geez “There is also the belief among some that relief pitchers are better in high leverage situations – adrenaline going, greater focus, better pitch selection, etc. So, Herrera may not have given up a double to Tulowitzki later on, or Cain may have been a bit more focused and jumped on the ball quicker making the catch”
Are you seriously suggesting that 2 on and 0 out in a 1-run game is a MORE high leverage situation than 3 on, 1 out in a 2-run game? Everyone in the stadium from the beer vendors up was charged up with Tulo at the plate. If Herrera and Cain need more pressure to play at their best, they should give it up now, but I don’t think either one of them would agree with that fatuous comment. Tulo had a great at-bat, and Cain almost made the play. He’s good, you know, just not Pillar.
Yes, the “good double play candidate” who has been one of the very best hitters in baseball over the past 4 years. Give me a break with this revisionist history.
Can we now get an article of all the other calls the Royals have received from the plate ump. Specifically the Hosmer no call
If you look at the strike zone chart the ump was giving a wide strike zone to LHH. So, Estrada got a few balls called strikes that were out of the strike zone to the Royal’s LHH. Volquez got no pitches out of the strike zone called strikes. Also, Volquez got significantly more pitches in the strike zone called balls – 3x as many as Estrada. A lot of home cooking last night.
Yeah home cooking like the Royals got in game 1 and 2. They have better pitching so let’s make the strike zone real big to thwart Toronto sluggers. Works both ways Bro.
Haha, look at how butthurt this chode is.
You got anything to back up that statement or is it just a spine tingling feeling?
If that was directed to me, then just look at the fangraphs and brooksbaseball (overall map) pitch chart. It is fairly obvious that the balls & strike calls were heavily favored yesterday towards the home team. Not saying the ump was biased, just he has a wider zone for left handed hitters, and the Royals have many more lefties in their line-up and switch hitters versus a righty Estrada.
So that means it was a bigger zone against left-handed batters than against right-handed batters… not that there was “a lot of home cooking”.
If it was directed to me take game 1 where (i) 11 baseball fanatics watching every pitch in total disbelief (ii) the pitch location graphic mysteriously disappearing after the second inning and (iii) the highest scoring team in MLB by far scoring a total of zero runs. Just sayin…
So is it just a coincidence that the strike zone has been beneficial to home team in every game thus far. I agree that in games 1 & 2, the umps were giving pitchers the corners. Then in Toronto that went away. Could have just been different umps/different strike zones. But that’s the issue for me. Why in this day and age do we have to deal with changes in the strike zone day to day. It can make or break your approach. The jays are patient at the plate. A wider strike zone hurts them because those 50/50 pitches are strikes. This was very good for the Royals in games 1 & 2, because their pitchers were able to hit those spots. In Toronto they continued with the same approach but the umps stopped giving the corners, forcing them to throw more over the plate. Lo and behold, the best offense in baseball started smacking the ball. For the Royals the strike zone doesn’t make much difference since they swing at everything.
If you look at Brooks baseball, Estrada did get a few pitches out of the zone called strikes and Volquez none. This paints a poor picture of reality however. Estrada’s ball that were called strikes were all closer to the plate than any of Volquez’ misses (aside from one marginal call to a righty). So you can’t say that Estrada got pitches and Volquez didn’t when Volquez’ balls were farther outside than Estrada’s.
Let me put this a different way as well. Every pitch that Volquez threw outside the zone was also called a ball for Estrada. Estrada’s outside pitches were just closer to the plate than Volquez. The ump’s zone was actually not bad and pretty consistent.
I wonder if the called strike percentages quoted in the article could be adjusted according to players with reputations for a good batting eye. Guys with a certain walk % or something. Because if it weren’t Bautista up at bat, I bet that pitch gets called a strike.
That’s interesting because I’ve also seen the opposite claimed in similar situations – that a close call gets called a strike because the umps have it out for Bautista because of his reputation for arguing about called strikes.
I have no idea whether either, or both, are true in any given instance, but I love how exact opposite claims get made about the influence of a player’s reputation among umpires.
