Zambrano's Last Two Outings - Solid...and Lucky?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners.

 

That's a myth that has been spread like wildfire since the Braves had that unbelieveable run with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz. Pitchers throughout the league were given a couple inches off the plate consistently at the same time, but since the Braves staff was having better results for longer periods of time, they were singled out.

[Mark_R]

I think that is a load of garbage. The umpires don't care who is at the plate or on the mound. I think they do their best to call a consistent strike zone, but they are human.

 

The questteck numbers they have been keeping for the past couple of years bear that out.

 

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty?

 

You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?.

 

But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation.

 

Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is.

 

That is simply not true.

 

Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called?

 

If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called.

 

You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered.

 

Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners.

 

I don't think this is true.

 

Then you're wrong.

 

prove it.

 

Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you.

[Mark_R]

The strike zone has changed. And because of that, my game has changed. The way the strike zone was called before, you could expand it off of the plate. I didn't have to pitch inside. I expanded it laterally, not up and down. I'm not a two-pitch pitcher on one side of the plate anymore -- and I'm a better pitcher because of it."

 

Glavine pauses, and breaks into a grin.

 

"But at 37, 38 years old, that's not a point in time where you want to re-invent yourself," he continues. "I did it in the second half of last year and this year. I took some lumps before, but it's kind of fun now. It's fun to go out knowing that there are different ways to get guys out. Before, it was simply out-executing the batters. I knew what I was doing. They knew what I was doing. Everybody in the ballpark knew what I was doing.

 

"Now I can throw two, and sometimes three or four, different pitches anytime to get somebody out."

 

Glavine Link

[CubinNY]

I think that is a load of garbage. The umpires don't care who is at the plate or on the mound. I think they do their best to call a consistent strike zone, but they are human.

 

The questteck numbers they have been keeping for the past couple of years bear that out.

 

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty?

 

You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?.

 

But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation.

 

Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is.

 

That is simply not true.

 

Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called?

 

If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called.

 

You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered.

 

Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners.

 

I don't think this is true.

 

Then you're wrong.

 

prove it.

 

Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you.

 

You cannot say anything sitting in your house watching a game on TV. The camera angle even when behind the pitcher is off ether to the left or to the right. Its a fools errand to try to call balls and strikes through that method.

 

But more importantly, you are saying that the umpires and MLB conspired to cheat for the Braves over the better part of a decade. I guess they just wanted them to make it to the WS and not actually win it.

 

Here are some other myths:

the Yankees bought their pennants (most of the players where homegrown)

The Braves get the benefit of the Doubt because well, they're the Braves

[srbin84]

I think that is a load of garbage. The umpires don't care who is at the plate or on the mound. I think they do their best to call a consistent strike zone, but they are human.

 

The questteck numbers they have been keeping for the past couple of years bear that out.

 

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty?

 

You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?.

 

But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation.

 

Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is.

 

That is simply not true.

 

Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called?

 

If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called.

 

You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered.

 

Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters.

 

That's just the way it is.

 

The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners.

 

I don't think this is true.

 

Then you're wrong.

 

prove it.

 

Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you.

 

You cannot say anything sitting in your house watching a game on TV. The camera angle even when behind the pitcher is off ether to the left or to the right. Its a fools errand to try to call balls and strikes through that method.

 

But more importantly, you are saying that the umpires and MLB conspired to cheat for the Braves over the better part of a decade. I guess they just wanted them to make it to the WS and not actually win it.

 

Here are some other myths:

the Yankees bought their pennants (most of the players where homegrown)

The Braves get the benefit of the Doubt because well, they're the Braves

 

That's not a good argument because the Braves had great lefties and righties. If the angle is off, it can't be off for both types of pitchers since they mostly threw on the outside edge of the zone. Same for the hitters too. It can't always be wrong, but the call was almost always there.

Edited May 11, 2006 by srbin84

[CubinNY]

The strike zone has changed. And because of that, my game has changed. The way the strike zone was called before, you could expand it off of the plate. I didn't have to pitch inside. I expanded it laterally, not up and down. I'm not a two-pitch pitcher on one side of the plate anymore -- and I'm a better pitcher because of it."

