Framing pitches

[YoungRighty]

I have two sons who are catchers. They have been taught from an early age by experienced coaches how to frame pitches (I'm talking about smooth funneling and mitt positioning, NOT jerking every pitch back over the plate). I have heard many umpires say that framing is overrated, and that they are not influenced by it.

I am now in the early stages of learning to be an umpire, and have been reading quite a bit on mechanics and technique. In many places I have read about the importance of watching the pitch all the way into the mitt, and "seeing the pitch again" in the mind's eye before making a call. I was surprised to find this approach advocated, as it seems to suggest that the catcher's framing is indeed likely to be an important part of the umpire's decision-making process.

I would be very interested to hear some experienced umpires' comments on this. I am looking here for advice both as an aspiring umpire AND as a catcher's dad.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Jim

[Ump20]

Originally posted by YoungRighty
I have two sons who are catchers. They have been taught from an early age by experienced coaches how to frame pitches (I'm talking about smooth funneling and mitt positioning, NOT jerking every pitch back over the plate). I have heard many umpires say that framing is overrated, and that they are not influenced by it.

I am now in the early stages of learning to be an umpire, and have been reading quite a bit on mechanics and technique. In many places I have read about the importance of watching the pitch all the way into the mitt, and "seeing the pitch again" in the mind's eye before making a call. I was surprised to find this approach advocated, as it seems to suggest that the catcher's framing is indeed likely to be an important part of the umpire's decision-making process.

I would be very interested to hear some experienced umpires' comments on this. I am looking here for advice both as an aspiring umpire AND as a catcher's dad.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Jim

I am not sure that I would say I was "influenced" by framing but I'd darn near say the team with the catcher who knows how to do it well will end up with more strikes being called if their pitchers are decent. I know if the pitch is on the corner and the catcher pulls the glove in it is harder for me to call that a strike. If the catcher sits on the corner and the ball hits his glove it is easier to call that pitch a strike. Jim / NYC

[MD Longhorn]

Don't know about y'all, but that sounds like the definition of "influence" to me...

[nine01c]

Originally posted by YoungRighty
In many places I have read about the importance of watching the pitch all the way into the mitt, and "seeing the pitch again" in the mind's eye before making a call. I was surprised to find this approach advocated, as it seems to suggest that the catcher's framing is indeed likely to be an important part of the umpire's decision-making process.

I don't see why you find this surprising. Do you think it would be better to call the pitch BEFORE it reaches the catcher's mitt?

[YoungRighty]

The part I found surprising was focusing on watching it all the way into the mitt, since it is (typically) behind the zone.

Obviously the call itself should not be made before it reaches the mitt (although I'm afraid I've seen it done).

[nine01c]

You are right, it is done WAY too often, and by long time umpires. To properly call a pitch your eyes have to track to ball all the way into the mitt before your mind can decide what the pitch was. Then you verbalize it, after deciding. This is done by keeping your head perfectly still (in the slot) and above the level of the catcher's head. Your shoulders are square and ONLY your eyes move. When properly positioned, you can see the entire plate and several inches outside.

Good luck with your learning. Amateurumpire.com has a whole sequence of instructional articles explaining mechanics at the plate and on the bases. It is good reading for the winter. Your desire to learn correctly will take you far. Also, attend a clinic if you can, especially one that has cage work for the plate umpire.

[Ump20]

Originally posted by mbcrowder
Don't know about y'all, but that sounds like the definition of "influence" to me...

Influence is described as "A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort." I think the way the question was posed one might conclude the umpire would be "fooled" by the framing of the catcher without effort. I think calling balls and strikes is part art (Questec induced automatic officiating) as well as science. The PU can use the catcher's ability to "sell" calls most of which would be strikes without any catcher's efforts. Obviously there are going to be clear "balls" that the catcher tries to "frame". In those cases he best not be painting the picture too long i.e. get the ball back to the pitcher. Jim/NYC

[Jay R]

Before starting to umpire, I also read a lot about watching the ball into the glove and not being in a hurry to make the call. That was probably the best advice I could have gotten. An 80 MPH slider on the corner is difficult to call when you are a rookie umpire (Yes, iI was given games at that level), but with good mechanics and timing it will be easier to get it right.

As far as framing is concerned. A good catcher will benefit by framing the pitches and a poor catcher will hurt his pitcher. A borderline pitch at the knees will probably be a ball if the catcher turns his mitt over. He makes the pitch appear to be lower than it is. A well framed pitch wil probably get the call.

The other night I called a HS that was not great calibre. I was giving both pitchers a few inches on the outside. One team changed their catcher midway through the game. First pitch was 2-3 inches off the plate on the outside. The catcher jerks the glove back towards the plate. I discreetly said to him that I had been giving both pitchers that pitch all night. I said if you do that and I call it strike, your making me look bad. He got the message.

