Sunday, July 28, 2013

MLB Ejection 105: Tim Timmons (5; David Ortiz)

HP Umpire Tim Timmons ejected Red Sox DH David Ortiz for arguing a strike one call in the top of the 7th inning of the Red Sox-Orioles game. With one out and none on, Ortiz took a 3-0 fastball from Orioles pitcher Jairo Asencio for a called first strike before striking out swinging on a 3-2 changeup. Replays indicate the
Papi destroys dugout as teammates dive for cover
pitch was located underneath the midpoint and over the inner half of home plate (sz_top 4.06, pz 4.032) and the 3-1 pitch ruled strike two was located belt high and over the outer edge of home plate (px -0.926 [UEFL Rule 6-2-b-1 "Kulpa Rule"]), the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the Red Sox were leading, 7-2. The Red Sox ultimately won the contest, 7-3.

This is Tim Timmons (95)'s fifth ejection of 2013.
Tim Timmons now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 + 2 + 2 = 8).
Crew Chief Mike Winters now has 9 points in the UEFL's Crew Division (8 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 9).

This is the 105th ejection of the 2013 MLB season.
This is the 45th player ejection of 2013. Prior to his ejection, Ortiz was 0-2 in the contest.
This is the Red Sox's 5th ejection of 2013, 2nd in the AL East (TOR 8; BOS 5; BAL, TB 4; NYY 2).
This is David Ortiz's 1st ejection of 2013 and first since July 8, 2011 (Mike Estabrook; QOC = Correct).
This is Tim Timmons' first ejection since July 5, 2013 (Bud Black; QOC = Incorrect).

Wrap: Boston Red Sox vs. Baltimore Orioles
Video: Ortiz tries calling ball four as Timmons rules strike one then takes out anger on Orioles property (BOS)

75 comments :

Gil Imber said...

I challenge. That first pitched changed the at-bat. Regardless of your love for umpires, that pitch was nowhere NEAR close. And heck, that second strike is off the plate, too. Come on, now. There's no way Timmons should be rewarded for this ejection. NO WAY.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=446003&game=gid_2013_07_27_bosmlb_balmlb_1&batterX=56&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif

Gil Imber said...

Are you seriously challenging the PitchFX numbers? Hasn't this been denied enough yet this year?

Gil Imber said...

Challenge summarily denied. By introducing a non-normalized (real value) pitch f/x plot above, you neglect to consider Ortiz's individual strike zone. The BrooksBaseball non-normalize zone takes into account zone height for the "average player" (1.5 to 3.5 feet high).

Ortiz, as you will see below, is taller than the average player and merits a larger strike zone.

Because of Ortiz's actions in standing tall on the 3-0 pitch (Pitch #4), the top of his strike zone increased in height significantly.

Pitch #3 (Ball 3): Top of strike zone was 3.77 feet vertical.
Pitch #4 (Strike 1): Top of strike zone was 4.06 feet vertical.
Pitch #5 (Strike 2): Top of strike zone was 3.85 feet vertical.
Pitch #6 (Strike 3): Top of strike zone was 3.85 feet vertical.

Pitch #4 was associated with a pz value of 4.032, which means that had Ortiz remained in his lower-oriented stance, the pitch would have indeed been out of his ordinary strike zone; because he changed to a higher-oriented stance during the delivery but before the ball arrived at the front edge of home plate, the pitch was located below his midpoint, and accordingly, was correctly ruled a strike.



Appeal denied for lack of logic. Certiorari denied.

Gil Imber said...

"Appeal denied for lack of logic."

^WIN^

Gil Imber said...

Absolute joke. How were those numbers determined?

Gil Imber said...

...are you seriously challenging the PitchFX numbers?

Gil Imber said...

...are you seriously challenging the PitchFX numbers? Seriously?

Gil Imber said...

"You're not going to take at-bat away from me."


Well, let's see: taking yourself out of the batter's box prior to the pitch being delivered seems like a good idea. Oh, and then swinging at ball four seems like even a better idea. Yep, you had that at-bat taken away from you, Papi. Enjoy replacing the phone.

Gil Imber said...