 

Glavine pauses, and breaks into a grin.

 

"But at 37, 38 years old, that's not a point in time where you want to re-invent yourself," he continues. "I did it in the second half of last year and this year. I took some lumps before, but it's kind of fun now. It's fun to go out knowing that there are different ways to get guys out. Before, it was simply out-executing the batters. I knew what I was doing. They knew what I was doing. Everybody in the ballpark knew what I was doing.

 

"Now I can throw two, and sometimes three or four, different pitches anytime to get somebody out."

 

Glavine Link

 

That proves nothing.

 

Here is a whole bunch of untrue things said by a former ballpayer

 

http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/

[Ding Dong Johnson]

That's not a good argument because the Braves had great lefties and righties. If the angle is off, it can't be off for both types of pitchers since they mostly threw on the outside edge of the zone.

 

The camera angle is constant for any given game. LHP or RHP will not make a difference in determining the location of a pitch.

[rocket]

How do you expect someone to prove something that is essentially impossible to improve?

[brinoch]

Zambrano's stuff did look the nastiest I've seen all year. His pitch that got Bonds looking should be outlawed in its unfairness.

 

Yeah, that was ridiculous. By far the filthiest pitch I've seen in a long time.

[CubinNY]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

[Chocolate Milk]

I'm really not sure how you can completely dismiss out of hand that more accurate pitchers may get the benefit of the doubt over pitchers perceived as being wild. Stars get calls in other sports (usually when the call is marginal and could go wither way) so I don't think it's really a stretch to think it happens in baseball.

 

Of course you can't prove it using data because such data doesn't exist. It does make more sense to assume that umpires are human rather than assuming they're emotionless automatons, in my opinion.

[Mark_R]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

If you really believe number one to be true, you need to start watching more baseball. How about important situations in the playoffs? Do you think certain situations dictate how balls and strikes are called?

 

Oh wait, lets just blame it on them "being human".

 

And I'd like to see those questec numbers.

[Chocolate Milk]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

[CubinNY]

I'm really not sure how you can completely dismiss out of hand that more accurate pitchers may get the benefit of the doubt over pitchers perceived as being wild. Stars get calls in other sports (usually when the call is marginal and could go wither way) so I don't think it's really a stretch to think it happens in baseball.

 

Of course you can't prove it using data because such data doesn't exist. It does make more sense to assume that umpires are human rather than assuming they're emotionless automatons, in my opinion.

 

One thing that is true that any ballplayer will say is that as long as the zone is consistent they are fine. If the umpire is calling a high strike zone then they want them to call that all game. It is when the strike zone is inconsistent that people complain.

[CubinNY]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

[goonys evil twin]

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

So basketball refs have a vested interest but baseball umps don't? I have no doubt that Bonds gets a small zone. No it can't be proved, but Zambrano striking him out looking does not disprove that claim either.

[Chocolate Milk]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

[CubinNY]

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

So basketball refs have a vested interest but baseball umps don't? I have no doubt that Bonds gets a small zone. No it can't be proved, but Zambrano striking him out looking does not disprove that claim either.

 

I don't think it is fair to compare baseball or basketball. I don't know why professional basketball is refereed the way it is. It's one of the reasons why I don't watch.

 

To me it is illogical to think that Bonds has a smaller zone than the average ballplayer. This is a guy that almost no one likes but the umpires? And if last night is any indication, it is at least not always the case. And if it is not always the case, how often is it the case?

 

Obviously, umpires are human they will make mistakes. But unless I am missing something here, people are suggesting that umpires intentionally call the game differently based on who is ptiching and who is batting. What happens if Bonds is batting against Glaven? I suppose by that logic the strike zone is called fairly?

[CubinNY]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it? That umpires have integrity or that they are human?

[Chocolate Milk]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human?

 

It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense.

[CubinNY]

To me it is just ridicilous to assume

 

1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting

2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game.

 

That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called.

 

But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

 

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely?

 

It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question.

 

Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not.

 

People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place.

 

Baseball is not basketball.

 

Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing.

 

What is so wild about it. That umpires have inegrity or that they are human?

