Joe Nathan Career Save #300

[virgonomic]

Surprised there is nothing on this yet today.

Did that pitch even cross the plate? Heard about it on the radio today and watched it at a red light. Yikes.

[joncarlos]

The irony of the Rays getting screwed by a catcher doing a nice job framing a pitch off the plate... I love it.

[Stephen]

Does it count as framing the plate when the ball lands on the catcher's left foot?

[joncarlos]

Good analysis here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/anatomy-of-a-really-bad-call/

[Moonlight J]

I didn't post because I couldn't think of non-profane language to use

[Judge Jude]

Good analysis here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index...ally-bad-call/

"It’s important to note, of course, that this call didn’t cost the Rays the game. It ended the game, but even if you give Zobrist a walk, the Rays’ win expectancy would’ve stood around 15%."

It's always fascinated me that the level of screwing - change in win expectancy - usually seems to take a back seat to the degree of egregiousness of the call.

There are occasional calls - like goaltending against a team at the buzzer with that team otherwise leading by one point - that literally determine the game. This one just unfairly took a puncher's chance away from the Rays.

Not quite the same thing...

[Stephen]

I was watching it live and dropped a WTF so loud that it woke my wife upstairs in our bedroom. And I don't have a stake in the game one way or the other.

[Friarfan]

Nathan's reaction after he threw the pitch tells you if he thought it was a strike

[Kevin Seitzer]

It was a very close pitch, probably should have been called a ball, but close enough that it is hard to say with confidence. It was right on the outside edge of the zone that umpires usually call, probably an inch or so low, but that requires knowing exactly where the hollow of Zobrist's knee was.

The idea that because a pitch is caught in the dirt, it should be a ball, is ridiculous. Curveballs drop a lot from when they cross the front of the plate to when they reach the catcher's glove.

[Stephen]

If by close you mean close to the Rays dugout then you're absolutely right!

[Kevin Seitzer]

I trust my data more than your view from the camera 400+ feet away in LCF giving you a view every 1/30 of a second.

[Bodhizefa]

If by close you mean close to the Rays dugout then you're absolutely right!

There's a great article on Fangraphs today that shows you the pitch without the catcher's snafu at the end. It makes it look a lot more believable as a strike (still not a good call, just passably believable). I didn't think it was that bad of a call the first time I saw it, honestly. The ball broke like crazy at the end, but it was within range of the plate at the outset. I think it was easily a ball, but there's an argument to be made that it was within range that the batter should have been protecting. Then again, subjective strike zones are part of the fun of the game, in my opinion.

[Kevin Seitzer]

There's a great article on Fangraphs today that shows you the pitch without the catcher's snafu at the end. It makes it look a lot more believable as a strike (still not a good call, just passably believable). I didn't think it was that bad of a call the first time I saw it, honestly. The ball broke like crazy at the end, but it was within range of the plate at the outset. I think it was easily a ball, but there's an argument to be made that it was within range that the batter should have been protecting. Then again, subjective strike zones are part of the fun of the game, in my opinion.

Umpires usually call the zone about 4 inches outside off the black to lefties. You can debate whether that's a good thing, but it wasn't something new for Zobrist or the Rays last night. That pitch was right on the edge of the zone where umps usually call strikes. It was probably a hair low. If anyone can tell that with confidence from regular 30fps offset video, they are Superman.

[Moonlight J]

Umpires usually call the zone about 4 inches outside off the black to lefties. You can debate whether that's a good thing, but it wasn't something new for Zobrist or the Rays last night. That pitch was right on the edge of the zone where umps usually call strikes. It was probably a hair low. If anyone can tell that with confidence from regular 30fps offset video, they are Superman.

Why does this persist? Is it simply a matter of how they are positioning themselves or do catchers know this and take advantage of it since umpires can't do anything about it given the limitations of where they can position themselves? Would enforcing the catchers' box rule eliminate this?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Why does this persist? Is it simply a matter of how they are positioning themselves or do catchers know this and take advantage of it since umpires can't do anything about it given the limitations of where they can position themselves? Would enforcing the catchers' box rule eliminate this?

From this article:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12965

a mountain of circumstantial evidence points to the umpire zone being influenced by the location of the catcher’s target, rather than the other way around. Thus, I propose that the catcher target is the driving factor in how umpires call balls and strikes.