I'm not sure what to make of Ortiz's post-game comments, since I don't think any rational person can claim the umpire took the at-bat away from him when he was on his way out of the box before the pitch was even out of the pitcher's hand. If I'm an umpire that means I'm calling it a strike if it's anywhere close, but that wasn't necessary here.


Behold the sheer size of Ortiz's strike zone on this pitch, crudely rendered using MSPaint:

Gil Imber said...

The numbers come from MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL directly using the same exact computer strike zone tracker technology (pitch f/x) that was used to generate that chart you posted from Brooks!

Gil Imber said...

That's even more ridiculous. This pitch was not even close!

Gil Imber said...

If by "not even close" you mean right smack in the middle of the strike zone visualized in the pitch, then you're absolutely right. If that's not what you mean, you'll have to clarify.

Gil Imber said...

What's really wrong with this picture is the Sox are playing in Baltimore - guests in someone else's home. Be respectful of the furniture just as Timmons showed you the courtesy by not dumping your sorry behind after you threw your bat and gesticulated out of the batter's box. Even Remy and Orsillo noticed that Ortiz was given an incredibly long rope by the umpire as he could have been gone immediately on the 3-0 pitch.

Gil Imber said...

Uh, yeah MLB has been using PFX numbers for years now. It's the same numbers used for the computer robot strike zones that fans always want to see.


Well there you have it folks. The robot computer called strikes on Ortiz. Papi disagrees and beats up the computer's telephone cousin! I think it was the late Harry Wendelstedt that when asked about computers replacing umpires to call balls and strikes responded that if that were to happen, MLB would have its hands full repairing the darn things after players beat the machines to bits on a daily basis!

Gil Imber said...

I feel bad for Dustin Pedroia here. Almost gets his eye taken out by a shattering bat and dugout wall. At least he confronted Ortiz about it after Ortiz did his whole tough guy routine on the field.

Gil Imber said...

I've never before seen a batter nearly singlehandedly take a four pitch walk and turn it into a strikeout. Good job Papi, standing up before the pitcher even threw the 3-0 pitch thereby making your strike zone bigger and then swinging at another ball four in the dirt to strikeout!

Gil Imber said...

Farrell knows he has nothing to argue here, he just comes out to get in the exercise. Too bad it was a decided game by that point, I think MLB should add a rule that if a team manages to break the phone in the dugout during the game, they can't communicate with the bullpen until the next day.

Gil Imber said...

So I clicked through to see what Ortiz's last ejection was for... Appropriately enough, it was a fight :)

Gil Imber said...

I don't generally like to say players have anger issues, but when you start smashing things because you're so overconfident you think you know where a pitch is going to be before the pitcher even throws it... you have an anger issue.

Gil Imber said...

Good thing they cleared it up on Sports center by saying that since Ortiz stepped out of the box it should be called a ball or no pitch. Pitch was obviously high they said.

Such a shame. They have a responsibility to bring people sports in an unbiased nature with facts.

Clearly all they care about is making sure the umpires are to blame.

Gil Imber said...

Challenge the Ejection Rationale.

He was tossed because of actions done in the dugout (destroying phones, etc), and therefore the rationale should have been Unsportsmanship.

Gil Imber said...

P.S. This is the guest that used to be around more, Penwhale. (Using twitter account to post here).

Gil Imber said...

Don't worry BAPA, he's just taking after his namesake, thinking that no matter what - the ump must have gotten it wrong.

Gil Imber said...

"Papi, is that you? The phone's breaking up".

Gil Imber said...

This drawing is a bit flawed as it's based off Ortiz standing upright and not his stance in the box (which does change things). In short, your box is bigger because of that flaw.

However, the ball was in the zone and Timmons called it a strike because of Ortiz' actions towards the pitch. Because of his displayed arrogance, and the pitching landing within the top of the strike zone, it's an understandable call.

I think if Ortiz stuck in there, Timmons may have called it a ball.

Gil Imber said...

And granted, that's probably the "rule", but I've never seen it done like that before. As I said, it's moot, because it would have been a strike regardless.

Gil Imber said...

Gah, "could have been" (read: judgment) ... I really need to drink my damn coffee.

Gil Imber said...

If standing up makes the strike zone bigger, does ducking down make it smaller?