 

It's funny that you are definitively defining what emotionally effects an umpire and what doesn't. You completely dismiss one emotional factor while accepting another. It's great. It's wild speculation on both sides of the issue but for some reason you laugh at one and deem it to be ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure how you can assume, to the extent that you do, that umpires operate like robots in one situation but become emotionally fragile in another. It really makes no sense.

 

I don't think they operate like robots. But in general, I think they operate like everyone else in society. If a person is driving and someone in a Mercedes passess him going 100 mph it is no big deal. He might notice how nice the car is but he won't get emotional about it. But if the person in the Mercedes cuts him off while they pass him, he might get upset and do something stupid.

 

If an umpire is behind the plate in a Braves/Mets game crica 1995 and Maddux is living on the corner strike. He will call it a strike. He might make a mistake here and there . But I don't think it is the case that automatcially the umpire says to himself, "hey Maddux is pitching I better give hime the corners". Now if Cox starts griping he might get upset and intentionally call a close pitch a ball.

Edited May 11, 2006 by CubinNY

[TheDude]

One thing that is true that any ballplayer will say is that as long as the zone is consistent they are fine. If the umpire is calling a high strike zone then they want them to call that all game. It is when the strike zone is inconsistent that people complain.

 

I have trouble with the inconsistency of your argument. Here you are stead-fastly refusing to acknowledge that an umpire's strike zone can be influenced within a game, but then readily admitting that an umpire's strike zone changes (noting your 'high strike zone' comment). If they are automatons as you suggest, there would not exist this 'high strike zone' you mention.

 

You are also willing to grant an umpire the ability to make mistakes because he's human, but not be affected by other human elements of the game, such as reputation. A clear example of how they are influenced by reputation is the quickness with which an umpire will issues warnings when a notoriously hot-headed pitcher beans someone. Maddux might not get that same warning in that situation.

 

This entire argument aside (and to bring the topic back to point), if Zambrano is going to keep walking people at his curent rate, performances like the last two will be rare. I'm rooting for him to get his command together because I dig Zambrano the most.

[CubinNY]

One thing that is true that any ballplayer will say is that as long as the zone is consistent they are fine. If the umpire is calling a high strike zone then they want them to call that all game. It is when the strike zone is inconsistent that people complain.

 

I have trouble with the inconsistency of your argument. Here you are stead-fastly refusing to acknowledge that an umpire's strike zone can be influenced within a game, but then readily admitting that an umpire's strike zone changes (noting your 'high strike zone' comment). If they are automatons as you suggest, there would not exist this 'high strike zone' you mention.

 

You are also willing to grant an umpire the ability to make mistakes because he's human, but not be affected by other human elements of the game, such as reputation. A clear example of how they are influenced by reputation is the quickness with which an umpire will issues warnings when a notoriously hot-headed pitcher beans someone. Maddux might not get that same warning in that situation.

 

This entire argument aside (and to bring the topic back to point), if Zambrano is going to keep walking people at his curent rate, performances like the last two will be rare. I'm rooting for him to get his command together because I dig Zambrano the most.

 

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

What I am arguing is that they make mistakes and can be inconsistent, but overall they do their best to be an impartial judge. The impartiality can change due to emotional factors such as a manager or player complaining. And I am not saying that is always the case either.

 

Umpires change on a game by game basis. Zambrano will likely not have the same guy behind the plate in his next start. Unless there is some cabal of umpires text messaging each other, his last start should have no effect on the umpire in his next start.

Edited May 11, 2006 by CubinNY

[Chocolate Milk]

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation.

 

It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone.

[CubinNY]

Unless I am missing something, what you are arguing is that umpires are affected by the reputation of a player. And will call a completely different game based on who is ptiching and/or batting. That is absurd.

 

Is absurd to think an umpire would call balls all over the place strikes because of a pitchers reputation.

 

It is absolutely not absurd to think that he would give borderline calls to a pitcher who has a reputation of being a control pitcher that he might not give to a pitcher who has a reputation of being wild. Well, not anymore absurd than thinking a manager's hissy fit is impacting the strike zone.

 

I said it could. I didn't say it does.

 

You really think umpires care who is pitching?