IGT 6/18/2021: NYM @ WSH: I Hate Those Bastards

[Edgy MD]

So I guess Danley should be credited with the loss.



Dumb question, but I don't believe it's a settled one: Now that we have confidence that these strike zone borders and these ball locations are meaningful representations of what's happening, just how should we interpret when a spot represents a ball that is within the strike zone?

2. Is it a strike if any part of the ball is touching the border of the plane of the strike zone?


4. Is it only a strike if the greater part of the ball is within the border (or, similarly, if the dead center point is across the line)?


6. Is it only a strike if the totality of the ball is within the border?

While, I think, in the analytical community, they're leaning toward (1), or close to it, I'm not sure the rules are clear on the matter, and I'm not sure there is unanimity in how umps understand the meaning of the borderline.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: ...just how should we interpret when a spot represents a ball that is within the strike zone? Is it a strike if any part of the ball is touching the border of the plane of the strike zone? Is it only a strike if the greater part of the ball is within the border (or, similarly, if the dead center point is across the line)? Is it only a strike if the totality of the ball is within the border?

I've always known the rule as #1

[kcmets]

Frayed Knot wrote: I've always known the rule as #1

Of course, and certainly never where a catcher moves his mitt to.

[dinosaur jesus]

Both those pitches to Soto look very close, and one of the calls favored the Mets. The pitch to Smith was a bad call, but it also favored the Mets. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be indignant about, other than that Danley's strike zone was pretty inconsistent throughout.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, even though the call that got the Mets upset was bad, to look at it in isolation is misleading.

[bmfc1]

So a bad call is OK because he made one of ten calls wrong in the entirety of the game therefore it's wrong to look at that one call? The winning run was scored by a player that reached based because of that bad call. That's the issue. Regardless of what happened before or after, that particular call put Soto on base and he scored the only run of the game. Period. If someone wants to play "both sides" or "whataboutism", fine, you can do that but what happened on that call was a fact.

[Frayed Knot]

Not saying that any bad calls are OK, just that you can't hang the cause of the loss on one pitch particularly when an earlier pitch in the same AB was likely wrong the other way so if we're going to wave a wand and correct all the calls Soto might have walked before even getting to that point.