Gil Imber said...

So you are saying he should have ducked to make it smaller? Smh...

Gil Imber said...

Gil, I agree with the challenge. I feel you denial of the argument is lacking. It is true that Ortiz is taller than average, but how much taller? If he is 6'3" and the average MLB player is 6', then the top of his strike zone might only be half a ball width to full ball width higher. The brooks zone shows it being almost 7" higher than a normal zone, that is way to much to even call it close. You argument of him standing up to make his strike zone taller is also invalid as the zone needs to be evaluated as the batter prepares to swing at the pitch. Suppose he didn't stand up, suppose he was fooled on a curve and ducked, would his strike zone get smaller? I agree the ejection needed to occur but I strongly feel the call is incorrect.

Gil Imber said...

Ask Bagwell. He was notorious for "squeezing" that strike zone.


Regardless, what I meant is from a practicality standpoint. I recognize that the zone can probably "shift" like this, but I don't think it's really done in practice.



That is: if the pitch crossed the letters while Ortiz is standing upright, that can technically be called a strike. I cannot think of an umpire that would call that a strike unless they're trying to prove a point.



That's why I think it's a bit flawed; it's impractical.



However, for the UEFL, practicality isn't taken into consideration and the pitch was borderline anyways, so it's moot. And I'm not trying to argue *against* the call anyways.

Gil Imber said...

Roid Rage?

Gil Imber said...

When a batter leaves the box the zone gets big. It's like when a batter "runs" from a curve.When batters "run" or duck a pitch we call this distorting the strike zone.

Gil Imber said...

Are you serious? Sure that's the zone if he stays in his stance... papi is a piece of shit. Always has been. Always will be.

Gil Imber said...

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place, but in light of cert being denied again I would suggest one of the following rule changes: 1) A challenge of correct vs. incorrect allows the Appellate Interpreter to search the entire record for any appropriate rule to challenge under or 2) The denial of a writ on a correct vs. incorrect challenge does not preclude a successive challenge that the call should be deemed irrecusable

With regard to the first option, not everyone knows all of the rules and in some cases they may not be clearly spelled out. For example in the denial of an appeal in this case no rule was actually cited that states that this site will only consider "normalized" pitch f/x data. If there is a valid basis to challenge it should not be foreclosed because somebody challenged using something that is not explicitly prohibited under the rules

If Option 1 is too broad Option 2 provides a narrower basis. There are times where irrecusable objections are not known until postgame press conferences that are not posted until after the Ejection has been listed on this website (I believe it was Eric Hosmer or another Royal who said in a postgame press conference that he left the dugout to see the video and came back to argue). For an example of an appropriate standard see New York CPLR §2221(d)(2) or (e)(2)

Gil Imber said...

I said it earlier...ESPN has a major ax to grind and they create issues to let them grind that ax even more. They want expanded replay and it is obvious. They will take everything and make it seem like the umpires are worse than ever.

I can't wait for Fox Sports Channel to start.

Gil Imber said...

I usually agree with you, but that call is not a MLB strike. Calling it a strike just because Timmons does not like Ortiz stepping out of the box early is not a good reason.



And for the record, I LOATHE the Red Sux. This was a bad call.

Gil Imber said...

Let me rephrase, it is NOT a strike according to the strike zone that is employed 99% of the time. The pitch zone (or whatever that stupid box is called) even showed it coming in a good 2-3 inches above the top.



It might be close, but not that close.

Gil Imber said...

I didn't think either matters. I know the latter does not. I am not sure why this pitch (called a ball 99% of the time) was a strike here. That's something I would expect in a 20-0 game in the 3rd inning in little league to "speed the game up".

Gil Imber said...

I always say that it is pointless to argue balls and strikes, and I stick to that. However,



And I have never challenged a ruling, you folks know more than I do, but one of two things is off base (pun intended) here...


1) It is a strike and the Pitch FX box is wrong (since the pitch came in a few inches above the top line).

2) It is not a strike and Timmons took liberty with Ortiz's non-chalantness.



