The Yankees Didn’t Get Screwed by the Strike Zone
During last night’s Wild Card game live blog, there were a few readers (presumably Yankee fans) who were very upset with the strike zone being called by home plate umpire Eric Cooper.
10:42
Comment From Hank
Cooper is a joke – that one was 4-6? off the plate!Comment From Cb
Why is Sipp getting the benefit of the doubt on all these 3-ball count pitches on the edge?Comment From Will
I don’t think it’s been atrociously bad, but saying “it’s fair because both teams knew about it” ignores the fact that walk-heavy teams will be more burned by a pitcher-friendly zone than a free-swinging team like the Astros.Comment From The Hamburglar
Cooper’s zone is notoriously high. Once again, this does not explain the constant outside pitches going the Astros way
As we talked about pre-game, Eric Cooper is a known pitcher’s umpire with a tendency to call more strikes than average on pitches at the top and bottom of the zone. And that’s exactly what he did yesterday. From our box score page, a graphical representation of every called ball and called strike from last night’s game.
There are a couple of borderline calls on the right and left side of the plate, but by and large, the marginal called strikes are at the bottom of the zone, with a few extra at the top. If you go the box score page, you can actually hover over each point on the zone and see who threw the pitch, who was batting, and what the count was.
The call in that bottom left corner of the image, the one that was both low and inside to a right-handed hitter? That was thrown by Masahiro Tanaka, a first pitch called strike to Evan Gattis. That one went the Yankees way, and it was pretty clearly the worst call of the night. So, sorry Hank, there was no pitch “4-6 inches outside” that went against the Yankees.
That said, Dallas Keuchel did benefit more from the calls on the margins than Tanaka (or any of the Yankees relievers) did. The lowest pitch that was over the plate and called a strike was a 2-1 fastball to Brian McCann that evened the count. The one just above that was a 1-0 cutter to Chase Headley. On the other side of the plate, the one just below the zone that was called a strike was a 1-0 fastball to Rob Refsnyder. The called strike the furthest to the right on the graph was a 1-0 fastball from Tony Sipp to Refsnyder. The called strike the furthest to the left (besides the Tanaka/Gattis pitch) was a 2-0 fastball from Keuchel to Chris Young.
All of these borderline pitches could have been called balls, but I included the count in those descriptions for a reason; notice how, in every single one of those, the batter was ahead in the count. This shouldn’t be a surprise, because it’s pretty well established that the strike zone gets bigger when a pitcher falls behind in a count, and shrinks as a pitcher gets ahead.
Despite the cliche about “needing to give in to a hitter” when a pitcher falls behind, the reality is that a pitcher with good command can actually push the edges of the zone a little more aggressively after he throws ball one or ball two, because umpires are more generous with their calls in those counts than they are if a pitcher is trying to paint the corner for strike three. While I’m certainly not a psychologist, it seems to make intuitive sense that umpires, as human beings, are incentivized to minimize the number of at-bats where they determine the outcome on the final pitch, so shrinking the zone with as a strikeout becomes possible and growing it as a walk becomes possible seems to fit with the motivation of having the at-bat end with a player action rather than an umpire call.
So, yes, Keuchel got some calls on pitches on the borders of the strike zone, but in almost every single case, he threw those borderline pitches in counts where the zone is known to expand in size. And a majority of these borderline pitches that were called strikes were just below the bottom of the strike zone, which is an area where Cooper is known to be more generous than the average umpire. Given the “presentation” skills of his catcher, Cooper’s tall strike zone, and the counts in which he was pounding the bottom of the strike zone, we shouldn’t be at all surprised that Keuchel got the benefit of the doubt on pitches at the margins. Tanaka would almost certainly have gotten those calls too, except he didn’t command his pitches well enough to paint the corners very often.
There’s no question that Cooper’s zone was a little bit larger than most umpire’s zones, but that’s true of him in general, and was known heading into the game. With basically one exception — a pitch that gave Tanaka a free strike on a pitch that wasn’t very close — Cooper called the strike zone that both teams should have expected him to call. Keuchel did a better job of taking advantage of Cooper’s willingness to call low strikes, especially by attacking those borderline areas even after he fell behind by a ball or two, but this wasn’t a situation where the umpire was egregiously calling pitches one way and not the other.
