I tried using the Davis stance last year and after about half the season, I went back to the heel to toe.
The Davis stance can be easier on the body. You are supported well in the stance. You lock in at a consistent height, which is a definite plus. You see the plate from the same position every time.
Here's what I didn't like. You stay in the same position and are having to look a foot and a half across the plate to call the outside corner. The farther back you stand, the less you see of the plate, particularly on the outside corner. The farther back you stand, the less you see of the catchers glove, particularly on the low pitch on the outside corner. When you use the Davis stance, you don't move with the catcher and are much more prone to being hit. Because you are well supported with the arms is the same reason that it is going to hurt bad when you get hit there.
I feel being able to move with the catcher gives me a better look at where he is expecting the pitch. If he is sitting on the outside corner, then I get to sit on the corner with him and use every available piece of information to call the pitch, including where the glove moves on the catch. To me that is better than being back three feet, being screened by the catcher so I don't really see his glove catch the ball and having to look across a foot and a half and three extra feet back to call the corner.
Being right on the corner and being able to see the glove is more important to me than seeing the ball on a plane longer a smidge longer. Three feet works out to about 5% of the distance.
I'd would rather be over the plate and actually see the corner and the glove and be protected by the catchers body. Only my opinion after trying the Davis stance and switching back. Your mileage may vary...
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
What I don't understand is how some guys who work the GD from way back can still see the plate. I am assuming that their catchers are set way back also, and not close up to the plate. Professional catchers are not set up close to the plate, but non-pros are often set up too close. My definition of too close is too close to allow the umpire a good look at the plate. I like the GD stance but moving back only make sense if the catcher is back far enough from the plate to see the plate.
|
Ok, it's fair enough for you to say: "I don't understand ... how some guys who work the GD from way back can still see the plate." What would be even fairer would be for you to try the stance in any game 14u and up.
I assure you of two things:
1. You see the full plate more often than in any other stance. even with extreme amateur catchers. Here's why: As you move closer to the catcher, his body grows in size. That's a thing called perspective. How do you call the play at first? If you're very close, you cannot see in one frame the play where the fielder leaves the base for a wild throw. Just ask Don Denkinger. Backing up restores balance.
2. We've always said that if you're missing low, back up. I would add: back up even farther. Here's why: When you are close (heel/toe, scissors, etc.), you will find you are looking down at the ball. Such pitches always seem lower than they are. In the GD stance three feet (at least) from the catcher's rear end, you watch the ball traveling in a plane longer than the heel/toe umpire. That's what Rich and Tee mean when they say you see the ball better. They also see the plate better, but they are too polite to tell you you're full of baloney. (grin)
I repeat: We're entering summer ball. Get assigned a USSSA 14u/LL juniors/Pony League/etc. game. Put your nose on the corner, stand at least an arm's length from the catcher, lock into the set position a couple or three seconds befores the pitcher starts to get his sign, wait for the catcher to set - and then take a picture in your mind of what you see.
I eagerly await the report of your discovery.
|