- Apr 1, 2010
- 1,673
- 0
I disagree.
The "Strike Zone" is pretty universally defined;
(knees to armpits...)
with room for "umpire interpretation" at the margins.
But not calling *anything* above the belt,
(eliminating 12"-16" of vertical strike zone...)
can really alter a pitcher's effectiveness;
especially if she relies on a riseball for K's.
I guess the continual squeezing of the zone is a reaction to fans enjoying a 12-10 win,
over a 3-1 win...
Sure it's defined that way, but in reality, the strike zone is whatever the plate umpire says it is.
What I can't stand is an umpire who has one zone for one team and a different zone for the other --or-- who has a strike zone that varies with the wind, where a pitch at the belt is sometimes a ball and a pitch at the letters is sometimes a strike. I'm grateful when an umpire is consistent, even if it doesn't precisely match the rulebook.
If you've got a rise ball pitcher and an ump who won't give the high strikes, maybe it's on the coaching staff to make the switch to a low ball pitcher or for the rise baller to use the rise just to set up batters, knowing she's not going to get strikes called on it. JMO.