The Yankees offense struggled last night, and having a pitcher-friendly umpire certainly didn’t help promote offense, but Cooper’s tall strike zone was a known variable heading into the game, and that’s what he called last night. The Astros simply did a better job of executing pitches in areas that Cooper would call strikes.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I don’t think anyone was saying the Yankees lost because of the zone, I believe people were irritated that you kept insisting the strike zone was being called fairly.
In my eyes “fairness” in umpiring comes from consistency: the same pitch being called the same way each time. From the chart, Cooper did a pretty strong job of that. Other than some small issues in the bottom part of the zone, pitches that were closer were strikes.
A big or small strike zone called consistently is fair, especially if established early enough for pitchers and hitters to calibrate.
Nope. Anyone who thought the zone was bad was
A) A presumed Yankees fan (Dave logic/Dave bias)
B) Is implying the Yankees got screwed because they don’t like the zone. (Dave strawman)
Welcome to the 1950’s where “as long as the ump it consistent, it’s OK” It is truly stunning that a saber writer is falling back on this tired cliche and then twisting any complaint of the zone into homer bias or a bad strawman that people are saying the Yankees got screwed.
—-
Here is the Brooks plot which seem to have a different view of a few pitches (I have no idea why the Fangraphs plot appears to be a bit different)
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/fastmap.php-pitchSel=all&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1&sp_type=3&s_type=7&cache=1.gif
You can clearly see a pitch called a strike well off the plate. It also shows the bad strike Tanaka got off the inside corner and down at the bottom of the zone
“Welcome to the 1950’s where “as long as the ump it consistent, it’s OK””
Speaking of strawmen, Dave didn’t say anything of the sort. Not even close.
That was the other poster. He’s just the saying the guy had a tall zones and always had one. But that was something both team’s known. he’s not apologizing for it but Umps have tendencies and it was pointed out prior to the game.
Also Dave posted the brooks Chart when doing the blog.
All human umps will miss calls, no question. Overall Cooper performed reasonably well last night. He’s certainly not the reason the yankees lost.
Regarding the concept of hitter/pitcher friendly umpires: how big of a difference is there in the zone of the most hitter friendly compared to the most pitcher friendly?
I’m not sure exactly what the rulebook says, and I understand that consistency is the most important element in calling balls and strikes, but there is some intuitive sense to me in a pitch that is only half in the strike zone being called a strike only half the time.
“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.”
So basically letters to knees, but it’s called more like belt to knees. I just don’t understand how a rule is just completely ignored and umpires make up their own zones.
I’m more curious if there is any specific language regarding when only a small fraction of the ball is in the strike zone.
From rule 2.0:
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which …
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
…
So a small fraction of the ball clipping the corner of the zone is a strike. The computerized zones you see aren’t usually quite correct since it’s possible for a ball to enter the zone from above or the side after passing the leading edge of the plate, and the computers usually only look at the position at the leading edge.
EXACTLY!!!! This is what I have been saying for decades now!!! But is has gotten much worse in recent years, so much so that it seems it has been accepted as the norm Virtually every broadcast includes the announcers stating that “This umpire has a high strike zone” or “This umpire is a pitcher’s umpire”! I’m not sure when exactly it was decided to let the umpires just create their own strike zones! But there really IS still a strike zone as defined by the rule book, I guess the Commish just chooses to ignore it!
The strike zone was fair for both teams. It’s not Cooper’s fault the Astros were better at hitting Tanaka’s mistakes out of the ball park. Also, for all the talk about the Astros being free-swingers, they are, they also finished 5th in the AL in walks. So they can work the count just as well as the Yankees, well actually, the Yankees averaged, 0.42 more walks per game than the Astros this season.
This box is most definitely different than the one from the espn broadcast. There were several called strikes that appeared several inches off the plate on the broadcast that aren’t in the box provided here. Was thinking that they disproportionately went Houston’s way, but didn’t think anything of it. Then I saw the tweet of this article. No way this is the same real-time pitch location data.
I 100% agree, not the same as the box being shown on ESPN
I noticed during the broadcast that the espn strikezone was very narrow. There was one pitch in particular where it showed it being way outside, but then the overhead shot showed it catching the corner. I mean the size of the circle was smaller than a baseball so yeah… The 3d zone graphic was cool though.
Ya, that 1-0 called strike to Refsnyder was definitely not where it was shown on the map above. I distinctly remember seeing the overhead view of the pitch going off the plate and then the Astros catcher pulling it back over. The announcers even talked about pitch framing (or presentation) for like 10 minutes after that call.
