Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, May 03, 2001

Maddux fans 14 in two-hit shutout

Just as a lot of analysts have predicted, it appears Greg Maddux is having difficulty adjusting to the new strike zone.

Jim Furtado Posted: May 03, 2001 at 11:30 AM | 7 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Darren Posted: May 03, 2001 at 02:18 PM (#67370)
It's more like, "Just as a lot of analysts have predicted, Maddux hasn't had to adjust to a new strikezone."

Early reports are he's still getting the 30" wide strikezone.
   2. Darren Posted: May 03, 2001 at 02:18 PM (#68156)
It's more like, "Just as a lot of analysts have predicted, Maddux hasn't had to adjust to a new strikezone."

Early reports are he's still getting the 30" wide strikezone.
   3. Darren Posted: May 03, 2001 at 02:18 PM (#68430)
It's more like, "Just as a lot of analysts have predicted, Maddux hasn't had to adjust to a new strikezone."

Early reports are he's still getting the 30" wide strikezone.
   4. The Original Gary Posted: May 03, 2001 at 06:57 PM (#67371)
When you have as much movement on your pitches that Maddux does, combined with the control that Maddux has, you can't help but be successful. I don't know if I am reading Darren's comment the wrong way, but it is about time people start giving Maddux credit for what he does instead of attributing his success to a "30" wide strike zone".
   5. The Original Gary Posted: May 03, 2001 at 06:57 PM (#68157)
When you have as much movement on your pitches that Maddux does, combined with the control that Maddux has, you can't help but be successful. I don't know if I am reading Darren's comment the wrong way, but it is about time people start giving Maddux credit for what he does instead of attributing his success to a "30" wide strike zone".
   6. The Original Gary Posted: May 03, 2001 at 06:57 PM (#68431)
When you have as much movement on your pitches that Maddux does, combined with the control that Maddux has, you can't help but be successful. I don't know if I am reading Darren's comment the wrong way, but it is about time people start giving Maddux credit for what he does instead of attributing his success to a "30" wide strike zone".
   7. Colin Posted: May 03, 2001 at 11:31 PM (#67372)
I am so sick to death of people making comments like Darren's, as if there's some national umpire conspiracy to "give" Maddux wins. It used to be a conspiracy to help out all "Braves pitchers", but that has gone down a little. Then again, maybe you'd like to blame that for Burkett pitching effectively too.

The facts is this - all umpires are erratic in their strike zones. Maddux takes the first inning to flesh out what an umpire will allow, then work that zone all night. The reason it always seems like Maddux "gets" a bigger zone than the other guy is that damn few pitchers (a) have enough control to exploit the zone of the night every time out, and (b) are smart enough to figure out what the zone is and go with it. Also throw in (c) because of TBS, Maddux gets mroe national exposure than other well-known exploiters of the strike zone, so people are more likely to chalk this up to Maddux than they are to Kevin Brown, Mike Mussina et al.

Do ou really think an umpire sees a pitch 6 inches out fo the zone, sees a ball and then goes "Aw, hell, it's Maddux. STEEE-RIKE!" Please. Are black helicopters following your every move too?

I've been arguing this for years, but for a summary go to:
   8. Colin Posted: May 03, 2001 at 11:31 PM (#68158)
I am so sick to death of people making comments like Darren's, as if there's some national umpire conspiracy to "give" Maddux wins. It used to be a conspiracy to help out all "Braves pitchers", but that has gone down a little. Then again, maybe you'd like to blame that for Burkett pitching effectively too.

The facts is this - all umpires are erratic in their strike zones. Maddux takes the first inning to flesh out what an umpire will allow, then work that zone all night. The reason it always seems like Maddux "gets" a bigger zone than the other guy is that damn few pitchers (a) have enough control to exploit the zone of the night every time out, and (b) are smart enough to figure out what the zone is and go with it. Also throw in (c) because of TBS, Maddux gets mroe national exposure than other well-known exploiters of the strike zone, so people are more likely to chalk this up to Maddux than they are to Kevin Brown, Mike Mussina et al.

