Sorry Gentleman that I missed all of the action the past day...I guess I'll explain myself as it seems I've been misread with my sarcastic comment and poorly formed response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire
Hmmmmmmm. Poor John. It's a shame he didn't have your abilities. He might have become a top plate umpire. Oh, wait. He was THE top plate umpire.
|
Obviously you missed the sarcasm, next time I'll put fancy brackets or something around it to differentiate it. I thought it was pretty obvious since nothing was said about John before my initial comment and then you put a quote of his and say I disagree. *shrug*
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)
Josh,
No, you have not.
You do not understand what "timing" is, and I assure you there is no "mechanism".
JM
|
You're absolutely right, I oversimplified my statement about a catcher's techniquie and then equated it to timing. It was a bad choice of words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzy6900
So basically, you are saying that you decided the pitch before it was through the zone. If you ignore F2 (as you stated), then you are deciding the call well before the ball crosses the plate and that is a fact. I've trained enough rookies to know that what you are doing is using tunnel vision and deciding the call before it happens. I can also guarantee you that you do not see very many breaking balls (good ones) because these have to be tracked all the way to the glove in order to decide what they are.
So you can discount John McSherry if you wish but I will tell you this, he was a fantastic man at the plate and a great teacher. His videos are still used by many instructors to teach rookies how to use everything at their disposal to make a proper decision on a pitch. I doubt very much if you could ever attain anything close to what John did.
Damn, again I let the BS at the LLWS and a total moron get me going.
|
Ozzy-
As said above, I was not discounting McSherry, I was being sarcastic. I have seen some clips of his videos and I would never discount them by any stretch of the imagination. I was trying to point that I don't let what the catcher does after he catches the pitch effect whether it's a ball or strike (ie. if the catcher muffs the catch, it's a ball or if he frames the pitch it could become a ball or strike).
The rest of your post was a given hopefully with the above comment taken into account.
.......
Did I miss any other comment I should address? Let me know gentleman
-Josh