Carl,
I am happy to adjust my position based on a good argument. Don't confuse opinion and rhetoric with facts.
It is physically impossible to see the actual plate better if one moves back from the catcher. This is simple physics. What you claim hundreds of umpires have posted means little. Tens of thousands of umpires have used the heel to toe/box stance to call a consistent strike zone for years. My numbers beat yours, but that still doesn't mean anything.
What I mentioned in my initial post is that you may somehow get a slightly different, or slightly longer look at a pitch using the Davis stance. If you or others think you see the pitch better using this stance, great. But what you gain in a slightly longer or different perspective on the pitch, you lose in the ability, at times, to see the ball into the glove and you may not see the plate, depending on the catchers set up. I prefer to see the ball into the glove and use that information to call the pitch. Your opinion may differ and that's fine. I am just simply pointing out the pro's and con's.
I personally don't like sitting on the inside corner when the catcher is set up outside. To me, it makes more sense to get as close to the outside corner as I can, with out being blocked by the catchers head. Any ball over the plate is easy to call at that point and any pitch that the catcher has to reach back very much across the inside is expected to be a ball anyways. Even then though, I'm practically looking right at it, so it's an easy call. I've seen many major league umpires move with the catcher to call pitches, so I feel confident that the idea has some merit.
The balloon comment, coming from an umpire that wears forearm guards, is funny. I only mentioned not being hit as an ancillary benefit. Less of my unprotected body parts are exposed if I am behind the catcher, but that is not why I choose to be there. I am behind the catcher because I like like the view there and I feel that I can call a more consistent zone from there.
It is a fact of life in the Davis stance that your inside arm is straight back behind the batter and in an unprotected and rigid position. The pros are that the arm supports you body weight nicely. The cons are that it is rigid and exposed and likely to put you out of commision if you are unlucky enough to take a ball there. It is a risk associated with the Davis stance and I'm betting it's why you wear the forearm guards.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
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...
|
I don't plan to argue after this post, for it's been my position that your position is never altered by anything so mundane as the facts. But....
1. If you really tried the GD and now claim you couldn't see the plate, etc., how do you answer hundreds of posts by umpires who take the opposite point of view?
2. I think that, without actually realizing what you were doing, you provided us the real reason you're sticking with the antiquated, on-its-way-out heel/toe: "I'd rather ... be protected by the catchers [sic] body." We have all seen those umpires who like to hide behind the catcher.
Listen, they still make balloons, you know.
Have a nice summer.
|