Strike Zone Size

[real green]

Watching the LL All Stars made me question the impact of a large strike zone size.

Who does it benefit more?

The stud pitcher or the average pitcher?

My first thoughts were it it handicaps the batter, which I still believe. The reality of LL is pitching can shut down teams and puts a big advantage to teams with 2-3 great pitchers.

Does the big zone take the advantage away from the team that is riding a couple stud pitchers?

Thinking it out, the stud pitcher will get his outs no matter what size the zone looks like. While the average pitcher will see big improvements with the wider zone. So in essence, this is a way to make the games more competitive. Preventing teams from just riding out a couple horses.

[skipper5]

Your conclusion makes sense, but,
IMO the over-sized zone benefits the best pitchers. Against average pitching, the batters can adjust to a bigger zone and still have a decent chance of at least getting the bat on the ball. Against top pitching, the bigger zone is the tipping factor that makes it almost unhittable.

When aces face off in top level competition--whether it be LLWS or HS-- and the ump is calling a big zone, it degrades the game.

[bbrages]

In our rec league (9u), the strike zones varied greatly from game to game.

Small zones seemed to really hurt the bad pitchers -- the kids who were fairly wild would walk one guy after another. The better pitchers would work harder, strike out fewer, give up more "hits" with a small zone, but the walks were managable. IMO, a huge zone is a greater benefit to bad (wild) pitchers.

[skipper5]

In our rec league (9u), the strike zones varied greatly from game to game.

Small zones seemed to really hurt the bad pitchers -- the kids who were fairly wild would walk one guy after another. The better pitchers would work harder, strike out fewer, give up more "hits" with a small zone, but the walks were managable. IMO, a huge zone is a greater benefit to bad (wild) pitchers.

Agree totally with regard to 9u rec.
Which I don't coach any more, but it still fascinates me. Amazing that kids who were learning to walk not that long ago can play the most difficult team sport.

[CircleChange11]

No matter what we're talking about, any time your make it easier you help the less talented.

[CircleChange11]

What I've noticed in youth pitching is that once a pitcher has shown that he can throw the ball around the plate, the ump makes them throw the ball around the plate. They make it sort of easy for the ump to tell a ball from a strike.

The pitcher with less control gets a more generous strike zone, because "Aw hell, close enough".

It's been surprising to me.

[dominik]

I think both pitchers benefit equally so that the difference stays the same.

I like the large strike zone in kid baseball. It prevents kids from just waiting for the BB or a meatball and eliminates walk fests.

[CircleChange11]

I think 12 and under should have larger strike zone just because the batter's ability to hit the ball isn't as good as it will be once the mound moves back.

There's simply no good reason for the mound at LL Majors to remain at 46 feet.

By large strikezone, I hope you kmean something like "a baseball's width" on all 4 sides of the box. If it gets bigger than that then it's just a damn joke. If a kid can only be successful pitching if he's getting 6-8 inches on all sides, then that kid needs to find something else to do, or actually practice more often.

By far, the larger problem are coaches that don;t practice their pitchers enough. Seriously kids need to be throwing 20-25 pitches darn near daily. Pitching, hitting, ground balls ... daily activities.

[lancers]

I think 12 and under should have larger strike zone just because the batter's ability to hit the ball isn't as good as it will be once the mound moves back.

My son had only two SO the whole season. One was being fooled by a good changeup, the other one was a call strike 3 that was chin high:hyper:

We have faced some real inconsistent umps throughout the season. It's really depending on flavor of the inning.

[ralanprod]

Obviously at the lower levels you are going to have some inconsistent zones. What I've noticed though is that the "less proficient" officials tend to widen the zone to one side and shorten it to the other. Either they call anything close on the outside a strike, but nothing inside. Same for low vs high zones. I haven't seen many zones that are big all around.

If you are lucky, you have a pitcher that can take advantage of whatever extra space they are being given. We used to have this real nice older gentleman that called the plate at some of our games. He didn't get down into a crouch very well, and was very "generous" with calls on the bottom of the zone. My son's only 2 no hitters, one of which featured him throwing 12 consecutive strikeouts, were games that this official called. Now I'm not going to confess how many called strikes actually bounced off the plate... To be fair though, he did call it the same for both teams. (Forget time limits in his games - you could get in 6 innings before Domino's showed up with a pizza.)

[dominik]

I think 12 and under should have larger strike zone just because the batter's ability to hit the ball isn't as good as it will be once the mound moves back.

There's simply no good reason for the mound at LL Majors to remain at 46 feet.

By large strikezone, I hope you kmean something like "a baseball's width" on all 4 sides of the box. If it gets bigger than that then it's just a damn joke. If a kid can only be successful pitching if he's getting 6-8 inches on all sides, then that kid needs to find something else to do, or actually practice more often.