Jay

[mick]

Originally posted by YoungRighty
I have two sons who are catchers. They have been taught from an early age by experienced coaches how to frame pitches (I'm talking about smooth funneling and mitt positioning, NOT jerking every pitch back over the plate). I have heard many umpires say that framing is overrated, and that they are not influenced by it.

I am now in the early stages of learning to be an umpire, and have been reading quite a bit on mechanics and technique. In many places I have read about the importance of watching the pitch all the way into the mitt, and "seeing the pitch again" in the mind's eye before making a call. I was surprised to find this approach advocated, as it seems to suggest that the catcher's framing is indeed likely to be an important part of the umpire's decision-making process.

I would be very interested to hear some experienced umpires' comments on this. I am looking here for advice both as an aspiring umpire AND as a catcher's dad.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Jim

Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

On a close pitch, I would much rather have a catcher "frame" without moving the glove. That frozen mitt helps me take my snapshot.

Most times a catcher pulls a pitch, the only strike call given is from the bleachers of a youth game. I don't generally see that with adults.

mick

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by YoungRighty
I have two sons who are catchers. They have been taught from an early age by experienced coaches how to frame pitches (I'm talking about smooth funneling and mitt positioning, NOT jerking every pitch back over the plate). I have heard many umpires say that framing is overrated, and that they are not influenced by it.
...
I would be very interested to hear some experienced umpires' comments on this. I am looking here for advice both as an aspiring umpire AND as a catcher's dad.

Jim, I think we first need to be sure we are talking about the same thing when we are discussing "framing". I'm not certain that I understand what you mean by "smooth funneling and mitt positioning", although I know exactly what you don't mean when you exclude "jerking every pitch back over the plate".

In my experience "framing" is the act of the catcher slightly straightening his wrist and closing the otherwise motionless mitt over the ball. It has the effect of making the mitt appear smaller from behind, giving the umpire a better impression of the final position of the ball in the mitt. That, in turn, helps to complete the picture of the ball's true line of flight from its release point in the hand of the pitcher. It involves a simple closing of the fingers toward the palm of the hand inside the mitt. True "framing" takes a strong forearm, great self-confidence and firm muscle control on the part of the catcher.

I have always been influenced to call a strike on an otherwise marginal pitch that is well "framed" by the catcher. I have never been influenced to give the benefit of the doubt on any marginal pitch that required movement of the pitcher's forearm or glove in the general direction of the plate.

That is the criterion I have called by throughout my own career, and the criterion taught to and applied by my colleagues and peers who are now representing my country in International AAA and AA baseball.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[mick]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
...although I know exactly what you don't mean when you exclude ....

Warren,
I'm sure that is very clear to you in your upside-down world.
mick

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by mick

Warren,
I'm sure that is very clear to you in your upside-down world.
mick

"Natcherly! Soitenly! Gnuck, gnuck, gnuck!"

[greymule]

It undoubtedly works for others, but "seeing the pitch again in the mind's eye" does not work for me. I'm quite sure I am more accurate going with my first instinct.

Whenever I have tried delaying my decision, I have gotten into trouble. I suspect that the minds of some people (like me) re-create inaccurately on that "second" look.

I find it interesting to watch films from the 1950s and see how fast the MLB umps used to make all their calls, plate and bases. The right arm seemed to be going up while the ball was crossing the plate.

My fast decisions undoubtedly have their drawbacks, but I do believe they prevent catcher "framing" from having much influence.

[David B]

I would agree that especially in HS ball and below if a catcher is able to frame the pitch very carefully it not only makes the umpires job easier but it also makes it a lot easier on the coaches.

As one poster stated above, one catcher might catch the outside corner pitch but move his mitt downward, (he won't get the call).

the other F2 would catch the pitch as Warren stated by only rotating the wrist to cover the pitch. (he will get the call)

Most umpires are looking for a pitcher who can hit the mitt. A good catcher who can frame those pitches will get probably 5-10 calls a game that any other catcher would not get.

An example is the kid who sets up 6 inches off the plate and F1 hits the mitt and the dumb F2 tries to frame the pitch to make it look marginal. Everyone in the stands thinks its a strike and so does the coach even though he called the pitch that far outside.

That is not proper framing. A good F2 will only frame the pitch when its needed, but if the pitch is over the plate he will help the umpire.

This is just as important I might add on the inside corner even though many kids don't work as hard on framing that pitch for some reason.

Until Questec has started to ruin MLB you would also see this in MLB. Now they are afraid to call these pitches for fear of repercussions.

Thanks
David

[mick]

Originally posted by greymule

My fast decisions undoubtedly have their drawbacks, but I do believe they prevent catcher "framing" from having much influence.

greymule,
It's all about being comfortable, isn't it?
If you like it that way, you do it that way.

However, I find it hard to believe that a catcher framing a pitch, or tap dancing, is gonna affect your game.
mick