But Ump, it was low and inside! . . .

Ode to the Consistent Umpire;

Or . . . Why I Can Still Appreciate the “Low and Inside” Strike Zone

Anyone who has played baseball knows the subjectivity of the game’s strike zone, and the various interpretations of it by different umpires.  A simple definition of the strike zone as I learned it as a kid, was that it consisted of airspace horizontally across home plate and vertically from the kneecap to the armpit.  Over time baseball’s rules regarding it may have changed slightly, but that’s really irrelevant to this discussion.  

Back when I played, as both a hitter and a pitcher, I learned that because you would encounter different umpires, you had to adapt to each umpire and find his specific “taste“ for what he called a strike.  I remember one league umpire in particular, who used to call as a strike a pitch that was  definitely “low and inside”.  Oh, how that guy just loved the “low and inside” pitch, and sure enough, he’d call it a strike every time.  But to me, having a decent feel for the strike zone myself, I just didn’t see eye-to-eye with his interpretation of what was a strike.  And his “low and inside” definitely wasn’t it.

But now, as I reflect back on that story, and apply it as a life lesson on a grander scale, I have come to appreciate and respect that umpire’s quality of consistency.  Sure, he and I may have disagreed in our principles on how we defined a strike.  But he clearly let you know where his strike zone was located, and he was completely consistent about it.  If as a player you either failed to swing or pitch to that area of the plate, you weren’t going to get the call.  It came down to the fact that he was the umpire, and you could only blame yourself if you didn’t play to his game. 

Unfortunately, in today’s business, political, and social environment, we seem to encounter a world that operates metaphorically using a ‘dynamic strike zone’, with the rules changing on a whim, often for convenience or agenda purposes.  Data, figures, facts, and arguments are thrown are about freely, haphazardly, inconsistently, and even used in a contradictory manner.  Continuing the baseball analogy, these days one time a ‘strike’ is “up and away”, the next time it's “low and inside”, and depending on the particular agenda, sometimes a ‘pitch’ thrown right down the heart of the plate is a called a ball.  

If you’re the type of person who is grounded in logic, rationality, and reasonableness, a scenario like this can be maddening.  And frankly, many of us are tired of playing “Where’s Waldo” with the proverbial ‘strike zone of logic’.  These days I harken back to my old days of baseball, with the simple punch line, “just call ‘em the same way every time.”

So, here’s to the umpire who always called his strikes consistently, even if they were “low and inside” (and out of my strike zone).  And here’s to those people who apply reason, common sense, and above all, consistency, in how they operate and conduct themselves.  

And like with the umpire, we won’t always necessarily agree with the other person’s definition of the ‘strike zone’, and their interpretation of the rules might be slightly different from ours.  That said, we can all aspire to use concepts/beliefs/actions that are based in rationality, logic, reasonableness, and non-hypocritical consistency.  In a world full of differing ideas, concepts, interpretations of everything, it’s the most and best for which we can possibly hope.

“Batter Up!”