Maybe the difference is that ESPN’s box is the official zone while Daves box is the zone that the average umpire calls which is larger than the official zone
I love it when you talk about Dave’s box!
They would have lost still. But all this talk about irregular and subjective strike zones (plus catcher framing) has got to end as it is against the ruleboook definition of the strike zone. Robots when.
Can we take a moment to admire how heavily the ESPN broadcast discussed Jason Castro’s excellent pitch framing? Especially true when Chris Archer specifically pointed out a number of examples of Castro getting calls. They didn’t really remark on McCann’s behind-the-plate demeanor, but I was still very happy to hear Archer in particular emphasize just how important the catcher is.
OK, but it’s a little like spending extra time during an NBA game talking about how someone is good at drawing charges or flopping in hockey.
In other words, it’s glorifying a part of the sport ( fooling refs ) that really ought not be there in the first place. I find basketball and soccer intolerable to watch because entire games turn on acting jobs, and I’d rather baseball not devolve into that either.
Settle down, francis
1) Teams will *always* look for an edge.
2) Rules can *always* be exploited in some way.
Where again is the bottom of the strike zone? The top?
“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.”
“hollow beneath the kneecap”… Is that when the batter stands straight up? When he is in his stance? Which knee? What if he is checking his swing and strides forward, lowering his knee towards the ground? What if he squares up to up bunt?
The game of baseball was designed with rules that are not black and white. Pitcher-catcher duo’s that can perform like Keuchel and Castro did should be the goal more so than the duo’s like Tanaka and McCann.
This article was so much BS. If this did not happen then why are so many people takin about how bad the calls were ? If it were a non issue this article would not of even been published. The pitches were called the Astros way all night and it was obvious for the plain eye to see. He needs to be more consistent I am fine with a low strike zone but it needed to be called that way for both teams and it was not at all and it screwed the Yankees. The Yankees walk a ton and yes you were right a lot of the bad calls were when the batter was ahead in the count which makes it even more frustrating the Yankees pride themselves on working the count so they can see good pitches later in the at bat so they can get guys on base however they can and when you make bogus calls like that it’s impossible to do that. It forces patient hitters like Gardner to swing away at crap and strikeout. Just sad to see the Yankees lose this game like this by poor umpiring behind the plate.
There are so many things wrong with this comment it’s hard to know where to start.
This article is also a lot of BS. If this does not happen then why are so many people taking the number of calls? If it is spam, this article would not be published. The rest of the Astros called up all night and apparently clear eyes to see. It should be in line with a low blow, but is said to be known as good for both sides and it is not everything and that he was late Yankees. Let the Yanks tone and you are right, a lot of bad calls when the battery is still ahead, counting of votes, which makes it even more frustrating Yankees are proud of working order to see the notes better before the strike, so you guys are based as much as I can and When you make a call, because he can not fake that. Human disease killer as Gardner tee ignorant and omissions. I am sad to see the Yankees lose this game too bad the judge’s panel.
Human disease killer lol.
Sentence by sentence, I’ve got:
Introductory sentence
Appeal to the mob
Begging the question
Begging the question
Incoherent
Faulty assumption (Gardener could decide not to swing, or try to foul off the “crap”)
Begging the question
*double-checks card* wait, I have those…BINGO!
I love when fangraphs articles get linked elsewhere. You can tell who the commenters are that have never been to this site before.
Sal, your takes are too hot for fangraphs. Take your rabble rabble to espn’s facebook page where you may fit in better.
When do we get the scouting report on tonight’s behind-the-plate umpire?
It is up now.
It would be great to see a chart like the one above with just Keuchel’s pitches. And then, it would be even better if you could overlay a semi-transparent image representing the movement. The most frustrating thing about watching the game, as a Yankee fan, was seeing Keuchel paint the corners all night with movement in all different directions. I realize he has a finite amount of pitches and there are a finite number of locations, but subjectively it didn’t seem like it. Normally it seems like a pitcher works maybe a fastball, slider, and changeup, and you can see some pitchers working inside and then low and way, but with Keuchel it seemed like it was more, “How about I toss in some loopy shit that breaks across the inner half of the zone? Then how about something that breaks away and nips the lower outside corner? Then how about something that starts way outside the strike zone but somehow hits the corner, and then one that starts towards the middle of the strike zone but the disappears into something unhittable?”
Considering how terrible the Yankees hitters have been the last month, it didn’t seem fair to throw vintage Keuchel at them in a one-game playoff. The league should look into this.