Do ou really think an umpire sees a pitch 6 inches out fo the zone, sees a ball and then goes "Aw, hell, it's Maddux. STEEE-RIKE!" Please. Are black helicopters following your every move too?

I've been arguing this for years, but for a summary go to:
   9. Colin Posted: May 03, 2001 at 11:31 PM (#68432)
I am so sick to death of people making comments like Darren's, as if there's some national umpire conspiracy to "give" Maddux wins. It used to be a conspiracy to help out all "Braves pitchers", but that has gone down a little. Then again, maybe you'd like to blame that for Burkett pitching effectively too.

The facts is this - all umpires are erratic in their strike zones. Maddux takes the first inning to flesh out what an umpire will allow, then work that zone all night. The reason it always seems like Maddux "gets" a bigger zone than the other guy is that damn few pitchers (a) have enough control to exploit the zone of the night every time out, and (b) are smart enough to figure out what the zone is and go with it. Also throw in (c) because of TBS, Maddux gets mroe national exposure than other well-known exploiters of the strike zone, so people are more likely to chalk this up to Maddux than they are to Kevin Brown, Mike Mussina et al.

Do ou really think an umpire sees a pitch 6 inches out fo the zone, sees a ball and then goes "Aw, hell, it's Maddux. STEEE-RIKE!" Please. Are black helicopters following your every move too?

I've been arguing this for years, but for a summary go to:
   10. Darren Posted: May 04, 2001 at 07:55 AM (#67373)
Maddux has excellent control and great movement, and that's the main reason he's a great pitcher. But it doesn't change the fact that he gets a huge strikezone. No, I don't think the umpires are consciously choosing to call a bigger zone for him, but I do believe the do call a bigger zone for him.

Let me restate, Maddux is a great pitcher. But the notion that he's had to adjust to work with the new strikezone is, I think, a stretch.
   11. Darren Posted: May 04, 2001 at 07:55 AM (#68159)
Maddux has excellent control and great movement, and that's the main reason he's a great pitcher. But it doesn't change the fact that he gets a huge strikezone. No, I don't think the umpires are consciously choosing to call a bigger zone for him, but I do believe the do call a bigger zone for him.

Let me restate, Maddux is a great pitcher. But the notion that he's had to adjust to work with the new strikezone is, I think, a stretch.
   12. Darren Posted: May 04, 2001 at 07:55 AM (#68433)
Maddux has excellent control and great movement, and that's the main reason he's a great pitcher. But it doesn't change the fact that he gets a huge strikezone. No, I don't think the umpires are consciously choosing to call a bigger zone for him, but I do believe the do call a bigger zone for him.

Let me restate, Maddux is a great pitcher. But the notion that he's had to adjust to work with the new strikezone is, I think, a stretch.
   13. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 02:07 PM (#67374)
Darren - do you have anything at all to back up this opinion? Something more than "I saw it and therefore I know it's so"? I didn't see Wednesday's game Not on TV in Ohio), but I see the other team gave up only a solo homer. So it sure seems likely the other guy was "getting" the same strike zone as Maddux. I saw another umpire last night with a wide strikezone when Maddux wasn't pitching - Burkett even struck out the side in the first inning, and the Brewers held the Braves scoreless! This is my point - umps are inconsistent in their strikezones. To suggest that Maddux gets one wider than other guys ignores what happens to the other guys.

So tell me this, what out of this evidence suggests Maddux is getting a big strikezone while the other team isn't? And if one accepts that both sides get the same strikezone, then why pick on Maddux?
   14. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 02:07 PM (#68160)
Darren - do you have anything at all to back up this opinion? Something more than "I saw it and therefore I know it's so"? I didn't see Wednesday's game Not on TV in Ohio), but I see the other team gave up only a solo homer. So it sure seems likely the other guy was "getting" the same strike zone as Maddux. I saw another umpire last night with a wide strikezone when Maddux wasn't pitching - Burkett even struck out the side in the first inning, and the Brewers held the Braves scoreless! This is my point - umps are inconsistent in their strikezones. To suggest that Maddux gets one wider than other guys ignores what happens to the other guys.

