Daubs:
sidney lanier:
UWWhitewaterGrad:
The strikezone doesn't change when a batter bends over. That pitch was belt-high. That was a strike. Again, the interpretation of the zone is what is killing this aspect of the game.
It was a strike, but the strike zone does change based on stance:
The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
If that's the case, I'm shocked we don't see more Rickey Henderson-type stances....or a batter who squats so his knees are above his shoulders (man, that'd be uncomfortable, though....)
That still doesn't change the fact that Fox was much more upright when DiFelice was starting to throw the pitch and hunched over more when the ball crossed the plate.
You're right. The zone is defined by the hitter's stance when he is prepared to hit, not when he goes into Eddie Gaedel mode trying to take ball four. Just more corroboration, not that any was needed, about what this pitch should have been called.
This business somebody else pointed out about Jake Fox going to the tape room and confirming his eagle eye at the plate just shows that he's absorbed the Cubs' our-schit-doesn't-smell-as-bad-as-Wrigley-Field attitude. The guy locks up and then tries to spin it that he's got Ted Williams' eyes.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I remember him taking a called third strike to end a Cubs' loss a few days ago. I thought it was against the Giants, but I checked, and it was in Atlanta on June 22nd. I remember watching the end of that game and texting a friend (a Giants fan, which is why I got confused) about the sad state of baseball when a guy can take a belt-high fastball that splits the plate with two outs in the ninth down two runs. So he freezes up again, and this time it works out for him, thanks to an accommodating umpire.
That's redemption, Chicago Cubs style.
The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. -- Mark Twain