I'm going with #2. I know this is a strike according to the rulebook if you use the knees to letters terminology liberally, but I would be curious to know how many times this is NOT called a strike versus called a strike (I'd go with somewhere in the area of 99/100). This just seems a little high to me (the pitch, not Timmons himself).



But hey, anything that goads the Red Sux in the keester works for me! LOL

Gil Imber said...

I usually agree with you, but I can see his " beef" for the 3-0 call. He was in the box when the pitch was delivered and started to step out before it reached home plate. I am not sure why that would cause Timmons to rule "strike" for a pitch that is called "ball" 99% of the time in MLB. But I still wouldn't argue, gets you nowhere.

Gil Imber said...

Rule 2.00 Strike Zone: "The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."



By convention, that means the batter's stance as the pitch arrives at home plate. If the batter is not prepared to actually swing, that doesn't preclude a strike being called if the pitch is located between the batter's hollow-of-knee and midpoint between shoulders and top-of-pants.


It's a strike by rule and at the end of the day, an umpire can only do what the rule book says to.

Gil Imber said...

Although its debatable if the pitch was a strike or not, Timmons had a terrible night behind the plate. So did Diaz the night before. Lets see if Estabrook can break that trend.

Gil Imber said...

DD4D - you'd be absolutely right...if Ortiz hadn't been standing at full height when the pitch got there. By rule, that pitch is 100% a strike.

Gil Imber said...

This is the first time since I have been in the UEFL 3 years ago that I have disagreed with Gil's ruling. As much as I cant sand Ortiz and I hope he gets a huge fine for this ejection That 3-0 pitch is a ball at every level except little league maybe.

Gil Imber said...

This is Hawk Harrelson's seventh blown call of 2013.
Hawk Harrelson now has -28 points in the UEFL (-24 + -1 * 4 MLB)

Gil Imber said...

What were the announcers talking about when they said the weird night continues after the 3-0 pitch? what other weird stuff happened in this game?

Gil Imber said...

They're still mad about flunking their own rules exam. "If B1 steps out of the box as the pitch is being delivered, the umpire should call no pitch because there is no batter to judge a strike zone." Brett Boone would have answered true.

Gil Imber said...

I don't care what your beef is - to act like a child at the MLB level is unacceptable. Now some 10, 11, or 12 year old is going to watch this spectacle and because David Ortiz did it is going to think it acceptable to throw a tantrum during his own game. Mr. Ortiz has to understand that he is a... role model... and act accordingly because kids emulate his actions. You watch - he won't smash a phone, but soon some kid is going to throw a temper tantrum during a game and when he does, he'll say he saw David Ortiz do it.

Gil Imber said...

I second this challenge.

Gil Imber said...

This could be an interesting challenge. I believe, in the end, it will come back to the strike call... but could actually start some fun debate.

I waitfor the wise words of our all knowing Commissioner.

Gil Imber said...

So long. I started following this site several years ago for unbiased look at these calls. I'm not drinking the kool-aid anymore. To the extent Ortiz' actions before the call had ANYHING to do with how Timmons called the pitch, he (and all of you who support that nonsense i.e. Tuducken) need to get a reality check. You are manufacturing a place for yourself in the game and you should be ashamed of yourselves. That is just pathetic. Now I read this pitch was "belt high" (was he wearing his belt around his nipples?) and a correct call. (Are you that delusional BAPACop? Are you really going to claim that is the right zone AND the way pitches have been called all these years?) Give me a break! Now the call is considered "correct" if it can fit EITHER under the technical rules or the way the game is typically called. We all know those are not the same thing in many cases. Sure is convenient to have a variety of standards under which to justify yourselves. Just change the site to "umpire self justification site" and be done with it. The credibility of this site is gone.

Gil Imber said...

Miguel Cabrera and Jim Leyland just got ejected by Chad Fairchild .

http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=29215893

Gil Imber said...

Didn't take long for the announcers to derail on that one...

Gil Imber said...

Has anyone put together the numbers for his accuracy?

Gil Imber said...

You can read Cabrera's lips towards the end...


"That's fucking horrible man"

Gil Imber said...

also you can see it about 7 seconds into the video

Gil Imber said...

Pitch cam showed the 4th pitch was high and the 5th pitch was outside. Timmons blew two more with the next batter (Napoli ). Rough game for the ump; it was just a matter of time before someone got tossed.