So tell me this, what out of this evidence suggests Maddux is getting a big strikezone while the other team isn't? And if one accepts that both sides get the same strikezone, then why pick on Maddux?
   15. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 02:07 PM (#68434)
Darren - do you have anything at all to back up this opinion? Something more than "I saw it and therefore I know it's so"? I didn't see Wednesday's game Not on TV in Ohio), but I see the other team gave up only a solo homer. So it sure seems likely the other guy was "getting" the same strike zone as Maddux. I saw another umpire last night with a wide strikezone when Maddux wasn't pitching - Burkett even struck out the side in the first inning, and the Brewers held the Braves scoreless! This is my point - umps are inconsistent in their strikezones. To suggest that Maddux gets one wider than other guys ignores what happens to the other guys.

So tell me this, what out of this evidence suggests Maddux is getting a big strikezone while the other team isn't? And if one accepts that both sides get the same strikezone, then why pick on Maddux?
   16. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 05:39 PM (#67375)
Colin--

Even if Maddux and his opponent both got a large strikezone, that wouldn't refute my initial point: Maddux has not had to adjust to a different strikezone.

I don't see why "I saw and therefore I know it's so" is such a terrible argument to make. Your theories on Maddux being better at exploiting a large zone are entirely based on your observations.

I can't think of any empirical evidence that show Maddux was getting larger zone. But I can't think of any that would show he isn't.

You seem to be taking this very personally. You've done nothing to convince me of your opinion, and I'm sure I've done nothing to convince you of mine. Let's leave it at that.
   17. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 05:39 PM (#68161)
Colin--

Even if Maddux and his opponent both got a large strikezone, that wouldn't refute my initial point: Maddux has not had to adjust to a different strikezone.

I don't see why "I saw and therefore I know it's so" is such a terrible argument to make. Your theories on Maddux being better at exploiting a large zone are entirely based on your observations.

I can't think of any empirical evidence that show Maddux was getting larger zone. But I can't think of any that would show he isn't.

You seem to be taking this very personally. You've done nothing to convince me of your opinion, and I'm sure I've done nothing to convince you of mine. Let's leave it at that.
   18. Colin Posted: May 04, 2001 at 05:39 PM (#68435)
Colin--

Even if Maddux and his opponent both got a large strikezone, that wouldn't refute my initial point: Maddux has not had to adjust to a different strikezone.

I don't see why "I saw and therefore I know it's so" is such a terrible argument to make. Your theories on Maddux being better at exploiting a large zone are entirely based on your observations.

I can't think of any empirical evidence that show Maddux was getting larger zone. But I can't think of any that would show he isn't.

You seem to be taking this very personally. You've done nothing to convince me of your opinion, and I'm sure I've done nothing to convince you of mine. Let's leave it at that.
   19. Colin Posted: May 05, 2001 at 06:04 PM (#67376)
Let's leave it at that? Then what's the point of a discussion forum :-) (And why are you stealing my name???)

Do I take this personally? No, but I get right tired of hearing it. Look back at what I posted - not only that both pitchers in the Maddux game got a wide zone, but then the following night there was an equally, if not wider zone.

And this is the overall point - you say that umpires aren't enforcing the same strike zone on Maddux as they do on everyone else. I say they don't enforce the strike zone consistently, and it has nothing to do at all with maddux, else why do we see the same thing with other pitchers? You think the rep of John Burkett gets some sort of benefit of the doubt from umpires all of a sudden?

You can't just say "they're not enforcing it with Maddux" and then ignore the fact that there are other games in which it isn't being enforced when he isn't pitching.

