Putting aside the psychological aspects of having to manage and engage in acts of diplomacy with players and managers, umpires have essentially one job to do: accurately call balls and strikes. Given this singular focus, combined with the extremely limited number of job openings at the MLB level, you’d think that all active umpires in the MLB would be amazing at maintaining an accurate strike zone. That, at this stage of their careers, they would be almost machinelike in their ability to accurately call balls and strikes.
Alas, we do not live in such a world – we (and baffled play-by-play announcers) must instead make do with the reality that sometimes, for whatever reason, umpires maintain a strike zone that is too small or too large.
Despite this, one often hears the argument that as long as the umpire is consistent throughout the game and applies the same strike zone to both teams, fairness is maintained and the players should simply adjust to the modified strike zone.
I disagree with this assessment. Not only do modified strike zones compromise fairness by benefiting certain pitchers over others, but they also compel players to modify their approach to at bats in a way that makes it a less rewarding experience to play and watch. Let us examine these two issues in more depth.
The Beauty of the At Bat
It is a fair assumption to make that the attempts by the pitcher and hitter to try to outsmart and outplay each other is an integral component of what makes at bats so interesting and enjoyable to watch. The hitter has an incredibly small window of time within which to decide whether to swing, where to swing, at what time to swing, and with what power to swing. Hitters must develop strategies for how to approach at bats in order to try to anticipate the variety and sequential order of pitches that they expect the pitcher will throw, as well as modify their approach based on the kind of pitches they are actually being offered. For example, if the pitcher seems to have lost his control, the hitter might be more hesitant to swing.
Conversely, pitchers have to develop a strategy with respect to the kind of pitches they offer and in what sequence they are offered in order to try to surprise or confuse the hitter as to what pitch they plan on throwing next.
All this makes the game a thrill to watch, especially for those of us at home who play along by guessing the next pitch, and whether the hitter will swing or not. For those who tell me that they find baseball boring or that it seems like nothing is happening, this unique dynamic between a pitcher and hitter is one of the first things I highlight in order to try to fill those seemingly long stretches of nothingness between pitches with drama and suspense. Anything that would compromise or trivialize the work of each participant in the exchange makes it a worse game. Having a modified strike zone does just this.
Effects of Modified Strike Zones On Hitters
If you have a really wide strike zone, players are more hesitant to sit on what they anticipate will be borderline or close pitches because of the very real threat of a ball being called a strike. Since they no longer have the luxury of taking pitches that are borderline or slightly off the plate, they tend to swing at everything. This increases the likelihood that they will swing at bad pitches, which robs the at bat of the subtlety and intensity that comes when a hitter takes an extended at bat, works a count, and courageously lays off the pitches that are just outside the strike zone.
It is also very deflating to see a hitter exercise restraint and attempt to take an extended at bat, yet get called out on a strike that’s an obvious ball. To lay off a pitch that looks like it might cross the plate but ends up just outside of it is an accomplishment, and to be “rewarded” with an out just smacks of injustice. It robs the hitter of the glory of making a good decision, and trivializes the work of the pitcher by allowing them to get a patient hitter out without having to throw more hittable pitches or risk a walk.
Conversely, while extra short strike zones allow for extended at bats, they do so unfairly. The nerve-wracking moment that a hitter experiences when laying off a close pitch is less stressful because of the extra buffer zone the hitter now enjoys. As a consequence, walks and hits feel less earned because the pitcher was forced to throw more hittable pitches less they risk walking the hitter, and that good, corner stuff they threw gets punished with walks.
The moment when a hitter lays off a borderline call and before the umpire calls it a ball or a strike is filled with anticipation, suspense, and excitement. It is an integral component of what makes watching baseball so interesting and engaging, and anything that would discourage players from putting themselves in that situation detracts from the overall experience. For this reason, modified strike zones should always be avoided.
Effects of Modified Strike Zones On Pitchers
Very well, perhaps you have been persuaded that a modified strike zone makes the game less interesting and rewarding to play and watch. But does it make it less fair? Those who argue it does not often put forward the view that so long as the umpire is applying the same strike zone to both teams equally, then fairness has been maintained. You might hear someone say something like “sure, hitter X from team A just got called out on a strike that was clearly a ball, but that ball has been called a strike all night!” For them, the onus is simply on the players and pitchers to adjust to the modified strike zone accordingly.
While there is something intuitively plausible to this, it ignores the fact that modified strike zones affect pitchers differently. For example, an extended strike zone is of immense benefit to pitchers who rely more on movement and location rather than velocity – those who “live on the corners”, so to speak – as they run less of a risk of getting their borderline pitches called balls. Whereas for pitchers who rely more on velocity, an extended strike zone is not to the same benefit given they don’t live or die on the corners to the same extent. In the case of shortened strike zones, the converse situation occurs: pitchers in the former category are not as effective since they are less able to throw the kinds of pitches they rely on to get outs, and for those in the latter category it does not affect them as much given that location is not as integral to their success.
Robots Should Replace Umpires
Given all this, it is truly baffling why umpires at the MLB level would offer modified strike zones in light of their immense experience and the limited job openings. One theory I have is that umpires sometimes make a few bad calls early, then go “well better stick to it so it doesn’t look bad/unfair when I give the opposite call to that same pitch again.” However, since these modified strike zones detract from the quality of the game and make it more unfair, I suggest instead that it is better for umpires to just shake off the bad calls and get back to the business of accurately calling balls and strikes, rather than acting like the modified strike zone was their plan all along.
Long term, we would ideally like to ensure that no such mistakes are made, and one solution to this issue would be to incorporate pitch-tracking technology into how balls and strikes are called. The main barrier to this, however, is that removing umpires would fundamentally change a game that is notorious for its intense reverence of tradition, and would put a lot of people out of jobs. Plus it sure would look weird not having an umpire back there after over a hundred years of roughly the same set up!
One solution to this tension that I think is quite reasonable would be to have umpires wear earpieces. When the pitch is made someone who has access to a pitch tracker tells the umpire what the call is, and then the umpire reports it. While this would certainly not be an ideal state of affairs for the umpires, as it deprives them of the skill and power inherent in their craft, it strikes me as a reasonable compromise: we get better, fairer games on a consistent basis, and we don’t put a bunch of people out of their jobs nor tamper too terribly with history. Everyone wins (sort of)!
-J.S.
James Shortly - Copywriter 