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
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(281 - 2:30pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2849 - 2:28pm, Oct 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(105 - 2:23pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(90 - 2:16pm, Oct 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(165 - 2:14pm, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(5 - 2:14pm, Oct 21)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(28 - 2:10pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(7 - 2:07pm, Oct 21)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(100 - 1:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(3 - 1:34pm, Oct 21)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(49 - 1:28pm, Oct 21)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(47 - 1:27pm, Oct 21)
Last: Lassus

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(22 - 1:24pm, Oct 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(445 - 12:59pm, Oct 21)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(18 - 11:29am, Oct 21)
Last: GuyM

Page rendered in 0.1906 seconds
52 querie(s) executed