Incredulous Responses to Bill Miller’s Strike Zone
No one ever wants to have to talk about the strike zone. If the zone is called well, there’s nothing to discuss; if it isn’t, that’s a problem, but it’s all deeply unfulfilling. Fans don’t want to be helped by the strike zone, because it takes something away from a team’s own achievements. And fans don’t want to be hurt by the strike zone, because it leaves them feeling cheated. Every baseball fan everywhere acknowledges that the game involves a certain human element, but we all prefer to think the games are decided by the players, and by the players alone. Introducing a third party tends to make people upset.
Among the great reliefs of Game 5 is that it won’t be remembered for home-plate umpire Bill Miller. The game packed in enough astonishing action that there are more interesting and important points to make besides the zone having been so weird. Miller made some strange calls, but every pitcher was also entirely gassed, and balls were flying over the fence. Alex Bregman won the game with a walk-off single. Although the zone was pitcher-friendly, there were still 11 total walks and 25 total runs. The lingering image isn’t one of a hitter shaking his head.
Yet the obnoxious reality is that the zone was a factor. The zone is always a factor, because every game changes with every individual pitch. On Sunday, some pitches were called unlike how they usually are. The zone is woven in, inextricable, a part of the larger game story. We’d prefer not to think about it, but blissful ignorance doesn’t acknowledge all that went on.
I wouldn’t say that anyone should be surprised. Even before Game 5 got started, it was noted that Miller is notoriously pitcher-friendly. He tends to call a larger zone than average, and that’s what everyone saw. If there was a surprise, it’s that it was so apparent. Sometimes a tendency doesn’t show up when you have a sample of only one game. Miller’s tendency showed up. The evidence is there on Brooks Baseball.
Here is the zone that Miller called for left-handed hitters.
Here is the zone he called for right-handed hitters.
It’s not as if every close pitch was a strike. But many close pitches were strikes, and so were a few that weren’t even that close. It seems like the Astros got a few extra calls. I don’t say that with any bias, and the Astros’ own hitters had their own disagreements. Yet it was the Dodgers who were the most frequently upset. Their frustration only grew with the leverage.
This is a story I could tell with the images above. I’d prefer, though, to tell it with the images below. This is going to have a lot of GIFs, again, so you are free to click away. I know that this is an overload. But sometimes a post just calls for a GIF barrage. I won’t be annoyed if you don’t want to watch all these. Trust me, I get it. But these videos show 14 called strikes, arranged in chronological order. I’ve selected for incredulous hitter responses to Bill Miller’s called strikes. The hitters will tell you how a zone looks from the box. Sometimes internet graphics deceive. The internet graphics aren’t deceiving. Last night’s hitters weren’t happy, at least not after watching the pitches go by.
We start, as you would, in the top of the first.
2-and-1 is an important pitch. They’re all important pitches, in Game 5 of the World Series, but this was the difference between 3-and-1 and 2-and-2. A hitter-friendly count, and a count calling for a defensive swing at anything close. Yasiel Puig, I imagine, felt pretty good about this take — Dallas Keuchel wanted him to get jammed by that pitch. It’s not an easy take. It’s a disciplined take, a difficult take. Puig laid off the close ball, inside. It counted against him anyway. Puig turned away in disgust. Little did he know, then.
Not all that long ago, baseball passed a rule mandating that hitters keep at least one foot in the box. There are exceptions, like how a hitter can leave the box after attempting a swing, but you’re not supposed to be able to leave if you just take a pitch like normal. Marwin Gonzalez took the pitch from Clayton Kershaw and then went for a stroll. That’s not supposed to happen, but Gonzalez, I imagine, wanted to clear his head. Miller wasn’t going to call him out on it. Umpires are tasked with keeping the game moving along, but the action will slow if you don’t allow a hitter a moment to calm down.