Gil Imber said...

I will refer this challenge to the Board, though we have significant precedent that if this is lumped in with the "throwing equipment" category of ejections, it may well come back to the balls/strikes QOC, which, by virtue of this appeal, is also under review (the Board reviews all aspects of a challenged play).

Gil Imber said...

The pitch tracker didn't adjust for the fact that Ortiz stood up, so of course the pitch shows as high. The following pitch was within the strike zone as determined by PitchFX.

Gil Imber said...

Maybe a stupid question but what kind of Nike sunglasses are these umpires wearing?? I need to get me a pair of these..Anyone!?!

Gil Imber said...

I am a lifelong Sox fan. But if a batter starts for first base as the pitch is coming in, the batter has taken away my reference points for the strike zone. Therefore, if it's anywhere close, I'm ruling a strike -- and I am known to have a tight strike zone.

Gil Imber said...

The drawing is not flawed since the strike zone is not based on the batter's position as he waits for the pitcher to begin his windup, but rather on his position as he prepares to swing at the pitch; in practice his stance when the ball crosses the plate, since most batters assume an altered stance once the pitcher releases the ball.


Ortiz's change in stance as the pitch was released was to stand straight up. Since the rule does not directly account for a batter who is not even in position to swing at the ball, and in practice the strike zone is set after the batter's post-release stance shift, Ortiz's strike zone for this particular pitch has the dimensions shown in the picture I posted.

Gil Imber said...

87.76% Accuracy on called strikes (43/49)
94.5% Accuracy on Balls (103/109) [This does not include balls in the dirt]



On a side note he did have a missed strike call in the top of the 7th inning which did potentially affect the outcome of the inning, but it was not against Ortiz. The 0-0 pitch to Pedroia was incorrectly called strike one (sz_top 3.36, pz 3.48). Pedroia would run the count to 3-2 before grounding out on the 8th pitch of the at bat. Had that pitch been correctly called a ball as opposed to a strike he would have walked.

Gil Imber said...

If you want a bad night look at Bob Davidson 2 days ago in the Rays-Yankees game. His accuracy on called strikes for that game was an embarrassing 74.14% (43/58).

Gil Imber said...

DD4D, respect the take. I don't think Ortiz has the right to complain when had he taken the ball with reasonable effort, he would have been on first base.

Gil Imber said...

I think this is an interesting challenge. I would argue that because he returned to the dugout and was not ejected for continuing to yell stuff from the dugout that the argument over the at bat was indeed over. No equipment was thrown or left the dugout so I really do not think "throwing equipment" applies here since no equipment was thrown. If anything this ejection would be for excessive aggression to the point of endangering himself and teammates (Dustin Pedroia was almost hit with the bat and people were ducking and covering). My point is, Ortiz was indeed ejected for actions that far exceeded arguing balls and strikes.

On a side note, Timmons showed a lot of guts ejecting him after seeing what he did to that phone. If I were Timmons watching Ortiz do that I would have been very afraid of him coming at me in a blind rage (a la George Brett).

Gil Imber said...

Best swing he had all night!

Gil Imber said...

Most everyone on this comment thread is missing the point. There are unwritten rules and laws with baseball! The fact that Ortiz stood up and exited the box when the ball was for sure a ball, showing up the pitcher and umpire, he got a strike called! I'd have rung his ass up too. That's something he should have known!

In Tim Timmons' defense, his game was great. Laz had the correct call at third and Tim had a very solid game on the dish.

Gil Imber said...

99% of the time the batter isn't standing straight up.

Gil Imber said...

87.76% Called Strike accuracy is not really that solid. Anything below 90% accuracy for a major league umpire is a rough game behind the dish. Also, the 87.76% accuracy is calculated with giving the borderline calls to the umpire and is based off of the UEFL Rules Book of px>0.935 or pz>0.0833 above/below the players vertical strike zone being incorrect.

Gil Imber said...

So yesterday Ortiz pantomimed wrecking the phone while in the dugout during the game. Obviously he thinks that his actions yesterday were funny and not moronic nor dangerous. If Ortiz gets no discipline from MLB, he better at least get the bill to replace the phone and/or box.