You can isolate just Keuchel’s pitches using Brooks Baseball. You can also get all sorts of charts over at Baseball Savant
Wow, cool stuff! Looks like in real life he was more often in the middle of the zone and less often on the edges than it subjectively seemed.
The issue I have with this post is that you failed to mention any of the close pitches that were called balls. Just look at the chart, there were many such pitches. The analysis is incomplete if you don’t check whether these calls were evenly distributed. Strike calls are only part of it.
I can’t really trust the strike zone data Dave has provided. There were several overhead angles last night that showed called strikes on pitches several inches outside. These don’t show up in Dave’s data.
I appreciate the objectiveness Dave is trying to provide, and I think it’s difficult to trust the ESPN strike zone at all times.
However pitches that are outside are pretty clear cut when looking from an overhead angle. There isn’t any mystery brought in by batter height or batting stance – the strike zone is the width of the plate.
Maybe the overhead camera wasn’t centred over the plate? I noticed pitches going the other way (espn zone had them way outside, overhead showed them catching).
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/location.php-pitchSel=448609&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1&batterX=55&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3&league=mlb&pnf=&zlpo=&cache=1.gif
It also doesn’t match the pitch f/x plot over at Brooks.
I have no idea what Fangraphs is using, but it appears to be different (and bigger)
What is the source of this graph? I recall some overhead camera shots that clearly showed pitches well off the plate called as strikes that are not indicated in the above graphic.
The Yankees lost because they didn’t hit, period. It’s great to see the Astros move on. Hopefully it will be the Astros or Jays in the WS against the Cubs or Pirates.
From Brooks Baseball, it seems that Keuchel had 9 “balls” called as strikes, and Tanaka had 3 “balls” called as strikes. To me, that’s not nothing.
Keuchel:
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/location.php-pitchSel=572971&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1&batterX=&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=&league=mlb&pnf=&zlpo=&cache=1.gif
Tanaka:
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/location.php-pitchSel=547888&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1&batterX=&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=&league=mlb&pnf=&zlpo=&cache=1.gif
But look at where the called balls are for Tanaka. They really aren’t close enough to the zone to really get all worked up. That one off the bottom right is the closest it gets. Keuchel had a couple that were called that low, or little lower, but none called that were also that far off the edge.
Basically, any of Tanaka’s called balls would arguably have been much worse strike calls, if called that way, than Keuchel’s called strikes.
As mentioned above, Keuchel also had a far better catcher. There are multiple variables here.
Tanaka was all over the place, missing location badly, For example, that Rasmus HR was supposed to be a pitch outside and it was inside. Keuchel was painting. Plus, Castro was setting up outside and catching the ball in his center, while McCann had to reach for the ball. Castro helped his pitcher more than McCann.
The ump seemed to have a larger zone in hitters counts. Yankees took more pitches in these counts while the Astros were up there hacking. More opportunities to get called strikes for Keuchel than the Yankees
How many pitches were called a ball for Tanaka that were closer to the strikezone than Dallas’s furthest called strike? Maybe 1?
Complaining about the strike zone is the equivelent to comparing someone to Hitler during a debate. Its just lazy, hackneyed hot air.
Is this a second order violation of Godwin’s law?
haha a comparison of a comparison to hitler
Any comparison to Hitler is lazy, hackneyed hot air, and grossly offensive
First, I think that the larger issue is that with today’s technology… I’m not sure there is any good reason to have some human making the ball/strike calls. That it was a human with questionable strikezone judgement and known for having a temper was a questionable decision (it’s just amazing this guy hasn’t been canned), but that it’s any human at all is a bigger issue to me.
Second, there may be a major data issue involved in your disagreement with some commenters. The in-game strikezone display painted a different picture. It showed Keuchel getting several calls on balls that were outside the zone both vertically and horizontally. (And the pitches looked that way on TV as well, for what that’s worth.) Perhaps the TV zone was less accurate, so fans are mistaken. Perhaps your graphic is less accurate, so you are mistaken. Either way, I think there’s some information asymmetry here. It’s not that fans were necessarily rooting for the Yankees, the TV broadcast, rightly or wrongly, clearly showed Keuchel getting some really bad calls in his favor.