The early calls draw the more muted responses. The game hasn’t yet had time to develop, and the hitters don’t yet have a clear strike-zone impression. Cody Bellinger could do little but stare for a second, and shake his head walking. But the early calls also *create* the impression. This call against Bellinger in part informed the responses to follow.
Let’s do it again. 3-and-1, or 2-and-2? Puig, again, took the close pitch. His process was sound. His vision was clear. Puig was in the right to do what he did. Strike two. I don’t know what kind of behavior this zone reinforces, but it’s probably not behavior the Dodgers would want to encourage.
In the bottom of the fourth, the Astros came back and made it a baseball game. As soon as Yulieski Gurriel blasted his game-tying homer, the emotions kicked in. From that point forward, every pitch and every at-bat were important. And so the displays of frustration grew more dramatic. Kike Hernandez walked away smiling, but not because he was in any way happy. A smile can be an easy thing to misinterpret.
You’re Yasiel Puig. You’re kind of upset. You feel like you know what the strike zone should look like, but you’ve already taken some strikes way inside. They’ve changed the complexion of your at-bats in the game. Perhaps, you figure, the zone is just shifted. It happens. At least you have it in your power to adjust. Just means they won’t be calling the outside strike. Right?
No umpire ever likes to be shown up. No umpire ever wants for a hitter to assume a close call. Umpires don’t like to cede that authority. Maybe that partially explains this strike two. Or maybe Miller sincerely thought this was good. George Springer certainly didn’t think it was good.
The emotions were high for everyone. Already, by this point, the game had been a roller coaster. There was still an out to go in the fifth. A player would have a split-second to decide how to express his own annoyance. Emotions will get the best of you, unless you can keep them pressed down. Alex Bregman, I imagine, wanted to curse. But he settled for putting his hand on his hip. You curse with three strikes. You don’t want to curse with one. That can hasten the trip to the strikes yet to follow.
Corey Seager handled this one pretty well. He kind of leaned back when he initially heard the strike call, but he asked for some clarity and nodded along. Making friends. Influencing people. Seager could accept it. But that still didn’t mean he wasn’t annoyed. He just couldn’t afford to show it. Not for another few minutes.
That might well have been the perfect pitch. A ball only needs the tiniest sliver to pass through the zone in order to technically count as a strike, and the pitch was right there. But Seager’s response wasn’t about only this. Frustration over the first pitch, too, boiled over in his throat. A hitter can accept one borderline strike. Throw in another and all bets are off.
Batters are already standing so close. It’s what allows them to tell the difference between a ball and a strike. Hernandez was bunting, crouched even closer. He had an even *clearer* idea of the zone, and he got himself ahead 2-and-0. Might even get the bunt taken off. Hernandez could’ve been in position to swing. Strike one, though. Two plus two is three. Why? Because that guy said it. If you try to argue with him then you get yourself ejected.
I’ll say it again — it’s possible this was another perfect pitch. Another two-strike delivery that ever so barely nicked the zone’s corner. If this happened in isolation, free of all context, Logan Forsythe would’ve been annoyed, but he might’ve been able to take it. But Forsythe didn’t argue with one pitch in his mind. He argued on the basis of several innings. The strike zone is crafted over the whole entire game, but the impression is set in stone early. The Dodgers’ impression of the zone was absurd.
I never know quite how I’m supposed to feel about good pitch-framers getting called out on borderline pitches. I still don’t.
You can practically see Joc Pederson think his way through this. The last thing he wanted was to take a borderline strike to fall behind 0-and-2. Pederson thought it might’ve been a ball, and the stakes were enormous. Pederson raised his arm as if to act out, letting Miller know exactly what he thought, but Pederson smoothly caught himself. Instead of turning and cursing and making the wrong enemy, Pederson adjusted by removing his helmet and wiping his brow. No, sir, nothing to say. Just feeling kind of sweaty. This baseball game, right?
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.


The examples to Puig illustrate the issue really clearly, I think. If you’re going to give him way inside, there’s no way you can expect him to cover a generous outer edge too.
