Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone...and the Culture of the Game

And the debate goes on.

STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM

Strict Constructionism and the Strike Zone:

"Other baseball philosophers scoff at Bork's suggestion.  'Umpires understand the value of consistency,' they say.  'This business about umpires calling eyeball-high pitches strikes is baloney.  Just because an umpire isn't a strict constructionist doesn't mean that he'll call a strike whenever the urge hits him.  Umpires are constrained by peer pressure, by fear of ridicule, and by their own love for the integrity of the game.  When the strike zone was lowered in the sixties, it wasn't lowered because the umpires said, 'Hey, just for kicks, let's lower the strike zone!' It was lowered in response to various demands of the game and, primarily, the demands of the fans.  Baseball was better for the change, which took place more gradually and with less disruption than it ever could have had we depended upon rules committees to revise the strike zone downward an inch or two a year.'"

Some debates never end. Perhaps the debate over strict constructionism and the strike zone is one of those. The wisest observation on the whole subject may have been made by a crusty old manager. When asked who was right-the umpires of the 1960's that took it upon themselves to lower the strike zone, or the umpires of the 1980's that raised it again, the manager said "they both were." He explained, "the strike zone got lowered when it needed to be, then umpires like Bork came along to make the rule match the strike zone--like it should.

What is being discussed here is the "culture of the game". What the players, coaches and indeed fans expect from umpires. Remember, at one time umpires sat amongst the fans and at times solicited the feedback of fans in making calls. Reduces umpires to weather vanes, IMO.

CULTURE OF THE GAME

When a hitter has a 3-0 count, the umpire becomes much less likely to call a fourth ball, expanding the strike zone considerably. Conversely, when a hitter is facing a 0-2 count, his strike zone will shrink


Scorecasting Tackles Sports’ Biggest Myths | Playbook:

"Wired.com: You guys show that refs are biased toward the home team and you show with PitchFX that umpires adjust their strike zone depending on the situation, so do you think we should just get rid of umpires in baseball?


Wertheim: That’s a good question. PitchFX calls it accurately; it’s unambiguous, so from a fairness perspective it’s hard to argue against it. But as fans we like whistle swallowing. I don’t think fans overall are opposed to games being called differently at different times. We found that a player like Albert Pujols gets very few called third strikes, but also very few ball fours because the umpire internalizes that fans want to see him put the ball in play — you want him to strike out swinging, you want him to hit a home run, but you don’t want a judgment call. So, in some ways, whistle swallowing is following what fans want.

From a fairness perspective, if you have the capacity to call balls and strikes pretty flawlessly, it’s hard to argue against that. But I think we want more from our officials from a robotic ball and strike. I think we like to have our officials to have sensitivity to the rhythms of the game."