Frankly, I have no idea who HAS had to adjust to a new strike zone! Every game I watch with any number of differnet teams, I see an inconsistent strike zone. Frankly, the only pitcher I've seen who is consistently facing a new strike zone is Tom Glavine. Otherwise, as I watch the Indians play the Devil Rays or the Reds or the Cubs or whever happens to be on cable, or even the few Maddux games I've seen this season I see no consistency at all in the strike zone. None.

So you seem to suggest Maddux is getting some special treatment? All I suggest is it's considerably less special and more generic than you wish to admit. You see only your evidence in favor of your hypothesis on Maddux, and none of the other evidence that suggests the smae thing applies all over the place in maddeningly inconsistent form.
   20. Colin Posted: May 05, 2001 at 06:04 PM (#68162)
Let's leave it at that? Then what's the point of a discussion forum :-) (And why are you stealing my name???)

Do I take this personally? No, but I get right tired of hearing it. Look back at what I posted - not only that both pitchers in the Maddux game got a wide zone, but then the following night there was an equally, if not wider zone.

And this is the overall point - you say that umpires aren't enforcing the same strike zone on Maddux as they do on everyone else. I say they don't enforce the strike zone consistently, and it has nothing to do at all with maddux, else why do we see the same thing with other pitchers? You think the rep of John Burkett gets some sort of benefit of the doubt from umpires all of a sudden?

You can't just say "they're not enforcing it with Maddux" and then ignore the fact that there are other games in which it isn't being enforced when he isn't pitching.

Frankly, I have no idea who HAS had to adjust to a new strike zone! Every game I watch with any number of differnet teams, I see an inconsistent strike zone. Frankly, the only pitcher I've seen who is consistently facing a new strike zone is Tom Glavine. Otherwise, as I watch the Indians play the Devil Rays or the Reds or the Cubs or whever happens to be on cable, or even the few Maddux games I've seen this season I see no consistency at all in the strike zone. None.

So you seem to suggest Maddux is getting some special treatment? All I suggest is it's considerably less special and more generic than you wish to admit. You see only your evidence in favor of your hypothesis on Maddux, and none of the other evidence that suggests the smae thing applies all over the place in maddeningly inconsistent form.
   21. Colin Posted: May 05, 2001 at 06:04 PM (#68436)
Let's leave it at that? Then what's the point of a discussion forum :-) (And why are you stealing my name???)

Do I take this personally? No, but I get right tired of hearing it. Look back at what I posted - not only that both pitchers in the Maddux game got a wide zone, but then the following night there was an equally, if not wider zone.

And this is the overall point - you say that umpires aren't enforcing the same strike zone on Maddux as they do on everyone else. I say they don't enforce the strike zone consistently, and it has nothing to do at all with maddux, else why do we see the same thing with other pitchers? You think the rep of John Burkett gets some sort of benefit of the doubt from umpires all of a sudden?

You can't just say "they're not enforcing it with Maddux" and then ignore the fact that there are other games in which it isn't being enforced when he isn't pitching.

Frankly, I have no idea who HAS had to adjust to a new strike zone! Every game I watch with any number of differnet teams, I see an inconsistent strike zone. Frankly, the only pitcher I've seen who is consistently facing a new strike zone is Tom Glavine. Otherwise, as I watch the Indians play the Devil Rays or the Reds or the Cubs or whever happens to be on cable, or even the few Maddux games I've seen this season I see no consistency at all in the strike zone. None.

So you seem to suggest Maddux is getting some special treatment? All I suggest is it's considerably less special and more generic than you wish to admit. You see only your evidence in favor of your hypothesis on Maddux, and none of the other evidence that suggests the smae thing applies all over the place in maddeningly inconsistent form.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(80 - 1:10am, Oct 25)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(21 - 12:44am, Oct 25)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.1893 seconds
52 querie(s) executed