This game was bonkers for so many reasons, but can’t help but think some of the Dodgers’ approach was really hurt by these calls.
As a Dodgers fan, I can’t help but want to be upset about the strike zone. But at the same time, I recognize that he was at least consistently making terrible calls. There may have been more calls that went the Astros’ way, but it is because the Dodgers threw less pitches at the trouble zones. He was at the very least not giving it away to one team or the other.
I’m with you, and I’m trying very hard to avoid being a Dodger homer. The Dodgers’ long-time strategy of being patient at the plate and running up the pitch count was completely zapped in games 2 & 5 because of the inconsistent strike zone. Discipline at the plate was irrelevant … they had to swing at everything because they couldn’t risk taking anything remotely close to the standard strike zone. Other than Puig and Seager (and frustratingly Bellinger), this isn’t a team that does much swinging at the first pitch.
This could be the penultimate game of the season, in a series that determines if a team wins for the first time ever or for the first time in 30 years. How can this type of officiating be acceptable when stakes are at their absolute highest?
If robo-umps are a no-go, could we get some in-game coaching from the league in between innings when it gets to this point? We’ve got 6 umpires on the field, and this is the best we can do for a strike zone? I’m not a fan of either team, but this makes me terribly angry and frustrated. For the first time ever, I feel bad for Puig.
The fact is that there are a select number of umpires who are amazingly good behind the plate or we wouldn’t know excellence was even possible, but there is simply no acceptable reason to let a mediocre or worse balls and strikes umpire call a playoff game of any kind. These guys all have been rated. No way there should be a Miller sighting in October. Or a Joe West sighting anytime.
One of my favorite aspects of that nutso game was the fact that there were eleventy billion runs scored despite a half dozen guys being called out on borderline pitches. Nobody knew what the strike zone was so everyone just started swinging away at everything and it was incredible to watch.
Absolutely insane.
The problem is that half of these aren’t even borderline pitches.
Hey Jeff, think you could do a GIF from Springer’s walk in the 10th? “Balls” 2 & 4 were high IN the strike zone, particularly “ball” 4. That was a pretty critical moment and incredibly relevant to this article!
I hate complaining about the zone as much as the next guy. But I do feel slightly robbed of a World Series experience because of this strike zone.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Why is everyone saying that’s a bad strike zone? As far as I can tell, that’s quite accurate, and Miller was fairly consistent about giving the left side of the plate to pitchers no matter whether the batter was LH or RH. Since those outside pitches to lefties/inside to righties are often hit decently — hell, Taylor tied the game in the 9th on one of those — I think it’s more than fair to have a slightly bigger strike zone. Especially for a World Series game. Especially for a slow-2017-playoff-game.
Personally, I loved Miller’s zone, and I wish more umpires would be this consistent with a slightly wider zone. The real problem was Fox’s ridiculously small graphic, not Miller.
I’m with you to a point. Only the Puig and pitches and the 2 curveballs there look egregious to me. All those ones that hit the low and away corner just looked like absolutely perfect pitches.
Wide and consistent > regulation and inconsistent.
From the plots above there’s only 1 pitch to LHH that is clearly wrong, and while there’s a big more error in the plots vs RHH, only really a handful of pitches were clearly out of the zone that he set. Might be a couple more than you want from what should ideally be one of your 7 best umpires, but not egregiously bad.
Just crazy to think though that we had an admittedly wide strike zone, yet was such an offensive-heavy game. You’d think with a strikezone like that, Kershaw+Keuchel should have had field days striking out batters.
We are talking about at least 4 pitches called strikes that are at least 10 inches outside the standard strike zone and 5 inches outside whatever made up strike zone Miller was intermittently using. There are four balls that are 10 inches INSIDE the same made-up strike zone. That kind of game calling is a detriment to my enjoyment of the game.
No. Because as Smoltz actually correctly pointed out last night after that far inside pitch to Puig, a ball that far inside is essentially impossible for a right-handed batter to hit, which was aptly demonstrated the very next pitch. If you can throw a pitch that’s called a strike that a batter cannot hit because it’s too close to his body, that’s basically the definition of a bad strike zone.