In terms of the actual game…
Keuchel seemed to have better command last night, so it sort of makes sense he’d get more borderline calls: he may have thrown more borderline pitches. One big impact of Coooper’s incompetence, and one that is tough to measure, is that these poor calls expand the zone on a hitter. Totally anecdotal, but several times after Cooper made one of these calls… the hitter proceeded to swing at the next pitch even though it was out of the zone. Cooper effectively takes the bat out of the hitters hands on a 2 strike count: the hitter doesn’t have any idea whether a borderline pitch is a ball or a strike, so he has to swing even at pitches that he knows are off the plate.
So… the ultimate issue with Cooper is about consistency rather than the size of the zone. You can see this on the graphic above: pitches in the same spot result in different calls, pitches that are closer to the zone are balls while those further away are strikes. This benefits the team whose pitcher has better command. The pitch that struck A-Rod out in his first PA and the low pitch the McCann and the pitch to Gattis were balls the rest of the night. That’s a problem. I have no issue with a big or small zone. I have a huge issue with an inconsistent zone.
brevity is not your middle name
Sounds like the Yankees lost a typical Dallas Keuchel game regardless of who the umpire was going to be. About a K per inning and tons of weak contact.
The Yankees had their chances, he left a couple balls over the middle of the plate. The difference is execution. Rasmus and Gomez put two balls in the stands, the Yankees couldn’t match. Look at the graph, there were a ton of balls thrown in the middle of the strike zone during the game and only one team capitalized.
“…with today’s technology…I’m not sure there is any good reason to have some human making the ball/strike calls.”
“…there may be a major data issue involved in your disagreement with some commenters. The in-game strikezone display painted a different picture.”
As far as I know, the current near-real time automated strike zones estimate ball location at the leading edge of the plate only.
Which doesn’t match the rule-book definition.
If you’re going to put in an automated strike-zone you need to either change the rule-book or change and retest the automation.
The current automation also depends on a human to enter the heights of the top and bottom of the zone for each hitter.
I’d love an automated zone, and I think even with the problems it would be an improvement, but there’s no point in claiming that there are no problems.
That would hold more weight if the umpires actually called the rule-book strike zone.
That could easily be entered into a database in spring training (or when a player came up from the minors). Players could be allowed to asked for a re-calibration if they feel that it is wrong or they have made a change in their stance.
Even if the automated strike zone is not perfect, it would presumably have the advantage of being consistent over the season, rather than a player having to figure out the umpire’s strike zone for each game.
From Brooks Baseball … http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=10&day=06&year=2015&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1/&prevDate=1006
Looking at this, it does appear the Stros got a few more borderline calls, especially against RHH, Tanaka’s Gattis pitch notwithstanding. Nothing that clearly cost the Yankees the game, though. The meatball A-Rod missed was the difference, and the umpire didn’t have anything to do w that.
I feel like a self-centered Astros’ fan for saying this, but it strikes me that the difference was likely that you can identify only a singular such meatball to miss.
Good point. Keuchel was awesome. I sincerely hope my post didn’t make me sound like a Yankees fan. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but fortunately, Yankees fan has never been one of them. 🙂
Silly to think that Keuchel threw that “meatball” exactly where he wanted to get the result that transpired.
The cliff notes version of this article is “Keuchel got more borderline calls because Tanaka didn’t throw enough borderline pitches”
Blame ESPN – if there was no darn strike zone box, nobody would be complaining.
I don’t think the article really addresses Will’s point, which the article started by quoting, which is that, in general, a team looking to work the count is going to be much more penalized by a wider strike zone than a free swinging team. It could be argued that this is “fair” as long as both teams get the same strike zone, but equally it could be argued that a human element that disproportionately affects one team is unfair. The article doesn’t really touch on this at all, despite leading with the quote.
This is one of those situations that can swing either way though. A bigger zone will benefit a “swing-away” team over a team that focuses on working the count, but alternately an ump with a smaller zone than average will benefit the more patient team over the free-swingers. Just like how different parks or weather conditions are more or less beneficial to different sorts of players, there are pros and cons, and you’re never going to make it exactly evenly fair for both teams. It just happens that in this case, the ump was a certain way that happened to help the Astros more than the Yankees, and also that they’re in a situation where one singular game is all that matters and there won’t be an entire series where the Yankees could presumably get a pitcher more to their advantage. It’s an unlucky break for New York, but I think on the whole it’s a much smaller factor than Keuchel absolutely owning the night and a few Houston hitters taking advantage of crushable balls. So did the Yankees come in at a disadvantage based on the ump? Probably, but it’s a disadvantage that could just as well have been an advantage with a different guy behind the catcher. Luck of the draw.
