The Baseball Analysts did a fascinating study on umpires and their pitch calling based on the count. The findings were fairly surprising:
So the effect of count is indeed significant. In fact, all else equal, each strike in the count decreases the likelihood of a pitch being called a strike the same amount as a pitch being one inch further away from the center of the zone (roughly equal estimates). The number of balls is also significant but the effect is less than half of that of the number of strikes (you can see in the image of strike zone area above, area decreases more as you increase strikes than it increases as you increase balls). The length of break is also significant, pitches with lots of break are slightly more likely to be called a strike. Once we control for break and count there is no significant difference in how the strike zone is called to different pitch types.
This shows two things, one of which is surprising and the other is not. Firstly, I am shocked that as the strikes increase in a count, the umpires shrink the zone. I was under the impression that umpires were more likely to K a hitter for letting a pitch that is close enough pass with two strikes. the less surprising thing, but still interesting to see confirmed by the data, is that pitches that have a lot of break and therefore seem to cross the plate even when they do not are called strikes more often.
The real point here is that umpires are supposed to call every pitch from every player by the same standard. The zone should not be an expanding and contracting area that changes by situation. MLB cannot be happy about studies like this, which may explain why they have decided to ditch the Questec umpire monitoring stystem for one based on Pitch f/x. I am all for the human element of the game in terms of making the wrong call. However, the wrong call for the wrong reason, such as count, is not acceptable.
What do you think? Does this bother you?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
4 Responses to Umpires Call Game Differently Based On Count?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I guess the thought is “two strikes=advantage pitcher, so give the hitter a break if its close”. But you’re right, stuff like that shouldn’t be factored in. Its either a strike or it isn’t.
While we’re on the subject of strike zones, I’ve always wondered, why don’t the TV networks display a “strike-zone graphic” of some sort during games, to enhance viewer quality? It would make the gmae that much more interesting IMO. Just like there’s an artificial first down marker on every football broadcast. I know the purists would never allow it, but that way we can see which ump has a double-standard for different batters or pitchers with balls and strikes. The ump should still get full authority on whether or not a ball is a strike, but I think a strike zone graphic would prove that even though a pitch looks like it was low for example, it still was high enough to be called a strike when it crossed the plate. I mean,if most networks use such a graphic when showing replays or pitch-by-pitch sequences, why not have it there the whole time the games ging on? Thoughts?
I was surprised by exactly the opposite: on a 3-0 count, they used to call a strike on anything near the plate the ‘old automatic’. I always thought the narrowing of the strike zone was the other side of that coin. I think calling strike one on a pitch obviously out of the strike zone is a lot of umpires stock in trade. The current group of MLB umps have the worst strike zones I’ve seen in nearly 50 years of watching baseball.
In the day, they called the strike from the letters (arm pit) to the knees. Now the pitchers are made to get it above the knees to the wast, or just above the wast.
First; they lower the pitching mound (thank you, Bob Gibson), then they tighten the strike zone. Some umps give the star call to ball players and give the pitcher the call with rookies…it’s hard enough being a rookie but, getting called out on the ball outside/inside!!!
Everyone is human but, the rules are written for everyone to go by…the umpus say, “It’s a matter of interpretation”. Sounds like a politician to me.