You and Smoltz are right, a ball that far inside is essentially impossible for a right-handed batter to hit. But I’d like to point out, as a testament to his inhuman ability to annihilate baseballs with a wooden club, that Carlos Correa turned on an inside fastball (from Clayton Kershaw!), about eighteen inches off the plate, and ripped it into left field for a double in the fourth inning. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more impressive piece of hitting.
Look at this! http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/location.php-pitchSel=477132&game=gid_2017_10_29_lanmlb_houmlb_1&batterX=32&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=3&s_type=3&league=mlb&pnf=&zlpo=&cache=1.gif
According to the link you posted, the pitch was not 18 inches off the plate as you claim; it was 18 inches from the center of the plate.
Thanks. Mercy, I should avoid posting, or even thinking, late at night :-). Still a great piece of hitting by Correa, I think.
I am probably setting myself up for down votes by saying this, but here goes. I absolutely adore this site and its content, and I also realize that it needs to run ads to survive and provide us with great content!
However, a 15 to 30-second ad playing before a 5-second GIF is absolutely obnoxious – and it’s on every GIF! I do not recall this being an issue on FanGraphs even 2-3 months ago. I’m never going to whine about this again but I HAD to share, as I visit this site every day and am a paying member.
I would literally pay an extra 20 bucks per year for the commercials before GIFs to go away.
Good news! Fangraphs has an AD FREE SUBSCRIPTION OPTION.
Your wish is LITERALLY granted.
I have the ad free subscription and I still see ads before the gifs. What am I doing wrong? (The answer to that could very well be “using Firefox”)
I dont know, I dont see them – Chrome with adblock, perhaps.
Yup, Chrome with adbock, and I’m not even paying, but I will. If I’ve seen my last how we must do more to bring Muslims, women, and gays into ML baseball rosters.
But the price point is just slightly off his wish. Yearly membership is $20, ad free subscription is an extra $30 per year.
That’s a Streamable thing, not a FanGraphs choice. Streamable hosts the videos. Because of the ads, I’d like to find a Streamable alternative, but one has not yet presented itself. I’m not thrilled about it.
Yeah, I’m subscribed as well and was about tho go into a called third strike meltdown on the last one, but went and reinstalled Adblock and everything is all better.
Adblock is a thing.
I LOVE this!
Technical question… since we were actually talking about this in the bar the other day … has MLB or Fox or whoever actually invested the time/technology/programming to correctly place the circle in terms of the timing when it crosses the plate? Is that done automatically, or what?
I cant believe you didn’t do the one where Seager almost slammed his bat down in frustration when he was twirling it away to toss it for what he thought was a walk.
He’s not a very demonstrative person and I thought that was the closest I’ll ever see to Corey Seager getting ejected. I think if he had twirled that bat like that, then caught it and slammed it down on home plate like he started to, he would have been ejected for sure.
It’s in there.
Maybe it’s some kind of metacommentary, an attempt to leave the exact kind of comment on this article that Bill Miller would write?
After all, that particular GIF *was* right down the middle (of the article)….
I wish I could claim to be that witty, just missed it.
I just did a Run Expextancy analysis on all the missed calls on the strike zone by Miller and the results clearly favored the Astros.
Astros pitchers received 12 called strikes that should have been balls; the Dodgers only 5.
Each team lost 3 called strikes to balls.
The run expectancy the Dodgers lost to bad calls was 2.733 runs. The Astros lost 0.969 to bad calls. So net the Dodgers lost 1.764 runs to bad calls. So in an alternative universe were the umpire errored on calls evenly for each team the Dodgers should have scored 1.764 more runs. This was one of the most lopsided performances in one teams favor I have seen.
Could you provide a list of all the “wrong” calls you analyzed?