I mean, if I’m looking at that chart, I don’t see any glaring issues. And I’m a Yankee fan. We got beat by a better team who had a starter who has pitched like a bonafide ace. I’m fine with it.
I posted this same comment in Jeff’s article about the strikes called in last night’s game, so apologies if I sound like a broken record. I think one thing that gets lost in the discussion of called balls and strikes is that it completely ignores every pitch that’s swung in any given game. I looked at the Brooks Baseball pitchf/x graphs from last night’s game and the Astros swung and missed, fouled off, or put in play a lot of balls outside the zone (not all that remarkable considering they were 4th in the AL in swing% — they like to hack). Of course, we’ll never know if any of those would’ve been called strikes had they not swung, but it does mean there were fewer opportunities for the umpire to call pitches outside the zone as strikes whenever a Yankees pitcher was on the mound. When an Astros pitcher was on the mound, the Yankees did just the opposite — they didn’t offer at many pitches outside the zone during last night’s game, essentially giving the umpire more opportunity to call those pitches strikes (one wonders why they made no in-game adjustments if they thought the strike zone was bigger for Astros pitchers during the course of the game). Also, in terms of close calls, it appears that only three of Keuchel’s pitches outside the strike zone were truly bad calls. The rest of the balls outside the zone were extremely close (most towards the lower part of the zone). Conversely, Tanaka didn’t throw many close pitches at all. Most of his non-strike pitches were nowhere near the zone. For the most part, when he missed, he missed badly (even though Astros hitters swung at more than a few of those pitches).
It’s well documented the Yankees are a team that does their scoring by getting on base and then counting on extra base hits, specially home runs. It’s very hard to hit one though, when youre never in a hitter’s count. It seemed like everytime a Yankee hitter was up 2-0 or 2-1 about to go into a count he could really do damage, the Astros would get the call on a pitch that was a ball. To make it even worse, now you’re in the head of the player for the rest of the game, that he has to swing at a bad pitch, otherwise he’s at risk of falling behind or being rung up on a pitch that was never strike. That was a very poorly called game, not by the amount of calls, but the situations inbwhich they were made and thebimportance they had yh3n, and going forward in that game.
Looking at this plot, I think Dave is right. Astros got 3 calls and Yankees 1 call beyond what was generally called by the average umpire (dashed line).
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/zoneTrack.php?month=10&day=6&year=2015&game=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1%2F&prevGame=gid_2015_10_06_houmlb_nyamlb_1%2F&prevDate=1006
If going strictly by the official zone, Astros got more calls, but thats because they painted more. Most of Tanakas balls for example were not as close as Keuchels balls and McCann did not present as well as Castro
the real question is, with this a playoff elimination game why does MLB put an ump behind the plate with a known unorthodox strike zone. they (MLB) had their choice of any ump and they chose this guy.
the strike zone and the yankee energy was derpreswsing. go giants
Funny, derpreswsing is the last word I would have come up with to describe that.
Not that it matters, but you posting a strike zone that’s a perfect square skews the whole article… The strike zone is more of a rectangle shape then it is a square.. Make the strike zone accurate and maybe you can give a more accurate analysis..
Hey, that was me! Gotta say, I actually didnt know that, thanks for the chat answer. I’ve reconsidered my feelings about the umpire in last night’s game.
Major league hitters know their strike zone. After thousands of at-bats you know high or low, outside or inside. When an umpire interprets what he believes is a fair strike zone it throws the batter off from all his training & experience. It favors a pitcher who can take advantage of the umps strike zone. Case in point was the one game playoff the other night. The Yankees couldn’t hit any of the relief pitchers either. So they weren’t going to win the game as long as they felt intimidated by the large strike zone.
Your graph of called balls and strikes does not match the “strike zone” put on my TV Tuesday night. From the TV I counted at least 8 pitches that were “out of the strike zone” and called a strike Keuchel by the end of the 4th inning. Only one that was called for Tanaka. Based on what I saw, that kid was getting anything even close called a strike, whereas Tanaka even had a pitch in the zone that was called a ball. Every one of you reading this that thinks an home plate umpire can’t determine the outcome of a game (intentionally or unintentionally) is completely naïve.
The “strike zone” put up on your TV Tuesday night doesn’t match the real strike zone either. No two dimensional box does.
Complaining about one over another is the height of ignorance and/or homerism.