I have watched every Jays game for about 8 years now (that’s televised), I’m lucky enough to have a job that I can do this. From what I can tell Bautista gets a lot of outside calls off the plate called strikes against him but inside and no the corner don’t get called, I can only figure this is because he crowds the plate and skews the umps judgement, effectively moving the strike zone. I also do believe that his clear displays of displeasure with calls he doesn’t get seems to work against him a lot of the time with umps, he isn’t exactly seen as a Bonds or Pujols of the game, I don’t think he has most umps respect.
From what I can tell Bautista plays with a chip on his shoulder and for the most part it plays well for him, his game is elevated but at times it spills over and we all know how umps don’t like being “shown up”, whatever that means, like they are part of the show. I guess basically I’m saying that Bautista is his own worst enemy, I imagine he would get more of those calls if he kept himself in check when he didn’t, or maybe the damage is done, he script is written.
Pitches 3 and 4 hit the outside edge and were called balls, so three 50/50 type calls went Bautista’s way. 12.5%??? With such a cry baby at bat, I can’t believe he didn’t get rung up. The previous high pitch fastballs had to be what saved Bautsita on that call.
No they didn’t. They missed too. So basically you are complaining that your pitcher failed to get calls on 3 pitches that were all outside the zone and called balls the vast majority of the time. Do you not believe that a pitcher should have to throw a ball IN the strike zone to beat a good hitter?
“A sliver of the baseball allegedly came into non-literal contact with a sliver of the zone.”
This is perfect.
I know that its harder to frame a curveball, but Perez really should have done better here. He doesn’t stay quiet with his body and he doesn’t hold the pitch to give the umpire a good look at it. It also looks like he jabs at the ball a bit. Great pitch by Volquez, I thought it was a strike while watching live, but I can’t blame the umpire based on the way the pitch was presented by Perez. d’arnaud or Cervelli would have probably gotten that call.
I never really watched d’Arnaud catch before this postseason, but I’ve been really impressed with his receiving. It’s both quick and quiet, all wrists. I love watching him.
It was a borderline call, which means that no matter which way it was called someone is going to be upset. Volquez got away with a very clear ball four to Donaldson in a full count in the first inning. Obviously it was a much lower leverage situation but the entire nature of 50/50 calls is that they are not going to go your way every time.
I don’t know about that check swing. According to
http://www.royalsreview.com/2015/10/22/9591364/edinson-volquez-and-the-sixth-inning-of-doom
it sure looks like he swung
Wouldn’t that picture have to be taken directly from the side of the plate to be accurate? This appears to have been taken on a slight angle (from the back right of the plate), so drawing a straight line up from the front of the plate doesn’t really make much sense.
I thought the rule on a check swing had nothing to do with the plate and everything to do with “intent to swing.” We often measure that with the plate, but it could be looking at what the hitter’s hands are doing, too, or angle of the bat relative to the body, both of which are perhaps better measures since they’re independent of where the hitter stands in the box.
Alternate Title:
“Volquez walks Revere, Plunks Donaldson, Loses Bautista on a’Perfect Pitch’that Perez can’t handle, Volquez then walks another batter, Herrera comes in and Tulo cleans up by feasting middle middle meat ball”
I thought it was a strikeout because he clearly offered at the pitch.
But I don’t really like talking about it for two days and and fans of my team arguing the possibilities of one borderline call. We scored one freaking run for pete’s sake! We lost by 6. Move on and play better in the next game. Leave the whining to Cardinal fans or you are no better than they are.
Our time is coming.
I disagree with the premise that this was the perfect pitch. Even properly executed, it caused ball four, and basically the beginning of the disaster. There was a 29% chance that a curve ball in that location in that count gets called a strike, and you gotta know Batista will not swing unless it’s a strike.
I think throwing for an actual strike would have been better. So long as its down in the zone, Batista probably would have taken it because of the eye-level thing, and even if he swings, the timing and the location limits what will happen.
Maybe the problem is that Volquez isn’t the guy who should be throwing right now.
I would have rang him up with enthusiasm.
12_ 1 out vs. 123 0 Out is about 1.3 runs. Is that huge? It’s a significant sum, but in a typical game, in a typical playoff game and in this game in particular 1 1/3 runs gets washed out.