I ask because defining a wrong call is not exact science and
Close Call Sports has Miller getting 3 wrong balls and 12 wrong strikes where you claim 6 wrong balls and 17 wrong strikes.
Thanks!
I used Baseball Savant query. It showed 3 wrong balls and 12 bad strikes in favor of the Astros; 3 wrong balls and 5 bad strikes in favor of the Dodgers.
I can’t help but wonder if the huge strike zone was meant to compensate for the juiced balls. They know the balls are what they are and so they decided they needed a big zone or the game might go 5 1/2 hours and the teams score 25 runs. Little did they know …
MLB: “we need to get attention off of the juiced ball. Let’s get the most pitcher friendly ump behind the plate, and instruct him to widen the zone even more”.
*25 runs later*
MLB: F#@$!!!
Anyone know where in the rulebook it states that an umpire gets to make up his own personal strike zone? Tired of hearing about “x umpire’s strike zone”, consistent or not, when the rules should simply be the same every game.
I umpire a lot of HS games. Yes, there is a defined strike zone, and yes, umpires are expected to follow it.
But most umpires have a spot in their strike zone where maybe they give more leeway. Part of that is often due to vantage point. A taller umpire sees parts of the strike zone a shorter umpire doesn’t (and vise versa). What kind of slot an umpire takes makes a difference as well.
I also think you have to account for pitch framing in some of this. A borderline call may be “sold” to be a strike with a really good catcher. They can also be lost because of a bad catcher.
But Austin Barnes is a far superior pitch framer to Brian McCann. If anything that exacerbates the bias.
I was speaking more generally, because his question was more general, rather than specific.
Just seems like a week ago that Jeff wrote an article about how the strike zones have favored the Dodgers heavily in the postseason and that the Astros were likely at a big disadvantage in the World Series.
Key word was “likely.” Anything can happen in a small sample, even things that normally stabilize rather quickly.
I thought the “strike 3” on Hernandez was the worst. Big looping curve from RHP to RHB, never even close to the zone, caught with a sharp left movement — on top of which, McHugh had just walked the first 2 batters, and wild pitchers rarely get any gifts.
Miller was terrible, and worse to the Dodgers than the Astros. I can’t pretend it totally didn’t affect the outcome.
what’s so funny about it was Jeff had a column saying that he thought the umpires would favor LA before the series.
This article demonstrates definitively why robot umps would be a tragedy, if not for the pastime of baseball, then at least for the pastime of talking about baseball.
A few thoughts:
1. A couple of these are not that egregious.
2. Most of the ones from Keuchel and Kershaw were pitches that went into the RH side of the plate. Depending on if it’s a LH or RH hitter depends on how much more egregious the call may be to make. That sounds weird, but his slot can affect how you see a ball crossing the plate or not. When a LHP throws to the inside of the RH side, it’ll look like a strike more often than not (and vise versa). The egregious calls are RHP to the RH side or LHP to LH side. The ball never even crossed the plate or looked like they were going to.
I understand Bill Miller is a major league umpire with a lot more experience than I will ever have. I understand that this is the biggest stage and if he’s going to be behind the plate, he should be better. But people have to understand how an umpire sees these pitches.
Really, what baseball needs is to designate home plate umpires and base umpires. Because some guys are just better at the plate, and some are better on the bases. The NFL doesn’t rotate their referees, they use guys in positions they are skilled in.
I have been blogging all the games on Fangraphs and there was universal praise for the work of Gerry Davis in Game 3 and Laz Diaz in Game 4 then along comes Game 5 and its back to the same old crud. My pet peeve has always the ankle high strike but Miller wasn’t satisfied to just miss those. He missed everything and I am certain that everybody here understands that the count dominates the game. I hope I get to see some attempt at a scientifically called zone before I get permanently benched.
We ALL get permanently benched in the end, brother…
That is exactly what I meant and your not 75 years old.
Sometimes good framing is credited with stealing borderline pitches. But if you watch the videos above, in the great majority of cases the final resting location of the catcher’s glove is clearly outside of the strike zone.
