Shrinking of strike zone-good thing or no?

[cz fastpitch fan]

I was having a conversation recently with the father of a collegiate pitcher and learned that certain collegiate conferences have recently decided to shrink the strike zone, taking the corners away as well as the sternum-high rise ball. The intent was to create more exciting games with higher scoring in an effort to boost the fan base.
Do you think this is a good thing or no?
I totally understand the financial reasons for wanting to boost interest in the fans. However, is this the best way to do it? If a pitcher is dominant and she is mowing down the side inning after inning, then good for her! Work on your hitting!

To me, it seems like you are taking away those pitches that those young ladies have worked years and years to perfect!

Thoughts?

 

[BulldawgsDirector]

My thoughts are that I enjoy watching a dominant pitcher as much as great hitting. I really like the showdowns between the 2. Watching the Florida/ Alabama series the past couple days I can't see where there is anything wrong with the game at that level. Of course you are talking about the pinnacle of college softball in that instance but it seems throughout the country teams are scoring at a healthy clip. It appears that would be an effort to lure a very casual fan base rather than people that spend the majority of their year studying ways to get better in the game with the strike zone as it is. I feel like it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Pacerdad57]

i would have to agree with Bulldawgs, plus i see no financial gain in reality by getting more fans to a game no one has to purchase tickets to.
after years of lessons and practice being told to live on corners, throw in the bottom, and use a hard rise to get the k's, i see no advantage for anyone by shrinking the strike zone.
how much more exciting would it be for any fan to watch walk after walk....it can get pretty painful to watch those games.

 

[coachjwb]

I guess I would be interested in hearing if this is truly the case ... i.e., what exactly if anything the conferences told the umps. My experience was that the strike zone in college was a lot smaller than high school ... though I think that was just more college umps calling it more by the book than high school umps.

 

[WWolff]

Chris
I know at the events we play the strike zones have been tighter for a few years now, and I always thought it was because at these events we usually have college umpires. So I do not think it is anything new necessarily. Although they may have told them to tighten their zones. It could also be pitchers dad complaining because he feels his daughter is getting squeezed. lol

I will be talking to a couple college coaches today and will ask them what they think, and let you know what they think or have heard.

 

[tankerlab]

I see this at all levels. I'm talking about the upper portion of the strike zone. I bet I've said twenty times the last year or two that they should just lower the strike zone.
The vast majority of umpires will not call a strike on the upper level of the strike zone! So don't SAY armpits, top of sternum or letters is the top portion of the strike zone and never call it a strike.
You can see the catcher catch the ball right on her nose. How high is the average catchers face in relationship to the strike zone?
Catching it at her face or not higher than her head would be a strike but majority are called balls. I realize it's where the ball crosses the batter and plate.
Also people's opinion on this is going to be wether they are a pitchers person or batters person.
My opinion is if you take away the Rembrandt of the pitching game it will become boring. Everyone will hit...

 

[Louuuuu]

Can somebody - anybody - show me a memo, addendum, amendment,... anything... where a governing body said "let's shrink the strike zone"?

Or is it just perception?

ASA & OHSAA (which is really NFHS) have defined the strike zone as the top of the knees to the armpit of the leading shoulder for a good number of years now. Umpire A or Umpire B may call it a bit differently, but the legal definition has been consistant.

 

[daboss]

After watching the games on TV this weekend I have to agree with a post above. I don't see the game needing fixed at the moment. You start making the girls serve up pitches in a smaller/tighter zone and they might as well play slowpitch.

Give the hitters their just due. The game will always favor a Jennie or Cat kind of pitcher when you actually have one. What is more likely in today's game is to see a Jessica Mendoza type hitter that has a solid swing. The girls know how to play this game now. Leave it alone and let it evolve. Having said this, I wonder if somebody (meaning the umpire) misunderstood the instructions they recieved. Did they actually get told to shrink the zone or to get more cosistent with their respective zones. Lord knows they all have their own yet that was never the intent. I say follow the description of a strike that's in the book as close as you can call it and know that book is always there to back you up.

 

[BretMan2]

Just from talking with guys that work college ball, they haven't changed their definition of the strike zone (which can be confirmed by looking at their on-line rule book). But what they have been told is to NOT be over-generous in giving pitches that are just off the plate. For years college umpires have been giving that pitch where the ball doesn't even nick the corner. So the zone hasn't changes, but how the umpires have been instructed to call it has.

NFHS/high school issued a point of emphasis to their umpires this year to enforce ALL of the zone as defined. This should have a net effect of making the zone even larger! The idea is to get that top half of the zone back into the game.

One drawback with calling it like that is the pitch where the bottom of the ball just barely nicks the top line of the zone, at the arm pits. The top of the ball will be up around the batters chin, or maybe even the nose on a smaller batter who is crouched over. This pitch will look not only high, but grossly too high, to many coaches and players. The many, many complaints about that pitch being "too high" is what's led to the top line of the zone being called lower and lower. But I really do think that some umpires take way too much off the top, to the point of not calling much above the belt or belly button a strike. To me, that is too extreme of an adjustment that tilts the odds too far in the favor of the hitter.

