Quote:
|
Originally Posted by canadaump6
How do you guys determine what a batter's natural stance is? The reason I ask is because last year I had an immediate positive turnaround in my batting when I went into a crouch. It helped me get my legs, arms and torso into the swing, rather than it just being all wrists. It also helped me see the ball better and cover the outside corner of the plate.
How can one say that this is not my natural stance? When my batting average goes up immediatly after assuming this stance, it's hard to argue that it's not natural for me. Yet I have had pitches called strikes at my head because of it. What do you guys think?
Also, as an umpire I sometimes get fooled by the batter ducking when a high strike comes in, thus making it look like the pitch was high when it in fact wasn't. I've missed a few of these, not sure if there is any way I can correct this.
|
If your "crouch" is such that pitches at the level of your head can be plausibly called strikes "because of it" [the "crouch"], then it sure as he!! isn't
A "natural stance", however "natural" it may feel to you.
When I have a batter that assumes an exagerated "crouch" at the plate, I am forced to improvise the top end of my strike zone. I am likely to choose what I THINK a batter of the same aproximate size might be expected to swing at standing "normally". If forced to articulate how I judged a "natural" batting stance for that [crouching] batter, I might find myself referencing those "natural" warm-up swings he took while standing straight up and getting set in the BB.
And, BTW, it's a judgment call, so STFU and swing the bat.