No amount of good framing can excuse the atrocious calls in this game.
What makes me incredulous is how ignorant the mainstream sports stations, notably ESPN, are when this happens. I complained about this all year with Judge, and Fangraphs TWICE proved that the umps killed him in 2017. ESPN had a very incomplete analysis on the same issue, and it went by the wayside. This WS game 5 analysis is exactly the type of review that I want to see for ALCS games 6 and 7, because ESPN made the zone look like an abomination, but I’m not sure what the best resource is to verify. While not an advocate of removing Miller and Co. (for pace of play reasons), this issue leaves a lot of fans displeased and strongly opinionated with very little assurance of a level playing field.
Complaining about ESPN’s baseball coverage is so 2005.
To be fair, the pitch to Barnes was exaggerated by the Fox strike zone. The side view showed it clearly going right across where his kneecaps are. As it was right over the plate, that’s a strike.
That was about the only defensible one.
It would be great if this included Hinch’s reaction to a low strike that I think was to Springer in the late innings where he clearly says “I have no idea where the strike zone is”
It could have been worse. If Angel Hernandez was behind the plate, this game might have set a World Series record for ejections!
It’s almost as if the Dodgers forgot 1) Kershaw got some calls 2) to scout Keuchel and hi habits and 3) scout the ump. I’m not excusing Miller, but much of what he did (generous outer art of the plate, extremely generous right handed batter box) I knew beforehand, and I don’t have a millionth of the resources teams do.
I’m a 100% long time robo-ump advocate, but other than the 1st Puig one and the Bregman curve, those gifs aren’t all that bad. I was expecting worse.
But yeah, robo umps please. If this technology was available in 1850, we would have had it from the get go.
It would also be nice to see the Brooks result right below the gif for each pitch.
One thing about these figures and the stat tracker box shown on TV is: how does the writer or camera crew know where to place the box defining the outer edges of the strike zone? The centerfield camera is typically offset to the LF side of the field and elevated, meaning trigonomretric correction factors must be used to place the strike zone boundaries, coefficients that are correct only if the estimation of the relative position of the camera to the front of home plate is perfect, if the camera remains perfectly motionless and if the camera can perfectly estimate the instant the pitch crosses the front of the plate in the absence of a profile view. Put another way, the strike zone is specifically not where it looks like it should be on TV and the ability of the TV camera to know when the ball crosses home plate is dubious. For example, looking at the first Puig GIF, it is difficult to understand which point on the RHH scatter plot depicts this pitch. This discrepancy between the scatter plot and visual data underscore the difficulty in trusting pitch tracker data over an umpire.
Because it seems so difficult to be certain the absolute position of any thrown ball relative to the vertical plane perpendicular to the front edge of home plate, what we are left with is relative data. Put another way, if data is collected using reproducible methods, we can be more confident about the relationship of pitches to each other than we can about the relationship of each pitch to the true strike zone. As such, scatter plot data shown here are useful to help us evaluate a home plate umpire’s consistency rather than his accuracy. Put another way, it’s probably safer to evaluate the scatter plot data by the relationship of called balls and strikes to each other, rather than by their relationship to likely dubious strike zone boundaries.
I propose, when reviewing scatter plot data, the observer should change the fewest numbers of calls shown on the pitch tracker, such that after the changes, all strikes are more central than all balls within the same region. This approach allows estimation of the number of blown calls, essentially saying to the ump “these are the pitches where you contradicted your own strike zone.” Personally, using the two scatter plots shown, I would change the following called strikes to balls:
– two strikes called against Dodgers’ RHH outside the top of the zone
– one inside strike called against a Dodger RHH, about three quarters the way up
– two outside strikes called against Astros’ RHH, about a quarter to a third the way up
– one inside strike called against an Astros LHH, near the bottom of the zone
and would change the following called balls to strikes:
– four balls called low and in to an Astros’ RHH that probably caught the corner
– one ball called low and over the middle of the plate to a Dodger RHH
To me, Mr. Sullivan’s prose is biased, assuming the batters shown in the GIFs are correct and the home plate ump is incorrect. My conclusions drawn from these graphs and GIFs are:
– the home plate ump was consistent on about 95% of his pitches during WS game 5 (10 inconsistencies, i.e. certain bad calls out of just over 200 total called pitches)
– the home plate ump’s inconsistencies didn’t particularly favor the pitchers or batters. (six certain bad ball calls vs. five certain bad strike calls.)