Gil Imber said...

In re: 105 Timmons 5;

After review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed unanimously in a 4-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. Four Appeals Board members voted to confirm the Original Ruling.

Majority Opinion, Turducken, joined by yawetag:
UEFL Rule 6-5-c-3, states, in part: "A reason for ejection of Unsportsmanlike Conduct-NEC is only assigned when no other reason for ejection may be assessed." ... Applies here. Evidence suggests that the unsportsmanlike act derived from frustration from the previous at-bat. For this to occur [outside of fighting/intentional hit-by-pitch], the act must be exclusive; or, in other words, not attached to the previous call.

Concurring Opinion, BT_Blue:
I will Confirm Timmons' ejection. Though I think the challenge is reasonable, Ortiz's actions were a direct result of the prior AB.

Per Curiam Opinion:
Original Ruling holds this is a balls/strikes ejection while appellant asserts this is Unsportsmanlike-NEC because of "actions done in the dugout." Note that Ortiz was ejected prior to the following batter's arrival to the plate.

This Board previously ruled that throwing equipment after a contested call strikeout (strike 1, 2 or 3) is QOC-eligible Balls/Strikes and not Unsportsmanlike-NEC.

References and precedent: 011 Guccione 1; 012, 013 Fairchild 1, 2; 014 Cuzzi 1.


Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.

Confirmed: tmac, yawetag, BT_Blue, Turducken
Upheld: -
Overturned: -
Deferred: -
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment), RichMSN (owns Timmons)

Gil Imber said...

See the definition of the strike zone at http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp The importance of the stance is called out in the 1988 and 1969 versions of the rules. (clipped here to save space)

1988 - The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of [clipped] The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

1969 - The Strike Zone is that space over home plate [clipped] The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch.


At issue is whether or not the top of the strike zone is elevated when the batter is standing straight up, not in position to swing at a pitch. With a right-handed pitcher, left-handed batter, 3-0 count with first base open, Ortiz is not planning to swing because the pitcher is not planning to throw a strike. Pitch FX elevates the zone because the computer simply doesn't know any better. This is one of the few situations where the umpire can make a better call than the machine (a missed opportunity in this case).



Consider the opposite problem (batter uses an exaggerated crouch stance, from which he can't possibly hit the ball, in an attempt to shrink the strike zone). Pete Rose was well-known for this. The 1969 version of the strike zone seems to be designed with him in mind. The 1988 update to the strike zone is a bit more ambiguous "as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball".



Standing straight up is not "prepared to swing at a pitched ball". For Ortiz, the data suggests sz_top in the range of 3.77 to 3.88 feet. At 4.032 feet, the fourth pitch was almost certainly the highest called strike of the game, maybe the highest of ANY game for some period of time. I don't have an easy way to query a database to see how often an umpire calls a strike above 4 feet. My guess is not very often.



I think the only reason the ball/strike calls have not been "outsourced" to Pitch F/X is because of the threat of crouch stances being used to fool the computer and shrink the strike zone. In this case, the computer got fooled by the batter standing straight up during a semi-intentional walk. If the strike zone had a minimum size (regardless of stance), I think the crouch problem could be solved. At that point, the batters would quickly learn that standing straight up will elevate the strike zone, so don't do it -- even if you are just watching the pitcher finish up with semi-intentional ball 4.


Nobody likes mistakes. There would be fewer arguments, ejections, and broken phones if the Pitch F/X data was used to determine balls and strikes. Ortiz would have known enough to use his regular stance, and Timmons would let the computer do its job.


What I found surprising is that the "pitch zone" shown on TV does not correlate 100% with the raw data from Pitch FX. Not just the top/bottom of the strike zone (pz), but the plate (px) as well.

Gil Imber said...

The definition of the strike zone does not account for a batter who never prepares to swing at the pitch. In this situation the umpire has the authority to set the strike zone per 9.01(c). If the batter crouches down the umpire will leave the strike zone at its default height because the batter is intentionally trying to gain an unfair advantage. If the batter stands up the umpire will expand the zone to the batter's current height because the batter is intentionally giving the pitcher the advantage.

Post a Comment