I’m normally not an ump basher, but…

And versus LHH:

Here is the combined chart for CC:

And to be fair, here is the chart for Verlander (UPDATED):

About these charts, from Brooks:

Non-Normalized maps simply use the actual height of each pitch as it crosses the plate. But, because of variable batter height, this may not provide a completely accurate picture of an Umpire’s Strikezone in the Vertical Axis. The outside edges of the strikezone are then drawn to specifications corresponding to an average umpire’s strikezone.

IIATMS overlord and founder. ESPN contributor. Purveyor of luscious reality.

About @Jason_IIATMS

IIATMS overlord and founder. ESPN contributor. Purveyor of luscious reality.

46 thoughts on “I’m normally not an ump basher, but…

  1. Just judging by the TBS graphics last nite, CC's pitch chart looked just like Rivera's – he painted a perfect rectangle on the edges of the strikezone.

    Sadly, the umpire defined the edge of the strike zone as "Outside" the strike zone.

  2. to me, it looks like gerry davis was consistently off … about the same number of pitches and the same location miscalled for both pitchers … can't complain about consistency from an umpire, even if it's horrid consistency … even martin alluded to that.

  3. Unless I'm missing something, you've put up 4 figures, but in reality it is just the CC figures repeated (so, 2 figures put up twice).

  4. Sorry if I am being daft, but can someone briefly explain how these charts work? I went to BrooksBaseball to see if I could find a key that explains them, but to no avail.

    Or, if there is a key to the charts at the website, please post the URL.

    Thanks.

  5. also, a smaller strike zone impacts Sabathia more than it does Verlander due to the discrepancy in their pure stuff.

    If you are going to be squeezed into putting pitches over the heart of the plate, it's a lot easier to do so with the 100 MPH fastball that Verlander has.

  6. And I'd add that the chart really doesn't capture the worst of the matter, which was the way the zone started to dance wildly in the last 3 innings or so.

  7. Balls and Strikes should really be called electronically at this point in time given the technology that is available.

    If a small Ultra-Wideband radar was put pointing up from under home plate it would be able to accurately detect the presence of a pitch over the plate. You could cross correlate that data with other sources, such as the current pitch tracking system that works from the peripherals, to build an extremely accurate representation of the track of the pitch in three dimensions with the exact hight and location it passes over the plate.

    Leave the Ump back there for everything else if MLB wants, but if they did the above it would make a 100% consistent strike zone.

  8. Pretty hilarious to complain about CC being squeezed when he has lived on borderline 1-2, and 2-2 calls.

    Otherwise- I tend to agree. But the solution is to get better umps. The IR and radar stuff is no fun, satisfies only the hyper-critical, and is just as prone to error. The problem is that these guys are not reprimanded for their "pet" strike zones and other awful calls. Even with extra blue on the foul lines, fair/foul calls that the plate ump could make are still blown horribly. Basically- retrain and/or fire bad umps, and reward good ones.

  9. Actually, it doesn't look that bad. It doesn't look like CC put too many balls into that ball-that-was-called-a-strike-to-lefties zone to righties that were were not put into play. Can't really complain about that. The fact that the zone seemed to get bigger as the game went on… maybe that… most blatantly when Cano got called on a ball at the shoulders.

  10. It looks to me like the strike zone this chart is using remains the same, even though the batters change. I thought that strike zones are altered based on a batters height?

  11. Ironically the terrible strike calls laft Gardner at bat on the 3-2 count when he drove in the two runs with a double. The TV zone showed he should have walked on the fourth pitch of the AB, which was clearly high and outside when the count was 3-0. On the other hand, Granderson flied out deep to right on a 2-2 count when the tv zone showed all four pitches taken that were clearly outside the zone.

  12. The ump was bad for both teams, he should be regulated from the home plate. On his defense he was consistent, consistently bad that is. It is what it is and the Detroit Tigers have the better team.

  13. This view of balls and strikes also may not be the most useful for dissecting balls and strikes. Isn't the strike zone 3 dimensional rather than 2? It's more like a cube or rectangle floating in space. A pitch spinning and crossing the front right corner of the box but ends up a foot outside of the plate when it hits the catcher's glove would still be a strike right? How does the 2 dimensional plotting depicted account for pitch movement? Perhaps all the called strikes that look clearly like balls were closer than what can be depicted in a 2D view? I agree that the strike zone calls did seem to be inconsistent, and subjectively I felt CC was impacted a bit more than Verlander, but for full disclosure I am a Yankee fan.