By far, the larger problem are coaches that don;t practice their pitchers enough. Seriously kids need to be throwing 20-25 pitches darn near daily. Pitching, hitting, ground balls ... daily activities.

why do you want a large strike zone if your goal is to help hitter?

[scorekeeper]

I think 12 and under should have larger strike zone just because the batter's ability to hit the ball isn't as good as it will be once the mound moves back.

You do understand that 12U includes all kids 6 thru 12YOs.

There's simply no good reason for the mound at LL Majors to remain at 46 feet.

Well, if all LL Majors players were 12YO and all the kinds of players people see during the LLWS, you might be correct. But if our small league had to go to a 50+ mound, it wouldn’t do anything but drag games out even more than they are now.

[CircleChange11]

You do understand that 12U includes all kids 6 thru 12YOs.

No way. *grin*

I said "12 and Under" to indicate that I am referring to pitchers aged 8 through 12, as we often use 12U to indicate 12yo baseball.

Well, if all LL Majors players were 12YO and all the kinds of players people see during the LLWS, you might be correct. But if our small league had to go to a 50+ mound, it wouldn’t do anything but drag games out even more than they are now.

From what I have seen, the pitchers at LL majors are the 12yo.

I think (strongly) that there has to be some "progression" from LL Minors to LL majors in regards to the mound distance, both to give the hitters more of a chance and to protect the pitchers a little more from comebackers, etc.

Right now the kids go straight from 46/60 to 54/80 as they go from LL to Jr. High.

I think LL Minors should be 46/60, LL Majors 50/70. To me it just seems to be obvious.

I look at the situation like this "My 12yo will pitch from the same distance he did as a 9yo." At 9yo he was 4'4 95 pounds. By age 12 he'll likely be in the 5'9 170 pound range (if not heavier).

I'm sure you and I agree that one remedy for the wildness factor is to simply have pitchers practice pitching more often. I, personally, don;t feel pitchers get nearly enough practice (bullpens), where they work on accuracy. We either have unrealistic expectations of them or just ride the kids that throw well enough either due to natural ability or practice they get outside of the team practice.

When I watch LL Majors games, I see 12yo pitchers (travel ball pitchers usually) pretty much blowing away most batters.

[CircleChange11]

Duplicate Post.

[scorekeeper]

No way. *grin*

I said "12 and Under" to indicate that I am referring to pitchers aged 8 through 12, as we often use 12U to indicate 12yo baseball.

Doesn’t make a great deal of difference what the age is. Since LL Majors layers can be 9, it means a heck of a lot of kids. Now if LL wants to change it so that LL Majors is only 12’s, that’d be different, but I’m afraid that would pretty much destroy many leagues.

From what I have seen, the pitchers at LL majors are the 12yo.

All I can say is, your experience needs to be widened. Actually, that’s pretty descriptive of LL all stars, which is what the LLWS is made of. But there are still a fair number of 11,s.

I think (strongly) that there has to be some "progression" from LL Minors to LL majors in regards to the mound distance, both to give the hitters more of a chance and to protect the pitchers a little more from comebackers, etc.

Right now the kids go straight from 46/60 to 54/80 as they go from LL to Jr. High.

I think LL Minors should be 46/60, LL Majors 50/70. To me it just seems to be obvious.

Why? Its been fine for a very long time. It sounds as though you’ve been tainted by the LLWS and a narrow experience. In fact your statement about the kids going from 46/60 to 54/80 shows how narrow that experience is. Many of our kids here go from 46/60 straight to 60/90, but it all depends on the organization they’re in. The local HS’s here get kids from all programs, and there’s no way to tell which programs they came out of by their play.

I look at the situation like this "My 12yo will pitch from the same distance he did as a 9yo." At 9yo he was 4'4 95 pounds. By age 12 he'll likely be in the 5'9 170 pound range (if not heavier).

So? Don’t let him pitch the LL season. Now if he wasn’t going to get a chance to throw at all, you’d have a better argument, but I can’t believe he isn’t going to play travel or tournament ball, so its not as though he’d never get to play.

I'm sure you and I agree that one remedy for the wildness factor is to simply have pitchers practice pitching more often. I, personally, don’t feel pitchers get nearly enough practice (bullpens), where they work on accuracy. We either have unrealistic expectations of them or just ride the kids that throw well enough either due to natural ability or practice they get outside of the team practice.

I’ve stated many many times what I thought would be a great mitigating factor for “wildness”, and it has nothing to do with throwing or pitching more. But, I do agree that perfect practice does head one in the correct direction.

When I watch LL Majors games, I see 12yo pitchers (travel ball pitchers usually) pretty much blowing away most batters.

Again, its your experience. I challenge you to come watch one of our league’s regular games. In the roughly 18 years I’ve been associated with our league, we’ve had very few kids who could “blow away most batters” because we’ve had so few really dominating pitchers.

The answer isn’t always to make adjustments with the very best or worst players in mind. Its always to head to the average. At least that’s MO.