 

[Simpsoj]

In my first years of fast pitch and the other officials I've worked with we've all called a pretty liberal zone.......in height and width. I'm not a HS official so maybe that makes a difference but I always try to determine the top of MY zone when the batter walks into the box. After-all, the strike zone is determined from their "natural stance" not a crouch etc.

Yes, some complain about height but as long as you keep calling both sides the same it seems to settle itself down. I've never given that off the plate strike but I sure look hard to try and get a strike when I can. I look at strikes like the "old guy" does with outs....when in doubt, get an out......if it's close SWING!!

 

[USAUmp1]

In NFHS. the strike zone is determined by the batters normal batting stance. The zone is the forward arm pit and the knees. The 6" area between the batters box line and the plate is called the river. Normally if a ball is in the river it is called a strike. If any part of the ball crosses the plate it is considered to be a strike.

 

[FastBat]

Good question! I can't decide. But, I think a smaller strike zone might make the game longer with more walks? But, a larger strike zone could get some pitch's that a hitter wouldn't be able to hit well?

 

[tankerlab]

just from talking with guys that work college ball, they haven't changed their definition of the strike zone (which can be confirmed by looking at their on-line rule book). But what they have been told is to not be over-generous in giving pitches that are just off the plate. For years college umpires have been giving that pitch where the ball doesn't even nick the corner. So the zone hasn't changes, but how the umpires have been instructed to call it has.

Nfhs/high school issued a point of emphasis to their umpires this year to enforce all of the zone as defined. This should have a net effect of making the zone even larger! The idea is to get that top half of the zone back into the game.

One drawback with calling it like that is the pitch where the bottom of the ball just barely nicks the top line of the zone, at the arm pits. The top of the ball will be up around the batters chin, or maybe even the nose on a smaller batter who is crouched over. This pitch will look not only high, but grossly too high, to many coaches and players. The many, many complaints about that pitch being "too high" is what's led to the top line of the zone being called lower and lower. But i really do think that some umpires take way too much off the top, to the point of not calling much above the belt or belly button a strike. To me, that is too extreme of an adjustment that tilts the odds too far in the favor of the hitter.

.............amen!

 

[tankerlab]

Good question! I can't decide. But, I think a smaller strike zone might make the game longer with more walks? But, a larger strike zone could get some pitch's that a hitter wouldn't be able to hit well?

No... A smaller strike zone will be more hits not walks.... If your pitcher is any good....

 

[tankerlab]

In NFHS. the strike zone is determined by the batters normal batting stance. The zone is the forward arm pit and the knees. The 6" area between the batters box line and the plate is called the river. Normally if a ball is in the river it is called a strike. If any part of the ball crosses the plate it is considered to be a strike.

Yet 95% of umpires NEVER call a pitch at the armpit a strike... So why not just change the zone to what they call???

 

[cz fastpitch fan]

So in light of what Bretman stated about the strike zone itself changing, rather that the umps are simply no longer rewarding the low corners and high strikes, I modify the OP as follows:
If they are simply going to be changing how they are calling strikes, is this a good thing? Have read quite a few who don't want it changed and others who say "go ahead and change the zone to reflect how the strikes are actually called.
Are we doing right for the game?

 

[Louuuuu]

The 6" area between the batters box line and the plate is called the river. Normally if a ball is in the river it is called a strike.

... Not on my field. If it crosses any part of the plate; yes.

 

[BretMan2]

A ball entirely "in the river", as far away from the plate as it can be and still be entirely in the river, will be two inches off the plate.

Hold your fingers two inches apart. Now try to imagine judging the ball's relation to that two inch gap, when the ball is three feet above that invisible line and moving 60 miles per hour. Close is close enough?

The problem is when umpires start giving more than that, when the ball is partially over the batter's box line. Then, just like the top of the zone getting lower and lower, the sides of the zone get wider and wider. There's some point where widening it a tiny bit might be acceptable, but then there's another point where it starts to get ridiculous. This is where the NCAA wants their umpires to tighten it up.

And remember- the NCAA rules are highly "coach driven". That is, most of their rule changes don't come about because some overseeing group decides it is best for the game. Input from the coaches drives the changes, and several coaches reside on the rules committee. Just like with the big emphasis on illegal pitches a few years ago, the strike zone interpretation is being changed because the coaches want it changed.

 

[BretMan2]

Straight from their own rule book, here is how the NCAA defines the strike zone. At the top line (the sternum), the top of the ball must not be above that line. At the sides and bottom, the ball only needs to touch the lines.

 

[Pacerdad57]

Bretman, thanks for the visual. it really helps to see that to relate to calls being made.

now to just get the HS umps to start calling the high strikes that are in the zone.
again last night saw a lot of great "at the letters" pitches form all the picthers on both teams add up to ball calls.
if it is within the legal limits of the zone, then call it, and stop calling strikes at mid shins.....