The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Calling Balls And Strikes During Warmup Pitches
Judge Matey explains that umpires indicate what the strike zone will be during warmup pitches that do not count.
During today's convention, Judge Paul Matey of the Third Circuit did a SOC! Sidebar on Baseball cards. Judge Matey has some insights on how baseball cards interacts with the law, but he made a point about calling balls and strike that I had never heard before.
By now, everyone knows Chief Justice Roberts's famous line that umpire simply call balls and strikes. But Judge Matey made a different point. Before a pitcher throws his first official pitch, he will throw several warmup pitches. Though these pitches do not count, the umpire will signal whether the pitch is a ball or a strike. These warmup pitches allow the pitcher to understand what the judge's strike zone will be. From game to game, an umpire might change his strike zone. But the hope is that an umpire will use the same strike zone in that particular game, or at least for that particular pitcher. That way pitchers, catchers, and batters know the rules of the game.
I think Matey had illustrated yet another reason why Roberts's analogy doesn't work. Lawyers do not get to throw throw warmup pitches in practice cases. They have only one shot to make their case. It is possible to guess on a strike zone based on past calls, but that practice is imprecise.
What about the Chief Justice? Roberts does not apply consistent strike zones--even in the same case. Do I need to mention NFIB v. Sebelius again? (I was surprised no one brought up the regulatory power of taxes yesterday during the tariff case.)
I am grateful to Judge Matey for this insight.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
You know, baseball does have a rule book that defines the strike zone.
Oh, that's definitive then. All umpires will interpret it identically, just as all lawyers, judges, and legislators interpret laws identically.
Not definitive of course. Still a sort of important point.
Ya, about as important as saying we have written laws and a written Constitution. Did you have anything less obvious to say?
That's coming from...you?
Sebellius was a constitutional case interpreting the constitutional limits of the taxing power of Congress. Under Drexel Furniture, an Act of Congress lies within that power (or not) based on an objective functional test, regardless of Congressional laguage or intent. In Drexel Furniture, Congress had enacted a tax but the Court held it was functionally a regulation and hence lay outside Congress’ constitutional taxing power. In Sebellius, the Court applied the exact same Drexel Furniture test to hold that what Congress had called a reguatin was functionally a tax withi the Drexel Furniture defiition, and hence lay within Congress’ constitutional taxing power.
The current tarriff cases before the Court address completely different questions, whether or not Congress delegated a large portion of its power to tax to the President, and whether it can do so. The first question is one of statutory interpretation. And for that question, what Congress said and what it intended is what statutory interpretation is all about. It decides everything.
Completely different questions, completely different standards.
Professor Backman repeatedly ignores the precedents on which the Sebellius decision was based. There’s very good reason he does so. These precedents contradict and disprove Professor Blackman’s baseless came that Chief Justice Roberts simply made up his Sebeillius opinion out of hs head.
Frankly, Professor Blackman does Mr. Norman Voles of Gravesend, of Monty Python fame, one better. Rather than admit that his claim falls to the ground, he simply ignores contrary facts and keeps on going.
This is a completely flawed analogy. Umpires do not signal balls and strikes during warm-up pitches. In fact, it would be impossible to do so since the strike zone is defined by the batter’s stance, and the batter is not standing at the plate during warm-up pitches.
That last is pretty funny. So obvious, but I don't watch enough baseball to have thought of it.
From the MLB rules, Strike Zone definition:
"The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. In order to get a strike call, part of the ball must cross over part of home plate while in the aforementioned area."
Not only is the warmup reference wrong, but so is the notion that an umpire has a single strike zone that he applies consistently from batter to batter.
The man said he call balls and strikes. Has he ever promised to do so fairly?
Then-Judge John Roberts told the Senate at his confirmation hearing:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/nomination-process/chief-justice-roberts-statement-nomination-process
Roberts was cagey enough to conceal that the umpire he had in mind was Bill Klem:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsturt/2013/12/06/sonny-it-aint-nothin-til-i-call-it/
Chief Justice Roberts once had a modicum of integrity. He has since become Donald Trump's handmaid.
So which was the Obamacare penaltax -- integrity, or for Trump? Or both? Or neither?