– if anyone on LA should be upset about the ump, it should be Dodger pitchers who were squeezed out of a cluster of strikes low and in to RHH
Further, if an interested reader will forgive a digression, I will offer the following hypothesis regarding the behavior of the players depicted in the embedded GIF clips after a brief explanation about the context of the contemporary MLB strike zone. Everyone agrees that the strike zone expanded from 2009-2015 and now has shrunk in 2016-’17, the latter of which has been associated with the following changes on the three true outcomes:
Median HR per mlb team by season:
2017: 1.29
2016: 1.19
2015: 0.98
2014: 0.84
2013: 0.97
2012: 1.01
Median BB per mlb team by season
2017: 3.30
2016: 3.09
2015: 2.92
2014: 2.88
2013: 2.90
2012: 2.96
Median K per mlb team by season:
2017: 8.20
2016: 8.05
2015: 7.84
2014: 7.72
2013: 7.45
2012: 7.60
It is easy to understand why shrinking the zone would lead to an increase in HR and BB. But why would the number of K also slightly increase (albeit less dramatically than HR and BB) in the setting of a smaller zone?
I propose that, as soon as Mr. Manfred made GMs aware of measures made to shrink the bottom of the strike zone between the 2015 and 2016 seasons, GMs responded by promoting players with power, even before those hitters had learned to hit a low breaking ball. Aaron Judge is a perfect example but there are many others who have ‘broken out’ in the last two seasons despite massive K rates belying large holes in their plate coverage: Gallo, Story, Souza, Broxton, Sano, Duvall, TBeckham, Thames, Odor, Zunino, Dickerson, Lamb, Schwarber, Morrison, Bellinger, Baez, Healy, Schoop, Chris Taylor, Michael Taylor, Mancini, Renfroe, et al, to name a couple dozen.
It is a lot easier for a young batter to focus on a high leg kick, uppercut and launch angle, when management encourages taking borderline pitches, particularly early in the count. The post season, when quality pitchers abound, remains as the greatest discriminator between batters who can hit pitches at the edges of the zone or just out of the zone for meaningful contact, compared with mashers who sit on mistakes. The batters who were upset by Mr. Miller’s calls in the game 5 of the Astros-Dodgers game are all younger players and the way they have been approaching the strike zone, while wildly successful against over half of MLB pitchers, is not always advantageous to winning a tight baseball game against a line of quality (though in this case admittedly tired) pitchers.
P.S. Finally, in the interest of disclosing my own biases, my subjective impressions are that C.B. Bucknor is the only MLB ump who is truly an outlier as far as missing balls and strikes and that inconsistencies among balls and strikes rarely favor one team or another.
P.P.S. Thank you for this great website and for dedicating so much work and analysis to the game/religion of baseball.
Baseball is my religion.
This is awesome.
Also, I would point to 3 critical data points, regarding Judge and Fangraphs’ analyses:
MLB pitches low in the zone: 67%
Borderline low balls called strikes vs. league avg: 28%
Borderline low balls called strikes vs Judge: 52%
This is great stuff
I don’t mind the gifs, but being forced to watch a 30 second ad to see a 10 second gif is maddening.
I like to think that on the Hernandez bunt attempt, the umpire was trying to warn him off from trying such a dumb bunt a second time.
I’m pretty sure this is Jeff’s fault.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/expect-the-world-series-strike-zone-to-favor-the-dodgers/