Close call on Unit's 300th

[Tucsondriver]

An item by 'Duk on big league stew (yahoo! blog) has a photo and a video of the controversial pitch. In the photo, Wilson's pitch looks to be at least 3" low, but the strike zone isn't a plane, and in the video it looks to me like the pitch crosses the front of the plate. I froze at 3 seconds and that's my take. 'Duk raises another interesting point though, which is the way umpires (and scorers, for that matter) routinely consider external factors, like the way hits and errors are scored in the the late innings of a no-hitter, or a borderline pitch in the bottom of the eighth inning of a pitching legend's quest for his 300th win.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/YOU-make-the-call-A-ball-or-strike-for-Dunn-dur?urn=mlb,168338

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4875541

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

 

[bydesign77]

It was a strike. You know why? Because the umpire said it was.

That's the end of the discussion.

 

[bostonbred]

It was a strike. You know why? Because the umpire said it was.

That's the end of the discussion.

Well by God, that solves it all. :

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Re: Close call on Unit's 300th

but the gamer said it was a knee-high pitch ...

 

[SockPuppet]

That's as much a strike as Randy Johnson is a GQ model.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Sorry, but the view in that photo cannot be used as the only piece of evidence. You can't tell by looking at that photo whether the ball is in front of, on top of or behind the plate.

Unless you have a side angle view that shows the ball cross the plate, it was strike because, like bydesign said, the ump said it was.

The "approximate line" is lined up with his right/front knee while the other line is lined up with his left/back knee. So, which is his actual strike zone?

Throw another photo or view up there and I might change my mind. Until then: Strike Three!

 

[zeke12]

From the picture Rumple posted, the ball's level with his back knee -- and splitting the plate in half.

Steeeeee-rike.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Oh, not to mention, with two strikes, you can't take a pitch that close anyway.

 

[spnited]

I thought it was a horrible call.
But what I think doesn't matter. I'm not the ump.
That pic makes it look closer than I thought, definitely too close to take.

 

[zeke12]

That pic makes it look closer than I thought, definitely too close to take.

Agreed. Looked like a ball in real time. But that picture backs the ump up.

 

[GoochMan]

His back knee is lower because he has it bent down, and it's bent down because he's reacting to the pitch.
Dunn is what, 6'5 or 6'6??? That was a verrrrrrry questionable call. One of the seams might have crossed at the bottom of his kneecap.

 

[RickStain]

The ball doesn't move that much vertically in the final 18 inches of a 55-foot flight path.

 

[Tucsondriver]

The ball doesn't move that much vertically in the final 18 inches of a 55-foot flight path.

A good splitter does, but that wasn't a splitter...

 

[RickStain]

The ball doesn't move that much vertically in the final 18 inches of a 55-foot flight path.

A good splitter does, but that wasn't a splitter...

I'd even question the splitter. But we'd have to set up a good test to be sure.

 

[Tucsondriver]

I found this pretty cool Japanese video on youtube dedicated to the splitty. It's got some footage of Hideo Nomo, Daisuke Matsuzaka and Ichiro. Mike Scott threw a nasty splitter back in the day, with some pretty violent late-breaking movement. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with this thread!

 

[buckweaver]

I found this pretty cool Japanese video on youtube dedicated to the splitty. It's got some footage of Hideo Nomo, Daisuke Matsuzaka and Ichiro. Mike Scott threw a nasty splitter back in the day, with some pretty violent late-breaking movement. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with this thread!

You should read about the amazing experiments that Bucknell professor Arthur Shapiro conducted recently.

Here's a quote from an AP story:

"They look like they jump or break or do all these funky things, but they don't. The idea that the bottom falls out isn't so," he said.
"I'm not saying curveballs don't curve. I emphasize that, yes, they curve. They just do so at a more gradual rate. Instead of making a sudden hook, they would form a really big circle."

<snip>

Shapiro said the brain processes objects it sees in peripheral vision differently from things it observes looking straight on. As in, a batter tracking a pitch from the corners of his eyes might throw himself for a curve.
To illustrate his point, Shapiro presented a tantalizing design that recently was judged the world's best visual illusion by a group of neuroscientists and psychologists.
It depicts a spinning ball that quickly changes direction, depending at which angle it's viewed. Straight on, it appears to simply drop; from the side, it seems to veer.
"I'm not saying this is it," Shapiro said. "It's a hypothesis."

 

[dooley_womack1]

No wonder Jesus can't hit it.

 

[old_tony]

The picture is kind of worthless for a simple reason: We don't see Dunn's feet.

His right (front) knee is obviously higher than his left (back) knee. Now, as someone argued, his back leg is bent a bit, but what makes the picture worthless is the fact we don't see his feet, thus we can't tell if his front foot is slightly off the ground. Even if it's not off the ground (as most hitters would have their front foot in a ready-to-hit position), his foot is probably up on his toes.

Thus, it's in reality much less cut-and-dried than the picture with the lines would have you believe. Drop that line corresponding with the front knee a couple inches and it becomes much, much closer to a strike.

 

[Tucsondriver]

No doubt Tony. Look at the video:


http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=4875541