Well it wasn't for Trump -- who was not then a political figure. That came later, after President Obama skewered Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011. https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?qs=RI&pq=Obama+Trump+White+House+&sk=CSYN1UT1RI1&sc=13-24&q=white+house+press+roast+obama+trump+2012&cvid=e036184311c94378ba5df33f27f04ee7&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIAxAAGEAyBwgAEAAY-QcyBggBEEUYOTIGCAIQABhAMgYIAxAAGEAyBggEEAAYQDIGCAUQABhAMgYIBhAAGEAyBggHEAAYQDIGCAgQABhA0gEJMTc1NjFqMGo5qAIIsAIB&PC=HCTS&ru=%2fsearch%3fqs%3dRI%26pq%3dObama%2bTrump%2bWhite%2bHouse%2b%26sk%3dCSYN1UT1RI1%26sc%3d13-24%26q%3dwhite%2bhouse%2bpress%2broast%2bobama%2btrump%2b2012%26cvid%3de036184311c94378ba5df33f27f04ee7%26gs_lcrp%3dEgRlZGdlKgYIAxAAGEAyBwgAEAAY-QcyBggBEEUYOTIGCAIQABhAMgYIAxAAGEAyBggEEAAYQDIGCAUQABhAMgYIBhAAGEAyBggHEAAYQDIGCAgQABhA0gEJMTc1NjFqMGo5qAIIsAIB%26FORM%3dANAB01%26PC%3dHCTS&mmscn=vwrc&mid=75B5CA6534E43172B70775B5CA6534E43172B707&FORM=WRVORC&ntb=1&msockid=21c90341bb6f11f0894093708e548fff
I'd never heard this before, so I took a look at some YouTube videos to see if it might be something I'd missed. I couldn't find any where this was happening, and in most of them the ump wasn't even behind the plate. As Kyle noted the zone is defined by the batter, but if the up were behind the plate he could at least signal what kind of width his zone would have, but no, not even that.
it's my job to call balls and strikes ....
He left off "accurately."
There are rules with this court. If a democrat is president, he always strikes out at the plate. If a republican is president, at the plate there is no such thing as a strike.
Though these pitches do not count, the umpire will signal whether the pitch is a ball or a strike. These warmup pitches allow the pitcher to understand what the judge's strike zone will be.
I have watched baseball for quite some time and have seen many pitchers throw warm-up pitches.
I have never seen this. Not saying it never is done. But I have not seen it. Likewise, have never seen the analysts (the Mets t.v. analysts are quite active in talking about things) reference it.
Anyway, from the Founding, there was a reference to "umpires" deciding things. Or different institutions serving as "umpires."
The reference was not only applied to judges. And, John Roberts wasn't the first one to use that reference (the "balls and strikes" thing is an added wrinkle). For instance, Justice Harlan (II) did so during an interview.
https://prawfsblawg.com/2025_07_off-the-record-on-miranda/
James Madison spoke of Congress being an "umpire" to settle competing sides. "In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States not heated by the local flame?"
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_4s7.html
Thomas Jefferson spoke of the law of nature being an "umpire."
"between society & society, or generation & generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature"
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248
John Roberts undersold the discretion umpires have, putting aside that judges have more authority and power to make the rules than baseball umpires.
Speaking of judges not calling balls and strikes, the dumb Guinness guzzling mick piece of shit John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island decided that he gets to force the government to spend money from one pot on another purpose, just because he thinks it's good policy.
AJ Ellis and Austin Barnes (catchers) would request it for the Dodgers, on rare occasions. Very much the exception. I didn't go to a ton of games, so my sample size wasn't huge. But, IMO, when they *did* request it, it was a passive-aggressive way of telling the home plate umpire, "Hey, you're squeezing the plate tonight when we're in the field. Here's a little extra practice for you, Mr. Umpire, so you stop screwing our pitchers during the actual game."
I NEVER saw any Dodgers catcher request this during any game where the home plate umpire was already giving the pitcher a generous strike zone.
Chief Justice Roberts, the piece and the comments all ignore important history on balls and strikes. Some of us are old enough to remember when American League umpires wore external "balloon" chest protectors and National League internal protectors. As a result, umpires in each league set up differently behind the catcher. Because of this difference in perspective, although a strike was defined in the common Rules of Major League Baseball, everyone knew there were different American League and National League strikes.
How does the umpire call high/low without a batter there?
Simple. You make an ESTIMATE. There are (essentially) no Major League batter that are under 5' 6" tall. There are (almost) no batters taller than 6' 6." That's a 1-foot range that covers essentially all players.
I think we all know who here really does not have a consistent strike zone here. Much more inconsistent than the chief justice. Fortunately he's not on the Supreme Court.
Josh: "I am grateful to Judge Matey for this insight."
Separate from the fact that Matey's insight is, in fact, a fable (the umpire is almost never is behind the plate in strike-calling posture during warmup pitches), the insight from the intended message seems different.
Josh's insight seems, unavoidably, to be: Bring on the Robot Umpires! Bring on the AI Judges!
The first is, in fact, happening next season, though only on a appeal basis at first. So, perhaps the AI Judges will be limited at first to appeals courts?
Josh has no insight.
He’s just whining about Roberts.
"It is possible to guess on a strike zone based on past calls, but that practice is imprecise."
You are literally just describing your (false) warmup analogy. Those warmup pitches are also past calls.